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.

[RT-Baseman]

Originally Posted by 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.

Carl von Clausewitz: 6:1 advantage

maybe the ai can win with this odd?

[RERomine]

Originally Posted by RT-Baseman

Carl von Clausewitz: 6:1 advantage

maybe the ai can win with this odd?

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

[RT-Baseman]

Originally Posted by RERomine

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

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

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?

[RERomine]

Originally Posted by RT-Baseman

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?

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.