Advantage: Attacker?

[ClarkWGriswold]

I routinely play CMBN via PBEM with two friends from work. We're fairly evenly matched, having all started playing this game (and CMBB prior) around the same time. We've played dozens of games between us and it seems that only a handful of times has the defender been triumphant. I just finished a game yesterday where I, as the American attacker, soundly beat my opponent as the German defender. He had three Stugs, an armored car, a handful of men (mostly MGs), and some artillery. I had 6 Shermans (75s, 76s, and a 105), an armored car, a halftrack, 6 or so .30 cal MGs, and many, many squads of men, along with a generous helping of arty.

He simply did not seem to have enough men or machines to fend off my onslaught. The last game that I played against this same guy I was defeated (my latest video covers what happened). I was the Germans on defense and he was the American attacker. Even after inflicting 75% casualties against him, I was finished almost to the last man. His forces were just overwhelming.

It seems as though almost every game goes this way, regardless of which of us is attacking or defending and regardless of which side (German or American) is defending (though I will note that the only time the defenders have won were both games with Germans on defense).

So, we've decided to try giving defenders a 20% troop bonus to see if that evens things up a bit. I'm just curious if anyone else has noticed a similar pattern or not. Perhaps all three of us just really suck at defending?

[Felix_45]

How much time was there in the games played? I find that in CMBN an attacker often has all the time in the world to probe and take out defenses. That might be a more deciding factor than the amount of forces for the defender.

[Childress]

Or the engine is still relatively young and the ideal attacker/defender ratio will only emerge after several thousand games H2H have been played and dissected.

[StellarRat]

Defending is something that takes practice. A lot of gamers don't like playing defense so they don't get a lot of practice. If you know what you're doing you should be able to hold off twice you size enemy forces. I seldom lose on defense, but lose more often on offense.

[Broadsword56]

There are so many variables -- the nature of the map (bocage? terrain variations? lots of realistic brush and cover/concealment?), the OOBs (foxholes? mines? barbed wire?) skill of the defender, and many more.

A skilled defender, dug in, on a realistic bocage map should be able to hold off a force twice the size, and in some cases even more than that.

Also, you mention the attacking force taking 75 percent casualties, and your forces being shot to the last man. If it's realism you want, try making some casualty thresholds that represent a cohesion breakpoint. Except in the most desperate circumstances, an attacking force would not be likely to continue attacking after suffering casualties that high. Treat the soldiers like flesh-and-blood people, and results may be closer to what tended to happen IRL. Treat them like game pieces and you'll get a fun game, but don't be surprised when you see results like this.

[nik mond]

I think the artillery made the difference. Its great to have overlapping defence to shoot anything that moves first but that all falls apart when your static positions are zeroed.

[phil stanbridge]

If you want good defense check out the Courage and Fortitude campaign. Designed with defensive positions in mind and it's one tough nut to crack. Part of the problem against another human opponent of course, by its very nature is the ad hoc design. You cannot easily predetermine your defensive positions using the supplied maps even with the help of the map preview. So you go into battle more or less blind. In this situation I would say it's nearly always going to favour the side with numerical superiority, given enough time of course.

[ClarkWGriswold]

How much time was there in the games played? I find that in CMBN an attacker often has all the time in the world to probe and take out defenses.

We generally setup our games to be 1:30 in length, but I don't think we've ever taken anywhere near that long. I think this last battle was only about 20 minutes total, and that was on a medium sized city map.

If it's realism you want, try making some casualty thresholds that represent a cohesion breakpoint. Except in the most desperate circumstances, an attacking force would not be likely to continue attacking after suffering casualties that high.

You would think that this would pretty much be taken care of by the game's morale system, but it's amazing how well you can continue to fight even after taking heavy casualties. Is there any way to setup a Quick Battle with conditions that would prevent taking more than X% casualties?

I think the artillery made the difference. Its great to have overlapping defence to shoot anything that moves first but that all falls apart when your static positions are zeroed.

This is true, but arty wasn't a factor in several games. It mostly came down to the defender losing their last piece of armor. Once that happens, it's all over. The attacker can stand back and just pound you with HE.

[DavidFields]

I think the OP gives Battlefront a good and useful data point, which should be continually evaluated over time.

Oddly, I am going to give a similar answer to one I wrote on the Strategic Command WW2 Board. On that board people were complaining that the Axis was always winning. Of course, these were experienced players making that comment.

My observation: when novices first play a war game, it is initially harder for the attacker. The attacker has to "do" more, and if inexperienced can really botch it up quickly. As players learn, I think the balance shifts, with the person "doing" becoming more proficient at cracking defensive positions, and having the initiative and mobility (generally) becoming more of a decisive asset.

So it makes sense, ClarkWGriswold, that you and your veteran friend would want to add a 20% defense bonus. (Indeed, this could be tailored in an even more clever, almost fiendish way: set up a battle, then each of you write down the defense bonus you would need to play the defense. Lowest number gets to play the defense, with the bonus he proposed.) Market-based play balancing! (One could also possibly do a reverse auction, bidding down)

[C and F is a separate issue: meticulously designed defenses for the AI. Much different than a PBEM random generated Quick Battle.]

[ClarkWGriswold]

Indeed, this could be tailored in an even more clever, almost fiendish way: set up a battle, then each of you right down the defense bonus you would need to play the defense. Lowest number gets to play the defense, with the bonus he proposed.

That is bloody brilliant! I'm going to have to propose this idea to my buddies.

[DavidFields]

That is bloody brilliant! I'm going to have to propose this idea to my buddies.

"write down", of course. Sheesh, and I wrote my post before my usual evening beverage(s).

I only play against the AI. But, in general, I am not too keen on whining about sides being unfair--unless one is willing to make a stand on how unfair the sides are, supposedly.

Another version of equalizing goes like this: after looking at the scenario/Quick Battle, one person (could be decided by a coin flip) decides on the bonuses, then the other person gets to decide who will play what side.

The two methods (bidding, or the method in the paragraph above) can even work when the forces are not known: such as "The Germans always win" some type of Quick Battle.

[Statisoris]

Try playing "Probes" instead of attacks or do a -10% force adjustment for attacker. In my experience, the closer difference in points levels the playing field to more manageable levels for the defender.

I made a nice post on comparison of point differences a couple months back somewhere in the old threads.

[John1966]

I've been playing since CMBO and I always play against the AI. Of course the AI isn't very good at attacking so the best way for me to play is as the attacker. In fact most scenarios that are designed to be played against the AI has the player as the attacker. So after all these years of practice it comes as no surprise that I pretty much always win as the attacker when playing against the AI. I have had lots of practice.

However, you get those odd scenarios that say best played against the AI and YOU are the defender. They are few and far between so when I see one I always have a go at them. And then suddenly I'm completely inexperienced. I have no idea what I'm doing. I really struggle. They are some of the few scenarios I give multiple plays to. I also think that, to make up for the lack of AI proficiency, the attackers are given overwhelming numbers in some cases which makes it even harder if you don't know what you're doing. No bad thing, of course; if there was no challenge there would be no point doing it.

Suffice to say that due to the AI's lack of attacking prowess, it wouldn't surprise me if most have us are better attackers simply because we don't get enough practice at defending; certainly not against competent attackers.

[ASL Veteran]

Playing good defense requires a great deal of skill and experience. I think it's much more difficult than playing offense. First you have to know your fields of fire. Second you have to keep your defensive forces repositioning - almost constantly. Third, you have to keep the attacker offbalance. You keep the attacker off balance by keeping some troops hidden who have a LOS to a kill zone and leave other troops to fire on the kill zone. Once the attacker has identified and positioned himself to engage the troops actively firing into the killzone, you reposition those and open up with the previously hidden troops. This way you constantly keep your killzones under fire and you are repositioning troops before the enemy can bring overpowering fire to bear.

I generally think of my AT weapons as the 'skeleton' of the defense. Because enemy tanks are the biggest threat to your defense, your defensive dispositions have to be able to deal with them first and foremost. So the entire defense has to revolve around your AT assets.

Second your heavy anti infantry weapons get deployed. HMG and mortar teams etc. These weapons are a little more difficult to redeploy when it gets too hot so they have to be sited with more care.

Last your infantry squads get deployed. They are just there to distract the enemy mostly and to cover areas where your heavy weapons can't cover. You also put them in the most exposed positions because they can be repositioned very easily.

Have back up defensive positions spotted for future use and don't hesitate to fall back to a second or third line of defense. If your squads are getting pinned by enemy fire it's (past) time to redeploy. It you keep your squads moving from position to position it also leaves lots of 'spotted' markers on the map so the attacker is never quite sure where your defenders are and that cuts down on area fire. Constant repositioning also reduces the effects of enemy artillery.

Sometimes I'll even keep smallish forward forces to engage an advancing enemy and I'll keep most of my forces back. Once I've determined the main avenue of attack I'll send my reserve forces to concentrate there.

The main rule of thumb for me is 'fire superiority'. If I don't have it I reposition. If I do have it I stay until the attack is defeated. The more the enemy outnumbers me the more I have to reposition. An aggressive attacker can frequently be lured into deadly ambushes. A cautious attacker will become even more cautious and chew up more time due to his uncertainty as to the composition of your defenses. In the case of a cautious attacker it may eventually be possible to hold up his entire advance with a couple of rifle squads while the rest of your force sits around eating K rations.

[Erwin]

Nice to have good tactics summarized so concisely. Making the attacker waste time (rather than trying too hard to kill him) is often the best strategy of all.

[JyriErik]

There's only one thing I can think of to add to ASL's advice. Defense is not simply "sit & wait for the attacker to attack", you have to also be attacking yourself. Simply sitting & waiting for attacks gives up the initiative to the attacker, so it's always good to have troops earmarked for attacks/counterattacks on the attacker. One good (unexpected) attack can, even if it fails, cause an attack to stall completely simply because now the attacker has to worry about defense himself. And if the attack goes perfectly, suddenly the attacker has a hole in HIS line to worry about which takes pressure off the rest of your line.

Jyri

[Vencini]

I think the defense is more difficult because it is difficult to ambush the enemy in CMBN. No armor cover arc. If you have a hidden unit, it will not fire. If you have it not hidden, they will locate and destroy you.

In my opinion this is one more reason why it is more difficult to defend in CMBN. It is not easier for the attacker, is a difficult challenge (lack of specific orders) for the defender

Greetings

[StellarRat]

One thing to watch out for on defense is the "defend everything" mentally. If you have three objectives to defend, but can win by only holding one or two of them just let one or two go and defend the one worth the most points that is in best defensive terrain. There is an old saying that "he who defends everything defends nothing".

That being said, putting some units out in the hinterlands to force the enemy to stop and engage can be a smart move as long as you don't use too many of your resources to do it. Sometimes burning up his game clock is almost as effective as killing his units.

Remember that a long wide field of vision/fire isn't always a good thing. It's great for Forward Observers and weapons with good long range characteristics, but sometimes it's a lot better to have a short narrow field of fire. The classic interlocking defense is to only cover to the sides while denying the enemy a direct frontal view of your weapons. This will allow you to ambush the enemy as he starts to pass your positions and denies overwatching units a line of fire to your positions. Most maps in CMBN are not going to really allow you to employ AT guns and other heavy weapons at anything close to there maximum range in overwatching positions so most of the time it's better to place things in positions that are covered from the front and hit the enemy as he passes beside your position.

Hopefully, your setting up your games such that as defender you're allow to check out the battlefield and place units in reasonable locations. If you're not doing that you're really just fighting a lopsided meeting engagement.

[Wreck]

ASL Vet: someone ported your nice little bit above to the wiki ( http://combatmission.wikia.com/wiki/Tactics_for_Defenders ). I will take it down if you do not want your work to be used under the CC-BY-SA "free" license.

[ASL Veteran]

ASL Vet: someone ported your nice little bit above to the wiki ( http://combatmission.wikia.com/wiki/Tactics_for_Defenders ). I will take it down if you do not want your work to be used under the CC-BY-SA "free" license.

That's okay. If someone gets some use out of my ramblings then I've contributed to the community.

[Praetori]

It seems as though almost every game goes this way, regardless of which of us is attacking or defending and regardless of which side (German or American) is defending (though I will note that the only time the defenders have won were both games with Germans on defense).

So, we've decided to try giving defenders a 20% troop bonus to see if that evens things up a bit. I'm just curious if anyone else has noticed a similar pattern or not. Perhaps all three of us just really suck at defending?

Well truth to be told the "Attack" or "Assault" missions seem to simulate just that. Well prepared attacks. In an operative-level perspective it makes perfect sense. The attacker has gotten enough forces estimated to complete the job by the higher echelon HQs. The defender really need to make a perfect job in order to stall the opponent.

The only thing that bugs me a bit is the cost for defenses. Mines, barbed wire, trenches and most importantly the TRPs should be a bit (or a lot) cheaper for a defender.

[ClarkWGriswold]

I will say that the times I've played as defender and handily won has generally been in "unfavorable" conditions. That is, rainy, muddy, foggy, and dawn/dusk when sight lines are short. Rain and mud seem to be the great equalizers in this game. Attacking troops get exhausted much more quickly as they slog through the mud, and the precious armor that spearheads any attack bog so very easily. Under these circumstances I've found defense much easier.

[Felix_45]

All good points and an interesting read.

Has anyone noticed differences as defender between RT and PBEM?

Defending PBEM is tough because it is next to impossible to plan an ambush (see threads regarding hiding and unhiding and cover arcs/amoured only arc) I don't know how many times as defender I had to withstand a whole minute of pounding by arty/mortar before I could move them.....but then of course my men are pinned so they get wiped out completely. Another aspect of PBEM that makes defending hard is infantry's insistence to shoot at tanks and therefore giving away their position. In RT you can set small covered arcs and then change them when needed. In PBEM you can do the same but a minute turns goes by and you can miss many an opportunity because of that.

Does anyone have experience playing both RT and PBEM to comment on this?

[Praetori]

Does anyone have experience playing both RT and PBEM to comment on this?

Well it's not much but I tend to use split teams much more in WeGo against human opponents. Especially when on the defense as you can pour fire from different directions while still moving about. It's not as easy to manage in RT though.

Scout teams with very small arcs and the rest of the squad in "ambush" a bit away and behind.

The hunt command can be great while on the defense. Just plot a few of those and then a move command with a large fire-arc and the troops react when they spot the enemy.

[DavidFields]

Playing good defense requires a great deal of skill and experience. I think it's much more difficult than playing offense. First you have to know your fields of fire. Second you have to keep your defensive forces repositioning - almost constantly. Third, you have to keep the attacker offbalance. You keep the attacker off balance by keeping some troops hidden who have a LOS to a kill zone and leave other troops to fire on the kill zone. Once the attacker has identified and positioned himself to engage the troops actively firing into the killzone, you reposition those and open up with the previously hidden troops. This way you constantly keep your killzones under fire and you are repositioning troops before the enemy can bring overpowering fire to bear.

I generally think of my AT weapons as the 'skeleton' of the defense. Because enemy tanks are the biggest threat to your defense, your defensive dispositions have to be able to deal with them first and foremost. So the entire defense has to revolve around your AT assets.

Second your heavy anti infantry weapons get deployed. HMG and mortar teams etc. These weapons are a little more difficult to redeploy when it gets too hot so they have to be sited with more care.

Last your infantry squads get deployed. They are just there to distract the enemy mostly and to cover areas where your heavy weapons can't cover. You also put them in the most exposed positions because they can be repositioned very easily.

Have back up defensive positions spotted for future use and don't hesitate to fall back to a second or third line of defense. If your squads are getting pinned by enemy fire it's (past) time to redeploy. It you keep your squads moving from position to position it also leaves lots of 'spotted' markers on the map so the attacker is never quite sure where your defenders are and that cuts down on area fire. Constant repositioning also reduces the effects of enemy artillery.

Sometimes I'll even keep smallish forward forces to engage an advancing enemy and I'll keep most of my forces back. Once I've determined the main avenue of attack I'll send my reserve forces to concentrate there.

The main rule of thumb for me is 'fire superiority'. If I don't have it I reposition. If I do have it I stay until the attack is defeated. The more the enemy outnumbers me the more I have to reposition. An aggressive attacker can frequently be lured into deadly ambushes. A cautious attacker will become even more cautious and chew up more time due to his uncertainty as to the composition of your defenses. In the case of a cautious attacker it may eventually be possible to hold up his entire advance with a couple of rifle squads while the rest of your force sits around eating K rations.

That is sort of my point, ASL Veteran. My guess is that you are highly skilled--decades of tactics. Fighting against someone of equal high skill, doing something great with the smaller force is indeed an accomplishment. Attackers of your skill know combined arms, attack pace, and the most effective range for engagement for the units. (no running an unsupported tank into a town)

But, if a couple of guys wander into the game at 16 years of age, to be fair, and to make it interesting and more likely to be fun, I would give the smarter person the attacker side.