Attack Assault battles
 

This obviosly varies based on terrain vision & other variables but vs a human player not the AI what do you think are reasonable odds for the attacker / assulter to stand a chance of winning. i.e. 3:1
I feel the defaults used by the game give the attacker a near impossible task versus a decent player.

Re: Attack Assault battles
 

There are so many variables, it's hard to be sure. The AI comes at the defender at 2.5 to 1 odds and it does apply a lot of pressure due to shear numbers. More prudent artillery usage, planned obstacle breaching and better approach routes and those numbers might be difficult to beat.

It also depends on if you are playing a stand alone game or in a campaign. In stand alone games, you can pick a force best for defending and still be realistic, where as in campaigns your core has to be more rounded for all missions. I just finished a campaign defend against the AI and my core has 31 tanks and tank destroyers and a couple of infantry companies. It's not the best force in the world to defend with. A few armor units were destroyed, but half of my remaining tanks and TDs were either immobilized or without main guns. The main causes were artillery and air strikes. Visibility was 25. Who expects air sorties with that visibility? Anyhow, I think a person would have really been able to take advantage of force not oriented to defensive missions.

Re: Attack Assault battles
 

That is a good point if it is a one of battle defending with an infantry based force especially if dug in causes the attacker a big headache in my experience. seeing them is hard enough let alone killing

Re: Attack Assault battles
 

Scouts do a good job of spotting dug in infantry. All you need is time. If it's a short battle, then all bets are off.

Re: Attack Assault battles
 

Hi RERomine,

you can defend a ai-assault with 7069:18606 points. I've an example (scenario in work) in which you lead a full equiped VGR (Volksgrenadierregiment) with two battalions and attached regimental troops in a prepared deep defence positions 1945. I think in this special case a human attacker can win with 2,5:1 odds. The ai has some problems to handle deep defences :D

Greetings

Chris

Re: Attack Assault battles
 

There's no doubt an assaulting AI can be beat, even if it has a 2.5:1 advantage. I just finished a battle where I estimate I spent 11,000 on defense. This was a February, 1944 battle. It's really difficult to say how much the AI spent because 27,500 points is going to cause it to run into the 500 unit limit. I got a decisive victory defending against that assault.

I'm just saying that a person controlling the same assaulting force could well have won.

Re: Attack Assault battles
 

Carl von Clausewitz: 6:1 advantage

maybe the ai can win with this odd? :)

Re: Attack Assault battles
 

Ouch! The way the AI takes artillery, if you don't have fast artillery on, you could end your turn and go on holiday while it fires :D

Re: Attack Assault battles
 

Yes, of course. But the rounds need time to be fired. An dyou can go shopping in zhe meantime. :D

Carl von Clauswitz had the opinion, that an 6:1 odd is a goal an attacker should have, if he wanted to win an attack (military treatise "On war"). Maybe it ist worth a try, to bulid a scenario with this odds and try to defend succesful?

Re: Attack Assault battles
 

I think that premise of 6:1 odds held even into the modern era, IIRC. Western military strategy was to destroy attacking Warsaw pact forces at a rate of 5:1 to effectively maintain what in game terms would be a draw. Consequently, you could conclude that 6:1 odds would be considered to be overwhelming. I don't think that strategy was built on standing fast, however. It was more of a retrograde strategy where land was exchanged for time to mobilize forces necessary to execute offensive operations.

Against the AI, a retrograde strategy might be difficult. You could prepare several positions, at least for infantry and fall back to those. It would involve surrendering the flags. In a large enough battle, it's possible to inflict so many casualties on the AI assaulting forces you can do no worse than a draw even if you lose all the flags and have your force totally destroyed.

Terrain, visibility, force experience and time all play a factor in that, yet what you suggest is interesting. It's probably not possible for a defender to win at those odds in game terms. Displacing to alternate positions might not be possible if the AI is blowing the countryside apart with artillery. The defenders coming out of their entrenchments could be a sure way to get them destroyed.

I might try it anyhow since most of my defends are within campaigns where I have to use the force I've built for all mission types and not just defends. That leaves me with tanks that may not be suited for defensive actions. A hand picked defensive force might do better.

Re: Attack Assault battles
 

Don't have any quotes handy, but the modern ratio is 3 to 1 / 1 to 3 depending on role (and not, not the obvious), but that's what a typical combat arms battalion from NATO is expected to tackle.
And we didn't have the numbers advantage against the Warsaw Pact : which is why you'll read a US battalion is expected to take on 3 times as much OPFOR on the attack or defense.
If I can find time to unearth some quotes from FMs, I will.
Cheers !

Re: Attack Assault battles
 

I could be crossing up ratios for maintaining status quo and actually winning. I've got a web sight I can check for US Army field manuals, but those would be the most current and perspectives would likely to have changed. The numbers I'm thinking of are late 70s, early 80s, but I don't remember where I got them from. This would have been before the M1 Abrams was fielded in any significant quantities. The ratios will probably change every time someone fields a new weapon that gives one side or another a technological edge or reduces the edge.

Re: Attack Assault battles
 

I'm trying it. My defending force is 4,000 points and I gave the AI assault force 24,000 points to use. Now, I get to find out if it's Custer's Last Stand or Rorke's Drift.

Re: Attack Assault battles
 

It is worth noting those odds do not have to be across the front, creating those odds locally at your break-though point(s) can achieve the same result.

It is also worth taking into account that the more technically advanced your force is, how driven your troops are and even terrain, amongst many other factors, can play roles as Combat Modifiers. Many of Germany's early war achievements were against Armies who on paper should have been able to hand the Wehrmacht it's A**! However, many things contributed to the Wehrmacht creating the correct odds to win these battles. T o put Combat Modifiers another way, attach an Apache Attack Helicopter to an American Mechanized Company with an ammo supply, and the German Force in a short time would know the meaning of CM’s and Hellfire!!! :hurt:

History is rift with Battles and Wars won against what should have been unbeatable numbers. There are attempts at formulating some aspects of how these combat modifiers actually modify the odds, but IMHO if you study the battles besides the military science involved, in most of these victories a lot of military art comes into play. That is to say the effect that the Leaders, the troops and their fusion with their engines of war had in those conflicts, these factors are much harder to quantify. There are certainly cases where even the Generals of either side when questioned as to what went wrong or right, especially right after the fray, neither could tell you until giving it much study or many others gave it much study as to what did happen. To this day some of those battles still leave room for plenty of discussion.

We here who fight the battles we fight come away from some battles thinking the very same things, especially when the Commanders are both human......

Another way of looking at this as well is subjectively, what does a force consider victory? On paper the USSR should have folded as quickly as Hitler envisioned, (even the Allies believed this at first) no one counted on the USSR being so willing to take much punishment in order to regroup and start coming out swinging. In retrospect, it is easy to see how the early defeats in Russia were not so much the victories the Germans believed they achieved.

Bottom-line IMHO is Odds are a starting place at best, a guideline if you will, something a Commander has to use his many assets to create, to forge the conditions to victory, at their worse Odds are not to be treated as a numbers game alone.

Bob out:D

Re: Attack Assault battles
 

I figured it was just something worth giving a shot. My position is more of a 360 degree fortress than a line that I don't allow the AI forces to cross. I'm basically trying to not lose. If I win, all the better. Surviving is not really necessary given the extreme odds. I just need to inflict heavy casualties on the AI forces. At this point, it has 34 tanks burning and 10 immobilized with another 24 burning half-tracks. I'm holding my perimeter at the moment.

One mistake I did make in my set-up was I put a line of wire followed by a line of mines. The wire slows down the AI units, meaning they hit the mines as their first hex moved. They are less likely to set one off. I should have reversed it, mines outside the wire.

My force is three German grenadier companies, nine 50mm ATGs, bunkers to hide from artillery in, six pillboxes and artillery.

Re: Attack Assault battles
 

OK. For fun lets see if anyone can figure out this one. It's a battle fought sometime between 500 BC and the present

Two armies

One is half the size it was 10 weeks earlier and it's bedraggled soldiers
have been on a forced march to reach safety for 18 gruelling days being
harassed by the enemy. The month is October and the weather has been a cold
and rainy. Many of the troops have dysentery that is so bad than many have
cut the bottoms out of their pants and underwear so nature can take it's
course more easily. Some are reportedly shoeless as the campaign has worn
out their boots and shoes

The other army is at least 4 times larger and may be even as much as 6
times larger and made up mostly of hardened veterans who had spent their
lives in arms in both foreign and civil wars. They are well fed and well
rested and spoiling for as fight to avenge the loss a month earlier of an
important town and port to these invaders. So many well equipped men have
shown up to fight for the nations honour that less well equipped militiamen
were sent home.

Four hours later, in defiance of all logic and the received military wisdom
at the time the larger army is utterly and decisively destroyed and the
smaller one has lost a only a small fraction of it's troops in comparison.

Mud plays a major factor in this battle .

Name the battle.

Don

Re: Attack Assault battles
 

Agincourt comes to mind, mainly because of the reference to mud being a factor.

Re: Attack Assault battles
 

Pretty sure it's the Battle of Agincourt, October 25, 1415 (St. Crispin's Day)

jaywalker

Re: Attack Assault battles
 

You guys are good.....

Yep, it's Agincourt.

....and to put things in further perspective the English knights had the same problem with dysentry as the footsoldiers and archers did but didn't have the easy solution the others had to readily deal with it.

Doubleplusungood...


Don

Re: Attack Assault battles
 

Ah Dysentery, having been there done that with the benefits of modern medicine to clear it up, it boggles my mind at the resolve the men can muster to be able to fight though that horrible affection throughout history without modern cures!!:sick::eek:

Bob out

Re: Attack Assault battles
 

....and the thing is it was common in armies, it was in the Canadian army in Normandy and AFAIK all the rest too, but if it's mentioned at all it's usually a line or two and anyone whos had it or even something close to it knows just how that affects everything you do. Toss "people trying to kill you" into the mix and "living hell" only just scratches the surface.

But as I say.... it's usually something mentioned in histories, if it's even mentioned at all, as an off hand remark which I find interesting.

People who look for more "realism" in wargames don't usually consider that crapping your brains out in a trench filled with a foot of cold water during an artillery barrage qualifies.:)....... and in the case of Agincourt nobody wants to dwell long on the thought of what it must have been like to be a knight , in full armour, with dysentry, fighting for his life.


Don

Re: Attack Assault battles
 

Well, as it seems the phrase "scared sh*tless" has a an additional medical component to it, when it comes to long military operations!:)

Re: Attack Assault battles
 

Defending against 6:1 odds didn't turn out to be Custer's Last Stand or Rorke's Drift. I would more describe it as the Alamo.

Final results were a draw. My force was pretty much wiped out and I lost all of the flags, but did enough damage to come close to even winning. If I had been able to hold on to one set of seven flags, I would have won. As it was, I started losing the last set around turn 45 of a 50 turn battle. This was all done with a reasonably realistic force.

I've attached a screen print of the score page if anyone wants to look and I can attach the saves from my start and the last turn if anyone wants to see the battle field and get a feel for what kind of defense I used. It gives you a perspective on what you can stand up against. I had the German force, by the way :)

Re: Attack Assault battles
 

Against 6-1 odds a draw would suffice as to leave the opponent battered and licking wounds.:hurt:
Germans faced those odds in many a battle against the ruskies.
In my book,
You won the battle!:clap:
In underestimating the countless men russia could sacrifice..
Germany lost the war.

Re: Attack Assault battles
 

......also do not forget your 6:1 odds were in the numbers, if I read this correctly, the odds are also modified by many other factors icluding your abilties to Command!:up:

Bob out :cool:

Re: Attack Assault battles
 

The odds were based on points alone. My German force was slightly more experienced so that probably shift force odds even farther off, plus I spent a lot of points on defense obstacles (wire, mines and fire trenches). I didn't have any of those nice toys the Germans had in 1944. My only ATGs were 50mm and I had no armor to support my three dismounted mech infantry companies. Panzerfausts were handy against the American tanks, however.

I looked at what I was going up against and there was a lot. It looks like five dismounted rifle companies, one engineer company, two armored infantry companies, ten tank companies, one tank destroyer company and lots of artillery and recon units. Company count runs better than 6 to 1, but 170+ tanks weren't the best in the world for an assault. I destroyed 103 of those and could have done more, but ran out of ATGs and panzerfausts. About two platoons of American infantry were destroyed and many others shot up. It's very difficult to tell what damage I did there.

Re: Attack Assault battles
 

That is most certainly what I was alluding to. The 1:6 odds in numbers alone start being modified as soon as you start building your defenses, and deciding on where best to place your troops and what tactics are to be used. Of course the enemy may level this with his own tactics and specialized equipment etc. If this battle was studied from every aspect, a truer picture of the odds could possibly emerge, however there is always the X factors, the Fog of War, the Unforeseen.

Bob out:D

Re: Attack Assault battles
 

RERomine: Excuse me for not reading the whole thread first, but this wasn't from a long campaign was it? Oh nevermind, I scanned around a bit and found it was not.