Costs of units/Combat Sequence

What do you want to see in an advanced A&A game?
Share your thoughts... Contribute to the ultimate A&A game design.
User avatar
Imperious leader
Posts: 5207
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:04 am
Location: Moving up to phase line red...

Post by Imperious leader » Sat Feb 26, 2005 1:18 pm

Well after we won the war in 1918 Germania began a large public works program to make her capital more appealing to our new citizens from across Europe. I reside in one of these buildings.
We really need an Axis and Allies World War one game so i can play that on August 1st, 2014.

User avatar
Imperious leader
Posts: 5207
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:04 am
Location: Moving up to phase line red...

Post by Imperious leader » Sat Feb 26, 2005 1:26 pm

Comments noted
Yeah I'll have to make something up... I can't get to it right now but I will eventually get around to it. It could be as simple as this:
A location on the (in this case for the Germans) Battleboard dedicated to Land Combined Arms. Icon of Tank, Inf and Art and Mech Inf. If you have 3 of these 4 items you can place them here. They allow you to roll three dice for each set of 3 pieces. Remember this is a d12 - for every roll of 6 or less they score a hit. Compare this to attacking individually with one inf (4), one Art (4 +2 to the inf) and one Armor (6) or one Mech Inf. (5) Their combined average is 5.25. Up this and round it off to 6. Nice bonus. Exclamation
ATTACK AND DEFENSE NUMBERS
Land based: Attack and Defense numbers based on a 10-sided die
Unit US Japan UK Germany Soviets
Inf 3/4 3/4 3/4 4/4 3/4
Art 4/4+2 4/3+1 4/4+2 4/5+2 5/4+1
Armor 5/4 4/3 5/4 6/6 5/5
fighters 6/6 6/6 5/7 5/6 5/6
Bombers 7/3 6/3 6/3 6/3 5/3

Sea based:
Unit US Japan UK Germany Soviets
Subs 4/3 4/2 3/3 4/3 2/3
DD 5/5 5/5 5/5 4/5 4/4
Crus. 6/6 6/6 6/6 6/5 5/6
BB 7/7 8/6 7/6 7/5 6/6
CV 3/5 3/5 3/5 2/5 2/5
Trans -/1 -/1 -/1 -/1 -/1
fighter 3/4 3/4 3/4 3/4 3/4
Bomber 5/3 4/3 5/3 4/3 5/2
ok here is the facts from larrys mouth. He subsequently agreed to go with d12 system latter in the year (2004) , but since this would disturb the values id just go with d10 for now. After he agreed to adopt a d12 system he never reformulated. I know how to figure out the math, but i wanted you to see the folly in your own numbers. I allready know that a large group of tanks with a few infantry to soak up loses will gain more IP, killing a few additional defenders than is sustained in loses. Then we just retreat to avoid counterattack. We all knew this but somehow you didnt? did you?
We really need an Axis and Allies World War one game so i can play that on August 1st, 2014.

Griffey
Posts: 73
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 8:00 pm
Location: Houston

Larry's Numbers

Post by Griffey » Sat Feb 26, 2005 2:11 pm

Dear Imperious Leader,

You have a true genius for completely missing the point.

The point is, that under the old system, the big, expensive units were strategically irrelevant, because they were not cost-effective IPC investments. They were merely decorations on top of masses of infantry, the only sensible investment.

I was never argued that players were unable to shield their expensive units with infantry, which is what you seem to think I was saying.

Unless radical changes are made to Larry's units' strengths and costs, or some sort of sequenced fire scheme is adopted, similar to mine posted above, the problem of the low cost effectiveness of expensive units will be even bigger in Larry's new system.

Take your example attacking force: 6 tanks, 8 infantry, 2 artillery, 2 bombers, 1 fighter.

Your attacking force would be much more effective if it were 100% infantry, using Larry's new numbers. Do the math. I'm assumning the old costs, viz., infantry 3, tanks 5, artillery 4, fighters 10, bombers 15.

If you eliminate all the expensive units on the above list, and replace them with 26 infantry at the same cost (78 IPC), the attacking force's cumulative attack strength is much greater. The non-infantry listed for this force have a cumulative attack strength of 65 on d12. Twenty-six infantry, which cost just as much as these units, would attack with a strength of 26 x 4 = 104. This is just absurd. The attack strength of infantry should be cut at least in half, and the strength of the more exensive units increased.

This is the sort of absurdity you get when you don't look at the numbers carefully.

But even if these adjustments were made, the inverse square problem will still be there.

Griffey
Posts: 73
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 8:00 pm
Location: Houston

PS on the Combat

Post by Griffey » Sat Feb 26, 2005 2:28 pm

One final note on the example combat. If the attacking force were 100% infantry, it would not only attack with greater strength, it would not need to retreat after one round of fire. It would just roll right over the defender, completely wiping the defender out in two or three rounds.

User avatar
Imperious leader
Posts: 5207
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:04 am
Location: Moving up to phase line red...

Post by Imperious leader » Sat Feb 26, 2005 11:18 pm

Im sure your not using larrys new unit values, and also ignoring naval and air units, since Infantry and nothing else seem to be purchased under your ideas. So if 2 infantry attacks 2 infantry, the defending infantry win most of the time. Then why then if two "Griffeys" play each other the Griffey thats attacks at least one more time than the other Griffey, then the second player would win allways most of the time. Since in REAL games when players do in fact buy other things besides infantry to create situations where short term attacks on Infantry result in a net gain in values, the result is not a failure of the system but rather a credit to how well the game was designed.
There is no evidence to show that the d12 values of the advanced concept have any propensity to be compromised in combat situations, If they dont have any cap of costs as you have pointed out. For illustrative purposes lets only use Naval units since they in fact cost more than 9 IP on a whole. Try to calculate how a carrier and two fighters fares against groups of cruisers, destroyers etc. And dont forget transports (which carry your infantry)--they have values as well. And subs too well have to add some of them. How does this "math " fit into these units with all their intrinsic bonuses and attributes. Also , how do artillery with a bonus of +1 for matching infantry work in your math. Just face it your math is very "fuzzy" as the saying goes. It accounts for such a narrow purpose that its fruitless to continue to apply it in this game. It simply is for other applications other than this game.
We really need an Axis and Allies World War one game so i can play that on August 1st, 2014.

Griffey
Posts: 73
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 8:00 pm
Location: Houston

Math

Post by Griffey » Sat Feb 26, 2005 11:53 pm

Let's go over one more time, I.L.

Using Larry's numbers,

6 tanks cost 30 IPC.
2 artillery cost 8 IPC.
2 bombers cost 30 IPC
1 fighter costs 10 IPC.
TOTAL COST = 78 IPC

Using the Larry's attack factors you just quoted me, let's see how much attack strength (German) these units have.

6 tanks attack @ 6 each = 36 attack strength.
2 artillery attack @ 6 each = 12 " ".
2 bombers attack @ 6 each = 12 " ".
1 fighter attacks @ 5 = 5 attack strength.
TOTAL ATTACK STRENGTH = 65.

Now let's purchase 78 IPC worth of infantry, and see what their attack strength is. One infantry costs 3 IPC. You can purchase 26 infantry with 78 IPC, because 3 x 26 = 78.

What is the attack strength of 26 infantry?

26 x 4 = 104.

So an equal IPC amount of infantry have over 50% more attack strength than the more expensive units. Why would anyone ever buy the more expensive units?

This is a serious game design flaw. I wish you would recognize it, and help me to alert Larry to it.

User avatar
Imperious leader
Posts: 5207
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:04 am
Location: Moving up to phase line red...

Post by Imperious leader » Sun Feb 27, 2005 2:11 am

It simply is not a flaw. The creation of territories to conquer could not be accomplished by building only infantry. Your ONLY IN EVERY CASE looking at defending infantry, and never attacking infantry, with other defending units with higher defensive values (the more expensive units). No player has ever won any game where they defeated the enemy by sole purchase of infantry for attack and defense and won the game. In every case a combination of units was used to swing the odds by having for example artillery with 1/1 matching infantry bonus, planes from farther zones that can move and help out in attacks, and armor that can move two spaces and get into combat faster, than slow moving infantry. Not to mention the fact that if you had one tank on one side of the board and on infantry on the other side of the board, that the tank would take out twice the territories that the infantry would take, which results in a 2/1 IP advantage. In game play the "blitz" rule has intrinsic purposes along with a half dozen such anomilies to your stale Inverse square law math.
We really need an Axis and Allies World War one game so i can play that on August 1st, 2014.

Griffey
Posts: 73
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 8:00 pm
Location: Houston

End of exchange.

Post by Griffey » Sun Feb 27, 2005 9:28 pm

In A&A 1st & 2nd edition, as the Russian, I have won several times with nothing but infantry builds. It's very doable. The Americans and British also can win with nothing but infantry builds for their land attacks.

I've never contended that other types of unit have no use or value. They are simply not nearly as cost-effective as infantry, and cannot be unless the simultaneous fire system is modified, or infantry costs raised to values closer to those of tanks.

There's really no point continuing this exchange. You don't respond to my analysis in the same terms, so it's not productive to continue.

Happy gaming!

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests