Points for Assault battle ?

[Vesku]

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.

Agreed, the ratio depends on many different things and should be discussed every time. Perhaps you need a base which you start changing which ever way the setup favours the odds but a single ratio never suites every battle.

[RERomine]

Agreed, the ratio depends on many different things and should be discussed every time. Perhaps you need a base which you start changing which ever way the setup favours the odds but a single ratio never suites every battle.

I'm not sure what results I'll get out of it, but I'm running some ratios though the AI and letting it fight itself. I figure I can't get two more equal opponents, both are very capable of being equally inept. Even then, I might just come up with something that shows the the AI's defend or attack subroutines are better than the other or the force chosen is just more oriented towards attack or defense. At the moment, I'm having 4/1944 Germans attacking 4/1944 Germans on the same map with visibility = 60. I can alter the point ratio, time period, map, nation and visibility to see how things change.

[RERomine]

One thing I'm finding out in my testing, something I and everyone else on here already knew, is the AI isn't the brightest bulb in the box. On the assault, the AI loves to find mine fields with it's armor assets. A human player is just a touch more careful. On the defense, AI forces move out of their holes and revetments to try to recover captured flags. It gives up the one advantage it has being on defense, turning it into effectively an under strength attacker. Maybe those stupid tendencies offset each other.

Things I am looking for with this testing is aspects, other than point ratios, that can affect the outcome of a battle. Here are things I'm looking at:

1. Objective distribution. Are they scattered or are they grouped? Grouped objectives are easy to defend, but they are also easier to attack. Who benefits from it more?
2. Defender point/front hex ratio. Does the defending force have enough points to cover the front? Generally speaking, it is very difficult for a defending force to set up a 360 degree defense. If the attacking force can get through the defending line easily and hit from the rear, it seems to favor the attacker. Tests trends are confirming this.
3. Visibility. Who benefits from high visibility or low visibility?
4. Assault/defend point ratio. There are different opinions on this, but there are so many other variables that can impact a battle, the others need to be pinned down before this can be tested.

Anyone else have any suggestions on aspects that can be controlled and tested?

[Narwan]

I'll see if I can find the time to set-up a defend in the zone defense style that makes point 2 mostly irrelevant int hat it doesn't really matter from what side you attack and send it so you can see what I mean. If you're interested that is... :cool:

[RERomine]

That works for me :)

Working with the AI is not the best solution, but at least it's fairly consistent. I can run it over and over again on the same map and it never learns a thing

I'm testing with a 5:2 ratio on a 100 hex front. If the defender has 2000 points, it loses 67% of the time, but if it has 6000 points, it wins 83% of the time. The attacker has 5000 and 15000 points respectively, so the 5:2 ratio is the same. My guess here is the extra defensive points allows the defender more mines and the attacking AI doesn't handle mines well, if you don't count finding them with Panthers as "well".

As mentioned by Vesku, the point ratio would do well with some base and then other factors would have to be considered. Ratio alone is not enough to cover all situations. Taking player skill out of the picture, you still have to consider total defensive force verses area that has to be defended, length of battle, visibility and probably a few other factors. The player skill impacts what force they select and how they use it, but should be why someone wins or loses.

[klanx171]

I have noticed from the feedback from the various tournaments I have run or been in and the games I have played that there seems to be a "tipping point" for the points ratios.

If you get over the tipping point then the defender is very likely to win, if under it goes the other way.

This seems to be less with the type of battle and more with the sheer numbers of units that can be fielded to deal with the inevitable attrition of units as the battle progresses.

Of course terrain, VHs locals, battle types and other factors do come into play but the sheer availability of points seems to big the biggest determinant.

over the course of the latest tourney I am running I have scaled the numbers down from 2 to 1 to 1.75 to 1 and also tried to add denser terrain as open maps and lots of points allow for lots of tanks and it allows for the inevitable flanking.

what this got me to thinking was that there is obviously a ratio of sorts but the size of the map can make the defender spread to far if its too big for the basic points allocated and so I suspect that there is a formula which works the following way (of sorts)

ratio + points + Map size + extra factors

if a kind of basic formula could be worked out you could then set a game up based on points, map and the game would have a ratio to suit.

Obviously SP does have something like that as if you play the AI its does something like that but articulating it would help a lot.

[RERomine]

I was hoping to come up with a useful "tipping point" ratio using the AI as a test subject, but it's really not working out very well. It is consistent, but not very bright. Give the AI defender more points, it buys mines. Not a problem here. The AI attacker can't coordinate it's activity. The fastest units reach the minefields first, usually recon, tracks and tanks, and before you know it, there is a company or two of burning units on the minefield. The AI needs to lead out with scouts and engineers to find the minefields, breach them and then send through an exploitation force. There is no way I can make the AI do that, however. Even when AI engineers find obstacles, they clear them just because they are obstacles. There is no rational thought, "Do I need to clear this obstacle?" No other obstacle within 500m and it doesn't block a thing and the AI will clear it, anyhow.

Probably the best way to go about it is just get opinions from experienced players have been on both sides of assault/defend battles and see what they believe to be factors that could throw ratios off. Once you've identified those factors, take a guess at what adjustments could be made to make the battle more balanced at the beginning. That way, the best player wins through skill and not because the visibility was low or high, the battle was too long or short, the map is too big or small, etc. No matter what, it won't be perfect.