Artillery

artillery is very important for attacking opponents, 6 infantry attack at 6@1 at a cost of 18, while 3 artillery, 3 infantry attack at 6@2 at a cost of 21,
for defensive reinforcement infantry are the obvious choice, i always build artillery and infantry at a 50/50 ratio, when attacking with 10 infantry, 4 artillery is a great back up, because the attack would be 6@1 8@2, and when casualties are counted the 4 artillery still increases the infantry attack to the last unit, for large scale attacks a ratio of 33% is a good build to attack land units, if there are fighters defending, armor would be needed to increse the overall attack strenght,
building too much artillery is counter productive, I.P.C. could be used to build armor and fighters when too much artillery are purchased,
a player needs just 50% infantry, 50% artillery to get the highest attack values,
and if a player has advanced artillery the need for artillery decreases to 33% to get the highest attack values,

@hakan:

Thanks for all comments.

@Funcioneta:

Art should be purchased in those cases:

1. USSR needs having a couple just in case they have not enough aircraft to trade
2. Germany takes Caucasus and prepares the final assault on Moscow (build 4 art in that IC)
3. You receive improved artillery tech and you have many land fronts

Yes, this is also under this premisses I should build. And yes Jennifer, I agree that now when USSR don’t start with any fighter, there is a much stronger reason for Russia to have a couple of artillery! (However, last game I actually got a fighter quite early for trade off.)

But… Isn’t it possible to somehow calculate this a little bit? Let’s say, for example, that you will attack a territory with 30 inf (90 IPC). At what “stack cost” do you have to beat this stack 70% of the times?

a) 46 inf (138 IPC)
b) 26 arm (130 IPC)
c) 32 art (128 IPC)
d) 26 inf + 8 arm (118 IPC)
e) 16 inf + 16 art (112 IPC)

Surly, the cheapest stack is inf+art in different combination, but it’s not that big difference if you compare it to the inf+arm stack. And with panzer you have the flexibility. So, I don’t know. It’s quite even steven…

I used to think that a sound combination would be some 70% infantry and 30% panzer, but I might start buying a few artillery after all. Perhaps a combo with inf+art+arm is the best after all?

I did this for Revised a while ago but it still holds for AA50, so with all things being equal the cheapest most effective and versatile army is somewhere between a 3/1/1 ratio and a 4/1/1 where it is inf/rt/arm.

This is obviously not perfect b/c ignored ftrs, bombers, your starting units, and your opponents ability to counter or strafe stacks prior to getting to the front lines etc.

But as a simple guideline, if you’re looking to build a versatile army that is good on Off and Def go with a 3/1/1 or 4/1/1.  I tend to skew a bit higher b/c real game conditions aren’t the same so I tend to buy in a 5/1/1 ratio or higher since you of course already have planes on the board and other starting units.

If I’m going to be using Infantry on the attack I like to have 1 Artillery for every 3 Infantry.  But this also goes along with 1 or 2 armour for each 3 infantry as well.  The infantry to soak up hits but not be completely worthless on the attack with the artillery support.  1-2 tanks for each stack of 3 Infantry as well.  Of course I’ll have some air power as well to really give some punch to the attack.

Thats the thing I like about artillery.  For a small extra you give your cannon fodder a lot more bite.
Diversified armys have served me best in most situations but then again with the distance it needs to cover, Japan seems best suited to pick up armor.

@d142:

artillery is very important for attacking opponents, 6 infantry attack at 6@1 at a cost of 18, while 3 artillery, 3 infantry attack at 6@2 at a cost of 21,
for defensive reinforcement infantry are the obvious choice, i always build artillery and infantry at a 50/50 ratio, when attacking with 10 infantry, 4 artillery is a great back up, because the attack would be 6@1 8@2, and when casualties are counted the 4 artillery still increases the infantry attack to the last unit, for large scale attacks a ratio of 33% is a good build to attack land units, if there are fighters defending, armor would be needed to increse the overall attack strenght,
building too much artillery is counter productive, I.P.C. could be used to build armor and fighters when too much artillery are purchased,
a player needs just 50% infantry, 50% artillery to get the highest attack values,
and if a player has advanced artillery the need for artillery decreases to 33% to get the highest attack values,

You only build art/inf in a 50/50 split?  You’re out of your mind.  Sure if you only use those artillery in large attacks where you over power your opponent, the 50/50 split is the best bet.  However, that build is horrible for trading territories or building in a battle that will last many rounds, as infantry heavy battles tend to do.

true, but the 50-50 is great for the 1 round strafe =) (please note i’m not advocating it)

i would use the 50/50 split for small scale attacks, or to pick off territories along the way, for large scale attacks i would use 20% - 40% artillery, if i had a lot of hit at 3 or 4 units artillery would be less used,

building 1 infantry, 1 artillery is as good as 2 artillery, for 1 I.P.C. less, and if advanced artillery has been achieved, 2 infantry, 1 artillery is as good a s 3 artillery for 2 I.P.C. less

DM’s got a point.

Just because the ratio is good, does not mean you’ll actually have the ratio by the time you get to battle unless you distort the ratio to account for losses along the way. (ie 5/1/1 if you want 3/1/1 at the end, or even 4/2/1 if you think you might have to divert an artillery to trading and want 3/1/1 at the end.)

The amphibious point raised by someone else is also appropriate.  2@2 = 4 punch; 1@1 + 1@3 = 4 Punch.  However, there are times that the armor is a better choice.

If you have Infantry + Artillery vs 2 Defending Infantry, you have a 45% chance of getting one hit, or 10% chance of getting two hits in one round of battle. (Average over 10,000 games.)  This translates to a chance to win the battle of only 45% over 2.6 rounds.

If you have Infantry + Armor vs 2 Defending Infantry, you have a 50% chance of getting one hit, or 9% chance of getting two hits in one round of battle. (again, average over 10,000 games.)  This translates to a chance to win the battle of only 51% over 2.5 rounds.

So the odds are slightly better that your Infantry + Armor will win than your Infantry + Artillery will win.

Obviously you normally bring more to the mix if the defender has two infantry, so we can run it again with only one defender:

Infantry + Artillery (10,000 games, to the death) = 87% odds (with 52% chance of having no losses.)

Infantry + Armor (10,000 games, to the death) = 91% odds (with 55% chance of having no losses.)

These differences might seem negligent to some, but they do add up over time.  Furthermore, the armor defending against the counter attack is significantly more powerful than the artillery.

As for me, I find Russia generally has more artillery than 3/1/1.  It’s closer to 9/6/2 because I need that artillery to tade territories.

Likewise, because of their massive income; Japan and Germany skew differently with something like 9/1/4.  (Germany can only build 10 units guys, 5 Infantry + 5 Armor = 40 IPC.  Even that isn’t enough to use up all the cash most of the time!)

I finally found my analysis for “best army” for Revised:

@DarthMaximus:

Okay, I ran some analysis and I used a LL system for hits (and simplicity), both attacker and defender hit on 3 and above.

Also I used 60 IPC for total IPC to spend b/c it is easily divisible by 3, 4, and 5 and allows enough units for a couple rds of battle but not too many.

I did three groupings:
#1 -  Inf/Rt/Arm
#2 -  Inf/Rt
#3 -  Inf/Arm

And tried to find the optimum buy for each grouping.
For #1, I started with 20 inf (60) then moved down in the following increments:
20/0/0
17/1/1
14/2/2
11/3/3
8/4/4
5/5/5
2/6/6

And I had each category attack all the other categories.  So for example, I did 20 inf attack 20 inf, then 20 inf attack 17/1/1, then 20 inf attack 14/2/2…etc.  then I did the same for 17/1/1 and 14/2/2…etc.

The combo that did the most damage to the most categories was the grouping of:  11/3/3.
It did the most damgae but tied with the 5/5/5 in the category of attacking 20 inf and 17/1/1.  Both left 8 inf and 7/1/1 behind in each respective category.
but the 11/3/3 eeked out slight wins in the other 5 categories for this group.

Now for the Inf/Rt groupings using the same method I tried:

20/0/0
16/3/0
12/6/0
8/9/0
4/12/0
0/15/0

And here I came out with both the 12/6/0 and 8/9/0 grouping each winning 3 categories, with the 12/6/0 doing the most damage (or taking with the most units) against 20/0/0, 12/6/0, and 0/15/0 and the 8/9/0 grouping doing better against 16/3/0, 8/9/0, and 4/12/0.

Now for the Inf/Arm groupings I used:
20/0/0
15/0/3
10/0/6
5/0/9
0/0/12

And this was pretty clear cut as the 10/0/6 grouping did slightly more damage to each category.

Now finally I took the best from each category to squared off, so I had:

11/3/3
12/6/0
8/9/0
10/0/6

And did the same thing and found that:
The 11/3/3 won 2 and tied in 1
The 12/6/0 tied in 2
The 8/9/0 tied in 1
The 10/0/6 performed the weakest against the others.

So what does this all mean?

I think certainly in could be used to back up the idea of keeping the 3/1/1 to 4/1/1 ratio for land units as both being good offensively to take on almost any style of army and being pretty good on defense too.
Although, the mostly inf breakdowns whether it was 20/0/0, 17/1/1, or another mix with a high % of Inf dominated the defensive aspect.  You really can’t beat Inf for defense at the cost of 3 IPC.

I was kind of surprised by the 8/9/0 one, but I guess it makes sense since you instantly double the power of inf, but I still think the 1-1 is not the way to go, but the 12/6/0 also did pretty good.  I’ve never really given rt a fair chance but I may consider it more in the future if I don’t need the rapid movement.  Maybe load up on rt in the early rds and save armor for the mid to late rds when you may need quick movement.

I am still of the opinion that Armor’s mobility and increased defense is generally well worth the 25% increase in cost over artillery.  Artillery is a situational unit, IMO.

@hakan:

Thanks for all comments.

But… Isn’t it possible to somehow calculate this a little bit? Let’s say, for example, that you will attack a territory with 30 inf (90 IPC). At what “stack cost” do you have to beat this stack 70% of the times?

d) 26 inf + 8 arm (118 IPC)
e) 16 inf + 16 art (112 IPC)

Surly, the cheapest stack is inf+art in different combination, but it’s not that big difference if you compare it to the inf+arm stack. And with panzer you have the flexibility. So, I don’t know. It’s quite even steven…

I redesigned this a little bit

Defender: 30 Inf

Attacker A = 26 Inf + 8 Arm (118 IPC) ; 34 units, defense 76 - offense 50
Attacker B = 22 Inf + 13 Art (118 IPC);  35 units, defense 70 - offense 61

So we see the big difference immediately - tank + inf are better in defense, but worse in offense

A realistic result of that battles is:

Attacker A wins - 7 Arm remaining (7 units, defense 21 - offense 21)
Attacker B wins - 12 Art remaining (12 units, defense 24 - offense 24)

a clear edge for the Inf/art combo

Anyway, in AA50 there are nations that are limited in their income and even with NOs they are not really rich. These nations are: USSR, Italy and UK.

For Italy 10 IPC - 2 inf + 1 Art is much better then 2 Arm

For Russia 30 IPC may be 4 inf, 2 Art, 2 Arm. As Italy, USSR is short on money, art is a perfect buy for potential offense.

For UK it’s clever to build 1 inf + 1 art for the transports. Save that money as Uk for other purpose, an eventual IC in Norway in Round 4 might be such an idea. But in that round, when buying such an IC, UK still has to buy new inf + art for the next round, so saving some funds is necessary to buy both, IC and units. Later, when UK having 4 transports and enough money, 4 inf + 4 arm are surely better for a landing in France to prevent an Italian counter due to the better defense rating. UK wants Germany to strike back in France and so stop the reinforcements to the eastern front. Once Italy is too weak to capture France after an UK landing, the allies gain the initiative. But early on, use that UK income wisely.

For Germany, US and Japan with high income and a strong air power from the beginning, inf + tanks are superior to inf + artillery.

Good analysis but it still leaves out a huge advantage of armour.  The movement of 2 territories instead of 1.  All the pieces have a place and a balance seems to serve best.

If we compare artilly vs armor, the tank only cost one more ipc, and can move 2 spaces. It defends and attacks @3, while the artillery defends and attacks @2. Even with the infantry boost the artilley unit is not as powerful as the tank.

Would you buy infantry if it cost 6 ipc? All other units are the same, would you buy only infs for ground units?

It has the same attack/defend values, but it moves 10 spaces….I think I would not buy tanks and artillery if infantry cost 6, attack @1 defend @2 and move 10 spaces…

@Nickiow:

@Subotai:

If we compare artilly vs armor, the tank only cost one more ipc, and can move 2 spaces. It defends and attacks @3, while the artillery defends and attacks @2. Even with the infantry boost the artilley unit is not as powerful as the tank.

Actually the cost per point of  is exactly the same,when done in combination with INF, you just have to spend more to obtain the ARM to get exactly the same % chance of a hit as purchasing ART.

yes but if you loose the inf you also loose the boost round 2.  usually the 1inf you “loose” purchasing 3art is more than worth it. im not saying buying 3 art a round is good. but having a handful of art on the board prooves useful. i love my UK art in IND :D

@Subotai:

If we compare artilly vs armor, the tank only cost one more ipc, and can move 2 spaces. It defends and attacks @3, while the artillery defends and attacks @2. Even with the infantry boost the artilley unit is not as powerful as the tank.

Would you buy infantry if it cost 6 ipc? All other units are the same, would you buy only infs for ground units?

It has the same attack/defend values, but it moves 10 spaces….I think I would not buy tanks and artillery if infantry cost 6, attack @1 defend @2 and move 10 spaces…

if i saw germany buyng mostly inf with thoose HR, id go tanks only for russia…. for japan this might be useful. heck, give em infinate movement. who cares…

it is impossible to win at the eastern front with armor alone and no infantry and artillery,
and when building infantry for attack, artillery is nescessary to boost the attack,
if germany builds armor and infantry, russia can pile infantry to the front line and win battles at a fraction of the I.P.C. spend of germany,

if russia defend’s with 2 infantry, for each 1 armor 1 infantry that germany send’s to the front, the cost to build is 6 for russia and 8 for germany, with the hit ratio at 1/6 3/6 for germany, and 2/6/ 2/6/ for russia, with the I.P.C. saved by russia, russia can build armor and fighter’s to increase the defense,

this is where artillery is useful, at a cost of 30 I.P.C. germany can build 4 infantry, 2 artillery, 2 armor,
with a punch of /1/1/2/2/2/2/3/3/ against a russia defense of 5 infantry 3 armor the punch would be /2/2/2/2/2/3/3/3/

take artillery out of the equation and germany would have attack 6 armor, or 5 infantry, 3 armor

/3/3/3/3/3/3/ or /1/1/1/1/1/3/3/3/

the ideal attacking combination ratio would be, 3 infantry, 1 artillery, 2 armor, at a cost of 23, for a large scale attack,
2 -3 group’s would be needed, ideally supported by 2 -3 fighter and 1 -2 bomber,

when dug in defending, infantry are the best option for 1/2 to 2/3 of the build

if the defense is greater than the attack, the attack usually falter’s, because of high value big hitting units being lost to large infantry stacks defending at 2