Page 1 of 1

The 1-1 infantry

Posted: Wed May 16, 2007 3:47 pm
by Flashman
Do people feel that the Infantry Push Mechanic is still a big factor? The 3-3 tanks in AAR were supposed to fix this.

Don Rae suggested 1-1 infantry to balance the game away from big defensive stacks, but has anyone ever tried this?

My proposal:

All infantry attack and defend at 1 as standard.
However, infantry defending difficult terrain (i.e. montains), and infantry defending against amphibious assault defend at 2.

This seems to be a reasonable way of implementing terrain advantage (if we have different terrain types), while reducing the impact of the IPM.

So, in mountainous areas wars can still bog down into battles of attrition with defence dominating.
But in lowland areas (e.g. the north european plain) there will still be wars of great movement with attacking armies able to make deep inroads into enemy territory.
For historical example, contrast the Allies sweeping into Germany in 1945 with the slow slog up the Italian penninsula which took nearly two years. I know some think that terrain is too generalised for A&A maps, but this would add a dimension to strategy whilst still being a very simple rule to remember.

I'm working on a map at the moment and at a rough guess there will be around 1/3 areas difficult terrain (all types), with about half the territories altogether being either difficult or islands.

Posted: Wed May 16, 2007 5:49 pm
by adlertag
Actually I think infantry should defend on 3 or less. The defender may dug-in and be real die hard. In real world you need 3 infantry units to attack one dug-in infantry unit. I know, served many years in the army.

If inf def on 1, nobody will buy it, and we will see huge tank stacks.
So now inf will cost 2 IPC, and we still will see IPM

Dont fix your poor strategy by messing with the infantry rules.

But when that is said, I think artillery should be the King of the battlefield, and fighters should do targeted attacks, and tanks need more mobility.

Casualties in WW II by weapon :
50 % by artillery
10 % by tanks
10 % by aircrafts
30 % by small arms (infantry)

The idea was, that the big guns would kill the enemy, and then the infantry would go in and hold the land.

Posted: Wed May 16, 2007 8:08 pm
by Imperious leader
In IMP games "Great War" - non entrenched infantry are at 1-1 and they are not allways bought. Entrenched infantry defend at 2 but they cant move on the turn they entrench.

IN that game artillery is at 3-1, while armored cars are at 2-2.

Fighters are at 1-1 as well. (yes they are cheaper).

Simple to fox an easy way is to limit no more than 50% of income on infantry purchases for all nations . Now everybody is treated equally and its easy to enforce. no complicated rules.

Posted: Thu May 17, 2007 11:19 am
by polar
complicated ide? I dont think so, but anyway, this would have been nasty cool...

each province gives two kinds of income.
1) manpower
2) industri.

Each unit cost both
1) manpower and Industri.

For example

Infanteri : 3 manpower IPC, 1 industri IPC 1* 2 move 1
Artelleri : 1 manpower IPC, 2 industri IPC 2 2 move 1
Tanks :1 manpower IPC, 4 industri IPC 3 3 move 2
Fighters : 2 manpower IPC, 8 industri IPC 3 4 move 4
Bombers : 2 manpower IPC, 12 industri IPC 4 1 move 6


Posted: Thu May 17, 2007 11:22 am
by polar
or maybe simpler:

Infanteri: 3 manpower
Artelleri : 2 manpower, 2 industri
Tanks : 1 manpower, 4 industri

Posted: Tue May 22, 2007 4:28 pm
by Flashman
I should have added that in the anomalous situation of a land area attacked simultaneously by amphibious assault and over a normal land border all the defending infantry should get the defence bonus. The rationale is that the protected coastal defences frees up units to better defend the other border. You cannot fight the two border violations each as a separate battle.

Posted: Tue May 22, 2007 6:36 pm
by elbowsanchez
how about 1/1 infantry, but each associated artillery piece gives +1/+1 instead of just +1 on attack.