Infantry

[Romulus]

Reading Don Rae and Infantry Push Mechanics I have learnt to buy inf to protect my valuable attacking pieces like tanks, fighters and bomber so even in the IPM it is needed to have more powerful attacking pieces than infantry.

Don Rae said:“Hey do not buy the tank first and only after the infantry, buy infantry first and when you have a good escort of infantry you may buy other valuable pieces”.

Moreover, I think what Switch have said is: buy “enough infantry”. He have not said buy “only infantry”.

Analyzing hyogoetophile approach I see that he plan to punch the enemy and to lose only infantry. It is a good approch I like it! Let’s consider I am using it. Also in this way there are units I lost each turn. Wich units? Infantry I suppose.
So … .what I have to buy every turn? The infantry naturally. Given the fact that my front is at least two territories away from the IC (I hope…) the infantry needed in the current turn to cover the reatreating tank (after they have punched the enemy) have to be built at least two turns ago. What is the result? I need to buy tanks and infs.

Combineed army is the winning strategy. Each kind of units is useless when used alone. They have to be used togheter.

So: Tank are STRONG! Tank and Infantry are STRONGER! Tank and infantry and Fighter are MORE STRONGER! Tank and infantry and Stormtroopers leaded by Darth Vader are the STRONGEST!

[Guest]

When you buy Infantry, and use it to trade, and build up, and push forward…  then you also preserve your initial ARM, ART, FIGs, and BOM.

Those initial 10 ARM and 6 FIGs of Germany can do a heck of a lot of damage, without ever being at risk themselves, if Germany buys oodles of INF.

In fact, every nation has plenty of “punch” at the start.  What they all lack is MASS.  And mass is most economically provided by INF.

The nation that trades with INF, backed up by a few FIGs, is in FAR better shape than the nation that trades with INF and ART or ARM.  The nation that does not have to trade, but instead takes and HOLDS because of massive INF stacks is even stronger.

4 TRNs, whether loaded with INF only, or with INF/ARM combos are equally as useless against 20 INF.  The attacker DIES, period.  A BIG stack of Infantry, backed up by a few ARM or FIGs is a hell of a lot more deadly than the same IPC value of FIGs and ARM alone.

And finally…  the dice element…  the more dice you roll, the greater the odds of a hit, even of low grade potential hits.  So pile on the 1’s.  If they hit, BONUS!  If they miss, your attack power is almost unchanged for the next round.  And if you preserved those starting high value units, and maybe added a few more here and there, well then you can be assured of doing a heck of a lot of damage, and being able to do some literally KILLER strafes.

[Jennifer]

@ncscswitch:

Without Infantry, you die.  Without Infantry, you cannot win.

That’s a poor argument.  Without tanks and fighters you die.  Without tanks and fighters, you cannot win.

I understand your basic premise and even agree with it.  But your argument seems faulty to me.  Sure, 2,000 infantry on Berlin can keep your nation from falling for a while.  But without tanks and planes to add offensive and defensive punch, you are not going to win either! (Assuming of course the allies also have 2,000+ infantry to counter stack you.)

Honestly, the best option is a well balanced force.  I don’t have a set equation, but a rough idea can be as follows:

10 Infantry warrant 1 Fighter
7 Infantry warrant 1 Armor
12 Infantry warrant 1 Artillery
50 Infantry warrant 1 Bomber (Except when going the SBR campaign route where England and America focus heavily on bombers instead.)

Likewise:

1 Carrier warrants 2 Fighters
1 Carrier warrants 9 Submarines
1 Carrier warrants 2 Transports (maybe 3)
2 Carriers (with 2 fighters each) warrant 1 Battleship
1 Carrier warrants 3 destroyers

Just a rough outline.  But it shows that infantry alone - while very important in both defense and offense - need to be augmented with other units.

[Crazy Ivan]

:-)
OK, I just played and won a game as Axis where I only bought 2 tanks, late in the game. All oother purchases were Infantry and Artillery, about 80/20 ratio.
He built heavy bombers! about 5 of them, and raped my German industry! I only shot down one of those bast**ds.
Now I did by about 30 tanks for Japan, and they finally took Russia.
I confess, I did build 2 armor for Germany, and about a dozen Artillery, and wasted 30 german IPC on tech, and got nothing  :cry: that was 10 infantry that I could have had. But, I still won without them.
So, anyone out there want to see if it was a valid strat?
Perhaps I was just lucky. Not my die rolls anyway.  :roll:

[Adlertag]

Who did you play against, the AI on Gleemax ?

[Jennifer]

I have to admit that tech does change the game.  However, congratulations on winning despite the bombing of your industries.

[AxisOfEvil]

This was the core of winning in the classic version, and although attempts were made to change this core truth, (or at least make tanks more attractive), infantry is still the core purcahse for an effective winning strategy.

Not only do you need to have enough infantry to absorb hits when attacking a territory, but you need enough to absorb any credible counter as well.

So the core principle of INFANTRY ARE GREAT! is really that you dont want to waste any high cost units. Planes and tanks for the most part. You need infantry to protect those, you cant afford to waste them. Thats not to say you never attack if there is a possibility a counter will kill tanks. Depends. I do not mind trading my German tanks for Russian ones 1 for 1. russia is hurt more by this trade than germany. Anything that weakens Russia is good for the Axis powers!

[Jennifer]

Yes, Infantry are the core unit, but never forget that they are almost worthless without supporting tanks and fighters (maybe even Artillery and bombers).

I’ve never seen a game where Germany is reduced to only Infantry and still won.  I’ve seen plenty of games where Germany won after buying a few tanks and planes to assist their infantry though.

[Funcioneta]

Soviets can defend very well purchasing at least one, and many times two tanks a turns. This mobile defense can stack at Caucausus or Russia, creating lots of dead zones. Artillery is nice for picking that 3rd territory your figs cannot trade.

And there is some strategy that needs strong naval purchases for USA, and win.  :roll:

Not only of inf lives the A&A player  :-D

[Jennifer]

Well, America absolutely CANNOT win without making ANY naval purchases.  That’s a given.

I submit the same is true for England.

Japan, German and Russia can win without making a single naval purchase, but for Japan it’s easier to win with them.

And yes, I agree, a Russia with 12-14 tanks + 2 or 3 fighters is a very deadly opponent indeed.

[Romulus]

Naturally, the more tanks have Russia the more a deadly opponent Red Army is.

I think that we are looking at the question from the wrong point of view.

I mean: the “correct” number of infantry to have is not correlated to our heavy hitter units (tanks, fighters and bombers) it is related to the enemy heavy hitter.
The player own heavy hitters count is the factor that help in decide if he may attack or have to stay in defense. The cost of the attack, however is related to the opponent owned heavy hitters that the enemy have, both in defense than in an hypothetic counter attack.

So the better is equipped the enemy the more infantry is needed to support the offensive and to strengthen the defensive line after the advance.

Speaking of naval purchase for USA: when a NA or a house rule will allow the USA infantry to swim from Washington to Europe or to Africa USA will be able to win the war minimizing the ship built. Until then however there is the need for USA to buy ships.

[losttribe04]

You don’t need to have the best army in the world just one better then the guy you going up agienst.

LT

[Romulus]

@Romulus:

So the better is equipped the enemy the more infantry is needed to support the offensive and to strengthen the defensive line after the advance.

I tried to say that in fact. As opponent I intend the one you are planning to attack.

[captainjack]

I’m not trying to play the devil’s advocate here, but I do want to point out something for the sake of this discussion…
I believe there are times when NO infantry purchases are the way to go.  For example, when the US has an IC in Sinkang - I will typically build only tanks (or figs).  Also when the UK has an IC in India, I typically will only build tanks.  Anyways, I just wanted to throw that out there.  Thanks.

[Jennifer]

I’m not a big fan of the Indian Industrial Complex (IIC) or the Sinkiang Industrial Complex (SIC) anyway.  If you have the Colonial Garrison National Advantage that’s a different story.  However, I’ve found those industrial complexes really draw more resources away to prevent them from falling easy than they give you in offensive power.

The S. Africa complex is a different story.  I’ve used it often to great success in keeping Africa in British hands and later to shuttle tanks up to Caucasus and that pays itself back over the period of the game. (Also I have yet to lose a S. African Complex without costing the enemy great numbers of men and loss of use of expensive and powerful assets for many rounds.  For instance, Japan once took out my Complex, but it cost them 4 fighters, 3 infantry in casualties and I tied up a bomber, 3 battleships, 2 carriers and 2 transports for three rounds.  One to line up the attack, one to move to attack and one to move back.  In my mind, it was worth the 15 IPC investment, especially since Japan was pushed out of China and Manchuria that same round.)

---

As for no infantry buys, my personal favorite is the 3 fighter or 2 bomber purchase on England 1.  I have also done the 4 fighter purchase with germany, the transport, 2 submarine, aircraft carrier purchase on round 1 and the artillery, 2 fighter purchase on Russia 1.

All fun.  ^_^  (Notice I said fun, not that I won any of those games.  This is, after all, my year of off the wall strategies!)

[captainjack]

Jen - I’m not questioning you, but how do you battle Japan on the mainland without the IIC or SIC to filter in Allied troops?  Do you use Russian forces?  Thanks.

[Guest]

She does what a friend of mine back in the early 1990’s playing Classic called “The Big Gulp”, when USA just says “screw it” and buys a massive Pacific Fleet and then just sails over and smashes Japan’s holdings there.

[captainjack]

@ncscswitch:

She does what a friend of mine back in the early 1990’s playing Classic called “The Big Gulp”, when USA just says “screw it” and buys a massive Pacific Fleet and then just sails over and smashes Japan’s holdings there.

Oh.

[losttribe04]

That does sound like fun but I have never really got into navy battles b/c they are costly and when its all said and done you don’t gain an IPC space.

I understand all countries but maybe Russia need a navy in some form or another but thats my reasoning for just getting by in the ocean.

LT

[Funcioneta]

@LT04:

That does sound like fun but I have never really got into navy battles b/c they are costly and when its all said and done you don’t gain an IPC space.

Destroy Japanese navy and you’ll get tons of IPCs from Dutch East Indies, Philippines and even asian mainland.