Do attackers have an advantage

[Scipio]

Just a quick question - there goes a rumour that says that the attacker in an attack/probe/assault battle has a much hicher chance to win, because of more troops on his side and no special advantages on the defenders side.

Is this true, or is this just a guts feeling?

[Erwin]

if you play vs the AI you are usually faced with many more enemy units than your attacking units.

Based on my hundred or so CM2 battles I have played, I get the "gut feeling" that the attacker's advantage is subtle - eg: moving units (esp armor) seem to spot better than units waiting in ambush, that sort of thing.

[womble]

if you play vs the AI you are usually faced with many more enemy units than your attacking units.

Only in scenarios, or if you choose a force modifier in a QB, and then only in scenarios that have been built for a human to fight the AI. Or if, in a QB, you purchase "superior" units: if the AI has selected a Green Italian Battalion, and you pick an armour-heavy Veteran bunch of customised Armoured Infantry including their rides, you'll be facing more opponents. The points values for the AI are not increased.

Based on my hundred or so CM2 battles I have played, I get the "gut feeling" that the attacker's advantage is subtle - eg: moving units (esp armor) seem to spot better than units waiting in ambush, that sort of thing.

The attacker's biggest advantage is that they get to do the active work. They get to scout and choose where the attack will be pressed home, and apply their concentration of force where they want to. The defender is faced with the unenviable task of failing to defend anything, or electing to concede some territory in order to retain enough concentration to defend some of what he initially holds.

In reality, this dilemma was mitigated by approaches like defense in depth, but a proportion of the maps that come with the game don't permit the defender to have such depth to their formation. I think (but haven't had the chance to prove) that such maps require the defender to actively counterattack at an early opportunity, to force some depth in front of the objective.

[Michael Emrys]

In reality, this dilemma was mitigated by approaches like defense in depth, but a proportion of the maps that come with the game don't permit the defender to have such depth to their formation.

That depends on the map. I've noticed that some maps give the defender's set-up zone considerable depth while others (probably the majority) do not.

Michael

[Jack Ration]

The attacker's biggest advantage is that they get to do the active work. They get to scout and choose where the attack will be pressed home, and apply their concentration of force where they want to. The defender is faced with the unenviable task of failing to defend anything, or electing to concede some territory in order to retain enough concentration to defend some of what he initially holds.

I'm no expert, but I think it is more difficult to be a good defender than attacker because it requires a different skill set. A lot of the defender's work is done in the setup phase. Not as exciting as moving your attacking force. A well placed defence should have the "spotting" advantage, i.e., they should be stationary. How often have you setup a defence only to make some moves early in the game and lose the spotting advantage, i.e., the stationary spotter has a higher probability of achieving "a spot" than the moving spotter. As Rommel says, "he who fires first wins!"

[Vanir Ausf B]

Just a quick question - there goes a rumour that says that the attacker in an attack/probe/assault battle has a much hicher chance to win, because of more troops on his side and no special advantages on the defenders side.

Is this true, or is this just a guts feeling?

There is anecdotal evidence to that effect, but I think it mostly pertains to QBs rather than scenarios and specifically to the Attack setting as that has traditionally been the default. There are 2 issues at work. One is that the Attack QB setting gives the attacker a higher purchase points advantage in CMx2 than it did in CMx1. The CMx2 purchase points ratio equivalent of a CMx1 Attack is the Probe setting. Secondly, small maps mean less opportunity for defense in depth. My (so far) limited PBEM experience is that when playing on a large-ish map (2 km² minimum) with VLs located deep in the defender's setup zone it is not a gimme for the attacker and if combined with the Probe setting would be very challenging, but I need more experience to say for sure.

[Childress]

Nah, it's all in the points. BF hasn't adjusted the attacker/defender ratio or unit values since the game came out 2 yrs ago. Since then there have been significant changes, like the MG buff or the recent FOW strictures, which skew the advantage in favor of the defending side. But they refuse to revisit QB parameters. It's bottomless pit of controversy, ya see.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Since then there have been significant changes, like the MG buff or the recent FOW strictures, which skew the advantage in favor of the defending side.

Generally true, although I have noticed that machine guns are now very effective for suppressing defenders... once you know where they are.

I think the rule of thumb for QBs right now is to play attack/defend games under the Probe setting unless the map is favorable to the defense, i.e. close terrain and plenty of space for defense in depth.

[Freyberg]

Perhaps defending is just harder...

[Vanir Ausf B]

Given equal forces I would rather be the defender any day, on any map.

[Lt Belenko]

Maybe attacker has the advantage in H2H games because the in majority of solo games the human is the attacker. Thus having much more practice at attacking.

[agusto]

Given equal forces I would rather be the defender any day, on any map.

"The general who knows when to fight and when not to fight is going to win a thousand battles" - Sun Tzu

IMO the reason why attacking may seem to be easier in tactical CM campaigns/battles than defending is because those higher up on command chain made sure on the operational level that you have good chances to win before ordering you to attack.

[Redwolf]

Just a quick question - there goes a rumour that says that the attacker in an attack/probe/assault battle has a much hicher chance to win, because of more troops on his side and no special advantages on the defenders side.

Is this true, or is this just a guts feeling?

Kind of a basic question, is it? Has somebody taken over your account?

If not, is the question specific to CMx2WW2 or real life?

[Michael Emrys]

...unless the map is favorable to the defense, i.e. close terrain and plenty of space for defense in depth.

I am finding that close terrain is not always as advantageous to the defender as open terrain. Close terrain may allow covered approaches to the attacker, whereas open terrain may mean a long approach march under fire if he runs out of smoke before he can get near enough for his weapons to be effective against well-placed and/or dug in defenders.

Michael

[Scipio]

Kind of a basic question, is it? Has somebody taken over your account?

If not, is the question specific to CMx2WW2 or real life?

To be more specific, it's about H2H Quick battles, because QBs are static in there attacker/defender point values.

[Redwolf]

Just a quick question - there goes a rumour that says that the attacker in an attack/probe/assault battle has a much hicher chance to win, because of more troops on his side and no special advantages on the defenders side.

Is this true, or is this just a guts feeling?

The defender is just missing things in CMx2. The MGs got fixed but there are concerns left over about fortifications, fog of war around fortifications, and especially fortifications housing guns not making the guns hard to spot. And of HE exploding behind a unit in a fortification, but behind the supposed foxhole. There is no way to match the holdup effect reported from few anti-tank guns (single or pairs) during Normandy or Market Garden.

Guns still cannot back up, so you can't pull them down the hill without a full turn. A full turn is very slow, I really don't know how long it is supposed to take to pick up the carriage. Not that the turn should be needed to back up. Hooking them up to a vehicle or quickly unmounting them and firing the way you see many WW2 guns set up isn't modeled either.

You can't build trench systems that allow you to move under fire.

The advantage of ammo stocking and easier resupply (see trenches) isn't there.

The rules for guns being in contact or not with a spotting HQ (for indirect fire) are overly random. I can set up 4 guns next to each other (like a battery), place multiple HQs in direct LOS, everybody with radios, and some guns will be reachable and others won't.

Some outright bugs around spotting, e.g. spotting sharpshooters from inside a moving tank.

Zeroing in, I don't even know what model is supposed to be in effect.

[Scipio]

Any idea for QB settings to work around this problem in H2H? Such as

auto purchase for the attacker

no map preview

a purchase point deduction

restricting force to only one branch (infantry, mech, armor)

[Vanir Ausf B]

As I stated above, just play them as a Probe instead of Attack.

I also prefer to play with random weather. Not only for the realism but because bad weather tends to favor the defender, IMO.

[slysniper]

moving units (esp armor) seem to spot better than units waiting in ambush, that sort of thing.

Not true.

Tested this myself and wondered the same thing. attacker spots very quickly. but in all fairness. When its one on one. The defender that is motionless does generally have a decent advantage to be the first to spot the moving enemy.

[slysniper]

You have some good points, but at other times, you just get too picky.

The rules for guns being in contact or not with a spotting HQ (for indirect fire) are overly random. I can set up 4 guns next to each other (like a battery), place multiple HQs in direct LOS, everybody with radios, and some guns will be reachable and others won't.

This is sure funny, I have done this type of set up many times and never have had a problem having my guns in radio contact. I am also impressed with how well the ammo is shared between the units and I have to be mindful of it. Is it a perfect system, heck no. But it functions pretty good for a game.

It sure is not a area that needs fixed with all the other items that could improved before it.

Some outright bugs around spotting, e.g. spotting sharpshooters from inside a moving tank.

Have you checked this lately. It is much improved. maybe not perfect, but much better. I have a five man team right now in a HtoH game sitting right under the noise of a Sherman and it has been 3 minutes so far. Not spotted yet. So they have made adjustments per our comments on this board.

[womble]

Any idea for QB settings to work around this problem in H2H? Such as

auto purchase for the attacker

Well, if you want the game to be a lottery as to whether it's playable of not, that might work, but generally it's a bad idea.

no map preview

Will sort of work, but if you've bought a combined arms force it should work on most maps, and if it's a flat table where you needed to spend 70% of your points on tanks, you just lost the lottery.

Both these options have no necessary bearing on whether a game has any interest for either side.

a purchase point deduction

As Vanir says, start with Probe, and trim the attacker's points a bit if you both think the attacker has the advantage. That's what the force modification is for: to balance out intrinsic advantages.

restricting force to only one branch (infantry, mech, armor)

Again, this is going to move the game towards being a lottery. If it's a map of broad vistas and you're only allowed infantry to attack with (and the defender has free choice), you'll be screwed. If it's a Bocage maze and you're only allowed armour, likewise. It might be fun, after a fashion, for a while, but make sure it's a short scenario.

In the end, balance is what you make of it. If you really care about advantage and disadvantage, you'll have to play two games with each of you playing the same forces, and necessarily full knowledge of the OOBs of each side.

[slysniper]

The defender is just missing things in CMx2.

You can't build trench systems that allow you to move under fire.

The advantage of ammo stocking and easier resupply (see trenches) isn't there.

Now on the other hand, I really do support this aspect of the game improving,

Just in general. defensive structures could be improved and given more abilities. It is interesting in that I am testing a scenario right now and I am pretty sure. Bunkers have improved in defensive abilties since the early releases. but the present trench system is still poor. (in general - the game trench does not provide enough cover, very easy to pin units in trenches. At least troops dont die as quickly now. direct small arms fire does not kill like it once did but these are still way off of what a real trench would be about as to how effective it could be in combat.

[Vanir Ausf B]

This is sure funny, I have done this type of set up many times and never have had a problem having my guns in radio contact.

Yeah, I don't know what Redwolf is talking about. As far as the rules for maintaining C2 links are concerned the only random elements that I am aware of is that radios don't work consistently, and if you play on Iron difficulty then friendly units don't automatically spot each other when in LOS. That is by design.

.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Just in general. defensive structures could be improved and given more abilities. It is interesting in that I am testing a scenario right now and I am pretty sure. Bunkers have improved in defensive abilties since the early releases. but the present trench system is still poor. (in general - the game trench does not provide enough cover, very easy to pin units in trenches. At least troops dont die as quickly now. direct small arms fire does not kill like it once did but these are still way off of what a real trench would be about as to how effective it could be in combat.

Allowing Bazookas, Schrecks and Fausts to fire from buildings would help the defender too.

[Redwolf]

This is sure funny, I have done this type of set up many times and never have had a problem having my guns in radio contact. I am also impressed with how well the ammo is shared between the units and I have to be mindful of it. Is it a perfect system, heck no. But it functions pretty good for a game.

It sure is not a area that needs fixed with all the other items that could improved before it.

Yeah, it was in the thread where we investigated the bug where indirect firing guns will just fire into terrain obstacles in their path, and continue to do so forever. Which is still happening. In that test I had a lot of guns at the back of the map and they were randomly in contact and not, as in guns sitting next to each other.

If you really want to know that thread can be dug up but it was definitely 2.x code.