Warfare Principles of Axis & Allies (By AndrewAAGamer)

[barnee]

@AndrewAAGamer

Wow AA :)

I like your stuff but thats a whole lot to read at once :)

[J.o.C.]

Thanks @AndrewAAGamer. Very helpful.

[trulpen]

@AndrewAAGamer said in Warfare Principles of Axis & Allies (By AndrewAAGamer):

3. The Value of Units – Buy the right unit for the right job!
Units have five main values; Hit Points (HP), Offensive Firepower (OFP), Defensive Firepower (DFP), Mobility and Special Attributes. The key to being efficient with your hard-earned money is buying and using the right type of unit for the job.

Hit Points (HP) is the casualty a unit takes in combat. This has a definite value and is in some cases worth more than the combat value of the lower tier units for each individual category; Land, Air and Naval. As determined by AndrewAAGamer a Land unit HP is worth $2, an Air unit HP is worth $3 and a Naval unit HP is worth $4.

Offensive Firepower and Defensive Firepower is how many pips on a dice are rolled for a specific unit in combat. As determined by AndrewAAGamer, for Land units each pip is worth $0.5 per pip, for Air units it is $1 per pip and for Naval units it is also $1 per pip.

Mobility is the ability to have greater range than a standard unit of the same type which allows projection of force and more rapid deployment. For Land Units, the value is $1 for Mobility and for Air units it is $4. Naval units have no Mobility value as they all move the same.

Special Attributes increase the capability of units in certain circumstances.
• When adding combat value (artillery and tactical bombers)
• Strategic Bombing (strategic bombers)
• Bombardment (cruisers and battleships)
• Repairable (aircraft carriers and battleships)

The chart below uses these five attributes to compare the actual cost of the unit to its purchasing cost. Now I am not saying the chart is exact in every detail however it is generally close enough that it does point out the important facts needed for our purposes:

• Single purpose units excel at their specific roles. Infantry is by far the best buy for Land defense and submarines give a Naval battle the biggest bang for their buck offensively followed closely by fighter/tactical bomber combos. Fighters are defensive kings at Sea while bombers are the Air queens offensively.
• Dual-purpose units are more expensive than single purpose units. Armor, destroyers, cruisers and battleships are all dual-purpose units. They attack as well as they defend and thus overall are not as good buys as single purpose units IF all you need is what a single purpose unit can provide.
• Mobility has a cost. However, as they say in football, “The best ability is availability” and having Mobility allows a unit to be able to participate in more battles than a non-mobile unit. A unit that is not able to participate in a needed battle is worthless.
• Units with Special Attributes only receive their “extra” special attributes value when they can use and maintain their special attribute during the game. Therefore, they are not as consistently cost effective with units that do not depend on their special attribute cost to be a good value.
• Offensive Firepower costs more than Defensive Firepower on Land as well as at Sea.
• Experienced Players rarely buy tactical bombers, cruisers and battleships and the chart shows why. Those are the three units in the game that cost MORE than their value. They are niche purchases. Be a Good Player. Don’t waste your money on these units except in specific circumstances.
  

A very good chart!

However, shouldn’t the mobility column for figs and tacs be 4 and not 0? Thus figs and tacs have a value cost of 14, right?

[trulpen]

@AndrewAAGamer said in Warfare Principles of Axis & Allies (By AndrewAAGamer):

What this means is the weaker Player will and should, until they get better, make more risky attacks to try and gain an advantage since they are most likely going to lose anyway. The irony is that by making these risky attacks they are increasing the odds of losing most of their games for the benefit of winning a few games. Good Players should not make risky attacks. As they do not need to, and should be aware that their weaker opponents will make risky attacks, and should take that into account when providing battle opportunities that their weaker opponent will make attacks at odds that the stronger player would blanch at.

Just like in chess. :)

[AndrewAAGamer]

@trulpen said in Warfare Principles of Axis & Allies (By AndrewAAGamer):

However, shouldn’t the mobility column for figs and tacs be 4 and not 0? Thus figs and tacs have a value cost of 14, right?

So the chart does not spell it out however I am only comparing each category to itself. Land vs Land, Air vs Air and Naval vs Naval. That is why for Naval none of the units have a mobility cost since they all move the same. Air units cost more than Land units and their greater range is already built into that cost. So the Mobility for Air units on the chart only applies to the Bomber which flies farther than the fighter or tactical bomber. In addition, Air units are able to enter into a battle and then leave which means they are not subject to counter attack. That capability certainly has a value cost though it is hidden in the overall cost of the Air category. What I am trying to show is in each category which is the best unit for any particular function. Land units are always going to be more cost effective than Air units. Just because a units Value versus Cost may be reasonable does not mean it is still the right unit to buy for the job. Otherwise, we would just buy nothing but bombers and lose every time.

The chart certainly could be redone to have the Mobility and after combat movement inherent in Air units shown separately in comparison to Land and Naval units. In fact, the chart could be separated by Land and Sea battles since as we see a casualty on Land has a different cost than a casualty at Sea. I just found it easier to do it this way and still accomplish my purpose for unit cost comparison.

Thanks for the question!

[wizmark]

@AndrewAAGamer very nice article…well worth a read!

[Midnight_Reaper]

@AndrewAAGamer Your unit value chart is an interesting look at “true value” versus “unit cost” in G40. If units were priced at the “true value” prices on your chart then 3 units would be cheaper (Tac. Bomber, Cruiser, and Battleship), 4 units would stay the same in price (Armor, Fighter, Destroyer, and Carrier), and 5 units would be more expensive (Infantry, Artillery, Mech. Inf., Strat. Bomber, and Submarine).

What would you think of playing a game of G40 where the units were priced at your “Value Cost” prices?

-Midnight_Reaper

[Omega1759]

Very nice summary and well thought out. This thread is already well addressing core principles, the next topics that I’m curious about would be the following:

1. Transports vs. facilities vs. air units. The combo of land units + transports + navy to protect them makes the whole very expensive to scale (except for Japan as you note).

2. Value of strategic and tactical bombing.

3. Efforts to deny / open national objectives

4. Joint ally strategy and tactics (how to coordinate unit buys by power/specialize)

[AndrewAAGamer]

@Midnight_Reaper said in Warfare Principles of Axis & Allies (By AndrewAAGamer):

What would you think of playing a game of G40 where the units were priced at your “Value Cost” prices?

Interesting idea. The only issue I have is the chart is for comparison purposes of what unit to buy. It is not necessarily what the actual cost of each unit should be. I say this only because of the Special Attribute portion. I wrestled with how to present this myself on the chart because the value of the Special Attribute is only applicable if it is usable. So an artillery is worth 4.5 if it is always paired with an infantry. However if it is not then it is only worth 4. The point of the chart was to show that buying a unit that was not dependent on its SA value to be a good buy was a better buy than buying a unit that was dependent on its SA value to be a good buy. If we want to determine real value/cost than I would think some percentage of SA would be used. Of course this makes for undesirable fractions.

The chart is probably clsoe enough for a fun game so I am good as soon as I can finish off one game. Then we can play.

[Midnight_Reaper]

@AndrewAAGamer said in [Warfare Principles of Axis & Allies (By

The chart is probably clsoe enough for a fun game so I am good as soon as I can finish off one game. Then we can play.

Oh, crud. I would go and have my typing write a check my butt can’t cash…

I will have to beg your forgiveness, as I do not currently have the time to play TripleA, what with being a dad and going to college at the same time right now (late bloomer, didn’t start college until I was in my 30s).

Perhaps some other time, kind sir.

-Midnight_Reaper

[Saber25]

@AndrewAAGamer This is a really interesting analysis. Along these lines, I assume you oppose using russian infantry to picket/block the German advance towards Moscow? Based on your analysis it seems clear that it is wasteful, but how would you measure the value of time/turns? Perhaps via incoming British aircraft added by the turn saved? Great analysis!

[AndrewAAGamer]

@Saber25 said in Warfare Principles of Axis & Allies (By AndrewAAGamer):

@AndrewAAGamer This is a really interesting analysis. Along these lines, I assume you oppose using russian infantry to picket/block the German advance towards Moscow? Based on your analysis it seems clear that it is wasteful, but how would you measure the value of time/turns? Perhaps via incoming British aircraft added by the turn saved? Great analysis!

Thank you for the question and kind comments. You are correct I oppose leaving single infantry to block the path to Moscow because it does not block the march at all. The German mass just steamrolls those individual blockers virtually for free. Now if you can garner enough forces to actually HOLD a territory a Turn or two before being forced back than I am all for that. The usual key area is Bryansk. The Allies, depending on how the Axis and Allies play it, do have a chance of holding Bryansk for at least a little bit and if so that is a good thing. At least if you are the Allied Player. :slightly_smiling_face:

[Saber25]

@AndrewAAGamer Good to know. I’ve watched a lot of General Hand Grenade videos, and he seemed to picket a lot. I’ve played allies in my group (only 3-4 of us) the last 3 games, and Russia has been steamrolled 2/3. My “blocking” probably had a lot to do with that I’d imagine.
What makes Bryansk a better hold point? I’m new to the game this summer, and I absolutely love it. I find these kinds of guides so helpful! Thanks

[Saber25]

@AndrewAAGamer This is hilarious given the current bids I have been playing due to lack of knowledge. On a 34 bid, I’ve done 2 artillery and 2 fighters for the Russians, and a sub for Britain in the med to help with Taranto. Taranto has become a sure thing basically unless Germany hard threatens sealion, but Russia still can’t seem to hold more than 9 turns except in one fluke game where my opponent left 13 infantry and an artillery alone for me to pick off with my main stack.

[J.o.C.]

@AndrewAAGamer Would you ever consider using an infantry to block a potential blitz? That would mean Germany would not be using artillery or regular infantry for the attack, which may not be a good idea on their part. I guess it would depend on the situation.

[AndrewAAGamer]

@J-o-C said in Warfare Principles of Axis & Allies (By AndrewAAGamer):

Would you ever consider using an infantry to block a potential blitz? That would mean Germany would not be using artillery or regular infantry for the attack, which may not be a good idea on their part. I guess it would depend on the situation.

Good question and yes it depends. As I said in my article…

@AndrewAAGamer said in Warfare Principles of Axis & Allies (By AndrewAAGamer):

to lose a unit for any purpose outside of that big battle is a waste of the unit unless it takes more units with it than it loses, or has extraordinary ramifications, such as protecting a vital monetary area, or slowing down the route of march.

So not to be wishy washy but it depends. What does the blitz of the armor gain versus the loss of the armor on the counter attack? What is the loss of the infantry versus the gain of stopping the blitz? It is situational so without an example I cannot answer the question except to say sometimes it makes sense and sometimes it does not.

[AndrewAAGamer]

@Saber25 said in Warfare Principles of Axis & Allies (By AndrewAAGamer):

What makes Bryansk a better hold point?

Bryansk is the point where the original German advance forces and fast moving reinforcements are at their limits to get to Moscow in comparison to the Russians who have been building infantry waiting for them to arrive. It takes some Allied fighters to tilt the battle to the Allies favor to hold for a little bit. Even one Turn is helpful though.

[J.o.C.]

@AndrewAAGamer Thanks for the reply.

[WindowWasher]

@AndrewAAGamer could cruisers be worth a little more than 11, maybe 11.5 due to their ability to move marines in BM 3?

[AndrewAAGamer]

@WindowWasher said in Warfare Principles of Axis & Allies (By AndrewAAGamer):

@AndrewAAGamer could cruisers be worth a little more than 11, maybe 11.5 due to their ability to move marines in BM 3?

My article ONLY applies to OOB. It does not include BM3 and is probably not relevant in many aspects except the general warfare principles which are true for any game.