From: trr@cheese.com (Terry R. Rasmussen)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: A&A - Can Allies ever win (IIa)
Date: 10 Nov 1992 14:27:21 GMT
Organization: CenterLine Software
Distribution: world
Reply-To: trr@centerline.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: cheese.centerline.com


Just a note concerning the effectiveness of mass infantry versus a few fighters
thread that is currently in discussion.

This is only my opinion, but statitsically I favor mass infantry for the defense
and a mix of mass infantry supported by fighters for the offense.

Tanks are the poor man's offensive arm, they attack with a 3 (very nice) and defend
with a 2 (just like infantry).  Fighters and bombers on the other hand attack with
a 3 and a 4 respectively and if you are skillful will never have to use their 
defensive values.  What does this mean, planes attack offensively, providing the
firepower and are supported by infantry to take loses, then when the attack succeeds
the massed infantry are left to defend the area, while the planes redeploy safely to
the rear. This also implies that bombers are quite cost effective since they have 
two modes of attack (that's why they cost 3 more than fighters). When you are engaged
in an offensive the bomber will more likely take out more in resources (in the form
of built units) than they would in strategic bombing, also when you can afford to
attempt an offensive on a front they may engage in strategic bombing.

Three tanks cost the same as a plane and an infantry, the point here is that the for
a successful offensive where these 15 IP's in units are left over at the end of the
battle the player that bought the three tanks will most likely have 0 IP's in built
units left over after their opponent's offensive and the player that bought the plane
and the infantry for the same 15 IP's will quite likely have a 12 IP fighter left in
their built units inventory.  This does not mean I am supporting attacking three tanks 
with a single infntry and a single fighter, these units are among the excess units
that would be built after the mass of supporting infantry are available.  Also please
note that I called the Tank the "poor man's offensive arm", correct me if I'm wrong,
but are not the Soviet's the poor player in the game, as is Germany later on? These
players have a difficult time building the necessary mass of infantry and the expensive 
air units, so they are stuck building tanks.  Tanks are left in the front line after a
successful offensive, so unless your opponent has no counterstrike capability they are
most likely only used for that one offensive.

Germany starts out infantry poor, making sustained offensives difficult, while they
start fighter annd tank rich, this is Geramny's advantage and it is difficult to
maintain that advantage. I am an advocate of two German strategies, one is to build
pure infantry the first round and the other is to build a Carrier in the Med and the
remainder on infantry.  The Carrier in the Med. is very expensive since you are forced
then to build either transports or subs to support it in the next round, what the
carrier does is to allow you complete and unchalleged control of the Med. and a much
better shot at taking and holding Africa, since the German transports are then safe to
be used to reinforce the continent.

Have fun!

-terry rasmussen (trr@centerline.com)  

Newsgroups: rec.games.board