Three simple way to improve defender's chances in a QB

[CMplayer]

1) Shorten the time limit. Attacker more

pressed for time, rushes, less accurate

recon, etc. This, however could get boring

so maybe BTS could...

2) Put the victory flags more deeply

into the defender's zone and deepen

the set-up zone for the defender. This

would be an easy change to implement,

and ought to reward defenders who think

in depth, and can conduct a mobile

defence. (to be more specific, one could

start by doubling the width of the

defender's set-up zone, putting probe

VL's where attack VL's used to be,

attack VL's where assault Vl's used to

be and so on. Try it out for play balance

and adjust as necessary)

3) When setting up an attack QB, the

defender sees several alternate maps

and gets to choose one of them. This

could enhance his terrain advantage.

--Rett

[Stacheldraht]

It seems one of the biggest problems for defenders is the lack of points available for mines and fortifications. You just can't use them with the regularity and depth that the Germans did while still having points left for troops. Setting up a realistic mine field, for instance, is nearly impossible. Roadblock usage should be more common than it is, too, at least after the Bulge, when the Germans were basically just slowing the inexorable Allied advance.

[Viceroy]

But the problem is gameplay. Clearing lots of minefields would be very boring and rather impossible within the typical 30 turn game. As it is now, we just assume the engineers did the job the night before.

[Dittohead]

I would like the defender to get an additional 5% in points for use on fortifications only in attack QB and 10% more pts in assaults.

1000 pt QB 50 Pts for fort. for attack

100 Pts for fort. for assault

Since i doubt most people spend more than 60-80 pts on fortifications anyway. This would work to balance out the QB. Plus the attacker would be more cautious knowing that the defender would have minefields,wire etc.

Tony

[Vanir Ausf B]

The one best way to fix the problem is to alter the shape of QB maps VL placement. Make the map much deeper to allow defence in depth, square in shape, and stagger the VLs front to back as well as side to side.

[Pzman]

Here is anther idea.

[blab mode on]

You dum gamey players stop being so gamey! Dumy's, freaks, foobars!

I think that because a lot... not all people launch very gamey attack its hard to defend a lot of the time. I mean droping 105s on the flage 2 turn. Can they see my men through those pine trees on turn 2 on a large map not likly!

[blab mode off]

[ 06-27-2001: Message edited by: Panzerman ]

[Stacheldraht]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>As it is now, we just assume the engineers did the job the night before. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But why are engineer troops in the game then?

They often risked their lives during the heat of combat to remove obstacles and mines, shore up or demolish bridges, and so forth.

[Viceroy]

Stacheldraht,

you're right about the brave job the engineers did. In CM they are there to finish the engineering tasks that couldn't be done before ..... perhaps the most risky jobs, but ones that don't take a lot of time.

I understand your point about minefields, it's just I don't see how they can be fitted into the average 30min game. Perhaps in n operation with 5/6 games and in game 1 and 2 the mine clearing takes place.

[The_Capt]

AHHHH!! THE NIGHT BEFORE!!!

Ok deep breath. Silent breaches can happen on the furthest obstacle belts say 2000-3000 m out but the close in ones are not going to be touched and will be attacked in the face of the enemy.

Sorry but the ignorance of engineer operations in this and wargames in general is enough to drive me mad.

Obstacles are a real problem in CM, they have been artificially inflated in price so that their use will be limited in the interest in "gameplay". Again generally because few no how to conduct a "assault breach" and it might not be "fun".

I definitely disagree to the last point, it can be a real challenge especially when done in the context of an operation. For example have a Breaching force and then an assault force.

A much more realistic approach to a prepared defence. What QB defence battles really do is portray a Hasty Defence in which all has gone for sh@t. You didn't have resources to emplace obstacles and your frontage is twice the size your force and reasonably defend and you have no units left or right to tie into. BTS found this out and tailored forces to match as best they could, hence an attack with only 1.5 to 1 odds, when 3 to 1 is what is needed in RL. Even at 1.5, as has been noted it is damn hard.

On the topic of the post I have a few suggestions:

A. Don't QB, generate a scenario map, which both sides can see before playing. Have the attacker, attack down a reasonable frontage, no more than 1200m for a Bn sized force (say 3000 point game).

B. "Obstacles are free". Yup you heard me, come to an greement as to engineer works in the game and give em to the defender. The attacker will require some more engineer resources (also free) but it allows the defender an obstacle plan. Oh ya this should include TRPs.

C. "Pillboxes". Allow them, makes life a lot harder for a defender.

D. Number of turns is a good idea but if you give the advantages above, you need to give an attacker a lot more time. Turn balance is critical.

There are a few ideas. I think the QB defensive battles don't work. MEs and of course attacks (heh heh) but on the defence the balance is just too lop-sided.

[Viceroy]

The_Capt

but doesn't the game then become "Combat Engineer"? And no QB's which are a popular part of the game?

CM2 does try to be accessible to non-grogs like myself. Would your version of the game sell well enough for the CM series to continue?

BTW how does TACOPs handle the engineering side of battles?

[The_Capt]

Popular misconception,

What you call "Combat Engineer" is in fact reality. A prepared defensive postion is something to behold and a terror to assault.

The question was posed how to improve a defenders chances.

In a defence there are five critical factors. Armoured/AT firepower, Infantry Firepower, Arty firepower, Obstacles and Counter moves. The coordination of these factors are needed to defeat an assault. You cannot remove one just because it isn't fun and expect to be able to accomplish the same thing.

The reason QBs don't work for the defender is simple..frontage. A Bn may get 2000m to defend, which equates to 630m per Coy with three up! If you want depth the two lead Coy will have to cover in the are of 800m. A modern inf Coy with all the bells and whistles can only cover off 700m. So you either stretch way out or suck in and leave openings. Now you are outnumbered and can be flanked/enveloped. No sane defender would go looking for this. Don't get me wrong it did happen and a lot of people died when it did.

Even non-grogs can use engineers, it isn't hyper-realistic. Well anymore than armour I guess.

There are other options but the QB seriously screws the defender. It can be done but you are not getting a good deal, as opposed to the attacker.

I am not sure what you mean by "my version". I am not suggesting taking anything away from the game just playing it differently. You can choose to or not.

[L.Tankersley]

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

BTW how does TACOPs handle the engineering side of battles?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

From what I can recall it doesn't to any appreciable degree. I know there are minefield counters that can be placed. IIRC there are some units that can clear a path through mines by moving through them, but I don't recall specifics.

[Ron]

Some numbers for the defender's setup area(frontage x depth) with default terrain parameters:

1250pt QB Attack/Assault

Small - 630m x 475m

Medium - 875m x 475m

Large - 1190m x 475m

2000pt QB Attack/Assault

Small - 950m x 550m

Medium - 1350m x 550m

Large - 1900m x 550m

3000pt QB Attack/Assault

Small - 1430m x 630m

Medium - 2000m x 630m

Large - 2790m x 630m

So the lesson here for the defender is to select a Small map as default.

In another thread "Defending against the Assault" or some such, JasonC makes some excellent and pertinent observations on defending in CM, worth a read. I have had good success defending 2000-3000pt QBs, even against Assaults. The biggest challenge being to avoid getting swamped by the massed/running infantry attackers. I have thought also that a set amount of free fortifications, specifically TRPs which can be pivotal for your artillery and AT guns, should be included for the defender to simulate presighting/ranging-in and general familiarity with the terrain.

Ron

[Wilhammer]

I was hoping that CM would eventually put in VP locations that are timed.

The longer you hold it, the more VPs you collect. The further into the game, the value of the VPs go up.

One unfortunate aspect of the All or Nothing VP sites is the opponent that waits to attack in the last few turns of the game.

I really hate that.

Of course, most of what I propose is at least party rectfied by making the battles short.

[Grisha]

The_Capt is right on about prepared defenses and how it was attacked. This is something that happened a lot in the Russian Front, so I wouldn't be surprised to see scenarios like this coming out when CM2 is out. As for boring, I disagree, because this is a prime example of combined arms action, especially for the attacker.

[Stacheldraht]

Fwiw, for detailed info and diagrams about German defensive doctrine and positioning, see the Handbook on German Forces, Ch. IV, pp. 20ff. http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usamhi/DL/chron.htm#AWorldWarII19391945

Interestingly, it says that a standard defensive sector for a German company was 440 to 1100 yards across, 880 to 2200 for a battalion.

This section of the handbook discusses defensive obstacles, mine placement, terrain usage, camouflage, registered artillery, combined arms, and more. Very informative.

Chapter V is all about defensive fortifications, with many detailed diagrams of bunker layouts.

[ 06-27-2001: Message edited by: Stacheldraht ]

[Freak]

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

I was hoping that CM would eventually put in VP locations that are timed.

The longer you hold it, the more VPs you collect. The further into the game, the value of the VPs go up.

One unfortunate aspect of the All or Nothing VP sites is the opponent that waits to attack in the last few turns of the game.

I really hate that.

Of course, most of what I propose is at least party rectfied by making the battles short.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But doesn't this give an unfair advantage to the defender?

I don't think that is really a solution. Maybe in a meeting engagment. But still, I think victory locations are not as important in a game like CM anyway. Yes they are important, but deafeating your enemy is more important IMO. For instance, a VF may be in an area that is absolutely in no way can your force occupy it. So what happens is you'll place troops in strategic placement. No one is going to just rush their squad out there in plain sight to get killed.

VF locations IMO have too much importance. Terrian attributes are after all more important. Sure if the command is take that city by all means nescessary, well then thats it you take the city. But if the VF's are in the middle of wide open space, its a differnet story.

Anyway, I have veered off topic a bit, but my main sentiment is that timed VF locations are not realistic and wont give better play. This would make the game more like "king of the hill", which while is fun in other games such as Myth, may take away from strategic importance in the game.

[CombinedArms]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B:

The one best way to fix the problem is to alter the shape of QB maps VL placement. Make the map much deeper to allow defence in depth, square in shape, and stagger the VLs front to back as well as side to side.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think Vanir AB is basically right here. The QB maps are too wide and shallow, with VLs too far forward. The VLs are spread across that wide map, so you, as defender, can't concentrate your forces. And there are often wide OPEN spaces between VLs, so you can't shift forces safely to meet threats. These randomly generated positions are rarely good defensive positions. I think the kind of alterations V.A.B. proposes would indeed address the problem and they sound like changes that would be relatively simple and practical for BTS to implement.

If you study prepared scenario maps, they rarely resemble QB maps even remotely. The VLs are deeper and more thickly clustered and there are covered approaches linking the diffferent VLs so the defender can shift forces.

[Col Deadmarsh]

Well, since CM isn't gonna see a patch any time soon (or ever for that matter), I propose that some of these map makers get together and make some probe, attack, assault maps which will provide the CM community with maps that give the defense an even chance at winning. We have a whole crapload of historical maps to play now, let's concentrate on making ones fair for both sides. This would especially include deeper maps so a mobile defense is possible. Think of the possibilities! A whole new dimension to this game has been untouched because we have had to settle for the QB maps which don't allow for this.

It would be great to go over to Combat Missions or one of the other sites and pick out a cool new attack/defense map for you to play with your opponent. And with all the mapmakers out there, I'm sure we'd have lots to choose from after they get started.

So, I'm throwing it out there. Would anybody like to step forward and volunteer to help out making some fictional scenarios for fair play? Your time would be most appreciated by the community.

[Mr. Johnson--]

What you think I've been doing CombinedArms?

I hate MEs, but there are a few good scenarios that are MEs or 2 hasty attacks running each other that are kind of cool.

I spend most of my time making attack scenarios. hmmm, in fact why don't you try out my Smashing-pumpkins scenario over at Combat Missions, double blind against another human and tell me what you think. I've got a bunch more, most just need briefings.

[Col Deadmarsh]

Sounds good, I'll give it a try. Anybody out there making A/D scenarios and have posted them somewhere?

[Mr. Johnson--]

So have you found an opponent to test out Smashing-Pumkins on CombinedArms?

[Panzer Leader]

I've got one that's a real peach. Allies have OVER a 2:1 odds, and so far, none of my playtesters have been able to defeat the AI German defense. If you're interested (I haven't finished tweaking it yet as I'm waiting for a few last comments) the beta is available if you drop me a line. It's called "Guns of Navarone" and you can find a screenshot of it on the scenario board with a little bit of a description.