If you play NA´s i would encourage you to just do away with super-fortress (USA NA) Invulnerable SBR bomber is so incrediable unbalanced not even funny.
150 IPCs - Built the best fleet possible…
-
BTW: On the 60 IPC land units on attack…
60 IPC ARM takes out 14 INF
60 IPC INF takes out 13 INF
60 IPC as 12 INF, 6 ART takes out 17 INF, as does 10 INF, 5 ART, 2 ARMIt is not an “either/or” question, but rather having the correct MIX.
-
There were really two main things I was replying to:
Therefore, subs have only 75% of the effectiveness that destroyers do, making the destroyers a better buy.
I think that is not really a correct assessment. The most destroyers I would ever want is 1, and even that is questionable. The reason is that the early strike ability of the sub is very over-rated. With a single opposing btl, you need 4sub before your early hit is mathematically significant. Even then, opposing subs can be taken as casualties and still fire, so you’re not gaining much - odds are that sub would have died in the first round anyway. There is almost no large naval battle where the early sub shot will be a big difference maker. But if my opponent has 10 subs and I have fewer than 2btl, I’d want 1des. That’s about the only time.
So yes, infantry suck for attacking.
I think Switch has shown that inf are about as good as tanks $ for $. After spending 60 IPCs, the tanks have only managed to kill one additional unit.
This all comes back to the three tactical fundamentals:
Count - Who has more units? This is usually the most basic and most important assessment. Look at the R1 Baltic battle if Germany buys a single tra: you’d have 2ftr 1bmr vs. 2subs 2tra 1des. The count wins even though the oPunch is 10 and the dPunch is 5. The oPunch is DOUBLE the dPunch, but because the dCount (5) is almost double the oCount (3), the defender has a better chance to win the battle.
Punch - Who has the best chance to inflict the most damage per round? Punch is found by adding the “hits-on” values for units. So on offense 3inf 1tnk has oPunch = 6; on defense that same group has dPunch = 9. Punch is related to count, but not directly. Obviously four attacking bombers bring more punch than four attacking inf (oPunches = 16 vs 4, counts = 4 vs 4). You want punch; but take care of count first.
Skew - The strongest tactical groups match high values and low values to make use of “fodder”. You don’t want “even” groups of all 2s or all 4s - a skewed mix of 2s and 4s is better. So Switch is on the mark when he says you need a mix of units to be effective.
If you really want some exciting math, check out the Caspian Sub Policy Paper #05 about tactics. It covers what Switch was demonstrating as well as a few other tricks like Count Equivalents.
http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/Caspian_Sub/
Peace
-
You know, we agree on so many things CS, but disagree on so many others.
I honestly think our differences stem from WHERE and HOW we play most of our games.
-
The only thing I would say as regards your post CS is that I would switch points 1 and 2, in all but the smallest battles.
Once you reach a certain level of participating units on both sides, count is reduced in terms of how important it is in a battle. For small battles, yes count is the MOST important point, but above a certain number it is not as critical.
For example, 1 BOM on 4 TRN. Punch is even at 4. But due to the count issue, the BOM only wins less than 10% of the time.
But on mid to large sized battles, punch moves ahead of count as a decisive factor (as noted above in that a smaller number of mixed INF/ART/ARM has a stronger attack than a much higher number of INF.
As for skew…
Not sure if I am reading how you are using skew correctly.I try to match high-punch unit to high-punch unit. For example, in a Naval battle I want BOM and BB to counter BB and FIG. I want FIG and DST to counter AC and DST. I want AT LEAST an equal number of 3’s and 4’s (or two 3’s to counter a 4) plus my fodder units (0, 1, 2’s) in order to ensure a high probability of victory. Is that what you mean by skew?
-
Hey Switch.
What you layed out in your post is a very good way to quickly compose an attack; for every 3 on defense, have a 3 on offense. That’s basic matching. It’s a good, fast counting skill.
But that’s not really what skew is. A skewed force has a significant split between high values and low values. It is measured within the force, not compared to the other forces. Examples:
Attacking groups:
10inf - Perfectly even; not skewed at all. You have 10 1s.
8inf 2art - Somewhat skewed. 6 1s and 4 2s.
5inf 5tnk - Highly skewed. 5 1s and 5 3s.In simple terms, a skewed force has fodder at the low end to protect the heavy damage dealers at the high end. The punch of a heavily skewed force dimishes more slowly than the punch of an even force because your early casualties represent less of the force’s overall punch.
Where does this matter? Suppose you have 2inf 1art 1tnk. You have two territories you want to attack. Both have 1inf on them. You need to take them both, but one is slightly more important than the other. How do you divide your troops?
Look at these divisions:
[Force A] 1inf 1art : oPunch = 4 oCount = 2
[Force B] 1inf 1tnk : oPunch = 4 oCount = 2For count and punch the scores for the forces are equal. Which group should go to the more important target? You should send Force B to the more important battle. The reason is that after 1 hit Force A loses 50% of it’s punch (2) while Force B loses only 25% of it’s punch (1). That uneven distribution of hitting power is the skew; Force B is skewed.
Force B wins the battle 90% of the time, Force A wins 85% of the time.
The concept of skew also helps when sizing up stacks. Here are two more examples with Force C attacking Force D:
[Force C] 5inf 5tnk : oPunch = 20 oCount = 10
[Force D] 10inf : dPunch = 20 dCount = 10So those groups are even on punch and count. Who wins? The skewed group; Force C wins 63% of the time even though the forces have equal count and punch at the start of the battle.
Hopefully that makes it clear. Did it?
Peace
-
Yes, now I know what you mean by skew… what Jen calls “meat shields” to preotect the high value units, and what i refer to as punch loss rate.
-
Personally I always viewed subs to act much as they did in the real war. Solitary navies designed to sink solo units left alone in striking range. ie) Sub SZ 8 vs TRN SZ 1 on Germany Rd 1.
It’s just too expensive to get a significant portion of them to use in a large naval engagement. You’re better off buying Bombers or destroyers for that. (I actually like to have a 2nd BB, it’s a mental thing, I can’t really justify it vs 2 DDs) That’s assuming you plan on attacking the enemy. If you want defense, carriers and fighters.
-
I use subs for two reasons.
1. Battle fodder. They cost 8 IPC and attack at 2. “Infantry o’ the Sea”
2. Blocker. It’s the cheapest naval unit you can buy except for transport, and if you use a transport, you can’t submerge after an air attack. If you use a sub, they have to commit a battleship to soak up a hit, or risk losing a naval unit - and if they send NO naval units, the more air they send, the less air they send against other targets; the less air they send, the more likely that the sub survives.
I don’t quite see how getting bombers is better. Fighters are usually easier to use with carriers, and destroyers are not as cheap as subs. Destroyers can defend against air, but I figure that’s what carriers are for.
-
@CrazyStraw:
Hey Switch.
What you layed out in your post is a very good way to quickly compose an attack; for every 3 on defense, have a 3 on offense. That’s basic matching. It’s a good, fast counting skill.
But that’s not really what skew is. A skewed force has a significant split between high values and low values. It is measured within the force, not compared to the other forces. Examples:
Attacking groups:
10inf - Perfectly even; not skewed at all. You have 10 1s.
8inf 2art - Somewhat skewed. 6 1s and 4 2s.
5inf 5tnk - Highly skewed. 5 1s and 5 3s.In simple terms, a skewed force has fodder at the low end to protect the heavy damage dealers at the high end. The punch of a heavily skewed force dimishes more slowly than the punch of an even force because your early casualties represent less of the force’s overall punch.
Where does this matter? Suppose you have 2inf 1art 1tnk. You have two territories you want to attack. Both have 1inf on them. You need to take them both, but one is slightly more important than the other. How do you divide your troops?
Look at these divisions:
[Force A] 1inf 1art : oPunch = 4 oCount = 2
[Force B] 1inf 1tnk : oPunch = 4 oCount = 2For count and punch the scores for the forces are equal. Which group should go to the more important target? You should send Force B to the more important battle. The reason is that after 1 hit Force A loses 50% of it’s punch (2) while Force B loses only 25% of it’s punch (1). That uneven distribution of hitting power is the skew; Force B is skewed.
Force B wins the battle 90% of the time, Force A wins 85% of the time.
The concept of skew also helps when sizing up stacks. Here are two more examples with Force C attacking Force D:
[Force C] 5inf 5tnk : oPunch = 20 oCount = 10
[Force D] 10inf : dPunch = 20 dCount = 10So those groups are even on punch and count. Who wins? The skewed group; Force C wins 63% of the time even though the forces have equal count and punch at the start of the battle.
Hopefully that makes it clear. Did it?
Peace
Yes, you definitely need a “skewed” force but the 1 to 1 skewed force in your example is extremly inefficient.
The problem with some of this is, you leave out cost. Which should be in your write up #4.
It is IMMENSELY cheaper to defend.
Regardless of what units you buy, as the battles grow (say minimum 10 inf on a ter), you need to out spend your opponent 4:3 in order to take.
Which coincidently is the cost of 5 inf, 5 arm vs. 10 inf. (40 IPC vs. 30 IPC).
However, it is not fair to compare:
10 inf vs. 8 inf, 2 rt, vs. 5 inf, 5 arm b/c the costs are 30 IPC vs. 32 IPC vs. 40 IPC.What did player 1 and 2 do with their extra 10 IPC and 8 IPC respectively?
My hunch would be 7 inf, 2 rt, 2 arm would be just as effective as 5-5, due to the 3-1-1 (4-1-1) ratio.
I wrote about this in another thread a while ago in the Classic Forum (I think maybe it was in revised).
I’d have to dig it up but I believe the best ratio (inf/rt/arm) in terms of cost and off/def punch is 3:1:1 to 4:1:1, where you match rt and arm 1:1 but have 3-4 times as many inf.
But I found that the 4:3 offense to defense cost ratio is pretty darn solid in terms of taking a territory.
-
3-1-1 sounds about right Darth. And based on your track record, I would also say well proven.
You need punch, that is what the ARM/FIG is for. You need to expand the chance for hits, that is what the ART is for (1 ART for 4 IPC and 1 INF for 3 gives you a 100% increase in hit probability over 2 INF, for only 1 extra IPC). And you need unsupported INF as the most cost effective way to absorb enemy fire (and provide for a few possible hits as well).
A defender relying on INF loses defensive punch pretty evenly, just a few ARM or FIGs added to an INF stack makes a MASSIVE increase in defensive power. likewais, an attack with no unsuported INF loses punch in a hurry, expsoing more costly units to defender fire.
A 3-1-1, if otherwise matched with the enemy forces (force count, total dice value) will usually outlast a 1-1 enemy defense, and almost certainly a 1 enemy defense.
-
2 CV (32)
4 Fgt (20+2 free)
2 BB (48)
2 DD (24)
3 SS (24)
4 TP (free)Save $2
Offensive Punch: 34
Defensive Punch: 62
Hit absorbtion: 9 -
I know this is a naval thread but I work on that analysis later, but I wanted to finish up some things on the land units. I’ve spent a lot of my day at work pretending to work while I worked on this. :-D
@ncscswitch:
3-1-1 sounds about right Darth. And based on your track record, I would also say well proven.
You need punch, that is what the ARM/FIG is for. You need to expand the chance for hits, that is what the ART is for (1 ART for 4 IPC and 1 INF for 3 gives you a 100% increase in hit probability over 2 INF, for only 1 extra IPC). And you need unsupported INF as the most cost effective way to absorb enemy fire (and provide for a few possible hits as well).
A defender relying on INF loses defensive punch pretty evenly, just a few ARM or FIGs added to an INF stack makes a MASSIVE increase in defensive power. likewais, an attack with no unsuported INF loses punch in a hurry, expsoing more costly units to defender fire.
A 3-1-1, if otherwise matched with the enemy forces (force count, total dice value) will usually outlast a 1-1 enemy defense, and almost certainly a 1 enemy defense.
Okay, I ran some analysis and I used a LL system for hits (and simplicity), both attacker and defender hit on 3 and above.
Also I used 60 IPC for total IPC to spend b/c it is easily divisible by 3, 4, and 5 and allows enough units for a couple rds of battle but not too many.
I did three groupings:
#1 - Inf/Rt/Arm
#2 - Inf/Rt
#3 - Inf/ArmAnd tried to find the optimum buy for each grouping.
For #1, I started with 20 inf (60) then moved down in the following increments:
20/0/0
17/1/1
14/2/2
11/3/3
8/4/4
5/5/5
2/6/6And I had each category attack all the other categories. So for example, I did 20 inf attack 20 inf, then 20 inf attack 17/1/1, then 20 inf attack 14/2/2…etc. then I did the same for 17/1/1 and 14/2/2…etc.
The combo that did the most damage to the most categories was the grouping of: 11/3/3.
It did the most damgae but tied with the 5/5/5 in the category of attacking 20 inf and 17/1/1. Both left 8 inf and 7/1/1 behind in each respective category.
but the 11/3/3 eeked out slight wins in the other 5 categories for this group.Now for the Inf/Rt groupings using the same method I tried:
20/0/0
16/3/0
12/6/0
8/9/0
4/12/0
0/15/0And here I came out with both the 12/6/0 and 8/9/0 grouping each winning 3 categories, with the 12/6/0 doing the most damage (or taking with the most units) against 20/0/0, 12/6/0, and 0/15/0 and the 8/9/0 grouping doing better against 16/3/0, 8/9/0, and 4/12/0.
Now for the Inf/Arm groupings I used:
20/0/0
15/0/3
10/0/6
5/0/9
0/0/12And this was pretty clear cut as the 10/0/6 grouping did slightly more damage to each category.
Now finally I took the best from each category to squared off, so I had:
11/3/3
12/6/0
8/9/0
10/0/6And did the same thing and found that:
The 11/3/3 won 2 and tied in 1
The 12/6/0 tied in 2
The 8/9/0 tied in 1
The 10/0/6 performed the weakest against the others.So what does this all mean?
I think certainly in could be used to back up the idea of keeping the 3/1/1 to 4/1/1 ratio for land units as both being good offensively to take on almost any style of army and being pretty good on defense too.
Although, the mostly inf breakdowns whether it was 20/0/0, 17/1/1, or another mix with a high % of Inf dominated the defensive aspect. You really can beat Inf for defense at the cost of 3 IPC.I was kind of surprised by the 8/9/0 one, but I guess it makes sense since you instantly double the power of inf, but I still think the 1-1 is not the way to go, but the 12/6/0 also did pretty good. I’ve never really given rt a fair chance but I may consider it more in the future if I don’t need the rapid movement. Maybe load up on rt in the early rds and save armor for the mid to late rds when you may need quick movement.
I hope you guys can follow this, and now to work on the Naval breakdown when I have some time. :-)
-
Darth i feel that the best combination for land units is Infantry and artillery at specific ratios of say 1.5 to one or 2 to 1 Infantry. The idea is to never get into the kill zone involving artillery and use the extra infantry beyond artillery as fodder. Financially this i feel is the best buys all around.
-
My thinking was that more airplanes would provide better striking power.
-
@Imperious:
Darth i feel that the best combination for land units is Infantry and artillery at specific ratios of say 1.5 to one or 2 to 1 Infantry. The idea is to never get into the kill zone involving artillery and use the extra infantry beyond artillery as fodder. Financially this i feel is the best buys all around.
Tanks, not artillery, are what US and Japan need. US needs tanks because tanks can run through Africa quickly after an initial landing in Algeria. Japan needs tanks so it can change the direction of its attack from Burytia/Yakut, China, and India, before the Allies can respond.
Infantry/artillery combos are good for when the enemy is next to one of your territories with an industrial complex, or when you can set up a transport chain to get artillery in quickly. Otherwise, tanks.
-
New,
You are massively underestimating the power of Japan sending INF/ART walls against Moscow.
2 to 1 ratios coming out of your mainland IC’s
1 to 1 ratios being TRN’d from JapanAnd you use your FIGs and BOM to provide aerial ARM to support that solid wave.
-
I agree with newpaintbrush that Japan needs tanks they are very powerful and the allies can’t get enough to the Japanese front that can beat the Japanese tanks without sacrificing the German/Russian Front
-
@ncscswitch:
New,
You are massively underestimating the power of Japan sending INF/ART walls against Moscow.
2 to 1 ratios coming out of your mainland IC’s
1 to 1 ratios being TRN’d from JapanAnd you use your FIGs and BOM to provide aerial ARM to support that solid wave.
I can see my post was badly worded. I actually meant “infantry and tanks”, because to me, infantry is just a given for ANY ground attack. But I can see that I did not write it.
Let me explain what I meant a bit better.
There are three points of attack; Yakut, China, and India. If the Allies let any one of those go, Japan can grab additional territory quickly. For India, this is a problem because a Jap/German-held Caucasus is a major problem. For China, this is a problem because the valuable territories of Kazakh and Novosibirsk are adjacent. For Yakut, this is a problem because once Yakut is lost, Soviet Far East and Burytia are also sealed off, and Evenki and Novosibirsk are threatened. If Japan makes a dual push on Yakut AND China, a strong Japanese force can unite at Novosibirsk.
So the Allies can’t really let any one of those territories go, but once one of those territories DOES go, the rest collapses. If Japan is staging heavily in Novosibirsk, a heavy defense in India is a bad idea (those units are needed at Moscow). If Japan is staging heavily in China, a heavy defense of Yakut doesn’t work because Japan can attack Kazakh, which is not adjacent to Yakut. If Japan is staging heavily at India, defense of China and Yakut will not be as important.
So what happens if Japan neglects one of those points to attack another? NOTHING. If the Allies attack a “weak” Japan holding, the Allies are moving away from the Allied lines of reinforcement. Furthermore, as soon as the Allies they take a coastal territory, they open themselves to 4+ transports of ground from Japan plus air, plus the units that were running away.
Now, what do you get if you build infantry and artillery with Japan? Not much. You can stage at China, Yakut, and India to some extent (put units in Ssinkiang, Burytia, and French Indochina), but if you build infantry and artillery, you CANNOT MOVE FROM ONE ATTACK TO ANOTHER QUiCKLY. The only way to get from one coastal territory to another is by transports, which you will be short on anyways (because Japan should be using all the transports it has to pull infantry off the isolated islands) - AND, if you move between coastal territories, you are only moving laterally and NOT progressing towards Moscow. So double whammy; transports used to reallocate distribution of forces, but if transports are used for that, transports are not moving in new reinforcement - and you are not progressing to Moscow, which gives USSR more time to build.
So instead, what I do is I put just INFANTRY in those countries and build tanks like mad. If the Allies have a strong force at one of those places, I retreat the infantry and move the tanks to attack another place. The Allies CANNOT move cheap ground units from one of those three fronts to another without taking a LONG time. If the Allies push towards Japan, I just wait until they get close and keep dumping transported infantry and tanks on the coast - all the Allies are doing by attacking Japanese territory is to solve Japan’s logistical problem for them; now Japan can get its infantry into battle faster.
I should mention one more thing, though. If it’s a dedicated KJF game, Japan should probably get transports, fighters, infantry, and a few artillery, not tanks.
-
As Japan you need punch on attack. You need massed units (nothing different from any other nation here).
As for speed… Japan also cannot outrun their INF, or their tanks are chewed to shreds by Russian counter-attacks, trading INF for Japan ARM in a trade that Russia can and will take all day long.
So your speed of advance is reduced to the speed of your INF screen… 1 territory per round max.
Which means you don;t need the ARM for speed, just for punch on attack.
1 INF, 1 ARM has an attack valule of 4 and costs 8 IPCs
1 INF, 1 ART has an attack value of 4 and costs 7 IPCsJapan builds 2 new IC’s, and starts producing 2 INF, 1 ART at each, sneding 3 units per round toward the front with an attack value of 5 and spending only 20 IPC to do it (once the IC’s are built).
With the remaining 20 IPCs (Japan hits $40 pretty quickly) Japan loads up TRNs from Japan dropping those units in Bury. 2 more ART, 4 INF fillign 3 TRNs.Now you have 12 divisions per turn being poured into Asia with a total attack value of 20. You have cheap fodder for your attacks, and your main punch is suppled by 4 “aerial tanks” and a BOM. That brings the punch of your 12 divisions up to 36, 6 kills per round of combat.
If you are buying ARM and INF, you spen more money, losing 2-3 divisions of units per turn, in exchange for NO increase in hit value, and no increase in speed since you are limitted by your INF fodder for forward movement.
Once you ahve a solid wall of INF/ART combos lined up from Novo to the coast, THEN you start adding ARM to race forward through your already captured territorie to increase the punch for your final drives on Moscow.
Conservation of force and economy :-)
-
@ncscswitch:
As Japan you need punch on attack. You need massed units (nothing different from any other nation here).
As for speed… Japan also cannot outrun their INF, or their tanks are chewed to shreds by Russian counter-attacks, trading INF for Japan ARM in a trade that Russia can and will take all day long.
So your speed of advance is reduced to the speed of your INF screen… 1 territory per round max.
Which means you don;t need the ARM for speed, just for punch on attack.
1 INF, 1 ARM has an attack valule of 4 and costs 8 IPCs
1 INF, 1 ART has an attack value of 4 and costs 7 IPCsJapan builds 2 new IC’s, and starts producing 2 INF, 1 ART at each, sneding 3 units per round toward the front with an attack value of 5 and spending only 20 IPC to do it (once the IC’s are built).
With the remaining 20 IPCs (Japan hits $40 pretty quickly) Japan loads up TRNs from Japan dropping those units in Bury. 2 more ART, 4 INF fillign 3 TRNs.Now you have 12 divisions per turn being poured into Asia with a total attack value of 20. You have cheap fodder for your attacks, and your main punch is suppled by 4 “aerial tanks” and a BOM. That brings the punch of your 12 divisions up to 36, 6 kills per round of combat.
If you are buying ARM and INF, you spen more money, losing 2-3 divisions of units per turn, in exchange for NO increase in hit value, and no increase in speed since you are limitted by your INF fodder for forward movement.
Once you ahve a solid wall of INF/ART combos lined up from Novo to the coast, THEN you start adding ARM to race forward through your already captured territorie to increase the punch for your final drives on Moscow.
Conservation of force and economy :-)
1. I do not build 2 new ICs with Japan. I might build 1 IC and 2 transports on J1 if I had a leftover IPC from a bid. But never 2 ICs; I believe 2 ICs on J1 is too slow. You can upgrade 15 artillery to 15 tanks with what you spend on a single industrial complex.
2. I do not try to match mass for mass with the Allies. Instead, I deliberately allow the Allies to press in on one of the three aforementioned territories, and use tanks to hit one or two of the other places. If the Allies press too far, they will lose what they pressed with, or will at the least either be cut off from reinforcements, or not be able to reach Moscow in time for the crucial battle.
Let me give you an example.
Say it is early game, and that USSR has 2 infantry in Yakut and Ssinkiang, while Japan has 2 infantry in China and Burytia. USSR puts three tanks and two infantry in Novosibirsk. Now if Japan has tanks at Manchuria, no matter where the USSR attacks, Japan can counter. But if Japan only has infantry and artillery in Manchuria, then Japan cannot threaten any attack that USSR does towards China. Note that I do not say that Japan has artillery at China, because it takes TIME to get artillery from the coast to China.
So instead of threatening to take and hold, Japan must now pull back, giving USSR more time to build up.
The same thing is true later in the game, but with larger forces. Say Japan has a good-sized force of infantry and artillery at Yakut. Then it is BOUND to be weak at Ssinkiang and probably India. The Allies can push there, and there is not much Japan can do because it can’t move its forces to counterattack quickly.
If you start early with tanks, at the midpoint of the game, you have a gigantic mobile threat. If the Allies don’t send enough to any of the three key territories, you storm in through there. If the Allies send TOO MUCH to any of the three key territories, you RETREAT with your infantry and use your tanks to hit another point - by the time the Allies can make any serious headway, you have mass tanks plus infantry and artillery from Japan plus air. The Allies cannot destroy your infantry at the threatened country because you run away before they attack, and because most of their defending/attacking force will be made up of infantry.
Suggested Topics
