Infantry as Superior Defensive Purchase – Still True in Revised?

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    I don’t know.  100 Infantry arn’t going to be as good a defense, IMHO, as 70 Infantry, 12 Armor, 3 Fighters because the armor and fighters are well protected by masses of canon fodder while having a punch at least 50% accurate.


  • @Jennifer:

    I don’t know.  100 Infantry arn’t going to be as good a defense, IMHO, as 70 Infantry, 12 Armor, 3 Fighters because the armor and fighters are well protected by masses of canon fodder while having a punch at least 50% accurate.

    your right because of skew. ever read caspian sub’s article on it?

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    Nope, I don’t really read any of the articles cause they’re too long.


  • Perhaps someone should go over the game and tourney logs of the 1st 4-6 turns of purchases on each side and post the resultant win / loss ratios reflective of purchasing strategies.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    And while they are doing that, can they make cliff notes of the articles. :P


  • JEN, I will go w/ 100 INF.  Consider this:

    100 INF = 33.3 casualties
    70 INF + 12 ARM + 3 FTR = 23.3 + 6 + 2 = 31.3 casualties

    Not only has the more expensive units inflicted LESS casualties than the all INF defense, but assuming the attacker inflicted avg casualties, the mixed defense will have less units afterwards, because it had less to begin with.  Unit density makes up for ALOT of shortcomings.  This becomes clear after the first couple rounds.  Lets assume the mixed stack and the all INF stacks were both defending and inflicting their casualties on each other:

    RND 2:
    69 INF (100 - 31) = 23 casualties
    37 INF (70 - 33) + 12 ARM + 3 FTR = 12.3 + 6 + 2 = 20 casualties

    RND 3:
    49 INF = 16 casualties
    14 INF + 12 ARM + 3 FTR = 4.6 + 6 + 2 = 12 .6 = 13

    RND 4:
    36 INF = 12 casualties
    0 (!) INF + 10 ARM + 3 FTR = 5+2 = 7 (!)

    RND 5
    29 INF = 9.6 = 9 casualties
    0 INF + 0 ARM + 1 FTR = 2/3 of 1 casualty

    So by the end of round 3 it is pretty clear that the all INF defense will kill the highest number and leave you with the larger force.  The rounds after that just makes it a masacre leaving the all INF defense w/ 28 INF, worth (28x3) = $84 lead.  For Russia, this like
    3 or 4 turns of income.  Thats alot of time, money and orgaization down the drain for the mixed group which probably will leave the mixed groups borders undefended.

    I believe that ARM (and ART) are very versatile on offense and give more options for overall play in revised, but simple numbers dont lie.  High unit count w/ respectable (2 in 6) chance to hit is simply very hard to go against on DEFENSE.

    Gamer, I completely agree w/ replacing ARM w/ FTR for quality ground defense.  It is the same kind of comparison. ARM is 1/2 the price of FTR and almost as good at inflicting casualites.  I beieve Revised addressed alot of issues, and the ARM improvements were one of the best.  I also believe w/ more fornts and greater distances in revised does make ARM and any air more important.  But having INF for “strafe” attacks and defense still proves that INF is the king of the battlefield.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    I disagree.  Your analysis is too clinical and doesn’t account for luck.

    How many times have you attacked with 2 infantry and a fighter and not gotten a single hit?  How many times have you attacked with 2 infantry and gotten a hit?  Both are statistical improbabilities (attack punch of 5 in the first case, attack punch of 2 in the second.)

    I’ll run the numbers for you:

    If you have 100 infantry and are attacked by 70 infantry, 12 armor and 3 fighters you have the most likely outcome of 56 infantry left and a very poor attack position.  But you lost 132 IPC to destroyer 300 IPC attacking you.
    If you have 70 infantry, 12 armor, 3 fighters defending against the same attacker you likely end up with 23 Infantry, 12 Armor, 3 Fighters, a strong position to attack with.  And you have only lost 141 IPC while destroying 300 IPC worth of units.

    So the question is, is it worth 9 IPC to have 12 armor, 3 fighters to support your infantry or not?


  • Re-reading my article, I think the statement NOS may have been responding to is the one where I said “the defensive advantage that infantry possessed in Classic has been largely neutralized in Revised.”

    In one sense, that’s an overstatement, because there’s no question that, looking purely from a defensive standpoint, infantry hold up better than any other piece, on a IPC-by-IPC basis.  You get more defense for your money, period.  NOS proves this, I think, with his analysis.

    But in another sense, I think the statement I made is true.  That is because, as I have pointed out elsewhere, armor gives you a multiplier effect that you don’t get with infantry, at least on offense.  Because you can get your armor to the front quicker than infantry, you can throw more rounds of production at Russia, for example, if you include armor in your attack force than if you simply used infantry.  In that sense, I was saying that the OFFENSIVE capabilties of tanks (that they already possessed) are able to overcome the defensive advantages of infantry under the right conditions where the attacker can bring more rounds of purchases to bear against the same number of rounds of purchases by the defender.  Thus, if Russia has its builds through Turn 7, let’s say, and Germany can bring either (1) its purchases through turn 3 only (infantry walking four spaces from Germany), OR (2) its purchases through turn 5 (infantry through turn 3 walking four spaces PLUS tanks purchased on turns 4 and 5), then I think Germany clearly has an advantage under Scenario #2 because any infantry purchased on turns 4 and 5 will not have arrived in time to attack Russia on Turn 7.  IMO, this multiplier effect is very powerful, when played correctly.

    Now, does this effect make tanks a better DEFENSIVE purchase than infantry?  Well, no, not quite.  Infantry still give you numbers and, with numbers, more fodder than any other purchase can give you.  But as Jenn points out, you have to consider other factors besides just how many pieces you will have left over after a given battle.  Because, if you merely hold territory, but cannot re-take territory because you lack offense, you will lose anyway because you will not have the IPCs to keep up with your opponent’s purchases, whatever they might be.  And let’s face it, whatever good infantry does you on defense, they absolutely SUCK on offense.


  • JEN, I dont take luck in to account, becasue luck is RANDOM.  As DR states (I paraphrase), counting on luck is inferior play.  You wouldnt bet on 1 INF beating 50 ARM would you?  So why would you do it on a grander scale?  I admit it is a clinical outlook, but its that kind of cynicism that makes the casinos in Vegas the big $.  I dont really understand your example.  Could you show how you got the numbers?  I cant make an assesment, so I wont comment.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    The only way to play is to count on luck.

    Count on all your attacks being abysmal failures.  Count on your opponent’s attacks being stellar successes.  You do this and you will never be negatively surprised.


  • @Jennifer:

    The only way to play is to count on luck.

    Count on all your attacks being abysmal failures.  Count on your opponent’s attacks being stellar successes.  You do this and you will never be negatively surprised.

    thats why a good player should tend to avoid battles in which luck can play an important role, instead he would fight more ˝small battles˝in which the chances are strongly in his favour, but even if he losses it isnt such a disaster

    afcorse this is just an instruction, nothin more but i think its a good one


  • As I have seen in several recent games…

    Large battles with lots of low-impact units (INF and ART) can be wildly different from simulations.  The first round is key, and even slightly above average dice on those first rolls can make all the difference in the world.

  • 2007 AAR League

    This is true…

    This kind of a loaded question…

    The Best Defense is a mix of units and not solely 1 unit because of the cost.

    Infantry is the superior Defensive purchase for the front-line defense where you know you’re not going to hold it because it only cost 3$ for 1 Inf to take it’s place and die and maybe pull off a micracle and kill stuff on the way down and maybe hold a territority for a extra turn.  :-D


  • Yes, you need skew… or as i call them “anchor units”, to add to your INF otherwise you are fracked.

    INF by itself is NOT a very good defense.

    A stack of INF backed up by a few ARM and FIGs is a very good defense.

    And THAT is different from Classic because in Classic ARM was just like INF on defense, and you only had overpriced FIGs to serve as defensive anchors (making it an offensive game), whereas Revised is both offensive and defensive due to the added strength of ARM, and the decreased cost of FIGs.


  • Switch, Classic is very much a defense-oriented game. Defending in classic A&A is simply cheaper than attacking. 100 INF cost 300 IPC’s, and it’s impossible to create an attacking force for 300 IPC’s that will give you equal or better odds. 60 tanks vs 100 INF gives you a ZERO percent chance to win, with an average of 50 or so INF left over. Even 50 tanks and 10 bombers (well over 300 IPC’s) gives you a zero percent chance to win.

    INF are so good at defending, the goal is to quickly take territory, then mass stacks of infantry for defense in the mid and later game. This is why, in classic A&A (non RR), Germany will almost always put at least 3 inf in Egypt to take and hold long enough for Japan to start shucking INF to hold Egypt. It costs the allies a lot more to take Egypt than it does Japan to defend it. Same with WE, EE, Berlin, Karelia, and Novo.


  • But the same is true in Classic as well, except that ART are a force multiplier for INF on attack, and ARM defender 50% better in Revised.

    As you said, the goal in Classic was to attack hard and fast, then stack. In Revised the stack is not QUITE as big of an issue, and purchases other than INF for defense are common (whereas in Classic you almost never would have a player on the defensive buying ARM, that is actually common in Revised)


  • And using your 300 IPC example…

    In Classic:
    300 IPC of units 50 INF, 25 ARM
    Being attacked by 100 INF…
    22% attacker win

    In Revised:
    the same 50 INF, 25 ARM
    being attacked by the same 100 INF
    0.4% attacker win

    THus in Revised you can buy offensive units that add to your defense, but in Classic, that is NOT an option.


  • For pure defense (standing somewhere and not being defeated) pure INF is still the best for the money.

    INF: at $3, 1 “body to die” and 2 punch is the baseline.
    ARTY: $4, same defensive value. A “waste” of $1.
    TNK: $5 and 3 punch. Added in small numbers to inf (that is, when they don’t get to die, only the accompanying inf) only the added punch matters. So 1 TNK does the thing of 1.5 INF = $4.5. A “waste” of $0.5. May be well worth due to the flexibility.
    If tanks are alone, their defensive advantage over an inf+arty mix is SQRT(3/2) ~1.22x from the Lanchester theory. So worth $3.66 in equivalent inf, so a “waste” of $1.34. In between (large number of tanks with some inf to die first) the “waste” is in between.
    FIG: $10 and 4 punch, in small numbers worth 2 INF = $6. A “waste” of $4. Mostly not worth building for land defense only
    (sometimes it does, when total IPC isn’t as limited as local factory capacity e.g. defending India).

    So in the final defense of Germany, if I have 2 IPC more than a multiple of 3, I build a tank on top of the pile of inf. If I have 1 IPC more, I may choose to build 2 tanks (and forego 3 inf) OR to build only inf and save 1 IPC for next round where it may mean an extra inf, or a inf converted to tank.

    For a defensive campaign, all types are good at their thing. e.g. the Novosibirsk deterrent position has inf+arty with tanks+fig back in Moscow. But if deterrence is truly put to the test (Japan enters Yakut or Sinkiang or Kazakh in some force) it’s the attack that matters.
    Strategic defense, tactical attack. But here tactical attack, even threatened is helped more by the virtual multiplication - same force threatening several approaches.


  • @nuno:

    @Magister:

    … from the Lanchester theory.

    I didn’t expect americans with knowledge in such things…

    can you please add to the discussion and not insult everything and everyone. your highness.  :-P


  • @nuno:

    @Magister:

    … from the Lanchester theory.

    I didn’t expect americans with knowledge in such things…

    Nuno, this is your final warning.

    Your above comment is off-topic in this thread, which is the first problem.
    The second is that your recent posts have all been 100% inflammatory and either flames in and of themselves, or at a minimum flame bait.

    THREE STRIKE RULE IS IN EFFECT, and you have 2 already…

Suggested Topics

  • 6
  • 1
  • 35
  • 4
  • 1
  • 6
  • 1
  • 12
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

18

Online

17.7k

Users

40.4k

Topics

1.8m

Posts