Resolved: Defense too Strong

[PeterX]

OK, we've got a New, Improved infantry model in CMBB and a lot of us find it more realistic. Carry an enemy postion is now tough but rewarding - when you can pull it off. But maybe too tough?

The AI., on defense, has spanked me in over half the QBs I've tried. I find advancing virtually impossible unless I've been skilled or lucky enough to crush his armor/ artillery assets before the big push with the grunts. If this accurately reflects reality than I wonder if the purchase points awarded the defender need to be reduced.

Here's a recent distribution in a random QB:

Attacker (ME):

Platoon(5) of Pz3Js

81m Spotter

Company Infantry + HWs

3 HTs

Defender (AI):

(IIRC)2 Platoons Inf + Mgs

Platoon(3) T34s

2 AT guns

Map= Mostly flat, sparse trees, uncovered approach

Forget it! Mission impossible!

I know it doesn't help that there's now very little functioning covering terrain, fog is, at most, a 'light haze', but jeez....

In my 3 ongoing PBEM battles the defense is securely in the driver's seat. What results have other had?

[Michael Dorosh]

In CMBO, the attacker almost always won in QBs. Now I find it much more of a challenge. Against humans, I've found the attacker lost both QBs I played (in attack/defend scenarios).

I usually play QBs vs. the AI as defender - and have won about 50 percent of the time. Main factors include weather, force mix, etc. I usually leave everything at random and let the computer pick the forces.

I also play 500 - 700 point battles, results may differ with more forces and more room to maneuver. But as defender vs. the AI, I would say things are just about right.

In CMBO, all you had to do was buy a couple of tanks with HE, knock all the buildings flat, and charge your infantry in close. The poor MG modelling would let you get away with it.

[fitz]

I have found this to be the case also. In CMBO I had a decent record of wins against defending AI. In CMBB I am get a spanking (no cheap jokes Please! ) from the defending AI. Cemetary Hill? It was my poor infantry who ended up being buried!

However having said that it makes game play much more challenging. After all it's boring winning all the time, ask the Aussies!

[CombinedArms]

Even before CMBB shipped, I was raising the question of whether the defense might be too strong for a one-and-a-half to one attacker advantage to suffice, though it worked in CMBO because attacking was a little overmodeled. I haven't yet played enough CMBB to have a clear view on this, but attacking does seem quite challenging unless the attacker has overwhelming force or a particular unbeatable asset.

[Michael Emrys]

I think CA has it. We're going to find out where the old saw about the attack needing 3:1 odds to be sure of carrying the objective came from.

Michael

[Sirocco]

With CMBO the basis to success was avoiding real-world tactics, while with CMBB it seems the opposite is true. I do recall some very useful CMBO tutorials, and I think we need more for CMBB. Detailed explanations with illustrations to give a clear perspective on what's required when attacking, and so help people move from the CMBO model to CMBB.

[PeterX]

My personal feeling, pace Steve and putting on Kevlar vest, is that infantry may be a tad too brittle and/or the attacker needs more assets, especially artillery assets; one for bombardment one for smoke. In some of the random QBs I've been confronted with the only response was 'Alt-A' and reset. It was that hopeless. Meager concealment is another factor; the most success I've had is with Town battles. With these you can make covered approaches.

In the setup I cited at the top of thread I loaded the infantry on tanks, dropped smoke on the grouplet of house near the main flag, and took off like a bat out of hell. Result= draw, with gruesome carnage on both sides.

[ October 14, 2002, 03:47 PM: Message edited by: PeterX ]

[Sirocco]

Originally posted by Michael emrys:

I think CA has it. We're going to find out where the old saw about the attack needing 3:1 odds to be sure of carrying the objective came from.

Well, that depends on the terrain, and as I understand it CMBB doesn't take that into account when assigning each side points, though perhaps it should.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by PeterX:

Meager concealment is another factor...

I have an example of that from my own play. I set up a QB in the Northern Theater with a village in heavy tree coverage expecting the village to be surrounded by forest. I was surprised when well over 50% of the terrain turned out to be open. I don't know if this was simply an aberration or or was due to my selecting a village map or what. In BO, extensive tree coverage meant just that, trees everywhere.

Michael

[Nippy]

...the attacker needs more assets, especially artillery assets...

Ahem to that. This is the exactly why I always purchase my units myself in any QB. One 81mm Mortor isn't going to cover squat with it's smoke rounds.

...Meager concealment is another factor; the most success I've had is with Town battles. With these you can make covered approaches.

For the most "Bang for the buck" set the map to 'Farmland-Large Hills-Modest Tree Cover" The mpa gives you lots of covered approaches to the VL's, but at the same time give the defender lots of good places to set up.

Oh, I would like to add that the AI can't attack its way out of a wet paper back. I love kicking Crack and Elite German AI ass using nothing but conscript Russians while on the defensive.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Michael emrys:

I think CA has it. We're going to find out where the old saw about the attack needing 3:1 odds to be sure of carrying the objective came from.

Michael

Isn't the whole point of a CMBB scenario to NOT be sure of carrying the objective - ie each side having a fighting chance?

In other words, is there really a problem?

[BlackVoid]

I think the game is more realistic now.

What is off is the point ratio in attacks. 2:1 would be more fair.

[StellarRat]

I agree with Black Void. What you are seeing here is the exact reason why infantry could not advance in WW I. You really have to have armor and artillery to move over any kind of open terrain with infantry. I'd say 2 to 1 would probably give you a 50/50 chance most of the time. However, sometimes when the AI chooses the wrong equipment for itself you can still kick it's butt at 1.5 to 1.

[Redwolf]

f you increased the amount of points the attacker has he will still be screwed due to victory points. There are too few flags in typical CMBB battles, both in scenarios and in the Quickbattle generator.

If you just give he attacker more stuff, and he gets the same amount of stuff shot up, then the defender still gain the same amount of victory points. And taking or not taking the flags does not make enough of a difference due to too few flags.

[Humus B. Chittenbee]

Isn't the whole point of a CMBB scenario to NOT be sure of carrying the objective - ie each side having a fighting chance?

i would not mind that --- but just finished (quit) a qb where i had nothing that had even a remote chance of stopping the matilda that was roaming around the map. had my force been there in reality, would've kept our heads down, retreated, and/or waited for reinforcements. in a game, i expect to have *some* ordinance (though perhaps far out of effective position) that has a hope of effectively engaging the enemy.

[Bullethead]

LOL, just can't make people happy. In CMBO, everybody said the defense was too weak, with some justification. The major problem with this, wimpy MGs, was addressed in CMBO and now folks are whining that the defense is too tough.

Question: had you never played CMBO, and thus become habituated to weak defenders and the use of certain tactics, would you feel the same way? IOW, if CMBO's MGs had been done right, would you be complaining now?

A lot of folks have complained that CMBB grunts are "brittle" but I have to disagree. Squads can shoot it out for long periods of time with their own weapons. What they don't like to do is advance under fire, especially MG fire. Gee, big surprise there. Ain't that how it works in real life?

The essence of CMBB infantry advance therefore is finding a way to shield your troops from fire until they get very close to the objective. If you can do this, your attack will succeed. If you can't do this, then your troops will go to ground at or near the LOD. Which is pretty much how it works in real life.

So how do you protect your troops during their initial advance? There are 3 main ways: 1) suppressive fires, 2) smokescreens, and 3) concealing terrain. Failing these, you can always go for overwhelming numbers.

In the context of a QB's unmodified points system, concealing terrain is the only method that really matters. If you go with the standard points ratios for say an attack, and the map is almost completely open ground or steppe, the attacker simply doesn't have the points to create numerical or fire superiority, or lay enough smoke for long enough, to cross 400m or so of open ground. Not only does the absence of cover leave the attacking troops exposed, but pretty much all the defenders can shoot at them simultaneously. OTOH, in areas with a decent amount of woods and/or hills, or at night or bad weather, the unmodified points allow the attacker to achieve superiority at the chosen point of attack and his troops are also shielded from fire during their approach.

So the solution to the "problem" of "the defense is too strong", IMHO, is to NOT leave everything random when setting up a QB. If you do, you will fairly often face situations where the attacker lacks sufficient points to do the job. Nothing for it then but to ALT-A.

To avoid this problem, I recommend always setting 4 variables when starting a QB:

</font>

• Region: Appears to have great bearing on the amount of cover available for a given map setting. The further north, the more trees you get for say "moderate" setting, or so it seems to me.</font>
• Map Variables: Set the amount of trees and hills. Maybe set all the variables as well. This is especially true if you're playing another human--it helps get you in the proper mindset.</font>
• Battle Type: Not only does this set the basic points ratios for each side, but it determines which side is the attacker. You must know this already to set the final variable...</font>
• Handicap: This gives one side or the other more or less points. Use this to balance the forces based on the terrain chosen above. Experience will be the guide here. In time, the community will establish good handicaps for battles in different types of terrains and weather conditions, rather like CMBO's "Rule of 75". In the meantime, play knowing we're still in the trial and error period.
  </font>

Anyway, that's my take on things. Many things have changed in CMBB vs. CMBO. IMHO, the need for handicapping points for the attacker, especially in open ground battles, is one of them.

So give it a try and see if you like the results better. At least you have the power to change things yourself. Be thankful the handicap feature exists and start using it instead of whining and failing to adapt

BTW, Michael emrys said:

I set up a QB in the Northern Theater with a village in heavy tree coverage expecting the village to be surrounded by forest. I was surprised when well over 50% of the terrain turned out to be open.

I have a counterexample. I set a battle in the northern region and got heavy trees by random. At least 80% of the map was tall pines and 10% woods. In fact, 1 thick belt of tall pines extended all the way from the north edge to within 1 tile of the south edge. This gap being right at the forward edge of the defender's set-up zone, naturally the AI put an AT minefield there. I didn't have any engineers so as a result, none of my tanks could even get an LOS to the objective area, let alone drive there.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael emrys:

I think CA has it. We're going to find out where the old saw about the attack needing 3:1 odds to be sure of carrying the objective came from.

Michael

Isn't the whole point of a CMBB scenario to NOT be sure of carrying the objective - ie each side having a fighting chance?

In other words, is there really a problem?</font>

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by redwolf:

f you increased the amount of points the attacker has he will still be screwed due to victory points. There are too few flags in typical CMBB battles, both in scenarios and in the Quickbattle generator.

If you just give he attacker more stuff, and he gets the same amount of stuff shot up, then the defender still gain the same amount of victory points. And taking or not taking the flags does not make enough of a difference due to too few flags.

How many flags are you getting on average? In my QBs (usually around 800-1,250 points in size) I get 4-5 flags, at least two of which are large.

Michael

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Michael emrys:

Depends on how you like to play, doesn't it? I like to play as if my superiors actually know what they are doing. And certainly in warfare if nowhere else in life, "Playing fair is for losers." Of course, people engaged in competitive play have to have balanced games and I have no problem with that. But that's another universe.

Michael

So you're decrying the game's inability to give you a guaranteed win every time? I'm not sure I understand the point here.

[lassner.1]

I have not had any difficulties winning on the offense in CMBB (against the AI) - this stands for the "canned" scenarios and for QBs. In fact, I have yet to lose against the AI.

[PeterX]

Bullethead posted:

In the context of a QB's unmodified points system, concealing terrain is the only method that really matters.

I agree. Concealment is the attacker's friend. One problem we're having is that steppe, brush, wheat, and rocky terrain are bereft of concealment values due to an acknowledged bug. I might suggest two other modifications:

1- The random map generator is cool. But the 'flat map' generated by the game is bowling alley flat and useless. Not only is it unnatural looking, it opens up unlimited fields of fire for the defenders. Make it a little less flat.

2- Fog, at least the 'normal fog', hardly impairs LOS at all. It's purely decorative. Thicken it.

[Eden Smallwood]

Originally posted by lassner:

In fact, I have yet to lose against the AI.

And have you, as yet, played :mad: Directive Number 3, as Allies :mad: ?

If so, I'd love to know how it's done!!

Eden

[PeterX]

Bullethead posted:

Handicap: This gives one side or the other more or less points. Use this to balance the forces based on the terrain chosen above. Experience will be the guide here. In time, the community will establish good handicaps for battles in different types of terrains and weather conditions, rather like CMBO's "Rule of 75". In the meantime, play knowing we're still in the trial and error period.

I see your point, Bullethead. But I think it's preferable that BFC take the initiative and jack up the A/D ratio. Otherewise, they'll be chaos at the ladder sites! Also, a lot players are way too machismo minded to use handicaps- especially against the AI, for God's sake.

[K_Tiger]

I see here no real problem of the game.

Since now, i lost only one attack as the germs (the other games i played with russians), but i made some heavy mistakes, buyed two green ferdinands (couldn resist to be so gamey, they were so cheap.. ) rarity was on). The one bogged down at the start, lost two panthers with gun damage (one true a fighter the other from a pop-mountain-gun)....and too, i lost while all my leaders were green...never saw this before (buyed regulars) nearly all of my inf`s were useless. Damn unlucky, if you ask me.

In my opinion, the attacker has still the advantage. More forces, and you can decide, where you attack, so you can dooble the odds for the defender by 3 or more...

Im happy with cmbb like it is, maybe someon need to change their taktiks.

[Andrew H.]

Infantry in CMBB is great.

Whether the A-D points ratio needs to be adjusted is, of course, a different matter. But as of now, I haven't seen enough evidence suggesting that it should be changed, since the game has just been out a couple of weeks.

The problem with changing the points is that so many non-points-ratio things have a huge impact on gameplay. The major factor is, as BH and others have pointed out, terrain. There is a huge difference between attacking in a wooded, hilly area in thick fog and attacking in deep snow across the open steppe; I think it's impossible to adjust the points to work in these different environments without having the points adjust themselves for the terrain. Minor issues affecting balance are computer picked forces (sometimes it's not enough) and battle size (people who play small battles do not have the flexibility in point selection that people in large battles do.

Another issue, which no one has touched upon, is that there is apparently some sort of bug that makes it easier to spot people in light cover. Others have reported that BFC has said that they will fix this in the next patch; I don't know if that's true or not.

Anyway, if there is an A-D imbalance, probably the best solution would be along the lines BH suggested - a set of agreed upon parameters for terrain.

Ladder players, of course, can use a bidding system to deal with any perceived unfairness now; i.e., the players use the handicap function to choose how many additional troops they would require to be the attacker with a given set of parameters. I.e., one player bids +30% to attack in a largely open map; if the other player bids +25%, the other player is the attacker; a bid of +40% by the other player would mean that the first player attacked (at +30%, of course).