150 IPCs - Built the best fleet possible…

I had a bid :-P

And I liked the “Bacardi Fleet” thing  :mrgreen:

I have 2 fighters and 4 transports, plus 150 IPC.

4 transports (free)
1 destroyer
2 carriers
3 fighters (5 total)
9 subs

Attack value of 38 vs sea (5th fighter uses an island for landing), defense of 29 against air (handles up to 9-10 fighters), defense of 48 against navy/air.

If you want the best naval attack fleet…
16 SUB
1 AC
(plus the 2 FIGs and 4 TRN)

3AC    48
4FGT  40
2DD    24
2BB      48

150 on the nose.

Subs suck because they don’t hit well, don’t defend well, and can’t hope to live an air assault.

Destroyers are much nicer, and having three loaded carriers will pawn anything which tries to attack.

The two battleships with soak up hits, amphibious invasion support, and destroy anything.

Fighters also have more versatile uses than subs.

@Nukchebi0:

3AC    48
4FGT  40
2DD    24
2BB      48

150 on the nose.

Subs suck because they don’t hit well, don’t defend well, and can’t hope to live an air assault.

Destroyers are much nicer, and having three loaded carriers will pawn anything which tries to attack.

The two battleships with soak up hits, amphibious invasion support, and destroy anything.

Fighters also have more versatile uses than subs.

I take it that infantry also suck because they don’t hit well and don’t defend well?

Math time:

Inf vs tanks: 10 inf for 6 tanks. 101/3=3.33 theorectical hits on defense. 61/2=3 hits on defense.

101/6=1.66 theorectical hits on offense. 61/2=3 hits on offense.

So yes, infantry suck for attacking. They are very good for defending though.

Now, subs vs destroyers:

3 subs for 2 destroyers.    31/3=1 theorectical hit on defense. The same for offense. 21/2=1 theorectical hits on defense, also the same for offense.

Now, for airplanes. 30/6=0 theorectical hits vs airplanes. Meanwhile 21/2=1 theorectical hits vs airplanes.

Considering 25% of the forces in a naval battle tend to be airplanes, we will take 75% of the anti-ship attacks and 25% of the anit-aircraft attacks and average them by dividing them by two.

1*.75=.75

.75+(0*.25)=.75

.75/2=.375

1*.75=.75

.75+(1*.25)=1

1/2=.5

Since .5 is 4/3 of .375, .375 is 3/4’s of .5.

Therefore, subs have only 75% of the effectiveness that destroyers do, making the destroyers a better buy.

@Nukchebi0:

3AC    48
4FGT   40
2DD     24
2BB      48

150 on the nose.

Subs suck because they don’t hit well, don’t defend well, and can’t hope to live an air assault.

Destroyers are much nicer, and having three loaded carriers will pawn anything which tries to attack.

The two battleships with soak up hits, amphibious invasion support, and destroy anything.

Fighters also have more versatile uses than subs.

What if ennemy has a large fleet of subs. Your toast. You don’t have enough fodder and those AC will probably die…

Hey Nukchebi0.

Couple thoughts:

1. Infantry are pretty good on offense.  How many infantry can 60 IPCs of tanks kill?  How many infantry can 60 IPCs of infantry kill?

2. If you build a lot of destroyers, you are telegraphing your move and you will be Rock-Paper-Scissored into submission.  Fighters beat destroyers easily.  Subs are great as fodder, so having plenty of them along with a carrier group or two is the way to go.  I think you have discounted them too much in your analysis.  In no instance would I have a destroyer-heavy navy for controling the water.

Peace

In answer to the first question…

The sim drops below 50% win rate above 14 INF being attacked by 12 ARM (46% for 15 INF, 60% for 14 INF)
For INF attacking INF, the win rate is at 50% for 20 INF on 14 INF, so slightly worse than 60IPC of ARM.  at 15 enemy INF, the win rate drops to 36%, well below the ARM

The problem with the whole tank vs infnatry analogy is that I’m not sending my tanks in against infantry without meat shields.  Especially if they are subject to counter attack!

Likewise, I’m not sending my carriers in against submarines without meat shields!

@OLver:

@Nukchebi0:

3AC    48
4FGT  40
2DD    24
2BB      48

150 on the nose.

Subs suck because they don’t hit well, don’t defend well, and can’t hope to live an air assault.

Destroyers are much nicer, and having three loaded carriers will pawn anything which tries to attack.

The two battleships with soak up hits, amphibious invasion support, and destroy anything.

Fighters also have more versatile uses than subs.

What if ennemy has a large fleet of subs. Your toast. You don’t have enough fodder and those AC will probably die…

Just attack them with airplanes, to weaken them.

@CrazyStraw:

Hey Nukchebi0.

Couple thoughts:

1. Infantry are pretty good on offense.  How many infantry can 60 IPCs of tanks kill?  How many infantry can 60 IPCs of infantry kill?

2. If you build a lot of destroyers, you are telegraphing your move and you will be Rock-Paper-Scissored into submission.  Fighters beat destroyers easily.  Subs are great as fodder, so having plenty of them along with a carrier group or two is the way to go.  I think you have discounted them too much in your analysis.  In no instance would I have a destroyer-heavy navy for controling the water.

Peace

1. Yes, in numbers, but they can’t move two and can’t blitz. Tanks provide more reliable defense. Maybe I should start buying infantry, though.

2. I have everything in my navy, so there is no Rock-Paper-Scissors opportunity.

3. Jennifer is right, though. Never send in expensive units without meat shields. The BB’s take care of that for the navy, and other infantry would come in with the tanks.

BTW:  On the 60 IPC land units on attack…
60 IPC ARM takes out 14 INF
60 IPC INF takes out 13 INF
60 IPC as 12 INF, 6 ART takes out 17 INF, as does 10 INF, 5 ART, 2 ARM

It is not an “either/or” question, but rather having the correct MIX.

There were really two main things I was replying to:

Therefore, subs have only 75% of the effectiveness that destroyers do, making the destroyers a better buy.

I think that is not really a correct assessment.  The most destroyers I would ever want is 1, and even that is questionable.  The reason is that the early strike ability of the sub is very over-rated.  With a single opposing btl, you need 4sub before your early hit is mathematically significant.  Even then, opposing subs can be taken as casualties and still fire, so you’re not gaining much - odds are that sub would have died in the first round anyway.  There is almost no large naval battle where the early sub shot will be a big difference maker.  But if my opponent has 10 subs and I have fewer than 2btl, I’d want 1des.  That’s about the only time.

So yes, infantry suck for attacking.

I think Switch has shown that inf are about as good as tanks $ for $.  After spending 60 IPCs, the tanks have only managed to kill one additional unit.

This all comes back to the three tactical fundamentals:

Count - Who has more units?  This is usually the most basic and most important assessment.  Look at the R1 Baltic battle if Germany buys a single tra: you’d have 2ftr 1bmr vs. 2subs 2tra 1des.  The count wins even though the oPunch is 10 and the dPunch is 5.  The oPunch is DOUBLE the dPunch, but because the dCount (5) is almost double the oCount (3), the defender has a better chance to win the battle.

Punch - Who has the best chance to inflict the most damage per round?  Punch is found by adding the “hits-on” values for units.  So on offense 3inf 1tnk has oPunch = 6; on defense that same group has dPunch = 9.  Punch is related to count, but not directly.  Obviously four attacking bombers bring more punch than four attacking inf (oPunches = 16 vs 4, counts = 4 vs 4).  You want punch; but take care of count first.

Skew - The strongest tactical groups match high values and low values to make use of “fodder”.  You don’t want “even” groups of all 2s or all 4s - a skewed mix of 2s and 4s is better.  So Switch is on the mark when he says you need a mix of units to be effective.

If you really want some exciting math, check out the Caspian Sub Policy Paper #05 about tactics.  It covers what Switch was demonstrating as well as a few other tricks like Count Equivalents.

http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/Caspian_Sub/

Peace

You know, we agree on so many things CS, but disagree on so many others.

I honestly think our differences stem from WHERE and HOW we play most of our games.

The only thing I would say as regards your post CS is that I would switch points 1 and 2, in all but the smallest battles.

Once you reach a certain level of participating units on both sides, count is reduced in terms of how important it is in a battle.  For small battles, yes count is the MOST important point, but above a certain number it is not as critical.

For example, 1 BOM on 4 TRN.  Punch is even at 4.  But due to the count issue, the BOM only wins less than 10% of the time.

But on mid to large sized battles, punch moves ahead of count as a decisive factor (as noted above in that a smaller number of mixed INF/ART/ARM has a stronger attack than a much higher number of INF.

As for skew…
Not sure if I am reading how you are using skew correctly.

I try to match high-punch unit to high-punch unit.  For example, in a Naval battle I want BOM and BB to counter BB and FIG.  I want FIG and DST to counter AC and DST.  I want AT LEAST an equal number of 3’s and 4’s (or two 3’s to counter a 4) plus my fodder units (0, 1, 2’s) in order to ensure a high probability of victory.  Is that what you mean by skew?

Hey Switch.

What you layed out in your post is a very good way to quickly compose an attack; for every 3 on defense, have a 3 on offense.  That’s basic matching.  It’s a good, fast counting skill.

But that’s not really what skew is.  A skewed force has a significant split between high values and low values.  It is measured within the force, not compared to the other forces.  Examples:

Attacking groups:
10inf - Perfectly even; not skewed at all.  You have 10 1s.
8inf 2art - Somewhat skewed.  6 1s and 4 2s.
5inf 5tnk - Highly skewed.  5 1s and 5 3s.

In simple terms, a skewed force has fodder at the low end to protect the heavy damage dealers at the high end.  The punch of a heavily skewed force dimishes more slowly than the punch of an even force because your early casualties represent less of the force’s overall punch.

Where does this matter?  Suppose you have 2inf 1art 1tnk.  You have two territories you want to attack.  Both have 1inf on them.  You need to take them both, but one is slightly more important than the other.  How do you divide your troops?

Look at these divisions:
[Force A] 1inf 1art : oPunch = 4 oCount = 2
[Force B] 1inf 1tnk : oPunch = 4 oCount = 2

For count and punch the scores for the forces are equal.  Which group should go to the more important target?  You should send Force B to the more important battle.  The reason is that after 1 hit Force A loses 50% of it’s punch (2) while Force B loses only 25% of it’s punch (1).  That uneven distribution of hitting power is the skew; Force B is skewed.

Force B wins the battle 90% of the time, Force A wins 85% of the time.

The concept of skew also helps when sizing up stacks.  Here are two more examples with Force C attacking Force D:
[Force C] 5inf 5tnk : oPunch = 20 oCount = 10
[Force D] 10inf : dPunch = 20 dCount = 10

So those groups are even on punch and count.  Who wins?  The skewed group; Force C wins 63% of the time even though the forces have equal count and punch at the start of the battle.

Hopefully that makes it clear.  Did it?

Peace

Yes, now I know what you mean by skew… what Jen calls “meat shields” to preotect the high value units, and what i refer to as punch loss rate.

Personally I always viewed subs to act much as they did in the real war.  Solitary navies designed to sink solo units left alone in striking range.  ie) Sub SZ 8 vs TRN SZ 1 on Germany Rd 1.

It’s just too expensive to get a significant portion of them to use in a large naval engagement.  You’re better off buying Bombers or destroyers for that.  (I actually like to have a 2nd BB, it’s a mental thing, I can’t really justify it vs 2 DDs)  That’s assuming you plan on attacking the enemy.  If you want defense, carriers and fighters.

I use subs for two reasons.

1.  Battle fodder.  They cost 8 IPC and attack at 2.  “Infantry o’ the Sea”

2.  Blocker.  It’s the cheapest naval unit you can buy except for transport, and if you use a transport, you can’t submerge after an air attack.  If you use a sub, they have to commit a battleship to soak up a hit, or risk losing a naval unit - and if they send NO naval units, the more air they send, the less air they send against other targets; the less air they send, the more likely that the sub survives.

I don’t quite see how getting bombers is better.  Fighters are usually easier to use with carriers, and destroyers are not as cheap as subs.  Destroyers can defend against air, but I figure that’s what carriers are for.