Interesting discussion: Is attacking better than defending?

[ToxicThug11]

I have no facts to back up my argument, only feelings.
Here is a picture of one of my average battles.

My feeling is, when attacking, the Soviets are better than defending.
Is this true?

https://imgur.com/a/GxpshZu
This is an image of one of my typical attacks (didnt go so well)

[Zebtucker12]

Look at the tank losses for the axis clearly they are broke! The other losses look fine but germany should take more tank losses.

[Gunner Garidel]

I would submit defense is inherently stronger, based on writings by many who know more about war than I. The generally accepted theory is the attacker must have a 3:1 advantage to be successful. I would point out, however, this does not necessarily mean in manpower. There are other ways to gain a 3:1 advantage than just manpower. e.g. arty, air, and let's not forget morale. After all, was it Clausewitz[??] who said the moral is to the physical as 3 to 1? I believe it was Reagan who said the best equipment in the world cannot defeat a determined, courageous people.

So, to each his own!

[EddyBear81]

I have the opposite opinion to Gunner here.

In game, I find it often way more effective to carry out local but overwhelming (3 to 1) attacks on the weakest units of a line, even if on the general defensive. Compared to waiting for the enemy to attack, often from multiple hexes.

This kind of spoiling attacks lets you fight on your terms, and can inflict massive losses to the enemy units that were preparing to attack.
On the flipside, if it fails, you are weaker on the defensive turn. And it burns movement points so beware of wider encirclements (esp. as soviets in 1941).

Keep a reserve nearby and hammer the weakest (overextended) attacking units with overwhelming counterattacks.
That is my standard defense against enemy offensives.

[exalted]

Something I noticed while tracking all the fights in my AAR is that you'll likely feel like attacking is going better than defense simply because your triggering the attacks you think you can win. At least for the germans in 42 there is basically no difference in performance on attack and defense and that is out of around 400 fights now. Your also likely to loose less CPP on the defense so that is one advantage at least on the german side.

At the same time the consequences of a failed attack are usually not as bad as for a failed defense, even thought a failed attack usually opens up the possibility of a failed defense on the enemy turn.

[Stamb]

the main advantage of attacking is that if you succeeded then defenders will have 0 CPP
and as we know CPP are the most important thing in this game.
it is nice idea but 50% CPP loss in any attack is just a bad implementation of such an idea that benefits a side that has more units to throw against enemy

[DarkHorse2]

The OP seems to be trolling, as I don't believe there is a consistent universal yes/no answer in WiTE2.

There is a time and a place for both.

Just consider heavy muds vs clear, the answer to "Is attacking better than defending?" is going to be different.

This not interesting, but a rather pointless discussion with probably the most accurate answer simply being:

"It just depends..."

[IDGBIA]

in my experience this is true for soviet especially mid to late war when you start getting the brigade and division artillery formations and Il-2s massed in force, since disrupted elements seem to have a chance to be captured when a unit retreats/routs. this is an extreme example but you get the point also when attacking panzer divs its not uncomon for them to lose more tanks retreating than to combat so in that sense count attacks can demolish them much faster than defensive battles. The hex mechanics its easier to get more men into an offensive battle since getting more than 3 units in defence relies on reserve activations

arty la mao.png (652.02 KiB) Viewed 575 times

overall its just a fact that offensively you have the initive and past a certain point if Germany doesn't have enough elements in his units and you bring 1 gun for every 5 men he has.

Early war soviet counter attacks are reasonable though and in terms of damaged soviet elements still often leave you somewhat vulnerable even if on paper you won the combat

[jubjub]

The attacker has an advantage in this game because they are able to concentrate their forces and pick their fights.

[ToxicThug11]

I would submit defense is inherently stronger, based on writings by many who know more about war than I. The generally accepted theory is the attacker must have a 3:1 advantage to be successful. I would point out, however, this does not necessarily mean in manpower. There are other ways to gain a 3:1 advantage than just manpower. e.g. arty, air, and let's not forget morale. After all, was it Clausewitz[??] who said the moral is to the physical as 3 to 1? I believe it was Reagan who said the best equipment in the world cannot defeat a determined, courageous people.

So, to each his own!

Thank you for your insight, very true