First is, ofcourse, number of units/hits one can take. Have you got a lot more, you’re gonna win. A lot less, you’re gonna loose. If more or less even, proceed to second.
Second, attacking power, number of attack values counted together. Have you got a lot more, you’re gonna win. A lot less, you’re gonna loose. If more or less even, proceed to third.
Third, spreading of attacking power (or: amount of cannon fodder, number of units with little attacking power). Have you got a lot more, you’re gonna win. A lot less, you’re gonna loose. If more or less even, it depends on factors outside the battle itself.
IPC loss: If you’re gonna win, you’re mostly gonna win IPC. If you’re gonna loose, you’re most of the time gonna loose IPC. More detailed IPC information depends on the dice I guess. Note that in ADS games, much depends on the dice, so if you want to be sure you’re gonna win, replace ‘a lot more’ by ‘almost double’.

1)  Does the attacker have equal too or more than the defender in number of infantry?
2)  Are tank and fighter totals in the attacker’s advantage?
3)  How many hits can you take vs how many hits can your defender take? (note:  total number of units + any free hits like battleships that take two hits to sink.)

If you have all 3, then odds are good you will win.

You could adopt the basis for the LL game for doing a quick check during OTB play (Over the board, or Face-to-face).  Add up the attackers dice points and divide by six and subtract that many units from the defender.  Do the same for his side.  For this exercise, I’d only ‘hit’ my opponent with a remainder of five, and I’d ‘take a hit’ with any remainder over two.  Keep doing this until the outcome becomes obvious.  I do this during my opponents turns during OTB play because when the Russians are fighting the Germans, the Jap infantry I want to attack as UK aren’t going anywhere.  Of course, when you’re the Americans thinking about the Japs, you don’t have as much assurance where things will be on your turn.  After you play a few games, you find out that a lot of early turns become very predictable.

I really use this method.  I was looking at a R2 turn the other day and realized the opponent should lose one territroy to my attack in two rounds whether I added the two Russian fighters or not, but those same fighters could be added to a big gamble attack on the Germans facing the Caucasus and turn the odds in my favor, although it was still a big gamble.  I think I had something like 3 inf, 1 tank, and 1 arty facing 3 infantry, 2 tanks and 1 arty, but when I added the two fighters things looked possible.  I ran the attack just to see if I could eliminate the two German tanks knowing whatever was left the Germans would kill on their turn.  I was basically taking a chance that I could trade one Russian tank for two German tanks.

The first round figured this way …
Rus: 3 inf, 1 arty, 1 tank, 2 fighters = 15 pts … 2+ hits
Ger: 3 inf, 1 arty, 2 tanks = 14 pts … 2+ hits

Round two …
Rus: 1 inf, 1 arty, 1 tank, 2 fighters = 13 pts … 2 hits
Ger: 1 inf, 1 arty, 2 tanks = 10 pts … 1+ hits

Round three …
Rus: 1 arty, a tank, 2 fighters = 12 pts … 2 hits
Ger: 2 tanks = 6 pts … 1 hit

Russian wins and leaves 1 arty and 1 tank for the Germans to clobber, but wins 5 extra IPCs from Germany for tank plus IPCs for territory and strategically precluded Germany from attacking the Caucasus on the next turn.

Believe it or not, I am working on a table in Microsoft Excel that will give the odds directly for a battle like this.  Sea battles are harder, but I think I might get that figured out someday.  Land battles are pretty straight forward if you stay organized.  Artillery make things interesting, because if you lose enough infantry the odds change differently as you lose forces than a regular battle.

Good Luck.

I believe he wanted something he could do at a glance without having to run calculations.  He did mention he had access to battle calculators, but I understand that in a F2F game you don’t want to spend 30 hours waiting for your opponent to run every possible battle and figure out the optimal moves (which is why I do better in F2F games then online, since I can pressure my opponent to get a round done before midnight when it’s still noon.)

In that case, it’s just easiest to match up the units by type and make sure you have the advantage in tanks and planes and at least as many attacking infantry as he has defending.  That way you can be relatively sure that you’ll win in the end. (Since each defending infantry lost is a harder hit then each attacking infantry lost.  You lose 1 punch, he loses 2.)

Jen: your criteria (equivalence in inf, superiority in tanks, fighters) are not enough for victory, since inf and fighters have defender’s advantage.
e.g. 10inf 3tnk 2ftr attacking 10inf 2tnk 2ftr. Attackers win 30%, losses 57:38 IPC.

Punch (sum of firepowers; division by 6 unnecessary unless desiring ‘simulation’) and hit count are good guides. Multiplying them (or at least, figuring if your relative advantage in one is more than opponent’s disadvantage in other) is a better approximation.
e.g. 14 inf attacking 10 inf, quite close by Lanchester’s theory. 46% to win from simulator.
Attacker 14 punch * 14 count = 198
Defender 20 punch * 10 count = 200

If there is different ‘skew’ (proportion of good units to cheaper ‘fodder’, including the battleships’ first repairable hit), then my Sum of punches as they decrease with losses is an even better approximation. The best I know, still doable ‘by head’ for small battles.
Attacker 1bmb, 2ftr  10+4+7 = 21
Defender 1btl, 2tra  6+5+4+4 = 19

Another quick tip for ‘safer’ land attacks. Often easy to do ‘in mind’:
Offensive pieces > Defensive pieces
where
Offensive pieces = OPunch / 3 = Fighters(-AA) + Tanks + Arty + Inf/3
Defensive pieces = DPunch / 2 = Inf + Arty + 1.5* Tanks + 2* Fighters

This assures 1.5x superiority in Punch which is plenty. One may win with some inferiority too, if inf fodder is enough.
e.g. 10inf 3tnk 2ftr attacking 10inf 2tnk 2ftr (counterexample for Jen above)
Offensive pieces = 3.33 + 3 + 2 = 8.33
Defensive pieces = 10 + 3 + 4 = 17

but 10inf 8tnk 2ftr attacking 10inf 2tnk 2ftr (the kind of strong ‘superiority’ Jen may have thought)
Offensive pieces = 3.33 + 8 + 2 = 13.33
Defensive pieces = 10 + 3 + 4 = 17
and simulator says attackers win 98.5%.

The delicate situations I have trouble (enough to not recognize when close enough to need checking with a simulator ! ;-)) are defending against overlapping multi-attacker threats (figuring survivors, then defending vs second wave).
Germany MUST know early how many/what areas are defensible from UK+US landing threats, and defend each with enough - esp. vital Germany, and where planes are. LL makes transition from ‘victory forces’ to ‘defeat forces’ much sharper, so any mistake is fatal. Re-adjusting after combat is often too late to change qualitatively…

I’ve found that generally speaking if I have 1 or 2 infantry more then the defender and a superior force of tanks and planes the attacker will win.

I’m NOT saying equal forces, which is what I think you are saying I am intending.

For instance, if you have 15 infantry, 7 tanks, 5 fighters, bomber and are attacking 14 infantry, 4 armor, 3 fighters you have the advantage, even if the punch is close.    The punch only has a difference of 3 in attacker’s favor, but the odds of the entire battle are overwhelmingly in the attacker’s favor!  97% of the time the attacker should win that engagement.

Sure the defending infantry and fighters are stronger than their attacking counter parts, but each hit makes a larger impact on their next round’s ability to defend then each hit against the attacker does.

But if you don’t have the calculator, how would you see this?  Well, as I said, make sure you have almost the same or more infantry as the defender and you out number him in tanks and planes and odds are, you’ll win the engagement.  After all, if you just glanced at the numbers, without realizing the underlying impact of how the dynamic of the battle will probably shift in subsequent rounds, you may think the attack isn’t wise.  And if you were desperate for units it might not be, since odds are you’ll be reduced to 5 tanks, 5 fighters and a bomber.  That’s where the economic aspects of the game come into play and that’s a different discussion.

But as a rule of thumb, it seems to work out well that if you have more or equal infantry to the defender, you have more tanks and more planes than the defender, then you will win the engagement.  Margin is flexible, after all, if you have double the infantry or triple the tanks then you would expect a larger margin then if you only had 20% more.

:-)
Quick and dirty;
I look at how many tanks and planes I have attacking and divide by 3. that is how many hits I predict they will make.
Infantry; divide by 10 if attacking, by 6 if defending, (Of course if Artillary and matching Inf are in the battle, divide by 6 when in the attack).
  I pretty much do this in my head, (which at my age may not be a good thing anymore) but it seems to come out pretty close to the end results after all the die have been thrown, hmm yes, even those that went across the room! :-P

Yea, but Ivan, that’s LL estimating. :P  I am just saying, look at the stacks, if you have the same or more infantry and you out number his tanks and planes, then odds are you will win as the attacker.  Otherwise, you probably will lose.  Requires no counting, no arithmetic or any calculators.

There’s no counting because being off by one or two isn’t a factor.  If he has 7 stacks of 9 infantry and you know you have 200 infantry available, you don’t have to count. :P  If he has 7 stacks of infantry nad you only have 5 stacks, then you don’t have to count either, you know you’re going to get wholloped good.

OK. Any hints to quick-and-dirtify necessary German coastal defences ?
If needed, I’ll get from my archives some sets of numbers to make your heads spin… each area with different numbers of planes that can reach for each side, tanks that can or cannot pour through breach (depending on whether German counterattack seals EEU or not), two levels of US threat to WEU (‘normal’ with one set of transports, or double if disrupting the shuck) etc. etc.

Have more infantry then America and England can possibly bring to attack, make sure you have an AA Gun present and try to keep your fighters in the territory most likely to be attacked since your armor can’t attack Karelia from W. Europe.

as much inf as this easy formula: # defending inf = attacking land units + attacking air units + BB attacks + 1/2/3, depending on how safe you wanna play), complemented by an AA ofcourse. Every 2 ftr in defense allow you to reduce the inf stack by roughly 3.

Well, a little less, Holkann, because the English and American forces cannot attack together, so you can break up their hard hitting units, I think.

@HolKann:

as much inf as this easy formula: # defending inf = attacking land units + attacking air units + BB attacks + 1/2/3, depending on how safe you wanna play), complemented by an AA ofcourse. Every 2 ftr in defense allow you to reduce the inf stack by roughly 3.

Thanks, this is roughly OK to the safe side for ONE power threatening (since one can assume landings use 50% inf and 50% arty/tanks). I’d apply it, say to defend Italy vs US alone.
For TWO powers in 1-2 it ignores the major multi-attacker’s disadvantage - so it’s MUCH “too safe”, so it foregoes the chance to hold more land still safely enough. Two equal forces need 1.4x defense, not 2x. If forces are unequal, it’s biased towards the larger force.
And if some landing threats combine with an already existing land force which is inf-heavier (Allied Karelia+landing to German EEU) ?

It’s understandable if I try to hold WEU, Germany and EEU as long as feasible without excessive risk…

Then such calculations give the 50% midpoint, which may be deterrent enough for marginal landings (say two-wave WEU defended only by lots of inf; no planes to be caught there). But for Germany one needs 1% to 10% at most. How to conceive of such safety margins ‘quick-and-dirty’ without getting to gross excesses of forces (say 0.01% for Germany to fall) increasing risks elsewhere ?

You know you’re asking to calculate something complex with simple methods. If you want a safety margin between 1 and 10%, you’ll need a calculator, there’s no other way; there are too many variables to make a simple rule with such precision.
Btw, the formula was indeed for a ±40% margin against one attacker. For double attackers: guess what you’ll have left after the first attack and detract that from the formula. If you want to be safer, throw in more inf, it’s the only simple way. Nobody can tell you how many you would need exactly, so just throw in as many as you think needed +1. That one inf won’t make or break the game.

Quick battle calculation (if not already covered):

Total Attacker “attack” points + number of units = a number
Total Defender “defense” points + number of units = another number.

If one of those numbers if more than 20% greater than the other, that side is the likely winner.  When it gets over 50% greater it is a “safe” battle.

To calculate the points:

of units times what you need to roll to hit with it.

Example:
Attacking with 10 INF, 2 ART, 3 ARM, 2 FIG
Defending with 14 INF, 1 ART, 4 ARM

Attacker points is (8x1)+(4x2)+(5x3)  8+8+15 = 31
Defender points is (15x2)+(4x3)        30+12  =  42
Then add the number of units present to each
31+17=48 for attacker
42+19=61 for defender

Checking against a sim, the odds for the battle are:
Sim concurs that attacker has only a 15% chance to win that fight.

Hey TS.

There is no accurate quick and dirty method, but there are several components you should look at.

1. Count - How many units on each side.  This is the most important metric generally speaking.

2. Punch - As you mentioned, add up the hits-on values (divide by six for expected hits).

3. Skew - The balance within a force that has lower hits-on values protecting higher hits-on values.

Consider this fight: 10inf 10tnk vs. 20 inf.

Count: oCount = 20, dCount = 20
Punch: oPunch = 40, dPunch = 40

So counts and punches are equal.  But the 10inf 10tnk will annhilate the 20inf due to skew (72% win for attacker).  Early in combat, the attacker is losing 1’s while the defender is losing 2’s.

Any quick and dirty method that doesn’t take skew into account won’t be accurate.

Some sample battles for you to look at:
The Baltic UK1 - Run the battle with 2ftr 1bmr vs 1tra 2sub 1des.  Then add a sub or tra for the Germans and watch what happens.  That battle can teach you a lot about tactics (force composition).

Frindo UK1 - Run 3inf 1ftr vs. 2inf 1ftr.  Add an inf or two to watch the changes.

Holler if you want more.

Peace

Skew is an important concept, but unfortunately, it’s hard to quantify.

The most accurate battle-predicting statistic that I know of is to add up your starting punch, plus your punch after taking 1 hit, plus your punch after taking 2 hits, etc, all the way down to when your force is wiped out.  For instance, if you have 2 inf 2 tanks attacking this statistic would be 8+7+6+3 = 24; for 4 inf defending it would be 8+6+4+2=20.  This statistic shows the advantage of skew.  Also, it can account for attacking transports and/or the “free” hit on battleships; for example, an attacking force of 1 BB 1 tran would have 4+4+4=12.  Unfortunately this takes a while to calculate, especially for medium- to large-sized forces.

If there’s a faster way to calculate skew, I’m not aware of it (but would love to be!)  Punch and count can be calculated much faster.  Based on these, the most accurate predictor comes from multiplying punch times count.  Punch times count tends to be a pretty good predictor unless the forces are highly skewed; for unskewed to moderately skewed forces it will pretty much always tell you who’s favored.  In most situations the way that I account for skew is just by noting that it’s there and mentally saying “ok, this side is actually a little better than the punch and count would indicate”.

Then of course you can always do the expected-outcome calculation where you run through a battle in your head, and for each round assume each side gets the expected number of hits, and see what happens.  The nice thing about this is that it does account for skew, plus you can do it reasonably fast.  Unfortunately the round-off errors can pile up, but it’s still a decent indicator overall.