Was it worth adding ART to the game?

I am allways in favor of Art in games. Aesthetics are a welcome value in game design because they draw people in to play. Having plastic pieces is a value over cardboard counters in many cases.

Now Artillery is also welcome but i would have prefered Both Armored Infantry and Airborne Infantry as now types because Artillery were allready integrated into infantry and armored units. It would have alot more purpose in a game of ww1, because Artillery was the primary offensive weapon in that war, even when the tank arrived in 1917.

I like the ART too. I don’t buy a ton of them, but they are nice to take with INF when you are island hopping.
It leaves the ARM to fight the land battles, where you sometimes need the mobility as much as the firepower.

Yes.  I believe Artillery is the best value for offense per IPC in the game when you factor it with the assist to an infantry piece.  (.125 hits per IPC)

Artillery will grow on you the first time you invade Caucasus and Russia puts in 8 Artillery into Moscow dramatically increasing his offensive punch and forcing a retreat. :)  Doesn’t happen often anymore, because some of us veterans expect it now, but man, that is a scary mess to face!

Basically Artillery make good, cheap, units to produce if you need to bust out of a capital situation.  They’re also nice to have around because they double the offensive capacity of your infantry.

I, personally, think a good ratio is 5 Infantry, 3 Artillery, 2 Armor for the Allies.  5 Infantry, 2 Artillery, 1 Armor for the Axis.

Hey Jen,

How come the different ratio for axis vs. allies?  Is it because the axis have to be more offensive at the beginning?  If so, why does it look like the allies ratio is more aggressive than the axis ratio?

Why wouldn’t it be worth adding artillery

Well, first off, the ratios are total units on the board, not build ratios.  Secondly, I dropped the ratio for the Axis, primarily Germany, because she’s going to be trading in more territories and will need the extra infantry for that.  Also, she has to worry about double or triple down attacks on her forces which will drain her of infantry quickly leaving little more then artillery and armor to fight if she does not have enough infantry.

But my ratio on Germany isn’t firm yet.  My allied ratios are pretty firm except in wierd situations. (Like i’m racing around the board cleaning up everything I attack!)

INF/ART is a better offensive buy than INF/ARM, dollar for dollar.

So it depends what you are doing as to whether or not it is worthwhile…

som eintreasting figures,

8 INF 8 ART = 56 IPC, Count = 16, OPunch = 32, DPunch = 32

7 INF 7 tank = 56 IPC count = 14, opunch = 28, Dpunch = 35

7 inf 5 art 3 tank = 56 ipc count= 15 OPunch= 31, Dpunch= 33

Make some ratios in the manner Jen suggested and you may have a different conclusion.

Say using 36 IPC as a base figure. This is a realistic IPC inventory

6 inf, 3 Art, 1 tank, save 1

12 inf

7 tanks, save 1

7 inf , 3 tanks

8 inf, 3 art

4 inf, 5 art

3 inf, 3 tanks, 3 art

I don’t know how you would do it, but you need to figure mobility into the equation. If you are the axis, the delay in getting material to the various fronts has to cost you something too. (Mainly IPCs) Maybe equal inf/art is a better offensive punch, but not if they are behind the lines. As I have read others post on this forum in my brief time here, a good mix of units is essential, knowing when and where to deploy them is imperative, failing to do either is disastrous. A failure to plan is a plan for failure!

Back to ARTs specifically.
Russia can make better use because they tend to push units either east or west and they don’t really shift them back greatly.
US & UK can use them for amphib assaults to get more bang for buck than 2 INF. Or if they buy Asian ICs, they are good for trading territory, especially with fighter support.
Germany & Japan however have to have flexibility moving about the board and need IPCs fast. After their intial purchases, maybe through 2 rounds, the value of ART would decrease for them in my opinion. Move the front out and you need to get there more quickly.

Whadda you all think? Overall, are ARTs better for Axis or Allies?

Artillery is best for Germany and Russia, Secondly good for England (since it does add punch when you cannot afford tanks) and lastly for Japan and America who need to run, not walk, to Moscow.

As for Germany, I dislike going a round without buying at least 1 Artillery.  They can make a huge difference in the battle and only cost 1 more then an infantry unit.

I agree with almost everything Jen said.  Where I would disagree is with Russia.  An aggressive Russia can be fighting a war on 5 different fronts (3 prongs from Japan, plus 2 from Germany coming high & low) and desperately needs the mobility of armour.  Japan can use the mobility of armour early, and they are more mobile than the Allied resistance they can sometimes faint low/ go high or some other combination to force the allies to retreat to Moscow.  Germany/UK would probably be the biggest users of ART for the reasons Jen listed.

I envision Russia’s need for Artillery when they’ve been pushed to Moscow, Karelia and Archangelsk and have a massive army supported by massed British and American troops.  Then you need the Artillery to greatly increase your attack strenght. (at this point, 1 artillery is +3 offense +2 defense for 4 IPC.)

If Russia’s gotta walk that artillery to E. Europe, then it’s not quite as worth it. :P

Russia is a defensive nation after R1 or R2.  As such, ART is just overpriced INF for the most part (unless they have lost their FIGs).

And as Japan I like to keep adding an ART or 2 a round, even late in the game.  Converting a couple of INF up to 2’s, and having some light “punch” in the event the enemy breaks through a line is always worthwhile.

Art is good for Russia when they are pressed back, but they have 200 IPC from England and 200 IPC from America sitting in Moscow and they need extra punch to strafe Japanese or German army stacks.

I like having the flexibility to buy artillery, one, when I am defending a capital as Jen mentions, and two, when I can’t afford armor.  Artillery’s biggest downside is it’s lack of mobility.  There is no substitute for buying armor for going offensive, and that primarily means Germany and Japan (for attacking Russia) and the United States (to clear out Africa quickly and get forces to the front to help Russia).  Armor also comes in very handy in Russia when the Weirhmacht arrives because of its higher DEFENSIVE value.  A stack of 10-12+ tanks can really decimate an assault by Germany on the Kremlin.  It can buy Russia the time you need to finish off Germnay.

I find I buy very few Art - mostly because I like the mobility of Armor I think. The tactical value is just so great.
Arm are good if you can only build 8 units as UK
Also, you pack more punch onto a TRN with 1 Inf 1 Arm
Also, with 1 Inf 1 Arm you have more “skew” - when you lose a unit, you only lose 1 punch of your 4 total oPunch. With Inf/Art, you lose a unit, you lose 2 oPunch.
And as switch noted, Artillery on defence are no better than Inf.

Here’s the change I would make to Artillery: allow them to support the attack without moving from their home base. This would make them like a poor man’s Fighter for trading territories. So you send a few Inf ahead to attack, but your Art can stay behind in Mos or whatever.

Art is an asset when you build a lot of INF and are pressing an attack.  They are a solid purchase for Germany for sure and the UK.  Russia has limited use for ART.  After the first few rounds Russia is generally think of ways to stave off the incoming attacks, so why would you spend and extra IPC for a piece that offers no defensive advantage.  So I guess I would say that ART are worth it if you are pressing attack, not so much for defending the homefront.

Here’s another thought that would see me buying Art and Arm in more equal numbers:

Allow Art to move 2 spaces, but without the blitzing ability of tanks. So they can get to the front more quickly.