What Odds do you attack at?

[king171717]

I find myself wanting high odds like 10-15 when attacking so I cause high losses to the enemy. But I find I concentrated so many forces to do this at the center of attack that my flanks get overwhelmed.

So I'm interested what odds do you attack with?

[loutro]

Depends on the situation, rarely lower than 3-1. But I've done 2-1 with moderate success

[eddieballgame]

Experimenting, atm, per the 'sweet spot' on the Odds.
In Shadow Empire I try to discipline myself to avoid attacking with less than 5:1; though in my current 'pbem' game the very annoying alien life forms have lowered my...patience to 2:1 on occasion.
With very little success, I will add. [:)]

Per The Manual:

ODDS:
The odds show the ratio of the attacker’s attack points versus the defender’s attack points. Note that hit points are not taken into account for the odds calculator.
The odds show you the probable losses.
For example 1:1 odds means that losses will probably be similar for attacker and defender.
Odds 2:1 means that the defender will probably suffer twice the losses.
Note that a number of modifiers, notably the attack startup modifier, is not taken into account in the modifiers preview calculations and the odds calculation.
So the odds have a slight tendency to be optimistic.

[comsolut]

Defensive unit entrenchment and morale, particularly morale definitely a factor. If morale below 20 1-1 may succeed just because defender retreats. Artillery in advance lowers both entrenchment and morale. 3-1 against a well entrenched high morale defender will probably fail. Higher odds means a quicker defeat of defenders and more APs for follow up attacks.

[eddieballgame]

As alluded to by 'comsolut', pay attention to the 'Estimation of Offensive & Defensive Mods' numbers.
In Shadow Empire, 'entrenchment' is a huge factor & I suspect in 'DCAO' it is, as well.

[Catasteroid]

In games where I'm presented numerical odds I may take odds that at a relatively poor advantage to me, sometimes I pull my punches in more advantageous positions, sometimes I totally ignore the odds presented. The point I'm trying to make is that while the combat estimate is an important tool in your arsenal as a general, it is also important to understand that the odds presented are an estimation based on various figures and can wildly vary depending on the factors at play it's important to understand the limitations of those estimates and not to rely on them too heavily as one can't possible hope to pre-determine all the results of a combat engagement when the individual pieces are so richly simulated, and then resolve those results down into a one-dimensional ratio of numbers; one can dream of when computers can perform such heavy number crunching that they can much more accurately predict such results. Learn how the combat systems work, gain experience and once you're confident in them trust your instincts to guide you through- the combat outcome odds ratio may suggest an engagement will go in your favour but your experience may suggest otherwise.

[Khanti]

ORIGINAL: king171717

I find myself wanting high odds like 10-15 when attacking so I cause high losses to the enemy. But I find I concentrated so many forces to do this at the center of attack that my flanks get overwhelmed.

So I'm interested what odds do you attack with?

In DCAO 5:1 means losses for attacking side will be substantial. Especially for vehicles it is true. They are fragile. So I try to attack with at least 7:1 or more. 10:1 is OK. It's done mostly after heavy artillery barrage if enemy is entrenched. Sometimes it means 2 turns of full artillery barrage when attacking. And I always try to flank at least from 1 additional side, to make more troops without overstacking.
Yet it happens that losses are high. One CAN loose unit even when odds vs. individual unit are low, for example 10 attack vs. 100 defense can kill soldiers, tanks guns, everything.

[gwgardner]

I played an entire campaign at nothing less than 3-1. Advanced to within 15 miles of Dinant and took Liege. That was during beta.

[carll11]

I find the results of attacks and defenses so far, well, all over the place. I mean there are dice still involved right, so its not a straight calculation.

Ive had some wild results. Some, very hard to swallow. But I promised myself I'd be fair and play the entire WaR scn. to the end before rendering a 'opinion'.

Anyway, back 2 the topic;

I wont attack at less than 5-1 unless its a severe situation, and frankly, considering the germans dilemma and my advance so far in the game (I'm on turn 10)
I am going to have to lower that as almost every combat sit. will become 'severe' as I need to make ground and if gutting some units is what it takes, well, it will be far worse as I will inevitably need to trade that ground to keep VP's in the hopes of grinding out a minor vict., hopefully, maybe , possibly [;)]

[Rosseau]

Well, 3-to-1 is the lowest I will go as well, although I have taken heavy losses attacking at 5-to-1 on occasion.

Probably obvious, but I look at the "defensive power modifier" value of the enemy, and if it's large things are likely to get ugly for me even at "good" overall odds.

I wonder if anyone has really delved into the "Uncertainly" rule yet? This requires players pay even more attention, so I am no where near ready for it yet.

[Rosseau]

The "high ground modifier on hit points" is something that has been touched upon, but I recently overlooked myself.

And I wonder: is the +50% to the attacker, and -25% to the defender cumulative, being a large +75% modifier for firing one hex above the defender. Not sure?

Also to put that value in perspective, I've gotten a -70% on the direct fire LOS modifier number, which negates a lot of the height advantages above if I'm reading that right.

[fluidwill]

I'm forming a doctrine based much more on tactical game concepts than operational ones. Having some success with working mostly with prep fire and the actual assault is ideally just mopping up if you've got it right. Seems to tie in with most of the above and seems much less costly. Still experimenting so just theory atm.