Jump to content

Force Size Points in QB's

Recommended Posts

I remember seeing somewhere (manual??) that selecting a force size in a QB determines the number of points given to the defender in that battle. Is that correct? If so then what does the attacker get? I am assuming that this is dependent on whether you select "Attack" or "Assault" etc. for the battle type. I'm sure this has been discussed lots in the past but there is a 2nd part tie-in to this question.

I usually play 1000-3000 pt battles on small maps just due to time constraints but was recently thinking about the historical accuracy of the available force size/map size values that are available to us. Do the point values/map sizes available to us have any historical underpinning to them at all or are they simply more gamey in nature (number of units on a given size map that the program running on an average computer can handle type thing)? What would you say the average size encounter was in WWII? And what would that be in terms of force size and map size in the game?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dunno about historical accuracy. Is there a scenario creator or grog out there who knows?As for points, as the attacker, I can't quite remember the formula ... In the most recent PBEM, I got an additional 50%, i.e. a 1500 point game attack/defend game, I received 2250 points as the attacker. :confused:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a QB the type of battle will determine the difference in points between attacker and defender.

In a meeting engagement both players will get the same points. If you choose a 1000 pts battle, both sides can spend 1000 pts.

In a probe engagement the attacker gets 35% bonus. In an attack battle the attacker gets a 50% bonus and in an assault battle he gets 75%.

So if you choose a 1000 pts attack battle, the defender will get 1000pts and the attacker 1750 pts.

To your question about the average size encounter in WW2:

How would you define this? Two platoons may fight each other in some woods. Both belong to a company, to a battaillon, a regiment and a division.

So it's a divisional fight. Or a platoon fight? Or a battailon fight?

Most of CM's battles are about a reinforced company to a battaillon.

The frontline of a company or a division could vary quite a lot. Sometimes a division was stretched out on a long front, sometimes the frontline was smaller, so IMO there's no "typical" map size/force size ratio.

You can throw a battaillon on a large map against a weak platoon. It is still historically accurate because engagements like that really happened.

[ 08-23-2001: Message edited by: ParaBellum ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In QBs there is a standard force to space setting, which is modified by the "map size" parameter. The "large" map setting will give a map width of about 1 meter per point of force. The "small" map setting will give a map width of about 1 meter for every 2 pts. Medium is in between obviously, around 0.7 meters per point.

It is the width of the sector that varies. The depth is close to fixed. In the 1000-3000 pt range, it will only vary from about half a mile up to 1 km deep. QB battle maps are therefore characteristically wide in big fights, narrow only in tiny ones.

How much force you get for the points varies with force type. With realistic extras, you can get an infantry battalion force with 3000 points. But you could spend that much on a tank company, with some supporting artillery or using improved tank types. 1500 points will provide a reinforced company with true combined arms, but if someone takes stripped down pure infantry formations he can easily afford a battalion of men with the same amount of points.

QBs with settings about around 1500 points give increasingly unrealistic battle settings. If you like larger fights than that you should get a scenario designer to make you something with a deeper map. Very wide maps with large forces on them but only limited depth, unrealistically constrict possible maneuvering, because in effect one is forced to move laterally only right along the front, never back behind your own side of it. This makes it easier than it really was to cut a position front to back and then defeat just one side of the remainder.

The force to space you wind up with from the 1000-1500 standard QB settings is realistic for strongpoint defenses or fluid fighting after breakthroughs. It is a lower ratio of force to space than that commonly encountered in linear defenses and full strength break-through battles. And the ratio of attacking strength to defending strength is also lower than often seen in the real deal. In other words, often defenders were more outnumbered, but did not have to defend as wide an area, as you see in CM. Making mines, wire, and the area effects of defensive artillery barrages, more effective in real life than in typical CM fights.

Artillery fire for a given width of front was also often higher than CM limits allow and sustained over longer periods, but typically with less responsiveness to immediate battlefield intel and changes of enemy positions than you are used to from CM. At other times it just wasn't available. The result was it occasionally "seperated" the maneuver forces, dominating the field. While at other times the maneuver forces fought each other with little influence from artillery. CM shows a kind of mean, but the variance of artillery concentration was extreme, and QBs do not show that.

To give an idea of realistic force to space levels in the real war, a typical frontage for a US regimental combat team in Normandy was 3000 yards. Ignoring stuff that was just transport, with all its attachments such a force might run 12000 CM points, or 4 pts per yard of frontage. Which is twice the force to space ratio you see on the "small" map setting. That would not include cases where a full battalion of armor was in support, or corps level artillery, etc., which might raise the force to space to 6 pts per yard. So 2-3 times denser than the "small" map setting happened regularly.

Normandy was dense terrain with continuous frontages, and the force to space was therefore high. If you look at the thin screens US units held just before the Bulge attack, you will find reinforced company strongpoints, in the 800-1500 pt range in CM terms, strung out every 2000-2500 yards, which means up to 2-3 times thinner than the "large" map setting in QBs. With the attacking forces bearing down on hem amounting to an infantry battalion apiece. But in fact these company strongpoints did not try to defend the whole area, only pieces of it - perhaps 1/3rd to 1/2 of the width. Which means the QB settings are about right for that sort of fighting, in the sectors defended only.

Breakthroughs could result in the same sort of thinness, by spreading out the units over long distances "back to front", instead of clustered near the line. (Obviously, because there sometimes wasn't "a line" in such cases, but a fluid set of collisions). The force to space ratio could also be dropped in such cases by long columns with only their forward elements able to deploy rapidly to fight. Limited road space prevented everyone from influencing the battle.

While CM can be used for large, "monster" fights realistically, if you design a deeper map etc, I think the *QB* stuff is best at around 1500 points down to the smallest, with a company or two present on the field, not more. Such engagements were quite common during the war, fighting over areas reasonably close to the ones the QB settings will let you select. Just be sure to take "small" for the map size if you want to show a fight along a continuous front, and only use "large" (with fewer points perhaps, too) for thin screens or fluid column situations.

I hope this helps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've managed to do an Excel file that have a breakdown of the points of the different encounters (ME, Probe, Attack, Assault) and well as the combinations of Combined Arms, Armour, Infantry and Mechanized within the different encounters. Inteterested?

If so, email me @ WineCape@global.co.za]WineCape@global.co.za and I'll send it off. (6KB in size)

Kind regards,

Charl Theron

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by JasonC:

[QB]In QBs there is a standard force to space setting, which is modified by the "map size" parameter. The "large" map setting will give a map width of about 1 meter per point of force. The "small" map setting will give a map width of about 1 meter for every 2 pts. Medium is in between obviously, around 0.7 meters per point.

[Lot's more good stuff deleted]

This is exactly the answer I was looking for! I always thought the QB maps were not deep enough for the larger battles. Thanks a bunch!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Create New...