Objective size in QB assaults

[poesel]

I have played several assault QBs and noticed that on all of them the objective to defend tends to be very large - sometimes going from edge to edge (sorry, don't have the map names at hand).

That strikes me a bit odd since at this size the objective is undefendable. With an assault the odds are nearly 2:1 against the defender and you would have to spread the few men you have so thin that it would be useless.

The flip side is of course that it is also hard for the attacker to avoid a draw if the defender can hide somewhere and contest the VL.

Now this isn't really a problem since you can easily change the map in the editor. What I would like to know is the reasoning for making the VLs so big in first place?

I know that the people who made the maps are reading this so maybe you could enlighten me!

[womble]

Looking at the consequences of the decision, I'd say it's so that the defender has a chance to make clearing the objective difficult. Assault odds are so skewed that with even-ability players the attacker is going to splatter the defender pretty badly unless the defender gets lucky with a setup zone turn 1 bombardment (which I think is the reason Assaults get the odds they do... they anticipate losses to such a tactic).

If there were several small, scattered VLs, good recon by the attacker would determine which could be taken by light detachments and which were actually defended and needed the application of the main weight of the attackers, meaning the defender's job would be even harder.

[poesel]

Bombing the setup zone is a great no-no for H2H QBs. Do you assume that assaults are not winnable for the defender without that tactic?

Big objectives make it of course more difficult for the attacker to clear them. But this tactic yields a draw as best outcome for the defender.

[Nelson 1812]

Thought big objective zones were to help the AI play.

[womble]

Bombing the setup zone is a great no-no for H2H QBs.

I'm aware that's a widely held opinion. I've even held that opinion myself.

Do you assume that assaults are not winnable for the defender without that tactic?

Pretty much. It certainly seems to be a widely held opinion that the attacker has a very distinct advantage, having enough points to easily generate localised 3, 4 or 5:1 odds while not opening any opportunities for effective counterattacks. Seems to me that the general consensus is that a Probe tends to offer the most even game, most of the time, if you're looking at an attack/defend situation. Of course, the context will modify this generalisation. If one player is significantly more experienced and/or tactically astute, or if the terrain is very well suited for defense, an attacker might need the points odds of an Assault to make for a game that's entertaining for both sides.

Big objectives make it of course more difficult for the attacker to clear them. But this tactic yields a draw as best outcome for the defender.

With regard to terrain VLs, yes, but that's not the only factor. QBs also assign VPs to unit destruction, and if the terrain VL is zeroed out for both sides, the relative damage done becomes the decider as to who wins. Since level of victory is assessed on the VP ratio, if the defender causes twice as many casualties they can still win. If the terrain VL consisted of easily identifiable and clearable discrete locations, the attacker could more easily generate an advantage in that column of the VP ledger.

Edit: I just checked in the game, to remind myself, and the units provide 1/4 of the VP available in an Assault QB, with the Occupy VL(s) making up the other 3/4. Which is still nugatory if the defender can maintain even the tiniest toehold in the expansive VL.