Random Battle Balance

[Ravindau]

In my experience the balance in non-ME Random Battles with all-default settings (100 %/XXX) is pretty much off.

Attacking/Advancing, my usual result against the AI is a decisive victory. Delaying/Defending, I am glad to get a draw. I am normally much better at defending, so that says something.

I am quite positively certain that holds true between human players: Default Random Battles, attacker will win much more often than 50/50.

I find the game otherwise very realistic; this actually supports my argument that the balance is off, because irl, if given 3:1/2:1 odds, the Assaulting/Advancing side should win most of the time. For 50/50, 2:1/3:2 would seem a better match.

I mean, really, would any human player want to be the delaying/defending side in a random default game? I rest my case.

[scorpio_rocks]

Perhaps my style of play/lack of skill shows here, but I find - certainly Vs the AI - the opposite!

The AI blindly charging forward means defend/delay are pretty easy, but I am rubbish at/find it much harder to attack!

Against a human opponent this changes I guess.

[Ravindau]

Originally Posted by scorpio_rocks

The AI blindly charging forward means defend/delay are pretty easy, but I am rubbish at/find it much harder to attack!

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.
2) Very generous (for the attacker) turn length. (No need to hurry, make yourself comfortable, have a cup of tea.)
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.

[Mobhack]

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.
2) Very generous (for the attacker) turn length. (No need to hurry, make yourself comfortable, have a cup of tea.)
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.

1) The attacker is meant to have the points advantage, as he needs it to force the defensive position. If you think the AI should have more points - then use the AIAdjustpercent variable. Ram it up to say 150% and try again. It is found on the misc tab of the game launcher programme.

2) If you think the number of turns given makes it too easy for you, then use the edit map feature to set the number of turns to a limit that you think will make you work for the win. Same goes, if say you think the objectives are too easily placed - simply re-spin the objectives, or manually edit them in the view map subroutine at game start. And since attacking in low visibility is relatively easy in WW2 (MBT has night sights so less so) then maybe up the map visibility in the same screen.

3) In an advance the opponent has no trenches, it is quite simple to sweep infantry away with a creeping barrage. So dont use one against the AI, or use a wider barrage. (If you opened up the map visibility as stated above, then enemy troops on your flanks will eventually see your troops advancing behind the barrage). Or elect to tie a hand behind your own back - by taking less arty so as to give the AI a break.

In other words - you can easily tailor the advance or assault conditions to give the AI a helping hand, should you think it is too weak defending against you. Other players may well say that it is fine as it is. But the tools exist - giving the AI more points, and editing the map and scenario conditions like #turns and visibility to the AI's advantage. Its just up to you to do it to suit yourself. Your choice, and it only takes a few minutes to do before you start purchasing troops - that is why we wrote the "view map" function anyway, the original game gave no opportunity to tweak the scenario conditions.


The AI only does a static and totally passive defence until it tries to retake the V-hexes the attacker has eventually taken. That is pretty much baked-in to the original code.

Against a human opponent, you really will be needing those points and turns. A human will deploy in a more crafty manner, and will utilise a more mobile defence plan (usually!). A human player for example, might use mechanised infantry to nip out from his start line in the early turns and set up ambushes in "no man's land". Other than a river assault (where AI troops that it initially "deployed" in the river will get pushed forward to the other bank so they do not drown, as they tended to do in the original code), its rare to find enemy ambushes in no-man's land other than in scenarios. Though the way it deploys formations does ignore the front line - so sometimes a few elements may be found 3-4 hexes ahead of the line.

(Allowing the AI a little freedom to deploy forwards into the no man's land is something I have though about as an option for its defence. It may make it in.)

[Ravindau]

Originally Posted by Mobhack

A human player for example, might use mechanised infantry to nip out from his start line in the early turns and set up ambushes in "no man's land".

Sorry if I cut your post to this one sentence. All the rest I more or less agree with, but this sentence left me literally with my mouth open. I just don´t get it:

What good will an ambush do him against my large, slowly advancing, blobs of infantry? He has vast numerical inferiority. My blobs will eradicate the distraction and move on.

[wulfir]

Originally Posted by Ravindau

Assuming that is so, I see 3 connected reasons why the defender must be at a disadvantage in Quick Battles:

The defender has less battle points in a generated battle but if the defending side is commanded by a human this outweighs any other factor.

I usually play on big size maps, the smallest size campaign I have played was a US 44-45 Airborne Long Campaign using 60x60 maps, so I'm not sure how a 30x30 game "behaves" - but I would argue that a long battle works in favour of defending human player - who will have time to defeat enemy forces and recapture lost terrain. But, then again, I'm not sure if 30x30 allows for much manouver space...

[Ravindau]

Originally Posted by wulfir

I usually play on big size maps, the smallest size campaign I have played was a US 44-45 Airborne Long Campaign using 60x60 maps, so I'm not sure how a 30x30 game "behaves" - but I would argue that a long battle works in favour of defending human player - who will have time to defeat enemy forces and recapture lost terrain. But, then again, I'm not sure if 30x30 allows for much manouver space...

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

2000 vs. 740, how is the defender going to recapture anything after he has been completely wiped out?

[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 Ravindau

Let me guess: You spend less than 50% of your points on rifles when attacking.

.

I think I see what *may* be the "problem" here but what would be most helpful for all concerned would be to see a recreation of the game that inititiated this thread.....so we need a save game after you have purchased and deployed your troops and pressed quit deploy and the next screen appears that gives the choice to either Start turn, Save game, Quit orders or Exit Game........ press SAVE GAME-- zip up the files and post them on this thread please

Don

[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.