attack/defend

[polish_horsy]

my group has tried 6 times to make an attack/defend game. We've given up. The attackers are 6-0 with every game a slaughter. We even cut the bonus to 40% instead of 50%.

here is our next idea... no Movement phase. It seems silly that a well dug-in defending team can't defeat an attacker with 1.4:1 advantage. We concluded that it is because the attacker gets more shots than the defender. This defies logic of an attack/defend... the attacker should loose shots by charging to close to the objective. I mean how else did the Russians loose 10:1 to the Fins? How did Iwo Jima hold for months... This game is bad at allowing for a realistic attack/defend.

I know peopole will tell me to use this piece or that piece... I grant you that some pieces are better on defense. But we've tried it and the attackers always crush the defnse with overwhelming force (too many shots).

So we are banning the movement phase and changing relocate 2 to move 1 for future attack/defend games. Can anyone think of other changes we'd need? Paras would have to drop on the assault phase of course.

[Marquis]

Try 3-2 odds (150-100 or 120-80 or whatever) with the attacker having more points. Then the defender gets to move the objective two hexes, sets up on the objective and is allowed to set up one hex past the objective, they can also place obstacles on the objective or anywhere. Defender sets up first. Limit the turns to 7.

Now you have a fixed defence that should be entrenched that has control of the objective and an attacker that has to make his move quickly to win.

Comments?

[SgtFury]

I assume you are talking about an assault type scenario. The typical ratio of attacker to defender is 120 to 80 points or 4 to 3. I've played several of these scenarios and I can make these obversations for you.

1. The defender should in most cases go second. This way you can react to what the attacker does. If he targets you with multiple guns, move back out of sight. Preserve your force for as long as possible. Sometimes going first is to your advantage such as when you have a flamethrower.

2. The defender wins by holding the objective, not by killing enemy units. Disrupt one attacker and then retreat. Use strike and fade when you can. Slow down the attacker as much as you can.

3. Obviously, use cover terrain to your best advantage.

4. The defender must delay the attacker from getting to the objective. Creative use of mines, tank obstacles and barb wire help. Block roads and easy avenues of advance.

3. Defenders should use interlocking fields of fire. In other words, if an attacker engages one defender he should be exposing himself to a second defender who is covering the first defender's location. Set up your defense in the shape of a U with the top of the U pointing towards the expected direction of the attacker's advance. Each arm of the U covers the other. If the attacker charges into the middle of the U he will get hit from three sides.

3. Defenders should not counter attack unless there is an advantage for them. Most times, charging out to meet the attacker will probably result in an equal exchange of casualities. The defender will lose a battle of attrition. Avoid that if you can.

4.Obviously, take out his best, most mobile units first. If you can destroy all of his vehicles, he will only have slow moving infantry left.

I'm sure there are other ideas out there. These are just the first ones that come to mind.

[polish_horsy]

Try 3-2 odds (150-100 or 120-80 or whatever) with the attacker having more points. Then the defender gets to move the objective two hexes, sets up on the objective and is allowed to set up one hex past the objective, they can also place obstacles on the objective or anywhere. Defender sets up first. Limit the turns to 7.

Now you have a fixed defence that should be entrenched that has control of the objective and an attacker that has to make his move quickly to win.

Comments?

we tried 3:2 odds... in fact as I said, we tried 2.8:2 odds and the defender still gets crushed.

You could limit turns to 7 but the rules say 10.

[polish_horsy]

I assume you are talking about an assault type scenario. The typical ratio of attacker to defender is 120 to 80 points or 4 to 3. I've played several of these scenarios and I can make these obversations for you.

1. The defender should in most cases go second. This way ...

you should read the post before replying. It would save you a lot of typing. I wasn't asking for tips. I know everything you said already. I'm not losing these games every time... the defender is. The 3:2 point differential is just too much. And Axis and Allies Minis does a very poor job of representing a real battle of attacker/defender. 3:2 should not be so difficult if the game functioned better.

I was looking for more comments on playing with no movement phase.

[Kommandant]

have you tried it so the defender chooses the map, and where to place the
objective?

if so, well sorry for the waste of time :D

[Kommandant]

you can also give the defending player bonuses

for example:
defending units get a +1 to their defense as long as the unit does not
move, although this maybe a little to powerful, it could work out
especially since you say the defender gets crushed

[Rick]

I've not found a problem being a 'defender' in the type of games you are describing. I've won about as many as I've lost playing defense. Playing a good defense is not necessary an 'easy' task. It's not about hanging back and taking a pummelling from the attacker. It's about managing resources and limiting your exposure till the right moment.

Not knowing you or your opponent makes this awkward, but, I would quesiton how good is the person playing the defense?

Rick

[polish_horsy]

just as good as the person playing offense... we've played all combinations of players and the defense always gets creamed.

[polish_horsy]

so any comments on how the game would be with no movement phase?

[Marquis]

[QUOTE=
You could limit turns to 7 but the rules say 10.[/QUOTE]


So? Change them. The weekly scenarios are full of custom rules. Make your own.

[mattertoenergy]

The eilimination of the movement phase sounds like a good idea. Really, that is one thing that AAM doesn't simulate for most units, the effect of moving on firing. Another option instead of removing the entire movement phase though would be to give all units the ability to use defensive fire against any unit in range and line of sight. Of course, you'd have to change suppressive fire to simply a double shot like ability. I'll have to try something like this next time I play an assault/defend scenario.

[polish_horsy]

thanks for the helpful comments mattertoenergy. that might work also... I'm thinking defensive fire at full range for any unit immediatly following a phase after a unit does not move or fire. Just slip a token under it to show it is more alert or something.

[spite48]

so any comments on how the game would be with no movement phase?

You would have to playtest that idea, but I'm concerned that it would make for a very one sided victory for the defender. Like others in this thread, I am not experiencing the same losses as defender that you describe.

[polish_horsy]

well a victory for the defender would be our first so I think we are willing to take that chance on a playtest.

[SgtFury]

you should read the post before replying. It would save you a lot of typing. I wasn't asking for tips. I know everything you said already. I'm not losing these games every time... the defender is. The 3:2 point differential is just too much. And Axis and Allies Minis does a very poor job of representing a real battle of attacker/defender. 3:2 should not be so difficult if the game functioned better.

I was looking for more comments on playing with no movement phase.


You didn't answer my implied question which was "Are you talking about an assault scenario"? Yes, I know you were asking about no movement phase, but I wanted to clarify what we are discussing first.

And I'm sorry if I was giving tips that were unwanted. Perhaps other readers did like the tips.

But back to the discussion at hand.....

If you are playing a scenario where the ratio of attacker to defender is 3 to 2, then removing the movement phase will do nothing to change the game. The imbalance will still exist and the attacker will still have more firepower.

The two examples you gave in your original post (Russians vs Finns in 1940 winter war and Japanese vs Americans at Iwo Jima) are very different situations. To simulate either of these type of battles would require special set ups or victory conditions. And in both cases, the smaller side eventually did lose. The Russians grinded the Finns down and the Americans wiped out the defenders of Iwo Jima. So, in my opinion, you have to find a different definition of what it takes to "win" as the defender.


Another famous battle were the attacker vs defender ratio favored the attacker was the invasion of Tarawa in the South Pacific. If you tried to simulate this battle, how would the Japanese player "win"? Historically, the US was able to take the island in three days, but it nearly turned into a disaster for the US. Bad tides, murderous defensive fire, high US casualities created a nightmare for the Allied side. The Marines barely made a toe hold at the end of the first day. During that first night the Japanese could have counterattacked and thrown the disorganized Marines into the sea. But it never happen.

Why didn't the Japanese counterattack? Their commander died during the first day of shelling and left the Axis troops leaderless. So the Marines regrouped, pushed inland and eventually took the island. But suppose that didn't happen. Suppose their leader didn't die on the first day. Could the Japanese have won? No. They might have delayed the Americans, but eventually they would have still taken the island. The japanese would have still lost the battle even if you could change that one element. But I do think there is still a way that you can simulate a high odds battle and still have a defensive win.

I have been working on just such an island invasion scenario. The way I handle victory conditions is by saying that if you do better than the Japanese did historically, you "win". I designed an island based on historical maps of Tarawa and then placed three objective counters on it. At the end of 7 turns of play, you check for victory. If one side has complete control of two objectives, they win. If no one has control of at least two objectives, continue to play. At the end of ten turns, check again for victory. If no one controls at least two objectives, the Japanese player "wins". If either side controls at least two objectives they win. So if the Japanese can hold out long enough, they will have done better than the Japanese did historically. They "win".

In my opinion, the use of multiple objectives and special victory conditions is a much better solution than taking away the movement phase.

[cannonfodder]

I think I almost like your idea ph. You either move or you shoot. I think that would give the defender an advantage until the attacker got into cover close enough to shoot back every turn. This might help thin the ranks and prevent at least part of the attacking force from ever getting to the fight. It should work. Once the attacker is basically dug in an the assault itself is underway it would seem unlikely that you would want to move at all, but if you did you'd have to not shoot that round. Of course this should apply to the defender as well. If you wanted to reposition your defenders that player should have to give up the ability to shoot that round too.
I like it. Give it a try and let us know. You might very well be onto something.
Oh, I say all this and I don't share your experience with attacker dominance in assault scenarios. If anything I've had trouble winning while attacking. Crossing open ground against dug in defenders is generally suicidal, in my experience.

[fifleche]

Same here with me, cannonfodder! Never lost a defense scenario, either in 80/120, 160/240 or even 200/300 (on 6 maps those ones).

Usually, I set up the objective very far back, in double-cover. That is, cover that can't be seen unless adjacent. In that cover, you place your most hard-hitting infantry units (MN w/Comissar, SSST, etc) and the furthest off you can deploy, light screening vehicles. Those vehicles don't need to be terribly efficient, as long as they can be a menace to enemy transports. Those units will surge forward on your first few turns to destabilise the enemy formation. Whack the transports, and his infantry can't make it in time to the objective. Then have fun seeing him throw a King Tiger in the middle of a city where your MN are "motivated"...

Anyways, good screening vehicles I use: Panzer II :eek: and Renault R-35, Tetrarch, for example. The only problem would be against Russia as attackers. Then I'd use a sIG-33 or a Brummbar as screener, because those tanks are TOUGH! Anyways, that unit's purpose is not to menace the tank itself, but the troops it transports. You can also/instead add a few AT infantry, as long as they can menace at range 2-4. Lebel Grenadiers are actually good in that role!!! Sure, they won't kill anything, but you can buy a few (3-4) and if they manage to disrupt a single transport, they've served their purpose. :D (actually, if they disrupt it, next round it'll be at defense 1/1...)

AT guns are deployed to the flanks of the objective, so that the enemy can either assault them but thus getting away from the objective, or expose himself to multiple units if he closes. Deploy at least two, and remember, small calibers still roll alot of dices when up-close, and means more targets for him. Pak 38, 6-pdr, etc. Deploy basic infantry near those, to guard against partisans, and if they are not a menace, you can always come forward to support the screeners. Stay in double-cover again, with these, as he has to move adjacent to attack you, or submit to your CA. A HMG/Bar-Bren unit can also "cover from afar", setting right next to the objective, but visible, so it can support your ATGuns if attacked.

If you can afford it, ONE tank with rear defense 4+ or with SS-det/veteran crew, to counter the rocket-disrupt.

Echelon your troops so that he always has to move 1-2 hexes per turn max or suffer an AT/CA attack. Camoflaged ATGuns & PIATs are nice in that role, too!

Basically ignore his heavy-hitter vehicles & concentrate on the transports. Even if he's left with alot of troops, it's always fun to watch 3-4 infantry stopping to confront a single guy... And that's another turn of delay! You can deal with the heavy if he exposes himself or when he's forced to enter the double-cover next to the objective...

Place mines BETWEEN his tank and his transports. Force him to slow down, or separate his forces and deal with them piecemeal.

Remember the golden rule: trade terrain for time. You'll win on objective control, not points.

Hope this helps! :)

[Xartloz]

I have played quite a few attack/defense games and we usely go 120p attack, 80p defender (and 5p free obstecales) pr. 100p, and never experiensed the problems you are refering to PH.

The games we played allways seems balanced and defenders have won as much as attackers. In fact we have tried a few battles with 1 defender and 2 attackers (battle of Berlin, german defends, russia and UK/US attacks). and those are among some of the most fun games I have played. Still the outcome have been around 50/50 % in winning.

Here is how we usely set things up.

1. Terrain usely favors the defenders.
2. Defender can decide where to put the objective.
3. Defender gets 5p objectives of own choice for free pr. 100p

As defender I usely use soldiers. Bren gunners, 6 pounders behind the lines, 17 pounders in front lines, NCO near 17 pounders, a few bofors, a few pilboxed wickers, depending on setup ect. an engineer near objective, a single or two humbers to harrass with, a single croc beind lines near objective, and SMLE´s in bulks and sometimes a few paratroopers. This usely works for me.

Would love to see a battlereport from one of your attack/defend games PH. :)

[boersma8]

You would have to playtest that idea, but I'm concerned that it would make for a very one sided victory for the defender. Like others in this thread, I am not experiencing the same losses as defender that you describe.

Agreed!

In the assault scenarios we've played victories have also been more or less evenly distrubuted to both sides. Of course the map is very, very important! Deny the attackers as much cover as possible! I agree that on a map WITH a lot of cover it would be NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE to win as the defender. Hence you're allowed to pick the map when defending. Actually that's my biggest beef with the assault scenarios: you only get to play on two maps.......

[Frogslayer]

The defenders advantage is that it should have better positions and create death zones. SB MG and ATGs are a must. the defender should run few tanks.

The PT kills any advantage defenders have, plus the bren/BARs silly SA also kills dug in forces. rocket salvo can also wreck havock (katyusha+Nebelwerfer+calliope). I´d ban all units mentioned abouve to get the game more balanced.

[CaptainHans]

I think playing around with the mechanics of the game sounds like fun. Maybe still allow a movement phase but maybe reduce infantry attack dice by -1 if they moved. There could be all sorts of variations on this attackers infantry only and/or infantry that move through cover. I don't see removing the movement phase all together as something that would be a good thing. Another option would be to allow the defence free 'DF' from cover to the nearest enemy vehicle or infantry. Tanks I can't see doing that to because thats what they are suposed to do.

And on the off topic topic. I would like to say I prefer the defence. The defence gets to pick the map and the objective hex. Oh and best if I put the objective hex in double cover it makes close assulting and H2H with the Japanese extra fun.

[Predator666]

I once played against American Paras deployed as ground troops and 2-3 shermans.I was defending and the Germans. I had 1 mg, some AT guns, 1 sniper, 1 light mortar and several reg. infantry. The fact that even as reg. infantry the paras destroyed me cannot be overlooked. I was defending on the new maps from the new starter set. I set up behind hedgerows and defended the small town. I only held out until the paras made it to me. I think the best idea is to use SB mgs, or mg's with bunkers, AT guns and maybe an armored car or two to stop any breakthroughs your opponent can make.

[fifleche]

Agreed!

In the assault scenarios we've played victories have also been more or less evenly distrubuted to both sides. Of course the map is very, very important! Deny the attackers as much cover as possible! I agree that on a map WITH a lot of cover it would be NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE to win as the defender. Hence you're allowed to pick the map when defending. Actually that's my biggest beef with the assault scenarios: you only get to play on two maps.......Hmmm... Personally, I like having the most cover possible, when playing defender. Then I can set-up those "double-cover" deathtraps. I dunno, perhaps I'm playting too much with the same guys, but the concensus is generally here that, as defender, the more cover, the better.

[Lotus]

Hmmm... Personally, I like having the most cover possible, when playing defender. Then I can set-up those "double-cover" deathtraps. I dunno, perhaps I'm playting too much with the same guys, but the concensus is generally here that, as defender, the more cover, the better.

That goes without saying. Played 118_MP_abn yesterday, him the defender (200pts), me the attacker (300pts) and had a devil of a time. sandbagged machineguns, Pak 40s in pillboxes, fortress defenders...I thought my Defiants would roll right through. Well, I took what I needed but cover killed me bad. Fortifications murdered me.

[Predator666]

Out of the 300 points how much of a force did you have left???

There was a defence game that me and a friend played on a CZ D-day map. It was him as a defender with like 200 points of soldiers and like 150 pts on armor and aircraft. I had double this in points and triple the amount of soldiers. I was British had a main force, reinforcements on turn 2, armor comes in on turn 4 and air cover the whole time. He set up his main defenses of 4 SB MG and 4 pillboxes behind the cliffs. They murdered my infantry. I also had a couple of paras that only helped slightly, more as a distraction. The objective was to capture the town.

In the end I was able to push his forces back into the town and destroy them with a croc and AVRE. The AVRE was destroyed by a remaining Stuka and since a plane can't hold the objective I won......But at a heavy cost, all forces except for 1 croc were destroyed. It was an utter massacre and one I'm not sure I want to repeat.

[Lotus]

Out of the 300 points how much of a force did you have left???....
As best I remember, a half dozen defiants, a hero, a couple tetrarchs, and a stuart. Maybe a third of my original force. He had stuff left, but nothing that could kill the Stuart at distance. Since we weren't playing to a specific turn, it became a game of attrition so we called it.

Three objectives, 1 unguarded, the other two smothered with pillboxed Pak40s, sandbagged MGs, and fortress defenders.

I had to cross a large open area from the lone bridge to the guarded areas. I dropped the paras at the right flank and taking that, worked my way in while the fast light armor caught up. The planes managed some of the work until they met their end. It was a bear.

[Predator666]

They usually are a bear...

[Lotus]

They usually are a bear...
I think it's funny your opponent had a Stuka as the sole remaining survivor.

[Predator666]

It is, he had started falling back into the town with a few SS-PG's but even a churchill could catch them and wouldn't let them live. A lot of soldiers died that day. I slowly took out those pesky pillboxes though.......He got just about every cover roll he made. like a 99.9%. The only times he really missed was when I would miss.

[oddfellow]

I just wanted to add that I have enjoyed this particular thread very much, a lot of good information and tactics and I'm glad it went "off topic" of no movement phase, which seems like an interesting variant. I wish Polish Horsey would elaborate on what he thinks makes his particular games so lopsided in favor of the attacker. He is a very skilled player (I'll assume based on his many great posts) and I'm curious what is happening in his games (eg what units or tactics cause such problems for the defender) that makes them such one-sided affairs. Horsey?

[boersma8]

Hmmm... Personally, I like having the most cover possible, when playing defender. Then I can set-up those "double-cover" deathtraps. I dunno, perhaps I'm playting too much with the same guys, but the concensus is generally here that, as defender, the more cover, the better.

Apparently I wasn't clear enough: Of course as the defender you need as much cover as possible. Just DENY IT TO THE ATTACKER. Set up in such a way that you as the defender do have cover and your opponent doesn't!!!!!!

[SgtFury]

Apparently I wasn't clear enough: Of course as the defender you need as much cover as possible. Just DENY IT TO THE ATTACKER. Set up in such a way that you as the defender do have cover and your opponent doesn't!!!!!!

Here is a tip to do just that. Pick a few mine fields in your starting set up. Then place them in cover terrain that the attacker might use. Or place mine fields in cover terrain that you have abandoned. That might be harder to do because the attacker will try to jump into cover terrain before you get a chance to place the mine field. Still, a few well placed minefields can really slow up an attacker.

[Y2UAsk]

Yeah, liberal use of minefields and pillboxes helps a lot.

Also, there's a big difference between 120:80 point games and 300:200 point games. In either case, the attacker is going to concentrate force against one point on the defender's line. Having a 100-point advantage is much different from having a 40-point advantage (and in fact, it's probably even more than that, because the attacker can just leave a thin screen where he's not pushing hard).

Just as important as all the advice already given for the defender is that the defending setup needs to be as flexible as possible. That usually means setting up a tripline front defense and keeping the bulk of your force behind the front line so that it can react in whatever direction it's needed. Spreading out thickly across the front just guarantees that at least half your force will be where it's not needed when the hammer falls.

Steve

[Cruizin2000]

Remember, the defender gets to pick the map to set up on in the Assault Scenario. Use that to your advantage.

C2000

[General_Blitzkrieg]

You just need to find a way to balance the scenario...for example obstacles...use as many as you want for the defender and dont make them pay for them. They've had lots of time to set up defensive structures. This will probably help alot. Also consider your terrain...In a city with barbed wire and TO with SBMG in pillboxes there is going to be alot of attacker attrition. It really seems your problem lies in the setup of the scenario or the rules you are using. We never have problems with attack/defend type scenarios and the outcome is not so biased when we play like this.

Also consider your strategy. If your defending don't rush out to meet your attacker, let them come to you keeping your armor in place and letting them come into range so you can get the shot...then move behind a building or trees to let your disrupt wear off if you get hit...they still have to get by your other units, terrain, and obstacles.