Attacking and defending

[ErikinWest]

I noticed that the attacker really needs a lot more points than the defender. A well placed machine gun, a few 50mm and some mortars and the attacker will have hell to get through.

I usually end up attacking so say for a normal map medium hills, medium tress, what should the ratio be for points. I usually do 500p def and 650p attacker and 2 armor/1 vehicle for att. and 2 vehicles for def.

But if you think this is bad please re-suggest. Also does anyone have any tactics to advance infantry with ought being killed. I usually just sneak them up with support with light mg's and mortars.

Cheers,

Erik

[Cannon-fodder]

Attackers have more advantages than you give credit - provided they have a bit of time, they can recon, then strike weak points. Defenders also tend not to advance, so you can get your support elements and armor onto commanding positions for overwatch.

As for advancing infantry, if you think you're about to be attacked, use smoke. It works beautifully.

[flamingknives]

Look at the points balance for the quick battles. That will give an approximate idea of the points ratio. I think that it's something like 1.5 times the points for the attacker.

for successful attacks, doctrine holds that you need a 2:1 or more superiority at the point of attack. If you give 2:1 across the whole map, then it's too easy for the attacker - they can concentrate their forces as they please, while the defender usually needs to cover the whole map.