Point values in attack/defense QBs - flawed?

[Hunter]

Steve,

Glad to know that you are onto it

I agree with many of the posters, and think defence is a 'bad bet' for a ladder player. Not only is it harder to win (although I have) but it is harder to get a 'big win' (although I have done that too).

Could fortifications be lowered more when it is an assault than for an attack? It would be really nice to be able to buy mines and wire but you just can't afford the points as it is. After all, you are already outnumbered two to one, why make it worse by spending your points on easily avoided wire?

TRPs should be dang-near free for the defender in an assault? After all, they don't take resources to build. I know that the points are a reflection of how useful they are, not how much they cost to build, but maybe the presence of TRPs for the defender can just be built into the 'defenders advantage'. Maybe reduce the points from 30 to 20? Or alternatively give the defender one TRP for each 1000 points.

Shouldn't the attack:defence ratios be different for allied and german? After all, the germans get bunkers and the like, whereas the allies don't?

Bruce

[Jarmo]

I've won a few defenses.

There are a few ways this can happen.

1. Attacker runs out of time, on a large map or/and with less time

this can happen easily.

2. The weather is bad. Rain ar snow will be a big problem for the attacker.

3. Attacker has sub-100% force.

4. Attacker does something stupid.

[mensch]

I agree with Hunter.. after reading up lots on the german defences in Normady they had months if not a few years to plot every single piece of important land formation there... so often that the even plotted there own positions incase it got over run and needed to call in fast artillery. (nasty they were)

---------

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

[PeterNZer]

Glad to see we might be looking at cheaper defensive toys to play with. That is going to be a lot of fun!

I always wanted to build a nice fortress but the points are always too tight to afford much of this stuff, and if you do, you can rely on the bad guys circumnavigating it.

For those that have said you win on defense etc, well good on ya. On average tho, I would say that most folks loose more on defense than tehy do on attack, and it's not due to some total lack of tactical knowledge, just the way the game plays out.

I think currently attackers benefit from knowing their facing a well emplaced enemy and they have learnt lessons a lot of commanders had to learn the hard way. As has been stated, unless the attacker makes a big mistake or gets unlucky, if they are careful and thoughtful they will likely win.

I remember in the demos playing Reisburg over and over with a mate and whoever was defending always lost.

Anyway, I ramble, nice to see BTS are on to it.. and damn it, a cesspudlian has just sent me a setup where i'm defending.. Grr

PeterNZ

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

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

Sept. 29, 2000

[Kurtz]

It's easier to attack because you can concentrate your firepower on a narrower section of the battlefield to achieve a breakthrough, the defender still has to defend the entire front and is vulnerable when he tries to regroup. I also think that the foxholes give very little protection against artillery, especially against treebursts. This makes sense for open foxholes, but if you have overhead protection the effect on arty should be lessened. Maybe different kinds of troop fortifications are needed...

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

Spending extravagant amounts of money for marginal improvements is only acceptable in the fields of racehorses and fancy women.

-Lord Kelvin

[tss]

Jarmo wrote:

I've won a few defenses.

There are a few ways this can happen.

1. Attacker runs out of time, on a large map or/and with less time

this can happen easily.

2. The weather is bad. Rain ar snow will be a big problem for the attacker.

3. Attacker has sub-100% force.

4. Attacker does something stupid.

That makes it 3 out of 4. Or 4 out of 4 if you count 2996 points out of 3000 sub-100%.

BTW. Your mail is bouncing.

- Tommi

[coralsaw]

BTS,

Can I add a couple minor mods that will make life easier for defenders:

- Lower the cost of TRPs (only for defense if possible) so we can buy more.

- Make foxholes invisible unless the occupying unit has been spotted. This can be lethal for hiding troops. Right now, attackers can spot foxholes well before the unit in it.

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

My squads are regular, must be the fibre in the musli...

[jKMkIII]

I have been beaten to death when attacking (I must be no.4 on Jarmo's list and it can happen if defender gets attacker off balance and hopefully manages to pin attacking force in place and let artillery do their thing..

But in some maps defending can be almost easy, if you have quessed what map looks like and bought right troops for it, if can place few guns/bunkers in right place it will destroy attackers armoured fist. And if your infantry and MGs can survive all that artillery raining down on your positions on some maps you can make enemy advance pretty much impossible.

But what I think might help, and would love it anyway, is ability to buy defence positions for infantry. Perhaps some extra foxholes where they could retreat after pressure gets too heavy in first place, and hopefully some camoed foxholes.. Don't know what kind of holes they used in WWII, but at least when I was in army and had to dig those I certainly couldn't spot them as far as they do in CM, even when dug it myself and knew where it was.

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

jK.MkIII

[jshandorf]

Fortifications should be cheaper I think. For instance.. I roadblock can be anything and it doesnt't take much in the way of resources to make one. Maybe a chainsaw and a little gas.

It is nice to see that with the new patch they are gonna experiment with this to try and even it up, but I hope it doesn't go lopsided.

Just my opinion on defense... Too many people employ a static defense. ANytime when possible you MUST use a fluid defense otherwise you chance of success are not very good.

Also.. I have still have a problem with not seeing the map BEFORE you choose your units. Just knowing what the map is like you can increase the chance for the defender to win.

Jeff

[Croda]

Naturally, after posting about getting hammered on defense, I won one last night. Altogether now:

Yippee!

Thanks.

I agree with a couple of points, especially BTS' comment that they will be lowering costs for defensive items. That will make a big difference.

Jeff, you are right about the fluid defence. It can work wonders, I suppose I'll see shortly, eh? I'm curious to see how it will work tactically to run a fluid defence behind fixed defenses. Should work very well, I'd think.

I also think that seeing the map before chosing the untis is a necessity. Especially on Assaults and Attacks. A defender would always know what the terrain he was going to defend looked like. Less important on a Probe (more or less a large ambush), though you should still know the lay of the land.

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

"Nuts!"

[Robert Mayer]

Amen on seeing the map before purchasing units. While it's true that a battalion comander would often be called upon to fight in locations not of his own choosing, the QBs aren't really historical, and would be better tests of player skill if they factored in terrain analysis too. It's frustrating to buy units that turn out to be less valuable because there are too many trees (or not enough), etc. <g>

[coralsaw]

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

A defender would always know what the terrain he was going to defend looked like. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

...but would not get to choose his force based on what he saw. He would have to make do with what he had.

Wished to feel like the terrain should be exposed before buying units. Now I think it's best to make it configurable, as I see a lot of fun in pre-selecting forces based on the terrain. Different kind of beast though...

Regards

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

My squads are regular, must be the fibre in the musli...

[Juardis]

FWIW, I agree with Ron. The point allocation in a combined arms defence just does not allow enough armor IMO.

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

Jeff Abbott

[Jarmo]

After rereading my post, I probably didn't make too clear I agree the points

favour the attacker.

Looking forward to 5 point minefields.

[Guest wwb_99]

One other advantage the defender should recieve when assaulted: ammuntion bonus. By this I mean that heavy weapons positions, and possibly infantry should recieve double ammo (or something like that), given that they are emplaced and expected to stand, fight and die where they are dug in. Note that all extra ammo should be lost when the unit is moved. Also, the limit of two 'fausts per squad should be raised to one per man. I know this can be done in user created scenarios, but it should be availiable in quick battles as well.

WWB

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

Ave, Caesar! Morituri te salatamus.

[GriffinCheng+]

Another problem with QB with computer purchases -- US has identical or fewer units than the German opponent. One example is an about-to-surrender game with HPS verteran Scott Orr. We were in a meeting engagement and he has 2 PzIVH, 2 Sdkz253s, 2 Sdkz251 HT + 5 platoons (at least) and I jsut have 3 platoon of grunts + 2 M24 ;( | 1 M3 and 1 MG jeep....

Sounds like I am beating a dead horse here.

Back to topic: my limited exp in PBEM QB, I am not sure if QB is less favorable to the defender for I play mostly meeting engagement. I have to agree that it is very hard to make a "big win" unless the attacking side has less or no AFV in the battle.

Griffin.

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

"+" is just the beginning. Expect to see "GriffinCheng76", "GriffinCheng(105)" or "GriffinChengA3E8" more should Forum problems occur again

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

[Bobbaro]

I just finished a 500 pt defense against the AI in a QB. Earlier I did one but scared by all the talk, used the handicap to cut back the attack a small percent. Was a hell of a fight but in spite of heavy loses came out with a major victory. You want to scare yourself take only infantry units. He got a Tiger and a half track. I think a human would have used them better. They were bad enough anyway.

I fairly roasted the cat with two flamethrowers at once, emptying one on it and two shots from the other. That was one hot cat. BUT it did not kill him. Did make him back off to cool a bit. By the time play finished I had close assaulted it with four squads. #3 immobilized and #4 caused him to abandon. A half track abandoned on the last turn when I surrounded it with two squads and a flamethrower. The plan was to advance 3 squads on the right into woods in front of the VL. It was in a strategic location for ambushing armor so I provided it with flamethrowers protected by one squad.

I put one platoon in the center, a weak force but in a good position. I used my two wire setups between a house with one squad and some woods on its immediate flank. The front was hidden by a slight rise and more woods. The other squads were arranged to the rear and rear flank hidden.

Two 81mm spotters rounded out the mix.

The attack was a two pronger with the Tiger giving support from the center. The strong force on the right took on the bulk of his infantry and the guys on the center took on the attack from the left with a few more moving with the Tiger. Mortar fire took out the wind out of the sails of the enemy with the tank. More of it helped on the right side. I had to suffer some Tiger blow on the right while repulsing a strong attack there. The attack on the left took longer to develop. I suppose the AI was spending time on the undefended VL on the far flank.

I am glad it did not concentrate all of it on that side.

Making the story short, the infantry attack was contained with a lot of exciting defensive work, bless the wire. The Tiger pushed towards the high point VL and got a warm welcome. The halftrack came down the road on that side and declined to test the ambush waiting there. And so it went. With the Cat gone I started reinforcing the single platoon with the guys on the right and soon routed out that bunch.

Tonight, I did a minimum scale defense and thought for sure I was being beaten. Plan went like this. Sharp shooter in house on left. Platoon with machinegun at road Y intersection with church and 2 buildings just right of center. I took the force that the computer provided and it included an 81 spotter, 75mm antitank gun, an 81 and the sniper with a road block and a daisy chain.

Blocking the road to the front and daisy chaining at the intersection using woods as and extension of the blocking plan, I set up a sort of reverse slope defense with the buildings, woods, mines and roadblock providing a substitute for the slope. The gun was set to cover flanks protected by the squads with the machine gun and various barriers.

It worked, but not withouta great deal of sweat from this player and blood from his troopers. The gun after a long defense from infantry attacks got what it was waiting for, the meanest of the armor on the field a Mark iv. That left 3 halftracks. The spotter got one of them.

The worst moment came when one of the squads got hosed by a flamethrower. It broke and ran. As the time began to run long things mostly came to a standstill. I think a human player at this point might have managed a better result for the enemy. But apparently his morale was way down. The enemy spotter picked up my mortar on the right and expended most of a huge load of rounds on him. He just hunkered down in his foxhole and withstood the whole bunch. The game ended in a stalemate, but I was awarded a major victory. 87 to 13. I totally eliminated several squads, as they were ambushed. The machine gun finally got wiped out by a halftrack near the end. It had been the main source of enemy squad elimination. The gun fell to a halftrack.

I lost 24 casualties out of 60 starters. The AI lost 93 out of 109. I had 36 kicking at the end and he had 16, only one of whom did not get captured at quitting time.

I suppose vehicles left for the general surrender are destroyed by their crews before they leave.

[Bobbaro]

By the way, I made fair in both games for the attacker, I gave him extra turns, at about 10 or 15 more for each play. I hate it when the scenario ends before a battlefield decision is reached. I accept stalemate as a battlefield decision as it appeared in the second scenario. I was surprised at the size of the victory. I did know he had lost so many. With 2 halftracks still going I kept wondering why he did not just load up and move on to the VLs. I had next to nothing nearby. He did not know that though. Heh. good old FOW. It seems to work both ways.

[Guest Big Time Software]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Another problem with QB with computer purchases -- US has identical or fewer units than the German opponent.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In theory, this is not true. An even number of points should equate to roughly the same number of units if each makes roughly the same types of purchase decisions (ie. same experience level, same mix of weapons, same size tanks, same artillery, etc.)

However, Charles just discovered a bug that could make the computer not use all the points at its disposal. Generally this bug affects both sides equally, but it is a bit more random when you look at an individual battle. This has been fixed for 1.1.

Steve

[GriffinCheng+]

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

In theory, this is not true. An even number of points should equate to roughly the same number of units if each makes roughly the same types of purchase decisions (ie. same experience level, same mix of weapons, same size tanks, same artillery, etc.)

However, Charles just discovered a bug that could make the computer not use all the points at its disposal. Generally this bug affects both sides equally, but it is a bit more random when you look at an individual battle. This has been fixed for 1.1.

Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh, that will be great! Just keep us posted then

Griffin.

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

"+" is just the beginning. Expect to see "GriffinCheng76", "GriffinCheng(105)" or "GriffinChengA3E8" more should Forum problems occur again

[Alexander]

A couple of minor things:

1- I haven't played an assault PBEM- just too boring. It's asking a lot to ask someone to play the defender. The challenging part is the setup, then you hit the send mail button ~20 times.

Shouldn't the attacker be rewarded for Exiting units? Or maybe he already is, I forgot.

2- If you let the computer choose units, the one who initiates the PBEM gets to pick a map to his liking. Shouldn't this be blind?

2-

[Olle Petersson]

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

We are planning on doing a couple of things.

1. Lower the point ratios between attacker and defender ...

2. Reduce the cost for fortifications. How many of you have ever made a legit wire/mine defense?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>1. Great, providied it means more points for fortifications and support/artillery.

2. Even better! One suggestion; instead of reducing the cost per item, increase the sice of them. Twice as wide wire obstacles, and 50% larger mine fields at the same cost.

This will help keeping down the total number of units.

How many continous lines of wire, supported with patches of mine fields, are you supposed to be able to set up across the map?

Cheers

Olle

[BlackVoid]

Well the 1.1 patch is here and nothing really has changed.

The attacker still has a large advantage on most terrain.

BTS?

[jasoncawley@ameritech.net]

First, there is something to this and I would like to see the following two changes -

#1 reduce the price of everything listed as "fortification" to 2/3rds of the present price. That means MG log bunkers aren't much more expensive than HMG teams, and wire and AP mines can be had ~200 yards wide for about the cost of an infantry platoon, making obstacles a realistic option in a defensive set-up.

#2 increase the size of the defender's set up area, to about 2/3rds of the map in attacks and more like 5/6ths of the map in assaults. (And half for probes). This gives the defender more choice of terrain, allows obstacle belts and TRPs to be located forward of the main defensive positions, and such-like. I think this would give a much more realistic model of defensive fighting.

And in the case of small assaults, they would feel more like assaults, as in occasions where the battle begins with going "over the top", rather than long empty approach marches to contact. No man's land was not that much wider in many WW II occasions than in many WW I occasions, and at least the "assault" battle type ought to be able to reflect this.

Incidentally, here is another change I would like to see for QBs. Right now, the "intermediate" skill level is set as regular and veteran. I'd prefer to see regular and green as one setting. This isn't about defenses, and it s quibble, but I am tired of endless veterans and I consider it boring as spit and unrealistic. The command-delay feature in CM is one of its best, and it is minimized by over-qualified troops.

But, it is perfectly possible to win as the defender in CM. Against the AI (which is pretty clumsy), if you understand defensive principles and construct a sound defensive plan, you should be able to win decisively most of the time.

I detailed a number of the factors involved in an article in the "tips" section, called "German infantry in the closed defense". That explains the logic behind "reverse slope" defender set-ups, meant to reduce the effect of the attacker's edge in firepower, and to isolate his forward units from support by the rest of his force, at the moment of the decisive firefights.

One fellow spoke about how easy it is for the attacker to just concentrate and beat the scattered defenders that way. There is some truth to this, but you have to understand the defender's "counters" to that approach. The most important of these is artillery fire used to hit bunched-up attackers. Minefields are another weapon that does not care how many attackers there are in a given area, and multiplies its effects with their density. And last, the defender can concentrate as well, and does not need to try to defend all places by the physical presence of his troops.

Instead, you can use a mix of strong point, fire plan, and obstacle. Meaning, some areas you plan to defend by being densely deployed right on them with infantry in whole platoons and in mutually supporting positions, as bunched up as attackers can afford to be, given your mortar support or whatever it it. Those are called "strong points", and you use them to hold important places and as "linch pins" that you can manuever around, draw on for infantry reserves to meet a threat, etc.

Fire plan, on the other hand, means an area of mostly open ground that you cover not be presence of infantry directly behind it, but by LOS from MGs and guns or tanks. One MG does not do it, nor LMGs. 2+ HMGs (or Bunker w/ MG), a 20mm FLAK, and a heavier PAK or tank, though, can make an area of open ground quite hard for an enemy to cross. And you do not have to "spend" all those defenders on that one spot. They just need to be able to see it, along with whatever else they can see - while hopefully not being visible to the entire map, since that will mean getting knocked out rapidly by an attacker's "overwatch" shooters. Another example of "fire plan" is covering one wooded area with just a TRP, and calling down mortar fire on anyone approaching through that spot. Fire plan areas aren't as well defended as strong-points, but they enable the strongpoint to be, well, stronger, than dissipating the defenders trying to cover everything would leave them.

And last, you can use obstacle belts. 1-2 items are not going to do anything. You need at least 5, and preferably 8-10, of the same type, wire or AP mine. (AT mines along one road, fine, but they are too expensive to try to create whole fields with). You can put these right in front of strongpoints to create a very strong "block". Or you can put them in areas covered only by fire. They are most effective when you place them in ways that deny access to the only spots of cover in a wider area, but still in continuous belts. E.g. say there are two "tiles" of brush or scattered trees in this field, between a body of woods you aren't going to defend, and the houses you are. Then put the mines right in the cover, and in the gap between them. A plus is anybody who panics in the open field may wind up running there, with unpleasant consequences for them.

Take some sort of arty support because otherwise dense attackers will steamroll you, but just light mortars (3 inch or 81mm) is fine there. And do *not* waste all your arty ammo trying to "attrite" the approaching attacker at long range. You want your limited number of fire missions to break whole enemy platoons that are *in contact* or about to be. Artillery breaks more than it kills, and its strongest effects *pass* with time. But in contact, your infantry can clean up afterward, or force the broken targets to retreat a long way. Just making a few squads "take cover" and inflicting a handful of casualties, a long way away, is by comparison an indecisive waste. Save your last fire mission for "final protective fire", when you are in your holes or stone buildings and the attack isn't, and call it close in when he rushes. You may hit some of your guys, but you will be in better cover than him.

Attacking arty is most dangerous to defenders when it hits their main infantry positions. You can afford to lose a single seperated gun, MG, or bunker. But you donot have the depth for casualties that attackers do, and if his guns kill half your infantry the remaining infantry odds can become 3-4:1, too steep to handle. The way you have to handle this is #1 set up in cover that is hard for the attackers to see, is good cover against off-board arty, or both, and #2 if you aren't in the best off-board arty cover, then have *alternate positions* and *run* to them the instant a barrage starts coming down. In stone buildings you can ride out barrages. In foxholes in the woods, you *can't*, do not try, skedaddle. If you split squads when setting up, and use your HQ foxholes too, you can get enough secondary fighting positions to be able to fall back according to a plan and into prepared cover, not haphazardly into light cover.

To try to get the hang of defender's tactics, I recommend fighting against the AI is small to medium attacks, and taking the *infantry* force type. Take some supporting arty as mentioned - just off-map mortars will do. (Don't just take on-map ones, they are not enough to break whole attacking infantry companies, in sheer ammo terms). Take enough infantry, don't skimp, and be willing to buy regulars to get the numbers you need, and support them with some crew-served guns. Defender's cannot afford veteran everything. Spend what is left on obstacles.

When learned to fight defensively, concentrate on whether you kept most of your defensive force intact, not whether you held the objectives. Then focus next on inflicting losses on the attackers. Only when you can do both reliably, worry about holding or retaking objectives too. Usually, solving the first will have a strong effect on the second, and getting good at inflicting losses on the attackers will mostly solve the last.

Trying to do them in the reverse order will not work. You do not want to be making last ditch stands for flags on the map and getting all your guys killed in the process. That is the kind of defense attacker's want, because it is predictable and feeds the limited defender's into the attacker's firepower meatgrinder in reliable ways.

Also, be prepared to be flexible, to mix it up, and to move. No defensive scheme is going to operate just as set up with no adaptations. If part of your force is going to get out-shot if they stay where they are, then get them the heck out of there. If the attacker isn't sending anyone up the right flank, then pull out those troops and use them as a reserve.

One measure that can increase the flexibility of your defense considerable is keeping a reserve and intelligent use of your commanders. Leave one whole infantry platoon, without detachments and led by your *best* platoon leader, in whatever your main position is, but able to move in any direction to meet multiple threats. It also helps if this platoon has one AT team attached, especially for the Allies (since they lack fausts in the "line" infantry).

You'd be surprised how often this one simple measure can make the difference. The reason is that a front-line platoon cannot out-shoot a company with only the advantage of foxholes to rely on. But two platoons, one of them arriving in an unexpected spot and well led, often can.

You can get an extra ad hoc "platoon" that is in command by assigned one squad from other platoons, as well as an MG team or whatever, to a company HQ. Do not stay split into teams; they rout to easily. A few "OPs" to see the enemy coming and run to the rear is fine, and you want the extra foxholes at set-up, but get back into full squads right after the start. And stay in at least weak platoons, with some kind of commander. Scattered single squads "defend" nothing, because they can't even defend themselves.

It also helps to understand how much firepower it is going to take to really cover an area against enemy infantry. To deny ground or break men passing through it often, you need either -

an artillery strike

an AP minefield

a platoon of infantry at <100 yards range

2-3 HMGs with LOS to the same *open* ground

a tank

Thinner forces are not going to do anything but get themselves killed. Cover the places you do cover, that well or better. "But I can't cover everything that thick". Then don't cover everything.

I hope this is useful.

[Tanaka]

I'm a bit late on this topic, but in my PBEM and some TCPIP experience, never lost a single defense game and by the contrary lost most of my attacks and assaults... For sure something is wrong with me, please care to tell me what it is

After the 1st pts reduction in one of the patches (think it was 1.05) I've noticed that it is even more easy to win on defense...