bangers Posted October 7, 2016 Share Posted October 7, 2016 (edited) I was messing around with the quick battle function, and I discovered that the point allocation in assault / defence, attack / defence battles was approximately 3.5 / 2, and 3 / 2 respectively. I was expecting 3 / 1, and 2 / 1. Is there any specific reason why the defender gets more than half the attackers point allocation in both modes ? Edited October 7, 2016 by bangers 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted October 8, 2016 Share Posted October 8, 2016 Because the idea is to give each side a roughly equal chance of victory, and with 2-1 odds or better the attacker will roll over the defender almost every time, at least in human vs human play. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bangers Posted October 8, 2016 Author Share Posted October 8, 2016 Thanks for your reply. What you say makes sense, especially given the fact that the defender will undoubtedly have to spend some points on trenches, foxholes, etc. So one could regard the extra point allocation as a "bunker bonus" However, I am curious to see how a 2:1 ratio att / def QB would work out against another human, so watch this space. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted October 8, 2016 Share Posted October 8, 2016 And don't forget, you can manually increase or diminish the attacker's force ratio in QBs. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletpoint Posted October 8, 2016 Share Posted October 8, 2016 7 hours ago, bangers said: What you say makes sense, especially given the fact that the defender will undoubtedly have to spend some points on trenches, foxholes, etc. So one could regard the extra point allocation as a "bunker bonus" Maybe that's the intention, but trenches and foxholes are pretty useless in this game, so a cunning opponent would use his points for more or better troops. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted October 8, 2016 Share Posted October 8, 2016 (edited) I actually find trenches quite useful. Foxholes, not so much. Hmmm, this reminds me of a bug report I need to make. Edited October 8, 2016 by Vanir Ausf B 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bangers Posted October 8, 2016 Author Share Posted October 8, 2016 8 hours ago, Michael Emrys said: And don't forget, you can manually increase or diminish the attacker's force ratio in QBs. Michael Thanks for that information, I never noticed the force adjustment menu. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bangers Posted October 8, 2016 Author Share Posted October 8, 2016 4 hours ago, Bulletpoint said: Maybe that's the intention, but trenches and foxholes are pretty useless in this game That's a worry, is this something other players have noticed ? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Canadian Cat Posted October 8, 2016 Share Posted October 8, 2016 Some people make that claim. Some do it frequently. I disagree. It is possible that there are tweaks that can be made for small arms fire but there is no better place to be than hiding in a fox hole or trench when artillery is dropping on you. None. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bangers Posted October 8, 2016 Author Share Posted October 8, 2016 (edited) 5 minutes ago, IanL said: Some people make that claim. Some do it frequently. I disagree. It is possible that there are tweaks that can be made for small arms fire but there is no better place to be than hiding in a fox hole or trench when artillery is dropping on you. None. Ok, I don't really have the time to test it, so I guess I will have to find out the hard way Edited October 8, 2016 by bangers 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Canadian Cat Posted October 8, 2016 Share Posted October 8, 2016 Yep, that's the best way to find out. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletpoint Posted October 8, 2016 Share Posted October 8, 2016 (edited) 25 minutes ago, bangers said: 4 hours ago, Bulletpoint said: Maybe that's the intention, but trenches and foxholes are pretty useless in this game That's a worry, is this something other players have noticed ? Maybe I should have elaborated on that. Trenches and foxholes do provide some protection against artillery, but not that much against direct fire. They are a lousy fighting position. In a shootout between your guys in foxholes and the enemy behind bocage, you will lose. Against artillery, you need to have your troops hiding or covering in the foxholes at the moment of impact to get the full effect. Even so, I just played a game where one of my guys was killed by a 105 landing about 30m away, while he was fully prone in a foxhole. Anyway, they are surely better than nothing. But the reason I said they were nearly useless is because in a game of CMBN, there will nearly always be some better cover nearby, and your best bet against artillery is to move away from the zone where it hits. Also, multiplayer games are about mobility. If you try to sit still and defend, you will usually lose. In addition, foxholes and trenches are very easy to spot, and especially in multiplayer you really don't want that. Edited October 8, 2016 by Bulletpoint 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletpoint Posted October 8, 2016 Share Posted October 8, 2016 12 minutes ago, IanL said: there is no better place to be than hiding in a fox hole or trench when artillery is dropping on you. None. I'd say a house offers better protection actually. In the game at least. Better protection against direct or very close ground impacts, and better protection against airburst shells too. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bangers Posted October 8, 2016 Author Share Posted October 8, 2016 Thanks for the feedback guys, now at least I cannot say I wasn't warned 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoMac Posted October 8, 2016 Share Posted October 8, 2016 (edited) 4 hours ago, Bulletpoint said: I'd say a house offers better protection actually. In the game at least. Better protection against direct or very close ground impacts, and better protection against airburst shells too. I concure :-) Joe Edited October 8, 2016 by JoMc67 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MOS:96B2P Posted October 8, 2016 Share Posted October 8, 2016 6 hours ago, Bulletpoint said: <Snip> In addition, foxholes and trenches are very easy to spot, and especially in multiplayer you really don't want that. And once spotted are always displayed on the map no matter if you still have LOS or not. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sublime Posted October 11, 2016 Share Posted October 11, 2016 However sometimes some empty foxholes or trenches are useful to make the enemy waste shells and bullets. I noticed especially say if i have 3 hills and i place foxholes or trenches on 2 where i know theyll be seen. The third has an atg or atgm hiding. The enemy seeing a trench or foxhole on a high los point will undoubtedly shell it and shoot at it. And more often than not with tanks. And the best way to even get crappy troops to spot a tank is for it to be firing on their line of sight at something else. Something about the flash and loud bang attracts attention 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.