ATTACK AND DEFENSE NUMBERS: Land Based

Thanks for your input todate. Here is a collection of my thinking at this point. Please feel free to participate in this on going discussion. Your contributions are appreciated. Tell your A&A friends about this so they have a chance to voice what they want in A-A&A. I'll update the the original posting as changes and new ideas are adopted or contemplated.
User avatar
adlertag
Posts: 1445
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2004 3:28 pm
Location: norway

Re: ATTACK AND DEFENSE NUMBERS: Land Based

Post by adlertag » Thu May 26, 2005 4:31 pm

larry wrote:ATTACK AND DEFENSE NUMBERS
Land based: Attack and Defense numbers based on a 10-sided die
Unit .......US ....Japan ....UK ....Germany.... Soviets
Inf .......3/4 ...3/4 .......3/4 ....4/4............ 3/4
Art ......4/4+2 4/3+1... 4/4+2 4/5+2 .......5/4+1 ..
Armor ..5/4 ...4/3 .......5/4..... 6/6.......... 5/5
fighters 6/6 ...6/6....... 5/7 .....5/6 ...........5/6
Bombers 7/3.. 6/3 .......6/3 ....6/3............ 5/3
Germany had "Aufstrag-taktik" , wich favours the attack.
German soldiers was trained and equipped for attack, and their doctrine allowed low-rank commanders to take initiativ and capitalize on the fog-of-war. They would never barrage the enemy for days, like the allies, because that would take away the surprice factor. If a German unit was attacked, it would instantly counter-attack.

USA,UK and Russia used "Command princips", wich don't favour attacks.
Allied soldiers was trained to obey without asking questions, blind loyalty was a must and low-rank commanders was not allowed to take initiativ.

INFANTRY
Allies..........Germany
2/4............4/4

Artillery was always more succesful in defence. During attacks, the initial barrage would do little harm but instead alert the enemy of the coming attack. Then the charging infantry and tanks would run away from their artillery support.

ARTILLERY
Allies...........Germany
3/5..............4/5


The Allied doctrine was not suitable for Blitzkrieg, so they had no big success with their tanks. The German Blitzkrieg doctrine was build around their "Aufstrag-taktik" and Stosstruppen, wich gave greate success.

TANKS
Allies...........Germany
5/4.............7/6

During Battle of France and first stage Barbarossa, only the German Panzer-corps was in combat. The following-up infantry corps never saw much action.
To reflect this, an successful Tank roll should be awardet an extra bonus roll.

Aircrafts.
The Allies had bigger strategig Bombers, but Germany had better fighters and Stukas for ground strikes.

FIGHTERS
US/UK.....Russia.............Germany
5/7..........5/6.................6/6

BOMBERS
US/UK.......Russia...........Germany
8/3...........5/3................6/3

Fighters must be free to pick targets.
Bombers must roll dice in opening fire step.


Danke.

trihero
Posts: 77
Joined: Sat Jul 30, 2005 4:16 am

Post by trihero » Sun Dec 04, 2005 7:00 pm

This may have already been pointed out, but I have two concerns:

1. Are we looking at mass infantry wars again? The infantry's stats seem to have increased significantly versus the other units. Their attack instead of being 1/3 that of tanks are now hovering above 1/2 of tanks. Also their defense values are at least as good as three of the nation's tanks. I'm sure infantry are going to be the cheapest unit to buy so I'm just concerned that on the surface it looks like the math is going to favor infantry again since their stats are even better now.

2. How is Japan supposed to make effective land grabs? With their tanks at a pathetic 4/3, they pull even with defending Russian infantry at a 1:1 ratio since infantry defend on 4 while the jap tanks attack on 4. Since tanks cost more than infantry I don't see how the Japanese can penetrate Russia in an economically feasible manner.

Maybe my concerns are misplaced. After all, combined arms may encourage unit diversity and perhaps the map is different so the Japanese have more income to take or the Germans are in a better position to weaken Russia earlier so the crappy Japanese tanks can do something.

User avatar
Imperious leader
Posts: 5207
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:04 am
Location: Moving up to phase line red...

Post by Imperious leader » Sun Dec 04, 2005 9:41 pm

Thats rather dated information.
We really need an Axis and Allies World War one game so i can play that on August 1st, 2014.

User avatar
adlertag
Posts: 1445
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2004 3:28 pm
Location: norway

Re: ATTACK AND DEFENSE NUMBERS: Land Based

Post by adlertag » Sun Jan 01, 2006 4:48 pm

Larry's comments about ATTACK AND DEFENSE NUMBERS: Land Based
Land based: Attack and Defense numbers based on a 10-sided die

Unit US Japan UK Germany Soviets

Inf 3/4- 3/4 -3/4 -4/4- 3/4
Art 4/4+2 -4/3+1- 4/4+2- 4/5+2- 5/4+1
Armor 5/4 -4/3- 5/4 -6/6- 5/5

I disagree in these numbers.
Check out this numbers from Dupuy Institute
http://www.dupuyinstitute.org/pdf/e-4epw1and2final.pdf
read the final conclusions at the end

Nation specific combat performance

Human factors are a major determent in combat effectiveness.
Morale and training are more important than weapons.

US forces was 20 % inferior to German
UK forces was 50 % inferior to Germans
Russian forces was 70 % inferior to Germans
Italian forces was 80 % inferior to Germans

For playability, I propose

Ge and US inf 2/2
USSR and UK 1/2
Italian 1/1
all cost 3 ipc

User avatar
Imperious leader
Posts: 5207
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:04 am
Location: Moving up to phase line red...

Post by Imperious leader » Sun Jan 01, 2006 9:55 pm

US forces was 20 % inferior to German
UK forces was 50 % inferior to Germans
Russian forces was 70 % inferior to Germans
Italian forces was 80 % inferior to Germans

For playability, I propose

Ge and US inf 2/2
USSR and UK 1/2
Italian 1/1
all cost 3 ipc
1)Larry posted that d10 thing long before the d12 system was accepted
2) You have many times advocated a idea that the defender is twice as strong in defense as attack.. So have you abandoned this concept? Do you not now feel that it takes 3 infantry to beat down one infantry?

New values on D12 dice for infantry:

Germany 4/4
Italy: 2/3
Japan: 3/4
Soviets: 2/4
Uk :3/4
USA: 3/4

I dont agree with the idea about different costs, because IMO it would imbalance the game. All costs ramain at 3 IPC. I could be swayed to make some changes on this, but to change a value of 3 to 2 would be a dramatic change to the game and would lead to major problems unless you use a 5 as the base value and tweek with 4-6 range. That represents a 20% change vs. a 33% in value.
We really need an Axis and Allies World War one game so i can play that on August 1st, 2014.

DonMoody
Posts: 69
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2005 3:04 pm

Post by DonMoody » Mon Jan 02, 2006 4:53 am

Interesting idea but if you are going to go to nation specific attack and defense values, why aren't you also going to nation specific ability to generate forces?

For example, the Soviets raised many, many more forces than the Germans.
I do not see this historical reality ever happening if:
1) The current IPC levels are maintained
and
2) The IPC cost for a unit is the same for each nation

DonMoody

User avatar
Krieghund
Posts: 2672
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2004 9:18 am
Location: Virginia, USA

Post by Krieghund » Mon Jan 02, 2006 10:23 am

Exactly, Don!

Using nation-specific unit costs rather than combat values allows you to not only reflect the difference in quality of units, but also the capacity of the differenct nations to produce different unit types in a way that adjusting IPC values simply cannot handle. When you hand the USSR more money, you allow her to buy more of everything, but when you reduce the cost of her infantry and increase the cost of the more expensive units, you recreate the historical reality of her war production. Furthermore, by giving the USSR fewer infantry units to start with, but a low production cost, you automatically recreate the increasing effectiveness of those forces over the course of the war.

Tech development could also adjust unit costs rather than affect combat values. Rather than having jet power increase the effectiveness of individual fighters, it would symbolize their increased potency by allowing the purchase of more fighter units for the same money. So it would all tie in to the same system for simplicity.

All this, plus you don't have to complicate combat with different values for different nations. The minimal complication is only dealt with at the time of purchasing units.
A&A Developer and Playtester

"War is much more fun when you're winning!" - General Martok

User avatar
Imperious leader
Posts: 5207
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:04 am
Location: Moving up to phase line red...

Post by Imperious leader » Mon Jan 02, 2006 4:13 pm

Interesting idea but if you are going to go to nation specific attack and defense values, why aren't you also going to nation specific ability to generate forces?

For example, the Soviets raised many, many more forces than the Germans.
I do not see this historical reality ever happening if:
1) The current IPC levels are maintained
and
2) The IPC cost for a unit is the same for each nation
The solution is to "fix" that by giving each nation different amounts of money they have to spend to buy units. This means manpower limitations based on the nations propensity to mobilise more manpower than the next guy.
Also, in my games factories go to double output as specific nations gear up for war. So in the Soviets case all original factories not occupied by German forces double the value of the territories. Example: Kazan factory is still in soviet hands by say june 1942 so the value of the Kazan territory goes up from 3 to 6, unless the germans take it. USA goes up after a few turns after going to war, while Germany doesnt catch up until 1944 when they are fully mobilised.
Another idea is to save money to invest in additional factories which can say give a player 5 more IPC per turn for each new factory built.
Still another idea is to allow investment in your economy (ala Third Reich by avalon hill ... and no not that abomination by GMT "World at War" that is said to replace it). So you save 5 IPC then say multiply that by your growth rate and you can count on this additional amount till the end of the game. Example: Germany has a 30% growth rate and they saved (rather invested) 10 IPC, which means each turn Germany gets 3 IPC more each turn for the rest of the game. Of course more structure has to come with this rule. BUt you have the general idea.
I have two other ideas, but they require more observation on my part to articulate them properly. Their is allways a solution that meets the historical record.
We really need an Axis and Allies World War one game so i can play that on August 1st, 2014.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests