Attack - whats harder? Defending or attacking?

[Sir Uber General]

As the subject says...

[MrSpkr]

First, umm, how do I put this - do a search?

Look for a thread with posts from Panzer Leader (or just send him an email and ask for the link -- he posted quite a bit on the subject IIRC).

I think a lot has to do with style of play. Some people take the Longstreet position - the best way to attack is to seize the objective quickly and make the enemy come to you.

Others are better at using their assets properly and prefer the attack.

In game terms, all other things being equal, defending against an attack or assault is a little harder, in my opinion, because the attacker can swamp you.

Steve

[Panzer76]

Simple and fast answer is, it's WAY easier attacking when u play. The % bonus you get is more than enough to make up for attacking. If you play attack/defend against a human, you should turn down the % bounus if you want a fair game.

[Talenn]

This has all been covered before, but I think there are several things that make it far harder for the defender in the game than in real life. Some examples:

1) MG effectiveness (not enough) and lack of options (fire zones etc).

2) Units break fire discipline at odd (and suicidal) times...like at enemies moving in the woods 100m away when if they waited a few more secs, the enemy would be in the open. Too often they engage piecemeal and are cut to ribbons piecemeal unless you take great pains to (unrealistically) limit their LOS and engagement opportunities.

3) That attacker KNOWS that you only have 'x' points, and doesnt have to be as cautious as a real attacker who doesnt necessarily know what he is walking into.

4) The lack of higher unit goals and restricitions lets the attacker squander troops and ammo at unrealistic rates to accomplish his limited objectives. In effect, the attacker doesnt have to think about 'tomorrow'.

5) The defender rarely has access to the 'proper' number of fixed fortifications for the defense. Mine and wire belts are rarely at 'realistic' strengths.

6) Other....

Note that this is not meant to knock the game. IMO, its still the best thing going, but there are certainly things that makes that defenders life more difficult in the game than IRL. I know at least some of them are being worked on for CM:BB. Others, there really isnt anything that CAN be done as they are outside the scope of a tactical game.

Talenn

[Chupacabra]

I usually win when I'm attacking. I usually lose when I'm defending. Not exactly scientific, but I'm convinced.

[Olle Petersson]

Originally posted by Talenn:

3) That attacker KNOWS that you only have 'x' points, ...

4) The lack of higher unit goals ..., the attacker doesnt have to think about 'tomorrow'.

5) The defender rarely has access to the 'proper' number of fixed fortifications ...

All of these "flaws" can be countered by proper use of the scenario editor.

3) With a pre-made scenario the attacker never know what's in front of him.

The briefing might say "the defense is a platoon of weak conscripts". That may be true at the start of the battle, but 15 minutes later a reinforced battalion arrives at the scene...

4) Nor does the defender.

Proper setting of victory conditions can help a good deal though.

5) A liberal allocation of wire, TRPs and mines will do wonders.

Cheers

Olle

[von Paulus]

It also depend on the situation.

In a QB, I think it's easier to attack, but you must have experience.

In denfece you have not a lot of things to do, but if you have mobile reserves you have a good advantage but you are most of the time under artillery fire

In the two sides, try to keep reserves when the enemy is getting tired.

[Redwolf]

In a Quickbattle with human-chosen forces, there is practically no way to win as the defender.

Because you just cannot buy enough AT weapons that are capable of taking out Churchills an SuperPershings, and at the same time enough stuff to stopp a pure human wave attack. At the least you cannot deploy it so that you are safe against an attack route along a map edge.

Fionn rules (or now mine) help a lot, almost as much as scenarios

[KNac]

1) MG effectiveness (not enough) and lack of options (fire zones etc).

2) Units break fire discipline at odd (and suicidal) times...like at enemies moving in the woods 100m away when if they waited a few more secs, the enemy would be in the open. Too often they engage piecemeal and are cut to ribbons piecemeal unless you take great pains to (unrealistically) limit their LOS and engagement opportunities.

being fixed or already fixed in CMBB

[Austrian Strategist]

I actually prefer defending in a QB.

The way to even the odds is as follows:

1)SMALL MAP. (The less to defend the easier for the defender.)

2)ATTACKER MUST USE COMBINED ARMS. (He cannot go all tanks or all infantry.)

3)LOW TURN NUMBER. (Attacker must hurry.)

If you play with these settings, and still find defending way to difficult, I think there is something wrong with your defense. :cool:

[Ligur]

I highly recommend Fionn/redwolf rules for QB attack/defend battles.

The hardest part in defending IMHO is the vast space you have to defend with your weaker forces.

So how about just giving a few flags to the enemy (place weak defence, withdraw when engaged) and concentrate on properly defending the rest.

You also have to "feint" and try to make the attacker waste arty, use the "withdraw" liberally and the defender must, must, must try to build a defence in depth.

As an attacker you just smash everything while taking 70% casualties and still winning.

Hurrr hurrr. Not always very fair.

I suggest timelimits in TCP/IP and short battle times to even the odds, when your attacker doesn't have 15 turns to scout he will be forced go into your designated killzones losing armor to hidden guns, seeking cover in mined forests and suffer from your heavy mortar arty while in LOS of your FO.

Try this: 2500 attack, medium/small map, do NOT use dense cover, TCP/IP, timelimit 10 minutes (bye bye micromanaging and taking 89 minutes to plot tank moves), turns 25. I think it can be a challenge.

[edit]Defender gets as much time as he wants for setup.[/edit]

[edit2]Agree on force composition and army before game, combined arms, infantry, SS or Volksturm or Heer etc.[/edit2]

[ May 29, 2002, 01:04 PM: Message edited by: Ligur ]

[Fionn]

Neither is actually intrinsically harder but since most players who defend adopt the defender's role the defence is harder, in practice, for most players.

If OTOH you get assigned to defend and just go "screw that I'm going to be aggressive and kill the enemy whenever and wherever I can whether that be in my setup area, in no-man's land or via an attack right into the heart of their setup zone" then you have the right state of mind to ensure that defence won't be a problem for you.

I habitually chase attacking forces back to their start lines when defending. It really freaks them out and makes the game a bit more fun than just sitting in your foxholes waiting for them to come to you.

So, in summary, both are equally easy. If you find one harder then it is either due to:

a) a lack of experience on your part or

a suboptimal mental attitude going into the game. ( because I agree that if you simply sit in your foxholes waiting for the enemy to come to you then you ARE going to have a tough time of it)

Just my 2 cent.

[ May 29, 2002, 02:22 PM: Message edited by: Fionn ]

[Sarge Saunders]

Depends on the terrain. If the terrain is open then it makes attacking more difficult [hidden guns, etc]. More dense terrain can be overcome with a variation of Fionn's aggressive approach. That means engaging and killing the enemy's scouts in front of your MLR. Have that forward MLR to fall back to and deny the enemy both his scouts and gives misleading intel about your lines. I would not push it too much further than that because the greatest equalizer is the defender's access to TRPs. In a QB buy plenty. Match with heavy mortars and arty. Don't waste buying the small stuff in a defense situation. TRPs + heavy arty takes away the enemy 3:2 infantry advantage quite well.

Don't get locked down to your foxholes. Use them as a fall back position, but seek and engage the attacking enemy where you can.

So given these tactics and others, and depending on the terrain: Defending could be easier.

IMHO.

-Sarge

[ May 29, 2002, 02:20 PM: Message edited by: Sarge Saunders ]

[Fionn]

Broken terrain with lots of IVs ( Intervisibility Lines) lends itself to counter-attacking IMO . Check out the rather infamous Bocage AAR on CMHQ to see what I mean. Outnumbered 2:1 and facing about 10 tanks with no ATGs or tanks and in close terrain aggression can still win out.

Believe me, if I can do it so can you.

[StellarRat]

Generally, I like defending better and find it easier. But, I'm always trying to beat overwelming odds (just to see if I can) so I've played a lot more defense than offense. More practice = better defense.

[Bil Hardenberger]

Believe me, if I can do it so can you.

*chuckle*

Thats sort of like a physicist saying, "...hey if I can understand Quantum theory so can you"

[Ligur]

Originally posted by Fionn:

So, in summary, both are equally easy. If you find one harder then it is either due to:

a) a lack of experience on your part or

a suboptimal mental attitude going into the game. ( because I agree that if you simply sit in your foxholes waiting for the enemy to come to you then you ARE going to have a tough time of it)

Just my 2 cent.

Hah you said it! Passive defense is bad for you, I don't know if I have what it takes to assault an attacking force with defending force composition (say launch an 2000 pts attack vs 3000 pts of enemy) but I move a lot.

Ligur's case example of active defence for those newer to defending:

Let me remind everyone I have no illusions about being a mighty CM über-smart tactic genious, but this is one example of how I've done it with success in a fitting map.

In my second to last defense I moved deep on my other flank during the first rounds and engaged far from my setup zone, causing confusion and disrupting attempts to organize a jump point for launching the attack that was planned by the enemy. Close combat able troops who surprise an advancing enemy in densely covered part of the terrain can cause a horrible loss of morale AND men.

When the attacker started engaging me in force (spending critical minutes to switch weight of force) I withdrew out of sight, when he tried to advance opened fire again. I kept at this in various forms, causing the enemy to be extra careful while on advance. I made sure I caused enough damage to keep my enemy on his toes, if he had known how light my forces were he could have overrun them fast but... How could've he known. The opponent became annoyed, then demoralized. In the end I was back at my foxholed main defense line in good cover and pulled fresh forces to man them, another surprise for the foe who thought he will be facing a reduced company.

On the other flank I let my opponent advance deep without resistance (which, I suspect, was additionally confusing) then closed in from three sides and annihilated his force. I disengaged the ambush group that and moved it back to give more depth.

By this time the enemy was very careful about moving at all, and was facing fresh troops on every attempt. Artillery barrages fell into positions I had already abandoned. In the final push I drew my 2nd line of defence back and formed a solid defence from all my troops. None of the companies or platoons had suffered serious casualties and they formed a solid line indeed

I pulled a major victory, with only minor casualties against an opponent who can give me a good spanking.

If I had just waited at my original positions he would have identified strongpoints, shelled me to suppression and moved in, albeit with high casualties, but still winning.

IMHO the "trick" is to demoralize your buddy and play for time, forcing him to fight several lines of defence.

[ May 29, 2002, 03:10 PM: Message edited by: Ligur ]

[Redwolf]

Defending can also be improved (in scenarios or third-party force insertion):

- give lots of TRPs. In doubt enough to lay a complete line along a ridge so that every AFV that crosses it can be nailed with improved hit probablity, even by Nashorn and friends. Also makes devices like Pak88 useful

- apply a much lower price on mines, but be careful with the non-daisy-chain AT mines, they are slightly unfair since they cannot be spotted by infantry at all, not even by engineers

- allow the defender to modify the terrain with walls, like give him 8 or 10 terrain squads he may change. That will make for prepared hulldown positions and/or better protection for guns. The attacker can see where they are, of course, but still useful and not completely unrealistic

- Maybe give high-quality spotters and towed gun to the defender. Lower arty responce time might be in order. Regular guns tend to be abanonded easily on minor crew injuries from arty or mortars, crack or elite guns will be put out of the game rather by actual equipment damage

- Give lots of smoke to the attacker, I think editing all vehicles and mortars is in order

- Ammo levels for the defender may be raised, especially for on-board 81mm mortars, put possibly also for things like infantry guns

- If people trust each other "fix" MG problems by giving extra squads and saying that these squads must not be used in any other way that to be place directly by a HMG, one half-squad per MG

- Don't allow Stuarts/Greyhound/Daimler ACs when pillboxes are present

Of of this of course favour the defender, but the intend is that the attacker can now roll in with a 3:1 advantage, especially in tanks. I believe that this is more fun and better from a historical standpoint.

Be sure to give enough flags, like 70% of what the attacker's force is worth. You may plant some flags outside the defender's area to encourage destroying the attacker by counterattacking if he/she screws up.

[Austrian Strategist]

Originally posted by Fionn:

Neither is actually intrinsically harder but since most players who defend adopt the defender's role the defence is harder, in practice, for most players.

If OTOH you get assigned to defend and just go "screw that I'm going to be aggressive and kill the enemy whenever and wherever I can whether that be in my setup area, in no-man's land or via an attack right into the heart of their setup zone" then you have the right state of mind to ensure that defence won't be a problem for you.

Fionn, I respectfully totally disagree with this statement.

In all tactical games I have ever played, including Chess, I always adopt a defensive mindset, even when attacking, and I am reasonably successful with it.

When Clausewitz said that, all else equal, the defence is stronger than the attack, he knew what he was talking about.

The key to defending in CM, imvho, is fortifications. Minefields -especially my beloved AP mines-, bunkers, barbed wire, AT guns, machine guns, artillery, infantry dug-in and well hidden, ambushes, ambushes, ambushes. If my attacker is prone to nightmares at all, this will be it. :cool:

My defensive ideal is: Winning a total victory without moving a single piece. (With a grain of salt; but you get the picture.)

When attacking, I still play defensively, siege-style; trying to push a wall into my opponent.

My method -I call it the Anaconda Doctrine- has worked in every game I have played so far, and I am pretty confident I can make it work in CM as well.

[Ligur]

Respect to all, woe become us if there would be only "one way to win in defence."

Some of us can do anything, or so it seems, others nothing at all (me!) and some master a single form of defense.

[Redwolf]

We also shouldn't forget that defensive abilities or inabilities depend a lot on circumstances, amoung them the game in question and the timeframe.

I for one are better defender than attacker in TacOps, but the other way round in Combat Mission.

[Fionn]

Deleted because it simply isn't worth it.

[ May 31, 2002, 05:13 PM: Message edited by: Fionn ]

[JasonC]

To Austrian strategist - what kills the defender on small maps is the attacker's artillery. A small map means limited places to put the defenders, that make any kind of sense. That means easy artillery targeting for the attackers. This is especially true in the smaller point-size scenarios. Then there is a cover trade off - lots means covered approaches for attacking infantry, while little means few places for the defenders to set up, and thus predictable neat artillery targets for the attackers. As for the turn limit, you can't set it below 20 in QBs, and on small maps that is not low enough to really force the attacker to hurry. Recon infantry half-squads can poke into defender cover in just a few minutes on a small map, blowing any neat ambushes. And small maps aren't deep enough to play "ambush and fall back" or make much use of alternate-successive positions.

Typically you kill some of his scouts, his artillery messes up your infantry, his overwatch firefights you from not far ahead of his start line, you mess up some of his bases of fire with your own artillery, you run low of artillery ammo, then of good order "up" defenders, then he closes. Unless you have previously won the armor war in lopsided fashion, or the attacker blunders under heavy arty TRPs too bunched up, or you have uber-infantry vs. vanilla (and even then there are problems with things like squad ammo), those usually are enough to do you in. 3:2 odds, or 3 minus some scouts against 2, are still livable. But 3 minus a few scouts vs. 2 minus 155mm treebursts often isn't. What defenders can't afford is feeding the attacker's guns. On a bigger map it is easier to avoid artillery, but harder to cover everything, while the attacker's expedient in that case is to fight only part of the defenders ("right half", e.g.) with nearly his whole force.

[Fionn]

Deleted because it simply isn't worth it.

[ May 31, 2002, 05:14 PM: Message edited by: Fionn ]

[Patgod]

i would say that on most qb maps, with human picked troops the attacker has the advantage. i'm not all that great at either, but generally speaking i find attacking easier since i have more points to work with, and generally have the initiative.