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
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.
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.
You don’t need to have the best army in the world just one better then the guy you going up agienst.
LT
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.
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.
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!)
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.
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.
@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.
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
@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.
@Cmdr:
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
:roll:
Infantry Armor Artillery are best when bought economically there is no magic formula. If Russia has to defend 4 territories and make an offensive into two, the ratio of units is completely different than when Germany is defending in 1 and attacking 4.
Where did the naval ratios come from? Who in their right mind buys 9 subs? With this logic the Japanese should build their nave up to Two BBs (they start with) 4 ACs (2 to Start) 36 Subs (1 to start) 8 transports (they usually start with 1 and 8 is not usually enough contrary to what Dick Van Patten says) and don’t forget the 12 destroyers…
You build a Navy for what you need it for.
I swear mathematicians will come up with a formula for anything…
@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.
Not exactly.
America does go heavy navy, true. However, I use British forces traveling through Russia to trade Novosibirsk and Kazakh with Japan allowing Russia to remain focused on trading with Germany in E. Europe (not the territory, the region, that’s W. Russia, Belorussia, E. Europe, Balkans and Ukraine - obviously not all at once.)
Since England/Japan are equivalent in forces and Russia/Germany are equivalent, this allows America to turn the tide to break Japan. Generally speaking of course, every game is different.
@Cmdr:
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 destroyersWhere did the naval ratios come from? Who in their right mind buys 9 subs? With this logic the Japanese should build their nave up to Two BBs (they start with) 4 ACs (2 to Start) 36 Subs (1 to start) 8 transports (they usually start with 1 and 8 is not usually enough contrary to what Dick Van Patten says) and don’t forget the 12 destroyers…
That’s pretty much a good ratio I’ve settled into. After all, I am Die Flottemurder (the Fleet Killer).
Anyway, you don’t HAVE to buy 2 more carriers with Japan. However, unless you plan to have 6 carriers, I don’t think you should be building that 3rd battleship yet.
Meanwhile, what’s America doing with a 2nd battleship before they even have two carriers? Generally America won’t even buy that second battleship until they have a 3rd or 4th carrier because they need the defensive punch before the free hit. And of course, submarines are the go to naval unit in the Pacific. (Should clarify that ratio is a guideline, not a firmament and pretty limited to the Pacific, not so much the Atlantic.)
Of course, if no battle is going on in the Pacific, no one would worry about this ratio. Japan would power up to about 9 transports and rely on their battleships and carriers to protect them (assuming the destroyer and submarine were sunk.)
Jen,
Do you always build a pacific US navy even if you are going KGF?
LT
No, not always.
I do generally build a Pacific fleet with America for a couple of rounds before withdrawing, just to see if I can get Japan to blow a lot of money on Submarines (which are the go too naval unit for many players). After all, the two carriers I build in the first round are going to need to be built eventually anyway, so no lost resources there (the fighter of course no one would argue with being built.) Only the destroyers are questionable and then, only if tech is enabled.
@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.
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
Agreed.
