Will Defense Dominate in CMBB?

[CombinedArms]

Most of the changes I've heard about in CMBB sound very interesting, but most of the ones I've heard about also sound like they will (or might) favor defense. These include:

1. Better MG performance.

2. Trenches.

3. Fallback-position foxholes

4. Improved ambush function or zone of fire

5. Wider range of hand-held anti-tank weapons.

6. Tanks that shoot less well on the move (i.e., in an offensive mode.)

7. ATGs that are harder to spot.

And there are others...these are just a few that readily come to mind. Now, when I started playing CMBO, I think I was--like a lot of other players--primarily offensive-minded, but my defensive skills have improved with attention and practice-- and so have the skills of my opponents'. Lately, I've come to feel that it's awfully hard to attack in CMBO against a skilled defender, and I find my own defensive games much easier to win than my offensive games.

Anyway, I'm a little concerned that with the accumulation of small but significant advantages to the defender in CMBB, the defense is really going to dominate the battlefield. I'm wondering if this anxiety has any basis in the minds of those who have actually played CMBB. Does the defense in fact dominate, or are there compensating advantages for the attacker that maintain a reasonable balance?

[ August 29, 2002, 05:40 PM: Message edited by: CombinedArms ]

[MikeyD]

Hmmm... SturmTigers vs Partisan units. Defense may not always dominate.

[Zitadelle]

Originally posted by CombinedArms:

Most of the changes I've heard about in CMBB sound very interesting, but most of the ones I've heard about also sound like they will (or might) favor defense.

....

And there are others...these are just a few that readily come to mind. Now, when I started playing CMBO, I think I was--like a lot of other players--primarily offensive-minded, but my defensive skills have improved with attention and practice-- and so have the skills of my opponents'. Lately, I've come to feel that it's awfully hard to attack in CMBO against a skilled defender, and I find my own defensive games much easier to win than my offensive games.

Anyway, I'm a little concerned that with the accumulation of small but significant advantages to the defender in CMBB, the defense is really going to dominate the battlefield. I'm wondering if this anxiety has any basis in the minds of those who have actually played CMBB. Does the defense in fact dominate, or are there compensating advantages for the attacker that maintain a reasonable balance?

I think the goal of CMBB is to create a computer wargame that reflects reality as closely as possible. If that results in software that appears to be balanced toward the "defense," then my answer would probably be that is possibly a sign of reality. Much like most good wargame simulations (e.g. Larry Bond's sea combat miniature wargames, and the Empire series for Napoleonic warfare), the goal is not to create a "balanced" game, but a game that models reality and the players can use the tool to re-create battles with the tools that the acutal combatants had.

The challenge then falls back to the player to find the tactics and strategy that will work- not worry about the fact that the forces, setup, and rules are not balanced.

Yes, defense will probably be harder to overcome. I think that is commonly the case in reality (forces typically require greater odds at the spearhead of an offensive). Also, it will fall back to the commander (you as the player) to figure out what works and what does not.

As for me, I am looking forward to the increase in realism.

[Schrullenhaft]

Sounds something a bit closer to reality doesn't it ?

Even with all the improvments in, CMBB still doesn't represent all of the advantages that a defender had (such as a more extensive variety of defensive positions). On the other hand you're probably going to need a larger force as the attacker in CMBB due to the nice amount of attrition you can experience. Some CMBO habits are going to need to be unlearned with CMBB.

[legend42]

I disagree, I feel CMBO has favored the attacker all along.I feel it is unrealisticly easy to attack and harder to deffend when it should be the other way around.I have won most of my attacks and lost most of my defenses.One could argue that I attack better than I defend which could be true,but I think most people will agree with me when I say the changes forthcoming in CMBB are a welcome addition to the overall realism and pace of real combat.These changes should positively influence the "too much happens in CMBO" factor.

[Chad Harrison]

I would say both the new and improved MG's and the new extreme fog of war. The new FOW is what intimidates me the most of all. But, trenches and fallback foxholes will prove to be very interesting.

The foxhole story for a single platoon on defence:

CMBO: no splitting squads - 4 foxholes

CMBO: splitting squads - 7 foxholes

CMBB: no splitting squads - 8 foxholes

CMBB: splitting squads - 16 foxholes (or 11 foxholes, depends on how BTS did it)

That ends up being a whole lot of foxholes now!!

Chad

[Panzer Leader]

I am hoping that with the new defensive rules, CM will be closer to approaching the 3:1 ratio of odds required in standard practice to contemplate an assault.

I love defending (though I still lose more than I win) but I wa always aware that the 1.75:1 odds are much lower than historical odds. I hope they make it 3:1!

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by legend42:

(snip) I feel CMBO has favored the attacker all along.I feel it is unrealisticly easy to attack and harder to deffend when it should be the other way around.I have won most of my attacks and lost most of my defenses.One could argue that I attack better than I defend which could be true,but I think most people will agree with me when I say the changes forthcoming in CMBB are a welcome addition to the overall realism and pace of real combat.These changes should positively influence the "too much happens in CMBO" factor.

I agree completely

The BORG (or absolute) spotting is a big advantage for the attacker. The player in CMBO can co-ordinate an attack with more accuracy, co-oridination,order and fidelity than should be normally possible. The best way to play CMBO is to attack and defend with GREEN or less experienced troops, this gives a much more realistic feel to CMBO IMHO

-tom w

[ August 29, 2002, 06:19 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[YankeeDog]

I am certainly in the camp that feels that attacking is somewhat easier than it should be in CMBO. However, I would qualify a couple of your examples:

1. Better MG performance - true, this will probably favor the defense more often than the offense, but it does open up some new options for the attacker as well. The new MG modeling,when combined with the new improvements to the 'area fire', using MG area fire on speculative enemy positions ('recon by fire') should be much more effective than it is in CMBO. One of the first things I am going to try in CMBB is assaulting a town by laying down LOTS of MG fire into the town from high-ammo HMG teams and vehicles while my infantry advances. Historically, and oft-used tactic.

4. Covered arcs: Should benefit defense more than offense, but will also be useful for attackers to more specifically define the area of responsibility for overwatching forces.

5. Wider range of IAT weapons - Yes, but CMBO already contains the most successful IAT weapons of the war - the Fausts, Shrecks, and Zooks. What's left is historically only marginally successful weapons like the Hefthohladung, and improvised weapons like the Molotov and the Teller mine. None of these were especially successful. What may really give infantry a leg up on tanks , at least in close-in fighting, are things like the new dedicated 'tank hunter' teams, and the new 'follow' command that allows you to order a close assaulting team to follow a tank, and also the new blind zone around an AFV that (realistically) puts severe limitations on a buttoned AFV's ability to see (and fire at) things that are very close to it.

We'll find out for sure very soon!!

Cheers,

YD

[Andreas]

What you really have to do is learning how to attack properly. CMBO was very forgiving. In CMBB you will understand why attacking with anything else than overwhelming force is a bloody business. Which is as it should be. Get your combined arms tactics right.

[zukkov]

one thing i didn't see mentioned in this post may well aid in the attack. and that's the larger maps. bigger maps mean more manuevering room for the aggressor. it also means the defender may be stretched to the limit and spread thinly in some cases. the defender may perhaps have a better chance in cmbb, but i believe that it's moving in the right direction and will offset some of the advantages the attacker had in cmbo. hopefully it boils down to the better player wins. time will tell...

[KNac]

cannot add anything more

also i agree with tom, if you want a more realistic feeling of atacking try playing with green troops (specially with large battles of regimental+ size)

[CombinedArms]

Maybe I should have added one point to clarify the nature of my inquiry. I'm quite aware that CMBO contains many features that unrealistically advantage the attacker--particularly absolute spotting, but other factors as well.

OTOH, this is compensated in the game by giving the attacker an unusually LOW 1.5 x force advantage. IF the defense becomes more realistic, and the offensive force advantage is NOT increased to a more traditional and realistic two to one or three to one, then it looks to me like the defense MIGHT be dominant.

I'm not making a pronouncement on this, just seeking information for those with direct experience of CMBB.

[ August 30, 2002, 11:08 PM: Message edited by: CombinedArms ]

[Warmaker]

It may seem the advantages all go to the defender, but remember that any planned attack will most likely outnumber the defenders greatly. Do we also need to get into the resources put into an assault?

Besides, sound tactics will carry you further than having a neato tank or gun ever will.

I'm sure those first attacks by many players will end in misery when getting CMBB

[Chad Harrison]

Originally posted by Warmaker:

It may seem the advantages all go to the defender . . .

It may seem that way, but do not forget about the new assault command. Or for the russians, the new human wave. I am very interested to see how the assault command turns out. Could be good, could be as effective as withdrawl

Chad Harrison

[Frunze]

If a lot of maps have very open steppe terrain, that could work for the defender also.

[StellarRat]

Originally posted by Frunze:

If a lot of maps have very open steppe terrain, that could work for the defender also.

Don't forget that the CMBB maps are much larger than the CMBO maps. It could mean light defensive coverage over a large area which would certainly make it easier for the attacker to out-manuever fixed defenses. If I remember correctly the Germans (in particular) were often forced to hold huge frontages with very few troops. This is going to require new tactics on both defense and offense.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Frunze:

If a lot of maps have very open steppe terrain, that could work for the defender also.

I would dispute that if the attacker is armor-heavy. The defender would have fewer places to hide and shifting reinforcements to a threatened sector will be more tricky. On the other hand, open terrain allows the attacker to concentrate more firepower from any part of the map (that can apply to the defender too of course, depending on how he is armed).

Again, it all depends on how the two sides are armed. I would certainly hate to have to attack across open terrain with nothing but leg infantry and not much artillery.

Michael

[Jarmo]

Heck, maybe attack favours the attacker in CMBO and maybe not.

But assault surely does! Maybe in CMBB we'll start to use that QB

mode "by default", or whatever there now is.

I wouldn't worry too much about balance issues..

[Grisha]

Interesting question, and one pondered by many military analysts during the early years of WWII, particularly the Soviets. According to von Clausewitz, defense would predominate given similar dispositions by each side. Kursk proved the veracity of his conclusions.

[Liebchen]

Surprised nobody's pointed out the prepping barrage feature of CMBB. Apparently, this can really do a number on the defensive positions before the game even really gets underway.

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by CombinedArms:

1. Better MG performance.

Right, but also for vehicle MGs. Still, the most important feature here is that running squads will be robbed of their effective firing they had in CMBO and that invalidates about every normal CMBO attack.

3. Fallback-position foxholes

Well, fine but CMBO foxholes in anything but woods are so weak this doesn;t mean much..

4. Improved ambush function or zone of fire

But also covered arc for tanks.

5. Wider range of hand-held anti-tank weapons.

[/qupte]

Well, I don't really follow this argument. Early-war infantry weapons other than AT guns will be pretty ineffective or very clsoe range.

This only invalidates CMBO-only tactics. I also don't agree that this is a pure attacker disadvantages, CMBO defenders relied on this quite heavily to creep over a ridge, fire once and back down again. Not using the hunt command since they din't want to stop in enemy LOS.

I hope they are also easier to made abanonded once spotted. They lack another thing in CMBO, and that is quick short moves and quick turns within a limited angle or when not dug in.

I certainly hope guns become easier to kill but harder to spot, which is what I am convinced is right after reading more AT gunner memories lately. The prices of CMBO I found about right on average, but the prices should probably be leveled, small guns more expensive and big AT guns less so.

Tanks will be much more powerful in CMBB. The MGs are supposed to be all fixed, a two-MG tank will be able to raise some serious hell now. The covered arc means that a platoon of tanks moving into AT gun country will be able to arrive with all turrets oriented somewhere, so that you can assign one different suspective area per tank. Any AT gun becoming spotted will have a turret already facing it.

Also remember that the 1:3 or 1:1.5 attacker/defender ratio is based on prices. If units become more or less capable their price should also change and hence the ratio. It is pretty useless to argue about this.

As another thought, the attacker is hurt if the bull****ting victory point system for tanks stays around, which means you lose the full value of the tank when abanonded plus whatever crew casulties you take. In reality an attack with tanks into AT gun areas would always result in lots of temorarily disabled tanks. That's why they come in with lots of tanks. But in terms of force value for the next day most abanonded tanks were much less serious losses than the loss of 30 trained men. If this isn't fixed, I think CMBB attackers will in fat have a hard time winning in the CM score screen, even when they take the location.

Or with other words: If CMBB makes defense stronger, then it needs to make the attacker bigger, but that will work only if the possible knockout points stay about the same. Think about it this way: if the attacker ratio is bumped from 1:1.5 to 1:3, and all victory points stay as in CMBO, then a battle which loses half of defender and attacker each will always see the attacker lose, because he just lost twice as many victory points. In addition, the attacker is more likely to have big-crew vehicles.

[CombinedArms]

Very interesting answers. Thanks guys. Just the sort of discussion I was looking for. I'm sure we'll be discussing issues like this more specifically, and in greater depth, once we all get some first hand experience.

What's the assault command, BTW? The one somehow slipped by me.

[ August 30, 2002, 11:07 PM: Message edited by: CombinedArms ]

[Frunze]

I don't really understand how this prep barrage function could be used effectively. Before the battle starts, how can you know where the defenders' positions are? Do you just blast the whole map indiscriminately, or areas where the defender seems likely to set up?

IRL, of course, there'd be surveillance and scouting before the battle, but is that modeled in CM?

[Chad Harrison]

Originally posted by CombinedArms:

What's the assault command, BTW? The one somehow slipped by me.

Thats one thing that I am looking forward too. In CMBO, your option to advance under fire is to either run, walk, or crawl. Running only puts out automatic fire, walking has increased time for your men moving but additional fire is put out, and crawling . . . who ever crawls???

In CMBB the assault command will bring to CM the good old 'leap frog' assault. While half of the squad moves, the other half provides suppressing fire. And they switch back and forth. They said the movement rate will be about the same as walking, but obviously with a lot of firepower being put out. As I said above though, it could be good, or it could be another crawl command that no one uses.

Chad Harrison