Meeting Engagement / Probe / Attack / Assault

[Spacewrangler]

so what are the differences? My searches pulled up incomplete results.

1) Meeting Engagement: Scoring is based soley around flag location, and I know from experience that casualties are factored in highly in the MEs. You can control all flags but can have those scores counterbalanced if your men get mawled.

2) Probe - flags are more in the middle of the map - but how is scoring scored? How does a defender win a probe? It seems that with the flags near the front of the board (perhaps slightly behind where ME flags would be) it makes life harder for the defender as he has less depth to set up his defense. Are attacking casualties factored in highly here? Maybe the attacking point balance isn't as highly tilted towards the attacker?

3) Attack - I guess the most familiar engagement. Flags at the back of the board, attackers get more points for casualties than defenders, flags generally worth quite a few points you gotta figure the team with the most flags end up winning here.

4) Assault - no flags? Score based solely on how far the attacker advances? I'm a little hazy here. I heard in one thread that casualties aren't really scored in Assault scenarios, its simply whether or not the attacker took over the whole map. Is this true?

[Sergei]

1) Attacker to Defender force ratio: in ME it is 1:1, in Assault the Attacker has something like twice the point value

2) Flag location: of course the more forces the attacker has, the deeper he is expected to push

3) Foxholes: only in Attack and Assault type QB's the defender gets foxholes

[flamingknives]

1) Even points, neither side dug in or in possesion of flags at start

2) Attacker has 30-40% points advantage, defender starts in possesion of the flags but isn't dug in.

3) Attacker has 50% advantage, defender has the flags and get foxholes and fortifications

4) Attacker has >60% points, defender has the flag, is dug in, with fall back foxholes and a greater proportion of points allocated to fortifications

Points are the same for all.

[Folbec]

Quoting from someone I forgot, about the fine art of scenario design :

QB maps have several consistent characteristics for a given battle type regardless of the size of the battle, or even the size of the map chosen. These characteristics were surely intentional. I think they should be duplicated in custom maps intended for QBs. To help make this happen I set about analyzing computer generated QB maps today. Here is what I learned.

Assault Battles

1) Flag points on the map range from 100% to 120% of the defender's purchase points. The flag points you put on your map dictate the appropriate size (defender points) for battles fought on your map!!

2) Average flag placement is always very near the defender's map edge.

3) The defender's setup zone is always 40% of the total E/W dimension of the map.

4) The attacker's zone is always 20% of the total E/W dimension.

NOTE: The E/W size of a map does not change much from small to huge maps. The map size option mainly affects the N/S frontage of a map. Battle type does not affect map size.

Attack Battles

1) Flag points range from 70% to 90% of defender's points.

2) Flags are fairly centralized in defender's zone.

3) Like assaults, the defender's setup zone is 40% of the E/W dimension. The attacker gets 20% of the total.

Probe Battles

1) Flag points range from 50% to 70% of defender's points.

2) Flags are placed in the forward portion of the defender's zone.

3) The defender's setup zone is 35% of the E/W dimension. The attacker gets 25%.

Meeting Engagements are obvious.

You should determine the dimensions you will use for your map by firing up a QB. Select the battle size (defender points) you wish to design your map for. Check out the different map sizes generated for the point level chosen. As mentioned earlier, the E/W dimension will not change much, but N/S frontage varies greatly with the map size chosen.

To summarize:

1) The number of flag points is important. In QBs, flag points are determined by defender points and battle type.

2) Setup zone depths need to be correct for the battle type, and is a percentage of total E/W dimension.

3) Flag placement within the defender's zone needs to be correct for the battle type.

I have made template maps for 1,000 pt. probes, attacks, and assaults for both sides. These are blank maps with setup zones established and flags placed. To make a map I need only load up the proper template and do the terrain and elevation work.

I can make time consuming beautiful maps or quickies. In either case, they will have the proper setup zone depths, flag points, and flag placement for a 1,000 pt QB of the battle type I choose.

If you would like these templates for your own custom QB maps just email me (profile). They won't save you a LOT of time; but they will save you from having to mess with setup zones, map dimensions and flags. Also, they will guarantee your map meets the official BFC standard for QB maps.

I did take one liberty with the setup zones. My maps have a large frontage (N/S) with the setup zones centralized at 50% of total N/S dimension. This makes the zones slightly larger than a small map would make them. I think this discourages edge-hugging a bit, and also leaves room to maneuver on the flanks. The important thing is the E/W relationship of setup zones and flags.

To this I add :

QB values for CMBB :

for 1000pts QB with x% randoms casualties defender/attacker (note that defender and attacker rarely have the same casualties % in a real QB if set to random) :

0%/0% 10%/10% 20%/20% 30%/30% 40%/40% 50%/50%

Assault 1000/1720 1111/1911 1250/2150 1428/2457 1666/2866 2000/3440 +72%

Attack 1000/1500 1111/1666 1250/1875 1428/2142 1666/2500 2000/3000 +50%

Probe 1000/1400 1111/1556 1250/1750 1428/2000 1666/2333 2000/2800 +40%

ME 1000/1000 1111/1111 1250/1250 1428/1428 1666/1666 2000/2000 +00%

Note that in the current engine (1.03) some types of fortifications (trenches, TRP, wire, ?) seem to count as losses against the defender at the final tally.

Defender in attack or assault gets a setup area of ~40% of map depth, probe 35%, ME 15% ; attacker in attack or assault gets a setup area of ~20%, probe 25%, ME 15%

[Joachim]

The scoring is identical to all. (Given a set date) you get as much credit for a destroyed Tiger and killed crew in all types of scenario.

What matters is the amount of flags in relation to the amount of casualties. IF there are 20 huge flags and only 500 pts on each side casualties won't be a big factor regardless of scenario type. One small flag with 5000 pts on each side will mean the flag is worthless.

A scenario designer is rather free to select the amount of flags and thus can stress holding ground or staying alive as more important goal.

QBs follow certain rules regarding force ratio, flag placement and depth of setup zones depending on the battle type (cf. Folbec's post)

My rule of thumb is that casualty points are twice the number of the cost. This may vary due to force type.

IIRC Treeburst155 made a small utility to calculate the flags vs causalty points for different victroy levels in a scenario.

BTW: If you import a map into a QB that has no flags and setup zone, CM will add these according to the battle type and points

Gruß

Joachim