• '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    What’s the best use of infantry for a garrison of territory you arn’t adamant about holding, but would like to hold it.

    1 Infantry: Stops a blitz, but other then that can be likened to tissue paper.
    3 Infantry: Forces the enemy to commit serious forces, but likewise drains you 3 times faster.

    Why?


  • If I want to hold it, but not CRITICAL?

    Depends where and what the enemy can bring.

    In Europe, 1 is just a blitz blocker, surrendering the territory to almost any enemy attack.

    3 does require a bit more of a comitment to re-take, but not much.

    SIX and an anchor (ARM or FIG) requires an all out blast from the enemy forces in the immediate vicinity to take.

    Outside of Europe…
    4 and an anchor usually will do it.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    I was thinking of Kazakh and Evenki.  If you want to stop Russia from taking it, I presume 3 infantry would do the job.  What Russian player, knocked back to their Capital on the eastern front, wants to commit 4-5 ground units and air support for a 2 ipc or 1 ipc territory?

    Then again, maybe 1 infantry is enough because you force them to use 2 infantry minimum to take it costing them six and you three. (net on the land.)


  • If you have massed forces in Yakut, 1 is enough.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    But if you are massed and don’t care if Russia reclaims it, then why garrison it at all?


  • To draw out Russian to kill 🙂

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    Doesn’t normally work on me anymore.  If you have 1 person and I need units, but want the land to round out my purchases next round, I’ll send 1 infantry, 2 fighters.  Good chance of getting it without loosing my man.

  • 2007 AAR League

    So you throw out 1 Inf to retake a territory so that you might be able to build 1 more inf the next round?

    (And Jennifer, maybe think of “loose” as rhyming with “noose” “goose” and “moose” and “caboose” - the word you want is “lose / losing”)

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    misspelling lose is my signature, I think!

    Yes, if that lost infantry gets me a new one closer to where I need it.  At the least, odds are you’ll kill one ofr their infantry for one of yours, can be a net gain.

  • 2007 AAR League

    Not for Russia, where an Inf in Evenki will be replaced by one from Russia…

    Also, odds are 1/3 that your inf will kill one of theirs, while odds are close to certain they will kill yours. As Switch pointed out, a single Inf is only good as a blitz blocker.

    OT: And re: lose: it doesn’t help to also have the words choose / choosing! I have heard that English is the hardest language in the world to learn to spell because the rules are so inconsistent.

  • 2007 AAR League

    But if you can block a blitz for one turn as Russia you may be able to have say 5 more Inf in Russia next turn for the invasion … so the 1 Inf you gave up to block the blitz allowed you to have 5 more

  • 2007 AAR League

    @ncscswitch:

    If you have massed forces in Yakut, 1 is enough.

    I agree with Switch here, and the answer truly depends on what your opponent can bring.  It has everything to do with dead zones.  But it basically boils down to this:

    • Take the territory with force (or garrison with force) if your opponent does not have enough on the counterattack to dislodge you.
    • If your opponent has enough force to re-take or strafe to their advantage, then do not take with force.
    • If your opponent could occupy with force next turn, but only if they can land air to bolster defense, then make sure you continue trading that territory so they cannot land air there!

    Sometimes 1 inf or 0 inf makes little difference, if they can’t tank blitz through the territory to something else, and if they have enough support from non-land units to basically guarantee a first round kill of your inf (ie. BB support shots or loads of air that wouldn’t be used otherwise)

    @Jennifer:

    What’s the best use of infantry for a garrison of territory you arn’t adamant about holding, but would like to hold it.

    All of my territories except my capital fall into this category  😄  I guess I don’t really understand the question.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    Yes, but by the same token you are almost guarenteed to kill at least one target with a 3 infantry investment and you will most certainly convince your opponent to attack with more then 2 fighters and an infantry to take the land.  In this way, Japan can draw 4-5 infantry out of Russia which cannot be replaced but can be killed easily, or get the land for free costing Russian 2 IPC and getting 2 IPC for a free 4 IPC differential


  • I almost never garrison.

    My logic is this:

    If they want to tank blitz, okay.  I can tank blitz too.

    If they want to take the territory with an infantry, I can kill it.

    Sometimes, I will garrison with an AA gun to prevent a blitz.  Rare as hen’s teeth.

    I was thinking of Kazakh and Evenki.  If you want to stop Russia from taking it, I presume 3 infantry would do the job.  What Russian player, knocked back to their Capital on the eastern front, wants to commit 4-5 ground units and air support for a 2 ipc or 1 ipc territory?

    Just leave those territories.

    Take those infantry that you would use for garrisoning, and put them with your main force to deter attack.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    I’m starting to think the same.  If you don’t want to put 3 or more infantry into the land, then why defend it at all?  You loose nothing by giving them the land for free then taking it back later, meanwhile you loose the land AND the units if you defend it too lightly.

  • 2007 AAR League

    What I’m noticing Darth doing is tank blitzing the empty territory to get the income and then blitzing the Tank back to his main force. This would be another way of trading - it would just be better for the player who is less able to afford the Inf. bleed every turn.

    I’ve sometimes been attacking 1 Inf garrisons with 2 Inf 2 Ftr - because 1/3 times the defender kills an Inf, I can ensure I’ll have something left to hold it with. Of course, that also means losing one more Inf, but if both live, he has to attack 2 Inf. It’s a pain in the neck, no matter how you go about it (garrisoning/trading).

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    2 infantry, 1 fighter, Dan.  85% chance of success, give or take.  Even if he gets a hit on R1 or R2, you still take the land and if he doesnt hit at all, the enemy now has to commit 3 ground units and a fighter to be as sure of taking the land as you were with 2 units.

  • 2007 AAR League

    Well both Jap and Ger have lots of Ftrs so I’ve been sending 2 - otherwise they’re doing nothing, and it reduces the chance of not hitting at all and giving the def another shot.

  • 2007 AAR League

    The reason I will put at least 1inf in a territory I know I can’t hold is to force my opponent to commit forces to take it.  If they are sending 2inf, 2fgt to take the territory, those fighters won’t be attacking somewhere else.


  • @jsp4563:

    The reason I will put at least 1inf in a territory I know I can’t hold is to force my opponent to commit forces to take it.  If they are sending 2inf, 2fgt to take the territory, those fighters won’t be attacking somewhere else.

    when ypu play as japan sometomes you have not enough land forces to use all your fighters so you overcommit your fighter(nly enough land t take 1 terrotry so you send 5 figs there)

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    I see where you’re comming from Dan.  Yea, when I have extra fighters, as I generally do as Germany (usually having between 8 and 10 fighters) I’ll use 2 or three of them with 2 infantry to take land.  I’m just wondering if maybe 3 infantry might be better, since it forces a much larger committment by the allies to retake it.

    And JSP, what’s better, a 33% chance of killing something with a lone picket man and still giving him the territory (100% chance of loosing your picket) or just giving him the 2 IPCs and keeping your 3 IPC infantry in position for a counter attack?

    That’s the crux of the debate.  Is it REALLY worth loosing 3 IPC for a 2 IPC land mass or should I just yield the land, stock up and eventually just push in for keeps?

  • 2007 AAR League

    I’ve seen plenty of instances where a lone picket has defeated the attacking ground units forcing the fighters to retreat.  Leaving the territory empty guarantees your opponent will capture it with the commitment of a single infantry.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    Yea, but common, JSP.  You and I both know that’s a rarity.  My defending infantry couldn’t hit the broadside of a barn with flung poopy at 5 paces, let alone an attacking infantryman.  Now, when my infantry are on attack I normally have a good 40-60% accuracy rate. 🙂


  • @Jennifer:

    Yea, but common, JSP.  You and I both know that’s a rarity.  My defending infantry couldn’t hit the broadside of a barn with flung poopy at 5 paces, let alone an attacking infantryman.  Now, when my infantry are on attack I normally have a good 40-60% accuracy rate. 🙂

    I do not, as a rule, count on the long shot to be the most statistically common play.

  • 2007 AAR League

    Well Jenn you’ll just have to try your 3 Inf recaptures in our game, and see how they work - it’s something I’ve been thinking about too, and Darth has started doing it in my game with him. I can still retake, but it does require a bigger commitment than a 1 Inf garrison.

Suggested Topics

  • 12
  • 53
  • 4
  • 8
  • 2
  • 1
  • 2
  • 1
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

65
Online

15.1k
Users

36.0k
Topics

1.5m
Posts