Points for Assault battle ?

[klanx171]

I think Seabolt is right, talent has a lot to do with it and two good commanders should have a 1/1.75 ratio but for new players vrs toughers guns it might need to be changed.

I switched the numbers in Europa twilight from 2 to 1 to 1.75 to 1 for round 4 onwards because the defender was doing to much damage to the attacker.

I will have to wait and see how round 4 comes out.

[Vesku]

I switched the numbers in Europa twilight from 2 to 1 to 1.75 to 1 for round 4 onwards because the defender was doing to much damage to the attacker.

I will have to wait and see how round 4 comes out.

So far I'd say that the ratio is working much better now, the first offered no challenge at all but now at the half way point the battle is still undecided.

[Narwan]

What our little mirrored armageddon suggested to me is that the correct point ratio is *highly* mutable depending on the skill level of the defender in using his artillery correctly.

Exactly because it was a mirrored game it completely confirmed my views on a correct force ratio. I played both attacker and defender in the same set-up against the same player (the ratio was 2:1 for the attacker). I found that my defense game was rather easy compared to the game in which I was the attacker. And you pumped more arty on my attackers as I did on yours. I don't think the 'skill' that makes the difference is the defending player ability to handle arty. Pumping arty/area fire in an observed attack is easy. The deciding factor there is in my view the ability of the attacker player how to deal with incoming arty.

For ww2 games in particular you should not forget that mobile formations have little place in a defend battle. The vast majority of defend missions are static battles which should be fought with infantry and supported by non-mobile units. You don't need many AFV's at all.

Narwan

[klanx171]

Having tried to balance it out for ET I found the following factors seemed to make the most difference to a battle based on player reports.

Time - Short games(20 turns) make 2 to 1 almost suicidal.
Terrain - Close in terrain also makes it harder for the attacker.
Visibility - allows weapons like tanks and AT guns come into their own as well as allow for less surprise by the attacker. But the attacker can make use of this as well.
Variables like S&D or T&H - if its a fight for VHs then the defender can really place forces in a few areas and the attacker has to come on to them. In S&D the defender has to loose less than the attacker which is a harder thing to do as the attacker can concentrate his forces in a few points and work for a breakthrough anywhere they choose.

[Imp]

[/quote]

For ww2 games in particular you should not forget that mobile formations have little place in a defend battle. The vast majority of defend missions are static battles which should be fought with infantry and supported by non-mobile units. You don't need many AFV's at all.

Narwan
[/quote]

Erh are you sure. Certainly Eastern front used extensivly by Germans.
Defensive line of infantry & ATGs is static with holes purposely left for exploitation. Tanks placed 1-2 miles back to avoid arty & counter attack the break through. They did this normaly totaly without support & a good 10% of commanders broke doctrine & allowed enemy far into the rear. The further in the less chance of getting back out.

When asked by Americans to set up a defence for the Hoff Gap (present day) the Americans could not believe how far they wanted the Soviets to run down the Autostrade before countering. Current plans are a conservative version of this

Armored formations obviosly as Germans had very little spare armour with which to support infantry formations, A few StuGs if lucky

[Narwan]

Erh are you sure. Certainly Eastern front used extensivly by Germans.
Defensive line of infantry & ATGs is static with holes purposely left for exploitation. Tanks placed 1-2 miles back to avoid arty & counter attack the break through. They did this normaly totaly without support & a good 10% of commanders broke doctrine & allowed enemy far into the rear. The further in the less chance of getting back out.

Armored formations obviosly as Germans had very little spare armour with which to support infantry formations, A few StuGs if lucky

Hmm... and how is that different from what I stated? What you're thinking of on the east front is the german deployment on a 'strategic' scale that goes beyond the scope of most games. A defend battle in the game typically shows an attack on those german defensive postions, NOT the exploitation of a hole between positions (that would be a delay or ME). And those german defensive postions were typically either battalion sized or a couple of companies in close proximity. For standard games you'll usually have one (maybe two) such area's and for large games you can have a couple (my mirrored game with Seabolt was huge with five such battallion(-) sized positions).
They would be defending the important terrain, ie the flags. Which is another thing, most players in my experience don't defend the flags in a defend game but form a line well ahead of the flags; that's asking for trouble. Use a zone defense with your main postions directly on and around the flags and only some very expendable delaying forces in front! Than it doesn't really matter from which side he approaches the flags. And you have little need for AFV's as the attacker has no choice but to engage the main defenders in order to secure the flags. Some AFV's of course but no more than about a dozen per infantry battallion (including tanks, AG's, TD's, apc's and light armor). Often I don't even buy that. It's more than enough to make life real hard on the attacker.

Narwan

[klanx171]

If anyone wants to test this theory out i am willing to take a shot at it.

Just name the specifications.

[Imp]

Narwan re mobile forces

I was not talking on the strategic level but about how a Panzer Battalion would deploy.

Map is not quite big enough to do properly unless lucky with terrain but lets assume terrain & flags allow & give a typical setup.
Full width map so defender gets 80 hexes to set up in.

Places troops & ATG a mile or so forward of flags. ATGs generaly set up in kill groups once that tactic developed & the line has holes left in it purposely with routes to flags.

Tanks setup concealed furter back than flags if possible so will not be hit by arty. In a position where they can move to cover the routes to flags.
A few troops set up as spotters to watch for enemy exploiting these routes & inform the tanks its time to roll.

If enemy takes the bait tanks do not counter attack till he has fully commited. If enemy tries to be clever & encircle part of the line rather than pushing on launches attack then encircling the encirclers.

Tanks are not dug in exept in rare cases were the terrain suites as they are then vulnerable to arty air & cannot use their best defence against, moving. The ATG is the static defence against armour.

In reality the best (most sucsesfull) Commanders broke the rules & would set up a lot further forward of the flags to let the Soviets run deep before destroying. This will not work in the game because the player will not do it he will probably go for encircling. But in real life the Soviets were very slow to react & would stick to the plan.

Using the deep plan though the guy I am talking about said he needed 30 MkIVs to wipe out an entire Soviet Tank Regiment on the counter attack with acceptable loses.

For game purposes just launch the attack once the enemy is commited & in the kill zone due to trying to encircle or heading for the flags.

If you think about it a Panzer Battalion only has 3 options on the defence for its tanks
1) Hide them
2) Dig them in
3) Roving force
The Germans normaly choose option 3

The other thing they would do & that is still current German Doctrine is hit & run with the tanks in hopes of gaining the initative as attacker reacts & diverts part of force to where they attack. They have now relocated in the hopes of attacking where the forces have been diverted from.
Rinse & Repeat.

So yes if the unit involved has armour a mobile defence is always the prefered option.

Set this up right with the routes just tasty enough & once he discovers its mine free will tend to run at speed to get chance to encircle & kill your force. Devastating when you pop up & say hello.

[seabolt]

The other thing they would do & that is still current German Doctrine is hit & run with the tanks in hopes of gaining the initative.

Against most players, used carefully, this can be a very effective defensive strategy in SPWW2/MBT. You can't really gain the initiative per se as a mobile defender, but you can momentarily deflect it or blunt it. The idea is to keep your opponent's blow from landing true, and to make him think. (And once you've got your opponent thinking, the battle's half won. Seriously.)

Against Narwan, you'd probably just be accelerating your rate of loss, so this by no means contradicts his POV, either.

-- 30 --

[Imp]

The other thing they would do & that is still current German Doctrine is hit & run with the tanks in hopes of gaining the initative.

Against most players, used carefully, this can be a very effective defensive strategy in SPWW2/MBT. You can't really gain the initiative per se as a mobile defender, but you can momentarily deflect it or blunt it. The idea is to keep your opponent's blow from landing true, and to make him think. (And once you've got your opponent thinking, the battle's half won. Seriously.)

Against Narwan, you'd probably just be accelerating your rate of loss, so this by no means contradicts his POV, either.

-- 30 --

I was not meaning to contradict his view I was just stating what they did historicaly & he is correct in that it is also used on a strategic level. At the end of the cold war NATO strategy in several areas was based on this. The dug in formations hopefully chaneling them to kill zones.
What I was saying is historicaly Germany used armour as a mobile not static defence. They never had enough tanks to go round so unlike the allies there would normaly be no supporting armour if it was an infantry division.
This tactic does work in the game but is slightly harder to pull off as the Russian player tends to exibit a much higher degree of command & control than the Russians generaly had.
The tactic Narwan suggests is indeed the safer bet & is pretty much what an Infantry Division would do.
He is also correct in that many people deploy to far forward as if your force is at all mobile you just drop smoke & go round them.
Now they are easy meat & can be taken out as they hot foot it back to what they should have been protecting.
On hit & run tactics as you so rightly say "gain the initative" was the wrong wording what you are trying to do is get him reacting to you as that is most definetly the battle half won

Hah just had a look at the ladder because of your accelerating your rate of loss comment.
Lol hes quite good isn't he:cheeky: