Destroyers and Artillery a failure?

[Clausewitz]

Since most of my games end without a single artillery or destroyer on the board, I'm inclined to declare the introduction of these pieces a failure, and suggest a drastic rules fix to save them from obsolescence.
I don't recall anyone ever buying a destroyer - do these pieces have qualities I'm missing or are they just too expensive?
Perhaps a minelaying/sweeping role would give them more definition?
Why buy artillery when you can buy tanks?
I refer you to my suggested role for artillery, that of firing into an adjacent territory during opening fire, and to my two cannons per traveller proposal. The first of these seems to have been addressed in Larry's additional D-Day rules, perhaps an official rule for Long-range fire is needed in AAR.

[axis_roll]

Since most of my games end without a single artillery or destroyer on the board, I'm inclined to declare the introduction of these pieces a failure, and suggest a drastic rules fix to save them from obsolescence.
Why buy artillery when you can buy tanks?

Artillery is a great buy for USSR. They have plenty of inf that can use the offensive boost. The Eastern front is very near to their supply lines, so the range that makes tanks better then arty is not necessarily needed for USSR, especially early. Arty is also $1 cheaper, and for a cash strapped nation like USSR, that can be huge over a few rounds.

I've seen destroyer purchases, but mostly as blocking pieces around UK to stop not only the surface vessels, but the subs from attacking a main fleet as well.

[pagan]

Destroyers are based on need.... (smile)

Artillery are actually worth something if you plan on attacking with lots of Infantry. However with a stationary plan (defense minded), you are better suited for a tank. Somewhee in the middle would be foresight. (smile)

[cousin_joe]

Like pagan and axis_roll say, artillery is a great offensive unit, and as far as damage on offense, is a better unit IPC for IPC, than a tank (which is better wrt mobility, and damage on defense).

I would tend to agree with you on destroyers though. They are either overpriced for their function, or underpowered for their cost. Since subs are also overpriced or underpowered, having destroyers present in order to attack subs would give both the sub and destroyer more intrinsic value, and also a greater chance of being purchased.

[DY]

I agree that the destroyer is bad. I have never built one and am unlikely to in the near future.

I TOTALLY disagree about artillery. I laugh at Soviet layers who buy tanks. Artillery is king for the Soviets. It is also good for the USA and UK as a cheap way to bolster the offensive potential of their amphibious assaults ($1 cheaper than the inf/tank combo with nearly as good offensive power)

[SquishyBall]

Arty's are certainly good. The reason you never see them sitting around at the end of the game is because when ppl buy them, they buy them to use them. An arty that sits around till the end was a waste of $1, as an infantry could have equally sat around for cheaper. So you only buy artys if they'll be attacking, and then, they always get taken as casualties before tanks, thus they don't live on.

An arty/inf costs 7, a tank/inf costs 8, and both have a total of 4 attack. So the arty is a more effective attacker, and cheaper casualty to take before you lose tanks.

So they are very valuable. Just cuz games don't end w them on the map is irrelevant because of their attacking nature.

Now Destroyers, I'm kinda in agreement, that they're not too useful. Would you buy a BB? You could get 2 destroyers for the same price, which attack at 3+3 instead of just 4. That decision comes down to the question of whether you're building a big fleet, or lots of small fleets. Small fleets / battles, and the BB is better, cuz it repairs. Large fleets / battles, and the 2 DD's are better, since they fire 50% stronger than a BB, and if you have other less expensive casualties, then the DD's will survive.

DD's are also perfect transport support ships. One DD escorting a fleet of trannies is all you need to discourage your opp from hitting your ships w planes, or rolling for the hated LRA, and taking out your unprotected transports.

So I'm not likely to BUY many DD's, but the 2 that start the game on the US east coast are quite valuable.

[cousin_joe]

I would disagree with you DY re: TANKS for the Soviets. There's nothing like having a stack of ARM in Moscow that can simultaneously threaten 12 different territories at once. ARM are great because of their mobility, and when you have the Germans advancing from the West, and the Japanese from the East, that mobility is sorely needed. RTL are great too, but you can't forget about the ARM. :)

[series]

Well, I rarely see artillery purchases except for amphibious assaults paired with infantry, but destroyers are good because they cost half of a battleship so by spending 24 IPC on destroyers you get 2 shots, so pretty much 1 is almost garunteed a hit and another possibly.

[Aetherfukz]

Well I think artillery is very well worth it if you plan to attack. They are only 1 IPC more than infantry and attack at 2 and make another inf attack at 2 that is some huge bonus than if you had only 2 inf to begin with.

Destroyers on the other hand I have never seen bought. True the 2 that the US player starts with are nice to defend a fleet, but if I wanted to buy something to defend a fleet, a carrier is only 4 points more and the fighters are extremely nice in defense and can pressure the enemy much more than a destroyer. And they don't cost 12 points either.

I don't know, maybe try a few games with destroyers buying at 10 IPCs may help?

[Scott_WAR]

Detroyers are worth 12 ipc's if the combined bombardment tech is obtained. 10 IPC is too cheap if the combined bombardment tech is obtained. So there is a problem with lowering a destroyer to 10 IPC's. Its just sad that tech is necessary to make a unit a viable option.
Artillery on the other hand, I have to agree arent really a sound buy. I only buy an artillery if I have 4 ipc left over, 1 less than enough for a tank. 1 ipc more for a tank, that can move 2 spaces, attack at 3 and defend at 3 is a deal.

[SquishyBall]

That's tough, cuz a destroyer should cost more than a fighter. Maybe 11? It's a good point that an ACC is currently only 4 more.. but an ACC doesn't attack w a 3. So 12 might be okay. And if I need to buy a transport support ship, or something to escort my carrier, it'll most likely be a destroyer. The detecting subs option is cool.

Many ppl argue that subs are worthless now, but if you consider how rarely ppl buy DD's, subs are still good. And since subs are still good, that makes DD's valuable, and you get a good cycle of enforcing the other's value.

It's actually quite a good system, as no naval unit dominates, and it makes you want to have a little of all of them. You want one DD in your fleet to negate enemy subs, but you want a sub, both to allow submerging, and first-shot, and to encourage your enemy to need a DD. It's cool. The more I think about it, DD's are where they should be, at 12. Nobody will likely build a fleet of them, but they're good to have at least one.

Now, ppl argue the ACC is the dominant unit.. but a fleet of only acc's is weak... you need the BB and support ships. It's a lot like real naval warfare now.

Keep in mind that the cost of a loaded ACC is 16+10+10=36. For the same 36, you could get 3 DD's. 3DD's are better on attack (9 vs 7) but worse on defense (9 vs 11). So it's actually a really close call.

[series]

Destroyers are good about one thing: they disable submarine special abilities! So if the aircraft carrier gets attacked by the sub and the sub hits, the whole ship goes down, including the fighters (if they have nowhere to land) since subs cant hit air units.

[tactical]

No one goes into why the carrier is so good, allows 2 ftrs, this really helps out is when you need to blockade a certain sz, or if you want to include ftrs in an amphibious attack from sea.

[thrasher]

One instance you buy destroyers:

When you are short on cash but you really need naval power *now*.

Interesting discussion!

thrasher,
http://axisandallies.TK

[Clausewitz]

I think destroyers will only come into their own when workable stealth sub rules become standard. If subs can move unseen then players will be forced to buy destroyers to counter this. Without stealth, subs are a poor buy, therefore no subs, therefore no destroyers.

[TomJag3]

I think that the naval units are pretty balanced. BB's are still a little expensive, but there aren't any worthless units. You get what you pay for. Submarines have their advantages and disadvantages. Still, you have an attack and defense of 2. DD's at a cost of 12 are 1 1/2 times better than subs, at twice the cost. CV's are expensive for their attack and defense value, at 16, but the ability to carry 2 fighters makes them worthwhile. BB's, at 24, are the most overpriced unit of the naval suite. Yes, they absorb 1 extra hit, but I think they would be better priced at 20. That would be the cost of 2 1/2 subs and more reflective of what they could do offensively and defensively.

In the naval game, subs and transports are the attrition units. Think of them as the infantry of the ocean. DD's are the tanks. The problem about a naval program is that it's very expensive to build a fleet. Welcome to reality.

Germany built lots of U-boats because they were cheap and could sink convoys. They didn't build them to go out and sink a battle line.

[series]

DD's at a cost of 12 are 1 1/2 times better than subs, at twice the cost.
Actually, carriers are twice the sub cost. Destroyers are 1 1/2 times more expensive, and that much better.

[Clausewitz]

Just to round this all up, I have to say that nobody has persuaded me to change my original view.
While in AAEurope artillery were a good buy, in my opinion the new 3-3 tanks render them redundant. A 50% increase on attack and defence for just 1 more IPC?
A lot of people swear by USSR artillery purchases, but tanks built in Russia can reach anywhere in the crucial Moscow-Caucasus- India- Singkiang area (where I believe the majority of games are won and lost) in one move. This is the decisive factor in considering tanks over artillery every time. The same thing goes for the axis, with the drive to Moscow needing strong tank forces for both. For the western allies that crucial tank and infantry transport capacity freezes out artillery buys. I haven't calculated the odds, but it seems to me that it is better to attack with rolls of 1 and 3 than with 2 rolls of 2.
As for destroyers, I think perhaps there is a subconscious prejudice against these units because people feel that the 3-3 surface ship is the rightful role of the fabled Cruiser, while the destroyer's correct role would be an 8 IPC 2-2 surface ship with anti-submarine and possibly minelaying/sweeping duties.
In truth, I would have to admit I haven't really given destroyers a fair crack of the whip, but without stronger and more threatening sub rules DDs just don't seem to have a sufficiently definitive role.

[axis_roll]

Just to round this all up, I have to say that nobody has persuaded me to change my original view.

I rarely read any of your posts cause they are so opinionated (as most are) HOWEVER you often fail to listen to counter posts... EVER. Your mind is always set once you create an initial thread that I wonder why you even post besides throwing out your wild ideas and thoughts for all to read.

You even tell everyone yourself:
In truth, I would have to admit I haven't really given destroyers a fair crack of the whip, but without stronger and more threatening sub rules DDs just don't seem to have a sufficiently definitive role..that you are so pig-headed that regardless of your knowledge base on a subject, you are still right.

another example:
I haven't calculated the odds, but it seems to me that it is better to attack with rolls of 1 and 3 than with 2 rolls of 2.
Often times. you must put facts into the proper context. The answer to the above dilema depends on likelyhood of how fast you will lose your attacking units, so the question of which is better (2-2 vs 1-3) is relative. Personally, I don't know that answer.

Also, you are not even using the proper facts to back your case, for example:
A 50% increase on attack and defence for just 1 more IPC?
that's true if you look at the art as a stand alone piece versus a tank, but the beauty of the artillery is it also increases inf by 50% on the attack as well.

Seriously, did you even read what people posted about in your thread?

[Clausewitz]

Ouch! :eek:

I'm sorry if I appear opinionated. It's just that I've got this crazy idea that the boards are here for people to post opinions. That must be my insufferable arrogance again.
If I prefix a statement with "it seems to me" is that being pig-headed?
The very reason I post ideas here is precicely that I AM VERY INTERESTED in other people's views, what would be the point otherwise?
Again, just because "nobody has persuaded me to change my mind" doesn't mean I don't listen to what people have to say.
At least I am prepared to put up new ideas for others to take pot shots at.
I don't, for example, just sit on the sidelines sniping and sneering at other folk's suggestions without proposing any of my own. ;)

[Atlantikwall]

There's nothing like having a stack of ARM in Moscow that can simultaneously threaten 12 different territories at once. There may be 12 countries that are two spaces away from Moscow, but you don`t have that many targets. It would (theoretically) be nice to have two infantry stocks in WRU and NOV and threaten both frontiers with some arm in the middle, I agree. But the "problem" is that the SU (normally) doesn´t have that many cash to afford two "active" frontiers and normally you will need your units for defence in one or the other side.

[Clausewitz]

In my experience, if the USSR concentrates on defence it will just die a death as it is squashed between the German and Japanese tank drives. I've found that by buying a large mobile tank force and mounting counter attacks the Soviets can live longer and give more aid to their allies.
Once again, the new 3-3 tanks completely change the way the game plays out. Artillery are only worth buying if you introduce a rule allowing them to bombard into adjacent territories during opening fire

[axis_roll]

At least I am prepared to put up new ideas for others to take pot shots at.
I don't, for example, just sit on the sidelines sniping and sneering at other folk's suggestions without proposing any of my own. ;)
I have posted novel ideas/questions too here at AH boards

It just seems to me that regardless of what people post, you never change your mind about something.

[Clausewitz]

Au contraire, Blackadder.

In this very post I've advocated an aggressive USSR buying a large tank force. If you read my posts on earlier threads you'll see me firmly sticking by an infantry and artillery only policy for Russia.

This change of policy was in no small way a result of reading about other people's experiences and opinions on this forum

[DXfoxman]

I think the destroyers are worth it because of the Anti-sub feature they can do. if your up against a group of subs, or want to protect that transport, the destroyer is the way to go.
Artillery is good for dead-zones. If you attack with alot of inf supported by an artillery, you will usually take and hold that territory for turns to come.

[DocD]

Just to round this all up, I have to say that nobody has persuaded me to change my original view.
While in AAEurope artillery were a good buy, in my opinion the new 3-3 tanks render them redundant. A 50% increase on attack and defence for just 1 more IPC?
A lot of people swear by USSR artillery purchases, but tanks built in Russia can reach anywhere in the crucial Moscow-Caucasus- India- Singkiang area (where I believe the majority of games are won and lost) in one move. This is the decisive factor in considering tanks over artillery every time. The same thing goes for the axis, with the drive to Moscow needing strong tank forces for both. For the western allies that crucial tank and infantry transport capacity freezes out artillery buys. I haven't calculated the odds, but it seems to me that it is better to attack with rolls of 1 and 3 than with 2 rolls of 2.
As for destroyers, I think perhaps there is a subconscious prejudice against these units because people feel that the 3-3 surface ship is the rightful role of the fabled Cruiser, while the destroyer's correct role would be an 8 IPC 2-2 surface ship with anti-submarine and possibly minelaying/sweeping duties.
In truth, I would have to admit I haven't really given destroyers a fair crack of the whip, but without stronger and more threatening sub rules DDs just don't seem to have a sufficiently definitive role.
Boy, I tell you, I'm off the boards for a couple of weeks and von Clausewitz starts making sense!!
Unbelievable!!!
I agree with everything you wrote buddy...I'm I in a Clausewitz dream or are you playing some kind of Vulcan mind game or what??

[monteeko]

I have found that both artillery and destroyers are a great help in the revised rules of A&A, in as much as they bring into play 2 units that are not very expensive, but can add greatly to one countries' war effort.

For example
Infantry cost 3, attack 1, defend 2.
Artillery cost 4, attack/defend 2 AND increase a matching infantry attack to 2
Tanks cost 5, attack/defend 3.

Tanks are almost always the best purchase for Germany and Russia, but 4 IPC's don't get it done. When faced with a shortage of funds, an infantry/artillery combination is great for either Great Britain or the US for assualts either on Africa or somewhere on the European continent. If used in concert with naval bombardment and/or fighter/bomber support, a player can capture just about any evenly defended territory the Germans may have.

Submarines cost 8, attack/defend 2 - Opening Fire capable
Destroyers cost 12, attack/defend 3 - cancels sub Opening Fire
Battleships cost 24, attack/defend 4 - 2 hits to sink

There's no denying that battleships are king with their almost-sure-to-hit 4 attack/defend strength and the 2 hits to sink reliability - they are expensive. With all the other units that must be purchased, players don't always have enough left over to purchase one of these behemoths. A submarine, though relatively inexpensive, attacks and defends only at 2. Subs have the Opening Fire advantage, but this usually soaked up by a enemy battleship. Subs are weak and cheap, battleship are strong but expensive. An intermediary units was needed. Destroyers fill this void nicely. For 12 IPC's, a destroyer has a 50/50 chance to hit and that's pretty good in any battle. When playing Great Britain, I've found them to be my mainstay to fight off the German Luftwaffe so I can quickly land on either Western Europe, Norway or both. And all of the same arguments apply equally to the US when faced with the war against Japan in the Pacific.

Artillery and destroyers are just as important in the game of Axis & Allies as they were during the actual conflict. And even though destroyers were referred to as 'tincans' this belies their usefulness in almost any situation.

Monteeko

[Katzegott]

Both are very valuable is used properly.

DDs re a MUST have in any major navy where you are up against subs. Their main role seems to be carrier/fleet defence. Of course since they attack at 3 also they can be used in the offensive punch as well ( even defend the fleet on the offense from sub hits. A fleet with DDs and subs vs a fleet with subs and no DDs is not a pretty picture.

Artillery is a great buy. You can turn already placed infantry into an offensive power relatively quickly. The cost make them a great suppliment to USSRs buying turn. Even UK can benefit from them in India. I have not yet tried them in a german attack plan but have a feeling they would make a great addition to the tank purchases.

[Stephen]

With a few of the other changes, I think ship warfare is dramatically improved in AAR, mostly with the sub changes and the addition of the destroyer.

In MB AA, CVs and BBs could be sunk by a lucky sub strike. Now, BBs have protection against solitary sub attacks. CVs are cheaper and thus better in AAR, but retain the vulnerability to subs. For every sub added in attack, you need to add fodder to absorb hits, which under strain wasn't always affordable.

In AAR, a destroyer negates the subs ability to fire and survive (by reducing the amount of defence fire). Thus, a single destroyer purchase against a number of threatening subs can reduce the need to buy multiple subs that will only go to their deaths. I've noticed this in some games, because BBs are better, I can buy a DD to counter multiple subs, whereas in MB AA I'd have to purchase 3 subs or get the hell out of there :)

Granted, I think more could have been done to improve sea warfare, such as convoys. There was another rule set that added a few ships (forget the name). But for my 2 rubles (not sure my idea is worth 2 cents :) , I like AAR subs, but would like approx 11 IPC 2-2-2 destroyers that negate sub advantages, approx 14 IPC 3-3-2 cruisers and approx 16 IPC carriers that are 1-2-2*.

* Subject to revision by players who are smarter than me :)

[pagan]

get rid of the Destroyer tech and make it standard

keep DDs at 12 IPCs in cost

MAke DDs: 2-2 for att-def

just some mental notes:
1. DDs negate SS hits without return fire

2. SS still swim under stuff

3. DDs get bombardment @ 2 att

4. SS only hit ships (which is a positive btw)

5. don't like that a single DD eliminates an entire fleet of SS ability to quick shot ships without return fire. (but oh well, 1 for 1 was not a popular choice i guess)

[Molotov Cocktail]

With regards to artillery I'd have to say that I am very glad that they were included in AAR. My reasons for this are;

i. I remember playing AAE and thinking to myself, "wouldn't it be cool if artillery and destroyers were part of A&A. Well WotC made that wish come true. You wanted it you got it.

ii. After making my purchases I sometimes find myself with 1 IPC left. That used to bug me. What's the point saving a buck? So now I can take away an inf and replace it with an artillery and no 1 IPC left. Plus it gives my inf a 2 attack with an inf instead of 2 inf at 1. All for an extra buck. Sounds good to me.

Destroyers I'd have to agree are a bit expensive for what you get in this one but at least you have a choice now. I would like to have seen DD with a shore bombardment @2 and bring back Industrial Technology. A shore bombardment at 2 would make them worth the 12 bucks. Half price of a BB and half the bombardment power. I also prefer the DD must be present for planes to attack subs.

[Final Attack]

I had a thought while reading these posts.

Something is amiss ...

LAND
ART 2/2 - 4 IPC
TNK 3/3 - 5 IPC

SEA
SUB 2/2 - 8 IPC (Double the price of ART)
DD 3/3 - 12 IPC (2 IPC's more that double the price of TNK)

Now with LHTR's SUB's with SS Tech upgrade can do 3/3.

DD's are indead useless. Especially considering that subs are hardly ever an issue because they are more often than not become fodder.

I guess DD's do stop sub stalling ... that is if the sub lives long enough to stall the fleet.

I'd like to know the statistical difference between buying 2 DD's or 3 SUB's both costing 24 dollars.

3 dice all trying to get 2
2 dice trying to get 3

I guess the attack is the same. HOWEVER there are 3 subs (3 hits to kill)

Who thinks DD's should be 10 IPC's. IF DD's became more popular than the corresponding TECH advancement would also become more useful!

At least 2 DD's are better than 1 Battleship. That is unless the battleship survives more than one battle and is continually repairing itself for free.

Man my head hurts ...

[Final Attack]

I apologise if my math is incorrect.

TNKs Vs ARTs (mixed with INF)

Lets have a clean fight now!

ART 2/2
INF 2/2 (with ARTs)
TNK 3/3

To get both 1 ART and 1 INF - 7 IPCs
Also for this fight we must always assume that each ART will ALWAYS be paired with INF during attacks.

************************************************** ******

Credits spent - 21 for ART and 20 for TNK's
Let us let the tanks have a disadvantage of 1 IPC because everyone thinks there hot stuff.

4 TNK's (20 IPC's) {Vs} 3 ART and 3 INF (21 IPC's)

TNK - 4 dice to roll 3's (4 chances at 1/2 - 2 hits average)
ART/INF - 6 dice to roll 2's (6 chances at 1/3 - 2 hits average)

TNK 4 lives Vs ART/INF 6 lives

I apologise if my math is incorrect.

Now I can see that this leans heavily in favour of a ART and INF mix. But remember TNK's had a 1 IPC disadvantage.

************************************************** *******

Round 2

35 Credits spent (even cost each side)

7 TNK's Vs 5 ART and 5 INF

TNK - 7 dice to roll 3's (3 1/2 chances for a hit)
ART/INF - 10 dice to roll for 2's (3 1/3 chances for a hit)

TNK 7 lives vs ART/INF 10 lives



My conclusion:
Maybe these units are more closely balanced than we think. Sure TNK's are only 1 IPC more than ART, but ART mixed with INF makes a similarly lethal mix, and will take more hits.

Remember TNK's can blitz though ... so even if the ART and INF mix is better. They will never cover the ground that TNK's can. Also the psycological effect of TNK's is very important. People see 4 TNK's in a territory, they get scared.

Also this test was done assuming that ART would always have a INF buddy during an attack

Assuming my math isn't completely flawed my advice is to have a good mix of ground troops.

[Final Attack]

I'd like to do a quick test with Sea units. Ignoring all tech and special abilities. I'll deal with AC's later because of their ability to hold FTR's which is a big advantage.

Cost

SUB - 8 ICP's
DD - 12 ICP's
BB - 24 ICP's

Round 1
SUB vs DD's vs BB

2 DD's vs 3 Subs vs BB

DD - 2 dice to roll 3 (or lower of course) (1 hit average)
SUB - 3 dice to roll 2 (1 hit average)
BB - 1 dice to roll 4 (2/3 chance to hit)

SUB 3 lives Vs DD 2 lives Vs BB 2 lives (plus option to repair one hit if it survives battle)

SUBs win! Firstly in the absence of DD's Subs attack first, destroying targets before they get a chance to fire, and also if they can submerge and stall a fleet if so desired. If the same amount of money is spent on naval ships Subs have the best chance of hitting and/or more life than others.

For purposes of giving BB's a fair go we could give them 3 lives instead of 2 assuming that they will on average survive at least one battle.

Thus:
SUB 3 Vs DD 2 lives Vs BB 3 lives.

Subs still hit more often than BB's

FINALLY, with LHTR's Subs can become 3/3 super subs that cost only 8 IPC's! 4 less than destroyers.

[Final Attack]

*phew* nobody posted, while I was away.

I just realised something. SUBs do have a definate weakness. They can't attack air. Just imagine buying 5 subs and then seeing a group of 6 FTRs and BMRs coming and destroying three or four of them without even the possibility of you firing back. Sure they can submerge after the first round. But a squadron of FTR's only need one round to devistate your SUB heavy fleet.

This is probably why SUBs are a few IPCs cheaper than they should be. SUBs are great but keep them well out of range of Aircraft if they are going to be by themselves.

OK now for the next fight.

ACs (Full of FTRs) Vs DD Vs BB Vs SUB

This test also doesn't take into account the fact that SUBs can't hit FTRs or that FTRs need to land somewhere if the AC blows up, or they will suffer the same result.

ACs 1/4
FTRs 3/4

Cost

ACs (fully loaded with FTRs) - 36 IPC
ACs - 16 IPC

Round 1

I'm assuming best possible conditions for every unit.

IPCs spent 72

2 ACs fully loaded
3 BBs
6 DDs
9 SUBs

ACs/FTRs (defense) - 6 dice to roll 4 (4 hits average)
ACs/FTRs (attack) - 4 dice to roll 4 and 2 dice to roll 1 (3 1/3 hits average)
BBs - 3 dice to roll 4 (2 1/3 hits average)
DDs - 6 dice to roll 3 (3 hits average)
SUBs - 9 dice to roll 2 (3 hits average)

Lives
ACs - 6 lives
BBs- 6 lives (assuming they all survive at least one battle = 9 lives)
DDs - 6 lives
SUBs - 9 lives

Now I realise none of my math actually takes into account a second round of fighting. Where those who hit less often would be at a major disadvantage. Such as BBs who have the worst hit rate for their cost.

BBs also only have a similar lifespan of SUBs if they survive more than one battle on average, but with their weaker hit rate to cost ratio, it looks like they have the most chance of dying.

Is the Shore Bombardment ability THAT GOOD? To make BBs this expensive? I don't think it is. What if BBs where 5/4 or 4/5? worth it then? maybe that will break them. Because they can take a free hit they might go on missions across sea zones wiping the floor with other sea vessels. How about reducing the cost to 20 or 22 IPCs? Maybe the latter.

With the sea foam settling and wreakage sinking. I can say that I am most impressed with the AC unit. As long as you keep them fully loaded and close to allied shorelines they are the best defense against anything! Also with the JF Tech they are devistating. SUBs may be their best target but also their biggest weakness. SUBs can be destroyed by the fighters going on a solo mission however if a few SUBs was able to get in without you noticing it could sink your AC then submerge, leaving your FTRs homeless.

[Final Attack]

While I'm not looking forward to anyone shooting down my findings, I'd like to get some feedback on how accurate these messy "one round of fighting" tests where. :D

*fastens the last clip of his flame retardant vest*

Also do you if these findings, if correct, warrant a new thread? If so I'll colate my findings and reformat them into one post.

I got impatient waiting for someone to give me the nod so I just did it.

Click here (http://boards.avalonhill.com/showthread.php?p=22067#post22067)

[TomJag3]

One thing you've overlooked in your arty/inf vs armor is the use of combined arms and armor's advantage in defending the territory they've taken. You normally won't have armor attacking without some infantry coming along to absorb losses and armor helps defend the newly captured territory more effectively than inf/arty. I feel you need a mix of the three forces. I don't think your calculations take into account the effects of a counterattack. I don't know a thing about the numbers, but I like a ratio of inf:arty:armor of about 3:1:1. It's difficult to have too many infantry, but you need a core group of attack units. Arty and Armor, with inf are both equally good for attack. Armor provides an edge in defending territory once it's taken.

[AAGeneral]

Well, as armor defends at 3 and be able to transport like an artillery now, I definitely will spend one more IPC for armor, instead of artillery (probably except for Russia). I buy artillery is more likely when I have 4 IPC left.

In AAE, I tend to buy artillery a lot more often than armor. Yes, the +1 defend and more cargo in transport makes a big difference to me (I guess it is a feeling for buying something with 20% off. :)

[TritonPower]

Destroyers are a GREAT buy. At half the cost of a Battleship and they attack/defend at 3!
I see US players alot of times build their Pacific fleet accordingly:
transports for island hopping, Battleship, Carrier [fully loaded] 2 Destroyers.
This type of fleet is an extreme threat to Japanese existance in the Pacific. And is ready for deployment after 2 turns. It also forces Japan to build more fleet.

[GROGnads]

From what I've read in this, it would appear that the Destroyer at 3/3/2 C12 without the 'Bombardment' IS a 'bargain'. I'd advocate that it be changed to 2/2/2 C10 or 11 with 'Bombardment' ability so that a Heavy Cruiser piece can be introduced. But I'm the 'spoiled' one since I already have just such, as well as 'Light Cruisers', 'Pocket Battleships', 'Battlecruisers', and I'll even use my 'teeny tiny itsy bitsy' DDs as Minesweepers/Minelayers. You too, can get these same ones from the good folks at CinC and they are very distinictive appearing in case you'd like to ADD to the authentic 'look' in YOUR games! :eek:

The Artillery is a great 'companion' piece to an Infantry Attack and I believe that they did a dis-service by 'mutating' the previous 'Transport' Rules to what they are now. It took away from the 'Artys' place on an 'Amphib Assault' since NOW you CAN 'take' a Tank along with an Infantry for this! It is also more feasible since the Tank is going to 'Defend' at '3' as well and you'll just 'burn up' the Infantry for 'fodder'.:confused:

[original_james]

Gentlemen, gather around. In a world full of so many uncertainties, let me step forward and give you the answers you seek. Let me lift this burden from your bowed heads. (Since I can assume, that by definition, I am probably the only person to never think I might be wrong, I can proceed with clarity of mind that I am 100% correct on all matters I discuss)
(Ok, Just joking guys, don't line me up without my blindfold)
<end of joking introduction, beginning of my 4 cent humble opinion>
Proof (modeled extremely loosely from Geometry proof process, i.e. just kidding)
1st Given statement:
James' 1st Law: Hear me out, each nation starts the game with pieces they did not purchase, since it is reasonable to assume that at least a few of these pieces can survive to later rounds, they are in effect 'free' pieces that can influence later round decisions.
James' 2nd Law: I believe that existing (semi-free because they already exist prior to your current decision on purchases and as such they do not cost you extra money this round) pieces do affect current round productions.
Here is my theory:
Money spent, is money under the bridge and therefor unchangeable with 2 exceptions. 1) Artillery, and 2) Aircraft Carriers
Statement 1:
Standard:For 1 extra IPC, you change 2 (planned attacking infantry) into 1I,1Art~ 2 Inf = 2 'pips' vs 4 'pips'
But: (given James' 1st law of surviving 'free' pieces) without the extra IPC you can change 2 (planned infantry) into 1 Art and 2 IPCs saved (using a 'free' inf) to get 4 'pips' on attack.
Furthermore: Money spent last round can be bolstered (James' 2nd law of 'semi-free' pieces) by building 1 Art for 4 IPCs and raising an existing non-purchased this round attack value of an Inf to 2 for offense.
Example 1: R1 Russia, I build 6 Artillery and invoke James, 1st law in order to move 6 infantry from the east into Russia, the planned placement zone (ignore optimal placement/movement for now) giving me 12 units at 24 'pips' in offense (to counter a german movement nextdoor to the capital) VS (build 3 arm,3 inf) for 12 pieces with 18 'pips' in offense (1 pip = 1/6 chance to hit)
Summary of Example 1, by raising 6 existing 'free' pieces in offense, you can expect 1 additional likely hit in 1st round of battle. (note early losses of infantry reduce value of artillery in later rounds of battle) Other 'free' infantry can remain/move into Russia as fodder for both cases....All this proves, is that existing pieces can influence your current round build... I shall tear{rip} apart artillery later in my next post. (I.E. Defense)
Statement 2: When building a defensive fleet AC can inhance the value of 'free' existing, surviving units or it can inhance the value of 'semi-free' units built the previous round. I.E. by building 1 carrier, (16 IPCs) vs 2 Destroyers (24 IPCs) you can also utilize 2 addition fighters(James' 1st Law) in the defense. Note: this defense requires fighters to remain out of position with the fleet. However, {once a naval battle ends}/{seas are clear of hostile units}, existing destroyers are stuck in sea, remainder of game, however, fighters (built and 'free') that survive sea battle, can be redeployed to assist in land battles. Further inhancing an AC 2 FTR build over a 3 DD build. Note: assume naval losses used existing transports/subs as fodder in both cases.
Example 1: R1 Britain (facing immenent attack from german fleet/air) 30IPC's do I buy 2 destroyers (24 IPCs) or 1 AC and 1 Tran/sub (also 24 IPCs) except that 20 'free' IPCs are available with the AC build. (2 add. FTRs)James' 1st Law
Would you rather defend with 1BB, 2 TN, 1 RusSub and 2 Destroyers? or
Would you rather defend with 1BB, 2/3 TN, 2/1 Bri/RusSub and 1 AC, 2 FTRs?
6 pieces with 14 'pips' vs 8 pieces with 21 'pips' / 20 'pips' Depending on if you built a trans or a sub)
Note: with 2 DD you have 6 bucks unable to help R1, with 1 AC you can use 4 of those bucks and upgrade to 1 DD but that doesn't negate the 'free' planes from tipping the scale.
Further Note: I shall do seperate piece comparisons later, I used existing pieces to demonstrate added value of Art and AC purchase.

To be continued...

[original_james]

Now, lets set aside James' 1st & 2nd Laws for now.

Postulate:
There are no pieces on the game board, which build should I use
Given: "I plan to purchase for an attack" I can therefor choose #1 to build 1 Inf, 1 Art or #2 I can build 1 Inf and 1 Tank.
Round #1 of Battle (Transported amphib. assault with 1 TN load)
#1=4 'pips' offense (1 pip=1/6 chance to hit)
#2=4 'pips' offense
Summary: on first round of battle, they are equal, now assume defending player gets one hit for next round. (don't bother with how or what is there)
Round #2 of Battle
#1=2 'pips' offense
#2=3 'pips offense Note: this is not fair as #2 costs 1 more so carry to 35 IPCs: (Land Battle for equal comparison)
#1 5 Inf, 5 Art = 20 'pips'
#2 5 inf, 4 Tank = 17 'pips'
Assume defender hits once every round and defender never runs out of units ;)
#1 4 inf, 5 Art = 18 'pips'...3,5=16...2,5=14...1,5=12...0,5=10...4=8.. 3=6..2=4..1=2
#2 4 inf, 4 Tnk = 16 'pips'...3,4=15...2,4=14...1,4=13..0,4=12...3=9..2 =6..1=3

#1 Total pips = 110 (not exact science but /6 for hits) 18 + 2/6 hits
#2 Total pips = 105(not exact science but /6 for hits) 17 + 3/6 hits

Conclusion with 35 dollars, 4 Tanks prove inferior in hits to 5 Artillery which is the equal cost, and I have factored in 5 infantry, the optimal amount for 5 artillery.
Now for just 5 artillery (#1) vs 4 armor (#2) we have a different outcome
#1 5=10 pips...4=8..3=6..2=4..1=2 total pips=30 (/6) 5 hits
#2 4=12 pips...3=9..2=6..1=3 total pips=30 (/6) 5 hits
In the above situations (using the unscientific pip method) they are nearly equal, but
Given real game situations where other units exist and you might want to transport, with Infantry Tanks are supperior.
Note also: 4 tanks have double the movement of 5 Artillery, so a purchase of slower artillery can supplement existing troops (James' 1st Law) and be followed in later rounds by Tanks which move faster, and kill more with the fodder.
Further note: Artillery purchases to increase "Implied Threat" by elevating counterattack potential. Lets us look at:
8 Inf at 8 pips(#1) vs 4 inf,3 Art at 13 pips(#2) for offense only:
#1 8=8pips..7=7..6=6..5=5..4=4..3=3..2=2..1=1..Total 36 pips=6 hits
#2 7=13..6=12..5=10..4=8..3=6..2=4..1=2.........Total 55 pips=8+2/6 hits
Conclusion: By losing 1 infantry to maintain a 4/3 ratio of inf to artillery, you increase your offensive power for the same price.
Now for defense:
5 inf, 5 art (#1) vs 5 inf, 4 tank (#2)
#1 (in pips) 20,18,16,14,12,10,8,6,4,2.......total pips = 110 = 18+2/6 hits
#2 (in pips) 22,20,18,16,14,12,9,6,3..........total pips = 122 = 20+3/6 hits
5 art (#1) vs 4 tanks (#2)
#1 (in pips) 10,8,6,4,2=30 pips=5 hits
#2 (in pips) 12,9,6,3=30 pips = 5 hits
8 inf (#1) vs 4 inf,3 art (#2)
#1 (in pips) 16,14,12,10,8,6,4,2=72 pips=12 hits
#2 (in pips) 14,12,10,8,6,4,2=56 pips= 9 + 2/6 hits

That assumes the enemy hitting once per round, now lets do 3 hits a round
Offense:
5 inf, 5 art vs 5 inf, 4 tanks
#1 20,14,8,2 = 44 pips = 7 +2/6 hits
#2 18,14,9= 43 pips = 7+1/6 hits
5 art vs 4 tanks
#1 10,4=14 pips= 2+2/6 hits
#2 12,9=21 pips= 3+3/6 hits
8 inf vs 4 inf,3 art
#1 8,5,2=15 pips= 2+3/6 hits
#2 14,8,2=24 pips= 4 hits
Defense:
5 inf, 5 art vs 5 inf, 4 tanks
#1 20,14,8,2= 44 pips=7 +2/6 hits
#2 22,16,9= 47 pips = 7+5/6 hits
5 art vs 4 tanks
#1 10,4=14 pips=2 +2/6 hits
#2 12,3=15 pips=2+3/6 hits
8 inf vs 4 inf,3 art
#1 16,10,4=30 pips=5 hits
#2 14,8,2=24 pips=4 hits

It appears that as the enemies hits go up, tanks and infantry attack worse but defend better than artillery and troops.

It appears that as the enemies hits go up, 8 infantry do worse for attack but better for defense than the 4/3 ratio of troops to artillery.

I'll leave the rest to you guys to discuss...
I know the pip method isn't the same as probabilities, but it was something I could grasp.

I suppose thats why in real games, I produce maybe 6 artillery and the rest tanks, to take advantage of the 'free' troops on the board for russia. I also like the fact that if the germans reach to far in early rounds, I have the ability to snap their hands off.

[ButchOHare1]

Thanks for taking the time to do these calculations.

That assumes the enemy hitting once per round, now lets do 3 hits a round
Offense:
5 inf, 5 art vs 5 inf, 4 tanks
#1 20,14,8,2 = 44 pips = 7 +2/6 hits
#2 18,14,9= 43 pips = 7+1/6 hits
5 art vs 4 tanks
#1 10,4=14 pips= 2+2/6 hits
#2 12,9=21 pips= 3+3/6 hits
8 inf vs 4 inf,3 art
#1 8,5,2=15 pips= 2+3/6 hits
#2 14,8,2=24 pips= 4 hits


Double check the math - 4 tanks attacking with 3 enemy hits first round should be 12, 3 = 15

[ButchOHare1]

The tank should cost 6.

inf 1/2 cost 3

art 2/2 cost 4

tank 3/3 cost 5

Yes the art gets a bonus for every attaking inf, but the extra spaces on the board make the tank's blitzing ability a lot more valuable than in the old game.

[original_james]

Thanks for taking the time to do these calculations.




Double check the math - 4 tanks attacking with 3 enemy hits first round should be 12, 3 = 15

opps.....it got monotonous .....I won't do that again ;)
just trying to address theory behind actions...