Defense vs Offense

[Sgt Barker]

For example, if I had a WWII infantry battalion with three companies and I was going to assault an enemy infantry company of similar numbers, morale, equipment, etc. that was in a treeline dug-in and I was crossing open ground, I would not necessarily believe that I had the suggested 3-to-1 odds (remember WWI) and would try to find things that would improve my odds (like maybe the use of lots of smoke to hide my movements). Yet, in the game, this would generally be more than enough power to win the battle.

Interesting to set up and play out. With 8 levels of fortification (Dug In up to Pillbox, with 2 levels of each ), though I do think that there is a level of fortification that would hold off the attacker in the above scenario. Perhaps it's the level of fortification at issue here. Whether or not non-Engineer prepared field fortifications (the first 4 levels, which can be created in game by anyone) would be enough to let a company hold off a battalion, or more importantly whether it should be able to, is also at question.

The scale of the game, IMO, means that use of terrain, smoke, etc, is factored into combat. It's probably (not being a designer I don't know), assumed that all attackers have the ability to make the best use of such things. That in itself does make the offense more powerful than defense - the defender sits in one place and shoots. The attacker has all the tricks of modern technology, and initiative as to approach and timing. With 1km hexes I just don't see that the game should assume that a company moving up onto that ridge and digging in is also capable of clearing fire lanes and/or bore sighting all possible approaches and things like that.

(Just coming off a game of N44 I wonder if the designers made the beaches 200% casualty terrain to reflect this type of thing. The Germans are dug in, and where the Allies have to land is a kill zone. That makes sense, but if so it's a reflection of months of preparation, not the ad-hoc digging of trenches.)

Point taken about 3:1; it's exactly what I was driving at, and I didn't mean to come off as snarky about it. Old notions die hard, and I just think that in an environment with everything from knives to 500 pound bombs, and civilians to battle hardened, commando trained veterans, determining what "3 to 1" means is so subjective as to not be that useful.