Random Battle Balance

[Mobhack]

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.

[wulfir]

Originally Posted by DRG

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

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...

[wulfir]

Originally Posted by Ravindau

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

I played with 890 battle points vs XXX.

Originally Posted by Ravindau

....how is the defender going to recapture anything after he has been completely wiped out?

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

[DRG]

Originally Posted by wulfir

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.ze map...

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

[gila]

Originally Posted by Ravindau

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.

Yes as it should be,3/1 ratio is a doctrine when attacking an entrenched force
2) Very generous (for the attacker) turn length. (No need to hurry, make yourself comfortable, have a cup of tea.)

Well,this can be simply changed at the editor,want to fight a long death to the end? then choose more turns,if want a fighting retreat sort then less turns.
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.

I think it's also doctrine to sit your foxholes and trenches and deal as damage as possible and hope your prepartions ei. mines. barbwire ect. will help.

[Ravindau]

Originally Posted by Mobhack

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.

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.

[Imp]

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.

[Ravindau]

Originally Posted by Imp

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.

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.

[Ravindau]

Originally Posted by wulfir

I played with 890 battle points vs XXX.

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

Since you asked for it:

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.

[Ravindau]

Originally Posted by wulfir

I played with 890 battle points vs XXX.

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

Since you asked for it:

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.