but artillary is cheaper and in effect you can buy more units. it’s a balance, i’m not arguing ether of the two above points, i am simply pointing out a flaw in Ender’s logic as he pointed out a flaw in Jennifer’s. i would personally say they are equal in both ADS and LL as both tanks and artilary come with there own + and -
i would say tank or artilary is just prefrence in ADS and LL, although i can see LL giving artilary more of an advantage then ADS.
as for fighters, ya they move better, but they are the only unit type (including bombers) that hit both land and sea, making that alone worth more $. also they have higher deffence, but against them they can’t land in newlly conquored lands (both a blessing and a curse) and have a specal unit made just for killing them. fighers also have the opertunity to get 2 techs, off hand i can’t think of any other unit that has that, again helping both sea and land.
Okay, let’s talk fighters then.
If you are defending with 2 infantry and I attack you with 1 infantry, 4 fighters the results are as follows:
In LL, I have a 67% chance to take the land.
In ADS, I have a 15% chance to lose a fighter.
How are those the same?
Again, the whole point is that ADS is NOT the same as LL. They are different games with different rules and different tactics. I’ll trade you all the live long day with inf + 4 fig against 2 inf in LL. I have 0% chance to lose a fighter in LL! In ADS, I have to commit at least 2 infantry to make sure I don’t lose a fighter. (Granted I would also only send in one or two fighters, instead of 4.)
If I attack 2 inf, I will use what is “useful” for this battle. If I attack 4 inf, I will use more attack punch and more units.
There is difference from LL to ADS, but this difference is valid for all battles. I will use other or more units in LL than
ADS, but I will also use more or less units if the defense is strong or weak. To use ftrs/bmrs to attack TT’s with AA guns is not tempting, this can be related to attacking 2 inf with only 1 ground unit + ftrs in ADS.
Against a strong opponent Russia cannot afford ftrs usually, but If Russia can get 30 ipc over several rnds then 1 or
2 ftrs can be as good as tanks instead of ftrs, inf/art/tanks are always most useful for Russia.
Every game is different.
If Germany buys navy then you cannot move/buy what you could if Germany didn’t buy any fleet.
I just played a game (as allies) in which the axis player used 2-4 Jap units during 3 rnds against US. So I had to do some
moves that I don’t do usually. That means less trans, and more tanks+inf, they were needed in Alaska :-D
Every game is different.
Every game has different tactics. But the same rules. In one game of AAR you don’t have American armor defending at 5 or less and costing 3 IPC. If you did, it wouldn’t be the same game as AAR.
Anyway, you didn’t disprove my theory. 1 Inf + 4 Fighters against 2 Inf defending. 100% no fighter losses in LL. 33% chance of fighter losses in ADS.
Makes a HUGE fracking difference what I attack with, when, and how.
Check your math. The chance that both inf hit is 1/3 x 1/3 = 1/9 = 11%. The only time in which you should lose a fighter is if both inf hit, because you should retreat if you have no inf screen.
It may be a huge difference, it may not. If you’re the kind of person who likes to take territories and makes sure to do so, it doesn’t make a huge difference because you will send 2-3 inf. If you’re the kind of person who likes economy of force, then maybe you will upgrade to 2 inf instead of 1. But that generally will not dictate how the whole game goes, because that’s nitpicking in nickle and dime territories where generally both sides have enough inf to be able to throw 1-2 inf in each territory anyways.
You are missing the forest for the trees.
If I am in a LL game, and have the fighters (because I’m japan or germany) then I WILL attack your two infantry with 4 fighters, infantry. Why? Because the land is nice, but I already came out ahead just by killing two of yours for one of mine. The land is probably worthless (1 or 2 IPC.) Nice to have, not strategy breaking not to have. (Not to mention, I have a 33% chance of getting it anyway, which is where I got the numbers flipped in my head.)
11% chance to lose a fighter is huge, IMHO. That’s almost as high as running against a lone transport or an AA Gun, only difference is I am losing a fighter for no reason, instead of for potential gain (taking the AA gun or sinking the transport.)
You’re bumping into the trees looking for an imaginary forest. It’s not necessarily a bad idea to attack with 2 inf 4 fig in LL. In fact, there is no detriment to it as long as it’s a 2 IPC territory. In fact, you should if it’s a 3 IPC territory. The extra 3 IPC inf you send to hold the territory already pays for itself, collecting 2 from the territory and dealing 1 IPC damage when the enemy comes. It more than pays for itself if it’s a 3 IPC territory. Also, it forces a response, whereas if you send just 1 inf, the majority of the time it dies and the enemy can choose to either send nothing, send one inf, or stack it with fighters since he controls it at the beginning of his next turn. Or perhaps something can blitz through that you didn’t want to.
And even let’s just say you’re right because we’re ignoring all the circumstances in which you do want to actually take the territory: this may favor the Axis early on in one fight maximum per round, but it is very slight nickle and dime we’re talking here, and the Allies can easily catch up with all those fighters you love to build with the Allies.
Plus, why would I put 2 inf in a territory like that? Do you not think the opponent knows that you will send 1 inf + 4 fig? It seems like you’re acting so surprised and you’re instructing me on what you would do, but I have already known this for LL as well. I’d just keep 1 inf to the territory if I can manage. If there’s 2 there it’s only because I overcompensated, but because I was unaware of your tactics.
I’m not saying there’s a demerit for attacking with two infantry in LL.
What I’m saying is you almost HAVE to attack with two in ADS, but if your goal is just to clear out the defenders, you can easily attack with just 1 and have a certainty of not losing fighters and destroying the enemy present.
The overall idea is the same - you’re trading territories and eventually upping the blinds to convince the enemy to either abandon trading or spend more than he can. Just because it’s more certain in LL to use absolute minimum force to clear 2 inf does not change the overall idea or picture in ADS. To me I’m looking for gamebreaking changes in LL that would convince me that it doesn’t have any validity for analyzing overall strategies in ADS. I don’t really get stuck on very small details in very small battles in which we’re talking about efficiency in fractions of IPCs - which either side can take advantage of. I’m looking at the forest, not the trees.
Whether you picket with 1, 2, or 3 inf in ADS vs LL does not change the overall tactics. You picket less in LL because yes, it’s true that it’s very easy to calculate a precise strafe. You could send 12 inf at 3 inf and instantly trade 2 inf for 1, which you really wouldn’t try in ADS. But that really cuts both sides; Germany can’t really up the blinds early on to bleed Russia, nor can the Allies up the blinds when trying to contain Germany. The general idea though remains the economical trade of territories, which isn’t broken by LL.
Perhaps LL is longer because you can’t up the blinds as an intimidation factor as easily, but that doesn’t change the overall ideas going on.
No, what I’m saying is if my goal is to just kill all the defenders in one round, then it’s perfectly computable in LL. However, in ADS it’s anybody’s game until the dice are rolled.
To me I’m looking for gamebreaking changes in LL that would convince me that it doesn’t have any validity for analyzing overall strategies in ADS. I don’t really get stuck on very small details in very small battles in which we’re talking about efficiency in fractions of IPCs - which either side can take advantage of. I’m looking at the forest, not the trees.
I think it’s something to have to live with, but it’s still better to look at overall strategies than having every other game in ADS screwed over by some important battle going horribly wrong.
