Point values in attack/defense QBs - flawed?

[Guest Germanboy]

After playing the game for a while now, a very simple pattern begins to emerge in my PBEM QBs:

attack - I win

defense - I lose

This is of course non-scientific, but that's why there is a question mark in the topic. I would be interested in opinions on the matter, but not in advice like 'Play a meeting engagement' or 'Play a probe game'. The former bore me to tears, the latter I will do in the future, although I will probably resort to canned scenarios more often. Now that we have the obvious out of the way:

IMO, there is a problem with the points advantage given to the attacker, because all too often when the attacker avoids absolutely terrible mistakes, for him (please note that him is simply used for sake of simplicity and does not indicate any gender bias) it is impossible to lose, while the defender has to display incredible skill or be favoured by extreme luck to pull off a draw.

One solution to deal with this would be to give the defender more points, another one would be to make defensive equipment like minefields or barb wire much cheaper. On many of the CM computer generated maps, it is impossible to channel an attack with just a bit of barb wire. They are very open and are often displaying terrain that is simply indefensible with the forces at hand.

This is of course my personal impression, and it could also be that I am incredibly bad at defending and very good at attacking (or play people who are incredibly bad at defending and are incredibly good at attacking). I don't know, but for the moment I would like to explore the idea that the points are too high for the attacker or that defensive equipment is overpriced.

So what are your experiences? Is there a problem or not. If so, it would be important to fix it or do somefink for CM2, if not that is good to know and confirms the designers' choice for the next game.

On a side note, I would be quite interested in what went into the figures we see in the game. Lots of testing? Dupuy? Other research? Probably a combination of these, but it would be interesting to know.

------------------

Andreas

<a href="http://www.geocities.com/greg_mudry/sturm.html">Der Kessel</a >

Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission.

[This message has been edited by Germanboy (edited 11-13-2000).]

[M. Bates]

When defending I *pray* that the generated map has the kind of tree coverage which I can combine with roadblocks to "seal off" one half of the map.

I can *just* draw a game by chanelling the infantry through woods and taking out the enemy armour when they approach hill tops, but it all seems contrived and gamey.

[Croda]

I'll agree with you, Andreas, that playing defense does seem to be a fight to maintain as much of your ground as possible, but giving up all hope of retaining all of it.

It is nigh on impossible to defend every VL. To split your forces like that promises near certain defeat. It also seems that to construct a defense with any sort of depth is counterproductive. The deployment boundry does not allow setup far enough forward to give yourself decent room to fall back to your objectives. Thus, the defense is packed in tight around the victory flags.

What seems to always happen is that the attacker will approach to contact and then attack along all defensive fronts. What then results is a battle of attrition until the defense crumbles, or the turns run out. Never is an attacker repulsed entirely.

Now to echo Andreas, perhaps this is a result of my poor strategy, or that of my opponent. I don't know. I do however think the problem stems from the QB generator's VL placement. This often places VLs in indefensible positions, or 1 of 3 or 4 far away from the rest. Unfortunately, it is most likely difficult to place logic behind this.

I'm tired and starting to ramble, so I'll finish. Maybe it's a problem with the setup as Andreas explains and maybe it's not, but I do echo his sentiments. You're not alone, Germanboy.

------------------

"Nuts!"

[Chupacabra]

I'd agree with that. I've won a few defense games against humans, but only when A) the AI picked both sides' forces or the other guy did something exploitably foolish.

------------------

Grand Poobah of the fresh fire of Heh.

[Ron]

I'm not so sure if there's a problem with the points advantage given to the Attacker but perhaps how it is allocated. When the defender is given a Combined Arms force, IMO, not enough points are allowed for infantry/support. Selecting an Infantry force alleviates that but then eliminates the vehicle and armour selection. What type of force do you use when defending? Personally I would choose an Infantry force, the attack/defend QBs I have played have been difficult but not unwinnable I felt.

Ron

[Alexander]

Come on guys- it's not complicated. The computer generated maps are way too wide.

As it is the defender is impelled to choose Veteran+ units so he can split them up into widely spaced, relatively independant teams.

Fionn's last AAR is a good example. In CMBO, Germans must defend in Western Europe with the same desperate, creative dispersion they improvised on the Russian steppes. This applies to the Allies on defense as well, of course.

[Chupacabra]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Alexander:

In CMBO, Germans must defend in Western Europe with the same desperate, creative dispersion they improvised on the Russian steppes. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And look how well this worked for the Germans.

------------------

Grand Poobah of the fresh fire of Heh.

[jshandorf]

Ron has a valid point. I feel that you should be allowed more flexibility in the placement of your points. This I believe can make a defensive victory more attainable.

Other than that I believe point allotment is fine the way it is. I have played several battles where I am the defender and I have either won or lost depending on a number of factors and most aren't luck on my part or my opponent. Usually it is just good tactics and smart maneuvering.

Croda, watch and learn from our battle if you don't think a person can pull off a win on defense. I'm not bragging just telling you to pay attention.

Also.. If you guys think that you can ALWAYS win when you attack... Send a friendly e-mail to Fionn and challenge him. He will teach you a few things and I promise you, you WON'T win for a long time no matter what side you play.

Jeff

[Pvt. Ryan]

I find that success on defense is significantly determined by the terrain. If there a lot of trees and the terrain is hilly, the attacker can advance under cover and assault the defender from close range and with intact infantry support. When the terrain provides little cover the defender can pummel the attacker from long range and attrit his forces so that they are weak when and if they finally reach their objectives. It also depends on which side you are playing. A close range battle is better for the Allies while a long range slug fest benefits the Axis, at least where armor is concerned.

[jshandorf]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pvt. Ryan:

I find that success on defense is significantly determined by the terrain. If there a lot of trees and the terrain is hilly, the attacker can advance under cover and assault the defender from close range and with intact infantry support. When the terrain provides little cover the defender can pummel the attacker from long range and attrit his forces so that they are weak when and if they finally reach their objectives. It also depends on which side you are playing. A close range battle is better for the Allies while a long range slug fest benefits the Axis, at least where armor is concerned.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not really...

I am currently playing a battle where the entire map is practically covered in heavy woods. So far I have been able to predict his advance and through ambushes and ALOT of maneuvering I have pretty much wiped out all his infantry except for 1 platoon and I have only lost 1 platoon.

Also.. If you are playing the allies you never want to engage in a long range duel with armor. It is folly to do so. You are playing right into the axis strength.

Honestly I believe there isn't a map you can't defend. Also I believe a large part of whether you win or lose depends on the units you have/pick at the start.

Jeff

[mensch]

I faintly remember posting something similar, it was a 600pt game attack... and so on.. my testing was much like Gerbilboy..oops sorry wrong thread.. germanboys results.. attacking I won every time (with at most 30% losses) defending I lost 8 out of 10 games the two I won were barely and or a draw.

personaly seeing this patern, I came up with maybe a little suggestion. I'm not so upset or anoyed that the attacker has more point , just maybe reducing the cost on defence items like bunkers (which in my mind get taken out way to easy), mine fields (which in my eyes don't realy slow down troops) and barbed wire (which are the most effective item on the list). Also things like which are not on the list that would have been nice.. treaches and covered trenches, dragons teeth, magnetic mines for tanks.

My observations where I beat the QB AI was I had a doozy of a defendible position that a child with a pile of rocks could hold back a whole company of troops, the other was like I said I invested in barbedwire (lots of it) and it slowed down the computer. It was beautiful to see troops trying to run through the stuff only to get cut up no pun intended, get routed and try to run back through the stuff...

so hmm when I won was two factors 1) terrain and 2)barbedwire.

--------------

<a href="http://www.geocities.com/greg_mudry/sturm.html">Der Kessel</a >

Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission.

[L.Tankersley]

This tallies closely with my own experience. In non-meeting-engagement QB scenarios, to the best of my recollection I have won every time I have attacked, and lost every time I have defended. Sometimes it's been close, but usually not. Thinking back, I'm fairly sure that most of the time I've been defending I've been the Allies, so I haven't had the heavy fortifications that are available to the Germans.

My gut feeling is that smaller scenarios would have less of a bias this way. In attack scenarios of 1000 points or more it seems like the attacker has an inexhaustible supply of men and vehicles, and any ambushing force is quickly cut off and destroyed. In a small engagement, the attacker can't afford many mistakes - the loss of a platoon or a vehicle can mean the difference between success and failure. It's worth noting that the original release of CM only allowed QBs up to 1000 points, right? The larger forces were only enabled after the initial release in response to player demand, and probably the balance of larger QB games wasn't evaluated [at least not as closely]. Does anyone have comments on potential attacker/defender bias in smaller (<1000 pt) games?

I would like to play against someone that feels they are really good at defense (preferably someone that's won a few PBEM victories as a defender) just to see how it goes. Feel free to contact me.

------------------

Leland J. Tankersley

[This message has been edited by L.Tankersley (edited 11-13-2000).]

[Guest Pillar]

I'd like to see more barbed wire and to a lesser extent more minefields available to the defender.

[ScoutPL]

I think what you guys are missing is that this is a reality based game. No one in WWII would attack a defended position unless he held a numerical advantage. Thats why they set the points up like they did. It may be a little heavy on the attacker side but lets face it, any time you're attacking your glad for those 3 to 1 odds right? I personnally love to defend under any circumstances, you just have to know how to do it. Actually, for my tutorial that I'm working on, I had to play my example scenario a couple times before I got a major victory for the defense, they're just that damn close! You should look at defending against realistic odds as a challenge and work on getting better, rather then blaming the programmers!!

Besides, you could always just send forward scouts! That always leads to a quick victory, or so I'm told!

JUST KIDDING!!

[PeterNZer]

Matches my experiences.

Sure Jeff, it is possible, but you might be rather good, (and fionn definately is), and so measuring success or not of defence vs. you two is hardly worthwhile.

As a rule, i generally loose on defence, and win on attack. Something like a 70:30 swing.

The only time I've won on defence is when the enemy could only attack via two routes and I covered them both, mostly from one position he couldn't really spot with arty.

Had I been more unlucky, I would have lost.

I'm inclined to suggest dropping fortifications costs. Part of the fun of an attack is seeing the wire, mines, bunkers and so on.. adds some variety. For attack misisons, make 'em cheaper, since you are supposed to be attacking fairly prepares positions?

PeterNZ

------------------

"I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully." George W Bush -Saginaw, Mich.,

Sept. 29, 2000

[John Hough]

Pretty much my experience too. I've won every attack I've played, lost every defense. Drew the meeting engagement. These weren't necessarily the best players ever, but they haven't seemed too bad either.

Part of it, I think, is that defense is just harder to do, if you don't have a clear idea of how to do it properly. You need to know more to properly use your position to overcome the disadvantage in force size. I think that's why I prefer defending, just because it is harder.

I don't know that BTS should do anything with the points to fix this, but I think someone who does have a good victory record on the defense should write up something on defensive tactics and help out us clueless folks.

-John

[Alexander]

John Hough posted:

Part of it, I think, is that defense is just harder to do, if you don't have a clear idea of how to do it properly. You need to know more to properly use your position to overcome the disadvantage in force size. I think that's why I prefer defending, just because it is harder.

In a QB of 1500 points the average map, in my relatively limited experience, tends to measure 1000 wide and 800-900 deep. Increase the points and the width increases viv a vis depth.

You're defending a square, with only enough troops to form a point defense. Older wargames would have 'fixed' units on the wings providing a shoulder or simply a narrower front. There's little sense of breaking thru a front line in CM, because there's rarely enough troops to form a continuous frontline.

I stick to my original idea. If the attacker wins 3/4 of the time, IMO, it's because the front line is too extended.It comes down to narrowing the map(CM2) or increasing point allotment for defense (1.06).

[Basebal351]

I think that people run into trouble when they form their defense AROUND the Victory Locations. I simply use those as a GUIDE when forming my attack and defense plan. It's the attacker's job to not only get the Victory Locations, but to come to your defender's location as well. HE has to come to YOU! YOU can choose where you want to make the defense. Choose good ambush spots, or easily defensible locations where he can't easily flank, or even AFFORD to go around.

He can't pass up one of your positions just to go get a victory location, if he does he's not playing smart and then you can hit his flanks or his rear (you know what I mean!!).

Final word...TRY TO LET THE TERRAIN, AND NOT THE VICTORY LOCATIONS DETERMINE YOUR STRATEGY. I *hate* VL's in the first place, though. They should just give "key points," and let the player determine how to go about his plan from there. Stupid VL's...

Thanks,

Jim

[Guest Pillar]

C'mon you puny little Scout army boy, rise to the challenge I so honourably have put forward. The US Army doesn't use chickens for scouts do they?

(Haven't gotten a reply email from you yet)

[MacMogul]

Funny, I seem to have had the opposite experience from everyone here. I don't know how many PBEMs I've played, but I rarely win attacks, and usually have trouble with meeting engagements, but have always done well in defenses (though I've only played a few).

Maybe it's luck, or my opponents (more likely luck, my opponents have seemed quite capable generally), but I'm currently uncommitted PBEM-wise, so I'd happily test my skill even if it means being smacked around by some of the distinguished posters here.

[Goanna]

While I have found that my experience matches that of yours Andreas (although I suck on the attack more), to me it has not so much to do with the points balance, but rather the forces balance and the map (VL # and placement and map width).

After quickly realising that QB's were falling into a familiar pattern, which was wholly unexpected since they are the way that CMBO is always supposed to stay fresh, I came up with the workaround that I have used since then. It involves getting a random (or designed) map from a third party and having them buy the forces of the two players. This allows there to be a map that neither player has too much time with beforehand, and eliminates the problems of too many or poorly placed VLs. It also allows each player to select their forces in a way that doesn't have all the restrictions of the QB engine (like mixing vets with greens, force balances etc.). All it takes then is a bit of fair play on the side of the two combatants that the third party can adjudicate so that things like 3 elite Fireflies aren't selected.

This takes a little extra time and some help from a third party, but these types of quasi-QBs I have had have been some of the most enjoyable outside of well made canned scenarios.

[This message has been edited by Goanna (edited 11-14-2000).]

[Guest grunto]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ron:

I'm not so sure if there's a problem with the points advantage given to the Attacker but perhaps how it is allocated. When the defender is given a Combined Arms force, IMO, not enough points are allowed for infantry/support. Selecting an Infantry force alleviates that but then eliminates the vehicle and armour selection. What type of force do you use when defending? Personally I would choose an Infantry force, the attack/defend QBs I have played have been difficult but not unwinnable I felt.

Ron<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

i've had a bit of success defending in assaults (yikes).

the way i do it with germans is to load up on aa halftracks, recoilless rifles, and if it's late enough in the war, pupchens. in QBs all of the realism is out the window so you want to buy what gives the most bang for the buck. i find this to be:

sdkfz 7/1 and 7/2

20mm aa

spw 250/9 (20mm halftrack)

75mm recoilless

psw 234/3 is pretty good at 67 points

those quad 20mm (7/1) halftracks rock!

one time i lined a ridge with 20mm quad halftracks and 75mm recoilless rifles... even in an assault the americans had a tough time of it... i also had 6 wespes which 'attacked' up the flank and took a hill position on one of the attacker's corners of the board. by then he got bored and quit. he didn't have the stomach to come out of the woods and charge my quad 20s.

another time i was defending behind a hill and loaded up on sdkfz 7/1 and pupchens... the american assault was completely wiped out...

that particular opponent lost interest in quick battles, and i don't blame him.

so yes you can succesfully defend in quick battles if you go for the 'bang for the buck.'

with americans, load up on m8 hmcs.

andy

[Guest grunto]

to solve this problem, play a qb as a 'mirror.' at the point where you choose sides, hit shift-s and save the game... then you can play the same game both ways so the challenge is to see who can put up a better defense.

also, i agree that the barbed wire should be cheaper.

andy

[Guest Big Time Software]

Just so you know... we started noticing patterns like this a while ago. It is especially noticable with Assault scenarios over 1000 points on a fairly open map. The problem is less noticable with Attack, and has much more variability (i.e. I just beat the crap out of a friend while defending) depending on force choices, map layout, and weather.

We are planning on doing a couple of things.

1. Lower the point ratios between attacker and defender for both Attack and Assault battles. Assault will be reduced more than for Attack.

2. Reduce the cost for fortifications. How many of you have ever made a legit wire/mine defense? Well, in Assault you are supposed to be able to do this, but I for one don't see how it is possible as is.

That is about all I can remember off the top of my head. This is going back about 1.5 months ago, but was put on ice because of TCP/IP. But help is on the way with the 1.1 patch

Steve

[Guest Germanboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

Just so you know... we started noticing patterns like this a while ago. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well at least now I know that I could be a beta tester... Thanks for the info Steve.

Thanks everyone for the contribution. I am glad to see that the criticism is late in the day, and already being dealt with (what else is new).

------------------

Andreas

<a href="http://www.geocities.com/greg_mudry/sturm.html">Der Kessel</a >

Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission.

[This message has been edited by Germanboy (edited 11-14-2000).]