How Do You Make An Attack/Defense Scenario Fair?

[jhdeerslayer]

I've had good success by playing in the snow. This is to the attackers disadvantage and greatly helps the play balance in my experience.

[Jaldaen]

Colonel_Deadmarsh,

Sent off the scenario... If you end up using it let me know how it turned out, I'd like to see the AAR and get some feedback on its playability as both a single and multiplayer game.

Thanks,

Jaldaen

[Juardis]

OK Deadmarsh, here's your answer. There is nothing wrong with giving the defender a 10% bonus. However, you're going to do that, then you have made a defense against an attack more like a defense against a probe. Which then begs the question. Why not just make it a probe to begin with? The main difference between the two, other than the point differential of course, is that a A/D scenario has more flags deeper in the defenders setup zone where a probe has flags closer to the middle of the map.

Now, I personally have never given myself a bonus or handicapped my opponent, so I don't know what your opponent sees. Will he know that the force multipliers have been changed and what they have been changed to? Obviously, if you both agree to it, then it is clearly acceptable.

[edit: Oh, you do know that the victory point conditions are different for A/D scenarios than they are for ME don't you? You can lose several flags and still win a A/D scenario. The scoring system accounts for the initial point discrepancy. I'm not sure what is needed to win though. My last defending game I had pretty much all my forces wiped out, but I managed to keep one flag gray and killed a lot of his stuff. He won a tactical victory. I was very surprised given that my global morale was around 25% by games end. So it's a different scoring system to account for the fact that you're already starting out unbalanced.]

[ 06-21-2001: Message edited by: Juardis ]

[Col Deadmarsh]

Thanks for that info Juardis. I ran a test and it does tell both players on the setup screen that one side has been given a handicap so that's not a problem for opponents who don't know each other.

[ScoutPL]

DreadMarsh, Perhaps you should try to be clearer about what you mean by fair? Equality of forces? An amalgamation of terrain, troop quality, and assets?

The way I'm reading your question, a bottom line answer is impossible. In combat, in my mind at least, a "fair fight" would always end in stalemate, since neither opponent could gain an advantage over the other. A force shouldnt ever attack a defending force unless they can mass superior numbers and firepower in order to ensure success (at least in their analysis of the situation). So an attack/defend scenario will never be "fair", quantitatively anyway.

If you want the outcome (Victory Conditions) to be as balanced as possible then you'll have to really gain some knowledge on how CM is set up to handle that stuff, then you can design a scenario or manipulate a QB to take advantage of that. But I think you're going to find that its pretty balanced already. If you buy expensive troops, then they cost more VP when they are killed. If you buy a lot of inexpensive troops, then you have to expend more of them getting the job done and so you end up loosing the same amount of VP.

Probably the only way to have a "fair" CM game is to have the AI fight itself with two exactly alike TO&E's. But then who wants to do that?

[moosehead]

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

You cannot give the defender a 10% bonus. It only modifies the attacker +/-. This is why I said to give the defender more points (200) in a 2000/3000 point game. Which is basically the question you are asking. And yes, it has made a big difference, especially if you use it to buy a Concrete 75mm PB.

So I did answer your question previuosly.

[Jagdcarcajou]

Hey,

Remember me Colonel, the guy who couldn't seem to get a turn back to you to save his life...

Anyway, I always find defending easy. The higher number of attacking units is countered by the fact that you are dug in, with plenty of opportunity to lay ambushes, place mines, etc... There is no need to give the 10% differential. I just held of an Allied attack in night fighting conditions in a hot seat game the other day, final results were 73 to 24 in my favor. My opponent was skilled, and we used random forces with a random map. I ended up with no armor and a bushel of shreks, but no MGs. I was still able to devastate the enemy.

The only time you should use the differential is if you know that there is a skill disparity, or you just want to challenge yourself by giving your opponent a bonus. Otherwise, the games already have a natural balance.

Chris

[moosehead]

Attacking at night, against troops hiding in ambush, is near immpossible. Would you rather be walking blind into an ambush or sitting there in the dark, waiting to shoot the first thing you see?Not a good comparison.

[Kallimakhos]

I don't quite see why so many maintain that attacker has advance. Are there any valid statistics to support this claim? So far I havent lost defending (against top players) but while attacking it seems to be quite easy. I think attacker is more prone to make mistakes, he has to be active and doesn't know what to expect, on the other hand, defender can often see quite early which way the main attack is heading. Play active and force the attacker make mistakes, keeping some aces in your sleeve, this is also a psychological game!

Generally I like AI picks, but I support the idea of letting the defender do the buying himself. Mostly because it's fun to plan and lay a good defence, and if there's a bias, this is enough to balance the odds. Most importantly, use only small maps and secondly, random whether.

[Jagdcarcajou]

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

Not a good comparison.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It wasn't a comparrison...

It was a statement. Defending, if anything, is easier. There is no need for differential.

Chris

[moosehead]

Ok then , a bad example. I doubt you would have done as well if it hadnt been at night.

[Jagdcarcajou]

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

Ok then , a bad example. I doubt you would have done as well if it hadnt been at night.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually I have almost never lost on defense (two exceptions - against Airborne and in my first game ever) in any circumstances.

Defending is far easier than attacking. Anyone who disagrees is doing it wrong. The attacker has a larger number of troops because they need them to stand a chance of surviving.

Most players claim night gives the attacker an advantage as well, because line of sight is hampered until contact is imminent, thus denying the defender the ability to adjust plans as the attacker approaches. If your forces are placed poorly you have little choice in the matter once fighting begins.

Chris

[ScoutPL]

If you are attacking with three to one odds and cant at least get a draw or minor victory then you dont know what you are doing. And that goes for real life as well as any game. Keeping in mind, that odds ratio would have to entail alot of things other then just numbers (Troop quality and experience, equipment quality, ammo supply, morale, leadership, etc.).

A good player will use deception and probes to keep his main avenue of attack hidden for as long as possible and use supporting fires and indirect fires to isolate defending units to enable him to mass attacking units against defending ones. But all of this has been covered ad nauseum by myself and other players on this board and on other websites.

The real truth of the matter is that defense just requires less skill and finesse and so often seems the easier of the two to win at.

[Mr. Johnson--]

For attack QBs with moderate or light trees, I say give attacker -10% handicap. It prevents the attacker from making more than one mistake.

For assault (I have not tested this) I would think that a +10% bonus for the defender would be in order.

[Redwolf]

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

Oh, you do know that the victory point conditions are different for A/D scenarios than they are for ME don't you? You can lose several flags and still win a A/D scenario. The scoring system accounts for the initial point discrepancy. I'm not sure what is needed to win though. My last defending game I had pretty much all my forces wiped out, but I managed to keep one flag gray and killed a lot of his stuff. He won a tactical victory. I was very surprised given that my global morale was around 25% by games end. So it's a different scoring system to account for the fact that you're already starting out unbalanced.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is incorrect. Victory point calculation in attack games is the same as in any other game (except exit point games). You can win while loosing all flags in most CMBO games.

However, in A/D the attacker has 150% the points in units and is expected to loose as many more units. In a 1000 points A/D game the attacker has 1500 points and if both players loose half of their original force, the defender earned much more points.

In a game with high losses, the flags usually play no big role anymore. From the example above, you have 500 to 750 damage points in the 1000 points QB, which usually has 300 points in flags. If players continue to trade 1:1.5, the flags won't matter much soon.

A proper understanding of the relationship between damage points and flag points is vital for defense. Don't risk units to defend an indefendable flag. In a typical CMBO defense it is much more important to meet the 1:1.5 kill point ratio expectation than the expectation to defend all flags.

For more info see the victory level dicusiion threat we had 10 days ago or so.

[Panzer Leader]

Good points, but to be accurate, in an Assault/defend where the defender gets 1,000 points, the attacker gets 1,750 it is a 1:1-3/4 ratio. Not caring to go into the math behind it, I would be interested in seeing some data on the worth of flags vs. the worth of units.

Just HOW exactly important ARE the flags? 300 points seems like an awful lot when you only have 1,000 points of units. If you have 2 300 point flags and 3 100 point flags (which is fairly common in an A/D) that is 900 points, or practically the same value as your whole force. These are not important to defend??

I can understand giving up one or two of them if they are out of your zone of control, but more than 1 big one or 2 little ones and you have ALREADY given yourself another deficit to fight against.

The flags are one of the main reasons the A/D is hard to win.

And while I'm on the subject, I am shocked by these few people who flippantly say "Its easy to win on defense" I can't disagree more. I have spent months playing almost solely A/D (as both sides) and I can tell you that for me, I have lost many more defense QBs than I have won. Some are lost from turn 1, some are lost on the last turn when the spearhead of the enemy turns your last flag into "?" but none of them were easy by any stretch of the imagination.

It is true that I could be a bad player -- I have been known to get impatient and give my position away a trifle early, but judging by my average win/loss ratio against human opponents, I would say I am up their in the "knowledgeable, winnable" category.

There are plenty of players better than me to be sure, but it seems a little rude to breeze along and say "Oh its easy!" when it is apparent and obvious to just about everyone here that it is NOT easy.

Are we even on the same page??

[Jagdcarcajou]

Hey,

Its not rude. Its true. I am equally as shocked that people are saying how difficult it is to win on defense.

You have every advantage except numbers. There is no need to actually guard every flag, just the most important group (determined on a map by map basis). The attacker shouldn't know where you are, or which flags you are defending. If you are patient and bide your time to set up ambushes, you should be able to slaughter your opponent. You will also take casualties, but I have to say advancing against a well-prepared defense is incredibly hard, and I am never as comforted by numbers as I am by rolling into a defense in disarray.

I guess we are just coming from different sets of experiences. No harm, no foul. I just didn't feel like silently watching another thread complain about how hard it is to defend. Just to clarify, I have been talking about attacks, not assaults here. In Assault scenarios, numbers do play a big part, and they are very difficult to stop. Of course, that is the "charm"; not so much if you can win, but how dearly can you make the attacker pay!

Chris

[ 06-22-2001: Message edited by: Jagdcarcajou ]

[Panzer Leader]

Okay Chris, I see your point. I was specifically referring to Assaults where the disparity in numbers is far greater. I agree with you that in Attacks the defender does have an advantage, since the numbers are not so far apart.

[Panzer Leader]

You know, this thread title should have given me the information that it was about Attacks. Sorry again for sounding like a maniac

As for making Attack/defends fair, I believe they are pretty evenly balanced. In a QB, I would actually prefer to be the Defender, since they seem to have a better time of it. There is DEFINITELY no reason to give the defender an added advantage, or even to modify any of the game parameters.

[ 06-22-2001: Message edited by: Panzer Leader ]

[Col Deadmarsh]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Panzer Leader:

You know, this thread title should have given me the information that it was about Attacks. Sorry again for sounding like a maniac

As for making Attack/defends fair, I believe they are pretty evenly balanced. In a QB, I would actually prefer to be the Defender, since they seem to have a better time of it. There is DEFINITELY no reason to give the defender an added advantage, or even to modify any of the game parameters.

[ 06-22-2001: Message edited by: Panzer Leader ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As the person who started this thread, I have to say that I named it "attack" just as a general term to cover all different forms of attack: probe, attack, and assault. It's been interesting though hearing about the difference in each and seemingly how one is harder than the other.

I'm a little surprised Panzerleader that you so easily agreed to the fact that attacks are much easier to defend than assaults. Can I also assume that you think probes are easier to defend than attacks?

I'd also like to know your reasons why assaults are so much harder to defend against than attacks. What advantages are given to the defender in this case in exchange for having to deal with receiving a much smaller amount of points? Why isn't this advantage worth it?

Anybody else can feel free to answer too.

[Cpl Carrot]

The only advantage the defender gets is the higher ratio of points allowed to be allocated to fortifactions. If the Germans are defending they will be allowed to also buy pillboxes and bunkers.

The attacker is allowed 25% more weight to put on these defences making it a lot harder to stop. 25% can be a lot more firepower to try to neutralise. I think this makes sense. If not I guess some one will abuse me about it

[Ron]

Well the other difference in a Probe/Attack/Assault for the defender is the depth of the map in which he can deploy. The Probe being the most shallow and the Assault the most deep. In an Assault it is quite feasible(and advantageous) for the defender to delay, fallback and maneuver, something I find to be too restrictive in Probes and Attacks. Another thing I would also ask for as the defender is a Small map, the depth doesn't change but the width does.

Ron