I’ve switched to the Green Bay Packers

I need help I’m playing as the axis in a spring 42 ame.

Is a g4 declaration of war viable in alpha3 and if so why or why not

@thatonekid:

ill play axis, but i DONT want tech, ESPECIALLY if you can choose. bcuz an america with improved shipyards is just terrible!!!

I am so sorry but tech with choosing will remain

@TheDefinitiveS:

Hey hows it going. Im keen for Axis if thats alright. I prefer to have the option of tech (not that I use it that often) but really not too worried if its not there. Plus all moves typed ,combat, non combat etc, just helps for fault finding etc.

1. Axis is ok
2. Tech is ok if we get to choose our tech that we develop.

@Bunnies:

Infantry, period.

Let’s say I’m attacking you with a horde of tanks.  Let’s say you have a load of infantry.

My 5 IPC tank attacks on 3, your 3 IPC infantry defends on 2.  For each dice pip, I pay 1.67 IPCs.  For each dice pip, you pay 1.5 IPCs.  You got the better deal.  For each casualty I take, I lose 5 IPCs of units.  For each casualty you take, you lose 3 IPCs of units.  Every unit I lose costs me 166% of the cost it costs you.

Oh, but that’s just DEFENSE, you say.  Tanks are SURELY better for offense.

No.

5 inf 3 tanks (30 IPC) attack 7 infantry.  74% success rate, average survivors:  3 tanks (15 IPC) (when they DO win)
6 tanks (30 IPC) attack 7 infantry.  57% success rate, average survivors 2 tanks (when they DO win)

So you see, when you have equal values of units attacking, the fact that infantry are cheap makes a big difference.  You can afford more of them, so they can absorb more hits.  In the example battles, an infantry-tank mix had a higher success rate for a battle, and higher expected IPC value of survivors, than a simple tank-heavy build.

Tanks have a logistic advantage that cannot be denied. Some game plans (tank dash to Moscow) use almost nothing but tanks.  Tanks are great for Africa.  Tanks are great for Germany, when it needs to switch between defense of Eastern and Western Europe, or for the final push on Moscow, when later-produced piles of tanks catch up to earlier-produced piles of infantry for a rather nasty combined arms attack.  But with all that can be said for the tank, infantry are undeniably useful for offense AND defense.

So that’s my feeling on infantry and tanks.  Infantry are always useful, in greater or lesser quantities, so long as you can GET THEM TO THE BATTLE.  Tanks are the hitting power that are protected by an infantry shield that soaks up hits; tanks also have a great logistic advantage with their move of 2.

Artillery are useful in some situations, but I don’t use them a lot except with Russia.  For Russia, they can provide extra attack power that Russia lacks because of its lack of air.  (For example, Russia might want to trade 4 territories on its turn, but with only 2 fighters, its attack power will be lacking.  Tanks are expensive.  So for battles with low numbers, artillery are a cheap alternative.)  For any other power, artillery have the problem that they need to get to the front.  If I had to get artillery to the front, I might as well have produced infantry instead, and tanks later.  Besides, other powers that trade a lot of territories usually have a lot of air (Germany or Japan), or only trade a few territories a turn at most (UK/US).

AA guns are useful to discourage strategic bombing and repeated trading of territory for air-power nations.  For example, if Japan pops an industrial complex on India, and Allied bombers are on Moscow, that India complex should be bombed to pieces if there’s no AA gun.  The Japan player WILL want to use it at full capacity, so a bomber run equates to a free shot on Japan’s economy.  (The only time a bomber shouldn’t hit such a complex is if there’s an even better target - in which case it’s still bad for the other side!)  As far as repeat trade - say the Allies have massive airpower and just a few ground units, and want to trade Western Europe every turn.  If Germany sticks to infantry and artillery to retake Western Europe, and sticks an AA gun on Western Europe, the Allies will have a tough choice.  Either send more ground units and have them bled out by the Germans, or use air power that will be whittled away by the AA gun.  The German player will obviously be bleeding strength into Western Europe heavily, but it IS an option for the German player.

Used to be AA guns were a strategy, with OOB (Out of the Box) Revised “Rockets” technology rules abuse.  No more.

Both sides start out with plenty of AA guns, neither should have to build more.

(edit) - Basically, the idea is, Axis and Allies is a combined arms sort of game; in the sandwich of A&A, infantry are the bread.  Of course, as the Bible says, man cannot live on bread alone.  So if the BIBLE says you should build infantry AND other things, then you had better do it.  Or else.  Dun dun dun . . .  cough fighter bomber carrier sub tank transports (/edit)

It seems to be that artillery is the least useful because they attack and defend at 2 but they yet cost 1 more ipc and have 1 more attack point.

I am looking for 1 allied and 1 axis player.

I am looking for 2 allies and  2 axis players using alpha .2. I will be on the Allies side.

@dezrtfish:

I don’t care if they lose every game I pull for the home town, Arizona Cardinals.  Although I am much happier if they can manage to end the season over .500.

I am a Cardinals fan also, but I’m displaced.

Matthew Stafford, Aaron Rodgers, Andrew Luck, Cam Newton,Tim Tebow, and Robert Griffin III

Of All Time: Kurt Warner