GGWAW Analysis Part I: Economic Value of repairing resources

[ratprince]

The following is a brief, analytical study of the value of conquering and repairing damaged resources. While doing this analysis, I have made a few assumptions. These are made in the spirit of objectivity, however, and hopefully without bias. Additionally, this study is taken from the point of view of the axis as resources are what constrains them to limited production. Hopefully this view of economics will be helpful to some in their games. Please feel free to critique and discuss any of the content. I am always happy to have discourse on any of the topics.

Economic value of conquering and repairing resources:

To begin with, I would like to make the statement that for the axis, resources are the lifeblood of conquest. Without functioning resources, no units can be manufactured, no research can be studied and supply is unavailable. Obviously, without these integral components of conquest, any goals of world domination will fall flat. Thus the German and Japanese player will find themselves faced with the daunting question of "Where do I get more resources?" - and - "How much will I risk and devote to getting these resources?" Without asking these questions first, any attempt to capture new resource centers will be less efficient.

Lets tackle the "Where" question first.

For Germany, the "where" is relatively self evident to begin with in the '40 campaign. France, the low countries and Yugoslavia are all on the mainland and can net the Germans 9 fast resources in the first turn. Adding Greece and Norway will add two more quickly. That is 11 resources added into the German factories. Once these relatively nearby locales are brought under axis control, the choices become more difficult. There are three cardinal directions for the Germans to choose from. East into Russia and the oil fields of the Causcus; South into the resource rich Africa and Middle east; or West into the U.K. Any of these choices bring potential rewards and pitfalls

For the Japanese, the "where" is a bit less varied. Without waking the sleeping giant U.S., the south pacific islands are unavailable and without provoking the Russians, the resource rich Siberia is off limits. That leaves south east asia and China initially. Once China is subdued and/or the Japanese player is ready for a bit more, then the fabulously wealthy pacific islands can be a target. For Japan, distance is less of a factor with their highly mobile fleet and large capacity transports.

Next, lets look at the "How much to devote.." question.

For Germany, units and supply are in abudance to begin with. However, this is not say that they can be free with these as they are not easily replaced. Lets look at the inital '40 campaign attacks that should/always be done. The low countries and France MUST be taken on the first turn for Germany. The method of taking these two, while seeming fixed, can be tweaked for maximum efficiency. Once the low countries surrender, the Germans must go for Paris. In doing this, they expend supplies and risk units, then must repair the damage done to France. The following shows the net production point value gained from conquering France and repairing the resource (West France has 1) therein.

(in sequence)

1) attack with 1 tac, 1 hvy bmbr = 2 supplies
2) attack with 6 tanks = 12 supplies
3) repair the resource complete = 10 supplies
4) repair 1 rail to yellow = 5 supplies
Total attack/repair = 29 supplies = 6 production points


Now lets assume that you hold West France for a historical length from Summer '40 until Summer '44, or 16 turns. Based on that, the numbers follow:


1) garrison supply = 16 supplies (1 per turn for 16 turns)
2) 1xcost of garrison = 7 PPs (3 militia, 1 AA, 1 arty)
Total maintenance = 16 supply + 7 pps = 10 production points


So, at this point our total cost to attack, repair and garrison Western France is 16 Production points. From our earlier assumption that we hold W.France for 16 turns, thus generating 16 resources for factories, we have a net gain/loss of:

W.France 1 resource x 16 turns = 16 resources
Combine resources to factories in germany = 16 production points
Cost of attack/repair/garrison W. France = 16 production points
Net gain/loss in production points = 0 production points.

So, while on the surface, it may appear that attacking and capturing an area with resources is a "good" thing, ultimately there may be a net zero, or even a net negative effect. The goal is to find the resource areas that are a) lightly defended, b) zero population, thus no garrison needed and c) require no naval transport connection


For Japan, the "How much to devote..." is a bit tricky. While China can be ovverrun, the cost does not necessarily generate a "profit" in production points. The units, supply and garrison requirements to destory China are simply not worth (in the short to medium term) the cost. For Japan, a much more "tasty" choice are the pacific/indian islands. These island have VAST resources and require NO garrison. There are double the resources in the group of islands than in all of China. Granted, this will cause war with the allies and should not be taken lightly.

lets look at the net gain/loss from taking Sumatra/Borneo/Java.

Japan can take these three territories with one (1) milita and three transports in one turn.

Here are the costs:

1) Supply for one milita = 1 supply
2) Cost to repair 6 resource centers = 60 supply
3) NO garrison required = 0 supply
4) NO anti partisan supply required = 0 supply

Total cost to attack / repair = 61 supply = 12 production points

Lets assume a historical length of occupation from Fall of '41 to Spring '45 or a total of 14 turns. These three area will generate 84 resources in that time.

So, the net gain/loss for japan in this instance is:

Total production points generated from these areas = 84 pps
Total cost in production points to take these areas = 12 pps

Net gain/loss for Japan = 72 pps


You can see how not needing a garrison and small invasion forces can net a huge savings/profit in the end.




To sum up; the cost of invading an area must be weighed versus the net gain from capturing the area. Huge epic battles between massed armies is not always the best approach (and can in the end be detrimental). Using the minimum force necessary and only supplying units that MUST participate is the most efficient and cost consciece method. If you have more than one supply per area at the end of your tactical movement phase, then you are wasting production. Every five (5) supply that is sitting idle is a produciton point that went unused.



Hopefully this analysis will help make your axis forces (and allied) more efficient and effective. In the end, the economy is what powers the conquest...without some thought put into the method and costs of resource conquest, woeld domination will be like sand through your fingers....


Later all you GGWAW players!

Prof. Mike

[schury]

good job.i doesn't weigh it in detail but i know if axis doesn't destory allied factories they will lose.quite simple,no matter what you gain,the point is what kind of damage you do to them and how badly you did it!

[sveint]

You forget that neutral countries will trade with you... making it even less palatable to conquer populous minor nations as Germany.

[Dalwin]

I feel compelled to jump in and disagree on a major part of your analyis.

When discussing France, you are not taking into account that if you do not capture those areas, the WA will use them against you. Conquering France is not really an option, this is something that must be done always. Once conquered, it must be defended. This is again not even an option.

What to repair is an option. Even if you make the necessary conquest "pay for itself", the gain is enough to pay back the supply cost in a single turn.

While it would, of course, be ideal to find a bunch of undefended resources that can be conquered without a fight and don't need to be garrisoned, the map does not include a lot of those.

[ratprince]

Dalwin;

Great! That is what this forum is about![;)]

I by no means implied that France should NOT be taken, rather my analysis was intended to show the "net" gain/loss from that conquest and how to maximize the efficiency of that conquest. I agree, it MUST be conquered and MUST be defended. It is merely a good example as it is the first thing that an axis player takes. The sample shows that, while it is valuable, the net value of West France is either zero, or less than that if more casualties are incurred.

Repairing resources was the point of the analysis actually. Based on the calculations, a German player's break even point for W. France "paying for itself" would be 16 turns. If you hold it for less than that, you have a net "negative gain."

And actually, not sure what you are saying by being enough to pay for the conquest in a single turn??? At minimum, a red resource requires 10 supplies to repair to functionality. That is 2 PPs. So, if you took an undefended area with one unit and repaired the one resource center, your minimum total expenditure would be 11 supply. That would take 2.2 PPs to achieve. That 2.2 PPs would not "recouped" for two full seasons from that area. Thus, the breakeven point would be the third season AFTER conquest of the area. There is really not an argument of this as it is a fact of the game mechanics.....

Hope that helps!

Later

Mike

[Uncle_Joe]

There are a few other wrinkles in making a cost/benefit analysis:

1) Population. Sure, it takes 16 turns to pay it back, but those resources you'd save early in the game cant as easily be translated into units due to population points. Having a more balanced resource curve over time is generally more beneficial than having a glut of points all at once.

2) Factories. Capturing Factories (as in France) makes it a much better proposition than just taking resources because they help you to spend the surplus resources you have in the early turns. Utilization of resources is important due to the maximum cap you can store. So, while taking, repairing, and holding France can take 16 turns to pay back based on RESOURCE VALUE, there are factories there that shorten that time immeasurable.

France is also a bad example because of all of the other benefits you get out of taking it...removal of an awful lot of Allied ships, destruction of a Allied units, AND free access to additional factories, resources, and troops in Vichy. France is probably the most cost effective conquest the Axis can make IMO.

But I understand where you are going with this: It DOES 'take money to make money' and there is definately a break even point and then later, a point where you are no longer getting return on your 'investment'. For example, if you are invading Russia, you are probably taking over large amount of Resource Centers. However, unless you are SURE you can hold onto them for quite a while AND they are needed to power the Factories, you are probably not going to gain much benefit from repairing the resources.

A few other considerations are strategic positioning (as Dalwin alluded to) and what you are depriving the enemy of. Early on the WAllies cant possibly spend all of their resources, so depriving them of a few here and there has neglible impact. By '44 or so, when the US multipliers have fulled kicked in, the WAllies need every resource they can find. Russia also has a slight surplus in the early game, but that is quickly lost in the initial Axis advances. So, depriving Russia of critical resources can pay double dividends.

But the key should be 'economy of force' (as you mentioned) and its something I've been learning as I get more experience. In many cases, there is no need for total overkill. You often just end up spending a lot more on supply to throw additional troops into the attack when you could just as easily move them in strategically later on. The goal is to use the minimum amount of units to take a region that you need while still making sure you dont lose the battle. My opponent in my last game squandered a lot of resources as Russia moving piles of unneeded Militia into attacks. That eventually wore down his supplies (Lend Lease was nil due to my overcommitment to the Atlantic fight as Germany). In the end, he ran out of time to take me out because he was having chronic supply shortages (not only in total, but in getting them to the front line units).

[Dalwin]

ORIGINAL: mike mcmann

Dalwin;

Great! That is what this forum is about![;)]

I by no means implied that France should NOT be taken, rather my analysis was intended to show the "net" gain/loss from that conquest and how to maximize the efficiency of that conquest. I agree, it MUST be conquered and MUST be defended. It is merely a good example as it is the first thing that an axis player takes. The sample shows that, while it is valuable, the net value of West France is either zero, or less than that if more casualties are incurred.

Repairing resources was the point of the analysis actually. Based on the calculations, a German player's break even point for W. France "paying for itself" would be 16 turns. If you hold it for less than that, you have a net "negative gain."

And actually, not sure what you are saying by being enough to pay for the conquest in a single turn??? At minimum, a red resource requires 10 supplies to repair to functionality. That is 2 PPs. So, if you took an undefended area with one unit and repaired the one resource center, your minimum total expenditure would be 11 supply. That would take 2.2 PPs to achieve. That 2.2 PPs would not "recouped" for two full seasons from that area. Thus, the breakeven point would be the third season AFTER conquest of the area. There is really not an argument of this as it is a fact of the game mechanics.....

Hope that helps!

Later

Mike

The reason I am saying that it pays for itself in one turn is that I am only charging against the operation the cost of moving the troops in and of making repairs (not that of producing the troops themselves). I am also including the resources in Eastern France which you gain without the need of repair.

My reason for only including movement cost and repair cost in the calculation is that this was not an optional operation such as the invasion of Norway or Spain. You are already at war with France. It must be conquered and must be garrisoned. The exisitance of the resources only increases the cost of the conquest by the amount consumed for repairs.

I am not disagreeing with the concept you are describing, merely the way it applies to France. Any of the neutrals which you could leave alone if you chose to do so would be a better example for this cost analysis.

An additional negative when looking at such countries is to factor in what is lost because you are dispensing with free trade from the country. Conversely, such analysis must include the economic impact if any, to the enemy. since they may or may not have immediate need for the resources this may be less than obvious.