@krieghund yes, that is what I meant
-
@LT04:
@Cmdr:
Tanks for the memories.
Seriously though, I like to have between 8 and 12 infantry for each tank.
Wow that’s a lot steeper then my stack. I hover around 5 INF : 1 ARM
LT
How many artillery do you have though?
I may have 12 infantry per tank, but I generally have 4 infantry per artillery then. (If I have 8 infantry per tank, I may have 1 artillery per 8 infantry too.)
-
Ideally, I want INF equal to the total enemy numbers for starters. Then I want to add punch units at 2 to 1 ratio to the enemy punch units. By punch units I mean BOM, FIG, and ARM; with ARM being counted as 2/3 of an enemy FIG; and my own figs being counted at only 2/3 of their number if enemy AA is present.
Under all but the largest and most dice fracked battles, that is a wining ratio.
If you want insurance, add ART equal to 20% of the enemy INF numbers.
-
Jen,
I just recently started using ART. I know they are a good unit but I was stuck in the classic school of thought.
Lately, however I have been adding ART to match between 1/2 - 2/3 of the INF force.
Everyone,
Wow I am suprised to read the feedback about tanks. I like tanks more then FTR’s b/c I get two dice for the same price. Also they are not subject to AA fire.
As say Japan I would buy nothing but INF for the first 2-3 rounds. Then I buy ARM for like three rounds. They are able to catch up with the INF before they start staging around Moscow.
Yeah, yeah I know some of you prefer FTR’s over ARM and I do see the advantages b/c of the land and sea versitility and the distance they are able to travel is also great. I still prefer tanks b/c A&A is a numbers game and the more numbers you have the more likely you are to succeed.
LT
-
I tend to stay close on a 2:1 ratio between infantry/tanks, even for Russia. One aspect not mentioned yet is the tank mobility of 2 which allows it to quickly change locations between turns and change the balance/dynamics of a specific front. With R/G this is crucial because it allows each to switch a significant part of their armies to counter any threatning moves.
-
@Cmdr:
Tanks for the memories.
Seriously though, I like to have between 8 and 12 infantry for each tank. Generally speaking, tanks are defensive units in Revised, rarely do you find them in forward positions where they can be readily killed, but often you’ll see them with large stacks of infantry (in a defensive support position.)
That’s not to say they are not valued in attack either! Without them, capitols are rarely taken. But generally speaking, most of your offensive thrust will be coming from infantry and fighters (bombers too.)
Wow. Maybe Im missing something. So if you were say germany, in the mid-game, you have around 20 tanks and 200 inf? How do you possibly manage that?
-
I tend to run independent tank stacks directly behind the front. I have no Idea what ratio but I would guess 5 inf per tank. I am sure you could come up with the perfect mathematical ratio, but I tend to be more of a seat of the pants strategist. I play for fun not to crunch numbers. I love hearing “holy crap I can’t believe that worked.” The key is knowing when to pull out on a failed maneuver.
-
@Cmdr:
Tanks for the memories.
Seriously though, I like to have between 8 and 12 infantry for each tank. Generally speaking, tanks are defensive units in Revised, rarely do you find them in forward positions where they can be readily killed, but often you’ll see them with large stacks of infantry (in a defensive support position.)
That’s not to say they are not valued in attack either! Without them, capitols are rarely taken. But generally speaking, most of your offensive thrust will be coming from infantry and fighters (bombers too.)
Wow. Maybe Im missing something. So if you were say germany, in the mid-game, you have around 20 tanks and 200 inf? How do you possibly manage that?
No. I am referencing purchases. Germany has 7 tanks on Germany 1. That means Germany would have to have 56-84 infantry before I’d worry about purchasing tanks. Not saying I won’t buy tanks before then, just that I don’t think it’s optimal. Without the right number of infantry to support them, you cannot put them forward. If they are not forward, they are useless - better to buy more fighters then. At least you can use the fighter’s offensive capabilities and not risk them.
-
Look, some of you are clearly missing the point. Here’s the thing:
Tanks are STRONG!
-
lol :lol: + 1
LT
-
Yes, tanks are strong. But too many tanks can cost you the game. You need enough infantry to support them. Considering Germany’s probably trading 3 or 4 territories a round, that’s 6-8 infantry a round you are losing. (Hopefully the allies are losing more!).
-
One of the more widely posted ratios is 3:1 INF to ARM. I prefer a bit more cushion for both the attack and the counter attack before my ARM gets chewed on.
As for ARM over FIGs… That depends on what you are doing. If it is still early in the game,a nd you will be trading territory for a while, ONE FIG is a better buy, especially if you also have enemy navy to also discourage IF you are considering 3 or more ARM. Once you are going for the throat… the last couple of buys before the strike on an enemy capital, all ARM is the better buy (unless the ARM can never come into play and on the very last buy any FIGs that are purchased can reach while purchased ARM could not).
-
Maybe I’m just overly cautious if 3:1 is considered a good ratio.
To be honest, my best games have been when Germany only has 7 armor left after Russia 1/England 1 and buys almost nothing but infantry (artillery and a fighter or two as needed).
But that’s just me.
-
Ok, here is a scenario for you;
We both have 60 IPC worth of units in a battle, I have 9 artillery and 8 infantry, you have 12 tanks!
Who will win?
And it does not matter who is attacking as the Artillery + infantry are all 2’s either defending or attacking.
The purpose of this is to show which purchase is more economical in the long run.
There will be 3 rounds of combat. :wink: -
If I had 60 IPCs of units, it would probably be closer to:
15 Infantry
3 TanksBut that’s because I’d be suspecting that I have roughly 5-8 fighters and a bomber to use to trade territories with and I’d need a lot more infantry to do that then unzark tanks. I’d probably worry about getting tanks, oh, I dunno, when I had closer to 300 IPCs worth of units on the board or if I just won a very major engagement and needed to press my advantage.
-
Darth Maximus came up with a ratio of 3:1:1 (inf, art, arm) a long time ago and, as a general rule, that has been arguably the best I’ve seen.
But, in this case:
@Crazy:
Ok, here is a scenario for you;
We both have 60 IPC worth of units in a battle, I have 9 artillery and 8 infantry, you have 12 tanks!
Who will win?
And it does not matter who is attacking as the Artillery + infantry are all 2’s either defending or attacking.
The purpose of this is to show which purchase is more economical in the long run.
There will be 3 rounds of combat. :wink:I’ll take 10 inf, 5 art, 2 arm. Roll em’ up!
-
OK, I knew I should have left in the sentence, Just for Jennifer, That, “THERE ARE NO OTHER UNITS INVOLVED IN THIS BATTLE”.
Also, I gave you the units to be involved on both sides, no variances are allowed.
for my example.
You of course may propose your own example of what you think is the optimum purchase strategy.And what the hell is an’“unzark tank?” IMHO, Jen, you really need to lay off the sauce when your posting. :roll:
-
@Crazy:
OK, I knew I should have left in the sentence, Just for Jennifer, That, “THERE ARE NO OTHER UNITS INVOLVED IN THIS BATTLE”.
Also, I gave you the units to be involved on both sides, no variances are allowed.
for my example.
You of course may propose your own example of what you think is the optimum purchase strategy.And what the hell is an’“unzark tank?” IMHO, Jen, you really need to lay off the sauce when your posting. :roll:
LOL!! +1 karma Crazy Ivan
-
@Crazy:
OK, I knew I should have left in the sentence, Just for Jennifer, That, “THERE ARE NO OTHER UNITS INVOLVED IN THIS BATTLE”.
Also, I gave you the units to be involved on both sides, no variances are allowed.
for my example.
You of course may propose your own example of what you think is the optimum purchase strategy.And what the hell is an’“unzark tank?” IMHO, Jen, you really need to lay off the sauce when your posting. :roll:
Who’s on offense who’s on defense?
If I’m attacking, I may want 5 infantry, 9 tanks
If I’m defending, I may want 15 infantry, 3 tanks.Such a silly scenario. Honestly. If you only have 60 IPCs worth of units on the board, you’ve already lost the game.
And the 3:1:1 may be good, never tried it. Seems heavy on Artillery for me, and way heavy on tanks. but that’s because I include the number of infantry i need to trade territories in my totals, I’m not using tanks to trade territories unless I have panzerblitz.
Finally:
Zark = good
Unzark = badNot my fault you are not caught up with high school lingo….(hey, I don’t wanna be, but I have to work in high schools, you pick this shit up!)
-
I like to keep an overall troop ratio of 2 inf //2 tank // 1art. As Russia, i use artillery to trade territories, I add tanks if i deem necessary and/or can kill enough ennemy units to get even.
The whole "trade with fighters’’ thing looks nice and all but what will you do once your Russian ennemy advance 3 AA gun on the front line?
Letting Germany use it’s airforce with impunity to trade almost at no cost the 3 frontline territories with a few infantry is a huge tactical error in my book. Especially if you know your opponent is a big fan of fighter-infantry swapping, you need to capitalise on it. Shooting down 1 fighter will pay for any AA investment you might need.
Once you make fighter sorties a risky business and make their ‘‘retreat’’ possibilities less appealing , Tanks becomes better than fighters in many ways:
- They offer as much offensive movement ( a fighter may move 4 but most of the time, half of it is needed to return to owned land.)
- They can stay on the conquered territory
- They can blitz
- You can have 2 of them for a fighter
- They ignore AA guns.
- You can still lose some and replace them.
- They can create dead zones over many territories
- They don’t absolutely rely on infantry fodder, i say fodder because for me that’s what infantry is.
If i build additional fighters, it’s because i need to ship reinforcement fast to an ally or to use them at sea defnesively or to assist an amphibious force. On land, tanks are strong.
-
Corbeau,
That’s a little rich for my blood. I worry about the risk of having units other then INF destroyed.
LT
Suggested Topics
