Thanks, Private Panic.
How to know when to buy air as Germany
-
Isn’t 80 inf plus 30 art worth 360 IPCs, not 310 IPCs?
ETA: I see they all total 360–probably 310 was just a typo neh?
-
Yeah, did the mental math a bit too quickly. I ended up with those numbers as it gave good variance for win percentages and not so much a difference in IPC values.
-
It is really funny you most likely stand the best chance if you got 48 IPCs with 9 inf, 4 art, 1 tnk against 16 inf.
Good catch, 17.5% for 9 inf 4 art 1 arm has a clear edge over the 16.5% for 7 inf 3 art 3 arm.
This would appear to support the idea that approx 2:1 inf/art is the most cost efficient offense available, but of course in practice one wants more inf and arm for defense, flexibility and mobility. Armor’s offensive value is pretty darn close to inf/art and when you add in its mobility and defensive value, then it gets pretty fuzzy whether armor or inf/art are better choices for offense. I like that about the game–it would be boring if one unit was dominant or more efficient than the other units.
-
Is this a sign I have too much time on my hands?
I had as my target army 100 Inf. I started out using a ratio of 8:3 Infantry to Artillery and did runs with 5000 trials. I then varied the ratios while maintaing the same exact IPC value ratio of 300:310 IPCs defense:attack, my results
Offensive Force Win %
80 Inf+30 Art 64.1, 63.9, 64.8, 64.9, 63.4
76 Inf+33 Art 67.9, 66.6, 66.7, 66.0, 66.5
72 Inf+36 Art 69.8, 68.6, 69.5, 69.4, 69.968 Inf+39 Art 70.5, 70.3, 69.9, 70.4, 70.3
64 Inf+42 Art 69.5, 69.5, 69.4, 69.1, 69.5
60 Inf+45 Art 68.2, 68.1, 68.3, 68.8, 68.2
?So it seems the ratio 68:39 or round it off to 7:4 which is closer to 2:1 than 3:1.
A side note, take the case of:
68 Inf+39 Art 70.5, 70.3, 69.9, 70.4, 70.3
Trade 10 IPC in the form of 2 Inf and 1 Art for 2 tanks. Run the 5 trials and you get:
66 Inf+38 Art+2 Tanks 70.6, 69.8, 70.2, 70.6, 71.6
64 Inf+37 Art+4 Tanks 70.4, 71.9, 71.4, 69.8, 71.3
62 Inf+36 Art+6 Tanks 70.6, 70.4, 70.7, 71.3, 71.1
60 Inf+35 Art+8 Tanks 70.5, 70.3, 70.5, 70.8, 69.7
58 Inf+34 Art+10 Tanks 70.1, 71.3, 70.5, 70.8, 70.6
56 Inf+33 Art+12 Tanks 69.9, 70.0, 69.5, 69.6, 69.3
54 Inf+34 Art+14 Tanks 69.4, 69.5, 67.8, 69.7, 67.8It would seem against lots of infantry at least, that attacking with mostly Inf and Art in a ratio of about 7:4 is best. Having a few tanks doesn’t seem to hurt but as you add more tanks at the cost of Inf+Art your odds of success go down. At least in this isolated scope!
Malachi
It’s interesting that throwing in some tanks didn’t hurt your percentages–64 inf 37 art 4 arm appears to be the most cost efficient package for 310. Thanks for the analysis…
-
Scew! That’s what I’m missing!
Thanks for explaining this to me.
Np, good questions make for good discussion. So thank you for posting!
-
Actually, my math was a bit out, it was 360 IPC worth of offensive equipment not 310. What I found interesting was the variance between trials where each trial was 5000 runs. I would have thought the averages would be closer together but I suppose variations of 2% aren’t much with such large forces in the battle.
I was surprised with the tank values. I started out with the intent to prove tanks were not a good choice for this narrow example but the numbers proved no harm and arguably a slight increase in effectiveness up until a point.
I enjoy the mental exercise examining what works best in particular situations.
-
NO! you guys aren’t getting it!
1. First, this whole thread has been threadjacked from the topic of when to buy German air. I will continue this evil trend so I can address what I consider a dangerous misconception. Well, dangerously funny maybe.2. Kids . . . don’t plug your brains into calculators. Use your brains. That’s what they’re for . . . those lovely plump juicy brains . . . Think about what must be. Yes, it was correct to think about the relative costs of artillery and tanks, but that was only a SMALL step on a MUCH LONGER ROAD. Completely ignored was the LOGISTIC and PRACTICAL applications of REAL WORLD SITUATIONS (insofar as a “game” has “real world situations” :-P
3 LOGISTICS? Let’s say you have a big fat stack of infantry and artillery, you have more offensive power for your buck. But in the actual game you don’t just have a fat stack of infantry and artillery slammed up against another fat defensive stack. You have territories in between that must be crossed, and TANKS have an important LOGISTIC advantage in that they MOVE TWO SQUARES.
So if you produce nothing but infantry and artillery, let’s say on round four your attack might be 12 inf 8 artillery. (68 IPC worth) But if you do inf/art tanks, on round four your attack might be 9 inf 2 art 10 tanks (85 IPC worth). All these calculations on whether there is some “ideal” ratio COMPLETELY IGNORE the fact that when you are on the ATTACK, the LOGISTIC POWER of TANKS GREATLY CHANGES THE FORCE YOU CAN BRING TO BEAR.
Furthermore, there IS the fact that tanks CAN move two. Already said, you say? But it’s only been mentioned on the attack. FORWARD progress tends to stall out. BACKWARDS progress, though, means defense, and that’s something that hasn’t yet been addressed here.
That is, imagine this situation - you have 10 infantry on Berlin, 10 infantry on Eastern Europe, and scattered light forces at Karelia, Belorussia, Ukraine, and Western Europe. Now drop 16 tanks on Eastern Europe.
With 16 tanks on Eastern Europe, first, there is a fat chunk of units on Eastern Europe that is hard to attack. So the tanks are acting as defense that protect the flow of German infantry east as well as the 3 IPC Eastern Europe territory. But also the tanks threaten Western Europe, preventing an Allied landing in force, and threaten to attack through Karelia/Belorussia/Ukraine into any of the key territories of Archangel (where a stack of Germans can prevent Allied landings), Belorussia (where the Allies are forced to choose between Russia and Caucasus), and Caucasus (where there’s an industrial complex).
Compare with a stack of 20 artillery on Eastern Europe. That won’t help prevent an Allied landing in force on Western Europe, nor does it threaten Archangel, Belorussia, or Ukraine. Incidentally it also can’t do things like hit Norway when necessary/appropriate.
In other words . . .all this talk about infantry being in a 3 to 1 ratio to artillery, or whatever and whatnot - TRASH! It’s like you washed up on a deserted island shore, and you have a cookbook that tells you how to make the most delicious duck . . . only you have rocks and pineapples to work with! What you need is a book that tells you how to use rocks and pineapples for food, shelter, weapons, entertainment, and long-range communications.
I know. Ducks are smexy. But you gotta use what you have to work with. Which means not thinking about those beautiful laboratory conditions that specify 3 to 1 ratios, and working with the real situation. Or . . . getting a better laboratory that can better describe and approximate real world situations . . . but that would, like, involve work and stuff, and that’s scary.
4 PRACTICAL application - again, using these wonderful JUICY BRAINS . . . probably I will not need to say that on the front lines, artillery are usually “better” than tanks, because they’re cheaper. When they’re being ground up and thrown on a pile of corpses, you want your casualties to be on the cheap. But your RESERVES should not be artillery. Your RESERVES should be smexy wonderful tanks. Even for seemingly end game situations in which Germany’s been pushed out of Africa, and the Allies have a fat stack on Eastern Europe, tanks have their application - say if Germany takes Western Europe, Balkans, and Southern Europe on its turn, UK can take Western Europe and Balkans on its turn, and HAVING TAKEN BALKANS, US can blitz tanks through Balkans into Southern Europe - but ONLY if US has tanks in the first place!
Okay, having read this wonderful text wall and not having fallen asleep by this point, I suppose I will reward readers with . . . a wonderful real-real-world application! “Wonderful” being the word my agent’s telling me to use of course. Buy the book. Watch the movie.
Anglo-Egypt Sudan! Yes, in MYSTERIOUS AFRICA, the DARK CONTINENT!
Let’s say on G1 that Russia did Ukraine/West Russia (WHICH IT MAY NOT DO, I KNOW), and that you’ve decided you want to wipe the UK battleship. So you send sub/fig/bomber there, leaving only a limited amount left for Anglo-Egypt Sudan (AES). What you got? You got the Balkans fighter, the inf/tank in Africa, and either inf/tank or inf/art from Southern Europe. So what should you use, inf/art or inf/tank?
(runs to frood net for calculations)
If you use inf/art, there’s about 91.74% you kill all defenders. 11.12% you lose all attackers, 10.74% you only survive with tank or fighter, 24.22% you keep tank and fighter, 30.66% you keep artillery, tank, and fighter.
If you use inf/tank, you get 91.62% to kill all defenders. 11.14% you lose all attackers, 10.16% you only survive with tank or fighter, 24.14% you keep tank and fighter or two tanks, 31.96% you keep two tanks and fighter.
So everything seems pretty cool right?
BUT WAIT! (exclamation mark!)
Think about the UK turn. Probably UK will counter Anglo-Egypt to stop tanks blitzing through Africa. So if you take inf/tank, probably you will just lose the tank. Therefore, it’s probably better to use inf/art. The inf/art will be on the “front lines”, probably being ground up by the UK counter, and inf/art in THIS situation gives decent percentages when compared to inf/tank, so . . . you see? And the Southern Europe tank can potentially be used to create a hard point at Karelia that Russia won’t be able to attack (depending on the particulars of R1 choices and dice of course). The artillery from Southern Europe can’t reach Karelia.
(closes book) okay class remember to study study study! Quiz on Tuesday!
-
Perhaps this thread was a bit hijacked, but we are all saying for the most part is that your purchases for Germany are going to be skewed towards land forces and not airforces. If you think a few quick mostly air assest purchaces are a hidden strategy for the Germans you probably will not be happy with the outcomes verses a skilled adaptable opponent.
Now who said we ignored logistics? I think we all understood this mental excercise was just that. In fact I stated it was “this isolated scope”. Others mentioned logistics factors. Examples I used were against 100 infantry so I thought it understood it was just a mental excercise and not a claim to a realistic situation.
Yes tanks can move forward 2 spaces, of course. So yes, against a static front your builds will come into play quicker, obviously. Now, after 12 turns, you will have 1 extra turn of builds maybe two as they move up faster, but after 12 turns of trying to outbuild your opponents by rushing them with tanks for 12 turns you might reconsider overbuilding tanks.
Obviously, you want a good balance so as to take advantages of oppportunities. Nobody is suggesting to ONLY build infantry and artillery.
You have great examples of why you wouldn’t want to do what nobody has suggested you do. Very well written.
-
Perhaps this thread was a bit hijacked, but we are all saying for the most part is that your purchases for Germany are going to be skewed towards land forces and not airforces. If you think a few quick mostly air assest purchaces are a hidden strategy for the Germans you probably will not be happy with the outcomes verses a skilled adaptable opponent.
One of my last games had my Axis opponent ending up with 15 planes for Germany by turn 12. By the half of the game the Allies had the advantage but it was a very interesting game.
I like to use a bombing campaign strategy with the Germans against the Russians when playing with low luck. You build up your bomber force until you have 6, then 1 more each round as a replacement: you send them to bomb the crap out of Russia every turn and deal 16 points of damage, while you only lose 12 IPCs. Really softens them up against Japan.
-
I have always wondered why strategic bombing has not played a great part in the games that I at least play. On the surface, by doing the math even without low luck, you get ‘on average’ 5 dice rolls when launching 6 bombers, so 3.5*5=17.5 IPC damage for the cost of 12 IPC. For the allies it sure beats throwing a few inf+art with BB or CC support as a way to attrit at least a few german pieces per turn as I have seen some on this forum advocate. Their reach means one would have to defend many places against them, allies perhaps 3 fleets in the atlantic, for the axis multiple landing points combined with intense air-support. Those 6 bombers might be SBR’ing Germany but they can also support into WEu against the fortress europe ‘airbase’ so you better really defend WEu! Yet it seems to resort to a slugfest with grandforces, or more accurately a pushing match of two stacks, never engaging for the most part but project force or defending against the projection of force.
-
I have always wondered why strategic bombing has not played a great part in the games that I at least play. On the surface, by doing the math even without low luck, you get ‘on average’ 5 dice rolls when launching 6 bombers, so 3.5*5=17.5 IPC damage for the cost of 12 IPC. For the allies it sure beats throwing a few inf+art with BB or CC support as a way to attrit at least a few german pieces per turn as I have seen some on this forum advocate. Their reach means one would have to defend many places against them, allies perhaps 3 fleets in the atlantic, for the axis multiple landing points combined with intense air-support. Those 6 bombers might be SBR’ing Germany but they can also support into WEu against the fortress europe ‘airbase’ so you better really defend WEu! Yet it seems to resort to a slugfest with grandforces, or more accurately a pushing match of two stacks, never engaging for the most part but project force or defending against the projection of force.
My guess would be the unpredictability of AA Guns (which is solved if you use LL) and the fighter escort optional rule. The cost of buying 5 bombers (in addition to the starting one) and the replacements also make it a huge investment of resources that can be all thrown out if the AA manages to get 3 or more hits in a single attack.
-
I have always wondered why strategic bombing has not played a great part in the games that I at least play.
Every air unit you have can be used 1) against naval targets, 2) to trade territories without having to commit more ground forces, 3) to threaten more territories effectively with the limited ground units you do have, 4) for a “final attack” type attack in which the losses of air will not be crucial. Furthermore, fighters can be used to help defend territories effectively, and bomber range gives them super effective threat range.
Industrial bombing is usually a bit slow off the ground. Russia has the capacity to produce 12 units a turn, but will probably only want 7-8 at most for most turns. Germany can produce 16, but will only want around 10 for most turns. Japan will probably only have to worry about industrial bombing later in the game after it puts one or two mainland industrial complexes down (even then, placement in some territories leaves Allied bombers out of reach). US is of course out of reach (barring a Norway IC, in which case US can move over or build an AA gun anyways). UK is the only power that’s really vulnerable to industrial bombing, but even then it’s conditional on UK’s income being limited in the first place. There really isn’t much point in bombing London lightly if UK’s income is 33-36 a turn (Norway, Eastern Europe, and Western Europe compensate for losses in Asia.), and in any case bombing risks German air.
Back to the uses -
1) Vs naval targets. German bombers based on Western Europe can threaten any unescorted transports moving units from E Canada to London, as well as sea zones on the southwest African coast (while also threatening ground targets in Africa and Europe). If Germany does build bombers and loses even one or two of them, the threat to Allied shipping is greatly decreased.
-
to trade territories without having to commit more ground forces - particularly when, say, Germany’s pressed at the end, and is trading Eastern Europe, Western Europe, and Southern Europe. Every ground unit is needed, and every air unit helps.
-
to threaten more territories effectively with the limited ground units you do have - for example, one Japanese infantry adjacent to Moscow is not a big deal by itself, but back it up with 4-5 Japanese fighters and a bomber, and it’s suddenly a real takeover threat. Also true in far less dramatic situations - for example, 2-3 Japanese infantry on China threaten Kazakh and Novosibirsk, but if Russia leaves only, say, 3 infantry on each of Kazakh and Novosibirsk, Japan can possibly take both territories.
By the way, this is ridiculously more the case in Low Luck, because the attacker doesn’t have to worry about two defending infantry getting two hits.
4) for a “final attack” type attack in which the losses of air will not be crucial. Suppose that Germany bombed Russia for three turns, doing 10 IPC of damage. Let’s say that instead of risking the bomber, though, Germany used the bomber for better odds on trading territories. It could very well be the case that in so doing, Germany would both destroy additional Russian units worth 3-6 IPCs, preserve German units worth 3-6 IPCs (more power on the attack means less defenders left to hit back after the first round casualties are removed), possibly securing more territories for more income, possibly threatening territories so Russia could not move in and hold those territories (denying Germany the income in turn as well as increasing Russia’s income). Now add in the possibility of a “final attack”. If the German bomber survives the “final attack”'s AA gun, it would probably fire in at least four rounds of combat, each round destroying possibly one additional enemy unit, taking it out of the equation for the next round of fire, preserving German attack units to increase inflicted casualties on subsequent turns.
To make a long story short, you’ll only usually want to industrial bomb in a limited number of circumstances, and then usually only after the naval part of the game has been decided.
-
-
Curious, how does the naval part of the game get resolved if your enemy chooses to never let you sink his navy. I think once you can corner and sink the allied navy in the Atlantic or the Japanese navy then the game is pretty much over at that point.
Great observations, on the usages of aircraft. A nation like Japan doesn’t really seem to need lots of airpower to trade deadzones for much of the game. I wonder what nation people would think should do SBR attacking. I would imagine the US and Japan would be the two I would imagine could devote alot towards SBRs.
-
Curious, how does the naval part of the game get resolved if your enemy chooses to never let you sink his navy.
Theoretically, you use air to force additional Allied fleet buys early and restrict early Allied fleet movement. If Allies move an underpowered fleet into range, you punish them. If they don’t, the air is used to trade territories more effectively, particularly in Africa, while if the Allies have NOT moved fleet into position, Germany continues to control territory that it otherwise wouldn’t (such as Norway and Algeria).
Later game, Germany needs to trade more territories, and will want to disrupt Allied drops to Europe. Fighters on Eastern Europe help hold that territory and threaten Allied shipping.
-
Bumped.
@Panther or Wittmann,
I believe this should be in Player help.
Nothing too specific related to Axis & Allies Spring 1942 Edition, many numbers crunch to compare between various purpose for Air vs ground units.
Thanks. -
This post my help understand a few changes from Classic, to revised:
Is there a "Don’s Essays"� equivalent for revised?
@Gamer:LT,
Don’s essays are probably still the best thing around, especially the points regarding dead zones and purchasing for the long term. They don’t address the new units - artillery and destroyers – and they don’t take account of the new defensive capabilities of tanks or the lower cost of carriers (16 vs. 18 in Classic) and fighters (10 vs. 12 in classic). They are also a little too biased against strategic bombing, in my opinion. Strategic bombing can be part of an overall strategy, just not your ONLY strategy. As for taking the changes into account, I would say:
1. Tanks are obviously a much better purchase in Revised, since they not only attack at “3” but also defend at “3”. A tank can thus be viewed as a defensive purchase as much as an offensive purchase. For example, I like Russia to have several tanks because, when it gets down to the defense of Russia, it helps to have those “3s” to roll on your defense.
2. Fighters are more affordable in Revised, but the change in price isn’t like to cause you to buy a lot more fighters since they are still twice as expensive as tanks. They are still great for defense, but now, so are tanks!
3. The new units probably won’t change your purchasing that much – I rarely buy destroyers (and seldom see others buy them) and artillery are something you buy when you can’t afford tanks or have an extra IPC you can’t do anything else with. Neither piece is a game-changer, although artillery do help improve the attacker’s odds in small-scale battles, which comes in handy.
4. By far and away, the most important change is to the transport capacity rules. In Classic, you could carry two infantry or ONE of anything else in a transport. In Revised, you can now carry one infantry and one of any other type of piece, which makes it MUCH easier to transport tanks to the front. In Classic, being only able to carry half as many tanks as infantry in a transport tilted thing heavily in favor of purchasing infantry. Sheer numbers would overwhelm the superior attack value of tanks (especially when tanks only defended at “2”). But in Revised, you get a better balance among the various pieces, which means you have more flexibility in your purchase options. The addition of the artillery unit, while not earth-shaking, does round out your purchase options nicely to where you can almost always purchase to ensure full transports.
That’s not quite an essay, but that should give you the idea from one who basically learned how to play the game from reading Don’s A&A essays many years ago. :-)
-
Re: How to know when to buy air as GermanyI remember one game I won as the axis I used the sub push tactic and built nothing but subs Germany had like 7 subs and 3 bombers for support and wiped out the English navy in the 1942 edition and japan had closed in on Russia and scared the Americans with 9 subs out of the pacific so it was a great game for the axis
Suggested Topics
