 |
|
Defense vs Offense - Printable Version +- Forums (https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards) +-- Forum: The Firing Line (https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards/forumdisplay.php?fid=1) +--- Forum: Tiller Operational Campaigns (https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards/forumdisplay.php?fid=11) +--- Thread: Defense vs Offense (/showthread.php?tid=41581) Pages:
1
2
|
Defense vs Offense - Andrew - 07-27-2007 Reading a couple of recent posts about play balance has re ignited a concern I have had for a while now. I can't offer empirical data to demonstrate it, but to me after playing this series for almost 10 years, the offense seems to have the advantage over the defense. It always seems very tough winning as the defender. Related to this, I have always also felt that digging in doesn't provide enough effective combat benefit. Sure it gives you a percentage defensive benefit but I believe prepared positions should also provide some sort of offensive firepower bonus as well. In prepared positions firepower is enhanced with pre-prepared fire lanes, pre-registerd fire control points and better knowledge of terrain and avenues of approach etc etc etc. It certainly should allow a prepared unit to inflict more casualties on a target unit than one which is not prepared or even engaging while advancing. A potential solution to both these concerns would be to give a dug in defender an offensive firepower bonus of say half the defensive bonus of a position i.e. a position with 20% defensive benefit also delivers 10% firepower bonus. This would bolster the defense and make assaults on prepared positions a more challenging and costly prospect. Seems a sensible solution to both concerns. Would be interested if anyone else feels the same about balance and if they agree the dug in firepower bonus is both sensible and a way to address it. Regards Andrew RE: Defense vs Offense - Krak - 07-27-2007 RE: Defense vs Offense - HirooOnoda - 07-27-2007 Agreed Andrew. Units which are dug-in would have their weapons bore-sighted, mines laid, artillery registered, etc. RE: Defense vs Offense - Dog Soldier - 07-27-2007 I disagree Andrew. The best defense is an offense. If you are saying that the player with the strategic attacker role in a scenario has an advantage over a static defense in the PzC series, then you are right. But good defensive play in the PzC series is all about having reserves to use to counter punch that attacker after you wear him down a bit on your first line of defense. There are two cardinal rules in the series. 1. Do everything possible to avoid getting surrounded. 2. Always have a reserve. Dog Soldier RE: Defense vs Offense - CptCav - 07-27-2007 Dog Soldier, I find it interesting that in military doctrine you will find the comment that in order to be able to mount an offensive a minimum three-to-one force ratio is necessary. Yet, in these games, if you have a three-to-one force ratio you are pretty much guaranteed an overrun. In fact, if you have a one-and-a-half-to-one force ratio, you will probably win. So, you are correct as far as these games are concern, "the best defense is an offense" because the game system is designed that way. What Andrew is pointing out is that units in a defensive position benefit from more than just protection and the game system ignores this fact. As I had mentioned in earlier posts the process to prepare defensive positions include steps that increase the effectiveness of a unit's fires, but the game does not simulate this. Regards, CptCav RE: Defense vs Offense - Sgt Barker - 07-27-2007 RE: Defense vs Offense - Andrew - 07-27-2007 I am not disputing that holding a proper reserve, not getting surrounded and counter attacking where possible are good tactics. What CptCav says though is spot on. Currently you don't need any significant material superiority to break through a well prepared position. In fact I would argue that as things currently stand you don't actually need to manouvre that much. With moderate weight of numbers you just go through the enemy position, exchange casualties at more or less a one to one ratio and the attacker with the most survivors eventually overwhelms the defenders. In games like Anzio for example, the Allied defensive positions are not effective enough to outweigh superior German firepower and they can't even inflict one to one casualties. By disregarding his own losses the Germans just basically grind down and overrun the Allies in their "superior" positions. I am not convinced the system as it stands is at all fair on the defender. RE: Defense vs Offense - Aaron - 07-28-2007 It was posted in another post but i think the only thing that could be done that wouldnt have to much effect on the game but at the same time it would give the DEF a little help and that is during automatic DEF fire that all def units fire all there shots instead of being left with some as Krak as stated. Aaron RE:��Defense vs Offense - CptCav - 07-28-2007 tazaaron Wrote:It was posted in another post but i think the only thing that could be done that wouldnt have to much effect on the game but at the same time it would give the DEF a little help and that is during automatic DEF fire that all def units fire all there shots instead of being left with some as Krak as stated. The problem with this option is that it does not address the issue that a unit in a defensive position has done things to increase its fire effectiveness that would impact its fire during the friendly turn as well. Also, if your artillery fires both of its shots in the defensive fire phase, it is not available during the players own turn. So, I would not want the artillery included in the everyone fires rule. The only reason that I see not to provide this realistic feature is that it will impact the outcome of scenarios in previous games. Even so, many of those games did not have scenarios specifically playbalanced for HTH play. However, it would improve AI play as the defender in that it would be tougher to defeat. Regards, CptCav RE:��Defense vs Offense - CptCav - 07-28-2007 |
){kind=link}