Tanks

@Crazy:

OK, I knew I should have left in the sentence, Just for Jennifer, That, “THERE ARE NO OTHER UNITS INVOLVED IN THIS BATTLE”.
Also, I gave you the units to be involved on both sides, no variances are allowed.
for my example.
You of course may propose your own example of what you think is the optimum purchase strategy.

And what the hell is an’“unzark tank?” IMHO, Jen, you really need to lay off the sauce when your posting. :roll:

LOL!!  +1 karma Crazy Ivan

@Crazy:

OK, I knew I should have left in the sentence, Just for Jennifer, That, “THERE ARE NO OTHER UNITS INVOLVED IN THIS BATTLE”.
Also, I gave you the units to be involved on both sides, no variances are allowed.
for my example.
You of course may propose your own example of what you think is the optimum purchase strategy.

And what the hell is an’“unzark tank?” IMHO, Jen, you really need to lay off the sauce when your posting. :roll:

Who’s on offense who’s on defense?

If I’m attacking, I may want 5 infantry, 9 tanks
If I’m defending, I may want 15 infantry, 3 tanks.

Such a silly scenario.  Honestly.  If you only have 60 IPCs worth of units on the board, you’ve already lost the game.

And the 3:1:1 may be good, never tried it.  Seems heavy on Artillery for me, and way heavy on tanks. but that’s because I include the number of infantry i need to trade territories in my totals, I’m not using tanks to trade territories unless I have panzerblitz.

Finally:

Zark = good
Unzark = bad

Not my fault you are not caught up with high school lingo….(hey, I don’t wanna be, but I have to work in high schools, you pick this shit up!)

I like to keep an overall troop ratio of 2 inf //2 tank // 1art. As Russia, i use artillery to trade territories, I add tanks if i deem necessary and/or can kill enough ennemy units to get even.

The whole "trade with fighters’’ thing looks nice and all but what will you do once your Russian ennemy advance 3 AA gun on the front line?

Letting Germany use it’s airforce with impunity to trade almost at no cost the 3 frontline territories with a few infantry is a huge tactical error in my book. Especially if you know your opponent is a big fan of fighter-infantry swapping, you need to capitalise on it. Shooting down 1 fighter will pay for any AA investment you might need.

Once you make fighter sorties a risky business and make their ‘‘retreat’’ possibilities less appealing , Tanks becomes better than fighters in many ways:

• They offer as much offensive movement ( a fighter may move 4 but most of the time, half of it is needed to return to owned land.)
• They can stay on the conquered territory
• They can blitz
• You can have 2 of them for a fighter
• They ignore AA guns.
• You can still lose some and replace them.
• They can create dead zones over many territories
• They don’t absolutely rely on infantry fodder, i say fodder because for me that’s what infantry is.

If i build additional fighters, it’s because i need to ship reinforcement fast to an ally or to use them at sea defnesively or to assist an amphibious force.  On land, tanks are strong.

@U-505:

Darth Maximus came up with a ratio of 3:1:1 (inf, art, arm) a long time ago and, as a general rule, that has been arguably the best I’ve seen.

Yeah, I think I used 60 ipc to test all possible armies.  I think the 11/3/3 army did they best against all the others (won the most categories of off and def).  So, anything from the 3/1/1 to 4/1/1 is the most efficient way to build and army that is good on both Off and Def.  However, if you are strickly looking for defense you can’t beat Inf Only at 3 ipc per inf, and I believe the Inf/Rt with a 1:1 ratio scored very high on Offense only, but I was only dealing with 60 ipc which would be between 12 and 20 units per army.

Oh yeah, Tanks are Strong!

The longer the battle, the MORE important high punch units are.  In a short battle, those high dollar, high punch units have less overall impact (unless it is a single round battle where the high value unit is again worthwhile).

FIGs on defense in particular, when protected by hordes of INF, will kill about 3 enemy units every 4 rounds of battle.  So once you hit Round 4 or 5, the FIG is paid for :-)

@ncscswitch:

The longer the battle, the MORE important high punch units are.  In a short battle, those high dollar, high punch units have less overall impact (unless it is a single round battle where the high value unit is again worthwhile).

FIGs on defense in particular, when protected by hordes of INF, will kill about 3 enemy units every 4 rounds of battle.  So once you hit Round 4 or 5, the FIG is paid for :-)

[devil’s advocate :evil:]
  But wouldn’t two tanks have likely killed 4 infs instead of 3 for the same 10 ipc in the same 4 round battle?  And allow you to absorb 2 hits return fire instead of 1?
[/devil’s advocate :evil:]

Regarding ratios, I think an important distinction is the difference between the ratio of purchases and the ratio of troops in a key/decisive battle.  If you’re shedding inf while trading or while you are advancing your stack, you need to buy a lot more than 3:1 infs to tanks in order to have that ratio once you hit your ultimate target.

Hence the point of the “Infantry” thread I started earlier  :-D

The problem I find with AA Guns are they are double edged swords.  What if your enemy is like me, over her fear of losing fighters to AA Guns?  Now she takes all your AA Guns with Germany and Russia’s forced to dedicate tanks instead of fighters out of fear of losing valuable fighters?

Remember, Germany can easily recover from the loss of a fighter, and if she attacks 3 AA Guns with 3 Fighters we’re talking about a 50% chance of losing a fighter (not running the numbers, but 3 shots with a 1 in 6 chance should be 50% give or take.)  So each round Germany can count on a 5 IPC loss to AA Fire, but Germany’s earning 40 IPC or more.  And, to make matters worse, the Germans can still retreat those planes denying Russia and the Allies a chance to kill them, AND, they can use them as threat to attack enemy shipping still, forcing the allies to concentrate their naval forces.