Please help with national production, may be a dumb question

@RiceAndChine:

Wouldn’t then tanks be the ultimate choice vs. infantry, because of their range?

Tanks are important, but as the others have said you need plenty of infantry to absorb any losses.

What an IPM approach allows you to do is take territories without a battle.  You leverage your shear numbers (both attack threat potential and defensive numbers) and force your opponent back.  You only need enough offense to prevent your opponent from doing the same to you and in the case of Germany after round 1 you’ll have 4-5 ftrs, 1 bom, and a half dozen tanks or so.  You don’t need any more offense.  You need fodder!
So with IPM you want to start getting as many units on the board as possible and start shifting the deadzones out (moving them closer to Russia).
First you stack EE, then you look to move that stack to Bel.  From here Russia has a choice, defend Kar or flee to Wrus.  They will likely eventually move back to Wrus since that is far more important and the Bel stack can threaten Wrus directly as well.  So now you’ve gained Kar and have successfully deadzoned it since any units that land there can be hit by your EE or Bel stacks.  Wrus is usually a tough nut to crack so your next target is either the shift of your EE stack to Kar or the movement of the Bel stack to Ukr, EE stack to Bel, Ger stack to EE.  Here you threaten Cauc and Wrus.  Again Russia must choose which to defend and thus you’ll gain another deadzone and find you next target (either Cauc or Wrus).

B/c of your tanks movement you can station them in France (for defense) with the least amount of infantry possible to deter attack.  Then as you move your infantry from Ger to EE to Bel to Ukr in 3 turns you can get your armor there in two.  1 turn to EE, 1 turn to ukr (or wrus).  Although you may need to keep them in EE for protection and to help deter an assault on Fra.  As you move your armor out of Fra, you may need to shift more ftrs there for defense.  But their movement still allows trading on the Eastern front.  Typically 2 ftrs in fra, 2 in EE would allow swapping of postions during each attack phase depending on where you need your strong defenders.

On the flip side Russia will be trying to push its way to Bel which will hold Germany progress at EE and then you just wait for the UK/US numbers to add up and push to EE.  The Russian stacks will then go from Cauc/Mos to Wrus to Bel.  So your armor should be stationed in Wrus.  Not only to threaten Germany from advancing but can also reach the backside of Russia to protect against Japan.

The bottom line is it is cheaper to defend, 3 ipcs get you a defensive roll of 2.  In order to “kill” that unit the other side must spend more than 3 ipcs.  Larger scale battles put the ratio at 3:4 or 5 in terms of what the attacker needs to spend.  So it is just cheaper and easier to move defensive stacks forcing your opponent to spend more to try and kill you.  The simple way to look at it is to kill an inf you’d need at least 1 rt to attack.  Even 2 inf plus planes costs 6 ipc.  :wink:

That was a poor choice of words.  It’s being corrected now.

1.  Yes.  However, after 1 round of combat, the SUB can choose to submerge if it is still alive, ending the attack by the FIG (or BOM).

2.  NO.  The Battleship is offshore.  It can only engage in land combat for a single shot and only in the very special case of an amphibious landing.  In the example you cite, with Germany counter-attacking Western, the Allied BB is in SZ7, and means NOTHING to the Allied defenders in Western.  Battleships are naval units, and are ignored for land combat except in the case where the Battleship is in the same sea zone as the attacker’s transport(s) that are offloading to combat.

Also, DSTs (Destroyers) can only engage in land combat if you have the technology that permits them to fire a support shot like a Battleship.  Otherwise DSTs mean NOTHING in land combat.

Though it fires once PER PLANE… and BOM and FIGs are rolled against seperately…

LOL, that person definitaly played to much RISK!
'cause in RISK you can do the move you are talking about, but not in A&A…

you can see it on the left of the chart of every axis and allie:
first you have combat move
then you have conduct combat

Heh I really can’t understand why both you and donmoody keep using the word “arbitrary” like it has any meaning. Arbitrary means without reason, and I’m sure that the designer had some sort of reason to change the rules. Larry doesn’t like changing them very much, and for him to have done so in the first place means that he was receiving some sort of complaint or player feedback, which is more than a valid reason to tweak the game to be more understandable/accessible. Doing something for a reason, even if some people consider it “dumbing it down”, is not arbitrary. You can use the words “superfluous” or “irrelevant” or “unnecessary”, etc, but using “arbitrary” is just a wrong use of the English language. You can say the change did not improve the game or is not needed, but to say that there is no reason behind the change (arbitrary) is entirely a subjective and uninformed view of the matter. I would really like to know why both of you like to incorrectly use this term, it really bothers me. I can respect that you think the change wasn’t needed or that you liked the previous ruling, but to say something else entirely different, that it had no reason behind it, just makes no sense to me.

I can just as easily say that I think it’s more intuitive for fighters to land in seazones for carriers than it is for them to land in territories with complexes. To me, hey that’s where the carrier is going to be, so why not just have the fighter there already so you don’t forget to redeploy onto it? Why move units during the mobilization phase? It could very well be that you’re smarter and both are equally intuitive to you, but again, this does not make the change arbitrary (only to you perhaps). I’m sure Larry changed it based on player feedback, and since it is a game after all that requires changes and tweaks, that is hardly a reason to call it arbitrary.

Actually, it gives 5 spaces of movement either way because suddenly you can ‘land’ in an illegal spot.  Your range has still been extended by one.

By the way, more flawed reasoning. Extending a fighter’s range by one by allowing it to land in an illegal spot does not increase its range to 5. Prior to “illegal” landing, you could theoretically only move 3 spaces, since the 4th would be illegal. Thus, with “illegal” landing, you have increased the range to the full 4, not 5. You can never make it look like a fighter is moving 5 spaces under LHTR, while you can do so under box rules (deploying on a territory with a complex). And the space is nt really seem illegal because a carrier is going to be there, which is consistent with the other rules about fighter/carrier landing.

never mind!

ydavid is correct