German Builds

[Jennifer]

Why 5-1-1?  That seems aweful weak to me.  That’s an 11 Punch.

For 7 units, wouldn’t 4-2-1 be better?  13 Punch, 1 IPC extra.

That’s the rational I used when I came up with (and I’m probably not the first) 5-3-2.  Not to mention this happens to be a full load for a set of 5 transports, this also has the ability to soak damage while give a decent amount of damage on the return.  20 Punch on offense, 22 on Defense.  Pretty flexible and as long as you maintain the balance of the force, pretty deadly.  I’m not saying make that your purchase each round, obviously that would soon end up very heavy Artillery without enough Infnatry.  But as a ratio of overall units on the board, it should work out, no?

[rjclayton]

My concern with having equal numbers of attacking and fodder pieces (ie 5 each in Jen’s ratio) is that your fodder is first to go, and you end up exposing your offensive pieces to counterattack.  I suppose it depends as much on your style of play (and your opponents) as anything else (ie. how aggressive are you, do you prefer to strafe or take, etc).  For me I think I prefer to have a few more fodder pieces if possible - 3-1-1 or 4-1-1 probably, or maybe 4-1.5-1 (ie. 8/3/2).  I think it’s pretty easy to “math it to death”.

[Jennifer]

I agree that you don’t want to have no fodder.  But I’m really aiming for an over all ratio with some flexibility.  I think, if you aim for your entire army (not just your builds) to have a 5-3-2 ratio you are both offensively and defensively strong.

Obviously, with a ratio like that, you’re almost never purchasing tanks and rarely purchasing artillery (once you get them up to spec) so this does fall in line with the Inf stack strategies.

[newpaintbrush]

@squirecam:

1. “very limited numbers”. That pretty much means “I suggest you dont buy em, its not a good idea”. At least, it does in english.

2. How were you misquoted when I quoted you directly??

3. You can trade 3 territories in Europe, but also 2 vs Japan (Novo/kaz). This makes 5 possible swaps, but only 2 fighters.

4. Dont fight me. Just accept my keen insights and analysis, and you’ll live a much happier life. :)

Squirecam

1. Limited numbers means limited numbers.  I can’t help it if you insist on misinterpreting me.  Maybe you didn’t understand what I originally wrote.

2.  “but your analysis stated buying ART was a bad idea when it clearly is a good one.” is a misquote.  I never stated anything of the sort.  Which I am sure you will come to realize, if you reread the post I wrote.

3.  You think you should trade against Japan for 1 IPC territories?

4.  What, me worry?

[rjclayton]

I think he was talking about trading 2 IPC territories with Japan (Novisibirsk and Kazakh)

[newpaintbrush]

@rjclayton:

I think he was talking about trading 2 IPC territories with Japan (Novisibirsk and Kazakh)

Yeah, come to think of it, those are 2 IPC territories.  I wasn’t paying attention.

However, I do not think that Russia TRADES Novo or Kazakh for long.  Japanese forces build up pretty fast; once Novosibirsk falls, I don’t see Russia reclaiming it more than once or perhaps twice.  (My guess is that by the time Novosibirsk falls, one of two will be true; either Russia will still be holding Germany at West Russia, so won’t have enough to counterattack a moderately held Novosibirsk (note that if Russia DID have a lot in Russia instead of West Russia, I don’t think Japan would commit to Novosibirsk).  OR, Russia will be holed up in Moscow, while Japan builds up.

Also, most of what I’ve been writing recently in this thread has been OT.

tee heez.