Questions

[Old Gamer]

I have a question about the make a battle scenario creation. The meeting engagement I understand with two basically even forces with victory hexes scattered between the opposing starting lines. Victory is given to the side that kills the most and captures the most victory hexes. The Assault scenario has one side with much larger forces (2.85 : 1) and the victory hexes behind the start line of the defender. The victor is the side that has captured or retained most of the victory hexes and killed lots of the enemy.

The scenario I don’t really understand is the delay scenario. The defender has less than the attacker
(2 : 1) but not quite the differential of the Assault scenario. The Victory hexes are behind the start line for the defender. The defender does not get the defensive fortifications, mines or wire in the scenario as they would as the defender in the Assault scenario. I am trying to understand exactly what the goal of this scenario is. If the victory hexes were all the way back near the edge of the defenders side of the map or even exit hexes it would make more sense to me. Another option would be to require the defender to exit forces off the board. A tight time frame could also be used to force the attacker to move fast. Battle generated scenario doesn’t do this for the Delay Scenario. I know I can set up the map with the victory hexes as I think is best and even set the time limit. However it doesn’t answer the question of why the Delay Scenario is set up to play the way it does on automatic.

I am not criticizing only trying to understand. I play the game a lot and got the original version of it way back in the day. Still have the old disks. I like what you have done with the game and I like it a lot more than the newer games they have come out with. It plays like a board game but without looking up the tables. I really appreciate the fog of war that you don’t get with a board game.

One more general question is about victory hexes for the Battle created scenarios. The victory hexes appear to be placed somewhat at random. I would think that crossroads, towns, bridges and hills would be logical military important locations. The middle of open fields or woods would not. I understand how much programming goes into the game and I appreciate the work you guys have done. It is a labor of love I am sure. Maybe this is just too much work to do or it is something you are planning.

[RightDeve]

"Delay" is as the namesake.....

You're delaying enemy forces.

The ratio of forces thus less contrasty than Defend/Assault. Because if one side has a definite advantage in number, obviously he would do an all out assault right? Instead of advancing cautiously. (keep in mind another name for "Delay" is "Advance", i.e one side delays, the other advances).

The delaying side also doesn't have enough time & resources to put up a good defensive position (or doesn't need to, because the ratio of forces is "rather" equal).

And the V-hex placement, because it's not a fixed defensive position yet, then they're scattered more toward the middle, to represent a more mobile defense (yes, delaying....)

Units going off-board actually has its pros and cons: Pros: you don't get your units destroyed, thus no points for the enemy for destroying your units. Cons: you lose all victory hexes to the enemy. But it's delaying action right, so you harass the enemy to slow him down.

Regarding timed objectives, I guess it's already a feature in the game, where the longer the turns the higher (or lower) the V-hex value becomes. Though I haven't used it ever.


Cheers!
Zen.

[Imp]

You can make it what you desire, the goal in all battle types is to destroy the enemy & capture the victory hexes with the minimal casulties to your force.
Delaying is simply defending assuming the defender has not had time to fortify & the attaccker has not had time to amass a larger force.

You can reroll victory hex placement till you get something you like or place them manually if you wish, I often do. Can also adjust scatter vs 3 grouped sets percentage on the splash screen at game startup.

You can also make victory hexes more or less important as desired by adjusting the individual value of each victory hex.
Also the higher you set timed objectives the more important they become.

Setting high values for the hexes & timed objectives makes the battle more urgent if you are attacking.

[Griefbringer]

I would suggest that the advance/delay scenario would be best considered as a hasty attack/defence encounter. For example, the attacker has broken through the main defensive line and is advancing to the rear, and the defending side has hastily thrown reserves to stop or slow them down. Thus neither side has had time to build defensive positions. The attacker needs to push on before the defenders have time to dig in.

Assault/defence is more of a WWI style assault against a well dug-in opponent. Also the attacker has had time to prepare well (thus all the infantry and artillery units also on this side start dug-in to protect them from defensive fire initially).

Also, the two settings tend to favour different kinds of forces and tactics for the defending side. The static defensive positions on defence provide plenty of cover, but only as long as the units tend to stay on their original positions (unless you purchase a lot of trenches for infantry to slowly move around). This tends to favour a strong, static line, with mutually supporting positions.

In delay scenario, no static defences are provided, and the units may need to rely more on their mobility for protection - once spotted, they are in dire danger if enemy manages to mass fire on them. Plus if the enemy has artillery, it may be necessary to spread units around - massed troop concentrations tend to make for juicy targets. Thus a mobile defense in depth becomes a good approach - once a unit has been spotted, it can retire to the rear and take new defensive positions somewhere outside the enemy line of sight, allowing it to re-engage enemy again from a hidden position. This retiring can be covered by other units providing fire to slow down the enemy. Occasional counter-attacks may also be mounted to finish off weakened and isolated enemy units. This kind of mobile action tends to favour armoured vehicles, since they have the necessary speed to change position quickly, cannot be pinned and do not become vulnerable while moving in the same way as infantry. Just take care not to expose the rear armour when pulling back!

[DRG]

....or you could consider it a counterattack on a recently held position.......you are battling to retake ground the enemy has had no time to prepare or reinforce full defensive postitions yet

[Mobhack]

In an assault/defend situation, both the attacker and defender have had time to prepare. It will therefore take longer - so more turns are given out by the game. The attacker can therefore be more methodical in his advance and reduction of the enemy defences. The defender is dug in, and can use fortifications and mines, to compensate.

In the delay/advance pairing the game gives less turns than an assault (but more than a meeting engagement) as the advancing force wants to brush the enemy aside faster. The more turns you give the attacker (by editing the set-up) then the less pressure is on the advancing player. Also, if timed objectives are used, then the pressure for the attacker to crack on is more pronounced. The delaying player has more troops to keep the attacker away, but has not had time to prepare field defences.

In the assault, the artillery overload penalty does not apply to the assaulting player, but in the advance he is allowed more arty percentage than in a meeter, but still there is a limit so he cannot too easily blow away the defence.

[Gelainey]

I particularly like delaying actions, because, like an advance, they are mobile actions. Because the AI is committed to attacking the victory hexes it is possible to set up all sorts of ambushes and flanking movements. I usually attack first in a delay scenario and establish a temporary strong-point somewhere in enemy territory (maybe in a small town or behind a hill, in a depression etc), then apply a flanking movement, what we call in Australia the "pin and hook". Moving forward confuses the AI's artillery and the AI usually won't drop on their own advancing units. Timing is exquisite in deciding to withdraw, because you can't allow your smaller forces to get overrun and wiped out. Then simply stage a withdrawal to the next strong point and ambush the AI all over again! Meanwhile your "hook" can snipe away at pinned and buttoned enemy from the flank. A very small and fast element (armoured cars, motorcycles, armoured infantry - you don't need much)can advance up the flanks under cover of terrain and smash up the AI's artillery.
Great fun!

[Griefbringer]

Gelainey has an interesting approach, I had not considered throwing in an early counter-attack when playing as the delaying side.