Was it worth adding ART to the game?


  • Make some ratios in the manner Jen suggested and you may have a different conclusion.

    Say using 36 IPC as a base figure. This is a realistic IPC inventory

    6 inf, 3 Art, 1 tank, save 1

    12 inf

    7 tanks, save 1

    7 inf , 3 tanks

    8 inf, 3 art

    4 inf, 5 art

    3 inf, 3 tanks, 3 art


  • I don’t know how you would do it, but you need to figure mobility into the equation. If you are the axis, the delay in getting material to the various fronts has to cost you something too. (Mainly IPCs) Maybe equal inf/art is a better offensive punch, but not if they are behind the lines. As I have read others post on this forum in my brief time here, a good mix of units is essential, knowing when and where to deploy them is imperative, failing to do either is disastrous. A failure to plan is a plan for failure!

    Back to ARTs specifically.
    Russia can make better use because they tend to push units either east or west and they don’t really shift them back greatly.
    US & UK can use them for amphib assaults to get more bang for buck than 2 INF. Or if they buy Asian ICs, they are good for trading territory, especially with fighter support.
    Germany & Japan however have to have flexibility moving about the board and need IPCs fast. After their intial purchases, maybe through 2 rounds, the value of ART would decrease for them in my opinion. Move the front out and you need to get there more quickly.

    Whadda you all think? Overall, are ARTs better for Axis or Allies?

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    Artillery is best for Germany and Russia, Secondly good for England (since it does add punch when you cannot afford tanks) and lastly for Japan and America who need to run, not walk, to Moscow.

    As for Germany, I dislike going a round without buying at least 1 Artillery.  They can make a huge difference in the battle and only cost 1 more then an infantry unit.

  • 2007 AAR League

    I agree with almost everything Jen said.  Where I would disagree is with Russia.  An aggressive Russia can be fighting a war on 5 different fronts (3 prongs from Japan, plus 2 from Germany coming high & low) and desperately needs the mobility of armour.  Japan can use the mobility of armour early, and they are more mobile than the Allied resistance they can sometimes faint low/ go high or some other combination to force the allies to retreat to Moscow.  Germany/UK would probably be the biggest users of ART for the reasons Jen listed.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    I envision Russia’s need for Artillery when they’ve been pushed to Moscow, Karelia and Archangelsk and have a massive army supported by massed British and American troops.  Then you need the Artillery to greatly increase your attack strenght. (at this point, 1 artillery is +3 offense +2 defense for 4 IPC.)

    If Russia’s gotta walk that artillery to E. Europe, then it’s not quite as worth it. :P


  • Russia is a defensive nation after R1 or R2.  As such, ART is just overpriced INF for the most part (unless they have lost their FIGs).

    And as Japan I like to keep adding an ART or 2 a round, even late in the game.  Converting a couple of INF up to 2’s, and having some light “punch” in the event the enemy breaks through a line is always worthwhile.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    Art is good for Russia when they are pressed back, but they have 200 IPC from England and 200 IPC from America sitting in Moscow and they need extra punch to strafe Japanese or German army stacks.


  • I like having the flexibility to buy artillery, one, when I am defending a capital as Jen mentions, and two, when I can’t afford armor.  Artillery’s biggest downside is it’s lack of mobility.  There is no substitute for buying armor for going offensive, and that primarily means Germany and Japan (for attacking Russia) and the United States (to clear out Africa quickly and get forces to the front to help Russia).  Armor also comes in very handy in Russia when the Weirhmacht arrives because of its higher DEFENSIVE value.  A stack of 10-12+ tanks can really decimate an assault by Germany on the Kremlin.  It can buy Russia the time you need to finish off Germnay.

  • 2007 AAR League

    I find I buy very few Art - mostly because I like the mobility of Armor I think. The tactical value is just so great.
    Arm are good if you can only build 8 units as UK
    Also, you pack more punch onto a TRN with 1 Inf 1 Arm
    Also, with 1 Inf 1 Arm you have more “skew” - when you lose a unit, you only lose 1 punch of your 4 total oPunch. With Inf/Art, you lose a unit, you lose 2 oPunch.
    And as switch noted, Artillery on defence are no better than Inf.

    Here’s the change I would make to Artillery: allow them to support the attack without moving from their home base. This would make them like a poor man’s Fighter for trading territories. So you send a few Inf ahead to attack, but your Art can stay behind in Mos or whatever.


  • Art is an asset when you build a lot of INF and are pressing an attack.  They are a solid purchase for Germany for sure and the UK.  Russia has limited use for ART.  After the first few rounds Russia is generally think of ways to stave off the incoming attacks, so why would you spend and extra IPC for a piece that offers no defensive advantage.  So I guess I would say that ART are worth it if you are pressing attack, not so much for defending the homefront.

  • 2007 AAR League

    Here’s another thought that would see me buying Art and Arm in more equal numbers:

    Allow Art to move 2 spaces, but without the blitzing ability of tanks. So they can get to the front more quickly.

  • 2007 AAR League

    My ratio of art to inf is 1/15. arm seems to hit much more often. Now in lowluck its whole different story…


  • @Axis4life:

    Art is an asset when you build a lot of INF and are pressing an attack.  They are a solid purchase for Germany for sure and the UK.  Russia has limited use for ART.  After the first few rounds Russia is generally think of ways to stave off the incoming attacks, so why would you spend and extra IPC for a piece that offers no defensive advantage.  So I guess I would say that ART are worth it if you are pressing attack, not so much for defending the homefront.

    I have to disagree with this assessment somewhat.  Because Russia has limited air power, I find it is useful for Russia to have a few artillery to deploy because it increases my odds of killing German (or Japanese) troops with minimal commitment of forces on my part.  So, for example, if I attack Ukraine (with 2 German defenders) with 2 infantry and 1 fighter, my odds of taking Ukraine are only 58% versus nearly 70% (69.65% to be exact) if I attack with 1 infantry, 1 artillery and 1 fighter.  That extra almost 12% odds means greater odds of taking the territory from Germany, gaining an extra 3 bucks in income and forcing the Krauts to take it back (with a 1 in 3 chance of killing another Kraut in the exchange).  In any case, I would much rather lose 7 bucks worth of units trying to take a territory, even if not successful, than losing 8 bucks worth of units, especially when Russia needs those tanks later on for the defense of Moscow.  I always buy tanks early and in later rounds.  But in the middle rounds, artillery can be a good purchase for Russia, IMO.


  • Arty is a good offensive boost where one does not need the speed of tanks, and there is already plenty of infantry.
    For the price of ‘upgrading’ one inf to a tank, one can upgrade 2 inf to 2 arty.

    say 10 inf 6 arty are much better than 13 inf 3 tnk.

    Practically, a great use is the threatening position in Novosibirsk: inf and many arty, with tanks and fighters back in Moscow. May make it difficult for Japan even to come close. Much better than just a defensive position waiting to die.

    But for a final defense (say Germany) 1inf 1tnk are better than 2arty. The extra cost is wasted.

  • 2007 AAR League

    Keep in mind though that 1 Inf 1 Tnk are still a better combo offensively, even if tanks were not faster. The reason is that the tank adds “skew”.

    1 Inf 1 Arm will tend to do better than 1 Inf 1 Art because the 1 Inf 1 Arm force can take a hit and still have a punch of 3 remaining. With the Inf/Art combo, you lose 2 punch with each casualty instead of just 1.


  • The INF/ART combo loses most of its benefits in a large battle if there are insufficient unsupported IN present to absorb hits.  Otherwise, you are losing 2’s on attack instead of 1’s when you lose INF.

    I think Darth posted that a 3:1 ratio is pretty solid for making ART worthwhile…


  • I love to add Art to the game. Usually i play Wagner in the background specifically “entrance of the gods” it enhances my thoughts like classical music is supposed to do. Studies show that classical music enhances creative ideas and thoughts.


  • @Imperious:

    I love to add Art to the game. Usually i play Wagner in the background specifically “entrance of the gods” it enhances my thoughts like classical music is supposed to do. Studies show that classical music enhances creative ideas and thoughts.

    Studies show that drugz0rz also enhance creative ideas and thoughts.

    I like classical music too.  So does Hannibal Lecter.

    Mmm.  Long pork.

  • Moderator

    @ncscswitch:

    The INF/ART combo loses most of its benefits in a large battle if there are insufficient unsupported IN present to absorb hits.  Otherwise, you are losing 2’s on attack instead of 1’s when you lose INF.

    I think Darth posted that a 3:1 ratio is pretty solid for making ART worthwhile…

    Yeah, it was somewhere between 3:1:1 and 4:1:1, for larger stacks (15-20 units+)  But that is purely on economics for BOTH Off and Def and what is the cheapest way to get a good offensive and defensive stack simultaneously.  It ignores the tanks ability to move two, any ftrs/boms you may have, and other units already on the board.

    I tend to go more armor heavy due to the mobility but I do like to always try and have about 2-6 rt and will buy if I have that extra IPC to upgrade an inf.


  • What do you use for amphibious assaults on islands that have 2Inf?  1Inf+1Art or 1Inf+1Arm?

    Does what you take there depend on if you can spare a BB for bombardment or spare a Fig to take there as well?

    Once you land if you use the 1Inf+1Arm tactic, then you might end up with just 1Arm stranded on an island that has a move of 2.

    Do you find yourself taking Arm with mainland amphibious assault and Art to island ones or does it not affect the way you try and do this.

Suggested Topics

Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

26

Online

17.0k

Users

39.3k

Topics

1.7m

Posts