Cost effectiveness of ground units in P40

dinosaur

While having a conversation about cruisers, we have been diverted into discussing artillery, armor, mechs and infantry. There is enough discussion that I think we should devote a thread to the topic rather than hijack the cruiser discussion, which I think is a good thing to discuss on its own.

I do not have AA50 nor AA42. If this has been analyzed to death in one of those fora, I appologize.

For my part, I wonder if Armor at $6 will get us back to a variation of the Infantry Push Mechanic from the early days of Axis and Allies. I haven’t done a statistical study of it. I hope the playtesters studied it enough to determine we will still see a variety of ground units, especially with the FMG units about to go on sale. (If you don’t know what FMG units are, check out this thread. http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=13894.0 )

On the surface, it looks to me that a combination of artillery, leg infantry and mech infantry will produce the best results. The reason for this is the armor price going up one more IPC is a substantial increase. However, this does not mean I think armor are not valuable. They are certainly valuable. The only question is are they worth more than $5 IPC. Armor have speed. Speed is valuable. But mech infantry also have speed. It could be possible that armor might be properly priced for the Germans and Italians, but too high for most of the Allies. On the other hand, since a transport can only bring two units, armor may be advisable for many Allied adventures. For example, would you want to hit North Africa with 3 Infantry and 3 Armor, or 3 Infantry and 3 Artillery? If you only have three transports, you can not compare the 3 Infantry/Armor to an alternative buy with $27 IPCs. Armor will have a place in the game, but will it be a niche unit at $6 IPCs?

Omega

Before starting any debate, why don’t someone tell us the rule about Mech infantry. I believe I have read somewhere that Mech Inf requires a tech to blitz. If so, it changes your introduction.

We do not have any objective criteria on which we can determine whether an unit is worth its price.

I’m just going to say this :
How often do you think you can win a battle of ART + INF against INF? If the game turns into an INF battle, then it will be a dice game, or a WWI game (where the biggest army had the better chance of winning).
Tank, Planes are offensive units. They will be the gun behind the infantry. I think I have shown the advantage and disadvantage of both Tank, INF and Plane. Each has their purpose. To say that the cost alone obsolete a unit is an early statement. At the moment, we only have AA40p. We do not know how the game will be with AA40E.

Vareel

Mech move 2, mech paired with arm can blitz, mech are boosted by art.

I feel the new tactic will be a large inf/art buys followed by mostly mech inf buys, but I could be wrong. I know it works well for India in aa40P.

maverick_76

I think that armor will have a big resurgence in the European theater of the game. True that artillery and infantry are better buys in the pacific theater, but when Europe comes around where the majority of units bought will be land, we cannot forget the boost that Tactical bombers get when paired with an armor unit. I think that armor will become the big buy on the Russian front as well as on the French front in Europe. And when the games will be combined, how can anyone dispute the power of armor when Japan is trying to attack Russia from behind? I think everyone has forgotten about that.

Uncle_Joe

For the Pacific, it’s pretty clear that armor has limited uses. There simply isnt enough ground to cover to warrant it and in addition, there are a LOT of planes around to deliver combat power.

For Europe, it will depend largely on the map IMO. The bigger the map, the more useful it will be. One other thing to consider is the income level and the production capacities of the nations. If Germany makes 50+ IPCs a turn and only has 1 factory (for 10)? Well, in that case armor looks a little more attractive than trying to mass up Mech or Infantry.

One other factor would be how heavy the airpower is. The more airpower there is available, the less useful armor will be. Airpower can support an infantry attack and be safely off the line. Armor has to sit in the newly taken space and withstand enemy counter-attacks.

So I’d say at this point it’s not possible to make a good evalutation of how useful ‘x’ or ‘y’ ground unit is. Clearly in the Pacific armor is a luxury, not a necessity.

maverick_76

Again though, the combination of armor and tactical bombers vs. fighters and tactical bombers is cheaper, so I really see armor becoming a huge influence in the Europe game.

Bob_A_Mickelson

@maverick_76:

Again though, the combination of armor and tactical bombers vs. fighters and tactical bombers is cheaper, so I really see armor becoming a huge influence in the Europe game.

Agreed

Uncle_Joe

Again though, the combination of armor and tactical bombers vs. fighters and tactical bombers is cheaper, so I really see armor becoming a huge influence in the Europe game.

I hope so. :) What would a WW2 European war be like without masses of tanks on the Eastern Front!

Tavenier

If Europe was released now and not pacific, then we would have the same discussion on carriers, probably. Germany, Russia and Italy won’t buy too much carriers, I pressume. Especially now it costs 16.

The tac bombers will ensure European armies will have panzers and probably a lot of mech inf. In Pacific I hardly buy these.

maverick_76

And if you think about it, in real life the powers followed in much the same way. When island hopping, the most units used were artillery and infantry. The power units were air units. In the European theater, armor and mechanized infantry with air support were the units that got the job done, with some more infantry and artillery to support as well. I think the game has done a wonderful job to recreate the problems and strategies that were used in real life, which is why I like this game so much.

dinosaur

I thought some folks would throw more specific comments in about the benefit in relation to cost for the units. For example, in a slug-fest between two opposing factories, I think Artillery combined with about two Infantry each will make a good tough core force. I would expect to see a group of armor mingled with the core fighting groups, and a group of TAC bombers to match. At 7 IPCs, a pair of Infantry/Artillery deliver a good punch. It would be nice to have a couple extra infantry to absorb defense blows to protect those artillery, so I figure 2 Inf per Arty is a good starting point.

In the earliest stages of the game, mech infantry and armor buys may be key to get some support onto the front lines when there is a piece of key terrain you want to get early. After that, unless your supply lines get too long, I suspect to see few mech infantry buys and only a few armor buys to match TAC bombers.

Surprisingly, I expect to see Japan build a factory in Manchuria, followed buy many mech infantry and armor buys to chase Russia and pick up some IPCs from their wide open spaces. I also expect this to change the way the war is fought in China, but that is another subject.

I hope to have the time to publish a numeric analysis of the units here. I would hope folks would respect that the analysis is strictly an academic what-if and not a defenitive “buy strategy.” It should guide some folks to keep them from getting too far off the reservation though.

Cost effectiveness of ground units in P40

Featured Topics

T-shirts, Hats, and More

Suggested Topics

Can aircraft make noncombat move thru friendly neutral if land units move into it on the same turn?

P40 Strategy Outline(s)

Air units can participate in sea battle or coastal attack: I don't get it

Bought p40

Unit placements that make no sense

Japan Takes Western United States on Turn 4

P40 Battle Calculator

MOVED: solving the biggest problem: an army with all types of units

77

17.3k

39.9k

1.7m