Odds for attacker?

[ppargen]

What do you all think makes for good odds and an even match for the different types of games attack and assault, as well as if the defender is or is not dug in?
One can generally say that you need +100% to take a defender in a heavily fortified position. I have noticed that for this game +30% seems to make for a good tough match when the defender is not dug in. I would guess about +60% for a dug in defender with no fortifications.

[McIvan]

I think the odds given by the game are just fine. The balancing variable is time. Personally I think you need a minimum of 35+ for an attack and 40+ for an assault.

[ppargen]

I think the odds given by the game are just fine. The balancing variable is time. Personally I think you need a minimum of 35+ for an attack and 40+ for an assault.

You definitely need more time. I would have to say that terrain would also be a factor. No cover or hills makes for a lot of casualties for the attacker. All of the time in the world won't get not enough troops through a large clear defended area unless you have the resources to sit and bombard them heavily with artillery first.

What allowances does the game make for the different types of game?
How do you all usually play your attack and assault games for the ladder?

[Colonel Talvela]

The ladder does not distinguish between attack/assault/probe/ME games.

What allowances does the game make for the different types of game?

Are you talking about CM or the ladder? How familiar are you with CM?

[ppargen]

Are you talking about CM or the ladder?

CM

How familiar are you with CM?

Reasonably familiar. I know the manual content and have been playing it for several months. I don't know all the in & outs so I am reading the forums and asking questions.

[Colonel Talvela]

In QBs:
Probes give attacker +30% (I believe)
Attacks give attacker +50%
Assaults give attacker +70% (close to it)
I think most people are comfortable with these values, although terrain, weather conditions, # of turns plays an important factor.

For custom scenarios - it is purely up to the designer. The attacker could have less points the defender.

mostly it depends on what you are looking for. Do you want balanced games to test your tactical skill? You looking for historical fights.

[ppargen]

Oh, I see. I had not noticed the addition in the quick battles. I am looking mostly for balanced games for ladder play as I assume others are. I do like 'off the wall' stuff as well for just pure fun and to try something different.
I guess you have to work with points bonuses dependent upon game parameters. I think 50% is too much for an attack if the defender has not purchased a significant number of fortifications unless the terrain heavily favors the defender.
Of course, I am not aware exactly how the scoring is done here or exactly how CM awards all of the victory points. I suppose it all evens out in the end.

[Colonel Talvela]

I guess you have to work with points bonuses dependent upon game parameters. I think 50% is too much for an attack if the defender has not purchased a significant number of fortifications unless the terrain heavily favors the defender.

actually 50% works out very well in cmbb and cmak. If you are playing cmbo, then yes the attacker does have an advantage in normal attack games.

The fortifications dont really make a difference since they are part of your QB purchase points.

[ppargen]

The fortifications dont really make a difference since they are part of your QB purchase points.

They could make a difference in an unrestricted game. Bunkers and minefields are a tough combination.

[Colonel Talvela]

the fortification units are tough, but that isnt the point. You dont get them for free when you are defending - you have to purchase them with points you would otherwise spend on troops/tanks/artillery.

So if it is unrestricted or combined arms, the defender always gets to purchase fortifications