Subject: Fw: Axis and Allies (Europe) Inf to Art ratios Michael Sandy wrote in message <1ecoark.jcxv5f1gve2dgN%mehawk@teleport.com>... > Axis and Allies Europe introduces a marvelous new > ground unit, artillery. Artillery increases your > attack pips by the same amount as a tank, although > it is cheaper, 4 IPCs instead of 5. > > The question is, how much artillery should you have? The answer is not as clear as you might think. A 2 Inf :: 1 Art ratio is about as effective on offense as a 1 Inf :: 1 Art ratio, and it is better on defense. Consider 30 Artillery 30 Infantry or the same IPC cost in 21 Artillery, 42 Infantry. 120 Attack pips vs 105 Attack pips. Round 1, they inflict 20 average hits versus 17.5 average hits. So we end up with 30 Art and 12.5 (avg) Inf vs 21 Art and 22 Inf. At this point both sides get 85 pips. The infantry heavy side has lost more units, and so more IPCs, but it will make it up when the artillery heavy side starts losing the more expensive artillery units. Actually, slightly under 2 Inf :: 1 Art might be a little better. Optimal appears to be when all the 1's die on round 1. If you compare 24 IPCs of units, 8 Inf vs 4 Inf and 3 Artillery, you have 8 pips of offense vs 13, at the cost of 1 hit point. 5 pips of offense would expect to take out slightly less than one hit point on round one, so for an allout offensive to take a territory, it appears to be a good buy to have enough extra infantry so that almost all the round 1 casualties come off the extra infantry. The more attack pips which come from tanks and planes, the _higher_ the Inf :: Art ratio should be. The number of infantry in excess of the artillery should be determined by the expected casualties you would suffer on offense in round 1. Of course, this advice only applies to multi-round battles. For overruns, when the enemy has only a token defense, and you expect to kill all the defenders in one round, you want to have as much infantry as possible to hold the territory. A 2:1 Inf :: Art ratio does have some drawbacks. It will inflict fewer casualties on round 1, which means that in a strafing attack the attacker might lose more IPCs worth of troops than the defender. Worse, the round after the strafe, the strafer will have lost more pip of defense than the target of the strafe lost pips of offense. If the Russians lose 20 Infantry and the Germans lose 25 Infantry then the Germans will have gained an advantage of 15 pips on offense on their next turn. My most spectacular strafe attack had 42 Inf, 23 Art, 5 tanks, 3 fighters, 2 bombers vs 41 Inf, 8 Art, 22 tanks. 75 vs 71 units. I had 6 Art and 5 tanks and the Germans had 2 tanks in Belorussia at the very end. Germany had 9 Inf and 7 tanks in East Poland, so I was quite happy that I didn't take Belorussia in that strafe. The relative totals, -1 Inf, -9 Art, +20 tanks for an IPC shift of 61 IPCs. The combat lasted 5 rounds. On the face of it, I didn't have much of an edge in attack pips, but after round 1 I had more of an edge because I lost 1's while the Germans lost 2's. In my opinion, Russia should try to get to a 2 : 1 Inf :: Art ratio as fast as possible. Russia should nibble away at German infantry where possible. It doesn't really matter whether it is a lone tank or lone infantry holding a territory. Killing it will reduce the defense pips of the total German force more than the Russians will lose offense pips by attacking it. Suppose that Russia has 40 Infantry and 20 Artillery, they launch air supported Infantry attacks into territories held by 1 or 2 German infantry. Over the course of two turns of attacking two territories per turn, the Germans lose 8 infantry, and the Russians lose 6 or 7, plus they build an extra infantry. The Germans lose 16 defense pips for their main stack while the Russians lose maybe 6 pips. (Not including builds or reinforcements, just the results of those battles.) Michael Sandy Subject: Fw: A&AE Psychological Warfare Michael Sandy ... One of the neat things about A&AE is that there is an element of psychological warfare to it. I played against a Germany who deployed his air force as if he intended to tenaciously defend the Western Beaches. So the Allies built a Carrier and lots of DDs. The Germans never attacked the Allies' fleet, and never had troops exposed on the Coast. As a result, the Allies defensive fleet build were largely wasted points. Similarly, Germany could pull his air force back, as if he were going to commit the planes to Attrition combat versus Russia, but then bring them back West if England built lots of transports. England would probably have to pull his transports out of range, which would cost him the jump on invading Norway, for example, and another turn to bring the transports back. The Allies can play psychological games too. They can convince Germany that they intend to go all out for Germany, prompting Germany to go into solid infantry production, and then they reinforce Russia to the point that Russia can take the offensive against Germany. People shouldn't be wedded to a particular strategy independant of what their opponents do, in this or any game. It is a good idea to have a solid decision tree worked out. For example: If Germany takes 4 Inf Poland, I take 3 Art Belorussia. If Germany takes 4 Inf Hungary, I take 3 Art Ukraine. If Germany takes 3 Art Belorussia, I take 4 Inf Ukraine If Germany takes transport Danish Sea, I take sub North Sea, possibly Inf Malta, and save an IPC. If Germany takes transport Tyrrhenian, intending to cripple the Allied production, take steps to improve the British production. Take Sub Celtic Sea and you can immediately retake the 5 Convoy zone. If Russia builds artillery on turn 1, I build Infantry in Germany on turn 2. If Germany concentrates against Russia, the Allies build more transports and fewer DDs. There isn't going to be anything on the beaches for them to shell, anyway. If Germany defends Norway with lots of fighters, the Allies stage through the Celtic Sea, if they base out of France or Belgium, they stage through the Atlantic. Michael Sandy Michael Sandy