Random Battle Balance
 

In my experience the balance in non-ME Random Battles with all-default settings (100 %/XXX) is pretty much off.

Attacking/Advancing, my usual result against the AI is a decisive victory. Delaying/Defending, I am glad to get a draw. I am normally much better at defending, so that says something.

I am quite positively certain that holds true between human players: Default Random Battles, attacker will win much more often than 50/50.

I find the game otherwise very realistic; this actually supports my argument that the balance is off, because irl, if given 3:1/2:1 odds, the Assaulting/Advancing side should win most of the time. For 50/50, 2:1/3:2 would seem a better match.

I mean, really, would any human player want to be the delaying/defending side in a random default game? I rest my case. :)

Re: Random Battle Balance
 

Perhaps my style of play/lack of skill shows here, but I find - certainly Vs the AI - the opposite!

The AI blindly charging forward means defend/delay are pretty easy, but I am rubbish at/find it much harder to attack!

Against a human opponent this changes I guess.

Re: Random Battle Balance
 

Player experience is probably the most important factor.

What map size and battle points are you using?

Re: Random Battle Balance
 

I am not very experienced with SPWW2, but I am not arguing that the game is too hard, period. I am arguing that defending is relatively hard and attacking way too easy.

Latest game: German Assault against Ancac Defence, May 1941 (Tobruk). 2000 vs. XXX pts (740, I think), 30x30 map.

Shotgun V-hexes, 20% AI advantage. (Contrary to what the manual says, AI extra pts are also given in quick battles, not just campaigns.)

This means, as the Germans I was actually at 2000 vs. 890 or so, but still the Aussies didn´t stand a chance.

The game gave me 40 turns to achieve my objectives, all the time in the world, no need to hurry.

AI defended well, did a good job with its meagre points, but to no avail. It just didn´t have enough to work with.

I attritted the poor Aussies away in 23 turns, they had no choice but to surrender. Final tally was 4000 : 300 or so. But I didn´t defeat Ancac, their points allotment did it. :D

Re: Random Battle Balance
 

2000 points on a 30 x 30 map? (desert map at that, I am guessing?) That doesn't seem right tbh.

Re: Random Battle Balance
 

You may indeed have found a bug........we'll look into it......

Re: Random Battle Balance
 

Tobruk is rather difficult terrain, rough and hilly.

A larger map would help the attack even more -defeat the puny defenders in detail.

No, I think 1.5x1.5 km is *just* right if you consider that the Australian defenders have only 2 Coys or so.

Re: Random Battle Balance
 

Let me guess: You spend less than 50% of your points on rifles when attacking.

I have only played 10 games or so, but I must admit a certain prejudice has entered my mind, namely: WINSPWW2 is about rifle attrition.

My Golden Rule of SPWW2 strategy:

Buy lots and lots of rifles. Win the riflemen shootout. Make sure your opponent runs out of rifle squads first!

Assuming that is so, I see 3 connected reasons why the defender must be at a disadvantage in Quick Battles:

1) Attacker gets vastly more pts.
2) Very generous (for the attacker) turn length. (No need to hurry, make yourself comfortable, have a cup of tea.)
3) Not a pronounced advantage for defending infantry against attacking infantry in a shootout. (No discernible advantage at all when not entrenched.) I think there is a doctrinal issue here: Defenders are not supposed to simply sit in their little holes and fire at the attackers, instead they should be good sports and share the burden of moving around and being exposed to fire.

Re: Random Battle Balance
 

NO BUG from the info you described but one was found unrelated to the issue you raised.

The critical item you mentioned was in your first line in post 4 "I am not very experienced with SPWW2"....... note others have said it's their experience the problem is the other way round......everyone is different and it's impossible to build a game that will satisfy the rookie player and the very experiences one at the same time.

THAT is why there are a host of preferences to adjust to suit your style of play....... if you don't like the points allotted then set up preferences to give you what you want... right now with 10 games under your belt you think the attacker gets too many points the games are too long. If you think the proportions should be 2:1/3:2 then simply change them with proference......If P1 ( you defending ) gets 2000 points and you want P2 to attack with 3:2 then set up preferences so that P2 is given 3000 points .....and if you think the games are too long you can adjust the game length at the start as well......it can all be taylored to fit individual taste but we are not re-ordering a game structure that has worked for decades.

Don

Re: Random Battle Balance
 

1) The attacker is meant to have the points advantage, as he needs it to force the defensive position. If you think the AI should have more points - then use the AIAdjustpercent variable. Ram it up to say 150% and try again. It is found on the misc tab of the game launcher programme.

2) If you think the number of turns given makes it too easy for you, then use the edit map feature to set the number of turns to a limit that you think will make you work for the win. Same goes, if say you think the objectives are too easily placed - simply re-spin the objectives, or manually edit them in the view map subroutine at game start. And since attacking in low visibility is relatively easy in WW2 (MBT has night sights so less so) then maybe up the map visibility in the same screen.

3) In an advance the opponent has no trenches, it is quite simple to sweep infantry away with a creeping barrage. So dont use one against the AI, or use a wider barrage. (If you opened up the map visibility as stated above, then enemy troops on your flanks will eventually see your troops advancing behind the barrage). Or elect to tie a hand behind your own back - by taking less arty so as to give the AI a break.

In other words - you can easily tailor the advance or assault conditions to give the AI a helping hand, should you think it is too weak defending against you. Other players may well say that it is fine as it is. But the tools exist - giving the AI more points, and editing the map and scenario conditions like #turns and visibility to the AI's advantage. Its just up to you to do it to suit yourself. Your choice, and it only takes a few minutes to do before you start purchasing troops - that is why we wrote the "view map" function anyway, the original game gave no opportunity to tweak the scenario conditions.


The AI only does a static and totally passive defence until it tries to retake the V-hexes the attacker has eventually taken. That is pretty much baked-in to the original code.

Against a human opponent, you really will be needing those points and turns. A human will deploy in a more crafty manner, and will utilise a more mobile defence plan (usually!). A human player for example, might use mechanised infantry to nip out from his start line in the early turns and set up ambushes in "no man's land". Other than a river assault (where AI troops that it initially "deployed" in the river will get pushed forward to the other bank so they do not drown, as they tended to do in the original code), its rare to find enemy ambushes in no-man's land other than in scenarios. Though the way it deploys formations does ignore the front line - so sometimes a few elements may be found 3-4 hexes ahead of the line.

(Allowing the AI a little freedom to deploy forwards into the no man's land is something I have though about as an option for its defence. It may make it in;).)

Re: Random Battle Balance
 

The defender has less battle points in a generated battle but if the defending side is commanded by a human this outweighs any other factor.

I usually play on big size maps, the smallest size campaign I have played was a US 44-45 Airborne Long Campaign using 60x60 maps, so I'm not sure how a 30x30 game "behaves" - but I would argue that a long battle works in favour of defending human player - who will have time to defeat enemy forces and recapture lost terrain. But, then again, I'm not sure if 30x30 allows for much manouver space...

Re: Random Battle Balance
 

Just a quick check: you do mean 120% and you aren't actually setting it to 20%?

Re: Random Battle Balance
 

30x30 is a bit small, but would do for a company or 2 if it is a "leg" battle. For a mechanised force it is a bit of a postage stamp really. It may do for a particular scenario that focusses on a small area of a city map (like the tractor factory in Stalingrad) perhaps.

You could increase battlefield depth a bit if the enemy is expected to use AFV, and also to allow for an artillery park to be deployed that's outside of HMG range of the defenders.

I use an 80x80 map size for battalion-sized core forces (generally 3 rifle coy, 1 tank coy) when I am using leg infantry supported by tanks. That gives a large enough space for manoeuvre without too long a trudge for the infantry, but if it were a snow battlefield or an impenetrable jungle I may want to reduce width to say 60 hexes or so.

I know that Don likes to play games on postage stamp maps, but that's not my particular preference. But the point of our version of the game is to provide the end user with choice. At the end of it all then it is down to personal preference, there is not really one "right way".

Re: Random Battle Balance
 

Yeah there is something VERY SERIOUSLY wrong with the info given here as described

A normal P1 Assault with 2000 points vs a P2 defend set to XXX will give the dug in defender a HQ plus 666-670 points.....that's with "AI advantage" set to 100%

*IF* "AI advantage" is set to 20% as claimed the AI ANZAC defender would only get a HQ and 94 points ( which would go a long way to explain why it was easy to beat )

IF that 20% was a mistype and 120% is correct there is still a problem as 120% only gives 859-863 give or take a point or two ( 813 or so plus the HQ ) not 890 and that held true over a half dozen tests

AND..... I would like to know where in the manual it says AI advantage only interacts with campaigns

Don

Re: Random Battle Balance
 

I think I see what *may* be the "problem" here but what would be most helpful for all concerned would be to see a recreation of the game that inititiated this thread.....so we need a save game after you have purchased and deployed your troops and pressed quit deploy and the next screen appears that gives the choice to either Start turn, Save game, Quit orders or Exit Game........ press SAVE GAME-- zip up the files and post them on this thread please

Don

Re: Random Battle Balance
 

I played a generated game with me defending as ANZAC vs Germany.

Aussies 870 battle points vs Germany XXX.
Visability: 20
Number of turns: 29
Location: Tobruk
Map size: 30x30
Autodeployed VHs.

I bought two rifle companies, one HMG platoon and one AT-gun platoon, a carrier section one single captured Italian mortar, one single captured Italian 20mm Breda AA gun.

The German auto-picked force included about a company of tanks and half tracks, some mortars and infantry guns and a 10,5cm battery and about two companies worth of infantry.

Positioned one company to defend and one to counterattack into the flank. Counterattack started on turn 11. Enemy on map artillery overrun by turn 20. Game ends. Aussie casualties 90 while the German losses amount to nearly the whole force.

(I did not use Z-fire).

I don't see any problem with delaying (or defending) games - the basic setup gives you a fair chance. Veteran players will probably always do well vs the AI. If you want to make it harder or easier you can...

Re: Random Battle Balance
 

The problems here is you bought what you ( and we.....) considered a balance combined arms force and it's looking like he overwhelmed the defenders with infantry..a reverse "AI horde" that you get when you fight a first world force in SPMBT against something like the VC or Mujahadeen. A human player would hammer something like that down with arty but on a 30x30 map there really isn't enough time for the AI to do that before they are in it's lap.

Try your test again with the same ANZAC force but with a very infantry heavy attack force.

Best defence against something like that is ample mortar support and HMG's ( and snipers ).....not trying to kill so much as disable the attack by keeping them pinned so they cannot get close and overwhelm you with their own suppressive rifle fire

But the terrain given by the map generation program is critical in a map that size and there can be more variables on a small map....postage stamps as Andy says....... I set up a map usually with a small hamlet at a crossroads then fight it out as a meeter with maybe 700 points...that gets you a couple of coys and a tank or two

Don

Re: Random Battle Balance
 

Yes, *definitely* 120%, and the AI *got* close to 1.000 pts, but that was not nearly enough against my 2.000.

BUT my point is not that I am pretending I am such a great attack player. I would have done nearly as badly had I played Ancac against the force I bought for Germany.


In fact, defending against the AI, it depends upon what the AI buys.

Defending against tanks is easy, they die like flies. It´s defending against an infantry horde with artillery support which is near impossible. In other words, WWI generals were right, after all. :(

Re: Random Battle Balance
 

Sorry if I cut your post to this one sentence. All the rest I more or less agree with, but this sentence left me literally with my mouth open. I just don´t get it:

What good will an ambush do him against my large, slowly advancing, blobs of infantry? He has vast numerical inferiority. My blobs will eradicate the distraction and move on. :confused:

Re: Random Battle Balance
 

Map size aside, are you sure we are talking about small pts here?

2000 vs. 740, how is the defender going to recapture anything after he has been completely wiped out? :)

Re: Random Battle Balance
 

It works as a human against the AI, as infantry blobs are amazingly easy for a human to deal with.

The AI buys for a defence against combined arms - which is what end users tend to use. Its points spent on AT guns, tank destroyers, AAA and ATGM (if MBT) are thus nerfed if you "game" the system with a horde of grunts. And the AI does not know about ammo resupply trucks, either. Nor is it particularly good about plotting arty, and especially on repeating arty on a spot already targeted - it'll happily move a plot somewhere else on a full 2.0 delay to fall, rather than re-plot with an 0.1 delay.

A human defence against a human wave would have (almost) all troops up front, with plenty of MG teams in the second line. If you know it is going to be a horde then there will be no tanks to worry about, and cheap scout cars with turreted MG and 120 rounds carried are king of the battlefield. Plus plenty of on-map mortar elements backed up by ammo trucks.

The key to stopping a human wave is to suppress and rout their front line with a belt of area fire from arty and mortars, with the HMG teams adding to the mayhem. The AI, or a human player that simply tries to add second lines to the first line will find those being suppressed and routed away same as the first line. The armoured cars (or little light tanks with a 20mm - has a blast effect zone) dont get close enough for AT rifles or infantry assaults to effect them, and provide a mobile fire base acting behind the defence line. None of which the AI is capable of, as it is baked in for it to sit passively WW1 style.

The only prerequisite of this is that you need a decent field of fire out front so he does not get too close - it only needs to be 2-3oo yards of open zone. In a deep jungle map then the machine guns lose thier range advantage, and the armoured cars are a bit nerfed too. But as the defender you can figure out the approach lines and seed them with final defence fire points (gold spots) right in front of your defence line for accurate close-in fires. Any core MG teams can then look after open points on the line (if any). In a close jungle or wood map like that, then I would consider double-stacking elements as well, and if its a defend - put those 1 hex behind the rest at the start before moving them up later (gives trenches in the hex behind for the front line to retreat into).

And that is how I fight Japanese when playing nationalist China.

But by attacking with a horde of cheap infantry, on a postage stamp sized map then you are simply playing to the weakness of the AI.

If you want it harder then as said before, editing the turn count downwards will make you need to "press on". As would turning on timed objective hexes (if you want to leave it at the longer time). Giving the human player more time is always bad for the AI since it will simply sit there allowing you to deal with individual pockets of resistance and sweep them up.

Re: Random Battle Balance
 

I tried it again. Same setup with basically the same ANZAC force - two rifle companies, HMG platoon, carrier section, and one former Italian mortar unit - however I got rid of the AA gun and got some LMG teams and a sniper instead.

Autogenerated map, VH locations and turns (now 35 turns).


Bought the German forces myself. One leg rifle battalion (three rifle companies, heavy company), one light tank section, one CS tank section, engineer platoon, one AT gun platoon, scouts a LMG team, and one 10,5cm battery.

It took more time to grind down the enemy but it was certianly doable. Concentrated on both flanks and let the HMGs cover the middle. Made an effort to set up kill zones where I could expect the AI to move units. Counterattack at turn 25. Lost 54 troops and both carriers. Enemy losses amounted to the entire battalion force save for one at gun and the HQ unit.

The defend/delay game is not impossible vs the AI. It would have been very hard against an experienced human opponent though with this small size map...

Re: Random Battle Balance
 

I played with 890 battle points vs XXX.


Play the game more and the AI will not wipe you out. :)

Re: Random Battle Balance
 

Now get rid of the CS tank section the light tank section and the ATG plt and the 10.5 battery and buy more infantry and you'll see what he's been doing

Re: Random Battle Balance
 

Re: Random Battle Balance
 

Brilliant post, and you got me halfway convinced.

Since there is necessarily an amount of scissors/stone/paper to it, the AI buying routines cannot cover every possible attacker force structure, agreed.

But a human can defend against the forces the AI will likely use against him, again agreed.

And for attacking, if I want to use default settings, I can throw a bone to the AI and buy a force that is more to its expectations, again agreed.

Finally, to come up with an argument of my own along your line of thinking, I can set the AI defence to Human Buy and buy for the AI the forces that I think the AI *should* use against me.

Two things, however:

The postage stamp maps: Everybody thinks I use them to hurt the AI. Not at all. I use them because I think larger maps make for an unrealistically low force concentration (except in the Western Desert and some places East Front, perhaps).

Second, I still think everything else equal there is a problem with the economy of non-ME games. This will need a post of its own, though.

Re: Random Battle Balance
 

Just thought I would chime in, your wrong about defend delay engagements they normally result in the best ratio of enemy to friendly losses (there are lots of them) & are easy to win.
Setup is very important if you want an easy life in the battle.
Your infantry are your eyes & a last ditch screening effort or your tank killers if your tanks are not up to the job.
Artillery MG/GL & your APCs should break up & or stop an attack before your squads are threatened. Squads just deal with the odd guy that makes it past the engagement line.
Judging when its "safe" for the APCs to assist is probably one of your major decisions & you will probably lose a few.
Normally its not to difficult though on occasion the AI can make superb use of smoke to ruin your plans.
The biggest headache is if your armour is outclassed (as in not effective at range) and there is a lack of terrain suitable to allow there deployment effectively.

Re: Random Battle Balance
 

You are sure you are following the discussion? I am talking about a game where the attacker has 2.000 pts or less.

This means I have 1.000 pts in a Delay, at the most. My point is precisely that I can´t afford Artillery/Tanks. :doh:

Challenge for Wulfir
 

Since you asked for it: :D

Try this:

Polish Poison Challenge
by Ravindau

Poland assaults Gernany, Sept 1939
2.000 : XXX (about 740)

All preferences on except AI tank-heavy.
Everything at 100%/XXX.

Poland computer, but with Human Buy.
You get to play the poor, hapless Germans. :)

For Poland, buy the following:

5x Infantry Company
4x Armoured Car Platoon (3)
1x Hvy. Arty Batty 105mm (4)
1x Hvy. Arty Batty 120mm (4)

If you have some points left, buy a Sniper.

I think 30x30 is most realistic, but play it on a 60x60 if you like. Shouldn´t make much of a difference.

You may well pull a win out of your hat, but I´d say it will keep you busy for a while. :)

And I can´t really see anybody wanting to play this Human vs. Human as the defending side, so it´s an example of what I´m meaning when I say the pts balance is somewhat skewed.

Challenge for Wulfir
 

Since you asked for it: :D

Try this:

Polish Poison Challenge
by Ravindau

Poland assaults Gernany, Sept 1939
2.000 : XXX (about 740)

All preferences on except AI tank-heavy.
Everything at 100%/XXX.

Poland computer, but with Human Buy.
You get to play the poor, hapless Germans. :)

For Poland, buy the following:

5x Infantry Company
4x Armoured Car Platoon (3)
1x Hvy. Arty Batty 105mm (4) Edit: Clarification: Off-map guns.
1x Hvy. Arty Batty 120mm (4)

If you have some points left, buy a Sniper.

I think 30x30 is most realistic, but play it on a 60x60 if you like. Shouldn´t make much of a difference.

You may well pull a win out of your hat, but I´d say it will keep you busy for a while. :)

And I can´t really see anybody wanting to play this Human vs. Human as the defending side, so it´s an example of what I´m meaning when I say the pts balance is somewhat skewed.

Re: Random Battle Balance
 

Sorry for the DP. I pressed the Edit button, but got a reply instead. Edit button doesn´t work for me at all. Is it the forum or my browser?

Re: Random Battle Balance
 

if you are using Firefox you may need to hit the edit button a couple of times to get it to work (it is forum)

Re: Challenge for Wulfir
 

The Polish force is strong in infantry but weak in nearly all other areas.

No AA. Buy a spotter plane - you'll discover their main effort - shell them as they approach. The Poles have limited AT capability. Buy tanks. The Poles have no engineers. Buy mines and obstacles, etc.

Even with a mostly infantry based force the human player still has an advantage vs the AI.

Re: Challenge for Wulfir
 

How? You have *690 pts* (740 - HQ). Have you actually tried it?

The Armoured Cars provide a distraction, then the infinite Rifles will overrun you, and if you have an island of strong resistance, the Arty will flatten it.

Even if you -marvellously- manage a win against the AI, would you want to try this against a human attacker?

If Attack vs. Defence is equally balanced, this shouldn´t be a problem to defend against a human player. Note that my Polish Poison Cocktail uses only plain and ordinary stuff; nothing rare and outlandish that borders cheating.

Re: Random Battle Balance
 

When you set up your game as described do you set Player 2 points to 2000 and P1's to XXX? Or are you playing P2 as the human and P1 the AI ?

Re: Random Battle Balance
 

A somewhat related question: if the assault/advance player doesn't spend all the points, are the other player's points reduced to preserve the ratio? Is there a difference when playing against the AI or a human player?

Re: Random Battle Balance
 

If P2 set to "XXX" it will get a ratio of P1's SPENT points - no difference, AFAIK between AI or Human.

Re: Random Battle Balance
 

I bought the Polish force exactly as described, Map was 30x30. Turns set to 30.

This was what the Germans defended with. I deliberatly did not use arty "gold spots" even though I was allowed 5

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/attac...1&d=1462975056

This is the result after 19 turns when the game ended


http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/attac...1&d=1462975110

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/attac...1&d=1462975165

........which is exaclty what everyones been telling you. You found a way to overwhelm the AI with your human wave.......congratulations..... you beat the AI. :clap:

Now make adjustments to your preferences to make it more difficult for you DO NOT expect us to alter the game code because there is no need to..... HARDLY "poor, hapless Germans".... It was "interesting" for about 8 turns and then it was a case of simply going through the motions . The Poles never breached the defensive line and only took one V hex and only becasue I didn't defend it but I took it back turn 18 and I could have easily done without the arty observer and just used the HQ and that would have given me even more mortars or MG's

The "infinite Rifles " you refered to in post #34 did not even come close to overwhelming my defences and all the AC's did was give my AT guns something to practice gunnery on.

Don

Re: Random Battle Balance
 

Poland (player 1) assaults Germany (player2).
2.000 vs. XXX.

(37% of 2.000 = 740, so this is what Germans should get, right?)

I tested it AI vs. AI. Polish AI swept away the German AI in 20 turns, no contest.

Re: Random Battle Balance
 

I am inclined to think this is a strawman argument.

I have never had any doubt whatsoever, that you, as a developer, or the most expert players, can beat the odds.

The 3 words most important in my argument are everything else equal.

AI vs. AI, Poles win. Human vs. Human, if comparable players, Poles win. If I play the Poles against a tactically mediocre defender (like myself :D ), I win.

If you can beat the odds, this doesn´t prove the odds are 50:50.

Re: Challenge for Wulfir
 

Sure, weak German tank company with dismounted Kradschutzen platoon in support beefed up with two MG34 sections and two mortar sections. Storch spotter plane overhead.

The result is a massacre of Polish infantry.

Re: Random Battle Balance
 

In your initial post you were talking about human vs AI play?

As for PBEM it's basically the same story - some players are good, some are veterans and some are demons..., set your own battle points to compensate. Seems to me this is a very simple solution for your gaming balance problems?

(I have actually never seen anybody using XXX battle points in a PBEM game anyway.)

Re: Random Battle Balance
 

Seriously, seems no mater what is said or proved you wont listen so why are we entertaining you.
I have not played Don but there will be a lot of better players out there than him I would guess as he does not get that much time to play because hes testing & developing.

Truth is if you want to play a game with squads & virtually no supporting units you are going to lose often.
Play the game learn some tactics, look at what real life armies do because RL tactics &formations do work in this game.

Apologies for being blunt but you will actually enjoy the game far more by expanding your options tactically.

Re: Random Battle Balance
 

And that´s the problem. This is because they know intuitively it´s not equally balanced.

I used play against the AI as an example. Near 3:1 for the attacker is not balanced, period, no matter if playing against Humans, AI, the Cylons,...

Re: Random Battle Balance
 

Real life armies always win if they have an advantage like SPWW2 attackers.

Seriously, if everybody evades my argument *that the attacking side is OP*, why am I entertaining you? :rolleyes:

Re: Random Battle Balance
 

Never encountered anyone who gave this much thought - I haven't. My experience has been that in PBEM meeting engagements with equal battle points for both sides are the most popular games played.


3:1 seems fine to me? It's what they say you need to ensure success in an attack, isn't it... ;)

If you think it is too easy for the attacker adjust the points yourself - there is no way you will find any "universal balance" that fits all players anyway.

Re: Random Battle Balance
 

I do hope I got this right and you are joking. :) :up:

Yes, 3:1 should ensure success. Actually the game guide quotes historic Brit sources to that effect. But to ensure attacker success hardly makes for great balance.

Yes, perfect balance isn´t possible. Even in Chess, White has a slight advantage +0.3 Pawn Values, to be precise.

But you can try to get as close to balance as possible, rather than give White 44 pieces, SPWW2 style... :D

Re: Random Battle Balance
 

Yup, you got it right! - - > The game lets you adjust the points for both sides in random battles making it possible for you to achive whatever you think is your personal "great balance". As you play more and gain experience you will be able to modify the ratios you are using.

You can even build your own maps and adjust the terrain to balance out any unfairness. Maybe give each side identical terrain - a sort of chessboard map. ;)

Re: Random Battle Balance
 

Wow will give it one last go & cover a few points.
PBEM I nearly always use XXX rating, adjust it only if decide one player needs an advantage.

This game is about battles & war is NEVER balanced it cant be because there are so many factors involved even if you did say Germany vs Germany with identical forces it would not be equal.
You have taken troop quality & equipment (technology) out of the equation but there is still terrain, tactics & plain old luck.

As its about battles & its generally accepted you need a 3:1 ratio when attacking prepared units that's what the game uses.
Why because its the norm.
If you want to use a different ratio from 1:1 to 10:1 that's fine they have happened.

As an example as you like Squad heavy sides Korean War so 1950s, sorry cant remember name of the battle or a WWII with high odds.
China attacks British in a river crossing with odds of around 10:1.
They won but at horrendous cost, the British withdrew leaving a company & their artillery to cover the withdrawal.
The artillery was no use to them as most were malfunctioning due to the severe use, they used virtually their entire stock of ammo in the battle (cant remember was supposed to last 4-6weeks)

The Chinese commander said he had won the battle but lost the war because the Chinese losses were so huge.

The reason I mention this is the game would list this as a draw or victory if you can replicate it, I have tried & I can never do as well as they did.

My point play what you want 3:1 is just the norm & with a bit of experience you will win most of the time. Many people will play with worse odds because it makes it more challenging.

Its all about developing or using RL tactics & rising to the challenge.
You can adjust the challenge as you so fit either with points balance, beneficial terrain, vision settings, playing the underdogs or superior side.
It will never be balanced though because this is war & you can out think the AI.

Said my piece keep playing & you will find you start winning this type of battle & perhaps even making it harder further down the road.

As a side note if you want unbalanced try using MBT so modern battles a major power vs a 3rd world one. I don't do it to often because it fries your brain but its amazing what you can pull of sometimes.

Re: Random Battle Balance
 

Better save your breath. This guy isn't listening. Personally don't play generated battles but after hundreds of scenarios it's patently obvious that assaults are more challenging than defending. Basically our pompously presumptive tyro is telling us that pigs can fly, based simply on what he says. No saves have been provided so it's non-falsifiable. Talk about stubborn ignorance!