Morning Knp.
The Italians had no inclination to fight the British and even less the Americans, when they joined the war.
There was also a massive class divide between Officers and the enlisted man. This made morale very low and did not help create a fighting force. Italians were happy to be left alone.
The Italian army was also a foot one. Hardly any units were motorised and that would prove a problem in the vast expanses of desert and the seesaw nature of the campaign.
The British were lucky when they attacked in Dec of 1940 as they had only had limited objectives. The advance was so uncontested, that they kept going until they had Benghazi and Tobruk.
Being Italian, I love to laugh at my WW2 army’s dismal performances and unwillingness to throw their lives away for someone else’s glory.
When the Italians switched sides, however, things got very bloody as civil war broke out amongst the Fascists and Communists. Many Italians proved they were not afraid of dying once they had a real cause and future in which they believed.
My dad’s dad was in Africa, Russia and later ran and hid from the Fascists in Tuscany.
India Crush question
-
You are at the mercy of an India Crush strategy that will Can Open blocks on J2 to open up a J3 landing.
You currently have 13 Inf in Calcutta with 2 Ftr already there.
Do you want 5 more Inf or 3 more Ftr?
What if you have only 1 Ftr in Calcutta?
-
I’d say the infantry, every time. You get more bang for your buck in this situation.
-
infantry and maybe an AA gun dependng on how many planes there are and if you have spare change
-
I follow a rule of thumb for combat value as follows:
attack or defend at a 1 CV =1
attack or defend at a 2 CV=1.4
attack or defend at a 3 CV=1.7
attack or defend at a 4 CV=2So 5 infantry are worth 51.4 = 7, 3 fighters are worth 32 = 6. Go with the infantry for better defense.
I picked up the formula several years ago when I was reading an article on game theory, each unit is valued at the square root of the attack or defense value.
-
I follow a rule of thumb for combat value as follows:
attack or defend at a 1 CV =1
attack or defend at a 2 CV=1.4
attack or defend at a 3 CV=1.7
attack or defend at a 4 CV=2So 5 infantry are worth 51.4 = 7, 3 fighters are worth 32 = 6. Go with the infantry for better defense.
I picked up the formula several years ago when I was reading an article on game theory, each unit is valued at the square root of the attack or defense value.
Is there a point of diminishing returns? Such as wouldn’t it make more sense after X amount of Inf to instead put Ftr over the top to get an advantage of 4’s rolling over lots of 2’s?
-
No.
More infantry is always better on defense. Â Without exception.For 30 IPCs you can get
3 Fighters for
3 hits and 12 points
vs
10 Infantry for
10 hits and 20 points.
No diminishing returns at all.
-
Why is it only 5 infantry? or 3 fighters?
And not 10 infantry or 3 fighters?
-
Why is it only 5 infantry? or 3 fighters?
And not 10 infantry or 3 fighters?
Equivalent price for an AB on DNG to get 3 Anzac Ftr to India if the crush arrives. Was trying to determine who should take DNG for a base of operations - Anzac or India.
Opportunity cost was 15 IPC to get 3 Ftr to India or put 5 Inf on India.
-
there is only a point of diminishing returns when you can chose between 2 units, one that is cheaper per unit, the other is cheaper /combat die.
the formula 1, 1.4, 1,7, 2 is the steady state for combat between 2 types of units, and no mixing.
that is
12 inf v 6 ftrs -> 8 inf v 4 ftrs
so both sides has lost a third of its units, and the combat is a draw. when mixing units, there will be different results, and not as easy to calculate.if you want the losses to be equal in IPC, then if inf attack v inf, you need 1.6 attacking inf per defending inf.
if attacking tanks that cost 5, you still only need about 1.7 to make sure losses are equal.
-
Lanchester’s Law on wikipedia is the game theory I was thinking about.
Suggested Topics
