3:1 attack ratio

[poesel]

As I understand in real life an attack was only conducted with an advantage of at least 3:1. Now CM gives you something like 1.4:1 in an attack. Obviously to make the game interesting as a real 3:1 would be pretty one sided. No complains - I think this has proven itself.

So what if you would like to conduct a more 'real' attack. Would it make sense to actually use an attack map and have 1:1 points. But the defender must not use more than 1/3 of his points on troops and vehicles. The other 2/3 must be used for defence (trenches, foxholes, mines, bunkers, TRPs (with a sensible distribution)).

Has anyone tried this? Would it make a good game?

[Holman]

We play the engagements that either side could win. The art of generalship is setting up engagements the other side can't win.

Just pretend that the AI is playing those while you sleep.

More seriously, you can usually assume that the scenaro you play is part of a larger battle. You've been the given the time and place where the issue is still in doubt.

[SlowMotion]

Yes, I think 3:1 is the ratio they assumed enough for the attacker to win.

[womble]

It's "3:1" at the point of decision that counts. Combat could be considered fractal. By which I mean that on a whole front, it'll be rare for one side to have 3:1 "points" against the other, but their generals will try and manipulate it to have 3:1 over a certain sector, and that will be the "Schwerpunkt" of the breakthrough. But it's not often that this occurs at any given operational level, so on a more local level, the Division commander, if they want "progress" will also try and engineer a 3:1 against their possibly slightly more stretched opponent, same as is done at the higher level, and so on down to Battalion, Company and Platoon.

Your job as a commander at any level is to take an unsatisfactory ratio and find where you can make 3:1s, and work from there.

[Broadsword56]

Yes, 3:1 is a good rule fo thumb for an attack to have a good probability of success.

I'd say 6:1 if it's against a fortified position.

But I think these general assumptions scare many CM players away from situations that can actually be more fun and more fluid than they might have appeared if you looked only at the force ratios or OOB points.

A good map, lots of dug-in positions, and a creative use of "soft" factors can all serve to put play balance into a battle where the force ratios are quite lopsided. In fact, one of the reasons I really like playing CMBN with a boardgame op layer is all the fascinating, oddball battles and situations that it generates. These can be surprisingly fun, even when the terms of battle might make a QB player blanch.

Just to mention a few examples from the operational-tactical Saint-Lo campaign that sburke and I recently concluded:

July 16, 1944, Hamel Vallee, battlefield 1120m x 1120m, rural with heavy bocage (an AAR of this was posted):

US force (attacking): Infantry Battalion (100% of TO&E, Green, +2 Leadership, normal motivation, 1 company Fit and 2 companies Weakened) + Sherman company + Stuart Company + Engineer platoon + 12 x 105mm offmap artillery at full supply

German force (defending): Panzergrenadier battalion (60% of TO&E, veteran experience, -2 leadership, Poor motivation, 2 companies unfit, 2 weakened); StuG III company; 2 x 88 Flak, sniper teams, foxholes for everyone, 12 x 105mm offmap artillery with "adequate" supply, 3x FO teams, and plenty of TRPs.

It looked like a bet worth taking for the US, on paper. The Germans were not only outnumbered and outgunned but the "soft factors" for them were horrible, simulating the effects of an all-night prebattle bombardment by divisional and corps artillery.

But the result was a gain of two or three hedgerows, nearly 40% US casualties, and the attack fizzled out, resulting in a German victory.

This seemed like very realistic outcome and played in a fashion eerily similar to what we've read about the bocage battles. (The situation was resolved operationally the following day, as the Yanks sat back and called in an air strike that wiped out the defending Germans -- also quite realistic, showing how the Allies so often could lose the little battles and still win the war)

17 July 1944 -- La Luzerne, battlefield 800m x 1200m, mostly urban (ruined and fortified village):

US Force (attacking): Infantry Battalion (100% TO&E, veteran experience, normal motivation, 0 leadership, full supply, but all 3 companies "unfit" due to a long prebattle approach march and having to go straight into a hasty attack); 3 Sherman companies; M8 Assault Gun platoon, Engineer platoon, 3 x FOs, 12 x 105mm offmap artillery with max ammo.

German Force: 1 Panzergrenadier company (60% of TO&E, weakened, normal motivation. +1 leadership, adequate supply); 1 StuG III platoon; 2 x 75mm AT guns; 1 sniper team; 1 Pioneer platoon; 1 FO team, 12 x 105mm offmap artillery with adequate supply; and LOTS of fortification goodies: 40 barbed wire, 10 sandbag walls, 10 trenches, 10 mixed mines, 5 AP mines, 5 AT mines, 6 wooden MG bunkers, 3 wooden standard bunkers, 10 foxholes, 10 trenches, and many TRPs.

Result: The US did win, but only late in the day and only after an extremely bitter fight and 29% casualties in the infantry battalion (15% casualties among the asset units). The Germans had only moderate casualties but chose to surrender after they lost their last StuG and their final defenses within the town were collapsing.

[Sublime]

Thanks for sharing the force mixes - those are worth copying down to set up in a pbem. Very interesting match ups, particularly the first hedgerow battle you mentioned.

[Broadsword56]

Thanks for sharing the force mixes - those are worth copying down to set up in a pbem. Very interesting match ups, particularly the first hedgerow battle you mentioned.

Thanks -- but you don't have to re-create it from scratch, you can experience it yourself because we posted a DL link to the Hamel Vallee game files:

https://docs.google.com/folder/d/0B7QDFjCzWAgybm5pZzZfU0JoNGs/edit?pli=1

It was created in an older verison of CMBN, though, so while it will run, you are likely to see some uniform weirdness and other visual oddities. But you can at least run it and see the terrain and the forces, etc.

We didn't post a DL link to La Luzerne, because it too was from the older game and we weren't sure if others would find it fun to play. The La Luzerne map was the first I'd made that had sunken basements as important features of the town.

[Vinnart]

3:1 is what is desired to win in a real attack. This is a nice number that fits in a nice neat little box in a perfect world. I doubt evey attack in real life fit into this ideal figure. In Band of Brothers 12 men attacked 40 men at Brecourt manor and won.

Even if this figure is desired in real life combat does that necessarily mean it fits into the game as far as balance gameplay is concerned?

[Tarquelne]

poesel71:

I suspect 2/3s on defenses would be too much... but I dunno. Anyway, I'd be up for the trying out the sort of game you describe.

Though... err... sometime next month.

[Michael Emrys]

Three to one over the section of the front that is being attacked is desired, but part of that strength is devoted to 1:1 holding attacks on the flanks of the break in zone to prevent any of the forces there from being shifted to reinforce the area of the main effort. The main effort (a part of which is what we might see in a CM battle) would strive for odds as much as 9:1 where possible, though ratios quite a bit smaller were often necessarily accepted. An attack at 4:1 against a determined defender (i.e., Germans) might make progress, but it would be slow and bloody.

Michael

[Sublime]

The local battles thing is key. When I fight or attack something I generally try to bring as many guns to bear on a key target as possible. This overwhelms the enemy, and usually suppresses and kills faster. The shorter the firefight the less time your men are receiving incoming fire as well, and less spotting info goes to your opponent. Shooting from flanks and rear helps a lot too. So in short - scouts will spot enemy defenses or attackers I want to engage, then I try to engage with as many units as possible to kill them as quickly as possible. If they all are killed or out of sight, I'll often reposition to avoid artillery and counter attacks. If not, I move, or withdraw in stages (pauses and covering fire, not alll at once) if the fighting doesn't seem to be going decisively one way or another after 3-4 minutes. Even this is pushing it, as 4 minutes will put you in 81mm off board strike territory.

[poesel]

Thanks so far but I think I need to clarify my original question.

I'm talking about QB - not a scenario. An attack QB will give a point ratio of ~1.4:1. Usually the defender will buy mines and a few foxholes or trenches. The rest goes into troops or artillery. Some of this behaviour comes IMHO from the perceived bad return value for defence works.

The setup would be to choose an attack and adjust the attackers forces by -40%. This will give both parties the same OOB points. The defender then has to use 2/3 of his allotment on fortifications.

Would that create an interesting battle?

[womble]

The setup would be to choose an attack and adjust the attackers forces by -40%. This will give both parties the same OOB points. The defender then has to use 2/3 of his allotment on fortifications.

Would that create an interesting battle?

It might on a large battle where the attacker has plenty of options for where they concentrate their attack (and the available elements to cover their 'idle' sectors while massing against the Schwerpunkt). Small battles, less so, since the granularity of the "minimal force" element would be too large.

[Sublime]

I think it'd certainly be a more realistic battle. However fortifications don't have the variety and utility of real life. Still I think its a good idea.

[JasonC]

First, it is not the case that historically the 3 to 1 ratio represents any assured victory for the attacker. It is more like a minimum to even contemplate trying to attack.

Second, in the game odds ratios much lower than that can succeed in attacks. This is partly because the battlefield is always more isolated in a given CM battle than it actually is in reality. In real attacks, there are always flanking positions giving trouble, occasionally defending artillery intervening on a massive scale, sometimes local reserves will pick that location to insert themselves and end the local odds edge, etc. Also, the attackers are more likely to break off to try again under better circumstances after encountering even limited opposition and losses, than we see in CM.

I like the idea of just limiting the points actually used to tailor odds ratios, it is a fine one.

[JonS]

As I understand in real life an attack was only conducted with an advantage of at least 3:1.

That's a false premise, to start with. Attacks have been conducted with all sorts of odds, included less than unity.

The 3:1 thing is a rule of thumb, and the specific ratio varies depending on national doctrine. The Soviets, IIRC, in the 1970s/80s taught that a ratio of something like 6:1 was desirable.

Also, the ratio isn't a simple nose count, of the "I have 30,000 men to his 10,000, 300 tanks to his 100, and 600 guns to his 200, therefore I'm good to go!" sort. All sorts of things impact the fighting efficiency and effectiveness of a force (summarised in the various national Principles of War. Of the british ones, Surprise, Morale and Cooperation are the ones that most obviously and directly affect a strict interpretation of the 3:1 ratio. I surprise you, I wil;l need less than 3:1 to be successful. If my force's morale is good and yours is bad, I will need less than 3:1. If my teeth arms work well together, and yours cannot, I will need less than 3:1. Sustainability is also fairly important - an force that is out of supply isn't too much of a threat, regardless of size.

The battles of Beda Fomm and Goose Green are classic examples of battles where the attacker had significantly lower than 3:1 by simple nose count, but were successful anyway because of other factors.

Even trying to calculate a nose count is fraught with problems. How much is a tank "worth" in the ratio? What about artillery? Fortifications? etc.

3:1 is a useful rule of thumb, but it's a very fuzzy one, and applying it usefully relies a lot on experience, intuition, and gut feel.

[Tarquelne]

3:1 is a useful rule of thumb, but it's a very fuzzy one, and applying it usefully relies a lot on experience, intuition, and gut feel.

*Or* you add up all the combat factors printed on the little cardboard counters and consult the table provided.

[JonS]

*Or* you add up all the combat factors printed on the little cardboard counters and consult the table provided.

ROFL

Yeah, or that

[JasonC]

JonS - no, it really isn't fuzzy at all.

It means to attack a company position you want a battalion, and to attack a battalion position you want a regiment, and to attack a regiment you want a division, etc.

Which is about as concrete as it gets in war.

[JonS]

Assuming all else is equal, sure; 3:1 is the only analytical tool you need. Just count noses (or ears, then divide by two) and you're good to go.

Except ... all else is never equal.

[Childress]

Jon, as a privileged insider with pre-release access to the patch, are you finding that the new adjustments have rendered attacking more onerous? To the point of obsoleting some existing scenarios and QB point ratios?

E.g.:

* Sandbags, wire, foxholes, hedgehogs, and trenches are correctly treated as "lower down" for spotting purposes.

* Corrected issues with deploying MGs in buildings.

* General improvements to MG performance behavior.

* Bunker-mounted MGs are more accurate than before.

* Moving a mortar even a short distance causes greater loss of target acquisition.

Most of the tweaks favor the defending side.

[JonS]

To the point of obsoleting some existing scenarios and QB point ratios?

I can't really comment on that bit specifically, except to say it probably overstates the case somewhat. In general I basically agree the thrust of your post though. Every patch that changes gameplay and/or weapon effects inevitably has knock-on consequences for existing scenarios, and the design of future scenarios.

My first reaction to 2.01 is that I think the consequences will be

1) the attacker will take or need more time, and/or

2) casualties will be higher (primarily because players will continue to force their units into a meatgrinder that is now more efficient)

I think that going forward scen designers will need to recalibrate their time estimates, and allow maybe 10-20% more time (c.f. an equivalent pre-2.01 scenario), and the proportion of points allocated to casualties may need to be adjusted to make casualties less important (again c.f. an equivalent pre-2.01 scenario), especially for the attacker.

[Duckman]

I think a big part of the reason why attacking is a easier in games than Reality is that command, control, and spotting are easier in our virtual world. This in turn means that attackers can manage with something close to 1:1. CM does better in those aspects than most or all other games, which is why attacking can be pretty hard going and lead to historically accurate situations like "where the hell is X platoon?" or trying to sort out a tangle of units.

Putting in even more restrictions - à la Ironman mode - will probably come at a great expense in playability. It seems better to work with force mixes and "soft" factor levels, as suggested in this thread. TRPs are also a good way to give defenders a realistic advantage; up until recently premeasuring ranges for arty as well as other heavy weapons gave the defense a decided advantage.

[JasonC]

It isn't counting noses, it is checking the unit sizes involved. A much quicker and line command, not a laborious bean counter's, exercise.

If you don't have a major attacking their captain you are doing it wrong...

(Notice, this is also why it isn't 2.87 times or 3.4 times, but "3 times". One unit size step, as a minimum. With other comments that 6 times or 10 times are even better, meaning 2 battalions for a company etc. Also not 4.72345 times, because nobody is counting noses, they are checking unit size descriptions).

[Childress]

If you don't have a major attacking their captain you are doing it wrong...

You're doing it wrong but you get a ripping battle. Every CM battle represents a mistake in planning. Right?