If you think the advance is too easy - then use the "view map" function to reshape the battlefield to make it more difficult for yourself. In particular - you can reduce the battle length, manually move victory hexes to the AIs advantage and so on - for example you might increase visibility if the defender is say German, and so he can make use of his generally better long ranged tank and AT guns. Or you could give him more points by say buying a load of trucks that you sit on your table edge. And as far as I recollect, you can change map size at this point as well - attacking on a narrower frontage gives the AI defender a higher ratio of defenders per yard.
But reducing the time is by far the easiest way to make things more difficult since you will have to press on, rather than having the luxury of time to methodically take his defence apart.
So - you have the ability to make it more of a challenge with a few minutes work.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Mobhack For This Useful Post:
What I was trying to show is that Advance/Delay as it stands is not balanced between two players of equal skill. This is not subjective.
To repeat the decisive empirical question: Would you want to be the defending side in a generated Advance/Delay battle in a tournament?
Actually all you've done is show that you're better than the AI (unless you're suggesting that you and the AI are of equal skill, which seems improbable). So are most experienced players. That at least is not subjective!
As for anyone being interested to play as the delayer in a generated battle, why not challenge somebody to PBEM and see? The SP community awaits with bated breath the outcome of this epic struggle to "prove" or "disprove" that advance/delay battles are imbalanced in favor of the attacker. (My personal experience in SPMBT generated campaigns has been exactly the opposite, but never mind.)
Last edited by jivemi; October 14th, 2017 at 10:34 PM..
The Following User Says Thank You to jivemi For This Useful Post:
If you think the advance is too easy - then use the "view map" function to reshape the battlefield to make it more difficult for yourself. In particular - you can reduce the battle length, manually move victory hexes to the AIs advantage and so on - for example you might increase visibility if the defender is say German, and so he can make use of his generally better long ranged tank and AT guns. Or you could give him more points by say buying a load of trucks that you sit on your table edge. And as far as I recollect, you can change map size at this point as well - attacking on a narrower frontage gives the AI defender a higher ratio of defenders per yard.
But reducing the time is by far the easiest way to make things more difficult since you will have to press on, rather than having the luxury of time to methodically take his defence apart.
So - you have the ability to make it more of a challenge with a few minutes work.
Yes, this is a viable workaround for the Campaign, I agree!
Still, did you recently do any tests AI vs. AI, say Advance 1.000 pts vs. XXX, for typical WW2 actions like Alamein, Stalingrad, Sicily, Normandy?
I am tempted to bet the farm that 90% of such test runs will result in the advancing AI shreddering the delaying AI.
And if some people in this thread call such test results "subjective", I don´t know what their concept of "objective" is.
As for anyone being interested to play as the delayer in a generated battle, why not challenge somebody to PBEM and see? The SP community awaits with bated breath the outcome of this epic struggle to "prove" or "disprove" that advance/delay battles are imbalanced in favor of the attacker. (My personal experience in SPMBT generated campaigns has been exactly the opposite, but never mind.)
You are a brave man!
Only reason I didn´t propose a PBEM Advance/Delay with standard settings is because I thought no one would volunteer for that suicide mission.
So let´s say October 1942, Stalingrad. Doesn´t get more prototypically WW2.
German Advance vs. Russian Delay or Russian Advance vs. German Delay, 1.000pts vs. XXX. Your choice if you want to delay as Germany or Russia.
Any special house rules you want? My only ones are these:
1. No Allies; only native troops of your OOB.
2. 2 Sharpshooters maximum (2 individuals or a team of 2). (They are super specialists, more of them in a small action is ridiculous.)
Is a map 20 wide, 40 deep ok? I would suggest 30 turns, which is a bit LESS than you usually get from the RMG.
Love to take you up on it but unfortunately I'm too digitally incompetent for PBEM. Tried it a couple times at a European site (worldatwar.eu was it?) some years ago but kept sending my opponents back their own saved game, dunno why. The old noodle ain't gotten any sharper in the interim. So perhaps another brave soul could meet your challenge.
Yeah, I know, excuses, excuses. You called my bluff and I couldn't meet it. At any rate your enthusiasm for this game is noted. Just wish you wouldn't badger us so much about your pet peeves. Good luck and happy gaming!
Last edited by jivemi; October 16th, 2017 at 11:21 PM..
Good on yer Don. Using Stugs on the defense--and no artillery? That's so unfair; you're supposed to play like this is WWI! And on a broader frontage--whoda thunkit?
Unfortunately this will probably not settle the issue for our objective interlocutor since you're simply too experienced. Around and around the mulberry bush we shall go...
admittedly I did deviate a bit ( but not much ) from the narrow criteria to "prove how unbalanced delays are"...
Though I suspect few player even use that low number of points. Two coys of infantry and 2 Stugs isn't excessive on a 1500m frontage. The Russian AI made a serious attempt to take that mid map road junction and it was touch and go for the first 10 turns.
I may turn it into a scenario if anyone wants to playtest save 50 be my guest...
__________________
"You are never to old to rock and roll if you are too young to die".--- What do you expect to be doing when you are 80?
admittedly I did deviate a bit ( but not much ) from the narrow criteria to "prove how unbalanced delays are"...
Yeah, since his original theory is that SPWW2 is more like WWI, maybe you shouldn't have allowed the AI any tanks. Anyway using your same parameters (map and points) I bought one and two-thirds infantry coys, a mortar section and two StuGs for the Germans; 3 82mm mortar batteries, one 120mm mortar battery (coming close to 30% force value), and the rest infantry (four companies IIRC) for the Russians. The randomly generated map was much like yours, densely forested, and I reduced visibility to 6, leaving the turns at 27.
It was all over after 20 turns. Score was Germans 2964, Sovs 81. Didn't score many kills but about half the enemy fled in terror. Here are 3 saves (from setup, turn 7 and 20); hope there's no problems with winzip or whatever (they came from slots 10-12; not sure how to change them):
The Following User Says Thank You to jivemi For This Useful Post:
Yeah, since his original theory is that SPWW2 is more like WWI,...
This is certainly not my opinion. When would I ever say such nonsense?
If anything, SPWW2 is *a bit* too much inspired by modern warfare theories. Defensive resources in WW2 were enormous and are usually underrated. Blitzkrieg is overrated and was actually never successful without the element of surprise, that is: all successful Blitzkrieg offensives presupposed inadequately prepared defenders and/or great strategic blunders.
Re: The Curse of the Delay
Re: The Curse of the Delay
Re: The Curse of the Delay
if anyone wants to playtest save 50 be my guest...
Re: The Curse of the Delay
Linear Mode
