Gustav Line Beta AAR Round Two PEANUT GALLERY

[Jack Ration]

Re Ron's Comment

Only new to the game but I think Ron's comments were worth noting. Spotting should be improved if all units are within c2 range. Something that is easier said than done.

Agree with the general consensus on defence, it does seem more challenging. Obviously screening forces are required so the enemy does not get an early fix on your defensive positions. How to do this with mutual support is probably the question (mobility?).

All fine and good but even Bil was willing to risk his KW on lone scout missions.

[dieseltaylor]

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here, dt. Maybe depends on what you mean by 'reasonable'.

I can't really say until I actually have the map to study in 3D, but looking at the screenshots it doesn't look at all undefendable to me. But as I noted several pages back any defense that isn't going to be leaky as hell is going to take a much larger force, maybe twice as large with more of everything.

Michael

Well there is the topography which is one part and most of us have an idea from real life to feel comfortable with, and then how the game engine deals with spotting and how this relates to the map.

One thing we seem to be learning is that long grass is reallly long and one imagines that what might be defensible with short grass [which is what I would bet on in Italy at this time and latitude] is a different ballgame if you can move troops in it without being spotted.

If they can be spotted by having enough eyeballs then there is not enough points to have enough eyeballs to spread across the map.

BTW without reading an entire thread any know if GAJ's troops are hiding?

[Kanonier Reichmann]

Well, despite what everyone has been saying about GaJ's defence plan I'm starting to warm to it. Provided he doesn't lose that 2nd M10 he has quickly moved across the ridge he still has most of his major assets still intact, especially his infantry force.

Bill is more than half way through his alloted time yet still has to tackle the bulk of GaJ's force while he's now second guessing what exactly his opponent does have to oppose his forces. Planting seeds of doubt is always a good thing when you're up against someone and as GaJ has pointed out, he has only lost territory he always intended to give up without much of a fight anyway.

I'm not saying he's in a favoured position or anything seeing as there are still 2 hulking great Brumbars & an Elefant waiting to blow his forces away but he just may delay the attackers enough to come out with some sort of honourable draw or near to it type of result.

Regards

KR

[costard]

As far as the apparent discrepancy in spotting goes, it's probably worth remembering that Bil is actively seeking intelligence that he can then build a plan around - he's had eyes out from the very start, a deliberate and broad sampling of the map with particular attention paid to his Areas of Interest. This would seem to have paid dividends. GaJ, on the other hand, has been largely static and passive with his eyes - and he has fewer of them. A significant proportion of them are keyholed and of no real use for spotting - a bunker setup in the real world would have prepared fields of fire; grass removed, microrelief filled, shrubbery managed. To expect it to perform historically in this context is a little unrealistic.

The map would seem large and rough enough that Bil is having little difficulty finding covered movement and this would also contribute to GaJ's understandable sense of WTF? However it plays out, I'm looking forward to seeing how Bil plans on taking out GaJ's Rangers, and his reaction when he finds out about them.

[Michael Emrys]

I don't accept the view that defense is intrinsically harder. There are reasons why it is a good rule of thumb that for an attack to be assured of carrying the objective it should have a 3:1 superiority of forces. Whether the conditions that make that so are in CM undermodeled might be another story. However, I am not personally prepared to take that line at present.

What I do wonder about and will throw out just as a question to be considered is whether we as a group are as mentally prepared to do all the things that a successful defense requires. I wonder if we don't try to conduct a defense the same way we conduct an attack and then discover that we lack the necessary forces to succeed using that tactic. Discussion?

Michael

[Vanir Ausf B]

For most players, creating a good defence is very hard, It takes more skill which many of us have not developed. i know for myself, at times defensive solutions to certain situations are outside of my grasp.

But I found in scenario designing for the game, the attacker should never have more than a 3 to 2 ratio advantage and in many I would shave that down to even 4 to 3. It generally does not take much of a advantage in the game to keep it and build on it. If you give a 2 to 1 ratio you will find in most situations that is going to make it a cakewalk for the attacker.

So I think one problem with QB's in general is the point ratio's assigned, they favor the attacker pretty well.

I think the best version QB to play is probe, which gives the closest ratio. I dont remember what that is, but it is plenty for how the game plays in my view.

In CMBN, and i assume CMFI is the same, the ratios are:

Probe: 1.49 to 1

Attack: 1.65 to 1

Assault: 1.84 to 1

Out of curiosity I booted up CMBB v 1.3 to see how CMX2 ratios have changed since CMx1:

Probe: 1.4 to 1

Attack: 1.5 to 1

Assault: 1.72 to 1

So with regard to ratios a Probe in CMx2 is equivalent to an Attack in CMx1.

I think there are two other game mechanics changes from CMx1 that make it harder for the defender. 1) Anti-tank rockets other than PIATs cannot be fired from buildings, and 2) foxholes were free in CMx1 QBs but you have to pay for them in CMx2.

[dieseltaylor]

VAb - you understate the difference considerably. In CMx1 you could be reasonably certain on spotting whereas in this game the bar is very much higher. I know in theory it works both ways but the attacker seems to have the luxury of shaping his attack and the defender rarely can move much of his defence.

[dieseltaylor]

What I do wonder about and will throw out just as a question to be considered is whether we as a group are as mentally prepared to do all the things that a successful defense requires. I wonder if we don't try to conduct a defense the same way we conduct an attack and then discover that we lack the necessary forces to succeed using that tactic. Discussion?

Michael

If this question was asked of me in CMX1 I could wax lyrical. For some time WeBoB ran tournaments where attack defence battles formed part of the overall score. As preparation ,given the maps were autogenerated, I ran through scores of CMAK maps analysing the different terrain types and playing many using a variety of forces against other players.

CMx2V2 has not really been available long and what one knows of RL warfare circa 1944 may not translate well to the game. So in effect a new game and new system effectiveness to be established.

1. However a basic appreciation of defence is what can the enemy bring to the party. And what counters you have.

2. Terrain [as in marsh, streams, roads,woods] and topography as in hills and gullies need to be considered as in terms of what they do for the enemies advance and for your troop movements.

3. Weather can also be important particularly wind speed and direction. More obviously fog, heavy rain etc do nullify some weapons effectiveness

4. And most importantly time as all else falls apart if the attacker has plenty of time.

[Blackcat]

Someone up thread mentioned that this AAR was intended to showcase the new module. If the intention was to show it off to dedicated aficionados of CM, then fair enough. However, from the point of attracting new players I fear it will have the reverse effect.

To be sure it looks pretty but the actual results so far would put me off from buying the game if I didn't know it already. Some of the spotting outcomes are so counter-intuitive as to be bizarre and the failure of units to actually use foxholes (instead to set up in open ground between them) just make the game look broken. I would also cite another AAR currently on-going on these boards where the player just cannot get his HMG to take up a position to fire through a bocage hedge, the supporting crew members will but not the actual HMG, as a result a huge hole in the players plan is opening up.

Coming back to the game after a long, enforced, absence is an interesting experience. Its weaknesses stand out and this AAR seems almost designed to emphasise them.

[Vanir Ausf B]

VAb - you understate the difference considerably. In CMx1 you could be reasonably certain on spotting whereas in this game the bar is very much higher. I know in theory it works both ways but the attacker seems to have the luxury of shaping his attack and the defender rarely can move much of his defence.

Well in CMx1 you had Borg spotting which was 100% certain after the initial spot. The game plays more realistically without it.

I don't know what you mean when you say the defender rarely can move his defense. I have had no trouble at all conducting a mobile defense.

[Ron]

dieseltaylor - ian.leslie has the right of it. It's one thing to know as a player what is there but if the unit you need doesn't then...

As I recall, one of the complaints from CMx1 QBs was the attacker did not have enough points and generally Assaults were choosen - that may have just been the group I played with, don't know anymore as I haven't played those games for a long time. For CMBN/CMFI, I don't have a wealth of games under my belt either, but it has felt right thus far.

I have been critical of the defense, yes, and more so again after seeing the M10 acting alone - lucky it didn't get nailed. I have been waiting for GAJ to make a major shift to his right flank, the evidence has been there for several turns now the left flank is quiet. Perhaps one criticism of the attack is I think Bil needs to push a little more on GAJ's left to prevent any shifting of those forces towards his main attack.

Either way, I think some are underestimating the amount of firepower Bil will bring to bear once the final defense line becomes more apparent. It will not be pretty...

[__Yossarian0815[jby]]

Someone up thread mentioned that this AAR was intended to showcase the new module. If the intention was to show it off to dedicated aficionados of CM, then fair enough. However, from the point of attracting new players I fear it will have the reverse effect.

I don´t think that modules really attract new players in their own right.

re: the game so far, i think GaJ plays bit on the risky side. The M10 loss wasn´t particularly surprising. Moving towards the advancing enemy in the knowledge that the enemy has his guns pointed in my direction was always risky, spotting issues or not.

re: defense in CMx2

IMO defense in QBs is so difficult because there are usually only a few (or even one) objectives. This puts the strain on the defense. If there were more objectives, the attacker has more uncertainty as to where to thow his punches.

[$Pec5]

;1442397']

re: defense in CMx2

IMO defense in QBs is so difficult because there are usually only a few (or even one) objectives. This puts the strain on the defense. If there were more objectives, the attacker has more uncertainty as to where to thow his punches.

I think in this instance there are plenty of objectives.

[A Canadian Cat]

Well, despite what everyone has been saying about GaJ's defence plan I'm starting to warm to it.

...

Bill is more than half way through his alloted time yet still has to tackle the bulk of GaJ's force while he's now second guessing what exactly his opponent does have to oppose his forces.

...

Bil has now conquered the three "I don't care" zones - those VLs that I simply did not intend to defend.

...

Anyhow, Hill 126 is the first actual reverse slope opportunity that I have had to defend, and it does have defenders.

I agree with @Kanonier Reichmann. I was starting to wonder if this was just going to be a slow tickle across the battle field until GAJ's post. Things are going to start getting more interesting - I think.

I'm not saying he's in a favoured position or anything seeing as there are still 2 hulking great Brumbars & an Elefant waiting to blow his forces away but he just may delay the attackers enough to come out with some sort of honourable draw or near to it type of result.

Yeah that firepower will be cool to watch. I hope some reverse slope advantage can give GAJ some good kicks at his enemy first though.

[dieseltaylor]

As a demo game perhaps this is unimportant but if playing for real[!] knowing how the points are allocated I think is very important.

This thread here explores the concept and provides a BF confirmation:

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=109348&highlight=assault

My initial understanding is this : The maximum occupation points total 750 in an assault and from this is deducted losses in troops. Where the 750 points are allocated could be very important in deciding what to defend.

In this battle I think GAJ mentioned 5000points so kills could outweigh the worth of the victory areas. On this basis anyone want predict who the game calls the winner!

[$Pec5]

If half of the battle time has already been spent capturing the "I don't care zones" just imagine how much longer it could have taken Bil to capture those points if the HMG bunker actually could spot the infantry approaching Hill 109. I was looking forward to seeing how long the bunker/atg combo would have held up.

I guess we will now see how slow Bil's attack will become once he runs into the reverse slope defenses on Hill 126.

If I had to call it, Bil will win a tactical victory. I don't think a total victory will occur because of the time constraints of the battle. They should hamper Bil from snatching up all the terrain objectives, and I don't think GaJ will lose a significantly larger number of men compared to Bil.

[slysniper]

thanks for placing the present game point structure for QB's.

So if my 3 to2 ratio is a correct concept. No one should ever play beyond probe to have any decent chance at all on defence.

The only exception to that would be if the defender had fantastic terrain to defend. Like the enemy having to cross wide open country. Or if the defender has a major unit advantage, like a tiger 2 tank and the attacker only gets cronwells. then you can pitch the typical odds a little.

but the probe is giving 3-2 odds, that is plenty.

Also even though I mentioned defence for most players is harder for them.

I would also like to state that I feel in CMX2, playing defence has improved. I find the game plays much better as a defender now than it did in the old version.

I find I can ambush more, move units and rearrange positions in the CMX2 world much more than I could in CMX1

The goal of any defence is to find ways to take your outnumbered troops and find someway to get areas where you can have temporary firepower advantage before the enemy adjust and overwhelms you. You can try to lead the enemy into kill zones, you can try mobile reserves to counter attack in localized areas, you can withdrawl forward troops until you combine into a main defensive line. You can try for flanking positions or keyhole locations that give you a limited area that you can have firepower advantages because of limited enemy units that will be able to return fire. And so on.

But no matter what method, I find I can do most of them much better in this game engine than I could before. My win lose ratio has improved and I contribute it to the fact that I win more defensive battles than I once did. But attacking is still very easy to get a win unless the designer forces tight time restraints so that I cannot just work my units into advantagious positions. The game should always be structured so that the attacker does not have time to remodify his attack too much if he has made poor decisions.

Its pretty sad when you can redesign your attack for a third time to take advantage of what you know about the enemy. It is good for R.L. aplications but not very fair for someone playing defence in the game. Time should always be one of the tools in the defenders bag. But many have continued asking for matches and games to have more time. many of which have way too much for a good match game now as they are designed. easy to tell, when you have defeated someone and there is 45 minutes left in the game but they are already ready to surrender.

[Vanir Ausf B]

I feel that the proper time limit for an attack/defend QBs is the most difficult variable to decide. It varies depending on force size, map size, terrain type, number of VLs and VL placement.

[Michael Emrys]

;1442397']IMO defense in QBs is so difficult because there are usually only a few (or even one) objectives. This puts the strain on the defense. If there were more objectives' date=' the attacker has more uncertainty as to where to thow his punches.[/quote']

I read it exactly the opposite. Where there are few or even only one objective, the defender can concentrate his forces on defending that one. I think one of the big headaches GaJ faces in the current DAR is the plethora of objectives that he has to protect. Given the paucity of his forces, I think he was wise not to try to defend them all, but it is still a hard choice to make. Conversely, since the initiative rests with the attacker, he gets to choose which to go after, a choice aided by analysis of which will be the hardest to defend.

Michael

[General Specific]

I read it exactly the opposite. Where there are few or even only one objective, the defender can concentrate his forces on defending that one.

Michael

Well said Michael, however what I think Yossarian (what the hell kind of name is Yossarian?) was pointing out that a great deal of the QB maps that are designated for attacks & assaults (as opposed to probes or meeting engagements) often have one or two objectives placed far forward than desired, this puts the defenders main effort (and the attackers main force for that matter) uncomfortably close without even a proper recon. Given that this may not be the case for all engagements but from what it would appear the attacker would want to at least some space to provide adequate recon and assembly of his forces for the attack, while the defenders would like an OP or two (as GAJ does) to identify the enemies thrusts and what the enemy forces consist of.

The scenario that comes to mind with this is from CMBN (forgive me for the name escapes me) essentially a U.S. Infantry company with two 57mm in support hold a town almost directly in the center of the map (if not in the enemy 3rd) while the Germans hid in the woods not but 300 m away. Even if the situation was a hasty defense you'd figure the U.S. CO would have placed a recon team or two somewhere rather than have his nuts hanging out waiting for smoke and armored cars to try and flank him. Even more egregious is that the U.S. reinforcements cross 2/3's of the map just to reach their own objective!

[sburke]

The problem I have with that is there is an assumption that every tactical situation should be the same. Room for recon, your position is not a bad one far forward from your line that is hard to support etc. Instead there is this cookie cutter perspective that every map should always have x set up value, positioning possibilities for defense etc. This striving for some imaginary balance ends up with a restriction in challenges that honestly I think dulls down the possibilities.

Personally I prefer the variety. Sometimes your tactical position is awful as in RL and you just have to do the best you can. One of the things Broadsword and I enjoy about our campaign is exactly that, having battles that come up that present a dilemma and we factor that into our perception of how well we performed regardless of the eventual outcome.

I don't get how two players can't look at a situation after the battle and say, "yeah your options really sucked, but you fought a great game. In fact your actual use of your limited options was better than what I was able to do." Net result, yeah the VP points are going to reflect simple point values, but you and your opponent have a much more complex perspective on how the battle went. Which of the two determines if you had fun?

[sfhand]

...

I don't get how two players can't look at a situation after the battle and say, "yeah your options really sucked, but you fought a great game. In fact your actual use of your limited options was better than what I was able to do." Net result, yeah the VP points are going to reflect simple point values, but you and your opponent have a much more complex perspective on how the battle went. Which of the two determines if you had fun?

Good stuff... unfortunately my current losing effort in Macisle's White Manor h2h scenario isn't going to result in that type of statement.

[sburke]

Good stuff... unfortunately my current losing effort in Macisle's White Manor h2h scenario isn't going to result in that type of statement.

However in reading your DAR it seems to me a pretty accurate statement that you are having fun. Oh wait I think I just assumed that was your DAR, my mistake Baneman, sorry.

[Baneman]

However in reading your DAR it seems to me a pretty accurate statement that you are having fun. Oh wait I think I just assumed that was your DAR, my mistake Baneman, sorry.

lol

I am also having fun though - learning new curse words every day !

You do not want to know the actual names for the "Wonky HMG" and the "Muppet HMG"

I have been surprised at the relatively low incidence of Peanut-Galleriness in the thread though.

[sfhand]

I have actively avoided your, no doubt, excellent DAR because of spoilers. The temptation to "take a quick peek" has been strong though, I'll definitely read it with interest after I've surrendered...

edit: re: having fun... the whole reason I'm playing the game - and h2h never fails to be a deliver win, lose, or draw.