Quick Battle Map Balance

[C'Rogers]

Question for those who have played far more CM:BB than I have.

In a quick battle assualt who is more helped by a large map size? Is it easier or harder to attack a huge map vs. a normal size one?

My gut reaction is that a small map helps the defender as it it narrows the field that needs to be defeneded. On the other hand it is easier for the attacker to employ artillery and in a huge map the defender has more opportunities to ambush.

Any of the map choices most balanced?

On a second note what is a balanced number of turns for a battle. I normally play relatively small battles compared to some people on this forum, never much over 1000 points. The more turns the attacker gets the better fairly obviously. I have been tending to set it to 40 turns variable though this may be given the attacker a bit too much of an advantage from my experience.

[George MC]

Just mind the AI attacks very slowly so if playing a QB against the AI as the attacker (that's the AI attacks not you) either make sure it is a small map, or allocate aLOT of tunrs to the game.

I must admit I like playing till QBs till one side or other gives in - sp loads of tunrs )

Cheers fur noo

George

[Kingfish]

Originally posted by C'Rogers:

Question for those who have played far more CM:BB than I have.

In a quick battle assualt who is more helped by a large map size? Is it easier or harder to attack a huge map vs. a normal size one?

My gut reaction is that a small map helps the defender as it it narrows the field that needs to be defeneded. On the other hand it is easier for the attacker to employ artillery and in a huge map the defender has more opportunities to ambush.

It cuts both ways. The larger map gives the attacker more manuever room, and also tends to spread the defender's forces out. The flip side is that there is a lot more ground to cover, which eats up time, and time is almost always on the defender's side in a computer wargame.

[dieseltaylor]

I have done a lot of research in CMAK on assaults and I rate terrain as being key variable along with time.

Generated maps can give very different terrains and the difference between best for defence and worts is in the order of a force multiplier of 100% for the attacker.

Reverse slopes, well positioned flags, in CMAK , rocky ground preventing flank envelopments, all of these sorts of things can make considerable differences. It is hard to be categoric but in general terms the wider map always helps the attacker. I can conceive of circumstances/maps where it might not. Incidentally the weather could also be a bit of a kicker if support waeapons are unable to act effectively : )

[C'Rogers]

Just mind the AI attacks very slowly so if playing a QB against the AI as the attacker (that's the AI attacks not you) either make sure it is a small map, or allocate aLOT of tunrs to the game.

Being I haven't played the AI in years I tend to forget that is option. Sorry I meant vs humans.

[kurbi]

Don't forget that the size of the map depends on the total points of the QB . For instance a "small" map of a 300 points QB is something like 600 meters X 150 meters , a "small" map of 5000 points QB is 2.5 km x 2.0 km . Actually it is easier for an attacker to win big battles and even more easy if you select "huge map" of course for the reasons that have been exposed above . This doesn't apply on imported maps of course .

[Lanzfeld]

I have gone into the stock battles and adjusted the "time limit" many times. Having 18 minutes is just not realistic. I like longer battles as it gives the attacker more room to plan....and more realistic.