Attack/Defend Quick Battles - Handicapping and Selection

[Michael Dorosh]

I prefer attack scenarios when playing QBs against human opponents, however, does it seem to anyone like they are usually weighted in favour of the attacker? I do understand there is a necessary point advantage, but I and my opponents still seem to do much better when playing the attacker than the defender.

Can anyone else share their experiences with this?

I should note I prefer computer picks as they are generally more challenging and somewhat "fair."

I have only played smaller scenarios - it does seem that some of the defender's precious few points are wasted on a handful of barbed wire strands, roadblocks and mines.

Would a decent handicap for attack/defend scenarios be to allow the defender to purchase, while the attacker gets computer picks?

ALTERNATE QUESTION

Has anyone had tremendous luck playing the defending side of Attack Quick Battle scenarios (against human opponents)?

[Boo Radley]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

ALTERNATE QUESTION

Has anyone had tremendous luck playing the defending side of Attack Quick Battle scenarios (against human opponents)?

NO! I just finished a PBEM where I was the defender and I couldn't believe how vastly outnumbered I was by both men and materiel. I was fortunate that my opponent had gathered the bulk of his forces in an area that I had targetted with arty, so I was able to give him some serious losses, but the outcome was inevetable. He chewed me up and spat me out.

[Mattias]

Here are a few reasons for you:

No flank considerations.

Nothing to loose and no tomorrow mentality. The attacker looses 2/3 of his men and the defender more or less everything. Not, shall we say, practical in real life.

The supernatural flexibility of command in CM favours the attacker even more than the defender in, for example, his ability to...

Choose and shift the schwerpunkt of the attack with impunity makes defence very hard unless the map is very favorable for the defender.

... And so on...

--

M.

[argie]

Though I've won most of my games as defender against humans, I agree that the default handicap is a bit too much in favor of the attacker, not for the number per se, but for a series of little shortcomings in CM (MGs) and in gaming in general (no flanks).

[Redwolf]

The most important thing for me is that the defender cannot buy enough stuff to defend against all kinds of attacks.

That means, if the attacks rage from a Churchill'n'Jumbo powered monstertanks force, over a masses of M8 HMC and Priest force to a pure infantry/support/artillery/Wasp force, then there is nothing you can do to get enough stuff to be prepared to all of these options.

You cannot buy enough long-range powerful AT weapons (good guns or TDs) and at the same time enough infantry and artillery, even more so since the defender usually need fast artillery. You cannot invest in powerful counterattacking forces either, because you are just too weak with your staionary force (be there, done that, nose bloddy).

The best you can do is usually lots of small guns to kill up to M8 HMC and a Jagdpanther or maybe Panzer IV/70 to handle the thick armor. Pueppchen and friend are usually not an option when you can't see the map in advance.

Fionn 75 or so makes for a dramatic improvement for the defender, and in fact I won such a game. In all my all-open games the defender lost.

Computer-selected forces usually suck because you gets lots of engineers and/or no AT weapons. Defender selects, attack has computer-selected force may be reasonable, but won't be accepted for competive play. Maybe you can do two rejects each player, defender for terrain, attacker for bad force.

[Michael Emrys]

I think both Mattias and Ariel have made good points. I would like to address this issue:

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

...it does seem that some of the defender's precious few points are wasted on a handful of barbed wire strands, roadblocks and mines.

As you well know, this has been discussed recently, and the general feeling is that wire and mines are overpriced, thus preventing their use in historic fashion. A little patch of wire or an occasional minefield can be easily by passed. The reality was extended arrays of both that would require breaching or significant detours. If these were available as a regular item on defence, and combined with better MG performance and a better arty model, I think you would find defences much harder to crack.

Perhaps we will see some desired changes in CM:BB.

Michael

[Echo]

Hog wash. I've broken up many "human" atacks. Thats buying my own junk. Its much harder with a hodge-podge of stuff the computer gives you though.

[Redwolf]

BTS said that fortifications will be much cheaper in CMBB.

[Herr Kruger]

I've only defended once and won by a point in a game that was declared a Draw by the game... it was against a quality opponent and he came up too close with his tanks and Panzerfausts got them otherwise I would have lost.

That was a Probe though, which is not as hard to defend against, right?

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Herr Kruger:

That was a Probe though, which is not as hard to defend against, right?

Well, the forces are more balanced and there are usually fewer flags to defend (so far as I know). But the flag(s) is(are) located farther forward, so that it is easier for the attacker to get to.

Michael

[Slangton]

I don't know, I've always liked defending. When dealing with the smaller point totals being the defender is hard because you don't have many points to work with, but I don't find it frustrating or hard. I rather enjoy it more than attacking. I've defended so many times in 1000 pts or less that I've begun to get the feeling that if you gave me 2500 pts, I could hold against anything because of all the extra luxuries I could buy. That's just my 2 though...

[Jarmo]

Defending is OK with a few reservations.

1. No autopurchase, it's ridiculously difficult to defend with a fleet of halftracks. You'll need AT guns or tank destroyers.

2. Both sides use reasonable forces. No Jumbo fleets or hordes of wasps.

[109 Gustav]

I agree with Jarmo, if you're more or less historical and use panther-76 rules http://www.rugged-defense.nl/cm/Fionn3.htm attack scenarios become very balanced.

If you want to swing things in favor of the defender, play with short-75 rules. The defender can get 57mm AT guns as allies and set up a deadly AT defense for very few points, or go with a pak 40 and 38 combo when playing as axis. This lets them spend more points on arty or infantry support, since the tanks are taken care of.

Also, I think a lot of QBs are fought in ideal conditions for the attacker- medium trees, clear weather, and medium hills. Playing with open terrain gives the defender a better opportunity to hit the attacker out in the open. Closed terrain lets the defender maneuver more agressively, although effective ambushes are much harder to pull off.

Or you can play in the rain or snow (an excuse to try out that new BotB mod) and slow the attack down and maybe bog a few tanks.

[ April 08, 2002, 03:54 AM: Message edited by: 109 Gustav ]

[xerxes]

Avoid "optimal" attack conditions, at least use some rain. Mud's better, Snow's best.

Also don't play unrestricted. Make it armor or combined (or even infantry).

If it's a german attack just ban smgs. It's no fun to be overrun by battalions of volks. I'd also give a German attack -10% if the weather is good.

-marc s

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Michael emrys:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Herr Kruger:

That was a Probe though, which is not as hard to defend against, right?

...there are usually fewer flags to defend (so far as I know).</font>