Resolved: Defense too Strong

[demoss]

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

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

Ditto. I really don't see how it can be done with the force mix at hand - short of delaying the German reinforcements severely, and I'm not even sure that's enough. Trying to break into the Plow Factory is pure frustration. What I wouldn't have given for a single (moderately cheap unit censored to avoid spoilers)! Or a few (even cheaper units)! I'd have gladly traded double the point value in the useless junk I was given.

[ October 14, 2002, 07:37 PM: Message edited by: demoss ]

[Bullethead]

PeterX said:

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.

You're missing the point. The whole perceived "problem" stems from habits developed in CMBO. In that game, the terrain didn't vary enough to make much difference, nor did the forces and their relative strengths and weaknesses change significantly throughout the covered period. So with CMBO, regardless of the battle's parameters, map type, whatever, everybody knew how to play the game and things worked out in a consistent way. Thus, a constant A/D ratio worked fine.

This NOT the case in CMBB, however. You've got the ENTIRE Ostfront, from Finland to the Crimea, from 41 to 45. The terrain varies extensively from north to south and the side with the relative advantage in units switches back and forth several times. In addition, some nationalities are only available in some regions (and only in certain time intervals) and then there's rarity on top of it all.

As a result, there is NO FRIGGIN' WAY a single, constant A/D ratio will work across the board in CMBB. There are just too many variables involved that significantly impact the relative effectiveness of the units over time and region.

So there's no way tweaking the constant A/D ratio will solve all "problems". Right now, the A/D ratio works fine in some situations but makes things impossible for the attacker in others. If you change the ratio so the attacker has more stuff and can thus win where he can't now, you make the current OK situations into attacker walkovers.

The only way to avoid this problem is to adjust the A/D ratio only in those situations that call for it. IOW, apply a handicap that either jacks up the attacker or reduces the defender. There is already a QB option that does just this. I therefore suggest you use it.

I'm not forgetting ladder games here (not that I give a rat's ass about them, or player egos, for that matter). Think about it. Suppose BTS made the major change necessary for the points system to look at factors besides unit stats (ie, point cost) and consider things like terrain as well. For this to work, the system would have to have a set of rules to determine A) when a handicap is needed, and how much handicap to apply. These rules would then be coded into the system so as to give the attacker X more points when a certain type of battle on a certain type of terrain in a certain region in a certain year between certain nationalities came.

How is that any different from players doing it themselves with the handicap option according to their own agreed-upon set of rules? If all games in a ladder used the agreed-upon rules, there'd be no "chaos". The result is the same either way, whether the system is hard-coded by BTS or done manually by the players.

In fact, there's a big advantage in doing it manually. Namely, it's a LOT easier to change your own rules than it is to get BTS to change theirs. So if after experience a group of players decides that the attacker needs more or less handicap, they can implement that immediately instead of having to wait for a patch.

[Redwolf]

I don't know how you guys attack, but I do not at all agree that wide open fields favour the defender in the general case.

Wide LOS works both ways.

I am far more like to bog down (as attacker) when the terrain is close and behind every bush is a guy who hurts and then escapes (the latter being the far bigger problem).

[Broken]

There is an easy way to make ladder games fair. Play two games, identical conditions, one as atttacker, one as defender, and total the points of both games to determine the winner. You can even use the same exact map if you want.

[Epée]

My PBEM/TCP-IP games so far:

Defending:

3 wins (Total Victory & 2 Major Victory)

Attacking:

1 loss (Total defeat, and am losing another assault)

Epée

[Bastables]

two PBEMs as attacker Vs JonS and Mace. I've won versus JonS and am winning vs Mace

One Pbem as defender on top of a hill with pillboxs and trenchs, JonS is now rolling me up.

[manchildstein (ii)]

Originally posted by Broken!:

There is an easy way to make ladder games fair. Play two games, identical conditions, one as atttacker, one as defender, and total the points of both games to determine the winner. You can even use the same exact map if you want.

that's exactly right... and with the new 'load custom map into a quick-battle' feature i would think it would be the only way to go... play that baby both ways

[Seanachai]

Although I'm sure that the whole question of 'brittle infantry', 'are MGs too effective', and, in fact, the whole discussion of whether attacking has become 'too hard' will merit and receive much more discussion, one of the things I've been hearing said here is that people are losing too many attacks in QBs that rely on mostly, or all, random setups.

It is simply wrong-headed to think that setting most conditions to random will result in anything like a balanced game, or even one in which one side or the other even has a chance.

The main thrust of the game and the engine is to model 'Real World' conditions, not 'balance conditions for play'. If you want balanced play, you will have to act to achieve balanced play. If you set most everything to 'random', you will get random.

And random, just like the Real World, can be extremely cruel.

Now, people can debate through the next three generations how well the game models 'Real World' conditions, but throwing the gates of chaos open by setting most everythig to random, and then expecting it to spit out a well-balanced, playable, and 'fair' scenario every time, or even most of the time, goes beyond being unrealistic.

It is also no basis on which to debate how well the engine is modeling the whole 'attack/defense' question.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Seanachai:

Although I'm sure that the whole question of 'brittle infantry', 'are MGs too effective', and, in fact, the whole discussion of whether attacking has become 'too hard' will merit and receive much more discussion, one of the things I've been hearing said here is that people are losing too many attacks in QBs that rely on mostly, or all, random setups.

It is simply wrong-headed to think that setting most conditions to random will result in anything like a balanced game, or even one in which one side or the other even has a chance.

The main thrust of the game and the engine is to model 'Real World' conditions, not 'balance conditions for play'. If you want balanced play, you will have to act to achieve balanced play. If you set most everything to 'random', you will get random.

And random, just like the Real World, can be extremely cruel.

Now, people can debate through the next three generations how well the game models 'Real World' conditions, but throwing the gates of chaos open by setting most everythig to random, and then expecting it to spit out a well-balanced, playable, and 'fair' scenario every time, or even most of the time, goes beyond being unrealistic.

It is also no basis on which to debate how well the engine is modeling the whole 'attack/defense' question.

It really disgusts me that the champion of the ultra-chaotic world of Peng would try and interject common sense and good judgement here into the Outer Board. You, sir, have a lot of nerve.

Send me a gamey QB set up while you're at it - I need more advice with my love life!

[WWB]

I beta tested the game, so I know a thing or two about it. After my first few games with the first beta, I quit doing all-random QBs. As BH points out, there is way too much variance in significant factors (for example the as-yet-unmentioned fitness) that could generate unfun games.

I will grant that attacking is more difficult now, inasmuch as it requires more thought. But it aint impossible. There are several key factors which players need to tweak to work things out:

1) Length of game: the 25 turn standard of CMBO days is dead for CMBB. I suggest 33 variable turns for attacks at a minimium, over medium maps in medium point ranged.

2) Map types: Peter, try the gentle slopes style if flat is too flat for your liking. It is quite tactically interesting. Open maps are, well, open. Set it up for more trees. Random map type is one of those things I have avoided for good reason--it can really twist games.

3) Battle types: No one here mentions assault type battles. They will give the attacker a far better ratio. In addition, the defender must spend a very significant portion of his points on fortifications. Flag positions are not that different from attacks now.

4) Generally, damn skippy BH. Speak on brother.

WWB

[Bullethead]

Seanachai said:

It is simply wrong-headed to think that setting most conditions to random will result in anything like a balanced game, or even one in which one side or the other even has a chance.

Well, shave my head and call me Peng!! Me and Senility in agreement?!?!?!? :eek: I must be drunk tonight.

[Robohn]

I have not had any undue problems beating the AI in QB assaults, and have defeated humans as well. Seems okay to me.

[Renaud]

Originally posted by PeterX:

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....

I just got through playing this exact scenario. For the things you didn't give details on, I picked: 3 maxims for russians, 3 T34-41's, 2 45mm AT guns, 2 41 rifle squads. For the germans: 1 41-motorized inf CO, 2 HMG34 for the 'Heavy Weapons', 5 MKIIIJ 'short' model tanks. Ground was gentle slopes, scattered trees, farmland, oct 41 (so wheat fields are open). It turned out 90% exposed. It was very tough mainly due to the T34's which CAN be beaten by the MKIIIJ 'short' if you are careful and manuever to mass 3 or more against each T34. Looking at their respective stats I thought I was toast, but if you fire from even a slighly higher elevation it reduces the effective armor slope on the T34 just enough to allow penetrations. I achieved penetrations with the short 50mm variously from 700 to 300 meters.

I was in their foxholes on turn 27. After 26 turns of working to eliminate the T34's and AT guns and carefully working my infantry up, I combining a general advance, massive suppressive fire and a rush with 3 halftracks+2 infantry squads and 1 Company CO into their foxholes, through 75 rounds of smoke.

I lost 3 of 5 MKIII's to T34 fire and 20 casualties, mostly from the tank crews and a man or two from half the squads. The russians lost pretty much everything. 3 T34's and 2 45mm AT lost to MKIII fire, infantry lost mainly due to breaking after intense fire then getting mowed down in the open, or from hand to hand in their foxholes. Ended in a major victory after turn 30. I got both large and the 1 small flags.

The keys were: 1) spent 25 minutes carefully sneaking my infantry up, using every little nook and cranny I could find; 2) saved 2 vet squads and Company CO as armored strike force to zoom into their defenses at the critical moment (turn 27); 3) worked hard to mass 3 tanks at a time on each T34 after spraying them with MG fire to button them up (used scoot-and-shoot a LOT); 4) final advance to within 120 under smokescreen, then open fire when smoke fades.

Funny thing is I forgot to use my 3 50mm mortars, which would have helped a lot vs the AT guns. Left em sitting in the start zone.

EDIT: forgot to mention both sides were regular.

Ren

[ October 15, 2002, 12:28 AM: Message edited by: Renaud ]

[Ron]

There is no question "We aren't in Kansas anymore" when it comes to attacking and defending in CMBB. Even in CMBO winning as the Attacker wasn't a foregone conclusion as some want to believe, the QB point ratios were balanced in most cases and I felt confident of being successful as the Defender in an Attack, while in Assaults it was a more chancy thing.

In CMBB a whole lot of things have changed that require an adaption from the player in order to be successful as well. The default point ratios may not be approriate at all times and it is up to the players to decide on something more *fair* to have a balanced and enjoyable game.

Over the weekend I played a custom made armor Attack over gently rolling steppe as the Russians. I was alloted 3600 pts and the Defender 1200 pts. We had played a couple Attack/Defend QBs before and had agreed this ratio would make for a good game. Looking at the map I felt there were several covered avenues of approach that would allow me to traverse the 2000+m of map to reach the objective of 3 low hills in the German rear. Along the way was another objective in a small village.

I selected 7 platoons of T-34s, 2 platoons of SU-152s, one platoon of T-70s, one platoon of SU-76is, 2 x M17s, one company of infantry and 2 FOs. All were a mixture of Vet/Reg/Green. One FO was radio equipped for on-call support. The other was to prep barrage one of the small hills in the rear, I felt the village was safe to ignore for now. All in all I felt I had *enough* to wither the storm and reach the objectives.

Well I was in for a suprise. My prep barrage went off beautifully, I found out later it knocked out an 88 Flak, but as I began advancing I began losing tanks at an alarming rate! Then the company of infantry got pinned and couldn't advance either. Area firing at the low hills and visible trenches accomplished nothing it seemed. To make it brief the game was over by turn 12 and I had only got to within 1500m of the the low hills in the rear. I had one T-34 left, the rest of my armor were burning wrecks strung out behind it and the company of infantry, while still in good shape casualty wise, were badly shaken from all the HMG fire. The result was a Total Victory for the Defender.

Was it fun? Yes. Was it realistic? I think so. Did I learn a lot? Yep! The Defender had purchased 3 88 Flaks, one 88 Pak, one platoon of infantry, 5 HMGs, several AT Rifles and Trenches, and a platoon of Nashorns(2 AFVs) which never even engaged. IIRC he also purchased Air support but I don't remember seeing it. The 88s wrecked havoc on the Russian armor between the ranges of 1500 - 1800m. The AT Rifles and HMGs were situated further forward and did their jobs of buttoning the AFVs and pinning the infantry. On my part, I had overlooked the absence of smoke for the Russian armor and the long delay in the FO doesn't relate well to a fluid battle. I never got any positive contacts on the AT guns until after several turns of them engaging and after I had brought forward the SU 76is. I am unclear what was the deciding factor in finally spotting the AT guns, I assume it was because the SU 76is had cupolas?, as my tanks were buttoned for the most part. In the end I had KO'd 2 Flaks and caused a handful of casualties with area fire, which was pretty ineffective my opponent told me.

I can hardly imagine what will happen when Relative Spotting is implemented!

Ron

[Abbott]

In a current PBEM I am attacking with two platoons of STUG B's and a company of infantry. I overlooked plotting my opening smoke screen with a battery of 81's I had purchased. I tried to overcome this oversight with direct fire smoke from the assault guns to no avail. I am being slaughtered. Pretty realistic occurrences with coordinating support fires. Spotted so far, two ATG’s and a couple of infantry markers.

In another PBEM I am defending as the Russians. An infantry company backed up with 45mm ATG’s and a couple of bunkers. We are into the 20’s for turns, out of 30+ and it has been one heck of a fight. At this point the German infantry with its armor support is entering the victory locations. The next couple of turns may decide it, or may not. It is actually to close to call at this point. If I can break enough of the German infantry then I believe I can hold some of the VL’s for a slight win.

Attacking is definitely tougher then in CMBO but seems pretty on target to me.

[Barleyman]

Directive #3 was an amusing little scenario. Got minor loss, my bad for playing soviet armor like it was German. And thinking the T-34 would be able to stand up to the 37mm popguns.. Too much playing (original) Steel Panthers.

Most damage to German panzers was made by two "missed" BT-5s with shoot + scoot tactics.

OTOH, taking over that factory was POC.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by redwolf:

I don't know how you guys attack, but I do not at all agree that wide open fields favour the defender in the general case.

Wide LOS works both ways.

I agree. The proper way to attack in wide open country is to have lots of off-map artillery and lots of big gun tanks, or absent that, lots of on-board mortars and heavy machine guns. The point is to be able to supress the defender while you are still beyond effective range of his weapons. Smoke has already been mentioned as a way to get in close before the shooting starts. You can also use it to mask part of his forces while your own concentrates on beating up a small part of his. That way, you can have local superiority even if over all the odds are more even.

Michael

[Panzer Leader]

Good point about wide LOS maps on defense. One thing to consider: the defender doesn't need to move, thereby reducing his hit chance. but the attacker does. So, as attacker, since your pretty much gauranteed about twice as many tanks (at least that many since you don't need fortifications) it is important to only move half your armour at a time, and let the other half over-watch.

I imagine BFC were pretty good on the numbers, though I haven't played enough to be sure, but I would LOVE IT if we could come closer to that 3:1 odds ratio which by the way was considered the manimum advantage to have in order to ATTEMPT assault, not gaurantee it. If BFC have erred in that 1:1.75 is not enough for the attacker, then they have managed to make this game more realistic than I could have imagined! I hope they did.

Great AARs by the way, fellas.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

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

[MikeyD]

One thing I realise from reading these posts, proper recon can be a much more significant factor in CMBB. The last thing you want to do is to stumble blindly into a killing zone because you WILL be killed. But recon takes time so we may need to extend our game times 10(?) turns or so so we can get some useful info on dispositions before moving our main force.

Has anybody successfully broken a defense simply by bleeding its ammo supply down? I can't say how many defensive games I've played against the AI where my infantry got down to their last few rounds and the enemy just kept coming on.

[Sitting Duck]

Originally posted by wwb_99:

...There are several key factors which players need to tweak to work things out:

1) Length of game: the 25 turn standard of CMBO days is dead for CMBB. I suggest 33 variable turns for attacks at a minimium, over medium maps in medium point ranged...

I've noticed that as an attacker I've needed to use every single turn in the scenarios - and sometimes more! Advances need to be more carefully coordinated and setting that up takes a little more time. Especially against a well thought out (multi-layered) defense strategy.

I think this is partly due to the changes/enhancements that CMBB brought us. However, I also think the scenario designs in CMBB are better, too. At least the ones I've played so far...

[Seanachai]

Originally posted by Bullethead:

Seanachai said:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />It is simply wrong-headed to think that setting most conditions to random will result in anything like a balanced game, or even one in which one side or the other even has a chance.

Well, shave my head and call me Peng!! Me and Senility in agreement?!?!?!? :eek: I must be drunk tonight.</font>

[The_Capt]

Originally posted by PeterX:

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?

Trust me fellas we may not be in Kansas but we are one step closer to the Promise Land.

Here we have a gentleman who is amazed at the result from the above encounter.."how could this happen?" "Defence is too damn strong."

First off look at the force ratio. In the attack you need (not nice to have but NEED) a MIN of 3:1 to stand a chance of success. The Soviets or former-Soviets prefered 6:1!!

In CMBO 1.5 to 1 was an attack.

PeterX you have a 1:1 force ratio of AT systems and 1.67:1 in actual armour and yours is slightly inferior to the en.

You have 1.5:1 ratio in infantry.

You are advancing over bald ass ground, in daylight I assume.

To top it off you brought 81s with you..may I suggest smoke cause that kind of HE is useless against dug in troops.

Now I am not chatising you but this is reality..with those force ratios in the real world you could expect to get your ass handed to you AND FINALLY CM is getting closer to real world.

I don't know how many times I grit my teeth with CMBO as people talked about "real world" tactics. CMBO was fun but it was very flawed wrt Real Life.

CMBB is not perfect but it is a hell of a lot closer..I would still like to see shrapnel modeled but we can't have everything...

[PeterX]

Here we have a gentleman who is amazed at the result from the above encounter.."how could this happen?" "Defence is too damn strong."

Hey! I took what the game gave me! (Sniff)

I demand that BFC raise the A/D ratio to 2-1. Or 1.75-1.

[Redwolf]

You people realize that the Quickbattle generator already has the option you want? You can give attacker or defender a handicap which modifies the original 1.5.

If you want to modify the force ratio, I recommend lowering it for the defender instead of increasing it for the attacker, otherwise said problem with too few flags will apply.