Attack/Defend victory points

[The Coil]

In an attack/defend game, if the defender gets 1000pts, the attacker gets 1500pts. Anything you destroy gets you an equivalent amount of victory points - if you kill a tank bought for 200pts, you get 200 victory points, whether you are attacker or defender.

This seems to slant things in favor of the defender in a way I had never considered. If the attacker and the defender each kill half the other's forces, I'd naturally conclude that the battle was about even - however, in fact the defender is considerably ahead, 750pts to 500pts. In order to keep up, the attacker has to inflict equal losses on the defender, and match him casualty for casualty. Also, there is the fact that the attacker has a lower possible point ceiling.

Seems like it'd make more sense to award victory points based on the unit's purchase cost as a percentage of his total force's purchase cost, rather than the absolute purchase cost. Of course, this neglects the effect of flags and such...

[Soldier]

[Mike Abberton]

I would agree with Soldier that the flags make the difference.

Also, as long as you're not playing on a real small map, the defender is usually forced to spread out his defense (albeit with a mobile reserve ideally) or leave flags unguarded. Therefore, most attackers would at least plan to concentrate his force to achieve 2:1 or higher odds at the point of contact as opposed to the overall 1.5:1 of the overall QB. Hopefully, those kind of odds let you inflict more casualties than you sustain yourself. And if he leaves flags unguarded to tighten his defense, those are free points.

[The Coil]

Yeah, I hear you guys...just seems like if I'm attacking, he kills half of my force, I kill half of his, and I push him off half the flags, that should be a draw, not a minor victory the defender's way.

Not really complaining or saying it should be different, I guess - just something I'd never really considered. In my mind, if I'm attacking, I sort of think if I trade points 3:2, I'm doing average. In reality, I'm losing. Reverse is true if I'm defending. Just kinda changes the mental arithmetic in my head, I suppose.

[Zemke]

Hey Coil you want to play an Attack Defend battle, say 3000 points, and no rarity, you can chose who and what.

[The Coil]

Zemke - sure...it's kind of a tricky weekend for me, but if you don't mind waiting, I'll shoot you a setup by Sunday night/Monday.

[Colonel Talvela]

I think the points are right. As it is, I think the attacker has too much of an advantage anyway. No reason to give him more.

Your advantage as the attacker is that you have 50% more men. It is NOT that you get to take 50% more casualties. If battlefront wanted to make the game even by allowing you to take 50% more casualties, then they should have left the number of troops for the attacker as same as the defender. You are asking for a double bonus.

[Zemke]

I'm not sure the attacker has the advantage, most well thought out defenses are tough to break. You have to take down several dug in enemy sites, who hide and then shoot you at the last second. Maybe COL T we should test the theory, and you attack me.

(I just post trolling for games....lol)

[RedDevil]

any fortifications picked by the defender are automatically added to the attackers score, so if you spend 500 points on trenches and wire, your OPP gets those points added in his final score, this evens things out a little bit as well.

[Colonel Talvela]

any fortifications picked by the defender are automatically added to the attackers score, so if you spend 500 points on trenches and wire, your OPP gets those points added in his final score, this evens things out a little bit as well.

my understanding is that is cmbb only - and I am too lazy to test it.

zemke, I really want to play ... but I shouldnt. I have RL issues that need my attention. but let me think about it for a bit. Maybe I can talk myself into doing the wrong thing.