Shifting defense or static defense?

[Georgie]

When playing against the AI I have more trouble overcoming a static defense. If I am faced with a shifting defense my troops simply gun down the "shifting" defense as they attempt to change positions. What have other players experienced with a "shifting" versus a static defense?

[Crushingleeek]

not surprising and makes sense. harder to fire a weapon while on the move, both infantry and tanks (of this period still sucked at firing on the move).

the name of the game is to not get caught moving.

[para]

When playing against the AI I have more trouble overcoming a static defense. If I am faced with a shifting defense my troops simply gun down the "shifting" defense as they attempt to change positions. What have other players experienced with a "shifting" versus a static defense?

I shift mine but I am very careful when I do it and make sure I use cover and suppression..works a treat

[YankeeDog]

When playing against the AI I have more trouble overcoming a static defense. If I am faced with a shifting defense my troops simply gun down the "shifting" defense as they attempt to change positions. What have other players experienced with a "shifting" versus a static defense?

Properly executing a mobile defense requires a careful reading of the enemy attack -- ideally, you need to get an early read the attack focus point, tempo, etc., and then plan your defensive moves accordingly. this is not something the AI is really capable of. At best, the Scenario Designer makes a good guess as to where a human player is likely to move, and when, and schedules AI moves accordingly. But the AI can't really react to a dynamic situation.

Even for a human player, a mobile defense is tricky and requires quite a bit of finesse to pull off. But it can be very effective if done right. One general thing to consider is that if you're trying shift defensive units while they're under any significant amount of fire, you aren't doing it right. A proper mobile defense requires covered routes of withdrawal and internal lines of communication that are not likely to fall under enemy interdiction.

[womble]

One general thing to consider is that if you're trying shift defensive units while they're under any significant amount of fire, you aren't doing it right.

It's probable that if your setup doesn't have good

...covered routes of withdrawal and internal lines of communication that are not likely to fall under enemy interdiction.

...you're just leaving the fallback too late, or not supporting it with enough suppression from positions further in the rear or smoke.

[Georgie]

I remember trying to design an AI defense with CMBB and I would spend hours placing tanks and men in intricate positions with overlapping fire zones and tanks in hull down positions with keyholes covering likely avenues of advance and then when I play tested the scenario they would all leave their positions and go on a walkabout. Never could figure out how to prevent this from happening. I think that, with out knowing where the attack will fall, a static defense covering all the avenues of approach with well concealed guns , AFVs and troops is the strongest. If there was an indication of where the the attack was taking place then a well planned shift to concentrate the defense would be the strongest. But there isn't presently a method to determine that.

[sburke]

Properly executing a mobile defense requires a careful reading of the enemy attack -- ideally, you need to get an early read the attack focus point, tempo, etc., and then plan your defensive moves accordingly. this is not something the AI is really capable of. At best, the Scenario Designer makes a good guess as to where a human player is likely to move, and when, and schedules AI moves accordingly. But the AI can't really react to a dynamic situation.

Even for a human player, a mobile defense is tricky and requires quite a bit of finesse to pull off. But it can be very effective if done right. One general thing to consider is that if you're trying shift defensive units while they're under any significant amount of fire, you aren't doing it right. A proper mobile defense requires covered routes of withdrawal and internal lines of communication that are not likely to fall under enemy interdiction.

What he said!

As a PBEM player that has mostly been on defense, I shift mine a lot IF I have units of a fitness level that can physically take it.

For example if I have two teams behind a hedgerow. I might start both in limited arcs to prevent them exposing their position too early.

On turn 5 say I remove the covered arc on team A, give them a 30 second pause and then a quick move back and away to another position.

On turn 6 I give the same command to team B and check team A. The plan for team A is to get back to a new position just prior to team B displacing.

The end result here is a feeling for the attacker of whack a mole. At the start of each turn one of my teams should be firing from a new position while the other is displacing. It makes targeting with mortar fire pretty difficult and directed targeting is usually just shooting up empty hedgerow. Just to mix it up, you can simply give a unit a hide command and your opponent isn't going to know if they displaced or not. The AI can't do this and I have found it to be fairly effective at suppressing an enemy and stalling their attack (even if they don't have significant casualties) long enough for MY artillery to start hitting them. If pulled off successfully, your enemy is now getting suppressed and the whole assault starts to fall apart as they go to ground and take casualties. During that period you can retreat, shift to new positions, or move up reserves to take them under fire from a completely different angle. Add other possibilities into that of using a TRP, direct fire mortars etc and you start to realize how limited the defense is for the AI. Once in a while if the designer plans it really well AND you hit it in just the right way for it to make best use of it's assets you might run into a tough defense, but the AI is never going to be as difficult or flexible as a human opponent. Asking it to try to react is all going to be a matter of lucky timing.

[Pak40]

This goes back to the whole argument for adding triggers to help the AI shift defense or attack.

[YankeeDog]

This goes back to the whole argument for adding triggers to help the AI shift defense or attack.

I'm all for adding triggers to AI plans, but I wouldn't expect triggers in and of themselves to generate *too* much improvement in the AI's ability to run a mobile defense. Incremental improvements, hopefully, but nothing dramatic.

Running Mobile defense is kind of like playing zone defense in basketball or ice hockey. For the defense to be effective, it requires really intelligent player(s) who know how to anticipate the next move of the offense and pull off the right moves at the right time, in coordination with their teammates. It's just not the sort of thing that computer AI opponents are going to be very good at in a complex game like CM.

[Georgie]

I'm all for adding triggers to AI plans, but I wouldn't expect triggers in and of themselves to generate *too* much improvement in the AI's ability to run a mobile defense. Incremental improvements, hopefully, but nothing dramatic.

Running Mobile defense is kind of like playing zone defense in basketball or ice hockey. For the defense to be effective, it requires really intelligent player(s) who know how to anticipate the next move of the offense and pull off the right moves at the right time, in coordination with their teammates. It's just not the sort of thing that computer AI opponents are going to be very good at in a complex game like CM.

I tend to agree, will have to wait to find out for sure, triggers probably won't add much since the shifting defense will still be exposed unless it is routed to the back of the map and then advance which may be effective. Makes me wonder just how much shifting of forces went on IRL in a tactical battle with a limited time frame and size like CMBN.

[Crushingleeek]

This goes back to the whole argument for adding triggers to help the AI shift defense or attack.

in general i'd love to have triggers.

you reach a town, or you suffer a certain amount of casualties, you get reinforcement group or it triggers a certain AI behavior.

sudden strike was awesome for this

[Moon]

Shifting a defensive line is one of the most difficult tactical maneuvers anyone can execute. It's too difficult for most human players to execute. I don't think the AI will be very good at this for a long time to come, to be honest, triggers, plans and what not.

The key to shifting your defense successfully is to do it so the enemy doesn't know that you are doing it. Which means that usually most players do it way too late in a typical scenario. It also means that in order to execute it successfully, you have to read the situation correctly, prepare suppression and smoke where needed, move troops at the right time etc. This is too difficult for the AI to do on its own, but not much easier to "code" via AI plans for the scenario designer, even with triggers.

[Georgie]

Shifting a defensive line is one of the most difficult tactical maneuvers anyone can execute. It's too difficult for most human players to execute. I don't think the AI will be very good at this for a long time to come, to be honest, triggers, plans and what not.

The key to shifting your defense successfully is to do it so the enemy doesn't know that you are doing it. Which means that usually most players do it way too late in a typical scenario. It also means that in order to execute it successfully, you have to read the situation correctly, prepare suppression and smoke where needed, move troops at the right time etc. This is too difficult for the AI to do on its own, but not much easier to "code" via AI plans for the scenario designer, even with triggers.

Yes, I've had very little luck shifting my defense as it is usually too late and if it is in time its because I was lucky. Some scenarios I'll be offensive against the AI and will be making pretty much zero progress and then the enemy will get up and leave , exposing themselves to my concentrated fire. Tanks will expose their flanks to my 75 Shermans and get taken out where as if they had stayed in place I would have been hard put to turn their flank or push thru the middle.

[Sakai007]

IMO, about the moment you get to thinking about pulling your boys back in a shifting defense, it's already too late to do so.

[Pak40]

or you suffer a certain amount of casualties, you get reinforcement group or it triggers a certain AI behavior.

sudden strike was awesome for this

I don't like the casualty triggers, at least not the type that Theater of War used. I just remember certain battles where a tank platoon would get wiped out and it would trigger instant reinforcements. It was predictable and unrealistic. Also, it led to bad habits for myself; I would intentionally kill off my last tank in order to trigger the reinforcements.

[Pak40]

Shifting a defensive line is one of the most difficult tactical maneuvers anyone can execute. It's too difficult for most human players to execute. I don't think the AI will be very good at this for a long time to come, to be honest, triggers, plans and what not.

The key to shifting your defense successfully is to do it so the enemy doesn't know that you are doing it.

Well, this varies based on the terrain. IMO, bocage is the ideal terrain to shift a defense. Most bocage will block LOS from the attacker allowing the defender the secrecy necessary to shift a defense.

Also, don't forget that triggers can be used for reserves too. A typical defense was to have two platoons up and one back in reserve. The reserve would be used to plug a hole where attack is focused. Without the ability to trigger, you would have to have the entire reserve spread thin to cover any possible hole.

[slysniper]

The only way I am successful with a shifting mobile defence is in a scenario where I can have a defence in depth. So really it is more of a forward listening post, then a few units in good locations to try to delay as the next level, then farther back in good locations placed for different attacks, but they really are the reserve.

My goal is with the forward units to try and determine where the main attack is coming from, if possible pull them back and help the delaying force. While this is going on , my rear units are generally repositioning to where I feel the attack of the enemy is coming from. So I am creating my main defence in the back portion of my terrain and withdrawling my forward units back so that they are not be fired on.

If the enemy only attacks one flank, then I will push units forward on the other flank so that I can take him on in a L shape defence and get flanking positions.

If I have no depth to work with, shifting forces is only done in desperation, not a wanted method as to how to run my forces.

None of this would likely help AI planning much.

[sburke]

Want to know why the AI will never ever be as good as a human opponent? Cause it isn't crazy or desperate.

Tactical problem. The Tiger is covering a road through town that is covered in smoke. That an enemy tank is down that road beyond the smoke is almost certain. Meanwhile another enemy tank has been observed in an adjoining field...what to do... how to deal with two threats at 90 degrees and neither in LOS yet.

Answer back up behind building facing wall. Hmm okay now only have one potential threat, but line of fire is blocked... to drive through wall is to expose flank both on road and in orchard. Answer: Apply high explosives and wait for dust to clear.

remove threat

Meanwhile threat two attempts to catch now hidden tank in flank

To do so means having to come in nice and cozy. This was an infantry team protecting my Tiger.

Nothing that we have or will have in the near future is gonna allow the AI to come up with that. It is what it is, but if you want more, go find a human opponent.

The scenario by the way is In the Shadow of the Hill 8-30am and is a lot of fun.

Damn I love this game

[winkelried]

Shifting a defensive line is one of the most difficult tactical maneuvers anyone can execute. It's too difficult for most human players to execute. I don't think the AI will be very good at this for a long time to come, to be honest, triggers, plans and what not.

i am not sure about this. you are right in the sense, that triggers (which are needed dearly) and plans (where we should have more groups) are crutches - even today. they just tell a group of soldiers where to go, but miss the "upper level" context (meaning the context between groups and the kind of tactical maneuver you want to accomplish).

if you could give a well balanced group (enough force, some heavy weapons to tie down the pursuer) the order to do a shifting defense with appropriate lines of defense on the map (which the AI couldn't possibly identify - so the designer should give them), it should be possible to have the AI to do such a maneuver without looking too stupid.

same is true for the advance by the way, where today you implement "fire and movement" (so no movement without fire) using two groups which don't "know" anything of each other on the AI level and need to do a lot of testing to get the proper timing (which still can screw up looking at possible resistance).

The key to shifting your defense successfully is to do it so the enemy doesn't know that you are doing it. Which means that usually most players do it way too late in a typical scenario. It also means that in order to execute it successfully, you have to read the situation correctly, prepare suppression and smoke where needed, move troops at the right time etc. This is too difficult for the AI to do on its own, but not much easier to "code" via AI plans for the scenario designer, even with triggers.

today the AI does look extremely stupid when trying to do such a maneuver. as i say above more "intelligence" means coupling different groups to do the right thing and to give the AI (not the TacAI) a hint about what is expected from it, would make it look not as stupid - and maybe just good enough for a human player to have a little challenge. I contradict you on the "code": it would much easier for the designer by using two groups which support each other on the defense and are triggered by triggers because today you it is very difficult using timing.

[slysniper]

]

Nothing that we have or will have in the near future is gonna allow the AI to come up with that. It is what it is, but if you want more, go find a human opponent.

The scenario by the way is In the Shadow of the Hill 8-30am and is a lot of fun.

Damn I love this game

Not exactly True, Find a opponent that knows what they are doing.

That would be a little more correct. Some really do not.

[Other Means]

I think most people tend to sit behind their MG screen rather than going out to meet the enemy. I think this is sub-optimal for as:

- you don’t get enough info on the enemies disposition

- you tend to get pinned in place and defeated in detail

- all you can see of the enemy is what they want you to see (usually guns, unfriendly lot)

I split off a portion – like a quarter – of my infantry, those with the most short range and AT weapons, and go forward in a sparse line with them sticking to as much cover as possible.

You'll usually lose the ones directly in front of the schwerpunkt but generally people don’t attack along a broad line and the ones missed get to play around in the enemies back yard where there tends to be nice tasty morsels like FOs, COs, mortars, IGs - all the stuff that suits hitting at long range and isn’t as good up close.

So either your opponent end up splitting off a big enough security detail to find these guys and be sure of killing them, or you manage to remove a lot of his firepower advantage.

What normally happens is they send a few AFVs to try and find your guys. You'll win a few, lose a few and definitely disrupt his time-table.

While the forward skirmishers have been disrupting things you’ve got enough info to move men around. Of the remaining line I tend to leave 50% where they are and concentrate the rest where I know the enemy is coming.

You want every arm shooting at every arm of the attacker. If you manage that and don’t have swathes of unengaged men then cover advantage should negate numeric advantage enough to hopefully give you the win.

[sburke]

Not exactly True, Find a opponent that knows what they are doing.

That would be a little more correct. Some really do not.

I honestly don't know having only PBEM'd 4 individuals. Personally I think you should always try to play someone you believe is better than yourself or at least has a different playstyle. How else will you learn? Sometimes you are the one learning, sometimes you are the one teaching, sometimes both. The only thing you know for sure is your opponent does have the capability to react to your moves. Unpredictably.

I think most people tend to sit behind their MG screen rather than going out to meet the enemy. I think this is sub-optimal for as:

- you don’t get enough info on the enemies disposition

- you tend to get pinned in place and defeated in detail

- all you can see of the enemy is what they want you to see (usually guns, unfriendly lot)

All that is dependent on your units. Broadsword and I are slowly reaching the conclusion of what has been for me one of the most intense battles fought in CM (yes there will be an AAR, screenshots are being collected). My Battalion has been hamstrung with a poor fitness rating and it has completely altered my playstyle. I'd highly recommend trying it, but be prepared as your units can not be pushed very hard. Trying to maintain an aggressive defense is very difficult and without decent terrain it will almost certainly fail. Fortunately the map we are playing on is demonstrating just how difficult attacking through the hedgerows was and for me just how good a job BFC has done.

[slysniper]

I think most people tend to sit behind their MG screen rather than going out to meet the enemy. I think this is sub-optimal for as:

- you don’t get enough info on the enemies disposition

- you tend to get pinned in place and defeated in detail

- all you can see of the enemy is what they want you to see (usually guns, unfriendly lot)

I split off a portion – like a quarter – of my infantry, those with the most short range and AT weapons, and go forward in a sparse line with them sticking to as much cover as possible.

You'll usually lose the ones directly in front of the schwerpunkt but generally people don’t attack along a broad line and the ones missed get to play around in the enemies back yard where there tends to be nice tasty morsels like FOs, COs, mortars, IGs - all the stuff that suits hitting at long range and isn’t as good up close.

So either your opponent end up splitting off a big enough security detail to find these guys and be sure of killing them, or you manage to remove a lot of his firepower advantage.

What normally happens is they send a few AFVs to try and find your guys. You'll win a few, lose a few and definitely disrupt his time-table.

While the forward skirmishers have been disrupting things you’ve got enough info to move men around. Of the remaining line I tend to leave 50% where they are and concentrate the rest where I know the enemy is coming.

You want every arm shooting at every arm of the attacker. If you manage that and don’t have swathes of unengaged men then cover advantage should negate numeric advantage enough to hopefully give you the win.

I like it, not my general approach. but I could see this being a great tactic in certain conditions. And there in is the biggiest challenge, deciding when to use this tactic or not. But I hope to find a situation where it is worth a try. Nothing like throwing the opponanat a surprise if it can help throw him out of his game plan.

But no gareentees, I am playing a battle right now, that really I won within the first ten turns because the defender I was up against decided to expose way too many of his units to my starting attack forces, he really needed them back and hidden, waiting for when my troops were in more confined spaces and he could hopefully ambush up close.

The name of the game, making good tactical calls for each situation, which if you are playing fair, half the time the scenarios do not give you enough info. to make a good decision if playing blind. So adapting is the name of the game, I find my suggested method gives me plenty of that when I can use it.

Sending 1/4 of my units forward is likely going to tie them down, not much adjustment there once you decide to do it. Again depends on terrain.

[Georgie]

If a scenario designer is going to have to set up a scripted defense then he needs information to respond to. Simply to guess where the attacker will be at a given time is pointless probably 75 percent of the time. Different players methods of attack vary both in timing and direction. Some favor the center some the flanks. Some favor a pincer movement involving both flanks some the center and one flank and some change their method each time they play. My point is that it is pointless with out some clue as to the attackers intent for a designer to try to script the defense simply because its possible. It would in the vast majority of times be better to set up a strong well thought out static defense and set the scoring to where the attacker has to take control of all of the strongly defended locations. Maybe we do need triggers. At least with triggers the designer will have a tool at his disposal to design a reasonably effective mobile defense. It wont be perfect but I believe that it will be a lot better than what we have now.

[winkelried]

another argument for triggers in the static defense is the go for a counter attack. this is also something where we depend on timing today - a counter attack is release at some moment of time regardless of the actual situation in the battle (e.g. no significant impact on the defense or breakthrough already achieved and counterattack pointless).