Advantage: Attacker?

[Sgt Schultz]

Here's how the Germans were taught to do it "by the book" (from the translation of the WWII German Company Officer's Handbook):

Advantage attacker???

Final thought: You might say it's impossible to set up a defense like this on a typical CMBN map, especially some smaller QB ones. Fair enough, but then that's just the map's fault, not the CMBN engine itself. Bad maps make for bad tactics and gamey outcomes. All that's needed is to make maps that are big and realistic enough for the battled you want. The tools are there.

---

Bears a similarity to certain battle just put out by someone ....

---

[Killkess]

While i´m with all what have been said i want to highlight once more that in reality any defender who successfully inflicted around 30% of cassualties rendered the enemy force combat ineffective. Give it a try and play a battle with forces in low moral state. After taking to many cassualties in a short time the attacker will no longer be able continue his attack because most of his units are broken etc. This way ambushes and repositioning realy works, even if you dont kill them all, the rests will to fight is broken.

If you play with "kamikazeeeee" units, the numerical advantage of the attacker and the possibility to concentrate the attacking forces in a "Schwerpunkt" will almost certainly overwhelm the defense.

[sburke]

While i´m with all what have been said i want to highlight once more that in reality any defender who successfully inflicted around 30% of cassualties rendered the enemy force combat ineffective. Give it a try and play a battle with forces in low moral state. After taking to many cassualties in a short time the attacker will no longer be able continue his attack because most of his units are broken etc. This way ambushes and repositioning realy works, even if you dont kill them all, the rests will to fight is broken.

If you play with "kamikazeeeee" units, the numerical advantage of the attacker and the possibility to concentrate the attacking forces in a "Schwerpunkt" will almost certainly overwhelm the defense.

Good point. If we expect battle performance to adhere closer to reality then we should be fighting closer to the way they would. A win with 50-60% losses doesn't generally fall within the scope of comparing actual wartime behavior with how we behave in a game. I think a number of folks have suggested using battle casualties in the objectives to influence game play. I'd be curious from the OP's perspective. What are your typical casualty percentages in achieving victory?

[ClarkWGriswold]

Another aspect i would like to see a solution for, is the visibility of hidden ATGs. I mean we do not have the possibility for ATGs to dig them into the ground down to the barrel and put camouflage on them. Very often they could not be spotted by FOs with binocs, but only after they had opened fire and the muzzle flash was spotted. Maybe a stealth and a size-bonus to simulate that kind of entrenched ATGs would be a solution?

I think this is a biggie. I remember quite often in CMBB getting off several shots and taking out multiple AFVs with a single gun before it was ever spotted. In many cases with well hidden, entrenched guns I was able to either stay unspotted for a very, very long time or at least get off a few more shots after being spotted. In CMBN I find this to seldom be the case. Quite often guns seem to be spotted quickly. Once they're spotted, they're toast. Since they're not dug in MG fire will often take care of the crew. If not, you can rest assured that 60mm mortars will be on the way or some HE from the nearest AFV will deal with them. I think that more stealthy, effective AT and AP guns would be an immense help for the defense and be more true to life.

Good point. If we expect battle performance to adhere closer to reality then we should be fighting closer to the way they would. A win with 50-60% losses doesn't generally fall within the scope of comparing actual wartime behavior with how we behave in a game. I think a number of folks have suggested using battle casualties in the objectives to influence game play. I'd be curious from the OP's perspective. What are your typical casualty percentages in achieving victory?

I haven't bothered too much with keeping track of percentages. My last game playing as the attacker I took very few casualties. I'd say 10% at most. But it was an armor heavy game. I simply used scouts to flush out the enemy positions, then maneuvered to outflank. Since the defender was stuck using StuGs in the defense, it was relatively easy to scoot around and get side shots on them all. The game prior to that was the one featured in my most recent VAAR. This was infantry only and I was the defender. Without armor on the attack, I was able to mortar the attacking forces relentlessly. But even though I caused >75% casualties, my opponent was able to continue fighting and win the game. I chalk this up to the extensive use of crack and veteran troops on his part. We have since made an agreement to limit the use of these troops, but we've only played one game since then, so I'm not sure how much it influences things yet. My guess is that veteran and crack troop quality is the main thing that would allow a force to continue fighting after such losses. I only use Regular forces and have found that they break and cower quite easily after a few losses, making it difficult for me to keep up an offensive.

I'd be curious to hear how many players use Regular quality troops versus making everyone Veteran or higher quality. My guess is that most long time players default to using Veterans, thus making attacks with heavy losses possible. Personally, I would love to see this addressed using rarity values, if possible. With strict rarity enabled a player shouldn't be able to have a force composed of 100% Crack troops.

[Steiner14]

I think this is a biggie. I remember quite often in CMBB getting off several shots and taking out multiple AFVs with a single gun before it was ever spotted. In many cases with well hidden, entrenched guns I was able to either stay unspotted for a very, very long time or at least get off a few more shots after being spotted. In CMBN I find this to seldom be the case. Quite often guns seem to be spotted quickly. Once they're spotted, they're toast. Since they're not dug in MG fire will often take care of the crew. If not, you can rest assured that 60mm mortars will be on the way or some HE from the nearest AFV will deal with them. I think that more stealthy, effective AT and AP guns would be an immense help for the defense and be more true to life.

I haven't bothered too much with keeping track of percentages. My last game playing as the attacker I took very few casualties. I'd say 10% at most. But it was an armor heavy game. I simply used scouts to flush out the enemy positions, then maneuvered to outflank. Since the defender was stuck using StuGs in the defense, it was relatively easy to scoot around and get side shots on them all. The game prior to that was the one featured in my most recent VAAR. This was infantry only and I was the defender. Without armor on the attack, I was able to mortar the attacking forces relentlessly. But even though I caused >75% casualties, my opponent was able to continue fighting and win the game. I chalk this up to the extensive use of crack and veteran troops on his part. We have since made an agreement to limit the use of these troops, but we've only played one game since then, so I'm not sure how much it influences things yet. My guess is that veteran and crack troop quality is the main thing that would allow a force to continue fighting after such losses. I only use Regular forces and have found that they break and cower quite easily after a few losses, making it difficult for me to keep up an offensive.

If such unrealistical results are not wanted, then the solution lies in fixing the source of the problem: the rules that define victory.

Players should be aware, that the normal settings of battles are action-settings allowing slaughtering the own forces and winning nevertheless.

If players want realistical victory conditions, simply the parameters must be set accordingly.

Usually scenario designers concentrate on balancing the forces and offer only one version of a battle. But i think it would be interesting, if scenarios would be offered in more than one version: one is the usual "action" version, and another version could offer more realistical victory conditions, i.e. where losses could have a much higher impact but therefore allowing force-wise more unbalanced battles.

Ofcourse the unusual, very difficult victory conditions regarding losses must be communicated very clearly in the briefings.

I think it would also be very helpful/exciting/more fun, if the game could inform the player, if certain values or thresholds are reached, if the scenario designer wants that. Text-messages defined by scenario designers that pop up, if certain events are triggered ("Our losses are heavy and could become a problem to reach our goal!", "Losses are too heavy!", "This loss will have a negative impact on further success of the operations." "Prepare yourself for a martial court!" )

[Broadsword56]

I'd be curious to hear how many players use Regular quality troops versus making everyone Veteran or higher quality.

The way sburke and I get around this and create some lively variety in our HTH battles is a set of general ground rules for the OOBs -- these are dictated partly by the situation in the board wargame that controls the operational layer, and partly by some "conversion" rules that try to mirror the units' conditions in CMBN terms.

You don't actually need an operational layer game to adopt some of these concepts -- if you have a like-minded opponent who wants more historical play, then you can discuss the situation this battle represents and come up with ways to represent it. Even an imbalanced situation can be a fun game with winning chances for both sides, if you play around enough with the victory conditions.

Here are a few highlights from the conversion rules we use:

1.0 Fitness

The boardgame’s HQ morale level at the time of activation sets the starting “Fitness” level of the units entering battle as follows:

HQ Morale 6 or 7 = Fit

HQ Morale 4 or 5 = Weakened

HQ Morale 2 or 3 = Unfit

(Exception: Pinned or disrupted status affects fitness, see 6.0)

1.1 Battalion-level forces: Apply the overall Fitness level to 2 of the 3 companies. The third company is always one level higher than its fellow companies (simulating the fact that one company would have been in reserve and more rested than the others).

1.2 Company-level forces: apply the overall HQ Morale/Fitness level to both companies.

2.0 Experience levels

US 29th ID and 2nd ID = Veteran

US 35th ID = Regular

German 352nd ID and FJ units and SS units = Veteran

3.0 Leadership levels

(Can be modified by Pinned or Disrupted status, see 6.0)

US units = default level 0

German units = default level +1

4.0 Motivation levels

Motivation levels in CMBN can be Fanatic, Extreme, High, Normal, Low, or Poor. The default motivation levels for units entering CMBN battles should be as follows (this may be modified by Pinned or Disrupted status, see 6.0):

US units – Normal

German 352nd ID - Normal

German FJ and SS – Fanatic

5.0 Supply levels – CMBN Range is Full, Adequate, Limited, Scarce, Severe.

Most of the supply effects are modeled at the op level by the boardgame’s LOC rules, which affect how much headquarters can do.

Default supply level for all units = Adequate.

5.1 Exception: Units whose HQ has no LOC at the start of the tactical action have the following effects entering a CMBN battle:

1st CMBN battle in this Op day/turn: Supply = Limited

2nd CMBN battle in this Op day/turn: Supply = Scarce

3rd and subsequent CMBN battles in this day/turn: Supply = Severe

6.0 Pinned or Disrupted states

Pins or Disruptions (that were caused by boardgame barrage, etc.) are modeled at the start of a CMBN tactical battle by applying some modifications in the unit editor to the "soft factors" of affected units.

6.1 Pinned: Units pinned in the boardgame start a CMBN battle with Fitness level one step lower than the normal level that would be determined by Rule 1.0. Their motivation level is set to Low.

6.2 Disrupted: This is a more severe state, and at that point there would have been effects on a unit's command-and-control due to leader casualties and shock, etc.

A disrupted unit starts a CMBN battle automatically with "Poor" motivation, and -2 Leadership state.

6.3 At the end of a CMBN battle, tactical results would get translated back into the boardgame. So, depending on units' Motivation and Leadership levels at the end, they would re-enter the boardgame as Pinned or Disrupted or normal.

8.0 Objectives and scoring:

The CMBM scenarios will use two types of objectives: terrain (“occupy”), and enemy casualties.

8.1 Terrain objectives in the CMBN battles are areas within a zone of approximately 280 meters on a side, or less, which represent the target hex of the attack in the operational-level boardgame.

8.2 Casualty objectives in the CMBN battles are to inflict enough casualties on the enemy to exceed their step-loss threshold.

8.3 Each side plays the CMBN battle for 1000 victory points. Points are allocated as follows:

Attacker: Terrain objective (occupy) = 1000 points

Defender: Enemy casualties > 40% (if enemy is a battalion) or 35% (if enemy is a company) = 1000 points.

8.4 If the battle ends in a tie on points, the personnel loss percentage determines the outcome.

[BletchleyGeek]

As a rule of thumb:

* The defender should spend hours on his setup, and minutes on his turns.

* The attacker should spend minutes on his setup, and hours on his turns.

That. Attacking is as hard as the defender makes him work for it. No more, no less.

[sburke]

The way sburke and I get around this and create some lively variety in our HTH battles is a set of general ground rules for the OOBs -- these are dictated partly by the situation in the board wargame that controls the operational layer, and partly by some "conversion" rules that try to mirror the units' conditions in CMBN terms.

You don't actually need an operational layer game to adopt some of these concepts -- if you have a like-minded opponent who wants more historical play, then you can discuss the situation this battle represents and come up with ways to represent it. Even an imbalanced situation can be a fun game with winning chances for both sides, if you play around enough with the victory conditions.

For those who have not tried something like this, it can be a real eye opener. Tactics you may have been used to employing no longer work with less fit units. Your options become a lot more limited as your units tire faster, cower more etc. It does work much better i think with an op layer as the condition of your unit can be dictated by events outside your control, but you are free to try them anytime.

[ClarkWGriswold]

If such unrealistical results are not wanted, then the solution lies in fixing the source of the problem: the rules that define victory.

As far as I'm aware, there is no way to alter the win/loss conditions when playing a Quick Battle. If there were a way to apply such conditions, that might help immensely in making battles more realistic. People would be a lot less gung ho if they knew that 40% casualties would lose them the game.