Attack Assault battles

[Imp]

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.

[RERomine]

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.

[Imp]

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

[RERomine]

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.

[RT-Baseman]

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

Greetings

Chris

[RERomine]

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.

[noxiousnic]

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 !

[RERomine]

Originally Posted by noxiousnic

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 !

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.

[DRG]

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

[PanzerBob]

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!!

Bob out