How much does artillery help?

@froodster:

I think if you trade territories with anything more than Inf/Ftrs you need to check your head.

i agree frood, but that was the example given, so in that scenario, the art is the better trade.

i’ve been trying to read back through earlier posts, is there a baseline that is being asked about art vs other things?  is it art by itself?  supported with inf?  w/ arm?  fighters?

i’ve been running the 4 arm vs 5 inf on your calc, and art comes out ahead the far majority of the time, defending or attacking.  I gotta say too, the whole aacalc thing is awesome, great job

Thanks. But as I said above, the sim completely ignores the tactical benefits of the speed of armor, which also must be considered. If Armor moved only 1, it wouldn’t be worth the price. But if Armor moved 1, attacked 3/3 and cost 4 IPCs, it would be a lot better than Artillery. Even with Attack/Defend of 3/2 it would be better than artillery, because it would concentrate the punch at the top end of your force. And even at that it would be a better buy than Infantry at 4 IPCs. Not sure of my point anymore…

Also, try this attack (equal IPCs)

5 Inf 5 Art attacking 5 Inf 4 Arm - the Inf/Armor force defending comes out ahead.

Quick link

Actually having the options attack each other is not a good comparison since their attack values and defense values are not equal.

Send both forces against an all infantry defender and it becomes obvious that the INF/ART force is more effective than the same IPC INF/ARM force.

http://frood.net/aacalc/?abortratio=0&saveunits=0&strafeunits=0&mustland=0&aInf=5&aArt=&aArm=4&aFig=&aJFig=&aBom=&aHBom=&aTra=&aLTra=&aCar=&aSub=&aSSub=&aDes=&aBat=&adBat=&dInf=8&dArt=&dArm=&dFig=&dJFig=&dBom=&dHBom=&dTra=&dLTra=&dCar=&dSub=&dSSub=&dDes=&dBat=&ddBat=&ool_att=Bat-Inf-Art-Arm-Tra-Sub-SSub-Fig-JFig-Des-Bom-HBom-Car-dBat-LTra&ool_def=Bat-Inf-Art-Arm-Tra-Sub-SSub-Bom-HBom-Des-Fig-JFig-Car-dBat-LTra&round=1&territory=&battle=Run&rounds=&reps=10000&luck=pure&ruleset=Revised&pbem=

http://frood.net/aacalc/?abortratio=0&saveunits=0&strafeunits=0&mustland=0&aInf=5&aArt=5&aArm=&aFig=&aJFig=&aBom=&aHBom=&aTra=&aLTra=&aCar=&aSub=&aSSub=&aDes=&aBat=&adBat=&dInf=8&dArt=&dArm=&dFig=&dJFig=&dBom=&dHBom=&dTra=&dLTra=&dCar=&dSub=&dSSub=&dDes=&dBat=&ddBat=&ool_att=Bat-Inf-Art-Arm-Tra-Sub-SSub-Fig-JFig-Des-Bom-HBom-Car-dBat-LTra&ool_def=Bat-Inf-Art-Arm-Tra-Sub-SSub-Bom-HBom-Des-Fig-JFig-Car-dBat-LTra&round=1&territory=&battle=Run&rounds=&reps=10000&luck=pure&ruleset=Revised&pbem=

The success rate of the ART/INF force is higher than that of the ARM/INF force.

On defense, the ARM/INF combination actually outperforms the same IPC ART/INF combination.

With this in mind, a cheap bone crushing offense is equal amounts of ART and INF.  A better defending force is ARM/INF.  In the context of the game, buying ART/INF early as offensives are taking place makes sense.  As front lines solidify, ARM/INF becomes a better deal, especially given the ability of ARM to manuveur in response to the enemy.

Not quite what one would expect.

@Baghdaddy:

On defense, the ARM/INF combination actually outperforms the same IPC ART/INF combination.

I disagree.

On defense, I set up the two following scenarios with 60IPC of defenders:

7inf 7arm attacking 12arm: A Survives 54.2%, D Survives 43.6%, Mutual Destruction 2.2%
Quick link

7inf 7arm attacking 15art: A Survives 51.2%, D Survives 47.6%, Mutual Destruction 1.3%
Quick link

The attacking force isn’t really important (as long as it is the same force in both scenarios), but this shows that in this scenario the artillery are clearly better for defending than armour.  However, some scenarios (with a better skew of defensive forces) would perform better defensively with a build of armour.  eg:

7inf 7arm attacking 6inf 8 arm: A Survives 28.2%, D Survives 70%, Mutual Destructon 1.6%
Quick link

7inf 7arm attacking 6inf 10art:  A Survives 36.9%, D Survives 62.1%, Mutual Destructon 0.8%
Quick link

It depends on the scenario.  Sometimes arm defends better than art, and sometimes art defends better than arm.

IT depends on how munch infantry are protecting your art/arm. IF you have allot of infantry, tanks are better. this is because the 3 punch units are saved till the end instead of a equally distribution of loss of punch. this is even more true on offense.

@cyan:

IT depends on how munch infantry are protecting your art/arm. IF you have allot of infantry, tanks are better. this is because the 3 punch units are saved till the end instead of a equally distribution of loss of punch. this is even more true on offense.

Yes.  In all the examples I looked at, I always put at least 1 INF in for each of the ART (one less for ARM since I was keeping the IPC count the same).

Not including INF in these examples really is not of interest to me since I don’t see myself ever attempting to attack or defend with out having made an effort to have about half my force to be INF.  This tends to be a default due to transports.

It might be worth looking at this ratio for the land battles between Germany and USSR but I’m not that bored today.

I worked out a long analysis in another thread like this and the cheapest and most effective ratio is basically a 3:1:1 or 4:1:1.

It is far superior to any other grouping and is not only great at defense but equally as good at taking out any army. (15+ units)

Simply speaking, it you are worried only about defense, then Infantry is all you should buy.  That is a bit unrealistic since you do need to attack at somepoint esp if you’re the Axis.

Of course this is very simplistic but the point is if you have the time some RT are good usually in equal numbers to your ARM with a ton of inf to absorb the initial rds of combat.

An analysis I did in Classic that still holds for revised is that regardless of what units you buy as the stacks get larger (15+ units) you need to outspend your opponent 4:3 in order to take.  I believe that may be ignoring air units.

5:2:1 is my prefered ratio

@ncscswitch:

5:2:1 is my prefered ratio

3:1:1 but it ussaly ends up bieng 10:8:1. harder to apply than come up with.

They are land unit build/combat ratios.

First number INF, second ART, third ARM

I think that somewhere in the 3.1.1 to 5.2.1 is a good call.

After further reflection, we are comparing sims of 5inf/4art v 5inf/4arm or 7/7s v whatever…  i may just want a perfect world on this, but I do not think I’m going to attack 9 inf and arm with 10 inf/art, attacking with only the same amount of units or 1 more than just doesn’t seem like the best odds… maybe if we add int the fighter support.  if there is 7 inf/7arm in a territory, I’m not going into it without at least a 50% number superiority to take losses, whether it’s with fighters or more land units.  Might as well stack and make them do it too while I look for the flank…  Why let them see it coming, of course I might just want it all, that’s the japanese way, or is it the german…hmmm

It’s situational. I wouldn’t use artillery or armor to defend Western Europe just to keep those ratios even. Anything but inf and fig’s there is a waste of firepower.

@froodster:

I think if you trade territories with anything more than Inf/Ftrs you need to check your head.

Unfortunately, that means the Russian player has to check his head every turn.  :lol: With only 2 starting fighters and usually 3 or more territories to trade, it becomes a case of either using art/arm or letting the axis have uncontested IPC’s. Always a tough decision there.

Murraymoto,

We are just using the sims to get a “firepower/unit cost” value assessment. Nobody here would make those kind of attacks unless desperation called for it. Unfortunately, desperation seems to call for it much more often than I would like.

I guess you could also use the sims to do calculations on an attack one might actually launch, to see what units generate a better result.

Examples: Attacker: 5 Inf, 5 Art, 3 Fig, 1 Bom. v. Defender: 10 Inf, 2 Arm.

or
Attacker: 5 Inf, 4 Arm, 3 Fig, 1 Bom. v. Defender: 10 Inf, 2 Arm.

In this example, we see that the first attack with 5 Art has a 90% survival rate, while the same attack with 4 Arm instead has an 82% survival rate. However, to illustrate my point about mobility: if you have been building all Art, what you’ve got for the attack is what’s in the territory. That’s easy for the enemy to see and to prepare against. But if you have some Armor floating around the back, you can add more.

Suppose just 2 more Arm are in range. Throw these into the attack and suddenly you have a 98% survival rate. With artillery that’s just not an option.

The reason D-Day worked is that the Germans didn’t know where the Allies would land - so they had to spread out their coastal defences. Having a bunch of Armor does the same thing - you could potentially strike a number of places, so the enemy has to choose between spreading out their defence, or selecting a few territories to just sacrifice.

Tanks add a huge dynamic element and introduce a lot of tactics. It’s a completely different war if the enemy isn’t sure where you’ll attack. If you have 5 Art in the Balkans, they can hit Ukraine and that’s about it, and the enemy knows it. If you have 4 Armor there, they also have the option of hitting Karelia. And some opponents might not realize that your tanks in the Balkans and your Infantry in Germany (with baltic transports) and your tanks in Germany and Ukraine can all hit Karelia. You might have a defensive force in Eastern Europe that they’re not so worried about, but add in all that other stuff and you can rout them.

Sure, the Allies might take EE and Ukraine from you, but if you kill 50 IPCs of gear in Karelia for a cost of only 18 IPCs yourself, those few IPC territories are nothing in comparison - especially as your tanks can swoop back down from Karelia to retake Ukraine or whatever and kill whatever the hapless allies happened to put in their, thinking you were now way far away up north.

I don’t even really follow my ratio thing, it was just something I worked on to figure out the cheapest and most effective way to build an army that is good on off and def regardless of what you are attacking or what is attacking you.

In reality, I’ll buy an rt here or there early if I have the extra 1 ipc, otherwise it is inf with maybe 1-2 arm (for ger or rus), all inf (for jap), inf + air (uk and us).

For Rus, I like arm b/c you can threaten a lot from Wrus or Cauc, and if I need some quick punch as Ger or Jap approaches then I can buy a few rt if I think they may help in a strafe or something.

For Germany, I like being able to get from Ger to Ukr in 1 move and threaten WE from EE so I need the 2 move of the arm.  Plus I can load up on Rt if I take Cauc and quickly double some of my inf power.  I usually have about 3-4 rt, so one purchase of another 3-4 puts me at 6+ and I’ll usually be overloaded with armor but it seems to work.

For UK and US - I like inf + air early then depending on how income shapes up I’ll start going 5 inf, 3 arm (or rt) for UK and 6 inf, 2 rt (or arm) for US + air.

For Japan, I go inf early, unless I have the extra IPC, then once I get my IC’s I throw in 2 arm per IC b/c I like to be able to move form Man to Sin in one move and then Sin to Cauc/Mos in one move.

@froodster:

Tanks add a huge dynamic element and introduce a lot of tactics. It’s a completely different war if the enemy isn’t sure where you’ll attack. If you have 5 Art in the Balkans, they can hit Ukraine and that’s about it, and the enemy knows it. If you have 4 Armor there, they also have the option of hitting Karelia. And some opponents might not realize that your tanks in the Balkans and your Infantry in Germany (with baltic transports) and your tanks in Germany and Ukraine can all hit Karelia. You might have a defensive force in Eastern Europe that they’re not so worried about, but add in all that other stuff and you can rout them.

Sure, the Allies might take EE and Ukraine from you, but if you kill 50 IPCs of gear in Karelia for a cost of only 18 IPCs yourself, those few IPC territories are nothing in comparison - especially as your tanks can swoop back down from Karelia to retake Ukraine or whatever and kill whatever the hapless allies happened to put in their, thinking you were now way far away up north.

Yeah, tanks in a good enough supply and in the right places can really force some good deadzones, for Germany in particular.

Armor. or tanks.

So for Japan, if they are going to assault Moscow, would it be better to have some art along with the stack of inf and arm?  Or should I just have enough inf to screen my large stack of tanks?