The question:
"Which unit do you think holds the most overall value? (including price, abilities, atk/def, etc.) "
The answer:
Infantry
If the question is something else like which you like the best? or what has the best offensive bang for the buck Id say Tanks easily.
20 inf attacking at 1’s vs. 15 rtl attacking at 2’s => inf win only 35% of the time (i know in the game one side has to be on defense but for this experiment all i want is to compare attack strengths facotring in unit cost)
20 inf attacking at 1’s vs. 12 arm attacking at 3’s => inf win only 40% of the time
Duke… what were the results each round? who had what at the end of each round and how many rounds did the affair last?
Also, when you say Infantry v. Artillery wins 35% clip so if you reverse and say artillery attacks infantry then what are the numbers and same for equal IPC in tanks vs infantry… say 30 IP worth that would be informative for the rest.
Also look at the ratio of units you buy that are infantry vs. the ratio that comprise of anything else. I have never bought more transports than infantry as japan and i have never bought more tanks than infantry as Germany. Nobody debates that these other units have their utility, but next time you play total each type of unit you buy as any player and i know you know the answer is allways INFANTRY.
Dont be angry In just stating what you allready know. I cant believe this can be a debatable topic. WOW! too funny :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
How do you think I feel? I just started this topic, hoping it would bring people to put up good points about the pros/cons of various units. I did get that. But what I also got is a huge friggin’ debate about the economic value of infantry vs. that of everything else. I’m just glad that the issue of strategic value came into the picture SOMEWHERE… :oops: :roll:
Im glad i helped get this “problem” out in the open as well. I didnt think it was that hard to figure out. Alas, we have to move at the speed of the slowest ship sometimes that way we protect the interests of the group. The math has to stand on its own on this one… i dont see why its being questioned. This game has alot of problems that arent even covered with any historical accuracy and places it clearly into the “introductory” level of wargaming. The “infantry push mechanic” is an ugly head in this game with alot of static battlefield conditions. to correct this we need the following:
1)better retreat rules (allowing defenders to retreat, etc.)
2) manpower limitations (you cant just buy more crap “boring” units)
3) Combined arms rules for using additional types of units COMBINED with infantry
…but I appreciate all the input regardless. And on that note, I can’t just watch all this go on, and not even vote. So I went for fighters. Aside from the fact that they’re the perfect combination of defense and mobility, their good defense is made outstanding by a tech called jet power. I’ve always loved jet power, even since the original version, for this very reason. And who can complain about having 2 or 3 full carriers in a decent sized fleet, with jet power? Every round, that would equal 4 to 6 rolls at 5 or less, making your assailants drop like flies, while BBs take hits for you. Jet power also makes a navy awesome too. 8)
Do you honestly build more infantry than any other unit as Japan, US, and UK? The most “valuable” unit is different for each country. I’d definitely vote for infantry as Germany/Russia for most valuable, but really since you’re building tank/art at a 1:1 ratio for the transports for other nations, no, infantry is definitely not the most valuable for those nations. You just don’t infantry push with mass infantry on transports, it doesn’t work. You never build more infantry than other stuff as one of the island nations unless for some reason you’re being assaulted on the your capital, which is rare.
Ok so your actually saying that when your Japan USA or UK your buying more of any other unit besides infantry? your buying more Tanks than infantry? more fighters than infantry? more transports than infantry? more battleships than infantry? more subs than infantry? please tell us how its possible to win this way… I need to know state the nation your playing what the basic build structure is …etc. I have never seen anything like this before. Does this work for 2nd edition too? aa europe? aa Pacific? or just revised?
No, I agree with ImpLeader on this one; you should always buy more INF than any other unit, especially as Russia and Germany, otherwise you will die, quickly. You want to vary the types of units you buy in order to maintain a good balance, but there should be more INF on the mobilization box on every turn than any other unit. I still think they’re an uber-boring unit though :P.
In terms of IPCs, you will be buildling other units more than infantry as the naval nations. Usually as stuff like UK/Japan you’re busting out like 1 inf per 1 tank, and quite obviously the tank costs you more, so I would think that overall you’re spending more on tanks since you have to consider the IPC cost. Do you honestly load up transports with 2 x infantry? Thought not.
Take into the account the actual cost of the unit, not just the numbers you purchased. Battleships cost 8 infantry, so you can’t just say oh I’m buying 3 infantry compared to one battleship therefore infantry is better than battleship in value. You have to factor in IPC cost.
I’ve never disagreed with infantry as the most valuable buy for Germany/Russia, but I heavily disagree with the other 3 nations who pour much more IPCs into naval units and supplements to go into transports. You can’t just count the number of infantry, you have to count their cost. In numbers they aren’t built more than other units as the naval nations because you’re building 1:1 ratio with tanks. And if you look at the costs entailed, they’re skewed in favor of non-infantry units as naval nations.
Infantry are really great for advancing slowly since they’re able to hold the territories they captured with cheap cost, and really necessary for defense for Germany/Russia, but I simply observe that more IPCs go into noninfantry as the other three nations because of the transport limits and heavy naval buildup costs.
I dont think thats correct… and i think you have somewhat changed the “form” of our debate. Again we are looking at the single unit that is of most value based on value and cost per unit. If in terms of quantity of each unit purchased… Infantry has the largest number of units purchased in practical play, then it has the most value and thats proven by your own buys.
But now your going on this total investment of money angle and again in my experience i dont allways just buy 2 tanks because they are more effecient on a transport than 2 infantry. I have to look at my budget plus the factors of tempo, positional, and material considerations. But the most common feature of the lowest common denomination when all things are equal say you have to buy more infantry on the board. Its possible to have invested more in some other unit, but if you count each unit you built in the game including the destroyed units… infantry will have the highest count every time ( unless you lost the game).
Yeah, my simple point is that you can’t just count the number of infantry; you have to factor in the cost. It’s about cost. You don’t say rulers are more valuable than a house even though you probably can and have bought more rulers than houses. It’s like saying you value infantry more if you spend 6 IPCs on 2 of them rather than 24 on one battleship.
ok i know that the price dropped on fighters, but i think that tanks still have the best value. they atack and defend at three, common. fighters are very nice with jet power however.
dp nightmare out
So then in combat you got one fighter attacking my 4 infantry… according to that you think its a better idea to invest in a fighter? Other way around … you have 4 infantry… now would you not attack a lone fighter with a chance to kill it and lose 1-2 men ? if you answer yes to either question then Infantry is the most value as a unit with all other things being equal.
On the matter of the other chaps query… The value of one battle ship vs. 8 infantry with all other considerations being equal. I can get more done with 8 infantry than i could ever get done with just a BB. This is not to say that you may need both. But the decision with all other factors weighed with equal consideration gives infantry the nod every time. Final thought- The axis win by having many land units (infantry), and not with a large navy, while the allies need a naval force insofar as they can ship (infantry and tanks) to the mainland. But the victory will allways be on land. Planes are just a utility to augment both types of forces as they accomplish the land victory.
Well here’s what I can say about the general infatuation with infantry. (and no, I’m not trying to downplay any pro-infantry comments) Fighters are the best defenders, but in the case of any such awesome unit, be it fighters or tanks, you’ll want a nice infantry cushion to take hits while the big boys take their shots. Basically, infantry serve to take hits, (especially while attacking) so a large number of them is essential in any type of combat, whether you’re the attacking or defending player.
That’s a poor example with 4 infantry vs 1 plane. First, it’d be more like 3 infantry vs 1 plane for more equal IPC cost. Secondly, this is pointless when you’re not considering naval nations. I’ve already said a million times that infantry is easily the most valuable unit for Germany and Russia who have to prosecute large land wars. That’s never been the argument. For some reason you still argue that infantry is the most valuable for everyone, when this is most certainly not true.
Even if you just count the number of infantry for US/UK/Japan, you do not build more numerical infantry than other units, much less spend more IPCS on them. This is because you have to use transports to get land troops anywhere, so you are building infantry in equal numbers with tanks. You honestly would load transports with 2 infantry rather than 1 infantry 1 tank? In that case then yes infantry would be more valuable if people actually did that, but that’s not the case. You don’t build primarily infantry as naval nations, ever, unless you’re fighting a last ditch effort and you’re going to lose anyways. You’re busy matching 1 infantry with 1 tank, and tanks cost more, so tanks are the more valuable, and if you had the opportunity you would put 2 tanks in the transport since you need to muscle your way through and space is limited so it’s not a question of which unit is cheap fodder more like you need quality units in the transports.
Infantry is obviously most valuable if you don’t have to use transports and your deployment limits are high compared to your income (Germany/Russia). For other nations you’re busy building equal numbers of infantry as tanks, and you’re busy constructing navy too, so infantry can’t be considered the most valuable for those nations. If you’re doing amphibious assaults you don’t try to attack with mass infantry because you need good muscle, and because space is limited on transports you need all the muscle you can pack in.
I cant afford to buy 2 tanks for every transport i buy,because once i got about 8-10 transports for say like the naval powers of Japan, UK and USA i simply cannot afford to make 16 to 20 units in tanks, while still providing all the other requirements of my nation. So i have to use cheaper substitutes such as a highter number of tanks relative to infantry. This will allow me to use Infantry as soak ups when the Tanks attack. I NEVER buy more tanks than infantry, because Infantry have to soak up in combat actions. I lose tempo when i am spending nearly twice as much money getting an army thats 1/2 the size. Tanks are the second most valuable piece, because they can quickly take empty territories and push my Infantry stacks across new distant enemy lands. Basically, for every 10 infantry id think you need 5 tanks. In order to push down an enemy stack of say 8 infantry, id say attack with 8 infantry and 4 tanks. That will give you the best net gain in destroyed units per attack units value invested. This is the heart of what im getting at. You have to create tempi, by the accumulation of small advantages over time. The advantage comes into play when you invest the smallest amount to provide the greatest return on your investment. In the above example we have 8 infantry and 4 tanks attacking 8 infantry…. thats 44 Ip investment against 24 Ip investment.
Now then, if i take your route i can expect to buy more pieces that cost more since your saying items like tanks are more necessary to win with. So we then do the opposite and buy 4 infantry and 8 tanks which now cost us 52 IP . After the battle we lose most of our infantry and our tanks are now exposed to counterattacks w/o adequate fodder. But we also tie up an additional 8 ip that could be spent elsewhere … perhaps on another transport or a fighter or more land units. This is what we call lost tempi and when we accumulate this over time it results in lost tempo for my nation and i am suspect for long term weakness which can cost me a positional advantage and quite possibly the war.
I accept your point but i dont accept its conclusion. All the other pieces are valuable in their own right, while infantry is the staple of the game.
You can’t buy 2 tanks per transport. The limit is one infantry and one tank. I accept that you may not buy more tanks than infantry as naval nations, but I also find it very difficult to believe that you buy more infantry than tanks, because the transport ratio is 1:1 and you want to squeeze in as many tanks as you can with that sort of ratio; it is to me a waste of time to put 2 infantry on board unless you’re fighting a purely holding action. If you had 8 transports as UK, then that’d be pointless since UK’s deployment limit is 8 units anyways; the most transports you’d need is 4 because 4 transports x 2 units = 8 units total. The only reason you’d have so many transports is if you’re saving up for a big attack, and even in that case you wouldn’t be concerned with building 16-20 tanks because transports can’t hold 2 tanks.
I am building as Japan one factory on the mainland where i build tanks only and my transports only carry men. As United states building both, but i gotta have a majority of those units as infantry, so that i dont lose any expensive tanks. Of course i have to buy trannys, fighters, destroyers, and carriers in more limited quantities to protect my sea lanes. At the end of the game if i counted each piece from all 5 nations combined i believe id see more infantry than any other unit. I have never seen more planes or tanks in any event. That leads me to conclude that they were the most needed because they were the most abundant. Tanks usually come in second, followed by artillery
I chose “this question is stupid” :-? It is stupid because you couldn’t choose Transports. Without them you can’t do anything. Your precious infantry can’t swim across the English Channel nor the Atlantic. Whthout them the allies can do nothing. They are the units that make winning the war possible. Transports are the most important units of the game, period.
And now, who would only buy infantry in this game? Sure, INF are the backbone of your army, but nothing equals a well balanced force. You build infantry to lose them, nothing else!
"Feld"marshall Hartmann (I’m just going to assume this is a pun of some sort and not a horrible misspelling), IMHO I do believe you are wrong on both counts.
I chose “this question is stupid” It is stupid because you couldn’t choose Transports. Without them you can’t do anything. Your precious infantry can’t swim across the English Channel nor the Atlantic. Whthout them the allies can do nothing. They are the units that make winning the war possible. Transports are the most important units of the game, period.
So what exactly are you going to move in your ‘precious’ transports? Inf can’t cross SZs and transports need something to transport, so apparently you need both (note, this does not agree with your ‘balanced force’ theory- more on this latter).
If you’re assuming the question implies that you can only buy one type of unit, I would definitely go with only buying infantry. Only buying transports would mean that you can only move the ground units you start with. This is not enough to win the game by a long shot. If you could buy only inf than at least Russia can put up a good fight against the Axis. Can you imagine the game if Russia couldn’t buy infantry???
For the record I don’t think the question assumed you could only buy 1 type of unit, just that it was asking what unit had the greatest overall value (aka what unit is most important to winning).
And now, who would only buy infantry in this game? Sure, INF are the backbone of your army, but nothing equals a well balanced force. You build infantry to lose them, nothing else!
You care to back up this ‘well-balanced force’ theory up with some actual numbers? Let’s each buy up any units we want with 60 IPCs. I’ll buy only inf and you buy any mix of units you wish. I will win >99% of the time on defense. I’m not doing very badly on offense either. All infantry might lose on offense but it will be close and it will never be as bad as a mix of units will lose on offense.
