The Curse of the Delay

[Ravindau]

This is a Generated Battle, German Advance vs. US (AI) Delay.

750 pts. vs. XXX, AI advantage = 110% (US get slightly over 400pts). All Realism prefs on.

Date = June, 1944. 39 Turns, Random Normandy Map, 3x1.5 km.

The map looks very good and is plausible for the region; I find the random maps in this game generally outstanding.

Contrary to war stories, the very difficult terrain will be more of a help than a hindrance, because my approaches are covered.

I think the 39 turns the game gives me are too generous. The advancing side in an Advance/Delay random battle is rather VERY overpowered, which I will try to show.

I buy a reinforced SS company with an added Inf platoon, a few extra 80mm Mortars and 2 ACs.

*The Golden Rule of Strategy: Don´t try to be too clever!* The plan is to keep my company close together -you know from horror movies what happens when you split up!- and march directly on the southernmost objective, then work my way up from there (OOB & plan pics & setup files attached).

BEFORE YOU READ ON:

*If you are a beginning player, this setup is actually a useful Infantry Combat 101 training exercise. Just extract the setup into your savegame folder, load the save and (likely) get your first win.

*If you are not a Beginner, here´s a challenge: Try NOT to get a Major Win with this setup. It may well be possible, if your plan is creative enough! :D

[Ravindau]

Advancing cautiously toward the 1st objective. Nothing happens.

[Ravindau]

Both flanks face slight resistance, approx. 1 US Rifle sqd. each. I bring up reserves to overwhelm the puny defenders.

[Ravindau]

From the bypassed village in the North, a Rifle sqd. opens fire on my right flank, causing some consternation. I pin them with my ACs and send the Sharpshooter around their flank. After he pops a few, they rout into the open and are eliminated. My center is temporarily stopped by a well-situated sqd. that covers their route of advance. I have to wait for the Mortars to take care of that. My left flank is only 200m from the 1st objective and encountering no resistance. Some 60mm Mortar fire hits the woods in my rear. I don´t know where that came from, and don´t really care. 19 turns to go.

[Ravindau]

We take Objective #1 and encounter what appears to be the US main line of resistance: 1 1/2 plts situated around the 2nd objective. They are being overwhelmed rather fast and with light losses to the attacking force. Mortars prove useful at pinning the defenders. Occasionally their fire falls short and they pin my own troops, but no matter, since we have all the time in the world. 14 turns to go.

[Ravindau]

At this point we suffer the only setback in the game: A stubborn US Rifle sqd, even though pinned, manages to destroy one of my ACs at 50m distance! Impressive, though ultimately inconsequential: American resistance is ceasing, and we are taking the 2nd objective and marching on the 3rd.

[Ravindau]

All US sqds are dead or on the run. As we take the last objective, the game ends prematurely, with 6 turns left! US losses are 128 men and 1 Mortar, German losses are 36 men and 1 AC. I win 2873 : 68 (40:1).

CONCLUSION: Advance/Delay generated games have a balance problem. It´s not a bug, everything works perfectly. It´s not the AI, either: A human player would have been steamrolled just the same.

I think the most important reason why this was too easy was the complete lack of time pressure. It´s the very idea of the Advance/Delay that time should not be on the side of the attacker.

I propose to reduce the turns given in an Advance/Delay generated game by about 20%. This would put a little more pressure on the attacker and give the defender the chance to play a trade-space-for-time game.

There would be no impact on realism: You can easily imagine that the parameters of the wider situation are not stable, and time is of the essence for the attacker.

[scorpio_rocks]

I think you will find that the timed objectives option completely alleviates the timing issue.

(just looked it up this is a "CD version" only option)

[Imp]

I propose to reduce the turns given in an Advance/Delay generated game by about 20%. This would put a little more pressure on the attacker and give the defender the chance to play a trade-space-for-time game.

As mentioned timed objectives is one way to cause a hurry up or you could just reduce the number of turns yourself to something more to your liking, I usually do or set timed objectives high.
There are so many variables deciding what the number of turns should be is not easy even when you know the force, visibility & are looking at the map.
Increasing AI% to 150 or reducing the size of the map would have made it harder giving you less avenues of approach & making the AI less dispersed.
Look at mainly the height of the map versus number of defenders, they are forced to be spread thinly so allowing yourself the time to advance as a group across the whole map. You said it yourself engaging lone units with 1 & a half platoons being the stiff resistance.

[Ravindau]

You said it yourself engaging lone units with 1 & a half platoons being the stiff resistance.

You got this upside down. The strongest resistance was the 1 1/2 plts I mentioned, but I was of course engaging them with my entire company+ & ACs.

I don´t think reducing map width from 30 to 20 hexes would have made a big difference.

And yes, one could fiddle with the settings. But shouldn´t the official settings be balanced so as to be fit for tournament style play between humans, as much as possible?

As it stands, I doubt anyone would be happy to play the delaying side in a generated game in a tournament...:)

[DRG]

The range of experience and skill level of players is far too wide to arbitrarily make changes to make one segment happy...and annoy others

The delaying side barely gets a company to defend 1.5 km of frontage. All you have done is set up a game to prove a point but the point is ridiculous..... what did you expect from 17 or so units covering 1500 m of close terrain?

You think you have found a flaw that needs " official settings be balanced"......but we allow the player to do that based on HIS level of skill......now you know what YOURS is you can adjust the defenders higher or adjust the number of game turns lower. Game turns are variable they are not fixed at the 39 you were given but they can be changed to anything you like....as can the number of points each side gets........which they would be in any tournament-----do you expect us to automagically KNOW exactly what skill level each player is at how each player thinks and constructs his forces?

You are the first person I am aware of that has complained that advances are lopsided in favour of the advancing side and I've been doing this for 20 years.........does anyone else agree ??

[Ravindau]

...do you expect us to automagically KNOW exactly how each player thinks and constructs his forces?

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?

[DRG]

You do understand that player points can be adjusted ? And they are set up that way so a player can adjust the game to his liking ? All you need to do is exert some free will and change them. The settings as they are now are set up for playing against the AI..... human Vs Human setting are whatever the two players agree on....their skill/ experience level changes depending on the players......YOU obviously don't like the automatic settings and points given out but the game is set up so players can circumvent the basic 2:1 setting and set up a game balance that works for them

[Imp]

You said it yourself engaging lone units with 1 & a half platoons being the stiff resistance.

You got this upside down. The strongest resistance was the 1 1/2 plts I mentioned, but I was of course engaging them with my entire company+ & ACs.

I don´t think reducing map width from 30 to 20 hexes would have made a big difference.

And yes, one could fiddle with the settings. But shouldn´t the official settings be balanced so as to be fit for tournament style play between humans, as much as possible?

As it stands, I doubt anyone would be happy to play the delaying side in a generated game in a tournament...:)

Okay take a breath
I fully understood thats what you did.

Adjusting the settings makes a big difference, I have said several times in this forum 1 out of 3 generated battles vs the AI can be very good probably because the factors are about right.

They are not official settings you can & should adjust map size turns etc to suite the battle you generate.

You are right in that I would not have liked to play that battle as defender l do not have enough units to do anything but sit there deployed close to VP. That map would be terribly boaring just sitting there waiting for you to approach, L0S does not extend far from VP area.

You have learnt for your tastes you need to reduce the number of turns & if you want to make the VP for that battle more important set timed objectives to around the halfway mark. For generated battles nothing is written in stone adjust it so it gives you a challenge.
On a side note vs a human setting timed objectives high in an engagement battle forces them to go for them if they have a habbit of playing engagements like a delay.

Its not an RTS game sides are rarely balanced & delays can go right or wrong sometimes badly so, unexpected avenue of approach can cause major headaches especially if your mainly on foot so manuvering is slow

Delay is fine in most cases, though some map visibility combinations make it a virtualy impossible task, in real life you just would not choose to defend there so dont play it.

Tournament is easy enough play it mirrored, both players play it from both sides to see who does better.

[Ravindau]

Imp: Sorry for misreading you seemingly misunderstanding one of my posts.

DRG & Imp: What I think is you assume that the defender has a large inherent advantage *even if not allowed to dig in*. Whereas I believe this is simply not the case.

Ironically, you are so well entrenched :D in your opinion that I could bombard you with battalions of evidence and wouldn´t change your mind an inch.

I wonder what would happen if I proposed to add an improvised dug-in state that a leg unit can enter if it is stationary for 5 turns or so. I suppose that is so heretic that it would cause heads to explode. :hide:

Wait a minute, I think i can predict your answer: "This feature has already been suggested n times n years ago, and we didn´t include it because we didn´t want to."

Was I close? ;)

[DRG]

No, YOU miss the point. As I said the ratios are set up for the AI and have been that way since the later 1990's......suddenly you think there is a problem.......

As we have said the game has a wide variety of controls for players to tweak the game to suit themselves. You could EASILY set up an advance / delay any way you like...... don't like 50%..... no problem set the advancing side to whatever points you like then set the delaying side to 60% of that or 70% of that or 80% of that or whatever you like.....or before the game begins adjust the number of turns so the advancing side has to hurry......all of these are simple solutions that players have been using for years to adjust the game to suit their style of play...... it's quite simple......but you do not want that solution....you want the game to play perfectly for you without making adjustments. You are the FIRST person in 20 years who has voiced this complaint and as you can see people aren't flocking to support your position and since the main complaint was your belief this is unbalanced in a human vs Human game it easily to adjust the game to the turns or ratios you want

[Ravindau]

It´s not THAT easy.

I can basically forget about the Generated Campaign, because, while AI=180% would probably be fine for my Attacks/Advances, I wouldn´t survive a game where I have to Delay/Defend at that ratio, not even an ME, likely. I´m not THAT good. :D

Also, you keep saying the balance is for the sake of the AI. But while the current balance makes the AI look better when attacking, the AI is totally hopeless when defending. What you gain for the AI on the one side, you take away on the other...

[Ravindau]

Btw, and so as not to be misunderstood...

This is one of the best tactical games I have ever played, warts and all, and I rate it at 80% as it stands.

It´s just I would like it STILL better, if you´d cut back a little on the DOCTRINE: ATTACK! bias that i find a bit too pervasive...:)

[Imp]

It´s not THAT easy.

I can basically forget about the Generated Campaign, because, while AI=180% would probably be fine for my Attacks/Advances, I wouldn´t survive a game where I have to Delay/Defend at that ratio, not even an ME, likely. I´m not THAT good. :D

Also, you keep saying the balance is for the sake of the AI. But while the current balance makes the AI look better when attacking, the AI is totally hopeless when defending. What you gain for the AI on the one side, you take away on the other...

Wow your consistent your other thread was closed & you dont listen.
Long campaigns if you find attacking easy reduce the time given by 50% now you will actually need a plan.
You state you dont have many games under your belt some of us have thousands, have you played larger games mechanised etc.
For the last time there are so many diffrent factors units terrain, visibility that no standard setting will ever work so adjust them to make it as challenging as you want.
You just admitted your doing something wrong AI or you defending fail.
My guess as mentioned previously to small a defending force for the frontage so spread to thin.

[Ravindau]

You just admitted your doing something wrong AI or you defending fail.

Actually, no. I just said I wouldn´t like to defend at AI=180% advantage. If this means I am doing something seriously wrong, you are setting a rather high standard. :re:

[Mobhack]

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.

[jivemi]

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.)

[Ravindau]

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.

[Ravindau]

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.

[jivemi]

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!

[DRG]

702 German P1 points..delay vs 1440 P2 ( AI ) Russian Points..advance. Map is 30x40. I used what the game generated.....6 visibility and 23 turns

Save 50 is the first turn and save 51 was just after I started my counter attack on turn 17 or so

End result

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=14984&stc=1&d=1508557059

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=14986&stc=1&d=1508557619

Fun game... kept me on my toes the whole time

Don

[jivemi]

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...

[DRG]

admittedly I did deviate a bit ( but not much ) from the narrow criteria to "prove how unbalanced delays are"...:re:

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 :D if anyone wants to playtest save 50 be my guest...

[jivemi]

admittedly I did deviate a bit ( but not much ) from the narrow criteria to "prove how unbalanced delays are"...:re:



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):

[Ravindau]

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.

[Ravindau]

...the narrow criteria to "prove how unbalanced delays are"...:re:

It needs a very good game, after all, to make criticism of a specific detail worthwhile.

I would just love the play balance of SPWW2 to be as good as the enormous content, playability, graphics,... already are.

Btw, in your game you would have had it much easier with the Russians, actually proving my point. :)

For balance testing, you really need to set up the AI against itself. Or equal players against each other.

[grond69]

I don't usually weigh in on these discussions, but in this case I will make an exception. I think its time to face facts: your initial premise that delay/advance was seriously advantaged to advance, based on your one game, is incorrect. Both of the previous posters played similar sized battles from the delay side and crushed the advancing AI. I just finished one as well with same results: 16 casualties for me, decisive victory 3064:16. Fact is that the delay/advance isn't significantly one sided. The battle you set up was (unintentionally?) one sided. An experienced player would have seen the unit density, dimensions, and time allowed and concluded that the advance would have a decisive victory. The only question was how light your casualties would be. Why you might ask? Because the AI will always attempt to defend all objectives. That means that your high density attack force would only face 1/3 of the defenders. And, given the terrain, likely face single squads at a time. Pretty much what happened, right? The high number of turns was just icing.

Your idea of fighting many battles of equal human to human (and how do you measure that?) has basically been done in the past. This game has been around for YEARS! And you are right in that it is the best tactical game around. But don't expect the AI to give you a challenging game every time. It can't do that. If you find it too easy and don't want to mess around with settings, seek human adversaries on the "players wanted" section. I've played this game since the very first version came out, and expect to continue. I usually play long campaigns (hundreds of battles) and admit that I enjoy stomping all over the AI. Small of me, I know. Although, every once in a while, the AI still surprises me and I get a tough fight!

Don and Andy have made huge advances in improving this game and I believe that this will continue. Its up to us as the players to look at a random setup and be able to decide if it is fair to the AI. If we are looking for a fair fight....

[jivemi]

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?



In last year's (closed) thread--http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showthread.php?t=51209--in post #8 you said: "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!"

And in post #18 you said, "Defending against tanks is easy, they die like flies. It´s defending against an infantry horde with artillery support which is near impossible. In other words, WWI generals were right, after all."

Sorry if I took your remarks out of context.

[Ravindau]

Sorry if I took your remarks out of context.

Not only that; you also got them upside down. My presupposition was that WWI generals were, of course, wrong. Their optimistic and superstitious belief in "the spirit of the offensive" only caused immense casualties without profit. :doh:

Their ideas didn´t work in WWI, nor would they have worked in WW2, and this is what I am saying all the time. SPWW2 has a bit of a leaning towards too optimistic outcomes (from the attack viewpoint), and that happens to be my pet issue :) for both gameplay and realism reasons.

[DRG]

It's YOUR problem to deal with. You have been shown how. The game will not change