Defense

[Bruceov]

It seems to me that the game does not allow the attacker in CMBB a sufficient multiple of the defender's points in a quick battle. It should be 2 or 3 to one. Otherwise the defender has an unfair advantage. This should be easy to fix.

[nevermind]

I think it depends on the battle type,probe gets maybe 25% more,attack gets 50%,assault gets 75% more.Something like that.Im sure someone knows the exact figures.

On second thought my figures were too high.For a probe you get like 50 more points and etc..

On third thought/edit,maybe i shouldnt have answered cause i am not sure

[ February 19, 2003, 11:00 PM: Message edited by: Ares_the_Great ]

[JasonC]

You can adjust it easily with the "handicap" setting. The default settings are 1.35 for probes, 1.5 for attacks, 1.75 (or so) for assaults. You can give the attacker a "play balance" bonus of whatever percent you think is justified, and it multiples with these default levels.

To reach agreement with your opponent, just employ the principle of "you cut, I choose", offering whatever odds you think are fair. So, if your opponent thinks the default odds are fair, ask him to attack if you think the defender has an edge. Or give him the option to defend, but with a 20% handicap (or whatever).

One guy (whoever challenges is a good way to handle it) proposes the attack-defense odds (in effect), the other decides which side he prefer at those odds. The program doesn't need any changes; you can do this today.

I hope this helps.

[Sergei]

Also one thing I'd like people to notice is, that there's the issue of turns available. The more there's turns, the harder it is for the defender. Equally, the shorter the battle takes, the harder it is for the attacker to gain the VL's in that time.

So you might consider having bigger force ratios but shorter turn limit to keep the battle balanced. After all, 3 to 1 is what the attacker ideally tried to get to ensure success, but it just doesn't make for a balanced game.

[SgtMuhammed]

Don't forget that an overall 3 to 1 ratio was rarely achieved by anyone. Sure that is the "official" figure but often commanders had to make do with what they had.

What you as a commander have to do is pick your point of attack and then achieve overwealming odds in that location. Relying on brute force can be effective but usually only ends up with increasing the other guy's body count.

[Sergei]

Originally posted by sgtgOOdy:

Don't forget that an overall 3 to 1 ratio was rarely achieved by anyone.

Well, depends on what you define as "rare". Usually in any major offensives, the whole point was about gaining that preponderance, at least until the enemy reacted with reserves. And from 1944 on, it was rather usual.

But I agree with your comment, trying to gain superiority at one section is the key

[Andrew H.]

Originally posted by Sergei:

After all, 3 to 1 is what the attacker ideally tried to get to ensure success, but it just doesn't make for a balanced game.

And they didn't mean 3-1 in *points* anyway.

[Olle Petersson]

What do you mean "the game does not allow"?

I've never seen any limitations when I've designed scenarios.

Also, the 3-1 number is in men and material when the defender is fortified.

To attack a platoon that's dug in behind barbed wire and mine fields you'll need a company. I think the regular QB generator will allow that.

(Attacker: ~300pts rifle company

Defender: ~100pts rifle platoon, ~100pts fortifications.)

Cheers

Olle

[JasonC]

Um, no, the 3:1 was not just in men and not just when the defender was fortified. In attack sectors, odds of 5 or 10 to 1 were often used against fortified defenders. Often without immediate success, incidentally. The 3 to 1 rule of thumb was for every day fighting, and meant have an entire echelon larger unit to bring to the party. If he has a battalion, use a regiment; if he has a division, use a corps.

Odds in CM QBs are typically much closer to even than they were in the real deal. Defenders also have less room, less ability to pick their ground, are less inclined to retreat, and both sides are much more likely to press the result to total annihilation of one side or the other. Attackers, on the other hand, had scads more time than in typical QBs, in addition to higher odds.

[PeterX]

both sides are much more likely to press the result to total annihilation of one side or the other.

I was surpised that BTS didn't significantly lower the automatic ceasefire threshhold in CMBB. Or made it subject to adjustment by the scenario designer. Battles still often degenerate into dubious meat grinders towards the end. OTOH, one assumes the casualty tolerance was higher on the eastern front.