Latest Opinions on Assault/Defend PBEM Ratio

[Narwan]

I have a cure for that, play a mirror.

Could be, but I doubt it would make a player play the defense much better if it's not his 'thing'.

[seabolt]

(now I'm betting most of you don't know the game gives you this ability when defending)

And here I've been thinking that was a bug related to canceling a trench, rather than a feature. Dan, are you following this? I want do-overs, mate. I'm about to deforest England! ;)

-- 30 --

[zeiss]

I disagree with comments made early that the defence needs to be mobile and more points needed. For ww2 especially that is not the case. The bulk of the defence should be fairly static with a small mobile force for plugging gaps and counterattacking.

This is not far off from what I meant with a mobile defence. There will always be static units when defending but mobile fire-brigades are essential to keep the enemy at bay.

Far more important is the ability to project force form a distance, ie enough mmg's, hmg's, light and medium mortars and other artillery (light flak guns can work too).

By using the terrain and smoke for cover the attacker can make sure that the only long range "force projection" will come from artillery and MG area-fire.

The problems of defending do not come from lazy deployments or eagerness to move units around. Steel Panthers clearly favours the offensive player in any type of battle. The moving player can do a lot of moving/firing with his units plus the in-turn rallying. Defending units are at a clear disadvantage.
This can be compared to the Campaign Series where a unit only can move-fire or move-move-"not fire" making it easier for the static defenders.

There should be no restrictions on minefields etc as a general rule.

I think mining VHs is a gamey tactic. There's a 100% chance that the enemy will visit the VHs so it's a no-brainer to lay mines there.

[seabolt]

This is not far off from what I meant with a mobile defence. There will always be static units when defending but mobile fire-brigades are essential to keep the enemy at bay.

When defending a really long line, a risky substitute for tailored-force freaks (*cough*me*cough*) is reserve transport units that can pull inactive static units out of the line and into counterattack. A savvy opponent might make you regret "lateral reserves," but if points are really scarce it can be worth the risk.

By using the terrain and smoke for cover the attacker can make sure that the only long range "force projection" will come from artillery and MG area-fire.

In practice I still think the attacker needs a lot of terrain augmented by a little well-placed smoke. With SPWW2 smoke loadouts, in an open field the smoke does a pretty good job of telling the defender where to aim ... very difficult to make it last long enough to cover an entire advance.

The problems of defending do not come from lazy deployments or eagerness to move units around. Steel Panthers clearly favours the offensive player in any type of battle. The moving player can do a lot of moving/firing with his units plus the in-turn rallying. Defending units are at a clear disadvantage.
This can be compared to the Campaign Series where a unit only can move-fire or move-move-"not fire" making it easier for the static defenders.

Specifically, opfire gamesmanship means your defenders will fire at 2% targets 25 hexes away and have no shots left for the tanks that roll around the corner 2 hexes away. Plus, it appears that opfire is significantly less accurate than in-turn fire. These are the attacker's two biggest assets, IMO. Not that a clever static defense can't mitigate much of the risk.

I think mining VHs is a gamey tactic. There's a 100% chance that the enemy will visit the VHs so it's a no-brainer to lay mines there.

Yea, even I won't go there. ;) I'm also not one to "detrench" clear fire zones, because to my reasoning that should cost you a fortification point, same as laying wire or mines in that hex.

-- 30 --

[seabolt]

Arr.. too many formulas for this old pirate to chew on..

You should see what I do for a living. While knee-deep in P values today, I realized that my formula is too simple, in that its linearity is a problem. A quick fix might be to take the final force multiplier minus 1, find the square root of the difference, then add back the 1. Thus, for the two examples:

1.14 would become SQRT(0.14)+1 or 1.37 or 5,500 attacking points.

3.6 would become SQRT(2.6)+1 or 2.6 or 5,200 attacking points.

This pushes everything back toward the mean nicely.

There'll be a pop quiz tomorrow ...

-- 30 --

[Greybeard]

Umm.. let me guess.. you're either a Mathmatics Teacher.. or a very bored Engineer/Progammer with way too much time on your hands.. :)

or.. somewhere in between..

Cheers!

Greybeard

[Narwan]

I think mining VHs is a gamey tactic. There's a 100% chance that the enemy will visit the VHs so it's a no-brainer to lay mines there.

Now let's think that one through a bit shall we? The flags represent 'important' spots on the battlefield. It's what both sides are fighting over. The attacker knows these when he goes in and the defender knows them when he plans his defense (now I'm talking about the in game commanders, not their alter-ego's behind the screen :smoke:). So it makes every sense to defend them well, including by mines. I would find it very odd to always exclude VH hexes.
In fact, mining VH's deters a far worse gamey tactic and that is the last-turn VH grab using fast units by the second player (if that's the attacker).
And if it's a no-brainer for the defender to mine them it's also a no brainer for the attacker not to blunder into those hexes without a care...

[zeiss]

I would find it very odd to always exclude VH hexes.

Yes, but there are plenty of other hexes to mine. The VHs are very inviting because you know the enemy must go there.

Do you consider placing a 3-hex deep minefield around a VH a valid tactic?

In fact, mining VH's deters a far worse gamey tactic and that is the last-turn VH grab using fast units by the second player (if that's the attacker).

It will certainly not deter the second player. Minefields or not, he has nothing to lose and will happily gamble his units for a VH. That's the whole point of the "last-turn VH grab".
A better solution is to always have the defender as player 2. (Which incidentally would deter him from mining the VHs.)

Although any player who lets me attack with a 2,0:1,0 advantage could mine anything he wanted.. ;)

In practice I still think the attacker needs a lot of terrain augmented by a little well-placed smoke. With SPWW2 smoke loadouts, ..very difficult to make it last long enough to cover an entire advance.

I think you're underestimating the smoke loadouts. Infantry and some vehicles also add to the pool of smoke. And you can't expect to play all your battles as a defender on the Keflavik airbase map. Your opponents will eventually become suspicious.. :)

[seabolt]

Umm.. let me guess.. you're either a Mathmatics Teacher.. or a very bored Engineer/Progammer with way too much time on your hands.. :)

Actually, I've got maybe 15 minutes invested in that exercise. I proof research, so I'm not prone to accept handwaves and "there's a lot of factors to consider." Modern life is built on defining and quantifying factors ...

And you can't expect to play all your battles as a defender on the Keflavik airbase map. Your opponents will eventually become suspicious.. :)

Ouch! :kill:

-- 30 --

[Narwan]

I would find it very odd to always exclude VH hexes.

Yes, but there are plenty of other hexes to mine. The VHs are very inviting because you know the enemy must go there.

Do you consider placing a 3-hex deep minefield around a VH a valid tactic?

3 hex deep? That's what, 40 hexes? At 5 points per mine you've spend 200 points for a minefield with a density of 1 around the VH. At 21 VH's in a game... let's ask the mathemathician what that comes to. A valid tactic? Maybe. A stupid one for sure. When playing at 2:1 odds you simply don't have that kind of points left over. Which is where it keeps getting back at, if you play at 2:1 odds you don't have to come up with limitiations on minefields and other defensive goodies. The point spread takes care of it.

"Hmm, this is a good place to put a straight line of mines, it would block off that avenue. Ohoh, can't do that cause there's a flag there!" That's just plain silly. VH are hexes just like any other and as such can be mined simply because it makes tactical sense (ie having nothing to do with there being a flag there).

In fact, mining VH's deters a far worse gamey tactic and that is the last-turn VH grab using fast units by the second player (if that's the attacker).

It will certainly not deter the second player. Minefields or not, he has nothing to lose and will happily gamble his units for a VH. That's the whole point of the "last-turn VH grab".
A better solution is to always have the defender as player 2. (Which incidentally would deter him from mining the VHs.)

Although any player who lets me attack with a 2,0:1,0 advantage could mine anything he wanted.. ;)

You don't seem to understand the last-turn grab move. It doesn't have anything to do with having nothing to lose and everything with making suicide moves that can't be properly countered because the other side hasn't got a turn left to take out all those suicide runners.

And why would setting player 2 as the defender deter him from mining the flags? Explain that to me please. I don't see it.
And I always prefer the defender to be player 1 as I feel it right that the defending player gets to pick his terrain.

In practice I still think the attacker needs a lot of terrain augmented by a little well-placed smoke. With SPWW2 smoke loadouts, ..very difficult to make it last long enough to cover an entire advance.

I think you're underestimating the smoke loadouts. Infantry and some vehicles also add to the pool of smoke. And you can't expect to play all your battles as a defender on the Keflavik airbase map. Your opponents will eventually become suspicious.. :)

I think you're vastly overestimating the usefulness of smoke for the attacker. I often use it WHEN DEFENDING with devastating effect on the attacker (if done right).