Interesting. Yes the ability to put subs in the med probably greatly increases their utility by precluding the uk from placing a destroyer in the english channel to protect a landing in Morocco, which hopefully bus Italy some time to earn some objective money. I know they only have two, but with such a small economy the NOs increase Italy’s capacity to contribute by quite a bit, proportionally speaking.
Artilleries & Russia
-
That is why the ratio is stacked heavier with infantry, you know the cannon fodder guys. I will see if I can find Darth’s post because I think it was in a thread and not posted as a thread. If I recall correctly Darth tested things several ways.
Myself I do not play AA like an accountant. One a stack hits a certain mass I like to have some Arty in it for the boost. I don’t care if it gets it bonus once, twice, or three times, I just want it to get the job done.
My main point is it is a waste to fritter away Artillery in small trade battles where they will be used once (no matter how many rounds it goes) and destroyed the next round. For Russia this normally means keeping them at home until a straffe on Germany or if things are going well when it is time to move out against Germany and take the offense, although that happens way more in '41 than '42 since a competent German player should be relaying infantry to Karelia with his Baltic fleet.
-
Darth’s analysis is on page two of this thread which is a good discussion on arty in general with several well supported views offered. And I was wrong as far as what I said the ratio was it was higher with Infantry, which sounds about right to me. Depending on what was attacked that should leave some infantry and arty for use the next game turn.
-
I believe I heard that the ratio decided upon was 4:1:1 - inf:art:tanks.
-
@SAS:
I believe I heard that the ratio decided upon was 4:1:1 - inf:art:tanks.
I still say there is no magical optimal ratio, because there are other factors involved that affect it. How much air support do you have in attacking? How large, and what is the makeup of the forces you are attacking? What can they attack your surviving stack with?
I am sure there are situations where 4:1:1 or any other ratio has too many art, and others where it is not enough.
And then there are the tanks in this ratio. Why 1/4 as many tanks as infantry? The ideal makeup of your army is largely dependent on your situation and strategy. There’s no such thing as an optimal ratio of units for all situations. Some players just don’t want to think, I guess, they just want to have some target optimal ratio so they don’t have to think about what to buy?
-
@SAS:
I believe I heard that the ratio decided upon was 4:1:1 - inf:art:tanks.
I still say there is no magical optimal ratio, because there are other factors involved that affect it. How much air support do you have in attacking? How large, and what is the makeup of the forces you are attacking? What can they attack your surviving stack with?
I am sure there are situations where 4:1:1 or any other ratio has too many art, and others where it is not enough.
And then there are the tanks in this ratio. Why 1/4 as many tanks as infantry? The ideal makeup of your army is largely dependent on your situation and strategy. There’s no such thing as an optimal ratio of units for all situations. Some players just don’t want to think, I guess, they just want to have some target optimal ratio so they don’t have to think about what to buy?
I agree, I think your purchases should reflect your needs at the time and is an important part of the strategy involved, as I tried to convey in my original post. I only supplied the ratio I remembered reading about because others brought it up.
Russia almost always needs as many units as possible, which means mostly infantry, but what do you do with the extra IPCs you sometimes have left over? Lots of people say buy tanks when you can, but never artillery; my point was to show that (at least for Russia with trading territories in small battles) artillery can be at least as good, if not better, as tanks. The math was just to show that tanks are not as vastly superior to artillery as many people will lead you to believe, not to submit a “optimal” or “magic” or whatever mathematical ratio.
Infantry cost 3 IPCs, give you 3 units of punch, and have 1 movement; artillery cost 4 IPCs, have 4 units of punch on their own, plus 1 bonus punch unit to an infantry, and also have 1 movement; tanks cost 5 IPCs, give you 6 units of punch, and have an extra movement point. Overall, that suggests that tanks are the best value with the punch and movement bonuses when comparing the units directly, but in special circumstances, like Russia’s, it may actually be better to use artillery if you aren’t going to be taking full advantage of the tank’s bonus capabilities anyway; which in essence supports your suggestion that it is better to purchase the units that are most effective for your situation rather than arbitrarily following a formula (whether that formula is 4:1:1 or tank supplements only or whatever else it might be).
-
@SAS:
so advanced artillery in moderate size battles can increase the odds of winning by as much as 15% over just infantry. And getting 3 extra punch for every 1 extra IPC you spend is pretty sweet.
The problem with your calculations is that you are assuming that the person will buy the same amount of artillery if they have advanced artillery and if they don’t
In big battles especially is where you can see the problem with advanced artillery. For 20 IPCs and advanced artillery, you could buy 4 inf and 2 art all attacking @2. For 21 IPCs without advanced artillery, you could buy 3 inf, 3 art all attacking @2. As you can see, as the numbers get larger, advanced artillery only saves you 1 IPC for every 21 you spend. Even for a monster Japan at 60 IPCs war bonds would be better (3 1/2 IPCs vs 3 IPCs) And war bonds is probably the worst tech out there besides advanced artillery. -
@SAS:
so advanced artillery in moderate size battles can increase the odds of winning by as much as 15% over just infantry. And getting 3 extra punch for every 1 extra IPC you spend is pretty sweet.
The problem with your calculations is that you are assuming that the person will buy the same amount of artillery if they have advanced artillery and if they don’t
In big battles especially is where you can see the problem with advanced artillery. For 20 IPCs and advanced artillery, you could buy 4 inf and 2 art all attacking @2. For 21 IPCs without advanced artillery, you could buy 3 inf, 3 art all attacking @2. As you can see, as the numbers get larger, advanced artillery only saves you 1 IPC for every 21 you spend. Even for a monster Japan at 60 IPCs war bonds would be better (3 1/2 IPCs vs 3 IPCs) And war bonds is probably the worst tech out there besides advanced artillery.I’m not going to be celebrating if I roll advanced artillery even with Russia, I admit that; however, I assumed purchasing the same number of artillery with or without advanced because of the way that I use artillery to Russia’s advantage. If you’re buying that many artillery anyway, you’re still wasting your money even without the tech, so I understand the math, and I’m not arguing that advanced artillery is actually secretly a great tech, I’m just saying it is worth a little something. One of the few ways artillery are worthwhile at all is by using them the way I outlined above, so it seems to be a moot point regardless.
-
You are right though that Advanced Artillery, War Bonds, and Radar have probably the least effect on the game. (Those and Super Subs since there are few subs left on the board after the first couple turns unless you’re going after Japan heavily)
-
@SAS:
You are right though that Advanced Artillery, War Bonds, and Radar have probably the least effect on the game. (Those and Super Subs since there are few subs left on the board after the first couple turns unless you’re going after Japan heavily)
Whaaaa?? Radar is freaking awesome, even with Japan and USA!
I house rule war bonds - best of 2 dice.
-
@SAS:
You are right though that Advanced Artillery, War Bonds, and Radar have probably the least effect on the game. (Those and Super Subs since there are few subs left on the board after the first couple turns unless you’re going after Japan heavily)
Whaaaa?? Radar is freaking awesome, even with Japan and USA!
I house rule war bonds - best of 2 dice.
Well, I suppose it depends upon how much SBRs are done and how much you move your AA around, because it does double your chances of taking out a plane. :-) In that case we can probably list War Bonds as the worst (arguably apparently) from Chart 1, followed closely by Advanced Artillery; and Super Subs as the worst from Chart 2 for lack of use, followed by Radar just by comparison to the other techs available on Chart 2 (LRA, HBs, Jets, Improved Shipyards), though I’m sure Germany would much rather have Radar than Improved Shipyards in most games given the chance. :wink: Anyway, none of this directly relates to artillery & Russia, so I’m done. I will stop posting my silly opinions of tech after this post. :-D
Suggested Topics
