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

[rune]

Becasue that is one site...seven times out of how many games NOT on that site? Go to the depot and read how people WON it as germans. Oh yeah, in the testing of it, was a split on who won too.

So, can defend it easily.

Not bad for the work of a 13 year old...

Rune

[Berlichtingen]

Originally posted by Runyan99:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> ...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. </font>

[Runyan99]

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. [/QB]

Berli, I agree that time HELPS the attacker, because it allows him to flank positions, or whittle away methodically at a defense, but at 1:1 odds the defender is still going to have the advantage in an attack/assault.

Consider a scenario that features one company attacking another equal size company. The defender is going to be in good positions, with good fields of fire, and will be dug in or entrenched. The attackers only advantage is to focus at a point of attack (or flank the whole position if given a lot of time and space).

In the company vs company example, even if the attacker is able to mass three attacking platoons against one defending platoon at the point of attack, the defender STILL may have the advantage. Three squads advancing on an MG position may or may not be much better than one squad advancing on the same MG position, dependent upon terrain. In open terrain, the MG may be able to pin down the whole platoon.

But that assumes a passive defender. In the same example, let's say the defender is able to hold a reserve squad or platoon, and then move this reserve into the point of attack, he can reduce the attacker's advantage to 3-2 or worse. Then the attacker is really in trouble.

This is what I find in many scenarios.

[Juardis]

Berli, since you're being particularly verbose in this thread, riddle me this. I'm playing To the Volga as the Germans. Which means I'm attacking into fortified positions. Factory fighting, which I am now well versed in, favors the defender sooooo much that one platoon can easily hold off an entire company. Factory fighting is a huge benefit to the defender. I'm getting better at it mind you, but at the expense of almost 1/3 of my infantry.

Now then, what is your opinion on this operation? We're only on the first battle, so many more to go. No spoilers please. But are the Germans really at as big a disadvantage as I seem to be at?

Note: defender is very good opponent yielding ground slowly. He is able to have numerical superiority in localized situations because LOS in factories is extremely beneficial to the defender.

[Guest konrad]

Originally posted by Berlichtingen:

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)

Yes ,"and we should read and think about the wars of the Great Captains .This is the only way to learn about war":)

[ June 27, 2003, 03:57 PM: Message edited by: lenakonrad ]

[Guest konrad]

Originally posted by rune:

Not bad for the work of a 13 year old...

Rune

Yes ,may He burn in hell:-0

I played this scenario seven times ,before I get minor victory (against AI ).

I will hesitate to play it against live opponent thought..

[Holien]

Hi it has been mentioned but I will express it again.

Balance is not just about points but about who is playing who and what luck is brought to the party.

The one thing I have learnt from the ROW tourneys is that all scenarios appear to be balanced when you have enough people play them.

Yet for some people they do not appear balanced because they have approached it (with their opponent) in a certain way.

Now this is the key, depending on how each person approaches the scenario that in itself can throw the balance or make it more so.

So just saying scenario designers use X or Y points is too simple and impossible as even if you did that the rules above would apply.

Not sure if I have expressed that well but I will try again if need be.

H

[Berlichtingen]

Originally posted by Juardis:

Now then, what is your opinion on this operation?

My opinion? I think whoever created that operation was insane... er... whoever decided to put it on the CD was insane. Yeah, that's it!

We're only on the first battle, so many more to go. No spoilers please. But are the Germans really at as big a disadvantage as I seem to be at?

Ok, no spoilers. Historically, the factory fell. If you don't mind my asking, how long is it taking you to process turns? How do you keep track of your units?

[Berlichtingen]

Originally posted by Runyan99:

Berli, I agree that time HELPS the attacker, because it allows him to flank positions, or whittle away methodically at a defense, but at 1:1 odds the defender is still going to have the advantage in an attack/assault.

Consider a scenario that features one company attacking another equal size company. The defender is going to be in good positions, with good fields of fire, and will be dug in or entrenched. The attackers only advantage is to focus at a point of attack (or flank the whole position if given a lot of time and space).

In the company vs company example, even if the attacker is able to mass three attacking platoons against one defending platoon at the point of attack, the defender STILL may have the advantage. Three squads advancing on an MG position may or may not be much better than one squad advancing on the same MG position, dependent upon terrain. In open terrain, the MG may be able to pin down the whole platoon.

But that assumes a passive defender. In the same example, let's say the defender is able to hold a reserve squad or platoon, and then move this reserve into the point of attack, he can reduce the attacker's advantage to 3-2 or worse. Then the attacker is really in trouble.

This is what I find in many scenarios.

So, you have lots of time and plenty of room... that means you have time to neutralize those MGs... in fact you can neutralize his MGs all along his front so he can't guess where the attack is coming. Given time, the attacker can destroy a defender's heavy weapons and still bring overwhelming force to bear against a single point. Also in your example, plenty of room plays against the defender... how much of a front is that company to hold? the more space he has to hold the harder it becomes to hold a reserve and harder to shift forces to the point of attack. A narrow front gives the advantage to the defender... wide goes to the attacker.

[Berlichtingen]

Originally posted by lenakonrad:

Yes ,"and we should read and think about the wars of the Great Captains .This is the only way to learn about war":)

Absolutely! For the fundementals of tactics do not change

[Berlichtingen]

Originally posted by Holien:

Now this is the key, depending on how each person approaches the scenario that in itself can throw the balance or make it more so.

Excellent point! Winter Wonderland had a high rep for being unwinnable as the Germans (attacker) and yet if the right approach is taken, it is next to impossible to lose

[Guest konrad]

Originally posted by Berlichtingen:

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

Yes ,"and we should read and think about the wars of the Great Captains .This is the only way to learn about war":)

Absolutely! For the fundementals of tactics do not change </font>

[tar]

Just a comment about historic military rules of thumb for force ratios. The common 3:1 superiorty for attacking is not the ratio at which you can expect a fair fight. It is the ratio at which the attacker can reasonably be expected to WIN.

Unlike in wargames, in real combat, you don't want to enter into a balanced fight. You want to enter a fight in which you can expect to prevail without unacceptable casualties. To the extent that CMBB is a valid model of combat, one would expect that 3:1 odds would lead to attacker victories a larger majority of the time.

Scenarios for wargamers generally don't give the attacker such an advantage, since they want to make things challenging. Real soldiers try to make it as boring as possible.

[manchildstein (ii)]

Originally posted by Hpt. Lisse:

Marshalling even Veteran troops over open ground just can't be done in CMBB

Hpt. Lisse

it all depends on your level of suppression fire

[theike]

Hmm, yes scenario's...:

I just play scenario's against the ai.

Havent played one single scenario jet against a human (my bro).

And thats probably because all in all im never completely happy with all settings.

Its all a bit too guidet for me.

But one does need scenario's to replay ore get some idea of what 'really' happened. So i do sometimes take on the ai in a chalenging scenario.

However i allways look at all settings and change turns ore...whatever.

(but then again; mostly i cant be bothered, and i just wont play the one.

I now have a list of about 10 scenario's set aside to play in future... 10 !! and i down loaded every single one the depot has to offer !

I play my brother only on my own maps.

He may choose whatever map ive made, and when he ore i defends, then the defender allways gets plenty of points less, but mostly its just not enough still. (probably since we both know what we'll get from eachother, so the defender has even more advantage.)

Anyway...what i think?

It must be very very hard to make a pretty even scenario to both human players...(and even, and because settings try to be even in chance, every small thing can easily chance balance completely... Like carefull players are unhappy with 30 turns, but bold and agressive players might think of the same scenario, damn it took too long now...

So if a scenario is set to 25 turns one might know what the maker thinks u should do...HURRY hurry Hurry.

...and so on.

Just play my maps...and the problem is solved.= )

oh yes, and one more point why i dont like scenario's :

When cmbb just came out, i played a scenario in witch i as russian had to attack a little village with germans...i did pretty well in the beginning, and i was setting out lines pretty to my satisfaction, allready came to the town borders...

But then it happened, turn after turn there came platoons of tanks for me at my edge...i think about 20 ore something all together. First five i was pretty happy to see them, made my plan even easyer to complete. But after the first 10 i thought...G, and now what? so i took them on to the field pretty quick as the battle was in full progress. It made me play less carefull, it gave me more tanks destoyed then would have in the first place and so on. Chaos.

I didnt like that game at all at one point and i just stopped, guess im just not that good a commander after all...)))

Well maybe i am, now a days i make sure im well prepared: i engage only on my own conditions.

[ June 27, 2003, 06:14 PM: Message edited by: theike ]

[Schoerner]

Originally posted by Berlichtingen:

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)

Most maps allow, to reduce this advantage: the defender can mass his forces, too.

With some experience, it's quite good possible, to estimate the approach and attack routes and mass forces/firepower on the one or two key-positions, while the others stay ignored.

The minimum an attacker against a competent defender needs, is to have at least enough time for preparing a decent attack.

Still most scenarios don't give enough time for that and i agree that they are usually favouring the defender.

[Cpt Kernow]

Im the guy playinythe guy who started this thread.

After we finish playing; With Our Backs To The Volga. Im going to give that guy (Runyan) the password to my files.

Reckon that'll change his perspective a bit. Coz, as I said earlier he had his chances (cant talk too much about them as battle is ongoing)

When he sees files he'll realize this.

My opinion ala Back to the Volga

Win for Germans = PIECE OF PISS.

However it is 1:38am Mazey Day Penzance and I am very drunk.

Cheers All

Kernow.

[Emar]

Have to agree that having only 30 turns in Our Backs to the Volga is tough. I did not even beat the AI . But having more time can indeed be an equalizer for the attacker. My CMBO Blut Und Ehre scenario gives a 5000 point advantage (16000 vs 21000 pts) to the defender! But I have had several people grab a total victory by the 5th or 6th battle. Scenario difficulty is hard to judge while designing, especially when the AI and human opponents success level can vary wildly (not to mention the luck factor).

[kenfedoroff]

My problem with the "need for speed" in a scenario is this:

With the CMBB model of realistic fragile infantry, if a unit routs, you have most likely lost it for the rest of the scenario, unlike CMBO.

In big battles with lots of troops, this is not such a big problem. It's only a small percent of your force you lost for performing aggressive recon. In smaller battles, this does become an issue.

Perhaps the scenario designer could penalize a lack of aggressiveness by feeding more reinforcements to the defense in the latter stages of the scenario. Or put some hints in the briefing as to what is expected.

Ken

[Stavka_lite]

When I first started reading this thread I agreed that the defender had the upper hand. After looking back at my games I can no longer agree. I win (vs the AI) perhaps 60-75% of my games as the attacker and never ever get trounced. Against a very limited amount of gaming vs humans I have never lost a battle either, had several draws but no out and out losses playing the attacker. I guess what I am trying to say is planning my attacks before I hit the initial "GO" button has won, or not lost, more games than by just charging forward.

I don't lose squads when they break, rout or panic either. I keep them in command and they always seem to recover before they leave the command range. It may take a couple of turns but I can usually get them back in the fight.

[Lady Roxanne]

Berlichtingen and Holien have it right. Balance really depends on the players. It depends on what choices the attacker makes, and how these choices match up with the defender's choices. The more options each player has, the more difficult it is for a designer to test for balance.

I think designers should design with fun for both sides in mind, and to heck with balance. It's virtually impossible to guarantee a balanced battle every time when players will choose different paths to victory.

You just can't have a high degree of balance in CM. This is good because you can blame your losses on an unbalanced scenario, like I do.

[Runyan99]

Originally posted by Cpt Kernow:

Im the guy playinythe guy who started this thread.

After we finish playing; With Our Backs To The Volga. Im going to give that guy (Runyan) the password to my files.

Reckon that'll change his perspective a bit. Coz, as I said earlier he had his chances (cant talk too much about them as battle is ongoing)

When he sees files he'll realize this.

Kernow, I doubt I will 'see the light' by watching this one from your perspective. Whatever fleeting weaknesses your defense may have had during the course of our game were quickly plugged with fresh Soviet armor. That is not my definition of an exploitable breach.

You seem to think this is quite winnable for the German player. What I really want is a rematch of Our Backs to the Volga, with me as the defender, so you can show me how to make this attack in 30 minutes. With the forum as my witness, I hereby challenge you.

[Holien]

Hi,

That is a sensible way to go about it. Play it again but with him knowing what he would do as the attacker.

This is what I try and do when I have an opinon about a scenario, and the opponent disagrees.

By both sides knowing everything the balance is changed but it still represents a what if you did it this way.

Now that what if could still have been taken by a blind attacker, it is just this time they have a full knowledge of what and when other things will arrive.

You see blind play in itself gives a different slant on how a game is balanced, between two players.

As mention by Berli, each scenario tends to have a certain approach which will work better than others. If you can find that approach then the balance can be enhanced to your favour and hence appear massively unbalanced to the loser.

The skill (if you call it that) is finding the correct approach and making your whole force work in unison in achieving that avenue of attack or defence.

So while there are certainly scenarios out there that favour one side or another this is mitigated by who you are playing and their approach to the scenario.

It is tough to recognise where you have failed as well and all too easy to blame the scenario designers (although we all do it).

By playing the game again you will both learn something new about it.

If he does not take you up on the offer I will, as I have not played that scenario.

H

[Cpt Kernow]

Well I formaly accept the challenge.

If I win or lose I dont think it will prove anything though.

Whilst above I say it would be very easy for the germans to win, I was very very very drunk at the time and was posting before collapsing into bed.

My true sentiments are that like the russian player, the german player has a good chance of victory in this one. Eg, the game is reasonably balanced. You may even still win our game which hasnt finished yet.

The russian player gets stronger over time so time is of the essence.

The german player therefore must therefore buy time with manpower (his biggest asset). He must exchange his most plentifull asset for his least plentifull.

Anyway that is how I will be thinking during our rematch.

[Ligur]

So about all the people in this thread are of the opinion that attacking is easy & fun?

Jesus.

I've been so wrong since CM:BB was published, I thought attacking is hell, specially with the very pinnable infantry.

But now I understand the error of my ways and accept that the attacker can choose the breakthrough point and thus has a huge advantage.

I suggest scenarios are made even shorter and the defender should have more "points" (they are irrelevant to the battle anyway though, am I right?) since the attacker holds a considerable advantage; the maps are so huge and the time provided is so long you can really choose where to break the defence.

Great. I want the same drugs you guys are using.