Posts made by Weekend Gamer

Damn, this forum stuff is complicated!  :lol:

Okay, I’ve contributed some of my thoughts.  I’ll add more as time and other obligations permit.

Now let’s talk about the phrase that, so far as I know, was coined by Don Rae himself.  That is the “Infantry Push Mechanic”.  Here is how Don Rae himself defined it:

_“THE “INFANTRY PUSH MECHANIC” DEFINITION:

Always purchase infantry for your land-based fronts before you buy tanks (or fighters or bombers), take the time to develop your fronts, pushing your infantry out to them first, reinforcing them with attack capable units only after you have established a solid front (that is, one that is not in a Dead Zone - see Essay #4 for details). After you have established a sufficient infantry (defensive) presence, you can then buy additional (attack) units, such as tanks (or fighters, bombers) to suit your individual situation, without fear of wasting them needlessly or quickly on your front lines. This concept is referred to as: “THE INFANTRY PUSH MECHANIC” throughout the essays.

This tactical purchasing plan of approach is the ONLY one that works ALL the time - there’s just no other way to do it and win consistently at the same time. By using this style and method of purchasing, you will be saving yourself a lot of wasted time and effort in trying strategies and approaches that simply don’t work, by never relying upon attacker’s luck to win.

If you adopt the infantry purchase-first strategies, you will ALWAYS overcome any player who is trying to wear you down with consistent waves of attacking pieces - the economics and sheer numbers maintained will allow your own defenses and counterattacks to happen naturally, with overwhelming force and subsequent long-term positive influence on YOUR game.”_

The Infantry Push Mechanic is alive and well in Revised – in a very limited sense.  In most cases, your fronts should be reinforced with infantry on a consistent basis.  Infantry are still the cheapest cannon fodder money can buy.  But unlike Classic, your purchases will be more varied because you have more options in Revised.  With the addition of the artillery piece, you have more flexibility with your purchase decisions.  Consider the following options for spending 24 IPCs in Classic (land units only), assuming you spend almost all 24 IPCs:

8 infantry
6 infantry, 1 tank, save $1
4 infantry, 2 tanks, save $2
3 infantry, 3 tanks
1 infantry, 4 tanks, save $1

Now look at the options for spending that same $24 in Revised:

8 infantry
6 infantry, 1 tank, save $1
6 infantry, 1 artillery, save $2
5 infantry, 1 artillery, 1 tank
4 infantry, 2 tanks, save $2
4 infantry, 3 artillery
3 infantry, 3 tanks
2 infantry, 4 artillery, save $2
1 infantry, 4 artillery, 1 tank
1 infantry, 4 tanks, save $1

Basically, a player has twice the purchase options in Revised for 24 IPCs that he (or she) has in Classic.  And depending upon your strategy, it may well be worth buying a few tanks or artillery each round, rather than maxing out your infantry purchases, to increase your offensive firepower.  The artillery in particular is a very nice purchase because it costs only 1 additional IPC and increases the offensive firepower of one of your infantry by 100% at no additional charge.  The Axis players cannot ignore the offensive firepower of tanks and artillery in their purchases because, in a sense, the Axis is “on the clock” and more often than not must be the aggressors in the game.  Experienced Revised players have a name for Axis purchases involving only infantry – it is referred to as “turtling” and usually means the Axis is in trouble because Germany can no longer afford to buy offensive pieces.

The Allies, for similar reasons, will want to consider purchasing offensive pieces early and not just infantry.  For Russia in particular, purchasing armor allows Russia to create dead zones two spaces away from its capital, which is critical for keeping Germany at bay.  If all Russia buys is infantry, it will be only too easy for Germany to occupy Ukraine early because Russia can only place four of those infantry in Caucuses.  Indeed, the limit on an IC’s production to the value of the territory is the one rule change that really killed the Infantry Push Mechanic for most purposes.  Russia no longer has the option of buying 8 infantry and stacking it on the front as it could in Karelia in Classic.  Thus, to make dead zones effectively, armor purchases MUST be considered sooner than would have been the case in Classic.

There are other examples of this as well.  For example, Britain is limited to producing 8 units a turn from the UK.  Thus, with a 30 economy, purchasing 10 infantry simply is not an option in Revised.  Thus, inevitably, more offensive units will be purchased in Revised than you would ever see in a game of Classic between two experienced players.

So goodbye Infantry Push Mechanic, and good riddance!

Don Rae, in his Article #1 concerning correct purchasing in Classic, comes out strongly in favor of purchasing infantry in large numbers, primarily because of its defensive value relative to tanks (the only other land unit in Classic).  (He also advocates purchasing infantry as part of the “Infantry Push Mechanic”, but that’s another article topic.)Several folks have asked whether Don Rae’s points are still valid in Revised.  This article examines Don’s argument for purchasing infantry in Classic based on its defensive value and discusses how the rule changes in Revised affect his argument.

Don’s article on correct purchasing starts out with the following observations about infantry:

“Infantry
No matter what anyone says about any purchasing strategy, the Infantry unit is your first choice purchase piece consideration, as it is your most valuable long-term operations unit for mainland operations, before anything else. Simply put: you must always buy sufficient infantry first, then your attacking pieces like tanks and fighters, before advancing your fronts.”

This rule is not as hard and fast in Revised because the rule-changes affect the value and utility of armor vis-à-vis infantry AND add a new unit – artillery – which is useful on offense, but less expensive than armor.  Let’s consider Don’s arguments here:

_“1) The infantry unit is the most effective land defense you can buy for your bucks, period.
Here’s the breakdown on “land-based defense attack response” value, cost wise:
3 Infantry - Averages 100% Defensive Hits for a Cost of 9 IPC’s, 2x Hits cost 18 IPC’s
3 Tanks - Averages 100% Defensive Hits for a Cost of 15 IPC’s, 2x Hits cost 30 IPC’s
1 Fighter - Averages a 66% Defensive Hits for a Cost of 12 IPC’s, 2x Hits cost 36 IPC’s
1 Bomber - Averages 16% Defensive Hits for a Cost of 15 IPCs, let’s just forget about 2x hits on defense

In the long run. Infantry are your BEST and CHEAPEST defense against a land force of any kind. Infantry will hold off any invasion for as long as possible, on this basis alone, if bought in large quantities, and most importantly, it forces your opponent to deal with it, as this forces a counteraction in your opponent, by having to generate and buy more infantry themselves!! See the point below…”_

First, let’s translate a bit.  Don is saying that, because infantry (for example), hits on defense on 1 out of 3 rolls, it takes three infantry to guarantee (on average) at least 1 hit per round.  Those 3 infantry cost 9 IPCs.  Two hits, therefore, cost 18 IPCs, etc.  Now, let’s look at how these pieces stack up in Revised:

3 Infantry – Average 100% Defensive Hits for a Cost of 9 IPCs, 2x Hits cost 18 IPCs
2 Tanks – Average 100% Defensive Hits for a Cost of 10 IPCs, 2x Hits cost 20 IPCs
3 Artillery – Average 100% Defensive Hits for a Cost of 12 IPCs, 2x Hits cost 24 IPCs

In Revised, two tanks do the same damage, on average, that three tanks used to do on defense in Classic, at a cost of just 1 buck more in IPCs than 3 infantry.  The cost is just 66.67% of the cost of one hit in Classic (i.e., 10 IPCs in Revised vs. 15 in Classic).  Artillery are not far behind – just 3 IPCs more.  When you factor in the offensive value of the tank and artillery pieces, they become even more valuable:

6 Infantry – Averages 100% Offensive Hits for a Cost of 18 IPCs, 2x Hits cost 36 IPCs
2 Tanks – Average 100% Offensive Hits for a Cost of 10 IPCs, 2x Hits cost 20 IPCs
1 Infantry, 2 Artillery – Average 100% Offensive Hits for a Cost of 11 IPCs, 2x Hits cost 22 IPCs

Thus, offensively speaking, tanks are a bargain compared with infantry!  They also have the great advantage of mobility that no other land piece possesses – i.e., the ability to blitz two spaces.  And when you compare the cost of each Defensive Hit for infantry (9 IPCs) versus the cost of one Offensive hit for tanks (10 IPCs), and then factor in the fact that the offensive player usually has the ability to bring air power in support of land-based attacks (and naval power for amphibious attacks), the defensive advantage that infantry possessed in Classic has been largely neutralized in Revised.

_“2) The infantry units are the cheapest form of stackable, disposable units to supplement offense.

When faced with a lot of infantry on defense, you should know that your forces will always be hit often and regularly on average die rolls, so this MUST be taken into account when planning attacks. Infantry on the defense will always overcome an equal invested IPC amount of attacking units on their own, on average! (see the “Armor” discussion later on this article for an example of this.)

Therefore, you will need expendable units on the offense to deal with this. Again, your lowly Infantry unit shows it’s value in performing this task. Your offensive pieces, such as tanks, fighters, and bombers, should never be at risk on any attack when conducting an offense, and just as importantly, should never be left alone on the defense after an attack!

If an attack is conducted, leaving nothing but expensive units, you can guarantee that they will be attacked. THIS IS BECAUSE IT IS ALWAYS ADVANTAGEOUS TO ATTACK AND DESTROY UNITS THAT COST MORE TO REPLACE THAN THE UNITS THAT YOU WOULD LOSE IN THAT BATTLE, LAND OR OTHERWISE…THIS SHOULD ALWAYS BE DONE, REGARDLESS OF ANY TEMPORARY TACTICAL DISADVANTAGE THAT MAY RESULT FROM THIS.

Considering all of this, a further point develops: If you use your infantry on any offense to supplement an attack as losses, you will probably need more infantry to strengthen your front after these losses occur. This means that you should never have a tactical turn where you don’t consider buying infantry, because you always need more infantry to replace losses on your front lines. If you can remember this in advance, always when you conduct your purchasing…your games will always be long, developed properly, and your front-line forces will always be as tough as nails.”_

All of this is still largely true – infantry are cheap and good fodder to start your stacks with, even in Revised.  However, there is one caveat – it IS advantageous to bring tanks into a battle, even at the risk of leaving them subject to a counterattack – if you can afford the losses more than your opponent.  For instance, a strong Germany attacking the lines of a weakened Russia – it is necessary and appropriate to wear down Russia with repeated attacks, even at the cost of losing tanks, IF Germany can afford the losses more than Russia, because this accelerates Russia’s fall.  Similarly, America throwing its tanks with reckless abandon against German lines in Africa (or Europe) – again, this may be necessary to bleed off troops and tanks that Germany can sorely afford to replace.  But the larger point remains true – you will always purchase infantry to supplement your offensive pieces, and will do so BEFORE you purchase significant offensive pieces, since the infantry take longer to reach the front than tanks or planes.

Another point worth mentioning is the change to the transport rules.  In Classic, a transport could carry either two infantry or ONE tank.  In Revised, a transport may carry one infantry and one of any other piece – another infantry, a tank, an artillery or an AA gun.  This rule change greatly enhances the value of the tank (and artillery) as an amphibious assault piece, because unlike in Classic, carrying the tank does not reduce your transport’s capacity by 50%.  Instead, you can still carry a total of two pieces no matter which combination you pick – as long as one unit is an infantry.  This means you will usually still purchase infantry to fill half of your transports, but a tank is a much more viable purchase option than before, especially for America’s “shuck” operation.  America’s “shuck” is all about numbers, so the fact a tank purchase does not reduce transport capacity makes all the difference in the world in terms of increasing the viability of tanks as an alternative purchase to infantry.

@mjkusn01:

So I guess what that all means is that Norway is doomed to fall ?        :-D

Yep, pretty much.  You’re better off making up that income in Africa or, better yet, Russia!  :-D

Well, that would make sense, I guess.  I never looked at it that way.

Not sure I follow your question AJ.  You can certainly find Fortress America sets (some in very good condition) on ebay.  I haven’t checked in a while, but I almost always find at least 2-3 sets for sale.  The second wife makes the man clean out his old shit, etc.  :lol:  Happens every day!

Dave, I’m curious what is the expiration date for a topic to be labeled as “new.”  I’ve noticed topics sometimes a month or more old still being labeled as “new”.  Basically, it makes the label totally meaningless IMHO, especially with the kind of traffic we get around here.

Just wondering . . .

And by “lurch”, I mean shifting German forces out of Western Europe and toward Russia, all in one shift, all in one turn.  I am not sure if that’s what you mean by “lurch”, but that’s what I am referring to.

DM, do you plan to talk about the “lurch”?  To me, that’s basic to any German strategy, since, IMO, you can’t effectively go after Moscow (in most situations) without employing that maneuver.  At least, I’ve not seen it done.  I think a basic rookie mistake is to try to hold on to Western Europe at all costs, at the cost of never getting traction on the Eastern front.  I don’t think this is advanced tactics by any means.

Perry, try this link:

http://p205.ezboard.com/bxenogamesforums

Good point, Switch.  You gotta know when it’s safe to turn off the U.S. spigot and go for the jugular!  Personally, that’s why I prefer an early exit for the Med. fleet when I’m playing Allies so that all I gotta worry about after that, as far as the Med. is concerned, is taking Southern Europe.

Hmmmm, brute force works pretty well.  :-D  Who needs deception?  8-)

Hey, NPB, where do I find these barrels of cookies?  They sound yummy.  :-D

Jerma,

Yes, the cover art for COTE is cool, but take it from someone who spent almost $50 on e-bay for it, IT AIN’T WORTH IT!  Eagle Games came out with an update of it a few years ago – I think there may be a few available online.  It looked interesting, but is a completely different game.  After shelling out $50 for the old version, I passed on spending $50 on the new version.

G

@axis_roll:

I’ve seen such allied insanity as 2 ftr, bmr on 2 tpt, BB in SZ15….

and UK won, round 2, with merely losing 1 ftr.

Pretty large game swing there.  :(

Okay, A_R, this sounds like sour grapes to me.  :wink:

But in all seriousness, it wasn’t that crazy for me to attack your Med fleet Round 2 with my UK air force.  According to Frood, my odds were:

Survive with no losses . . . 3.42%

Survive losing 1 ftr. . . . 16.7%  (i.e., just over a 20% chance of me clearing the sea zone with 1 ftr. or less loss!)

Survive losing 2 ftrs . . . 24.53%

Lose everything . . . 55.35%

Okay, not great odds if this is a land battle, but let’s look at your fleet’s odds of survival:

Survive with no losses . . . 6.26%

Survive losing 1 transport . . . 15.78%

Survive losing BOTH transports . . . 20.08%

Lose everything . . . 57.88!

So I had about an 88% chance of effectively ending the German menace to Africa, not to mention the Caucuses, in Round 2!.  If it means I have to re-build some Allied air, I’ll take those odds every time.  In fact, I sometimes go ahead and build the extra air on UK 1 so I don’t have to do it later.  (I did so in our game, in fact.)

The alternative approach is to wait for the U.S. fleet to arrive, where you are basically looking at Turn 4 or 5 at the earliest before they have the firepower (assuming a Med. Fleet w/two transports).  By then, Germany should have Africa secured.  Not only that, but America has to screw up its shuck to enter the Med (usually).  Are you telling me that losing a couple of British fighters is a worse alternative than that?  Personally, I only like to move into the Med if I am taking Southern Europe.  That’s a nice exchange for my shuck – as opposed to a Med. fleet that’s probably already served its purpose for Germany.

Yeah, Baghdaddy is right – penetrating the Med. can be tricky for the Allies, especially if that Med. fleet is still alive.  But whoever controls the Med. has a ton of flexibility.  But your strategy does have some interesting points, DM.  It IS expensive building all those transports to go the northern route.  But I have seen the northern route played extremely effectively by Mojo in our tournament game.  He basically did the reverse of what you did – he got his troops to Caucuses and then used his transports to offload them in EGYPT (or Libya, as needed) in a constant trade with Japan.  It was that maneuver that finally convinced me to surrender, since I had no chance of either holding Africa or punching through Russia once he had his northern shuck running full force, AND had the Med. under his control.

Hey, IL, nice avatar!!!  :-D

Or, should I say, “By your command . . .”

To have a MAJOR infectious disease and to be traveling and exposing dozens if not hundreds of people is the height of irresponsibliity, especially for A PERSONAL INJURY LAWYER whose alleged father-in-law is A FREAKING CDC SCIENTIST IN CHARGE OF INVESTIGATING TUBERCULOSIS!!!  This guy should be disbarred for extreme stupidity.  He’s an embarrassment to himself and the legal profession.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18978573/

@losttribe04:

I’ll check out the Caspian sub group at yahoo. Like you guys said a lot of the basic concepts remain unchanged like the “Infantry push mechanic,” “purchasing habits,” and “dead zones.”

I guess I was wondering if any one had come across any thing like a replacement concept for the “shuck-shuck” strategy. With the sea zones being so much smaller it takes a lot more concentration to make an attack than before. Not only that but then other side can see you coming from a few turns away.

The way I have compensated for this is to stock pile income, setting aside say 5-15 IPC’s every turn for a few rounds then boom instant navy. This way even though they can see it coming it’s to late to do much if they were focused on something else.

As the Axis I took London on G4 this way. The US took it back on US4, but I retook it and held it till the end of the game on G6 or G7.

Has any one here found a way to offset the vastness of the oceans for moving troops quickly?

-LT04

LT, as the Allies, you definitely have to pay more attention to how you move your fleets or you can lose a lot of fleet to the Luftwaffe.  Also, you have to build more transports to get your shuck going, but the concept is still the same.  Frankly, it’s no different than in Axis & Allies Europe where the Atlantic is a lot broader and you have to build a large fleet as the Allies just to get your shuck going.  But once it GET’S going, Germany is done as an offensive power, for the most part.  It’s too busy trying to hold what it has, mostly in Europe.

In my opinion, the trap you have to avoid as the Allies is concentrating too much on the African route.  It’s tempting because you can easily shuck from E. Canada to Algeria, but then you have Libya, AES, T-J and Persia to go before you arrive at the real “front” – namely, Caucuses.  Contrast this with the northern route – England, Karelia, W.Russia and then Caucuses.  In reality, you’re there in TWO turns because Karelia is part of the Russian front, after all.

One other thing about Revised that has given me some problems is the IC restrictions on home country ICs.  In Classic, your home ICs have unlimited production.  Not so in Revised, which can make a big difference in your purchase decisions for Britain and Japan especially.  It also makes defending Germany trickier, because you can only build 10 units a turn there, so you sometimes have to shift forces from elsewhere to defend the homeland against an imminent attack.  That also requires more concentration.  After playing it multiple times, though, I would never go back – the IC restrictions add a huge strategy element to the game and also go a long way to killing the Infantry Push Mechanic as the default strategy.  If you have 40 IPC but can only build ten units (or eight), you’re definitely not building all infantry.