Posts made by Imperious Leader

I disagree with all these posts… If Hitler allowed Rommel to have complete operational control of all forces in France without interference, the invasion would have been thrown to the sea with huge loses to our side. Air superiority is what Germany had over Dunkurk and that didnt make any difference even though German air forces were much closer and could stay longer in the air than their allied counterparts. The delay in a swift reprisal against the growing allied bridgehead was the primary cause of failure due to the thought that the “real” attack would fall on the 15th army at Pas De Calaise. The german effort was compromised thinking that they were fighting another Dieppe raid and hence gave it a casual effort . This catastrophic decision lost all possible hope of defeating the allies. Rommel had the tools but wasnt allowed to use them untill it was too late.

I am building as Japan one factory on the mainland where i build tanks only and my transports only carry men. As United states building both, but i gotta have a majority of those units as infantry, so that i dont lose any expensive tanks. Of course i have to buy trannys, fighters, destroyers, and carriers in more limited quantities to protect my sea lanes. At the end of the game if i counted each piece from all 5 nations combined i believe id see more infantry than any other unit. I have never seen more planes or tanks in any event. That leads me to conclude that they were the most needed because they were the most abundant. Tanks usually come in second, followed by artillery

I cant afford to buy 2 tanks for every transport i buy,because once i got about 8-10 transports for say like the naval powers of Japan, UK and USA i simply cannot afford to make 16 to 20 units in tanks, while still providing all the other requirements of my nation. So i have to use cheaper substitutes such as a highter number of tanks relative to infantry. This will allow me to use Infantry as soak ups when the Tanks attack. I NEVER buy more tanks than infantry, because Infantry have to soak up in combat actions. I lose tempo when i am spending nearly twice as much money getting an army thats 1/2 the size. Tanks are the second most valuable piece, because they can quickly take empty territories and push my Infantry stacks across new distant enemy lands. Basically, for every 10 infantry id think you need 5 tanks. In order to push down an enemy stack of say 8 infantry, id say attack with 8 infantry and 4 tanks. That will give you the best net gain in destroyed units per attack units value invested. This is the heart of what im getting at. You have to create tempi, by the accumulation of small advantages over time. The advantage comes into play when you invest the smallest amount to provide the greatest return on your investment. In the above example we have 8 infantry and 4 tanks attacking 8 infantry…. thats 44 Ip investment against 24 Ip investment.
Now then, if i take your route i can expect to buy more pieces that cost more since your saying items like tanks are more necessary to win with. So we then do the opposite and buy 4 infantry and 8 tanks which now cost us 52 IP . After the battle we lose most of our infantry and our tanks are now exposed to counterattacks w/o adequate fodder. But we also tie up an additional 8 ip that could be spent elsewhere … perhaps on another transport or a fighter or more land units. This is what we call lost tempi and when we accumulate this over time it results in lost tempo for my nation and i am suspect for long term weakness which can cost me a positional advantage and quite possibly the war.
I accept your point but i dont accept its conclusion. All the other pieces are valuable in their own right, while infantry is the staple of the game.

So then in combat you got one fighter attacking my 4 infantry… according to that you think its a better idea to invest in a fighter? Other way around … you have 4 infantry… now would you not attack a lone fighter with a chance to kill it and lose 1-2 men ? if you answer yes to either question then Infantry is the most value as a unit with all other things being equal.

On the matter of the other chaps query… The value of one battle ship vs. 8 infantry with all other considerations being equal. I can get more done with 8 infantry than i could ever get done with just a BB. This is not to say that you may need both. But the decision with all other factors weighed with equal consideration gives infantry the nod every time. Final thought- The axis win by having many land units (infantry), and not with a large navy, while the allies need a naval force insofar as they can ship (infantry and tanks) to the mainland. But the victory will allways be on land. Planes are just a utility to augment both types of forces as they accomplish the land victory.

and add these too just for giggles:

I dont favor planes getting a free attack… but to create combined arms situation each attacking plane in combat aids the attack of a tank with a +1 attack modifer at a 1/1 basis. consequently, each tank aids the attack of each matching infantry unit with a +1 attack modifier for each unit at a 1/1 basis. Now you wont buy those stupid stacks of infantry and the static infantry push mechanic is dead. You will now buy other crap to win….

In this “advanced system” below basically in ground combat with opposing air forces (both defender and attacker have planes) each plane hit is allocated to enemy planes. When the sky is cleared of planes, then air hits are allocated to ground targets. In fact air rolls are done seperatly from ground unit rolls. Note: The modifiers to land units are applied even if their is air combat.

Interception of Air Units (Counter air)
During your opponents turn, your fighters may intercept and may fire at moving enemy air units in range of their territory during the combat movement phase. The maximum range of interception is two territories distance from the enemy air units. One round of air interception combat occurs in any territory or sea zone that is within the two space range of the enemy air units. Your Intercepting air units are using their attack values, while the planes from the phasing player are defending. The planes performing the interception must now move back to their original territory. Following interception combat, the active player planes are simply moved to conduct their originally intended attack… No air interception can take place during returning air movement, non-combat movement or during air base changes.

Air Interdiction of Ground Units
Each Bomber can attempt to stop the movement of enemy units out of a given territory. The Bomber is placed into the space until the following turn when it can then be used for further missions. For each Armor class unit that attempts to move into or leave the space is subject to a roll of one D12. A roll of 1 and the unit is destroyed. A roll of 2-3 and the unit may not leave the space that turn. Air units that move across the airspace of territories with enemy Artillery units can be fired at by anti- aircraft rolls. This roll is done just prior to when the plane leaves the space.

Close Combat Ground Support
The use of planes to support ground attacks is a basic use of airpower. Each Fighter or Dive-bomber can aid each armor class two unit with a +1 attack modifier at a 1/1 basis. Defending ground units can call on DAS if they have fighters in range.

Defensive Air Support
During Ground Combat Resolution, defending fighters may move to an adjacent territory and participate in the defense of friendly ground units being attacked. Movement of these units takes one full combat round before they can be used. (Example: On round one, the defending player announces that he will dispatch fighters and on round two they are used in combat). All air units then fight combat rounds concurrent but separate to the current ground combat rounds. Aircraft called up for DAS missions are not committed to fight a minimum number of combat rounds. For example: defensive Air Support was called in on combat round one and ready to fight on round two, but the defender rolled very poorly on his first round and decided to call off DAS and not risk losing his planes. At the end of ground combat resolution, surviving Defensive Air Support (DAS) units must return to their original territory, if possible. All hits and loses from air combat are taken from those participating air units until 1) only one side has planes, 2) one side retreats their planes, or 3) one side retreats his ground units thus ending combat. Note: planes that “retreat” do not get a free parting shot from enemy planes. If one side has planes left over the hits can be applied to ground units for the duration of combat rounds. On their own turn they can still move into new combat missions, but they cannot perform multiple defensive air functions such as DAS and coastal defense. Only one action can be done on their turn, and one action delegated in a defensive action during another players turn.

Hope this helps somebody-

I dont think thats correct… and i think you have somewhat changed the “form” of our debate. Again we are looking at the single unit that is of most value based on value and cost per unit. If in terms of quantity of each unit purchased… Infantry has the largest number of units purchased in practical play, then it has the most value and thats proven by your own buys.
But now your going on this total investment of money angle and again in my experience i dont allways just buy 2 tanks because they are more effecient on a transport than 2 infantry. I have to look at my budget plus the factors of tempo, positional, and material considerations. But the most common feature of the lowest common denomination when all things are equal say you have to buy more infantry on the board. Its possible to have invested more in some other unit, but if you count each unit you built in the game including the destroyed units… infantry will have the highest count every time ( unless you lost the game).

Ok so your actually saying that when your Japan USA or UK your buying more of any other unit besides infantry? your buying more Tanks than infantry? more fighters than infantry? more transports than infantry? more battleships than infantry? more subs than infantry? please tell us how its possible to win this way… I need to know state the nation your playing what the basic build structure is …etc. I have never seen anything like this before. Does this work for 2nd edition too? aa europe? aa Pacific? or just revised?

Im glad i helped get this “problem” out in the open as well. I didnt think it was that hard to figure out. Alas, we have to move at the speed of the slowest ship sometimes that way we protect the interests of the group. The math has to stand on its own on this one… i dont see why its being questioned. This game has alot of problems that arent even covered with any historical accuracy and places it clearly into the “introductory” level of wargaming. The “infantry push mechanic” is an ugly head in this game with alot of static battlefield conditions. to correct this we need the following:

1)better retreat rules (allowing defenders to retreat, etc.)
2) manpower limitations (you cant just buy more crap “boring” units)
3) Combined arms rules for using additional types of units COMBINED with infantry

Also look at the ratio of units you buy that are infantry vs. the ratio that comprise of anything else. I have never bought more transports than infantry as japan and i have never bought more tanks than infantry as Germany. Nobody debates that these other units have their utility, but next time you play total each type of unit you buy as any player and i know you know the answer is allways INFANTRY.

Dont be angry In just stating what you allready know. I cant believe this can be a debatable topic. WOW! too funny :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

The question:

"Which unit do you think holds the most overall value? (including price, abilities, atk/def, etc.) "

The answer:

Infantry

If the question is something else like which you like the best? or what has the best offensive bang for the buck Id say Tanks easily.

20 inf attacking at 1’s vs. 15 rtl attacking at 2’s => inf win only 35% of the time (i know in the game one side has to be on defense but for this experiment all i want is to compare attack strengths facotring in unit cost)

20 inf attacking at 1’s vs. 12 arm attacking at 3’s => inf win only 40% of the time

Duke… what were the results each round? who had what at the end of each round and how many rounds did the affair last?

Also, when you say Infantry v. Artillery wins 35% clip so if you reverse and say artillery attacks infantry then what are the numbers and same for equal IPC in tanks vs infantry… say 30 IP worth that would be informative for the rest.

So i guess Germany and Russia is the best two nation “team” while Germany and USA looks good too. Ok like they say on Jerry Springer… “tell us your story”…

we were asked to decide which “ONE” unit is of the most value. By your own admission you buy mostly Infantry like the rest of us, so the result is……drum roll… Infantry become the best value. If you mostly buy any other unit in huge quantities over time you lose the game everytime. That is not to say other units dont play a part in winning, but i dont really see why this is a question to ponder it should be self evident by experience.

Desertfish writes:

“World War I ended in a German victory and Germany now dominates the world (like the U.S. does in real life) and stretches from Alsasce-Loraine to the Pripet Marshes in the east. Russia never grew powerfull, communism never spread. Germany eventually became a democracy with the Kaiser and his family in a position similar to the British monarchy.”

–-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In a way, this is a more interesting hypothesis than the more commonly related comments on how the world would be better if say the Muslims or Communists had taken over power or the Spainish Armada didnt get wrecked by a storm before it was used to invade England.

As a preliminary matter, we should note that the actual outcome of the First World War was a near thing, a far nearer thing than was the outcome of World War II after 1941. While it is true that the United States entered the war on the allied side in 1917, thus providing vast new potential sources of men and material, it is also true that Germany had knocked Russia out of the war at about the same time. This gave the Germans access to the resources of Eastern Europe and freed their troops for deployment to the West. The German Spring Offensive of 1918 actually succeeded in rupturing the Allied line at a point where the Allies had no significant reserves. (At about this time, British Prime Minister Lloyd George was heard to remark, “We are going to lose this war.” He began to create a record which would shift the blame to others.) The British Summer Offensive of the same year similarly breached the German lines, but did a much better job of exploiting the breakthrough than the Germans had done a few months earlier. General Luddendorf panicked and demanded that the government seek an armistice. The German army did succeed in containing the Allied breakthrough, but meanwhile the German diplomats had opened tentative armistice discussions with the United States. Given U.S. President Wilson’s penchant for diplomacy by press-release, the discussions could not be broken off even though the German military situation was no longer critical. While the Germans were not militarily defeated, or even economically desperate, the government and general public saw no prospect of winning. Presented with the possibility of negotiating a settlement, their willingness to continue the conflict simply dissolved.

The Germans were defeated by exhaustion. This could as easily have happened to the Allies. When you read the diaries and reports of the French and British on the Western Front from early 1918, the writers seem to be perfectly lucid and in full command of their faculties. What the Americans noted when they started to arrive at about that time was that everyone at the front was not only dirty and malnourished, but half asleep. In addition to their other deleterious effects, the terrible trench warfare battles of that conflict were remarkably exhausting, and the capacity of the Allies to rotate out survivors diminished with the passage of time. Even with American assistance, France and Britain were societies that were slowly falling apart from lack of ordinary maintenance. Both faced food shortages from the diversion of farmers into the army and from attacks on oceanborne supplies. Had the Germans been able to exploit their breakthrough in the spring, or if the German Empire had held together long enough for Luddendorf’s planned autumn offensive to take place, its quite likely that either the French or British would have sued for peace. Had one or the other even raised the question of an armistice, the same process of internal political collapse which destroyed Germany would have overtaken both of them.

Although today it is reasonably clear that Germany fought the war with the general aim of transforming itself from a merely continental power to a true world power, the fact is that at no point did the German government know just what its peace terms would be if it won. It might have annexed Belgium and part of the industrial regions of northern France, though bringing hostile, non-German populations into the Empire might not have seemed such a good idea if the occasion actually arose. More likely, or more rationally, the Germans would have contented themselves with demilitarizing these areas. From the British, they would probably have demanded nothing but more African colonies and the unrestricted right to expand the German High Seas Fleet. In Eastern Europe, they would be more likely to have established friendly satellite countries in areas formerly belonging to the defunct empires than to have directly annexed much territory. It seems to me that the Austrian and Ottoman Empires were just as likely to have fallen apart even if the Central Powers had won. The Hungarians were practically independent before the war, after all, and the chaos caused by the eclipse of Russia would have created opportunities for them which they could exploit only without the restraint of Vienna. As for the Ottoman Empire, most of it had already fallen to British invasion or native revolt. No one would have seen much benefit in putting it back together again, not even the Turks.

Communist agitation was an important factor in the dissolution of Imperial Germany, and it would probably have been important to the collapse of France and Britain, too. One can imagine Soviets being established in Glasglow and the north of England, a new Commune in Paris. This could even have happened in New York, dominated as it was by immigrant groups who were either highly radicalized or anti-British. It is unlikely that any of these rebellions would have succeeded in establishing durable Communist regimes in the West, however. The Soviets established in Germany and Eastern Europe after the war did not last, even though the central government had dissolved. In putting down such uprisings, France might have experienced a bout of military dictatorship, not unlike the Franco era in Spain, and Britain might have become a republic. Still, although the public life of these countries would have been polarized and degraded, they would probably have remained capitalist democracies. The U.S., one suspects, would have reacted to the surrender or forced withdrawal of its European expeditionary force by beginning to adopt the attitude toward German-dominated Europe which it did later in the century toward the victorious Soviet Union. Britain, possibly with its empire in premature dissolution, would have been forced to seek a strong Atlantic alliance. As for the Soviet Union in this scenario, it is hard to imagine the Germans putting up with its existence after it had served its purpose. Doubtless some surviving Romanov could have been put on the throne of a much- diminished Russia. If no Romanov was available, Germany has never lacked for princelings willing to be sent abroad to govern improvised countries.

This leaves us with the most interesting question: what would have happened to Germany itself? Before the war, the German constitution was working less and less well. Reich chancellors were not responsible to parliament but to the Kaiser. The system could work only when the Kaiser was himself a competent executive, or when he had the sense to appoint and support a chancellor who was. The reign of Wilhelm II showed that neither of these conditions need be the case. In the twenty years preceding the war, national policy was made more and more by the army and the bureaucracy. It is unlikely that this degree of drift could have continued after a victorious war. Two things would have happened which in fact happened in the real world: the monarchy would have lost prestige to the military, and electoral politics would have fallen more and more under the influence of populist veterans groups.

We should remember that to win a great war can be almost as disruptive for a combatant country as to lose it. There was a prolonged political crisis, indeed the whiff of revolution, in victorious Britain in the 1920s. Something similar seems to be happening in the United States today after the Cold War. While it is, of course, unlikely that the Kaiser would have been overthrown, it is highly probable that there would have been some constitutional crisis which would have drastically altered the relationship between the branches of government. It would have been in the military’s interest to push for more democracy in the Reich government, since the people would have been conspicuously pro-military. The social and political roles of the old aristocracy would have declined, since the war would have brought forward so many men of humble origin. Again, this is very much what happened in real history. If Germany had won and the Allies lost, the emphasis in these developments would certainly have been different, but not the fundamental trends.

The big difference would have been that Germany would been immensely stronger and more competent by the late 1930s than it was in the history we know. That another war would have been brewed by then we may be sure. Hitler was only secondarily interested in revenge for the First World War; his primary goal had always been geopolitical expansion into Eastern Europe and western Asia. This would have given Germany the Lebensraum to become a world power. His ideas on the subject were perfectly coherent, and not original with him: they were almost truisms. There is no reason to think that the heirs of a German victory in 1918 (or 1919, or 1920) would have been less likely to pursue these objectives.

These alternative German leaders would doubtless have been reacting in part to some new coalition aligned against them. Its obvious constituents would have been Britain, the United States and Russia, assuming Britain and Russia had a sufficient degree of independence to pursue such a policy. One suspects that if the Germans pursued a policy of aggressive colonial expansion in the 1920s and 30s, they might have succeeded in alienating the Japanese, who could have provided a fourth to the coalition. Germany for its part would begun the war with complete control of continental Europe and probably effective control of north Africa and the Near East. It would also have started with a real navy, so that Britain’s position could have quickly become untenable. The coalition’s chances in such a war would not have been hopeless, but they would been desperate.

Of course Infantry!! you kidding right? Infantry get you 3 points for 3 and take one hit, while say tanks are 3/3 at 5… so the math says 2 Infantry taking two hits with combined values of 2+4+6 points, while that tank costs 5 takes one hit and has the same point value. The extra movement point cannot compare with the fact that you get a 2/1 on hit points. Also they can be at two places at one time, not with the tank.
If you mean some other criteria for “value” then let me know…

Ok i see some of you are scratching your heads on the apparent problem of the tank getting 6 points for 5 IP spent.

15 Ip spent you buy 3 tanks=18 points combined and takes 3 hits
vs.
15 Ip spent you buy 5 Infantry= 15 points combined and takes 5 hits

So the choice is a gain of 3 points of unit value and trade it for 2 additional hits.

Id say Japan, due to the new developments in the KJF strategy that works quite well against Japan. Untill they are refuted then Japan is got some problems. Otherwise Germany is hardest if the Allies leave Japan alone.

I view the “order” of the cosmos as the necessary influence from what could be called a creator. Only that this creator is not a self concious entity. its only the entire structure that resulted in the world and stars that becomes “my god” It does not intervene or require obediance. thats just my take on it.

yes but did life start on earth by accident? or was it planted ? :wink:

You mean a free for all? russia vs UK, german vs japan? hmm i have not tried that.

I hope this doesnt turn into a can of worms but… for the record I picked “other”, because the “original mover” of life on earth I feel came from the cosmos on some bacteria (perhaps seeded) from another life bearing planet. Eventually, we had germation into sea and land creatures. I dont think some highter spirit needs to wave his hand and out sprouts the Human race like some magic trick.

Well its a hard call, but since we are dealing with a game i think balance issues are important, while Historical realism are a close runner up. A game is meant to be enjoyable, but if its one sided then the forgone conclusion of who will win will reduce it to a quick boring affair. So if you apply house rules to solve the problem it can spice up the game and correct balance issues. Sometimes a complete teardown of a given ruleset and a new set of “house rules” that fix a broken game are the only solution.