Resolved: Defense too Strong

[CombinedArms]

Originally posted by 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.

Also, as WWB_99 suggested, we can start using the Assault setting in QB's, which gives the attacker a better ratio. This setting more or less rusted away in CMBO as unnecessary. Maybe that should become the standard setting for attackers in CMBB? Bonuses could be added from there as needed. I just checked out a 1000 pt QB assault (April '45, Russians vs. Germans) and found the Russian attackers had 1720 points to the Germans 1000. Not quite 2 x 1, let alone 3 x 1, but getting there. I didn't notice that the Germans needed to buy any fortifications, however.

[ October 15, 2002, 09:40 PM: Message edited by: CombinedArms ]

[SaTyR]

Originally posted by PeterX:

SNIP

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....

SNIP

Before whining that this attack can't succeed and that there's something wrong with the QB generator, think if it would in real life actually been even tried ? Across a terrain with non-existing cover ? I doubt it. And furthermore, how much time does it take to QUIT the battle and setup a new one (when, as you did, using all random setup) ? Less than a minute. Don't like the setup; start a new game. All random is just what it says, ALL random. Tweak the terrain settings a bit to get a more "realistic" attack terrain (or sumfink).

I also agree that you need (close to or even greater) 3:1 odds when attacking (to succeed), but you actually need those odds only on the point where you decide to break through. The standard attack QB ratio is 1.5:1, so what ? Decide the breakthrough point and build up the odds. You decide how much of your forces to bring to that single assault, all enemy weapon systems CAN'T fire to every point of the map. "Global" odds aren't everything, or we wouldn't have seen the germans even try against the soviets now would we ? (Or the finns for that matter)

Just thoughts. I've been very happy with the way the QB generator works. A few handmade adjustments and every game is "worth trying" (set the terrain settings by hand for example, and no more flat pooltable kind of terrain). QB's against the AI aren't the catch for me though, they just help me to learn, test and pass the time between the REAL games, versus a human opponent.

[Kallimakhos]

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.

Not true. The way it goes, in CMBO, CMBB and RL alike, if the attacker succeeds in his attack, the defender casualties (and prisoners) will follow. One common possibility, also realistic, is Pyrrhic victory, you get the flags but at too much cost, defender gets out inflicting heavy casualties on the defender. So the object and plan must be not just to take flags but also to destroy defending enemy forces. 2:1 would improve the chanses of succeeding in this a lot compared to 1.5:1.

Attacker don't even have to allways take the flags, some cases he can consentrate on just destroying the defender's forces peace by peace by use of overwhelming local superiority.

[Dschugaschwili]

Originally posted by CombinedArms:

Also, as WWB_99 suggested, we can start using the Assault setting in QB's, which gives the attacker a better ratio. This setting more or less rusted away in CMBO as unnecessary. Maybe that should become the standard setting for attackers in CMBB? Bonuses could be added from there as needed. I just checked out a 1000 pt QB assault (April '45, Russians vs. Germans) and found the Russian attackers had 1720 points to the Germans 1000. Not quite 2 x 1, let alone 3 x 1, but getting there. I didn't notice that the Germans needed to buy any fortifications, however.

The defender doesn't have to buy any fortifications if the force type is unrestricted, which is probably fine. If you take infantry, mechanized, combined arms or armor, you have to buy fortifications.

The problem is that unrestricted can be the result of a random pick, which skewes the odds somewhat.

Dschugaschwili

[ October 16, 2002, 04:58 AM: Message edited by: Dschugaschwili ]

[John O'Reilly]

A very interesting and important topic I think. After reading several posters belief that "Directive Number 3" is simply impossible to win I decided to give it a whirl last night.

I should note that I have also done this with scenarios such as "Jagermeister" and "Cemetary Hill". In both of these I have found them winnable as the attacker but with methods very different to CMBO days. So, on to Directive number 3

******SPOLIERS******

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Ok ,perhaps forwarned that this was going to be tough I decided on the cautious approach. I put two of my infantry platoons over in the wooded area bordering the village with the idea of both scouting it out and eventually advancing along the wooded ridge to the outskirts of the town. I also had one of the armoured cars there.

In the hope of shooting up Germans routing from the factory I placed my sole Maxim in the small brush area just before this wooded ridge. My two mortars were also on this ridge.

My final platoon I deployed in brush just in font of the depression in the terrain with the soft ground. That is with the factory between them and the town. They advanced into this depression and snuk up the other side into some more brush and waited.

I kept my armour in four platoons with the T34s essentially out of sight but easily moved into action. I didn't want them wasting any ammo.

The others I deployed on the other side of the railway tracks, again with the factory between them and the village. Now the single best thing about these dinky tanks is their ammo loadout, it is huge! My plan was to blow up the areas of the factory that I wanted to advance my single infantry platoon towards, hopefully revealing a few badguys in the process and then to deal with them and place a couple of platoons into the open ground where my infantry would advance.

So how did it work? Well the German arty ca,e down or turn one and had any of my infantry remained in their starting positions they would have been hammered. As it was I only lost one tank to an unlucky hit. The factory came down and Germans that popped up were dealt with. Those who ran away were killed by the maxim. My BTs moved in and suppressed those remaining, taking a few hits but, no bother. My infantry got into the factory on, I think turn 10 with neither a hit nor damaged morale.

One AT gun that reared it's head dispatched (eventually) a BT5 but I use my mortars to knock it out in turn. My infantry warned me that the panzers were coming and I moved up my T34s to await them. They are now engaged and two German tanks are burning. My infantry are advancing along the ridge. I am feeling confident and have just ordered all of my small tanks to show themselves and engage the Germans also. I know this last move is risky since I have no experience with these tanks and I don't know how they will fare vs Pz III's etc.

I had to stop at this point as my wife came out of bed to explain that boys shouldn't be awake 'til 1:30 am on a worknight! She just doesn't understand,......I will have to wait until tonight to see how my heroes do. Goes to show though that even BTs have there uses,

John

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by Kallimakhos:

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

Not true. The way it goes, in CMBO, CMBB and RL alike, if the attacker succeeds in his attack, the defender casualties (and prisoners) will follow. One common possibility, also realistic, is Pyrrhic victory, you get the flags but at too much cost, defender gets out inflicting heavy casualties on the defender. So the object and plan must be not just to take flags but also to destroy defending enemy forces. 2:1 would improve the chanses of succeeding in this a lot compared to 1.5:1.

Attacker don't even have to allways take the flags, some cases he can consentrate on just destroying the defender's forces peace by peace by use of overwhelming local superiority.</font>

[TSword]

Interesting discussion, nothing to add really beside that the current system is way better then the old one. Attacks are tougher, GOOD !! In CMBO fighting vs. AI just was no fun anymore (And playing defender vs. AI, well...).

To my real issue: Can anybody give me a direction where the topic of the lowered camo value bug for light concealment terrain has been discussed in detail ???

Greets

Daniel

[Gaylord Focker]

Balanced games are for wooses and Panzer Leader .

[ October 16, 2002, 12:54 PM: Message edited by: Gaylord Focker ]