German Builds

One problem I have with NPB’s analysis:

This is a thread about german builds, with earlier posts regarding specifically G1, G2, G3 builds.  Good analysis on Russian builds, but of limited us here.

@newpaintbrush:

@squirecam:

@newpaintbrush:

Let us say that your opponent is defending a territory with ONE infantry.  Optimally, you would attack with two infantry and a fighter, but say that option is not available.  So if you have artillery, then you can chance a 2 2 battle against a 2.  Not spectacular, but superior to 1 1 against a 2.

However, remember that your opponent will counterattack on the next turn.  Although you have the advantage on cost-efficient attack, artillery are no better than infantry on defense, and cost more.

So admittedly, artillery are cost-efficient when fighters are NOT readily available to EITHER side.  However, artillery still face the not inconsiderable problem of needing to be mobilized, as well as the problem of the opponent probably having fighters to counterattack, trading infantry for artillery.

Not entirely true.

USSR has 2 fighters. You could expend 10 IPC and buy a third. But even there, Russia may be trading several 2+ IPC territories. (Novo, Kazak, Arc, WR, Belo, Karelia, UKR, etc)

You can buy, with 24 IPC, 8 Inf or 4 Inf 3 Art.

You can swap THREE 2 IPC territories using these 3 art, (2 more than you could if you bought a fighter.)

Assuming you win, you gain TWO EXTRA “2 IPC” territories. (+4 total). This +4 makes up for the “inf” you lost by buying 7 units vs 8.

So, you GAIN IPC by attacking MORE 2+ IPC territories than you would if you stick to “2I+F” attack combos.

There are downsides too, but your analysis stated buying ART was a bad idea when it clearly is a good one.

Squirecam

1.  What I wrote was long, but not really a proper analysis.  If I ever write a proper analysis, it will read like a tree, with various branches depending on what your opponent does, and more branches describing viable options, and even more branches describing nonviable options and WHY those options don’t work.

2.  My summation was "In sum - I think artillery are useful enough to build, but the problem of infantry casualties means that artillery should only be produced in very limited numbers."  I do not say that buying ART is a bad idea.  I say buying LOTS of ART is a bad idea.

3.  I feel I was misquoted, as I stated that artillery and infantry are a viable attack option in place of two infantry and fighter, when attacking a 2+ IPC territory held by 1 infantry.

4.  To clarify the situation, I assume that I will have at least one tank at West Russia, plus a considerable Russian stack, with two fighters at Moscow; not just on R2, but probably R3+.  In such a situation, I anticipate that Germany will leave various of the Karelia, Belorussia, and Ukraine territories defended with 1-2 infantry (in which case the Russian counter is to attack with 1 more infantry plus fighter).  Russia only has two fighters, and there are three territories under contention, but I will typically use UK and/or US to trade Karelia with Germany, leaving only TWO territories (matching Russia’s two fighters).

I assume that Germany will not have the opportunity to break through the West Russian-supported line (i.e. the contesting of the three territories Karelia, Belorussia, and Ukraine), with the exception of if Japan risks its air to clear a territory, in which case Japan is closing in on Moscow, and the Allies are probably forced to retreat anyways.  The only other possibility is if Germany has somehow managed to secure Caucasus and/or Archangel, undermining the West Russian position, but in that case, Russia is probably better served by defense than attack - so once again, infantry/artillery will be inferior to infantry/tanks.

If the board were different, I anticipate artillery would be a lot more useful.  As it is, though, I think they are of LIMITED use.  (NOT USELESS; LIMITED USE)

1. “very limited numbers”. That pretty much means “I suggest you dont buy em, its not a good idea”. At least, it does in english.

2. How were you misquoted when I quoted you directly??

3. You can trade 3 territories in Europe, but also 2 vs Japan (Novo/kaz). This makes 5 possible swaps, but only 2 fighters.

4. Dont fight me. Just accept my keen insights and analysis, and you’ll live a much happier life. :)

Squirecam

I think myself, Darth, and others have previously posted (perhaps not this thread but in others) as to the “ideal ratios” of INF/ART/ARM in Revised.  And for the most part, they apply to any concentrated land power (i.e. Russia and Germany).

Heavy ART buys are generally NOT a good idea (except in preparation for a break-out by either Germany or Russia after a period of INF build up in core territory).

Much argument remains as to the best balance, but somewhere in the 3-1-1 to 5-1-1 range seems to be the concensus.

I agree, Its hard to have absolute equations in a game that has so many variables like A&A, hell even chess could be the same way.

-LT04

My concern with having equal numbers of attacking and fodder pieces (ie 5 each in Jen’s ratio) is that your fodder is first to go, and you end up exposing your offensive pieces to counterattack.  I suppose it depends as much on your style of play (and your opponents) as anything else (ie. how aggressive are you, do you prefer to strafe or take, etc).  For me I think I prefer to have a few more fodder pieces if possible - 3-1-1 or 4-1-1 probably, or maybe 4-1.5-1 (ie. 8/3/2).  I think it’s pretty easy to “math it to death”.

@squirecam:

1. “very limited numbers”. That pretty much means “I suggest you dont buy em, its not a good idea”. At least, it does in english.

2. How were you misquoted when I quoted you directly??

3. You can trade 3 territories in Europe, but also 2 vs Japan (Novo/kaz). This makes 5 possible swaps, but only 2 fighters.

4. Dont fight me. Just accept my keen insights and analysis, and you’ll live a much happier life. :)

Squirecam

1. Limited numbers means limited numbers.  I can’t help it if you insist on misinterpreting me.  Maybe you didn’t understand what I originally wrote.

2.  “but your analysis stated buying ART was a bad idea when it clearly is a good one.” is a misquote.  I never stated anything of the sort.  Which I am sure you will come to realize, if you reread the post I wrote.

3.  You think you should trade against Japan for 1 IPC territories?

4.  What, me worry?

I think he was talking about trading 2 IPC territories with Japan (Novisibirsk and Kazakh)

@rjclayton:

I think he was talking about trading 2 IPC territories with Japan (Novisibirsk and Kazakh)

Yeah, come to think of it, those are 2 IPC territories.  I wasn’t paying attention.

However, I do not think that Russia TRADES Novo or Kazakh for long.  Japanese forces build up pretty fast; once Novosibirsk falls, I don’t see Russia reclaiming it more than once or perhaps twice.  (My guess is that by the time Novosibirsk falls, one of two will be true; either Russia will still be holding Germany at West Russia, so won’t have enough to counterattack a moderately held Novosibirsk (note that if Russia DID have a lot in Russia instead of West Russia, I don’t think Japan would commit to Novosibirsk).  OR, Russia will be holed up in Moscow, while Japan builds up.

Also, most of what I’ve been writing recently in this thread has been OT.

tee heez.