CM and the mystery of the battle types

[Puff the Magic Dragon]

What is the sense of the different attack types?

Yes, I know, 'assault' = more purchase points for the attacker and more VLs to take, 'probe' less of both, compared to the 'attack'.

But makes it sense? Assault means, the defender must defend more VLs (= spread his forces) vs a stronger enemy. So in princip it is the same like an attack with a purchase bonus for the attacker plus a disadvantage for the defender, because he must defend more. Probe = vice versa.

So

assault = attack with a double handicap for the defender

probe = attack with a double handicap for the attacker

Sounds to me like we can have (nearly) the same when we only use the bonus.

Another thing, how about an additional type of battle? Let me call it 'DEMOLITION', simply a meeting without VLs. Well, maybe we will have it anyway if we can preset the number of VLs for QuickBattles in CM:BB. Can we?

[dalem]

Originally posted by Puff the Magic Dragon:

What is the sense of the different attack types?

Yes, I know, 'assault' = more purchase points for the attacker and more VLs to take, 'probe' less of both, compared to the 'attack'.

But makes it sense? Assault means, the defender must defend more VLs (= spread his forces) vs a stronger enemy. So in princip it is the same like an attack with a purchase bonus for the attacker plus a disadvantage for the defender, because he must defend more. Probe = vice versa.

So

assault = attack with a double handicap for the defender

probe = attack with a double handicap for the attacker

Sounds to me like we can have (nearly) the same when we only use the bonus.

Another thing, how about an additional type of battle? Let me call it 'DEMOLITION', simply a meeting without VLs. Well, maybe we will have it anyway if we can preset the number of VLs for QuickBattles in CM:BB. Can we?

The most important thing about an Assault to me is the ability to defend more in depth, and the higher proportion of fortifications allowed. If used, this alone makes them different enough from Attacks to be relevant, to me.

-dale

[M Hofbauer]

To elaborate/explain on what dalem said: in an assault you will notice that the setup zone for the defender is increased. Indeed, as he points out, this together with the increase in fortifications, this makes things much more difficult than if the defender would be restricted to a smaller confined setup zone around the VLs.

IIRC I think the manual has a nice comment on the different battle types.

[dieseltaylor]

at a glance at the title I thought this was covering a concern that i have in that in all the battles we have a very reasonble idea as to the points total we are playing against -- varied slightly by troop quality.

A certain amount of point counting and guesses as to dispositions part way through the game cna normally give me a degree of confidence I should not have.

There was a rather interesting card?table top game called Seastrike which gave the two players different victory conditions and a " budget" to achieve their requirement.This missions where on a pack of cards that the olayers drew from. This made the game very interesting as you may receive relatively few points to spend on your units but your mission was to create max. casualities rather than hold some real estate.

It was an excellent way to create max. confusion as though you may acheive your objectives if your opponent did also the result would be a draw. Sitting back on your gains would not necessarily provide the win.

I think in some of the developed scenarios this effect of unknown enemy objectives and forces is reached and they are far more tense because of this. Could not the Seastrike system be developed .... at some future stage .... for the CM system.

Perhaps some games master would like to trial the system? Players could be given choices such as:

clearance of map with 3000 pts in 20 turns or 30 turns for for 2000pts

The opposition might have a spoiling mission in which they are required to inflict X casualiies without loosing 25% of their force points. Now with that in mind what force would you be choosing to get in and off the map quickly??

I am sure you can see the possibilities in arranging mismatches. === Or perhaps they have both been given the opportunity of clearing the Map - oops

[Scipio]

Dalem, M Hofbauer This is not correct. I made a quick ckeck, 2000pp, medium map, the setup zone was for attack and assault 550m, only for the probe it was smaller. And the troop types doesn't matter in case of an unrestricted battle.

[ParaBellum]

Scipio's right here.

The size of the setup zones doesn't change. But in assault type battles the VLs are a bit farther behind than in an attack battle, which means that as the defender you get more depht for your defense.

[JasonC]

I'd like to see the defender get 3/4 of the map to set up in in assaults. Remember, obstacles go in set up zones too, and obstacles placed all the way back near the objectives aren't terribly useful. I'd also like to see everything on the "fortification" screen about half price for assaults. In turn, raise the attacker point odds to 2 to 1. Alternately, give an assault defender a fixed fortification budget that does not count against his force points, but 2:1 odds for those. Right now assaults are little more than attacks with a slight attacker point bonus, which we can do anyway without a seperate battle type.