German Builds

[losttribe04]

Some rounds I just buy the 8 INF keep the change for bigger toys the next round.  8-)

-LT04

[zosima]

i’ve done that on occasion but very rarely.

[losttribe04]

I get get to extravagant, the biggest thing I would save up for would be a FTR.  :? your probably looking at me funny asking why couldn’t Germany afford a fighter. Well I use this method for Russia as well.

-LT04

[zosima]

the thing Ive done, and only once or twice but it can be fun…i ssave some money and just keep putting it away and save it for one massive counter-attack or offensive when the allied player starrts focusing somewhere else.

[ajgundam5]

If you put units on the board right away using all your money it would probably be more productive … there is also a build limit so you wouldn’t be able to place that many more units anyway

[losttribe04]

I think the only countries the build limit would hurt would be UK, and Japan b/c Germany, Russia and US all have two tandem IC’s. I have found for Germany its a good secret weapon to put money away for a rainy day fund. I do this b/c the Allies are all over and around you when you start and have eyes on your every move, but when you save up here and there and buy 4 CV after already have the standing AF its fun to watch the allied players s*** their pants when they see an instant Navy just add water.  :evil:

-LT04

[Jennifer]

I purchase the tanks in Round 2 because I assume that I’ll lose infantry garrisoning forward territories and taking forward territories and I want to keep more infantry then artillery - since they’re cheaper.  Meanwhile, tanks add a significant boost to offense and defense (on paper.  In reality they’re about as effective as my fighters are, which si, not at all.)

[rjclayton]

I’ll agree with U-505, an art purchase is better than an arm purchase in this scenario.  Dollar for dollar art actually defends almost as well as arm and offensively art (combined with if) attacks better than arm (combined with inf) dollar for dollar.  If you don’t need the mobility of arm (and you shouldn’t early in the game with GER) then art is a better offensive purchase to bolster your inf.

[newpaintbrush]

Artillery are not all that great on offense, because they do not offer the hitting power and skew and flexibility of infantry and tank based forces.

For example, if you have 10 infantry 5 artillery, or 10 infantry 4 tanks, one has a punch of 25, the other a punch of 22.

However, once the FIRST force loses five infantry, it starts losing 2 punch with every casualty.  The second force only loses 1 punch with every casualty until after ten infantry are lost.

Also, tanks are far more flexible, and can move faster.

I generally do not see more than about six or seven German artillery as useful, because I can’t keep enough infantry alive to keep that many artillery useful.

–

Also, at some point, I am pumping out mostly tanks with Germany.  Steady stream of inf/artillery do NOT offer flexibility, unless you have a load of transports, which I usually do NOT have with Germany.  Tanks let me switch my attacks around, and ALSO let me reinforce the front line faster.

[rjclayton]

True dat.  But an early Germany already has many arm and fighters for good skew.  I’m not saying don’t buy arm, but early on I think art is as useful to GER as arm is.

[Axis4life]

I can now see the early ART purchases.  You don’t want to over extend yourself too early as Germany and builds of INF and ART assure that doesn’t happen.  Once you have the infantry I would recommend tanks for versitility.  Their ability to move 2 spaces means you can pretty much bounce them from front to front, wherever the Allies are building up.

[losttribe04]

ART alone aren’t the best option I think I use to to aid the INF on an advance to make their stats equal to defending INF stats.

-LT04

[zosima]

see, i personally feel that if germany can’t destroy russia, or least take out the vast majority of russia, they are NEVER going to be able to win…

[Jennifer]

Combined punch is really only valuable for LL.  I like to do segregated punch.  How many of my shots are 2 or less?  How many 3 or less?

[newpaintbrush]

@zosima:

see, i personally feel that if germany can’t destroy russia, or least take out the vast majority of russia, they are NEVER going to be able to win…

That reply does not address the question of what number of artillery Germany should field.

[newpaintbrush]

But an early Germany already has many arm and fighters for good skew.

I think it’s all relative.

Germany DOES have a lot of tanks, and a lot of fighters in the beginning.  However, Germany does not have ENOUGH tanks to establish, say, a firm strongpoint at Ukraine on G2, unless Germany produces tanks on G1.

I’m not saying don’t buy arm, but early on I think art is as useful to GER as arm is.

Useful in what sense?  Armor are immediately usable to establish a forward position.  Artillery are not.  Artillery are useful for supplementing the attack mid to late game (by which point they can be moved to forward positions).

–

Artillery have the advantage of being able to SUPPLEMENT INFANTRY for a cost-effective attack.  Artillery MUST be used with infantry, and when there is not enough infantry to support the artillery, the artillery become cost-ineffective.

The artillery can be used in initial attacks after which a retreat can be made, but THINK of the conditions under which artillery can be used, and I believe you will find that artillery are not generally useful, except perhaps as dispensible supplements to infantry (but even then, that should not be necessary with fighters)

Let us say that your opponent is defending a territory with ONE infantry.  Optimally, you would attack with two infantry and a fighter, but say that option is not available.  So if you have artillery, then you can chance a 2 2 battle against a 2.  Not spectacular, but superior to 1 1 against a 2.

However, remember that your opponent will counterattack on the next turn.  Although you have the advantage on cost-efficient attack, artillery are no better than infantry on defense, and cost more.

So admittedly, artillery are cost-efficient when fighters are NOT readily available to EITHER side.  However, artillery still face the not inconsiderable problem of needing to be mobilized, as well as the problem of the opponent probably having fighters to counterattack, trading infantry for artillery.

–

What if the opponent has a mass of units?  Until the initial stock of infantry is depleted, artillery attack at 2 and boost an infantry to 2 for 4 IPC, and tanks at 3 for 5 IPC. That’s 75% for artillery and 60% for tanks.  However, once you lose infantry surpassign the artillery count, that’s 50% for artillery and 60% for tanks.  My thought is that in a massive battle, infantry fodder will quickly be exhausted, after which tanks will be more cost-effective on the attack.

Add to that the fact that infantry/artillery forces in one territory with reinforcing infantry/artillery in the territory behind that ONLY threaten with the power of the forces in the first territory.  Were the infantry/artillery in the territory behind tanks instead, there would instead be a significantly more powerful attacking force.

–

In sum - I think artillery are useful enough to build, but the problem of infantry casualties means that artillery should only be produced in very limited numbers.

[squirecam]

@newpaintbrush:

Let us say that your opponent is defending a territory with ONE infantry.  Optimally, you would attack with two infantry and a fighter, but say that option is not available.  So if you have artillery, then you can chance a 2 2 battle against a 2.  Not spectacular, but superior to 1 1 against a 2.

However, remember that your opponent will counterattack on the next turn.  Although you have the advantage on cost-efficient attack, artillery are no better than infantry on defense, and cost more.

So admittedly, artillery are cost-efficient when fighters are NOT readily available to EITHER side.  However, artillery still face the not inconsiderable problem of needing to be mobilized, as well as the problem of the opponent probably having fighters to counterattack, trading infantry for artillery.

Not entirely true.

USSR has 2 fighters. You could expend 10 IPC and buy a third. But even there, Russia may be trading several 2+ IPC territories. (Novo, Kazak, Arc, WR, Belo, Karelia, UKR, etc)

You can buy, with 24 IPC, 8 Inf or 4 Inf 3 Art.

You can swap THREE 2 IPC territories using these 3 art, (2 more than you could if you bought a fighter.)

Assuming you win, you gain TWO EXTRA “2 IPC” territories. (+4 total). This +4 makes up for the “inf” you lost by buying 7 units vs 8.

So, you GAIN IPC by attacking MORE 2+ IPC territories than you would if you stick to “2I+F” attack combos.

There are downsides too, but your analysis stated buying ART was a bad idea when it clearly is a good one.

Squirecam

[Jennifer]

The way I see it, you need armor in W. Europe, Germany, E. Europe and Ukraine so you do need Armor, the 8 you start with on the mainland is not enough.

[rjclayton]

@newpaintbrush:

However, artillery still face the not inconsiderable problem of needing to be mobilized

Which is why I’m advocating buying them early (G1/G2) rather than late so they are mobilized by the time you want to push out on Ukraine.  I doubt a real push can be made to Ukraine in the first 3 rounds anyway unless Russia makes serious errors.  And even then Russia can push back because Japan hasn’t had enough time to drive through Asia and pressure Russia’s east flank.

@newpaintbrush:

In sum - I think artillery are useful enough to build, but the problem of infantry casualties means that artillery should only be produced in very limited numbers.

And Tanks should only produced in very limited numbers.  I am not advocating buying 10 art on G1!

[losttribe04]

If I’m going to use ART to aid my INF I try not to go over 1 ART to every 2 INF. After that I think I need more blood for the buck so I buy ARM.

-LT04