Turns vs. balance in quick battles?

[Wildhack]

It appears to me that allowing a greater number of turns during a probe/attack/assault quick battle would favor the attacker, and allowing less would favor the defender. Do any of you guys have a formula you use to try and achieve balance in games against a human opponent?

For example I'm just gearing up for my first PBEM quick battle against my brother. It will be a 500 point assault on a medium map in dry conditions. How many turns should I make it?

[Robert Olesen]

That's not my experience. Lack of ammo and lack of willingness to move forward could well put a stop to the attack before time runs out. I have used the same pbem opponent for some time, and we have agreed to put a long time limit on the next battle to make sure that we don't hit an artificial time barrier. But we know and trust each other, and we're not in a strongly competitive situation. That might make a difference.

[flamingknives]

I'd say that it depends on the force balance to an extent as well. The more armour there is, the quicker the game tends to be as fire support is better able to keep up with the infantry.

I'd say about 30 turns would be about right.

[Warmaker]

I have no problem with the number of turns for a defender or attacker. You can only take advantage of time if you know what to do with it regardless of what side of the coin you're on.

You can say an attacker gains an advantage with many turns to employ an elaborate plan. The same can be said for a defender in ensuring units fall back to supplemental/alternate fighting positions. He can also use a bit of that extra time to figure if NOW is the right time to employ a crushing counterattack.

[flamingknives]

Conversely, having to little time is a great disadvantage to the attacker, as he has to push forward, using less stealth, fewer outflanking manouevres and has less time to regroup after a failed move.

Where the longer period serves the defender is that delaying tactics, such as use of long range MG fire, does not serve him as well, as he uses his ammunition without getting much back. In a shorter game this serves to enable him to retain control of the flags.

[PvK]

I tend to think more time favors the attacker rather than the defender, but as has been said, mainly because too little time can force the attacker to move wrecklessly in order to reach the objective on time.

In most situations, I think low (or any) time limits don't make much sense from a realism point of view. Very rarely would it be more important to capture an objective in 15-30 minutes, than to keep men alive. However a short time limit can get players to move their forces into quick action, for players who prefer that sort of thing.

PvK

[Runyan99]

Time limits at the scale of CM are pretty gamey.

Give your opponent 50 or 60 turns. The time will hardly be an 'advantage' if he uses poor tactics in the attack and gets all his men killed.

Also, the size of the map is a key consideration. A big map generally requires a longer time allotment.