Hey Scenario Designers - Please give the attacker a chance!!

[Runyan99]

I have a problem with a lot of CMBB scenarios these days. Nearly half of the games (scenarios)I play are laughers for the defending player, because the scenario designer either gives the defender way too much materiel, or makes the scenario way too short in duration. Sometimes both.

First, here is a bulletin for all scenario desigers: The attackers require more materiel than the defenders...preferably twice to three times as much. Historically, commanders tried to have a significant materiel advantage before attempting any kind of attack in the first place.

Any attack/assault scenario where the ratio is less than 2-1 is going to be balanced in favor of the defender. For example, in 'SP-Our Backs to the Volga', the allocation is 7400 points for the attacker to 5300 points for the defender, or a ratio of 1.4 to 1. This is NOT balanced. (I am currently PBEMing this one, and it is clear that my defending opponent has almost as much firepower as I do, yet I am expected to magically take his positions in just 30 minutes. Please.)

Even in a scenario where the ratio is closer to 2-1, the game may not be balanced due to the terrain. I am thinking now of Klein Kargarlyk, where the actual point allotment is about 2100 to 1100. In this scenario however, 1100 points for the Russian buys a lot of cheap infantry that sit in trenches, while the attacker has to pass over open ground. This is a good example where a 3-1 allocation would be a better balance. I played this one as the defender, and it was an easy, easy game.

More examples of poor point balance (that I have personally played PBEM):

Approach to Sevastopol - 5200 to 3700, ratio 1.4 to 1

Ghosts of Radziechow - 3600 to 3300 (!), ratio 1.09 to 1. At the Blitz ladder, nobody has ever won as the attacker in this one.

Katukov Strikes Back - 2700 to 1700, ratio 1.5 to 1.

-

But poor force allocation in custom scenarios is not my only source of frustration. Very often, the attacker does not get enough time to achieve his objectives...even in scenarios where the force allocation is reasonable.

It is tough to attack in CMBB. A strong MG position can hold up an entire company in open terrain. The attacker needs significant time to carefully maneuver infantry without getting them shot up. A well placed tank or gun can deny a street or avenue and stop an attack. The prudent attacker will need time to move support weapons into postions to deal with such strongpoints. I have waited 15 minutes waiting for mortar teams to move into postion where they can engage gun emplacements which are preventing the movement of my armor.

Often, this time is simply not given. 25 to 35 turns is generally all that the attacker will be given in a CMBB scenario, regardless of the difficulties to overcome. This makes reasonable tactics impossible, and generally handicaps the attacker to an unfair extent.

Some examples of scenarios that I found too short, and where the attacker simply did not have the opportunity to achieve a solid victory:

A Morning at the Zoo - 22 turns

SP-My City of Ruins - 27 turns

SP-Our Backs to the Volga - 30 turns

Defense of Verkhne-Golubaya - 30 turns

-

In total, I estimate that just about half of all CMBB scenarios are balanced in favor of the defender to an unfair degree.

I encourage scenario designers to take a new look at force balance and time allotment.

[Thin Red Line]

I completely agree on the time limitation part.

Our back to the Volga is an excellent exeample of a wonderful scenario, with many forces but the turn numbers quite low (especially considering reinforcements are coming after 5 or 10 turns !)

Sewer movement is recommended in the attacker briefing but to impossible practically due to lack of time.

My City of ruins is also incredibly short considering the task. I increased it by 10 turns prior to play it but i still easily won as the defender.

There has already been a few threads about this problem, i hope to see it will have some effect on the coming scenarios.

[ June 27, 2003, 09:06 AM: Message edited by: Thin Red Line ]

[Cpt Kernow]

I am runyans opponent in OUR BACKS TO THE VOLGA.

Spoilers........

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Whilst I agree that 30 mins is a bit quick to take all the objectives, it is plenty of time to take the the first line of objectives, there are enough flags here for at least a draw or a minor.

Also, I think the clue to your frustrations lies in your line about having to wait to get your support weapons into position. Three times in this scenario I have made what I have felt to be urgent desperate rearragments of forces, and rushed AFV into gapings holes in my defence because I felt the assualt must come. It hasnt come yet and my repositioning of forces has been able to bed in. The assualt hasnt come because I assume you are still positioning certain elements of your force. I think that if on the attack you see an opportunity you have to grasp it there and then, because if the defender sees the opportunity also, he will close it.

Admitedly my first alltilery strikes disrupted your attack, but thats the point of artilery.

Cory, I think you ignore one vital adavantage of thge attacker, e.g The ability to concentrate all his forces in one place. He can send all his forces against one flank, turn it and then advance lateraly across the map. The defender must string his forces out across the whole axis of advance or either create strong points at critical positions, which will thus ignore other areas.

This is the attackers primary advantage, he must use it to succeed.

[Hurricane]

I guess many are designed with the AI supposed to be defending. As well all know, the AI isn't too smart, so the scenario designer might beef it up to make single-player a challenge. Of course, this means human-human play suffers.

[kenfedoroff]

One of the great features of this game is the scenario editor. If I (and my opponent) are not happy with, or are suspicious of the time allotment, we can edit this or any other item we want. I edit scenarios all the time.

Some of the scenarios I have played might have the purpose of showing just how good the Axis commander has to be to pull off a significant victory (as in WW2 accounts).

I have to agree that many scenarios need a few more turns, or some info in the briefing that takes the place of scouting or recon.

Ken

[Cpt Kernow]

The creator of Our Backs To The Volga had this to say about his own scenario over on the scenario forum:

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

To answer your question - yes it is possible, and in playtesting it was found to be easier to win as Germans than as Russians although it does of course depend on the tactics used by both sides.

Due to my intimate knowledge of the scenario it would not be fair for me to detail exactly what tactics to use however on a general scale i can say that a more agressive german player will reap rewards if he can make decisive inroads in the early stages of battle (Before the bulk of russian reserves arrive). The axis have a stronger initial force and if you can take advantage of this the Russians will always be fighting a tough uphill battle to keep you at bay. Usually, this battle comes down to the wire and it was a deliberate ploy to limit the number of turns (Refering to your comments at the depot) thus encouraging the German player to get moving right from the word go as well as to keep the action rolling right until the end. Advancing quickly, in bounds, whilst providing covering fire and suppression will be costly, but ultimately rewarding if the pressure can be maintained with the arrival of your reinforcements.

I hope that helps. However, we must always remember that a smart, experienced and skillful defender can ruin anyones well laid out plans

After being away for these past months i was delighted to see that both my scenarios (This one, and "RD - Into Russia We Go") are now listed as the top 2 PBEM scenarios at the CMBB section of the Scenario Depot. This can only be acheived with the help of the wonderful guys at Boots & Tracks and of course to players like you who take the time and trouble to post reviews at the depot.

My thanks to you.

Kind regards

CDIC

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

[c3k]

I can't speak on the other scenarios, but I did play "A Morning at the Zoo" vs. the AI. I was the attacking Germans. I won. Some sort of decent victory - not "Total", but there weren't many, if any, good order Russkis left. The time was a tough constraint. I did get a lucky break here or there. I thought it a very good scenario. Well balanced.

Ken

IMHO, YMMV, IIRC, ETC

[Kingfish]

Originally posted by Runyan99:

But poor force allocation in custom scenarios is not my only source of frustration. Very often, the attacker does not get enough time to achieve his objectives...even in scenarios where the force allocation is reasonable.

Some examples of scenarios that I found too short, and where the attacker simply did not have the opportunity to achieve a solid victory:

A Morning at the Zoo - 22 turns

SP-My City of Ruins - 27 turns

SP-Our Backs to the Volga - 30 turns

Defense of Verkhne-Golubaya - 30 turns

Keep in mind that the scenarios you listed were either off the CD or part of the Stalingrad pack, which itself was released a month later. The designers of these scenarios were for the most part still used to CMBO, where 25-30 turns was the norm for a scenario, even for something as big as 'Our backs to the Volga'. It is only after several months of playing CMBB do we now realize that the standard scenario should be up around 35-45 turns.

[Derfel]

My 2 cents worth:

Whereas I don't know if I agree that *many* scenarios are unfairly balanced there certainly are a few out there that might do with a bit of tweaking... that's why the "review" section of the scenario depot is so important.

However, for my money the problem is that it is damned near impossible to construct a scenario that is playble both as 2 player and against the AI.

As noted above the AI need a lot of points to give a human payer anything approaching a challenge...

Personally I have resorted to producing three versions of any scenario I publish (or whatever the term is).

1. Axis against AI

2. Allied against AI

3. 2 Player

All these are different, especially in the force mix and sometimes in the map as well.

If I don't have the time to construct all three I try to be as clear as possible about my intentions with the scenario both in presentation and scenario briefing.

-Derfel

[ June 27, 2003, 10:05 AM: Message edited by: Derfel ]

[Moon]

Just a quick comment from my personal experience with scenario design (not that I did much for CMBB due to lack of time) - when comparing force sizes, make sure that you compare the right things. Often, the defender might have close to the same amount of points as the attacker on the surface, but many of those are in fortifications, mines and the like. In order to calculate the "force ratio", these points should be left out or reduced.

I would say that well done CMBB scenarios probably require even more play testing and balancing than CMBO scenarios, but I would be careful with a general statement that the attacker always needs to have x times more "points" than the defender.

Martin

[rune]

1. Who said it had to be 2 or 3 to 1? I have made some stronger then that and some weaker then that. Depends on the situation, the Experience level and other factors. Sevasaopol had the following comments:

SPOILERS

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

I played a pbem as the Germans. I won a complete victory only because the russians surrendered after it was clear that I would capture the town, (1 kv, and scattered infantry vs. 11 tanks and a mostly intact grenadier company). If we would have fought it out, I probably would have only had a minor victory or draw because I had lost over 30 vehicles. I really enjoyed this scenario, thinking at each turn I was going to get crushed. In the end I was lucky.

As for the above comments about force balance, I agree that the Russians have strong armor and air assets, but I felt their infantry assets are rather weak. You can't win if you can't hold ground. As for the Germans, you get strong air assets (my opponent said that my air force took out around 150 of his troops), a large amount of recon vehicles, heavy AT assets, elite and crack armor assets, tons of halftracks, and strong infantry companies.

2. Just because YOU didn't fare as well, don't expect everyone to do as poorly. Sometimes it is the wrong tactics used rather then the scenario.

3. People like variety of scenarios. Why should they all fit in old mold? CMBB would be rather boring if everything was the same.

4. Aircraft, fortifications, etc affect the point balance. As does type of troops. You can't go on points alone.

5. 2-3 to 1 ratio were used to insure the objective was met. Do that in a cmbb scenario and the attacker will win everytime. Defeats the purpose no?

I encourage you to re-evaluate your thoughts. Having everything the same and basing it just on points would lead to failure. Variety, and teaching is what a scenario should be.

Rune

[xerxes]

On average it seems a number of scenarios are weighted towards the defender. In a fair number of these cases I think it's because they were designed to be played against the AI. You really want to play scenarios PBEM that were designed to be played that way.

Warning signs of an unbalanced PBEM scenario (in order of danger):

1. At the scenario depot it says "best played attacking the AI" - doh!

2. "The stronger player should take the ...."

3. The absence of any instructions on how much to increase forces for play against the ai.

If you avoid these warning signs, you'll have a better chance of a balanced head to head matchup.

[Cpt Kernow]

Rune I agree with you in general, however what scenario are you talking about.

We have discussed With Our Backs To The Volga and the Zoo scenario.

E.g. Someone says unwinnable someone then says I won it.

Which scenario are you refering to?

[Redwolf]

Some thoughts:

1) sometimes defenses are weaker than they appear.

For example, in CMBB and CMBO, foxholes are pretty weak. Guns do not have a fast turn for a limited angle and very slow for the rest, they have slow all along. Minefields are small and can often be crossed without damage. Guns are defenseless against moving to a spot where you can reach a point besides the gun with HE but don't get LOS to the gun itself. Molotovs are very ineffective, you can dance around tank hunter teams and squads until they got rid of all molotovs and start throwing grenades.

2) take order delays into account.

In special, low-quality Russian attacks suffer from the initial command delay when you need a move-to-contact with several waypoints. You can scratch several minutes right off the attack time while the tanks sit in the assembly area doing nothing.

There are also alternatives in house rules. Set turns to maximum and require both sides to press ceasefire when global morale reaches 50% (or limit of your choice). Or require the attacker to drive the defender into (auto-)surrender or leaving the map (very realistic).

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by Moon:

Often, the defender might have close to the same amount of points as the attacker on the surface, but many of those are in fortifications, mines and the like. In order to calculate the "force ratio", these points should be left out or reduced.

Hey, are you saying fortifications are overpriced

Just kidding.

[Moon]

Redwolf, depends on where you put them on the map

Martin

[WWB]

I think that looking at force point values is the absolute wrong thing to do in scenarios--they really do not matter. Point values represent the comparative value of units without taking into account many of the other tools designers have. One can do alot with force placement, timing, ground state and weather conditions to tweak balance. I have even designed a few rather well-liked battles where the attacker had less points than the defender.

Regarding the 2 battles I designed mentioned above [spoilerS]:

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

A Morning at the Zoo: This was the first CMBB scenario I designed, and the balance is likely off after the patches. Especially key is that variable endings got alot shorter since the early beta days. Those 22 turns led to 35 turns of fighting. In addition, the attacker has some very nasty firing positions that can dominate the entire field as well as toys the defender cannot counter too well. Moreover, many of the defending troops are in a weakened state--somethign point values do not note too well--and are deployed in rather extended positions.

Katukov Strikes Back: First and foremost, this battle was never, ever intended for multiplayer play. The briefing notes this very clearly. It was inteneded to be a fun, 15 minute gore-fest where a noobie could sit down, play with a couple of tanks and say "OMFG! Look at the T34 blow up.!"

On a side note, I think there are some stylistic differences in our tastes. I keep things short and nasty, with a clock ticking down dramatically. I intentionally force players to commit in the first few turns rather than letting them spend 20 turns doing recon.

WWB

[demoss]

Ghosts of Radziechow - 3600 to 3300 (!), ratio 1.09 to 1. At the Blitz ladder, nobody has ever won as the attacker in this one.

Been there, done that, though it was looking rather grim at one point. IMO, one of the truly outstanding early war scenarios. The attacker DOES need to know how to coordinate his forces in spite of the lousy Russian command situation, but when does that NOT apply?

[Berlichtingen]

Originally posted by rune:

1. Who said it had to be 2 or 3 to 1?

That is the accepted ratio to ENSURE victory. Given a long enough scenario, the attacker has the advantage if the ratio is 1:1. Also, those ratios are in men not point values. I firmly believe it is up to the attacker to achieve the 2-3:1 ratio, not the scenario designer. Before anyone asks how the hell that is done, do a web search on LEUTHEN

[Guest konrad]

Originally posted by Berlichtingen:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by rune:

1. Who said it had to be 2 or 3 to 1?

That is the accepted ratio to ENSURE victory. Given a long enough scenario, the attacker has the advantage if the ratio is 1:1. Also, those ratios are in men not point values. I firmly believe it is up to the attacker to achieve the 2-3:1 ratio, not the scenario designer. Before anyone asks how the hell that is done, do a web search on LEUTHEN </font>

[Runyan99]

...Made damn sure that Bauhaus

Bought the Game and sealed his fate

Pleased to meet you

Hope you guess my name...

At the risk of sabotaging my own thread, I would be interested to know who Bauhaus was. I recognize the Rolling Stone lyrics.

[Hpt. Lisse]

Cover, too. My friends simply refuse to play the assualting Russians UNLESS there is heavy trees/buildings (multiple avenues of approach) on the map. Marshalling even Veteran troops over open ground just can't be done in CMBB (CMBO is obviously more forgiving.)

Hpt. Lisse

[Guest konrad]

Originally posted by Hpt. Lisse:

Cover, too. My friends simply refuse to play the assualting Russians UNLESS there is heavy trees/buildings (multiple avenues of approach) on the map. Marshalling even Veteran troops over open ground just can't be done in CMBB (CMBO is obviously more forgiving.)

Hpt. Lisse

Can be done ,I witness that many times .

Even I can do that.

You can call you friends cowards:)

[Runyan99]

Originally posted by rune:

1. Who said it had to be 2 or 3 to 1? I have made some stronger then that and some weaker then that. Depends on the situation, the Experience level and other factors.

2. Just because YOU didn't fare as well, don't expect everyone to do as poorly. Sometimes it is the wrong tactics used rather then the scenario.

Rune, at the Blitz ladder, Approach to Sevastopol has been played 7 times. The Russian player has won all seven games. That is 4 Allied Total Victories, 2 Allied Major victories, and and Allied Minor Victory.

http://www.theblitz.org/scenarios/show_full_scenarios.php?scen=3055&game=64&ladder=1

How can you defend the balance in this scenario?

[Berlichtingen]

Originally posted by lenakonrad:

To be honest ,Frederick did have fog that day.

And all of the inferior troops were on the left of the Austrian army.So he was helped a little by circumstances.

still ,that was masterpiece ,so maybe too much for average CM player.

Certainly, but my point is that even with a numerically inferior force, it is quite possible to achieve a numerical superiority at the point of attack. Leuthen is just the best example of that principle. The attacker almost always has the advantage of choosing where the attack will take place and therefore achieve overwhelming numerical superioriity at that point (unless the defender guesses correctly before hand)