Reflections on "defense is too strong" type threads

[John O'Reilly]

I have noticed several threads bemoaning the difficulties facing the attack in the new CMBB universe. I'm not going to rehash them here as I think this game will have to be extensively played before anything approaching a definitive judgement can be made. There is no doubt that it is different from CMBO. I took up the challenge to try "Directive number 3" as I had seen that several posters considered it impossible to win as the Russians. Without posting any spoilers I gave a detailed account of how the battle went until the halfway point in another thread. It was very much going my way until I decided to go toe to toe with the German armour (not having previous experience with the relative strengths).

I will try it again forewarned and have an idea that I think will give me a victory. My prolem is that it is unlikely that I would have thought of this new plan in the first place. Put simply, I think that in all of the CMBO scenarios that I played there were several viable strategies that might lead to success while it strikes me that in the scenarios that are attracting most attention from people regarding the difficulty of overcoming the defense seem to have a single "magical" solution or are inclined that way. While this might provide an interesting puzzle I must confess that it is not really all that appealing to me. This generally arises due to force imbalance btw. Just wondering what people's thoughts are on this,

John

[ October 18, 2002, 07:55 AM: Message edited by: John O'Reilly ]

[CMplayer]

If you're talking about QBs then perhaps the best way to achieve balance is by adjusting the number of turns. An attacker who can work slowly and systematically can overcome defences which would withstand a rushed attack.

[John O'Reilly]

Sorry CMPlayer,

I should have been more specific. I am thinking of scenarios such as "Directive Number 3" and "Cemetary Hill",

John

[Andreas]

John,

Cemetary Hill is a small scenario, on a small map. Your tactical options are limited. In larger scenarios, it is easier to have multiple options (sometimes by accident, sometimes by design). Smaller scenarios limit choices in many ways, but have other benefits, e.g. manageability and speed of conclusion. I think it is a matter of taste to some degree. There are of course exceptions to this on either side. Sometimes you have small scenarios with lots of options, or large ones that give you none at all. Sometimes you eat the bar, sometimes the bar eats you. Or somefink...

[Cpt Kernow]

I to was playing that scenario, things were going well, I engaged/was engaged by the german armour things turned from good to general order for retreat very quickly.

What we have to remember is that we are CMBB newbies. I think every one is relying too heavily on there experience with CMBO and as such consider themselves experienced when they approach the CMBB battlefield.Hence when the AI hands them a heavy defeat they blame force inequalities rather than there own inexperience. We should realize that we all on a steep lurning curve, delving into a game of great depth that punishes mistakes.As we (I) am ignorant of many of the variables in CMBB ( the main reason my armour failed was it due to my tank crews (lots of green and inexperienced)behaving in a way they never would have done in CMBO, and thus I didnt factor this in when framing my attack, I also have a better idea of the relative capabilities of units I have never used/encountered before. I am crawling my way up the curve. CMBB demands more of the attacker, but in my opinion CMBO demanded to little and therefore things are as they should be. It is true that in Directive number 3 there is an avneue of attack that if used by the attacker will help his chances immensly, but this is our job as commanders in the field, to identify them.

[xerxes]

I think defensive strategies haven't changed that much from CMBB and the major change (effective mgs) is quite easy to incorporate into a defensive plan. Offensive actions require a different mindset and different tactics. It will take a while to learn how to effectively attack in CMBB.

I just had an entire veteran squad eliminated in a close assault (from scattered trees) against a single mg armed HT. That NEVER would have happened in CMBO.

[Mies]

Cpt Kernow wrote:

CMBB demands more of the attacker, but in my opinion CMBO demanded to little and therefore things are as they should be

Isn’t it so that just as in real life it’s not always possible to win? I think that when you engage a well prepared enemy without cover, without sufficient support or without sufficient resources for example there is always a change on defeat. Come back the next day after having flattened the enemy position with arty or come back with armor support. That is what I would do if I was a real life commander. Therefore I agree with Cpt Kernow that CMBO was maybe to easy on the attacker....

Mies

[Redwolf]

For what it's worth while I think attacking is fine in CMBB, even with the standard 1.5 ratio, I agree that more turns are required for a fair game in CMBB.

[CMplayer]

Originally posted by John O'Reilly:

Sorry CMPlayer,

I should have been more specific. I am thinking of scenarios such as "Directive Number 3" and "Cemetary Hill",

The same can be said of scenarios, though. Give the attacker more time and it balances towards his favor (up to a point).

[Tarquelne]

OfT, but I'd like to mention something used in my LAN group: Bidding on the number of QB turns.

Kinda like, what's that gameshow, "Name that tune."?

Player 1: "I can win a 2500 pt. Moderate Trees, Hilly 1942 QB as Soviet attacker in.... 35 turns."

Player 2: "I can win in 25 turns."

P1: "I can win in 20 turns, in '43."

P2: "You're on!"

...type o'fing.

Originally posted by CMplayer:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by John O'Reilly:

Sorry CMPlayer,

I should have been more specific. I am thinking of scenarios such as "Directive Number 3" and "Cemetary Hill",

The same can be said of scenarios, though. Give the attacker more time and it balances towards his favor (up to a point).</font>

[Tripwire6]

I'm still too new to CMBB to have much of a firm opinion one way or another. So far though, it seems like it's up to the scenario designers to get the balance right.

Random quick battles are a different prospect. Sometimes (vs. the AI) I take one look at the map and Alt-A out of it. I was glad to hear that there should be fewer completely flat random maps with the patch. Other times though, a quick battle becomes an outstanding and tense conflict with the outcome hanging in the balance until the very end.

As far as what someone mentioned about "Isn’t it so that just as in real life it’s not always possible to win?" That's correct, but it really shouldn't be that way. If this was an operational level simulator, then it would be acceptable to identify a Kobayashi Maru (no win situation for you non-Trekies), pack it in for the day, and keep your losses low. However, with the scope of CMBB, a no win situation makes no sense. There is no live to fight another day. It's just a loss.

Balanced or not, the verdict is probably still out, but I think it's up to the designers to make the scenarios enjoyable.

- Tripwire6

[PeterX]

Balanced or not, the verdict is probably still out, but I think it's up to the designers to make the scenarios enjoyable.

Some of the scenarios on the disk, like Cemetary Hill or Directive 3,seem to impose, IMO, the Rubik's Cube type mentality. There's a trick to 'em. They're puzzles to be solved. Challenging to be sure, but not my cup of tea. I prefer the more open-ended, atmospheric scenarios like Wild Bill's.

I'm still too new to CMBB to have much of a firm opinion one way or another. So far though, it seems like it's up to the scenario designers to get the balance right.

Random quick battles are a different prospect. Sometimes (vs. the AI) I take one look at the map and Alt-A out of it.

I think scenarios will be the way to go for real PBEM competition. Computer generated QBs are too unpredictable and open themselves up to prolonged and tedious negotiations. (I need more tree cover! I demand a 30% handicap! No T34s allowed until '42!) Sometimes you'll get a setup from the game- vast open areas or armor mismatches- and it's just hopeless- something that was less common in CMBO. A lot of the German success in '41 is inexplicable without airpower

[Redwolf]

I think complete random quicbtalle with computer-selected forces are a no-go in CMBB.

If you don't get decent firesupport and/or long-range AT weapons you are screwed. Slow artillery is also pretty bad.

A nice play option might be defender with computer-selected forces and attacker with chosen ones.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by PeterX:

Some of the scenarios on the disk, like Cemetary Hill or Directive 3,seem to impose, IMO, the Rubik's Cube type mentality. There's a trick to 'em. They're puzzles to be solved. Challenging to be sure, but not my cup of tea. I prefer the more open-ended, atmospheric scenarios like Wild Bill's.

Err, the only puzzle you have to solve in Cemetary Hill is to use good fire and movement tactics, and read the terrain correctly. What is problematic about that? Any scenario will demand this off you in CMBB, the only thing is that in a larger scenario you can maybe afford to f*ck up once, and still recover. Cemetary Hill, Gefechtsaufklaerung, and other small scenarios don't allow you to do that. You just get mercilessly punished for screwing up and will lose. Which seems to be pretty real to me.

I can understand why it is not your cup of tea, but that has nothing to do with the way I designed them, but with your own preferences and/or skills. It certainly is not Rubik's Cube, and I had no intention to design it that way. I think you are giving me too much credit for organised design if you think that is how I approach scenario design.

[PeterX]

What is problematic about that? Any scenario will demand this off you in CMBB, the only thing is that in a larger scenario you can maybe afford to f*ck up once, and still recover.

True enough. The bigger scenarios give you some room in which to flounder around. Maybe that's what we need till we master this new version! I also resent the way the AI thoroughly trounced me in Cemetary Hill. Very annoying. I suspect there was some respawning going on behind the church.

BTW, I thought Boriskova Station was cool. I'll be PBEMing that.

As a matter of fact, I think we're entering the Golden Age of the scenario desinger. Because, as Redwolf pointed out, QBs are no longer viable.

[ October 18, 2002, 11:42 AM: Message edited by: PeterX ]

[Eden Smallwood]

Originally posted by Tripwire6:

Sometimes (vs. the AI) I take one look at the map and Alt-A out of it.

Never!!

On the subject of relative strength and A/D ratios and yadda yadda... I have no idea. But when it comes to QBs which might be imbalanced because if we multiply the matrix of the defense value of all hexes by the vector of categorized attack units... I really think you guys are missing the cool spirit in these QBs!! So maybe it's imbalanced today... SO WHAT?? I've had some really knuckle grinding battles in QB, maybe it was imbalanced, I dunno, but if we as commanders can only do our best in a battle which is balanced...???

I'm not saying you guys are wrong to be concerned about this whole thing, not at all. I'm just saying it's *also* valid to say that it's fun to have an advantage or disadvantage too.

I was glad to hear that there should be fewer completely flat random maps with the patch.

I wasn't- for about the same exact reason. What, completely flat is not a valid terrain for Asia?!? If the terrain is NEVER flat, then Random is no longer Random, now is it?

Kobayashi Maru (no win situation for you non-Trekies)

I thought I was a moderate Trekkie, and Kobayashi translates pretty well as "Smallwood", ISTR, but I've never heard that expression. Where's if from?

Lastly, all of you guys, seemingly, even the _Cemetery Hill_ designer! It's "cemetEry", "ceme-goddamn-tEry"!!! Please, if not for yourselves then for the non-English speakers who read here. Thank you.

Eden

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Eden Smallwood:

Lastly, all of you guys, seemingly, even the _Cemetery Hill_ designer! It's "cemetEry", "ceme-goddamn-tEry"!!! Please, if not for yourselves then for the non-English speakers who read here. Thank you.

Eden

Doh! Well, I take comfort in that a 'non-English speaker' would probably not read this anyway A non-native English speaker (like me), should however know better than to make this mishtake

[ScouseJedi]

Finally a question I can answer, Star Trek II features the Kobayashi Maru - its a training exercise that only 1 person ever beat - and he cheated (it was Kirk) designed to test response to failure.

I've just drawn Hill 312 so Im getting somewhere with this game - my prior tactic games involved plastic figures, golf balls and my back garden.

[Hoopenfaust2]

There's a scouser on the board...whats next... a few geordies.

[Tripwire6]

Never!! On the subject of relative strength and A/D ratios and yadda yadda... I really think you guys are missing the cool spirit in these QBs!! So maybe it's imbalanced today... SO WHAT?? I've had some really knuckle grinding battles in QB, maybe it was imbalanced, I dunno, but if we as commanders can only do our best in a battle which is balanced...???

I think a good commander needs to know when a battle isn't winnable. It's just not much fun that way. I'm a pretty competitive person. I can handle losing, but I don't like it. If I see a flat map with no tree cover (which seems to be 50% of the random maps), I know that my infantry is going to get stopped cold by machine guns. This is especially true if I don't have a lot of smoke. This is a fault of quick battles in my opinion. I think you should know the terrain and conditions before selecting your force or at least have the option. I want random terrain. I just want to be able to select a force to minimize the disadvantages.

What, completely flat is not a valid terrain for Asia?!? If the terrain is NEVER flat, then Random is no longer Random, now is it?

The problem that I have now is that it seems to generate at least half the maps perfectly flat with very little cover. I would need another 1000 points of artillery just to have enough smoke to think about getting across it. That hardly seems random either. It sounds to me like the patch will make things more random, not less. Give me some sparse staggered cover or usable terrain and I'll be all over trying to make it work and enjoy it. Otherwise, I would like to think that I'm smart enough not to make the attack or if the objective absolutely needed to be reached, I would bring more firepower.

I thought I was a moderate Trekkie, and Kobayashi translates pretty well as "Smallwood", ISTR, but I've never heard that expression. Where's if from?

The "Kobayashi Maru" is mentioned in many episodes of the various Star Trek based shows. I think it was first mentioned in The Wrath of Khan. The basics is that the "Kobayashi Maru" is a test for the officers at Star Fleet Academy. It's an no possible win scenario used as a teaching tool to make the officers realize that you just can't win them all. Naturally, Kirk beat the scenario (by hacking in and reprogramming the test the night before). In the later movies it becomes a theme for Kirk that he just won't accept not being able to win. All in all it's one of the more compelling story lines within Star Trek.

[Slapdragon]

Some quickgames are indeed unbeatable, but in real life it was that way also. The great commander would find a way to beat it. The good commander would see that the battle was unbeatable and find some other way. But then again, your own commander may shoot you if you retreat...

None of the scenarios, and I played most of them vs AI in the past six months, are "unbeatable". Some of them do have a key to winning them. Some of them are just damn hard. Damn hard means most of us will indeed fail at our current level of skill.

[Volstag]

Some of the scenarios on the disk, like Cemetary Hill or Directive 3,seem to impose, IMO, the Rubik's Cube type mentality. There's a trick to 'em. They're puzzles to be solved. Challenging to be sure, but not my cup of tea. I prefer the more open-ended, atmospheric scenarios like Wild Bill's.

Amen. It seems like a good portion of the scenarios I've played recently (for BO and BB) are of the "puzzle" type variety. While they can be fun/challenging, they almost seem at odds with what both games are trying to model.

Then again, maybe I just suck.

Out,

Volstag

[ October 18, 2002, 02:08 PM: Message edited by: Volstag ]

[CRSutton]

Had the game about two weeks and i find that i am getting beat up by the AI in battles where I am the attacker. Thats the way I like it and want it. No problem here. I am learning.

[CMplayer]

All this talk about 'puzzle' scenarios reminded me of something I really like about the way infantry works now.

I was putting together some 'puzzles' for my own amusement. Mini scenarios to illustrate some idea in doctrine or whatever, you know the way we CMplayers amuse ourselves. (This was back in CMBO). Anyhow I noticed this one particular idea was ruined because if guys dashed across a street, enemy infantry in the next block, or with a keyholed LOS to the crossing, hardly ever reacted swiftly enough to get off an effective shot before the crossers were into the next building. This is, of course, NOT how it works in Lessons Learned reports of real urban engagements where it's indicated that you need to put suppressive fire not only on the target building, but also on anything farther off that can hit your guys going over.

Well I'm happy to report that in CMBB they are MUCH QUICKER to respond. You will get MOWED DOWN if you try running across the street and there is an MG a few blocks up just waiting for someone to try that. It's friggin beautiful man,....*sniff*....

[MikeyD]

I'm in the middle of playing the last of a seven part operation as the defender. Two of six battles so far I've come out ahead, two the AI's come out ahead, and one I consider to have been a draw. I'm still halfway through the last and it's still up in the air who's going to win. If a good scenario designer factors in what the AI wants and needs the outcome can be one helluva good time!

If you think the defense is too strong now what would you suggest they do to change things? Reduce the cover afforted by houses and trenches? Increase concealment afforded to the attacker by brush and wheat fields? If we fiddle with the game too much to rebalance the forces during assaults it sounds like things could start going very wrong in other situations.

[ October 18, 2002, 02:56 PM: Message edited by: MikeyD ]