Points for Assault battle ?

[Narwan]

Hi Imp,

I don't really agree with you here; important terrain well behind your main defense line would be off-map in a game the scale of SP. There's a second set of important terrain and that's the tarrain needed to give access (with LOC) to those rear area's of the enemy. These are the positions a static force would defend and that's why the german tactic often worked so well. Bypassing isn't always a solution, some positions need to be taken or the bypassers will only be putting themselves in an encircled situation. So in my view a defend game represents the attack on that forward important terrain, not an attack to exploit deeper area's.

Narwan

[Imp]

I did actually say in game terms you should ignore the deep defence part because it will not work against a human player as his command & control is far better. But the principle can still be used at shorter range which was I believe the orthodox way to do it, encircle the encirclar or counter attack the flag force. Letting them run deeper means you need great confidence in destroying as your support assets are now at risk. But its also pssible to inflict very high loses.
Generalising but the Germans had very good C&C & the squad leaders knew the objectives & were quite capable of adapting to the current situation to achieve them. The Russians however had a very poor C&C structure & most of the force would have no idea of the goals so just followed the initial orders. They were therefore slow to adapt to changes on the battlefield & if you could kill a few decent ranking commanders it was pretty much game over. The Germans were nearly always outnumbered & 3:1 was considered normal but due mainly to the ability to react it was not a problem. Verses a player playing them like Germans it would be. Look at the losses on the respective sides or even between Russia & Finland.
Against Britain (& the USA once they got their act together) they found they had a new & dangerous adverery who they could not simply out manouvre.

If you dont belive the above look at something like Kursk where the Germans attacked unaware they were heavily outnumbered. Despite this & the huge number of mines they managed to advance & when finally admitted it was to much they had managed to kill nearly 3 times as many as they lost.
It probably was the beginning of the end because they could not afford those loses but Jesus what a war machine just how did they manage it.

Can we leave this now I was only stating historicaly you are wrong as a game tactic it is the most sensible choice but if you wanted to be realistic using this tactic very very rarely would you have any armour at all & if did would most likely be StuGs. It is however just a game as Kursk proved & stated in other posts here attacking with those odds is suicide.
Playing Germans versus the AI outnumbered 3:1 might actually be a more realistic representation!!

[Narwan]

It's obvious we both think of our approach as the more (historically) realistic one. You think of the flags as the important rear area in a defend game, I think they represent the vital ground on/near the frontline that needs to be secured for a lasting advance and so is actively defended. The game allows for both.

Narwan

[Imp]

The flags could represent several things but generaly areas that must be held to continue your assault or to stop the enemy from breaking into your rear area, they are not the rear area but routes to it. Gave my example as easy to explain, they are letting them have them because it is essentially a trap & they expect the enemy to take this rout, in game terms the flags.
Another explanation
The armoured force is in a position to protect the flags (general area)but safe from arty concealed. Once a force worth commiting for is present the FOO who has been watching & has area pre plotted calls in the strike & tanks counter attack.
If did deep defend the flags would still represent routes to rear just off the scale of the map they would not let them get far enough back to threaten support in important rear area unless of course it all went wrong.

The diffrence in our point of view is you think armour should be static where as I believe if possible it was used as a roving force to counterattack.
We shall agree to differ in our beliefs.

[Narwan]

I never said armor should be static. I said the bulk of the defending force should be static (infantry, atg's, mmg's that sort of thing) supplemented by a small group of mobile forces. As to how small that small group should I obviously tend to get far fewer mobile troops that others.

One question though, if the flags portray the route to the rear area and not the rear area, what are the troops you deploy a mile forward of them defending, the route to the route? Wouldn't you agree they'd be of more use defending 'the route' itself i.e. the flags?

Narwan

[Imp]

Okay I misunderstood your post in that case
"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."

Good grief now I think we are nit picking a bit as you know the flags could represent many things depending on placement.

I would say the groups forward are there to channel into the kill zone & track them, perhaps with some units that remain quite & close the exit the general idea is once they get in thet dont get out & would require a book or 2 to go into in detail with the options.

The simple answer is sitting on the flags is the safe sensible option.
The higher risk in my view option is what I described. But if pulled off correctly is far more destructive, they can't quite & run.
Remember time is often a factor & hence speed of destroying as Soviets regulary attacked in waves, once first is exausted the next takes over. But if the first wave is vapourised human nature might cause them to rethink & those few minutes let you regroup. But now we are heading into the strategic realm.

As my final comment on the subject if the terrain allows & obviosly it is tailored to it you can indeed win with this strategy, its slightly riskier but hey its a lot more fun than just sitting there. Also you get some amusing e mails when things seemed to be going so well & you just destroyed a tank company in one turn. Then got most of another one in his following turn. Sort of blunts the attack.

It is actually more effective/easier in MBT especially if have a few troops with decent RPGs to support & tanks have a greater choice of terrain they can hide in as more accurate so can be further away. If dont have TI & opponent has Smoke Dis have to plan more carefully.
Because you can set up so somebody has a flank shot it is also an effective way of killing tanks you can't touch from the front. If done properly & one of his tanks moves or fires at least half a dozen of your units will open up from all angles.
They are now in the kill zone.
The added bonus is many players divert much of there arty to you but as kill fast when it hits you are gone, very important after 1980.

But you are obviosly very good at tactics & may not fall for it most do. I am new to the club & working my way up the ladder. If I do well against current opponents I will be reasonably on the way to feeling I could give you a decent game. A while away yet as have picked up some bad habits from playing easy players before joined the blitz but I am sure we will have a game he says confidently. I am expecting to get slaughtered at some point & find a lot of tactics suddenly wont work. Sort of like playing the AI then having your first PBEM & realising most of the stuff you knew just went out the window.

[Narwan]

Yeah I can see how you took that post that way. I've always thought of ME's and delay missions of the games mobile warfare options and assault/defend missions as the games static missions. In fact it took me quite a while to realise that some (perhaps even most) players think of those last types of missions of another variant of mobile operations. It's also why I advocate the 3:1 force ratio. For most maps it's hard to loose a game even at those odds if you do your set-up properly with the right type of forces (for a static defense). And for those of you who take that to mean you have to buy unrealistic forces, think again. The basic infantry battallion set-up is usually the best mix anyway with only little tweaking needed. There's a reason historical TO&E's are as they are. They work.

I had one game as a defender where on the face of it everything went as bad as it could for the defender (me). There was a natural 'corridor' next to northern map edge which I couldn't cover from my main positions. I defended it with light forces in a forward position only in the hope to use those to deter the attacker from using it. No luck, he had spotted it too and went for it. In fact he pushed 90% of his non-arty forces through it. Heavy fighting ensued but in the end he broke through and had bypassed my defensives and was into my rear. I figured I was in for a world of hurt as I assumed that when such a force breaks through you're bound to lose (it was still in my earlier days of gaming and that was/is the popular conception).
The result? He never came close to winning. Sure he went for my arty positions, he started rolling up my defenses from north to south, he went on hunting down my few mobile units, he had loads of arty and ammo units and kept pounding me. He did it by the book. Didn't make serious mistakes, played rather well in fact.
But he needed flags to win and my troops were dug in all around those in defense zones with goods fields of fire and ambush positions. By the time he got to half the flags he had lost nearly double the amount of points I had had to start with (game was at 3:1 odds). Which has little to do with my tactical ability but everything with how hard it is to dig out infantry with mobile forces that are short on infantry. You need grunts to spot defending infantry in time. A T34 or HT full of infantry is about double the cost of an infantry squad defending. Running into panzerfausts or AT mines again and again will cost you. Its just math.

And then I counterattacked with the forces he had bypassed. Taking a flag isn't enough; you also have to clear the woods/houses/gullies close to it. I almost took enough flags back to win, even under the old scoring rules (under the current scoring sheet it would have been a win, possibly a medium for the defender).
Now, this isn't about showing how good I am, it's about the realisation I had at that point that even if things go wrong to the point that nearly the entire enemy force is concentrated to break into your rear and working down your defenses north to south, doing things by the book you can still win as the defender at 3:1 odds if your set-up is right. In fact, you are unlikely to lose if your set-up is right. That's why this game stuck to me so much I still recall it vividly. When he broke through I fully expected it to be my first defeat and I started to fight for a draw but as the game progressed I realised I couldn't lose. He simply didn't have enough troops. So I do consider 3:1 odds a minimum for assault games.

Narwan

[zeiss]

In fact, you are unlikely to lose if your set-up is right.
...
So I do consider 3:1 odds a minimum for assault games.

But you're assuming that everyone has your expert level of defensive mastery. The average casual player (myself included) has no chance defending at 3:1. If I had 2000pts in WW2 and managed to win against 6000pts then it would say more about my blundering opponent then about me.. :chin:

[Imp]

To Narwan & others as back on topic
We need to agree on some ratios for an defend & delay mission & trial them because as it stands being the aggresor is not a balanced game. If anything from my brief flirtation with new arty mod in 3.5 patch it will favour the defender more to.
Assuming a decent defender delayer what would you say are odds that give a roughly equal chance. Hard to say as time & low visibilty favour the attacker so decent vision 30 turns.
My view is defend is where the real problem is if assume Narwans mainly infantry defence so lots of units dug in which are hard to see let alone kill.

Perhaps for balance flags should give zero points (just deduct from totals at end). Still count for determining vic level but as defender starts with these he has those points from the start

[RERomine]

In fact, you are unlikely to lose if your set-up is right.
...
So I do consider 3:1 odds a minimum for assault games.

But you're assuming that everyone has your expert level of defensive mastery. The average casual player (myself included) has no chance defending at 3:1. If I had 2000pts in WW2 and managed to win against 6000pts then it would say more about my blundering opponent then about me.. :chin:

You consider your self average?!? :conf:

Anyhow, there is no easy way to figure out the perfect balance. You need two people of equal skill to fight out different ratios of points to find out the perfect balance. Even then, it's only for that situation. Some people are just better than others, some are better defenders than attackers or visa versa, some are better in certain terrain conditions, etc. There will never be a good answer for this.