How Do You Make An Attack/Defense Scenario Fair?

[Col Deadmarsh]

I'm just now setting up for my 2nd A/D scenario using a QB where my only bright spot seems to be that it's a 30 turn game on a medium map which will make my opponent take a brisk pace for his attack.

What are others doing to counter the attack/defend unbalance? Are you using canned scenarios that benefit the defense? What about having the defender be able to choose his units while the attacker must use computer picks? Finally, I haven't heard anything about the handicapp parameters in the game. Don't these work? Is that 10% minimum too much of a handicapp or is the problem with the "penalty" at the end of game for having the handicapp bonus, nullifying the use of the handicap?

[WWB]

Well, randomly generated maps lack the one advantage the defender usually has: he picks the terrain on which to defend. Look at most historical defenses and you will note that the ground act as a great force multiplier for the defender. So I generally steer clear of QB attacks/defenses. On the other hand, QBs work well as probes.

One option for balancing this scenario would be to give yourself medium experience while giving the enemy low experience, thus severly limiting the effecacy of SMG rushes.

WWB

[Mr. Johnson--]

Attack battles do not need to be fair.

It depends how you want the battle to unfold. Sometimes you want the defenders to be holding on by their tetth by the last turn. Sometimes you want all of the starting defenders wiped out and the battle to end in stalemate with the defenders getting reinforcements.

Sometimes you want the attackers to get a bloody nose, or totally impale themselves on the defender's guns.

Generally if you can beat the AI with both sides then humans will probably be able to have some fun with either side.

But the best way is to find 2 humans and have them fight it out. Sometimes one of the players will make a big mistake and toss away victory but nothing you can do about that.

[Pzman]

If your making a histoical battle then the numbers attacking, at lest if its Allies should most likly be larger as the Allies could call on way more troops, Tanks, vehicals at any given time. The Germans on the other hand were good at out numberd attacks. For example Wittmanns attack at Villars-Bocage. One Tiger vs 30 Allied vehicals. Huge German vitory for the most part till Wittmann was killed.

[ 06-20-2001: Message edited by: Panzerman ]

[Col Deadmarsh]

No, I'm not interested in historical battles, thank you. I'm interested in how people make ladder games as "fair" as possible for the defender since defending seems to be harder than attacking considering the overly high attack to defend ratio.

[moosehead]

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

No, I'm not interested in historical battles, thank you. I'm interested in how people make ladder games as "fair" as possible for the defender since defending seems to be harder than attacking considering the overly high attack to defend ratio.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have had good success in generating a more fair A/D by doing 3 things.

1. only 2 flags ( typically there are too many flags to defend)

2. Generate the map yourself, and make it a bit smaller than a QB would ( too much territory to defend cause your forces to be spread too thin)

3. give the defender an extra 200 points in a 2000/3000 point game. And they are to be used for fortifications( PB, Bunkers, mines)

A Concrete bunker or two, does wonders for the defense.

I have tried this a few times and it definitly gives the defender a big boost. I got tired of the usual A/D game, where the attacker just simply wipes out the defense.

If you want, we can set one up, so you can try it for yourself.

[Enoch]

Colonel, would you be speaking of the game we are setting up???? In regards to your question I've been playing a fair number of attack-defend QB's with a friend of mine and there are a few things I think I've picked up from this.

As mentioned before, terrain can be a huge aid to the defender. Get a map with good defensive terrain and you can cause all sorts of problems for an attacker. Not having played many different people I am not sure but I do believe that some allow players to reject a map they don't like and set up a new QB.

I think that fewer trees and more hills might help the defender. Fewer trees means less cover for the attacker and more open fields of fire to slow down the attacker. More hills means more places to protect your forces from direct fire. Of course using larger hills doesn't necessarily mean more hills.

I'd be interested in what people who've played more head to head games think and if they disagree with anything (or everything) I've said.

There is no reason you couldn't play pre-made scenerios for ladder games.

I think the idea of using pre-made maps is a good one, but someone needs to make the map first. I haven't tried it myself and it seems like a good idea. Moosehead, I'd be interested in setting something like that up.

[ 06-20-2001: Message edited by: Enoch ]

[moosehead]

I forgot to also mention. That by creating your own map. You get to view it first, which will influence your decision as to what to purchase.

[Juardis]

Well, first off you have to know that you cannot defend everywhere. So even if you go random map generation, you pick the ground that's most defensible. 2nd off, you may be able to pick the terrain, but the attacker picks the time. So if you insist on picking the terrain, the attacker should get choice of time of day. And finally, go random weather. Keeps the attacker honest (who's going to buy a Jadgtiger in deep mud?)

Other than that, winning as a defender is very hard to do. I don't know why you'd even try it in a ladder game unless you don't care about your standings. I'm in a few "ladders" but I don't typically care about my rank. I care more about having fun and being challenged. Defending against a probe satisfies both requirements and if I'm really itching for a challenge, I'll defend against an attack.

[Andrew H.]

Don't adjust the points. Make the attacker use green troops; give the defender medium quality troops (or regulars). This has a couple of effects, all of them realistic and consistent with what you read about fighting in '44.

First, MGs become more effective. They don't really cause any more casualties, but troops crossing in the open at ranges out to 500m will be disrupted by MG fire and often run back to cover.

Second, lower powered artillery is more effective; green troops don't like being mortared, consequently, it's easier to break up an attack with the kind of lower powered arty a defender can afford.

Third, green troops generally are more sensitive to being fired upon, to the extent that if there is an enemy regular squad in a foxhole, you will probably need to advance with a green platoon simultaneously to attack it and have a chance of rooting it out. By contrast, with more experienced units, you can usually send one squad forward and keep the others back, and then advance the other squads while the first one occupies the guys in the foxholes. This won't work as well with green troops because the first squad won't hang around and fight it out alone.

Fourth (although this is really related to (Three), because green squads are more sensitive to fire, it's important to suppress even lone enemy squads as much as you can. This means waiting for MGs to come up and fire on the foxhole before you assault it, or using arty first.

Fifth, it all ties together. Being more sensitive to fire means that green units have to act more like a military unit: they have to coordinate with their fellows and with stuff like artillery and tanks. They also need to use smoke to get close to the battle in good shape. But the fact that they are more sensitive to fire means that it is much more difficult to get the units to cooperate in the first place

If you want to try this out, do a 1500 pt attack (or probe) against the AI. If you want to, for more realism, give the AI infantry and take Combined arms yourself. I would chose moderate trees; even the AI kills me if it's too open.

FYI, I usually give the AI +1 experience, and take -30% if I'm the attacker; if you give the ai a different handicap, use that.

FWIW, IMO a defender in the above scenario is probably better off choosing regular (vs. vet) troops; you get more bodies that way.

[JasonC]

I recommend 25 turns for medium sized battles, in the 1000-1500 point range, and 20 turns for small ones, under 1000 points. I also recommend random weather and random time of day, with the former the more important of the two.

30 turns is a very long time in smaller fights, and defenders essentially cannot delay that long against odds. They either stop the attackers by winning the firefights or they run out of men. 25 turns or less makes delay issues more important.

Also, avoid the combined arms force type on defense, as it scatters the points available too much, and can be especially tight in the "support" category, which defenders need. Infantry is better and armor works too, as it is flexible enough.

I do not find that green attackers vs. veteran defenders balances anything. The point cost difference makes the numbers gap even bigger than it already starts out. Lighter artillery support - which can still be effective on men out of cover - and less armor, are the point "economies" I find defenders can stand.

[The Commissar]

Through my experience, Ive found some defenses are easier then others, terrain wise.

For example, recently I have been experimenting with defending city maps. I have found out that it is MUCH harded then defending a village or a rural setting. Although at first it appears that the defender would be at an advantage with all those buildings, the same goes for the attacker. His moves are easily blocked by large buildings and he can bring armored support to bear without exposing himself to AT gun on the outskirts of town. If you try to place AT guns in town, they will recieve no foxhole and be extremely vulnerable.

So far, playing against an excellent player and a friend of mine on the TH ladder, Ive lost 2 od these city defenses already, although the second with better results then the first.

Personally, I dont think the attack/defense is that unbalanced. A lot of the time, good or bad terrain can decide the game's outcome. Which is why the rule generally used in the TH ladder games works very well: each player can reject a map, although the third time they must play the map regardless.

Oh, and also, do not be afraid of losing points in ladder games. They are just points, completely imaginary. If you get low standings, don't despair - create a new account in under 5 minutes, and this time, you'll have more experience as well!

Just keep at it, and you will eventually know what works and what doesn't in attack defend scenarios. Try to have players who have a little less skill then you attack. As you get better, have players of equal skill and then higher skill attack. This will improve your performance. Good luck to all you defenders out there!

EDIT: Just wanted to add that I really like Juardesis' idea for setting up an attack/defend game. The weather option will add an element of unknown to any game, although some players (ladder players especially) will be warry of playing with random weather.

[ 06-20-2001: Message edited by: The Commissar ]

[Pzman]

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

No, I'm not interested in historical battles, thank you. I'm interested in how people make ladder games as "fair" as possible for the defender since defending seems to be harder than attacking considering the overly high attack to defend ratio.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You could have said that in your post. :mad:

[Col Deadmarsh]

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

You could have said that in your post. :mad:<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry to make you type out those 3 sentences Panzerman. Hope I didn't kill your entire day there.

As for my post, I still haven't heard anyone mention the handicap you can give the defender. Wouldn't giving them an extra 10-20% for their force make things equal?

P.S.--Yes Enoch, I was referring to our game. I'll take a look at the map again and see if I have a chance at putting up a reasonable defense. I'd hate to go to another map because we both spent time already choosing our units but if we could find a way to make things more equal than that's what I'd rather do. I'd especially be interested in a canned scenario that we could both look over ahead of time that was created to benefit the defense to make things equal. If you hear of anything like this, lemme know.

[Col Deadmarsh]

Sorry to make you type out those 3 sentences Panzerman. Hope I didn't kill your entire day there.

As for my post, I still haven't heard anyone mention the handicap you can give the defender. Wouldn't giving them an extra 10-20% for their force make things equal?

P.S.--Yes Enoch, I was referring to our game. I'll take a look at the map again and see if I have a chance at putting up a reasonable defense. I'd hate to go to another map because we both spent time already choosing our units but if we could find a way to make things more equal than that's what I'd rather do. I'd especially be interested in a canned scenario that we could both look over ahead of time that was created to benefit the defense to make things equal. If you hear of anything like this, lemme know.

[ 06-20-2001: Message edited by: Colonel_Deadmarsh ]

[The Commissar]

Deadmarsh,

You dont seem to understand...attack/defense games aren't meant to be equal! If you want equality in your game, play meeting engagements.

Attack defense scenarios give each player their own advantages and disadvantages.

___________________________________________

Defender

---

Advantages:

-Can dig in his men and equipment

-Can remain hidden and ambush the attacker

-Does not tire out his men through movement

-Can use fortifications like mines, pillboxes, and barbed wire

Disadvantages:

-Has less points

-Must abandon dug in positions if the men are not where they should be or the attacker has moved in an unexpected way

-Sometimes forced to defend either the entire map and spread men too thin, or defend only a cluster of VL's and give the rest up

___________________________________________

Attacker

---

Advantages:

-More points

-Freedom to lose men and still maintain the lead through numerical superiority

Disadvantages:

- Starts out exposed and must move into position, further exposing his men to fire

-Does not know the defender's positions and must thus waste points to find discover the enemy

-Lacks the use of offensive fortifications like pillboxes

-Is forced to advance quickly so he has time to destroy the enemy and capture enough VL's before the time limit runs out.

___________________________________________

I know I have probably missed some, but you get the idea. Yes, sometimes the attacker seems to have more advantages then the defender. This is mainly because you, as the defender, are not playing as well as you should. This is not entirely your fault, as random terrain can literary decide the outcome of a game.

However, I must underline my point that attack/defense scenarios are not meant to be fair. If you penalize the attacker too much or give the defender lots of extra points, the attacker will feel like he is being cheated of his advantages. The defender must use entrenchments, fortifications, and excellent use of surprise attacks to achieve the edge. The attacker must use his numbers and skill to discover these fortifications, ambushes and entrenchments and to destroy them.

Making it equal just doesnt work.

[olandt]

Hi,

I'm still new, but I seem to be an oddball here. All of my games have been versus the AI and I've personally found defending vastly easier than attacking. I've lost only one defense and maybe half of my attacks (mostly when I chose armor, which is why I was seeking advise in another thread). I'm playing my first defense versus a human which I'm expecting to be much more dificult than versus the AI for obvious reasons.

I think the game is balanced just fine. I can give the advantages of defence, but most people here have probably heard them. That said, I would suggest playing on small map sizes for QBs as it defenately helps the defence to maintain a more cohesive force. I think one of the arts to defence is unit purchase.

I do find certain units invaluable on the defense, with my number one buy as the German 88 Flak. BEST ALL PURPOSE DEFENDER. For 80 some points you get a gun capable of taking out a lot of the enemy armor, great blast value vs infantry, and AA protection thrown in for good measure. The ammo allotment is evenly split between HE and AP. Snipers are also a very good buy, especially in assaults as they can be great advance warning units and provide suppresion value. And of course, AT bunkers are very usefull. Don't bother with the 88 bunker unless you think your enemy will come with a behemoth. MGs are much more usefull since their primary drawback of being SLOW walkers doesn't affect them as much. I could go on, but I've probably drawn enough flames messages already.

Pete

(who will probably be eating crow after getting trounced in his first defence vs a human)

[JasonC]

That the AI is generally clueless is well known. That it is particularly clueless on the attack is also well known. Balance is only an issue between humans. Against the AI, playing a few times should be more than enough "balance". Still fun, of course, and fast to play which is nice. But not a serious challenge, after not very long.

[Jaldaen]

Hey Colonel_Deadmarsh,

I've got a small scenario that benefits the defender, its an Allied Attack... if you want to take a look at it let me know here and I'll send it off to you... It's a fun single player scenario in any case.

Good Hunting,

Jaldaen

[Simon Fox]

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

I recommend 25 turns for medium sized battles, in the 1000-1500 point range, and 20 turns for small ones, under 1000 points. I also recommend random weather and random time of day, with the former the more important of the two.

30 turns is a very long time in smaller fights, and defenders essentially cannot delay that long against odds. They either stop the attackers by winning the firefights or they run out of men. 25 turns or less makes delay issues more important.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Don't worry Hans, we only have to hold off the Tommies for 20min today"

Feh!

I fink deadmarsh was asking about attack/defend scenarios Jason, not delay scenarios. For myself I refuse to play under 30 turns for anything over 1000pts. Otherwise it just favours those gamey stinking SMG infantry. If the terrain is heavy or bocage then make it 40turns. Sheesh I'm playing Kwazydog in the bocage at the moment and it's turn 20 something and we've only had a few skirmishes. It's still fun though, if somewhat nerve racking.

[Grunto IV]

i've found 75mm iGs along with 20mm AA to be very effective in the defense. buy the cheapest units which have the most firepower

try purchasing green troops for the defense.

hopefully once you set them up you won't have to move them, and if they don't have to move, they seem to fire well enough for their cost. the problem is in moving them with the 20-second delay.

if you're defending against an assault, ask the attacker if he would then defend against your assault - a 'mirrored' qb series. then you can see who is better at defending against heavy odds.

the best thing is probably to find a pre-made scenario, then play it 'mirrored.'

andy

[olandt]

Playing early 44 might help out if your the Germans. Most of the alied equipment will be smaller and the armor won't be 100% either. Plus the shermans will provide something to barbecue over.

Anyone know if the random maps generate more bocage in the early months?

[Col Deadmarsh]

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

Hey Colonel_Deadmarsh,

I've got a small scenario that benefits the defender, its an Allied Attack... if you want to take a look at it let me know here and I'll send it off to you... It's a fun single player scenario in any case.

Good Hunting,

Jaldaen<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Please...I'd love to see it if it would provide a fair game. Send to treasure262@visto.com

[ScoutPL]

I'm going to stamp a ditto on The Commissar's comments. Attack scenarios aren't meant to be fair. If you were a commander given mission orders to attack, wouldnt you try to ensure you had every possible advantage before attacking? Otherwise you're sending your men forward like sheep to the slaughter.

Giving the defender 10-20% more men doesnt make things "fair", it just makes the atttacker look like an idiot for attacking at closer to even odds in the first place. The attack/defense ratios are setup to show this.

QB attacks are a waste of time. Mostly because when you attack with 3 to 1 odds or higher you have a fairly foregone conclusion. The attacker will sweep the field. If you want fair fights stick to meeting engagements. If you want to play an attack/defend battle play a historical scenario where you can gauge your success by looking at the real world outcome vs. your own. Or you can keep the game length down to the period of time you think the defenders should reasonably be able to hold. This will prevent the attacker from being able to take his time and wear the defender down. Then the game is decided by point loss and VP locations. If you cant hold in that time then you probably had a bad plan. If you still hold ground and have unbroken troops left at the end of the game then you've done well.

This probably isnt making much sense but I just got off work and its 3 in the morning here. I apologize, just needed to wind down some.

[Col Deadmarsh]

Somebody...anybody...please answer the question about the handicap parameter. Why isn't this used in A/D games? Wouldn't it equal everything out if the defender was given a 10% bonus? What is the drawback, if any, to using this?

As for those who don't think my attempts at creating a more equal A/D scenario represents real life...fine. I'm not concerned with that. Since this is a ladder game, I just want to create a situation where both sides have an equal chance to win. That's all I'm concerned with here.