Defence Too Weak?

[Stephen Smith]

I have a question for the more experienced out there. I haven't played much, but in my own limited experience, I find that the defence may be underrated. Typically, military odds of 3:1 are considered required to successfully overcome a defensive position. In the playing that I have done, 3:1 is really enough to guarantee a win. If I attack with 3:1, I can pretty much count on rolling over the enemy. If I defend at 3:1, even against the AI, I find it is just an inevitable steamroller, that no matter what I do, the end is coming.

Furthermore, in many scenarios, you find yourself attacking at much less than 3:1 odds (I just played Wiltz last night), with the expectation that I MAY win.

I suspect, that if this is correct (i.e. that defenses are underrated), it may be because there is not enough benefit to being stationary, to being 'setup' or 'dug in' that would actually exist. For instance, in a real defensive position, the defenders have been there a while, know their way around, know dead space and fire zones, etc. Furthermore, the defender would be more difficult to see-maybe there is not enough of a penalty for moving. In the game, there is the sense that 'if I can see you, you can see me' which is not really the case (this would account for the low survivability of at guns-they are probably harder to see than CM portrays them). In the game, there is no difference between 'attacker moving towards the enemy' and 'defender withdrawing from the front line', so it is almost impossible to withdraw from a position. When one sets up in a position and waits for the attacker to come, once that attacker is close enough for the firefight, there is no defensive difference between the attacker and the defender (i.e. assume there is a defensive position along a woodline, and the attackers reach a facing woodline and engage in a firefight. There is no difference in the defensive benefit of either woodline-no foxholes, no sense of having sighted weapons, no camouflage benefit, so it devolves into a simple mathematical firefight in which whoever has the most firepower wins-even though the defender has presumably occupied the woodline for a while, and the attacker just occupied the facing woodline one minute previously!).

As I said, I haven't played a GREAT deal, so this is more of a question than a statement of fact-but based on the few games I have played, it seems that it is difficult to even do what would be wise in the defense-to withdraw to alternate positions, to enjoy the defensive benefit of not having moved for ten minutes, an hour, or a day, etc. And this problem is reflected in typical results and scenario design-attack/defense battles tend to be between roughly equal forces, if a 3:1 advantage is established (as it has been in quick battles a few times) that almost guarantees a win for the attacker, and tank/anti tank duels don't really yield much defensive benefit-you could pretty much predict success (though not always) by counting gun tubes.

steve

[Dr. Brian]

Steve,

That is a VERY perceptive analysis. And I have those same questions! It's not with just CM however, it's with some other games as well.

But, consider 3:1 as the attacker/defender ratio that will give an attacker a "win." This is not a ratio that will give a "draw" which is what you seem to be hoping for.

A "stalemate" or "even" battle against a prepared defense would be around 2:1 (ref. How to Make War by James Dunnigan, 2nd Edition).

So, my question is the same as yours, but I'd insert 2:1 instead of 3:1.

At 2:1, it seems the attacker still has an overwhelming advantage!

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

Doc

God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!

[Speedbump]

Would part of the issue be that a squad can only fire at one enemy unit at a time? I would guess (no personal knowledge) that a squad splitting fire against two units advancing on it would at least force the attackers to cover, reducing their advance. Maybe not many kills but reduced effectiveness?

Currently, while one unit receives fire the other can advance without resistance. Not sure what the arguments are for or against this.

Speedbump

[curih]

First, I would like to offer one correction. In defence scenerios the defender does indeed get foxholes. Now onto your point. I agree that this is often the case and will offer as an explanation the reason I feel it to be so. This is based in the targetting system CM uses. Each unit can only target one other unit (excepting tank hull machineguns). Consequently if 20 squads charge towards ten, ten get ripped apart and the other 10 arrive unhurt (or maybe theyall get hurt a little if the AI switches between targets). Once the range has been closed there is little advantage to being on the defense, especially if the defender has been forced from his foxholes and the attacker still has a numerical superiority (10 plus scattered remains of 10 more, or 20 slightly depleted). Hope this helps. In some scenerios like one that I'm playing as a PBEM the attacker actually has a smaller force, point-wise. But this is heavyarmor where quality matters more, and being on the defence offers even less of an advantage (maybe even a disadvantage because i know where to send the artillery).

curih

[BlueFalcon]

While I would agree with you that the defense is weaker than the offense I would argue that this is the case in real life. As a defender you are sitting in an obvious position that you more than likely are not able to vacate. The attacker has the advantage of initiative, surprise and more than likely superior firepower. The defender on the other hand is pretty much immobile until the firefight begins, unless they want to expose their position, probably scared as well (they know they are going to be attacked), and undergunned.

How do you make up for this?

Now this won't solve all your problems, but it is a start.

Don't set up defensive positions in obvious areas, whenever possible. Remember intersecting fields of fire. Every troop's field of fire should intersect the fields of fire of the troops beside them. Create as many opportunities for cross fire as possible. Set up forward observers to give you a heads up on the enemy before they reach your lines. Keep a reserve to plug any holes. And cover your flanks.

Again a few hints to help out.

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

Ours is not to reason why, ours is to do or die!!!

[This message has been edited by BlueFalcon (edited 02-23-2001).]

[Panzer Leader]

Here is a possible solution:

Would splitting squads while on the defensive help to provide more targeting? Since theoretically the defenders have a much higher firepower against advancing troops, a split squad would be able to deal damage (half as much to twice as many) to up to twice the advancing force. Perhaps this is enough to stall those charging infantry?

Opinions?

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

And King Xerxes looked to King Leonidas and spoke. "Our Archers will rain arrows down upon you to blot out the sun."

And King Leonidas replied: "Then we will fight in the shade."

[Atleh]

I totally agree with you Stephen Smith, I would like to see some changes for the defender (especially the machine gun in defens position).

The posibility to be able to fire without being detekted 1 sec. later, is a fix I sure would like to see (my AT-gun firing from a foxhole in heavy woods is doomed to be detekted within 5 sec, thats NOT reality)

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

You never win the silver, you loose the gold !

[Marlow]

Also keep in mind that the "3 to 1" advantage is in manpower and weaponry. It is assumed that the defender will be dug in and possibly have improved his position. In CM these improvements (bunkers, pillboxes, mines, wire, roadblocks, TRPs) all count against the defenders total points.

[BlueFalcon]

Atleh,

Have you ever seen an AT gun fire.

Lots of smoke, lots of bang, lots of dust.

In real life you would see that sucker the instant it fired.

Big guns make big bangs.

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

Ours is not to reason why, ours is to do or die!!!

[Atleh]

BlueFalcon

Someone might see it the instant it fires, BUT in the heat of a battle, where hundreds of men fires, smoke is deployed and people and vehicles are moving around. Then evrybody wouldn't just stop saying "Hey theres a AT-gun 500m over there let's all fire at that" (Like in CM). if a team sees the smoke from the AT-gun lets say 500m away it would take a lot of time before they actually could inform others about the location (if they where in action themselfs).

And when they are able to inform about it, I don't think they could inform about the EXACT position.

Yes I have seen a AT-gun fire (he,he)

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

You never win the silver, you loose the gold !

[curih]

The AT gun issue that several of you have brought up is an absolute spotting issue IMHO. Yes an AT gun is obvious to the infantry man, but I don't think it'd be all that easy to tell where it was from inside a buttoned up tank.

curih

[OGSF]

If I am defending, the attacker seems difficult to kill, especially troops. Their ability to advance forward into machine gun fire is remarkable. If I am attacking, the reverse seesm true!

I think there has been some trade off in the interests of playability. If attacking troops were to be mown down "a la Somme", it wouldn't make for much of an attacking game.

The point about defensive units such as bunkers costing points is well made I think. If I have 800 points to defend with, I cannot afford too many bunkers or other static defences without depleting my troops, guns, armour etc - despite the recent drop in the cost of those defences. I can usually defeat the AI when it is attacking, but then the AI is better at defence (although far superior to any other game I've seen even when attacking). However, if I am defending against a human opponent it is very difficult to win. I have had games where I have knocked out most or all of the attackers armour, shelled and mortared the troops as they advanced, and fired into their ranks with machine guns and HE as they scampered across open ground - and still been over-run. And this is where they only have a 50% attackers advantage.

It is entirely perception of course, but troops advancing on prepared positions can often seem very difficult to suppress and kill. But other times they do break and run or die. Usually it's when the AI is sending them in in penny-packets.

Perhaps a tweak (for CM2?) would be to increase the firepower of troops and MGs sitting in foxholes. If they move out of the prepared position, they revert to "normal" firepower but have an effective bonus if in a foxhole or building.

OberGruppenStompinFuhrer

[chrisl]

I think in CM you can set up a fluid defense, and defeat an attacker much larger than you, but it seems to be harder than being the attacker. Certainly when you first start playing.

You have to not try to defend head on--set up defensive positions that the attacker has to encounter without being able to mass fire on them, but where you can mass fire as he approaches, and then withdraw troops before the attacker gets close and set them up in a new defensive position (prepared by splitting squads at the start to make extra foxholes).

If you put stuff in a commanding location (hilltop, etc.) the enemy will just be able to concentrate a lot of fire on it without having to take a lot of risk.

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

"If you can taste the difference between caviar on a cracker and ketchup on a Kit-Kat while blindfolded, you have not had enough aquavit to be ready for lutefisk." (stolen from some web page about lutefisk)

[jasoncawley@ameritech.net]

I partially agree. Yes, numbers are real effective in CM. There are still a few defensive items that are overpriced IMO - bunkers for example, should be ~30 points, and wire should probably give a 40 yard barrier for the present cost. And a few specifically defender "game mechanics", like bunkers and foxholes being too easy to spot, the former even in foliage, and too easy to knock out in the same case.

There should certainly be more of an advantage to length of time stationary for spotting. There already is such an advantage, but firing mostly eliminates it, leading to "first shot" effects that are useful enough in the high-lethality tank war, much less so with infantry that doesn't not die very easily before taking cover (which is realistic enough IMO).

The one item I can definitely identify as "off" in a way that benefits attackers, is how rapidly everyone gains the defensive benefits of terrain just by being in the terrain, without passage of time and even while moving. I have often noticed, for example, that enemies moving, observed, along the edge of a line of woods, were essentially invunerable to the low levels of firepower that MGs and squads can put out at medium ranges. In game terms, they get "% exposed" numbers of no higher than 25%. And that is perfectly adequate cover, to protect against the firepower infantry and MGs can muster at 150-300 yards.

The way I'd handle it is to have the % exposed number for infantry firepower calculations, relate more to the movement status of infantry units, and change as the movement status changes, somewhat more slowly. I'd also tone down the benefits of the lesser forms of cover.

That is, scattered trees might provide at best 25-33% cover and concealment combined (yielding 67% exposed numbers), and that should almost all be concealment (20-25% say). But that should be the effect in the case of stationary defenders who had been there for five minutes. But a running unit would get no more than 5% help from them. A moving unit no more than 10%. A unit using "stealth" to move, 15%. Crawling, 20%. Similar numbers in the case of brush.

With real woods and tall pines, the standard "vegetation" form of cover, I think more of the protection should be rated as mere concealment, not actual cover. That would mean they would provide little protection against any kind of HE weapons. Without foxholes, these terrain types should generate not the 25% combined cover and concealment numbers they do now, but more like 50-60% (meaning, % exposed numbers would be 40-50%), only 15-20% of it "cover" while 35-40% of it is "concealment".

And again, the movement status of the unit should have a dramatic impact on the cover and concealment these types of terrain provide. Runners ~10% benefit, movers ~20%, stealth move 30, crawlers 40% maximum benefit, for example.

How does a unit "transition" from to the full benefits of the cover, once it stops?

It might work like this. The unit has the max benefit of its move state and the cover, then it stops moving. Instead of instantly getting the full benefit, it moves up as though on a counter, through the movement states. 30 seconds after running the cover benefit is at the "move" level, a minute after it is at stealth, two minutes after it is as good as stationary. This involves members of the unit stopping their movements, seeking better local positions, enemy gunners losing sight of them or track of them, etc. Unit quality might effect the lengths of these delay times.

Light buildings should not provide 85% cover and concealment combined. For one thing, the cover benefit of light buildings is not all that great. MG bullets go through them pretty easily, and at all but the closest ranges MGs are half a squad's firepower or more. But I suppose they are still fairly useful against shrapnel. 65% is a better "top out" number for light buildings (meaing 35% exposed numbers).

Foxholes would provide the *cover* they do now, which is basically 50% as true cover (useful against HE as well as small arms). This can compound with other terrain. But they should also provide some concealment, which I do not think they do these days. Not a lot, but perhaps 10%, so that foxholes in open ground would provide a maximum cover benefit similar to stationary units in woods, ~40% exposed numbers. Right now, woods can provide 75-80%, while foxholes in the open only provide 50%.

A foxhole in the woods would compound the true cover of the foxhole with the greater concealment of the woods. That would give .4 x .4 = 16% cover, about the same as now. Stone buildings would also be that good, same as now. But in both cases, the delay after moving, to gain these full benefits, would be a minute or two (depending on how fast one was moving).

I think this would improve things for defenders in quite a noticable fashion. Attackers moving through vegetation cover, would be susceptible to pinning fire from MGs and infantry, at far longer ranges that today. While still moving, they would have % exposed numbers in the range of 70-80%, compared to the 25% numbers they routinely get today. Which would mean an MG at 250 yards could pin them. When they stop and "go to ground", it would have a minute or two to drop the % exposed number to ~40% - which is still high enough for infantry fire to pin squads at ~100 yards.

Right now, such attackers can count on a "ratio" of "% exposed" of not worse than 2:1, as they get 25-30% numbers and the defenders get at best 15% numbers. This way they'd get under 3:1 eventually, but while still moving they'd face more like 5:1 exposed numbers. Units in open ground are sometimes in that range today, and defenders certainly have the firepower to stop those before they get too close.

Such changes to the numbers have to be made with care, though. The numbers mentioned above might be too dramatic a change. I can see 50% "resulting" numbers for units moving in woods, 60-70% for units moving in scattered trees. That would be a much less dramatic change, but it would still move the "cover ratio" in the defender's direction, and reward "settling in" time for infantry firefight. (Of course, FOs "settle in" in a different manner, so look out! LOL. But that is as is should be).

See, right now, the attackers are only in open ground very briefly, so mostly the firefights occur between attackers in woods and defenders in wooded foxholes. That yields "% cover" ratios of 25 vs. 15 or about 5:3. But even 3:2 local odds is enough with that sort of cover ratio, as I will explain.

3 x .15 = .45 firepower applied to 2 defenders, .225 each. 2 x .25 = .5 firepower applied to 3 attackers - actually, applied to two of them as .25 each. Pinning effects and such will be about the same on two units on each side, but one of the attackers is basically unscathed, firing unsuppressed after a few minutes.

Odds are a "two-fer". They increase firepower put on the other guy, and also increase the number of units he has to deal with, allow greater depth for casualties, etc. If all the defenders have is a 2:1 cover edge, then, 2:1 attackers odds can win every time. Each side puts the same net firepower on the other, but the attacker is also twice as deep to absorb the punishment. He then "dials" the range low enough that he can barely stand the punishment, and that level will be enough to evaporate the defenders.

The same logic will still work with higher % exposed numbers for just woods, but the odds needed to win the firefight will be higher. But the addition of the delay to get the full benefits of terrain has a different sort of effect. It can make changing the range ("dialing" it lower) a more expensive proposition, because the "cover ratio" will move against the "mover" for a period of time. And the lower % cover movers get, will make it harder to get as close as the attacker likes, because pinning fire will disrupt or halt movements, at longer ranges than the attacker is likely to want.

See the point? With my suggested revision, the % concealed ratio could jump to 4:1 in favor of the defenders if the attackers move. This is in addition to the slackening of ~1/2 of their fire as they "bound" somebody forward - the movers aren't shooting *while* moving. Look at a 2:1 case with the same sort of analysis as above, this way.

If the attacker is already close and has "grown" his % exposed numbers down to 30%, vs. 15% for defenders, then he can win the local firefight on the same "depth principles" as before. But suppose while he is moving half his force closer, their % exposed numbers jump to 60%, and all the fire is directed at them.

Then the attackers have 100% of the defenders strength on overwatch, generating 15% effective firepower, and at longer range. The defenders have the same number of shooters (with half the attackers moving), but 4 times higher % exposed numbers, and shorter ranges to the moving attackers (call that 1-2x firepower). So at ranges where the overwatch is not going to annoy the defender's seriously, they will be putting out impenetrable pinning fire 4-8 times as strong. The bound will not make it, unless the range is still long enough that the defender's FP is low even at even numbers of 60% exposed targets. That would generally mean "250 meters" or so.

It the attackers can suppress the defenders with HE, uneffected by range and ignoring concealment, then they can get closer. If they can arrange to get most of their force hitting half the defenders, they can up the local odds ratio by maneuver. It they can find places not covered by fire, or much of it, they can infiltrate closer. So all the real means attackers have to close the range and root out the defenders, will still exist. But it wouldn't be possible to take 3:2-2:1 odds, walk through the woods, say "I can stand it longer than you", and just plain knock the defenders over without much effort.

I hope these suggestions are useful.

[jasoncawley@ameritech.net]

I have already explained my partial agreement with Mr. Smith, explained why at some length, and made some concrete suggestions. But I forgot to explain why the agreement is partial - LOL. Defense still works in CM, but the defender needs to reach deeper into the bag of tricks, instead of expecting foxholes and being stationary to do all of his work for him "mathematically" as it were.

The principle defender's problem, IMO, is not to "cover everything" but to avoid the brunt of the attacker's firepower. The way to do that is to make use of terrain, obstacles, artillery, etc to fight portions of the attacking force at a time.

The most obvious version of this is the reverse slope priniciple, which works by "seperating" the forward attackers from their overwatching supports, in LOS terms rather than physically speaking. Defenders can see bounders, bounders can see defenders, overwatchers can see bounders, but overwatchers cannot see defenders. Just put the "bounders" on a hill top and the other two groups on opposite sides of it, and you get that effect.

The German VG infantry is particularly good at this, with Panzerfausts and numerous SMGs providing enourmous close range firepower against every sort of target. Put them ~30-40 meters behind a crestline, and that will be one hot crest-line, with little "overwatch" fire possible to suppress them.

You can prevent attempts to stop this by just bunching up by the use of area-effect weapons, which in CM mostly means off-board artillery fire, but in a certain sense also includes minefields. What both have in common is that their impact multiplies with the density of attackers in a given area, without his firepower hurting them at all, in return.

Ambush and fall back is another classic defenders tactic, which works on the same principle as the reverse slope in that it effectively seperates the attacking force from front to back. It is limited in usefulness on the CM scale, because the maps are usually pretty small and dominated by objectives. There is rarely room for defenses forward of the objectives by any appreciable distance, therefore.

One thing that could be changed here is to give defenders larger "set up zones" in scenarios and QBs. The former is easy enough for designers to do, the latter is a matter for the Battlefront people. I've suggested this before incidentally. I think the open strip between attackers and defenders set up zones should only be ~100 yards in "assaults", and ~250 yards is "attacks". Or, alternately, the defender in an attack should have 2/3rds of the map to set up in, and in an assault more like 4/5ths. With half the map to set up in for a probe.

But just because the set up zones are tight and there are flags somewhere, doesn't mean you can't use the ambush and fall back somewhat. You can use it on one wing. You can conceed the objective, then shell the attackers when they move onto it, then counterattack - an old defender's stand-by.

There are also good ambush options in CM, and defenders need to learn how to use them effectively. Every platoon HQ and every crew-served heavy weapon can place its own ambush marker, and hide until attackers reach it. TRPs do the same with artillery. But what can these ambushes accomplish, with just a first-shot effect? More in some ways than in others.

Armor combat is a high lethality affair in CM, making it feasible to get a lot of armor from just the "first shot" effect. An attacking force stripped of armor - especially if the defenders didn't skimp on infantry in their force mix - can be decidedly less daunting in the later firefights. Against the AI, you may notice that infantry can often expose enemy guns, and then firepower can take them out. But humans are tougher. They stay on "hide" until they see the exact target picture they want, then open up together.

Similarly, artillery can break any number of attackers in the right spot, and broken infantry is extremely vunerable to short-range infantry counterattacks. The men stay suppressed and fail to defend themselves. TRP based mortar fire on men advancing through woods, followed by close counterattack, and wipe out platoons and larger in a matter of minutes, at little cost. It is hard for the defender to reply in kind because the men rapidly get intermixed (making it hard or at the least heartless to shell them), and he has no TRP, so his barrage is delayed and the enemy moves off again.

In addition, attackers trying to move *into* cover well stocked with defenders, from open positions, can get shot down in rather large numbers at point blank ranges, rather rapidly. This happens in street fights when you stay hidden long enough, or are far enough back in a building, or just entered it, and catch attackers in the street outside. I've seen the same in well-held clumps of woods. Whole squads and sometimes whole platoons will die in one click of the "next" button in such cases (not always, to be sure).

The defenders' main edge is that the attackers do not know where they are, and what nasty receptions they have prepared, where. No where is it written that defenders must sit still in stone buildings or wooded foxholes right next to the objective, where all the artillery and tank fire can be dropped of their heads. If the AI does that too much, that is just the limitations of AIs.

I hope these defender ideas are useful. Defense can work in CM. I do think the way "% exposed", movement, and terrain interact can be tweaked in CM, and defender's zones should be deeper. But there are definitely plenty of things to try.

[Juardis]

Well, I tried to read Jasons post but couldn't make it through the first few paragraphs, so I may say the same thing in fewer words ( ).

1. In defense you have to choose between covering the whole front or just manning positions of strength. If you cover the whole front, you're doomed. If the attacker is good he will overwhelm your defenses by sheer numbers. Concentrating your forces does a much better job.

2 I think the best you could hope for is a draw. I'm not sure the defender is meant to win an attack (although it does happen).

3. Well placed MGs can and will route attackers of lesser experience.

4. Your only hope is to even the odds. You do this by splitting all your squads at the start and digging them in. Dig them in so that there are 2 lines of foxholes. Then, at the start of the battle, push forward into a forward skirmish line. It's probably best to rejoin your squads at this time, but that's different with each person. So once you offer resistance and the enemy stops, shell him with mortars and arty and retreat to the first line of foxholes. Repeat falling back to the last line of foxholes.

5. Stationary defense opens yourself up to arty strikes. Using technique 4 you can make his arty fall on vacated positions.

This doesn't always work, but I've had some success with that. Just keep in mind, static=bad.

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

Jeff Abbott

[Alexander]

I hope these suggestions are useful

Jason, you make my head spin. Let me know when you've finished with that Perpetual Motion machine and wrapped up the Human Genome Project. We can do a PBEM.

This discussion has for a subtext the striving for fairness and equality. We want our ladder matches to ressemble chess. The Meeting Engagement may be fun but but ultimately unsatisfying because we know it's implausible. At least it's rare enough to be unrealistic. And we want CM to be realistic. Very realistic.

In my opinion there are, additionally, three reasons why defense seems so tough in CM:

1- For QBs, the computer generates a map that is wider than long. It's thus hard to torment the advancing enemy with defilade fire, forcing you, the defender, into a zone defense. I submit that, IRL, there would be greater, fixed firepower on the flanks. Narrower or user-selectable maps would help.

2- I doubt a real-life commander would choose to establish a line amidst the sparse cover that the default tree setting provides. And everyone I play seems to elect the default position for trees and hills.

3- The A/D ratios are not user selectable but fixed by BTS, e.g., at 4500-3000(?). The latest patch ameliorated but didn't fine tune the situation the way a heavy duty player could. Maybe 5500-2800 is mathematically more equitable. I know one can give the other a % force advantage but that's not quite the same thing.

There is a way, IMO, which CM accords the defender an advantage: battlefield smoke. Although I was dissed on this before I believe there was, in WW2, more persistant smoke and dust than depicted in CM. Now, as the battle rages the field of fire degrades little. And, yes, I'm hip to the computational restraints.

[Alexander]

I doubt a real-life commander would choose to establish a line amidst the sparse cover that the default tree setting provides. And everyone I play seems to elect the default position for trees and hills.

Nor does the computer help the defense by generating water obstacles.

One interesting alternative might be to allow the defender to 'buy' weather environments like Mud or Heavy Fog. Now that would even up things in a hurry!

[The_Capt]

Biggest problem is that weapons effects are not modeled properly. "My God what did that Heritic say?!!! Burn Him".

CM is a game and must be approached as one. You are right that odds in RL do not equate on the CM battlefield. Here is why.

1) MGs in reality have a large beaten zone whivh allows them to spread their destructive power over a large area. MGs particularly on the defence are fired till the barrels glow and not in bursts. The net effect is that an HMG which is actually design to cover a say 50 by 200 oval and has an effective range of 500m is in fact neutered at range and forced to fire at on target only. I have played a lot of CM and I have never seen an MG surpress more than one target, when in fact an MG could surpress a platoon. Tank rounds and mortar fire are also a little on the modest side. I can tell you as one who has seen this stuff in action.

2) Depth, often a defender has to deploy in a zone which is very small as compared to the actual depth in which say a coy would have at it's disposal. This prevents a defender proper use of combat power to attrit the en as he is coming in.

3) Group morale. We see it on a large scale but in reality if a platoon watches one of there squads blown apart by a tank round, the whole organization will go to ground. And won't be up and moving. I guess you would call it shock but on a larger scale than that in the game. In reality the loss of a Pl HQ will paralyze squads for more than an additional 10-15 seconds.

4) Engineer works. Minefields are much deeper and more efective than that modeled in the game. An tactical AT minefield is actually about 1000m wide and 400m deep which is the size of some maps. AP minefields are much more effective as people tend to freeze up when they are in the middle of one. AT ditches will stop an armoured force if sighted properly and combined with a minefield.

CM is a great game and I highly encourage everybody on the planet to buy it and have fun with it but do not try and make too many parallels between it and Real Life. In a real attack against prepared enemy you can expect 30% casualties or better. The 3:1 rule is there so you can actually do a second attack if you have to. That because in reality it is a whole lot more dangerous

[StellarRat]

I have beaten the computer many times at 2:1 and gotten draws and wins occasionally at 3:1. If you take enough MG's, arty and mines, it's relatively easy to inflict so many casualities on the AI that it can't hope for more than a draw even if you are totally wiped out. You also have to not try to defend every flag. Toss out the small flag and defend just one big flag. If there are just bunch of small flags defend the ones that are in the most favorable terrain for you.

[Pak40]

Steve,

This precisly why BTS made the QB generator point value for the attacker 50% more than the defender. It ensures a "equal" game with either side able to win. A 3:1 ration would mean that the attacker would always win. Where's the fun in that?

The 3:1 ratio was a gauge devised so that commanders could almost gaurantee a victory within acceptable losses. I think the ratio is supposed to be changed to 5:1 if it is an assault on a fortified position like Omaha or the Siegfried line.

In other words the ratios WERE set to gaurantee a victory, just as the outcome in CM. Obviously, in real life it did not always work like that. There are so many variables that change the odds: terrain, cover, troop quality, visibility, commanders, etc...

Originally posted by BlueFalcon:

The attacker has the advantage of initiative, surprise and more than likely superior firepower.

In most cases the defender has the advantage of surprise, not the attacker. The defender can remain hidden until the attacker is in the killing zone.

[Leonidas]

There is so much to say on this topic.

I like the idea of making a big distinction between moving vs. stationary targets in trees.

I don't find that defense is ineffective. In fact, I prefer defense. The key to defense is surprise. The attacker doesn't know where you are. If you don't use that surprise to your advantage, then of course the attacker's brute force advatage will wipe you out.

One of the unreal things about QBs is that the map is random. A real defender usually has a fair bit of latitude on where to set up. I would like the option as defender of seeing a much deeper map, and then picking the portion of the large map that will be the battlefield.

Of course, the attacker could make an offsetting complaint. The attacker gets to choose whether or not to attack. As has been discussed, usually the attacker likes to wait until he gets a 3:1 advantage before attacking. Otherwise, he just won't attack.

So QBs offer at least those two strange characteristics: the defender is given no choice on which patch of ground to defend, and the attacker is required to attack.

[StellarRat]

I prefer defense/offense strategy in larger scale games too. You let the enemy beat his head against your defenses then when he's worn himself out you go on the offensive against your now weakened opponent. I believe this strategy was used by some of the great historical commanders although I can't remember any names or battles right now. Anyone?

[Guest Andrew Hedges]

I think that defense in CM is about right, although I very much recommend the "Probe" type battles for people interested in not doing ME battles -- the defender gets to be/has to be less passive than in attacks or assaults, and even has enough points that he could manage a small counterattack, if desired. The attacker has more than one area to take, and must be very concerned about flank security. Also, interlocking fields of fire and MGs are very effective in probes IMO.

WRT to the attackers' advantages generally, it may be the case that higher quality attackers nullify a lot of defenders' historical advantages. That is, leading a veteran or crack company against a historical-type defense, even one manned by equal quality troops, will not be nearly as difficult for the attacker as leading a green company against a defense manned by green troops. I think that this is true.

For various reasons, I almost always use green troops when I play against the AI. (I like green troops for a lot of reasons, including the fact you are penalized if you don't think about your battle plan carefully and deploy troops in a reasonable way). I always beat the AI in standard QBs, and I almost always beat the AI when I give it my usual +1 handicap, +/-30% troop advantage.

However, in a recent probe QB againt the AI w/low quality troops (we both had green) and the above advantages, in a lightly wooded battlefield, in about a 1000 point game (as the attacker, I took a -30% numerical handicap), I was completely creamed by the AI. Interlocking MG fire broke up my attack, broke up my attack, squads in foxholes in wheatfields routed entire platoons in my attack, and my 155 mm arty was not enough to turn the tide, even when it caught the wheatfield on fire.

I've always thought that the AI was very smart in setting up defenses in probes anyway; I'm also always getting hit from some hidden AT gun.

I would imagine if you tried a similar battle against a human, (without the handicaps), you would have a very difficult, but historically accurate attack.

Hint: forget the 155mm Arty and buy two 81mm mortars for smoke.

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

WOOT!