Quick Battle and battle types

[pcelt]

I am puzzled about the different PBEM Quick Battle types and their assumed degree of difficulty.

The attacker gets more and more points relative to the defender from "probe" through "attack" up to "assault" . But what I am not clear about is why, in these scenarios, are these defenses seen as more and more challenging---the defender can buy the same units and organize them equally carefully,, the terrain can be the same, the victory locations can be similar .

What is it that makes them of varying challenge to warrant different levels of points for the attacker . Am I missing something crucial here that intrinsically creates different levels of challenge for the attacker.

[Guest Madmatt]

It's not about difficulty degrees but about intent of the Attacker.

Probe is just that, a advance scouting force with limited assualt capabilities 'probing' the defenses to ascertain strength and disposition. "Hey, whats in that town up ahead!"

An Attack is meant to be a planned engagment where the attacker has enough resources at hand to get the job done. "Captain, arrange your men and attack that town!"

An Assualt is meant to simulate a planned and well organized combined arms attack on a fixed defense position. "Ok, we have divisional artillery standing by and elements of the 506 Tank Destroyer Battalion are here to help you take that town!.

The points for the attacker are all different in each of the types of attack to help the player better tailor the battle to his/her tastes.

Its really about the 'GOAL' and resources available to the attacker and not neccesarily the difficulty level.

Madmatt

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

If it's in Combat Mission, it's on Combat Mission HQ!

CMHQ-Annex, The Alternative side of Combat Mission

Combat Mission HQ

CMHQ-Annex

Proud members of the Combat Mission WebRing

[This message has been edited by Madmatt (edited 07-27-2000).]

[Jarmo]

(Crap! Only the fast eat a lot of pudding.)

The defender has all the objectives under control.

The attacker has to take them away. It's more difficult to attack

than to defend. Thereby more points.

In assault, the attacker has to get control of the flags.

Defender only needs to delay attacker to win.

Assault and attack are much harder, if the battle is short.

Or if the weather is bad. Set up a 15 turn assault in snow or rain, and it's almost impossible to win.

I don't know much about the probe.

[This message has been edited by Jarmo (edited 07-27-2000).]

[pcelt]

I understand the difference in concept between a probe, attack and assault. But isnt the aim in each of these in the Quick Battle game the same -----to control the victory flag areas?

If I were a defender and my main object was to win why would I not always prefer to face a probe where the attacker is least superior----and If I were an attacker why would I mot always prefer an assault where my forces are most superior.

I cannot help feeling that the goals of a "probe" should actually be recognisably

EASIER than the goals of an "attack" and the goals of an "assault" MORE DIFFICULT. But to me the practical goals in all the "Quick Battles" look very similar.

I thank you for your help and insights which I appreciate but I am still confused about how the Quick Battle format reflects the differences.Surely the actual goals for each type of attack should be at different levels of difficulty to reflect the attackers intentions in using the form of attack he has selected.He wants to achieve much more with an assault than with a probe.

[This message has been edited by pcelt (edited 07-27-2000).]

[Neutral Party]

I share pcelt's concerns with respect to the demarcation between probe/attack/assault. There does not appear to be any real difference in mission goals in the game as opposed to in reality. If the goal of a probe is to scout out a location then why the victory flags. AFAIK the point values for these locations are the same for the different mission types.

The way things are at present seems to be three mission types: attack, probe (underpowered attack) and assault (overpowered attack).

Am I missing something?

Joe

[OsinO]

pcelt: Take a look at my thread: http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/007975.html

Try using the search

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

¤§ïѤ

[Ted]

Shouldn’t the Victory flags on a Probe be closer to the front line than an Attack/Assault. Should the Attacker get less points for killing an individual as the odds against the defender increase?

[Neutral Party]

Ted

That might indeed be it. I'll check it out when I get home.

[pcelt]

OsinO----Im afraid your thread does not

really answer the question about goal or task difficulty differences among the 3 forms of attack----only that they have different points totals to try and achieve their goal.

Ted and Neutral Party----you seemed onto some possible goal differences------any conclusions ?

I have had a quick look at Victory flag locations in the three types of attack but have not noticed any marked differences re depth of position in the 3 types.

I'll have another look at this possibility,

Thanks for all contributions on this. ------Any other explanations welcome.

[Neutral Party]

After a cursory examination of a dozen or so assault vs. probe set-ups I think Ted's suggestion is probably right. The probe generally has most or all of the objective locations at the near side (to the enemy) of the set-up zone whereas for the assault, most or all are at the far side of the zone.

This would mean a probe would not have to penetrate far into a prepared defensive position to control the flags. In contrast, an assault would have to penetrate all the way through a possible defense in depth.

This was bugging me and I'm glad to have finally got the point.

[pcelt]

Neutral Party---thanks for that----if as you suggest this is the case ,I too am more content with the logic-----Is there .do you think , any difference as well in the value given to the destruction of enemy units in the three different modes of attack-- eg fewer points in an assault with powerful forces than in a probe with scant forces.

Could BTS possibly kindly comment on this issue to clarify the situation?

Thanks.

[Guest Michael emrys]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Neutral Party:

I share pcelt's concerns with respect to the demarcation between probe/attack/assault. There does not appear to be any real difference in mission goals in the game as opposed to in reality. If the goal of a probe is to scout out a location then why the victory flags. AFAIK the point values for these locations are the same for the different mission types.

The way things are at present seems to be three mission types: attack, probe (underpowered attack) and assault (overpowered attack).

Am I missing something?

Joe<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This too has puzzled me for a month now, and I have even brought it up in a couple of different threads. Equally troubling is that no-one from BTS has stepped up to clarify the matter. Could it be so difficult for them to do so?

Michael

[pcelt]

I can confirm, after a brief survey, that there does appear to be a distinct relationship between the attack mode and the depth of enemy territory which needs to be overrun to control the Victory Flags.

This is fine and is a logical link with the 3 forms of attack and justification for the variations in point allowance in each attack. I should like to thank Ted and Neutral Party for pointing me in the right direction. It has helped clarify a nagging uncertainty I had about Quick Battles.

However what we cannot be certain of is whether there are any other more hidden differentiating factors built into the scoring in relation to factors like enemy unit kills/captures etc.in the different attack modes.

Could I please respectfully request a comment on this from BTS to fully clarify these possible further differences so we can more fully understand our goals in these different battles.

Many thanks.