Battle types?

[Ubiquitous]

I see that there are four battle types in the game:

Assault, Attack, Probe and Meeting Engagement

but I'm not sure what exactly the difference (especially between the first three) is. Could someone clarify?

[A Canadian Cat]

Humm the 2.11 manual is a little light on that (pp18):

Battle Type - Meeting Engagement, Probe, Attack, Assault, or Random. This setting

has an impact of what type of Quick Battle Map will be loaded: if you select Meeting

Engagement, only maps defined as Meeting Engagement will be considered for

loading. If you choose any of the other Battle Types, then only maps which are

NOT a Meeting Engagement are considered. The Battle Type also determines

how many “purchase points” the defender/attacker will receive to assemble their

forces. Additionally, the attacker in an Assault type battle automatically receives

a certain level of intelligence/recon information at the beginning of the battle,

informing him about a certain % of known enemy positions.

Basically the points for each side are equal for a Meeting engagement in the other battle types the attacker gets more points with Probe being the smallest advantage and Assault the largest point advantage to the attacker.

[SlowMotion]

In first 3 there is an attacker and defender. How much stronger the attacker is depends on the battle type. Map objectives are usually in defender's part of the map.

In meeting engagement both sides should be about equal strength. Map objectives are usually in the middle of the map.

[JoMac]

Assault= Up to double the points then Defender...Attacking a defender with built-up Field Defenses such as Mine Fields\Wires, Elaborate Entrenchments, Pillboxes, several TRP's, etc.

Attack= same as above except much less Field Defenses such as individual Foxholes, single mines, etc.

Probe= Up to 50% more poinsts then Defender. Probing a weak spot in enemy defenses with objectives usually closer for the Attacker. These objectives are primarely used for Intel Gathering for future Attacks.

[Ubiquitous]

Thanks, that's very clear.

[womble]

The battle type also skews the proportion of VPs that are awarded for VLs and enemy force damage. It doesn't have any bearing on available field defenses whatsoever, at least for human picks. You could fight a Meeting Engagment against just mines and an FO (need an FO as the "mandatory formation"). You'd win, because the mines can't be placed outside the opposition's deployment zone... But the same applies across the types: players have the full gamut of fortifications to choose from within their points allocation.

Yeah, the AI picks fortifications, but if you're letting the AI pick its own forces, you're effectively cheating: the Huge Assault I just tried, on a heavily urbanised map picked a company of Shermans, two extra Shermans, an FO (1 module of 105s) and a sniper, along with a load of foxholes and sandbag walls and mixed mines. Riiiight...

[Pak40]

Yeah, the AI picks fortifications, but if you're letting the AI pick its own forces, you're effectively cheating: the Huge Assault I just tried, on a heavily urbanised map picked a company of Shermans, two extra Shermans, an FO (1 module of 105s) and a sniper, along with a load of foxholes and sandbag walls and mixed mines. Riiiight...

Yea, the AI force choices are utter crap. This has been one of the biggest disappointments to me in the CMx2 engine. The initial pre-made maps for quick battles was also utter garbage. They've been improved but I've been so put off by the quick battle experience in CMBN I haven't looked at it since the year that it came out. CMBO quick battles were fun at least, although the tactical AI was predictable. This is one area of the game that has regressed IMO.

[Michael Emrys]

The initial pre-made maps for quick battles was also utter garbage.

I wouldn't put it quite that strongly, but yes most of them were a disappointing joke. Not meaning to disparage the hard working guys who made them, but there is a learning curve in mapmaking just as there is in everything to do with CM, and at the beginning anyone who wanted to make maps had a lot of learning ahead of them.

They've been improved but I've been so put off by the quick battle experience in CMBN I haven't looked at it since the year that it came out.

In general throughout the game family the maps have improved vastly. Some of the older ones for BN could use some redoing, but the ones for MG are marvelous. And a number of user-made maps for BN are fine. If you are interested in the theater, you might give it another try.

Michael

[slysniper]

The only way I use it is by going in and selecting the units and the map.

That is about the only way I have found to make it interesting at all and there is the issue of AI unit placement of troops and how they are used.

So in general, I cannot play it blind and when I play it, the Ai is non - existant.

So QB's are pretty much only good for h2h, and I will take the maps now over the old concept of a computer generated one. (some of them were terrible in the old format) So I dont get why so many think the maps are the issue - it is the other aspects of it. The maps are ok in my book (except the cmbn original ones) And they can be fixed if you invest some time

[MikeyD]

Something players do sometimes is pick one battle type then try to play another. They pick 'assault' then play as a 'meeting engagement' and wonder why the AI isn't moving any troop forward to engage. They aren't moving forward because they're tasked to defend! Players also forget they had selected the 'attacker' role and instead set up a fortified position, awaiting an enemy that is at the other end of the map awaiting them. THE AI isn't a mind reader, its not going scouting for you on its own initiative.

[slysniper]

Something players do sometimes is pick one battle type then try to play another. They pick 'assault' then play as a 'meeting engagement' and wonder why the AI isn't moving any troop forward to engage. They aren't moving forward because they're tasked to defend! Players also forget they had selected the 'attacker' role and instead set up a fortified position, awaiting an enemy that is at the other end of the map awaiting them. THE AI isn't a mind reader, its not going scouting for you on its own initiative.

Well, that is not the AI's fault there. But that is not what I am taking about.

Since cm2 has came out I can only recall one time the AI made an attack that was actually challenging and it somewhat made sense what it was doing. I just don't think it is worth wasting time on, it is not well programmed. It might be worse than CMX1, at least there I could count on it doing a pretty good job if you let it play the defensive side and gave it extra troops.

For some players it might be good still for learning how to play. But even then, it really is not teaching them anything they need to play a person.

Face it, they are not trying to spend time in that part of the programming anymore. Too much effort for no real return as far as making money.

[Baneman]

Assault= Up to double the points then Defender...Attacking a defender with built-up Field Defenses such as Mine Fields\Wires, Elaborate Entrenchments, Pillboxes, several TRP's, etc.

Attack= same as above except much less Field Defenses such as individual Foxholes, single mines, etc.

Probe= Up to 50% more poinsts then Defender. Probing a weak spot in enemy defenses with objectives usually closer for the Attacker. These objectives are primarely used for Intel Gathering for future Attacks.

In QB's, the difference between Probes and Attack battles, the numbers ( from Medium size battle ) are

Attack

Attacker -- Defender

3175 ------ 1945 : ( defender is 61% of attacker )

Probe

Attacker -- Defender

3052 ------ 2068 : ( defender is 67% of attacker )

General opinion is that Probe is about as high an Attack/Defend disparity as you can go ( in a QB ) and still give the Defender a realistic chance at winning.

Above Probe ( barring a very rough/defensible map ), the Attacker will squish all before him.