Huh. I always thought the opposite. Thanks for letting me know.
Tank Purchases R.I.P.
-
my analysis is for global40
Thats fine, count them in. It will make the analysis even worse however because these are 1-2-1-5 units. In combat sims they are terrible because of the increased cost. Especially as the defender.
no one could win a high level game with one power only buying tanks
Nobody said this. Your argument if it is to prove only this can be proven, however the reality of this tactic is to buy mostly tanks ( spending most of a turns IPC on tanks as opposed to infantry).
The result of a 5 IPC tank shows that this is a superior strategy, but in AAE40/AAP40 it remains unproven quantity.
If your “Slow Guy Who Thinks Tanks Rule” comments apply to 6 IPC tanks again nobody is arguing that point. The point is regarding 5 IPC tanks and WHY the tanks went to 6 IPC in the first place IS THE POINT. They went to this cost because of the results of mostly tank buys by Germany and Japan, which were used with great effect against Russia in previous games, while other games were broken because of this tactic ( AAE).
Also where is the battle sim for AAE40? Where do you get the combat results? Tanks provide bonus to other units ( tactical bombers). In battles using one group of mostly infantry and a few other units defending vs. another group of mostly tanks and other units in hit and run battles where the combat loses demonstrate loses only to infantry, the defender will lose more everytime. I don’t need a sim to show that because its true just using low luck.
-
It’s not that simple. The game can’t be boiled down to math.
thats almost the same line that i made up for Slow Guy That Enjoys Disagreeing But Does Not Have a Point.
i understand that these are just scenarios but they show how the game mechanics work.For example: Tanks can threaten to blitz, which means that you opponent must spread out his forces in unoccupied territories to prevent a blitz.
lets consider 4 scenarios
1. opponent has units on border territories
2. opponent has units 2 territories deep
3. opponent has units 3 territories deep
4. opponent has more than 3 territories with no units1. tanks dont have blitz oppurtunity. mechs are better purchase
2. tanks can blitz and get to opponents units, but it is only the expensive tanks and no cheap infantry to soak up hits. bad move
3. tanks can blitz but then they are open to counter attack with only expensive tanks and no cheap infantry to soak up hits. bad move
4. you probably forgot to setup the gameTanks also combine with tacs to raise tac’s offenensive rolls to 4 rather than 3, so re-do your scenario with 2 tanks 2 tacs and 5 infantry versus 3 mech 2 tacs and 5 infantry.
this is a function of tacs, and tacs can also be raised by fighters. i also think tacs are not as good a purchase as fighters and bombers but i will leave that for another thread. the most effective tactic is cheap units supported by air units. i believe the idea of buying tacs and tanks is inferior to buying cheaper ground units and fighters(or bombers)
but here is the results of using two tacs2 tanks, 2 tac bomber attack 5 infantry. attacker wins 60% of the battles most commonly with 1.2 unit remaining
3 mech, 2 fighters attack 5 infantry. attacker wins 62% of the battles most commonly with 1.5 units remainingtanks are almost as good as the mech but mech can use cheaper fighters for even more effectiveness.
also why not try 3 mech attack 3 infantry versus 2 tanks attack 3 infantry.
because if you are buying tanks or mechs to go into attacks unsupported by air, like your example, you are making a big mistake.
also it makes my argument look bad2 tanks attack 3 infantry. attacker wins 28% of battles
3 mech attack 3 infantry. attacker wins 18% of battlesI won’t go through every example for you. Instead, I propose we play a forum game of europe 40 where you promise never to buy tanks and see if you can win the game.
i would love to play a forum game. it is fun to talk about the game, but much more fun to play it. i hope my comments do not read negativly as i dont want to upset anyone, i am here to have fun like everyone else, but sometimes written words read more negative than spoken words.
-
@AA_fourlife:
The game can’t be boiled down to math.
I think “we” are thinking this out too much. Just enjoy the gaming experience. :lol:
i can be included in the “we” but i enjoy discussing the games and that is all we can do until it is released.
-
@Imperious:
Problems with this analysis:
Mech infantry are not to be considered, the tank argument refers to problems since AAR and AA50 and AA42 as well as original AAE.
since you said in a later post that you are talking about global40 then you are wrong that mech intantry are not to be considered.
@Imperious:
Secondly, Germany out produces Russia typically in games and also starts with more material in range of her vitals.
does this have anything to do with tanks being a good/bad purchase? unless you are inferring that germany can afford to run an inferior strategy because they have more material to start with.
@Imperious:
Thirdly, Nobody is saying “just buy tanks”, rather the idea is to buy mostly tanks, backed up with infantry as soakers. Typically this might be twice as many tanks as infantry.
i am glad no one is saying all tank buys are good. if you are buying tanks with some infantry as soakers then your tanks are waiting for your soaker infantry, you would be much better off buying infantry and artillery.
@Imperious:
Fourth, These are hit and run tactics with the purpose of killing defenders and exchanging only attacking infantry ( fodder). Attacker then backs out when they got the better in the exchange.
same as your third point.
@Imperious:
Fifth, the constant weakening of chosen points and adding the increasing difference in material produced and the inability for Russia to take back lost areas ( because battle sims show horrible results of infantry stacks attacking tanks and a few infantry) shows this gradual loss of position.
i am unsure what you mean here. can you explain this in other wording. (sorry if i am slow)
@Imperious:
Six, the mobility of tanks allows them to pick the battle they want to fight and the infantry cant always get into the position to fight back because of their one space movement.
mech can also move two land spaces. i understand that tanks can blitz, but blitzing is rare and if you want to blitz as a means of trading dead zones then only one tank is needed. chances are you have a tank that you started the game with for those rare occasions. fighters can move 4 spaces(sometimes 5 as industrial complexes and airbases are often in the same territory) this does not show that tanks are a good purchase.
@Imperious:
All your information does not take into account either hit and run, greater material advantage, or ability to choose where to attack and not be able to defend every point or be able to counter because the tanks reached another weak point.
my information does show that tanks are a bad purchase. 4 of your 6 points do not show that tanks are a good purchase the other 2 points are either ambiguous or you need to clarify them.
tank purchases are dead. did you not read the eulogy?
-
:-o im sorry were you talking to me? :-o
-
It really depends on who you use. With Germany, there’s no doubt you’ll still need to buy tanks, because the 3 offensive roll will be invaluable. With the Soviets, you may want a couple around for the same reason if you need to counterattack, although in a small number.
Anyone else sans US though, indeed, you probably won’t see very many tank purchases anymore due to infantry/artillery being more cost efficient.
-
@Imperious:
Also where is the battle sim for AAE40? Where do you get the combat results?
i cant believe you dont have triplea yet. triplea is the best way to play axis and allies games online.
its free, and made by gamers that love the game. go get it. -
2 tanks attack 2 tanks.
2 tanks attack 3 mech.
Rolling 2d6:
(2, 5) vsRolling 2d6:
(1, 6)
Rolling 2d6:
(3, 4) vsRolling 3d6:
(1, 3, 5)2 tanks, 1fighter, 1 tac bomber attack 5 infantry.
3 mech, 1fighter, 1 tac bomber attack 5 infantry.
Rolling 2d6:
(3, 6)Rolling 1d6:
(5)Rolling 1d6:
(6) vs.Rolling 5d6:
(1, 4, 4, 4, 5)
Rolling 3d6:
(1, 2, 6)Rolling 1d6:
(5)Rolling 1d6:
(2) vs.Rolling 5d6:
(2, 4, 5, 5, 5) -
Quote from: Imperious Leader on Today at 10:33:38 am
Problems with this analysis:Mech infantry are not to be considered, the tank argument refers to problems since AAR and AA50 and AA42 as well as original AAE.
since you said in a later post that you are talking about global40 then you are wrong that mech infantry are not to be considered.
I amended that in a recent post, because the combat sims don’t favor this unit at 1-2-1-5. If you want them in your argument about combat results is harder to prove.
Quote from: Imperious Leader on Today at 10:33:38 am
Secondly, Germany out produces Russia typically in games and also starts with more material in range of her vitals.does this have anything to do with tanks being a good/bad purchase? unless you are inferring that Germany can afford to run an inferior strategy because they have more material to start with.
It has everything to do with the concept that at 5 IPC and 3-3-2-5 these were the preferred buy. In fact if your goal was to defeat Russia and you had 40 IPC, your going with a 5 tank, 5 infantry purchase, which shows most of the money going to tanks. To beat Russia this is the type of build you need and not something like 10 infantry and 2 tanks. To win at all the other games you need to spend most of your money on tanks ( AKA “The Tank Glitch”) because the tactic was to hit and run at places in the line where mostly infantry can’t recover and recapture.
This is why its relevant to discuss why tanks went to 6 IPC, which is the point of this thread.
Quote from: Imperious Leader on Today at 10:33:38 am
Thirdly, Nobody is saying “just buy tanks”, rather the idea is to buy mostly tanks, backed up with infantry as soakers. Typically this might be twice as many tanks as infantry.i am glad no one is saying all tank buys are good. if you are buying tanks with some infantry as soakers then your tanks are waiting for your soaker infantry, you would be much better off buying infantry and artillery.
If you play that and have most of your income for land units tied up in infantry and artillery, you can’t beat russia. Dis you do this with Japan when you sent them against Russia? NO, rather you bought mostly tanks. Thats where JTDTM started from.
Quote from: Imperious Leader on Today at 10:33:38 am
Fourth, These are hit and run tactics with the purpose of killing defenders and exchanging only attacking infantry ( fodder). Attacker then backs out when they got the better in the exchange.same as your third point.
no not really, point three didn’t have anything to do with hit and run. The run part is important because your running back to where your fighters are defending and making it very hard for the all infantry stacks to recapture because they didn’t buy tanks.
Quote from: Imperious Leader on Today at 10:33:38 am
Fifth, the constant weakening of chosen points and adding the increasing difference in material produced and the inability for Russia to take back lost areas ( because battle sims show horrible results of infantry stacks attacking tanks and a few infantry) shows this gradual loss of position.i am unsure what you mean here. can you explain this in other wording. (sorry if i am slow)
You as Russia are faced with like 90% infantry and if your playing them you need to cover many areas with these, but Germany with her tanks can just keep weakening one point in the line and latter capture a point too far away for your infantry to reach ( because they move one space) , in this case you lose your spaces one by one. Japan does this with JTDTM all the time. Russia can’t possibly retake all the areas it loses because it only has infantry and combat sims showing mostly infantry vs tanks causes the infantry to lose as the attacker.
Quote from: Imperious Leader on Today at 10:33:38 am
Six, the mobility of tanks allows them to pick the battle they want to fight and the infantry cant always get into the position to fight back because of their one space movement.
mech can also move two land spaces.i understand that tanks can blitz, but blitzing is rare and if you want to blitz as a means of trading dead zones then only one tank is needed. chances are you have a tank that you started the game with for those rare occasions. fighters can move 4 spaces(sometimes 5 as industrial complexes and airbases are often in the same territory) this does not show that tanks are a good purchase.
Blitzing is the way to get material faster to the front. IN fact twice as fast. Thats why Japan build them mostly as opposed to fighters that also perform well, but not as well as tanks on a cost per unit basis. And if you like fighters then run a combat sim of fighters attacking tanks and see how that goes.
Quote from: Imperious Leader on Today at 10:33:38 am
All your information does not take into account either hit and run, greater material advantage, or ability to choose where to attack and not be able to defend every point or be able to counter because the tanks reached another weak point.my information does show that tanks are a bad purchase. 4 of your 6 points do not show that tanks are a good purchase the other 2 points are either ambiguous or you need to clarify them.
I am saying that players needs to buy mostly tanks ( spending most of their turns income on them when buying land units)
If you got 40 IPC and are trying to take Moscow, the value of the 5 IPC tanks demonstrates that a 5-5 purchase as opposed to a 8-4 will get the job done better in that regard.
Now that tanks COST 6 IPC, this may not be so. I don’t have the answer to this, but i know certainly that in all the games where tanks cost 5 and were 3-3-2, the game favored mostly tank purchases for land if your playing Germany or Japan and going for Russia.
I am not talking about other nations and how they can counter, but only the strategy of Germany and Japan with respect to bringing down Russia.
tank purchases are dead. did you not read the eulogy?
At 6 IPC, its possible but the solution needs more play to demonstrate that.
Japan does have many tactical bombers and it can possibly use them with tanks to perform the same feat against Russia. Russia on the other hand just has infantry… lots of them.
-
@Imperious:
Problems with this analysis:
Mech infantry are not to be considered, the tank argument refers to problems since AAR and AA50 and AA42 as well as original AAE.
Secondly, Germany out produces Russia typically in games and also starts with more material in range of her vitals.
Thirdly, Nobody is saying “just buy tanks”, rather the idea is to buy mostly tanks, backed up with infantry as soakers. Typically this might be twice as many tanks as infantry.
Fourth, These are hit and run tactics with the purpose of killing defenders and exchanging only attacking infantry ( fodder). Attacker then backs out when they got the better in the exchange.
Fifth, the constant weakening of chosen points and adding the increasing difference in material produced and the inability for Russia to take back lost areas ( because battle sims show horrible results of infantry stacks attacking tanks and a few infantry) shows this gradual loss of position.
Six, the mobility of tanks allows them to pick the battle they want to fight and the infantry cant always get into the position to fight back because of their one space movement.
The result of this is the typical games in AAR, AAE, AA42, and AA50 where Japan drives tanks and Germany does the same. The axis can’t win by defeating Russia with all infantry buys because infantry attacking is producing terrible results. If Russia just buys infantry it will still lose. It needs other units. Germany and japan cannot win against Russia unless they mostly buy tanks.
All your information does not take into account either hit and run, greater material advantage, or ability to choose where to attack and not be able to defend every point or be able to counter because the tanks reached another weak point.
This is why for example even with 3-2-2-5 tanks in AAE, Russia is basically doomed, and tanks just run to take out weak points and Russia cant reach the lost area with too much.
AAE40 has essentially the same configuration as AAE, and this will favor Germany in mostly tank buys. Russia cant move her infantry in enough strength to fight the tanks and Germany will hit and run with impunity at selected areas and use Infantry as soakers so they they remain whole.
I strongly agree with IL here.
While adding 1 IPC per tank is not at all convenient, a power like Germany will still need to buy tanks in relative bulk… not like they did in AAE or in AA50… but more than just 1 or 2 a turn. With more NOs in this game, the costs can be offset enough to still let tanks be affordable, if not as easily utilized before. Tanks remain indispensible to Germany… IL is right, you cannot beat Russia with inf/mech inf… they are slugs compared to tanks, and mobility will be key more than ever on the massive Eastern front. Mobility is one of the tank’s three strengths… and its most important ability in this game. The ability for tanks to blitz is not limited to strict combat… it allows you a range of options which your opponent must defend against, thereby spreading himself out more.
Russia cannot buy solely infantry either. While her forces remain predominantly infantry, tanks are a vital supplement for offensive operations for the same reasons they are necessary for Germany… speed (movement) and firepower. Attacking with only infantry is a quick route to thinning your own ranks, worse than what the enemy could do to you himself. Infantry will still be used as fodder, but they will be needed more than ever to protect the tanks you do have.
The tank is not dead… It’s role has just been augmented and solidified as more than a throwaway piece.
-
Agree 100% with the above
-
In Pacific40 I don’t buy as many tanks as I used to in Anniversary. Sometimes it leads to slow predictable land battles.
Still I mix them in. In the older versions usually slower games favor the allies if for no other reason than the US has more turns to get her transports in gear. This favors tanks.
In situations where production is limited by Industrial Complex capacity Tanks are more important also. If you only have 3 units you can build and NEED something to come out of South Africa to help hold the continent then here come the tanks. They’ll be able to move up quicker and when the territory is more important than the dollars spent tanks are favored.
Heck, in the old game I remember building an infantry and two $12 fighters to defend India!
-
You can run battle sims with a pencil and paper if you have the time.
But aside from that, I’d say 6 IPC tanks are worth a try. If Larry playtested it at all, he obviously still saw them used at some capacity. When you need quick firepower two or more spaces away and the front can’t wait for infantry, tanks will be a good buy. When you need soaks for them after winning that battle, the mechs will be great. Mech/Tank will now just be the Cadillac alternative to INF/ART, for nations like Germany because the time advantage is worth the extra money.
I think that a mech/tank germ will be no weaker for the changes than a straight tank germ used to be, because although tanks cost six now, they’ll almost always have available 4 IPC soaks.
-
I think Germany needs more infantry on the western front and more tanks on the eastern. That is very general and not to be taken out of context like just infantry or just tanks.
Mostly tanks or mostly infantry.
The only way to overcome defense at 2 is to buy units that attack at three, because units that attack at two take too long to make a final decision in the battle. Otherwise your just causing dead zones and replaying old battles and not making any headway.
And the only way to get this in battle and still fair better is to make hit and run attacks, where your exchanging infantry ( except you exchange less of your than the defender)
This is then only way to defeat Russia. Therefore, you will be spending more of the IPC on tank purchases in order to gain this advantage somewhere on the map.
-
MarkVIII beat me to a point that no one had made before him, but it’s very significant in the whole “tanks/cruisers/battleships” or whatever expensive unit are inferior to cheap unit discussions.
Limited production capacity. If you’re maxing out a complex, you’re going to want to buy better units since you have a production constraint. Are you going to build 3 mech at your forward minor complex? Are you really never going to buy tanks?
Allweeneed, you apparently aren’t clear on the rules of blitzing. You’re going to need more than one tank to blitz territories and attack. Like you said, you don’t want to attack 2 spaces away and be losing tanks as your first casualties. That’s where you use mechanized infantry with tanks. You can bring 1 mech infantry with each tank into a battle after blitzing. If you don’t buy tanks, but just read their eulogies, your front lines will always be slowed down to advancing one territory per turn, and the defender will see you coming from a long way off and be able to prepare. Also, the other weakness of your favored infantry/artillery/mech infantry supported by air strat is the AA gun. Your opponents will buy and position more of them if you’re coming with more air and more infantry/mech infantry. And if they develop radar, then you’re really in a world of hurt.
The tank purchase will not rest in peace. But at last, it will become less common. However, the increased rarity is not only due to the 6 IPC price tag, it’s also in large part due to the introduction of a new ground unit that can move 2 spaces.
I think anytime someone declares they will never buy a certain unit, they are just showing that they don’t understand the utility of that unit.
Every A&A unit has a unique advantage/characteristic and therefore each unit is ideal for certain situations, and merit purchase in certain circumstances.
-
First off, tanks were always scarce on the Pacific side of the board because of the island hopping thing, and they are especially scarce in 1940 because of the fact that you can’t go into Russia, so there is almost no reason to use tanks since the largest open area of land is China where they can produce anywhere. In Europe where you have production facilities and much more contiguous land area, tanks have always ruled. Tanks will still rule the battle for the Eastern Front, however, their numbers will be fewer because of the mechanized infantry.
I think the major issue with this analysis is strictly comparing tanks ONLY vs. mech ONLY. In reality the real use is going to be a combination of mech with tanks, which is precisely all the more reason that tanks need to cost 6 now, because now we have a unit that can move two spaces AND blitz when paired with tanks, besides all the tank’s other abilities, so mech actually make the extra cost necessary. Tanks have been made more valuable in these 1940 versions, which means they need to cost more.
If tanks still cost 5 IPCs with the introduction of mech at 4 IPCs, you could buy a mech and a tank with the same 9 IPCs you could purchase 3 infantry with:
3 infantry vs. 1 infantry
Win: 90% Lose: 8.3% Both Dead: 1.7%1 mech, 1 tank vs. 1 infantry
Win: 89.7% Lose: 5.1% Both Dead: 5.1%With this setup, you have just about the same chance of winning, plus a decent chance of still destroying your opponent even if you die too, but the real kicker is that you can move BOTH these units 2 spaces at a time! Increasing it 1 IPC keeps infantry from dying to the mech-tank combo, but doesn’t kill tanks either, as I’ll explain why next.
Forget that you can buy mech at a 3:2 ratio to tanks, you also have to look at the fact that you can still buy tanks at a 5:3 ratio to fighters, even with the cost increased to 6! 5:3 is a bigger ratio difference than 3:2 (you can get 1.7 tanks for every 1 fighter, while you can only get 1.5 mech for every 1 tank), so if you’re going to be buying fighters to combine with your mech instead of tanks, you’re going to end up on the short end of the stick, especially when you factor in AA guns as gamerman mentioned before. Tanks still hit on 3 when attacking, just like fighters, but cost a lot less and provides immediate defensive support to your frontline mech that planes can’t. This can be especially dangerous to an opponent if they leave a blitz path open, and while you say this is rare, that is the case in previous editions because of tanks. Tanks force your opponent to close holes and defend territories they otherwise wouldn’t have to. So tanks are still going to be necessary as the only unit that can threaten a blitz and a unit that can capture territories on its own and then defend them, which fighters can’t do.
You can compare mech to tanks straight up all you want, mech obviously win; but most players are not going to be buying ONLY mech instead of tanks, just like buying ONLY infantry (just because the math says they’re the best on defense) or ONLY tanks (just because the math says they give you the most punch and movement per IPC) in previous versions wasn’t the best idea either. Neither are fighters dead because tanks have a better ratio, because they are still the most versatile unit. You have to consider the big picture and not just compare mech to tanks, but combinations of the two to other units, especially your mech-fighter combos to mech-tank combos. Your numbers are correct, but your focus was just too narrow.
The rumors of the death of the tank have been greatly exaggerated. Hopefully this math helps you see that. :-)
-
Thank you SAS and Gamerman 8-)
-
Oh my goodness, I don’t know why it took me this long to think of this:
Another constraint, besides production capacity, is transports. You have a limited number of transports, that can carry a limited number of units. You’re going to want tanks for transporting, because they are the best ground unit that you can transport on your limited slots. Also, as I pointed out before, when you’re wanting to take control of a territory and are willing to lose planes to take it, you’re going to want the best ground unit possible, the tank, to be firing every round until the end.
So you see now from all the replies on this thread, that there are so many reasons to purchase tanks at 6 IPCs that you really shouldn’t worry that tanks will become extinct.
-
So we can change this thread from mourning over the loss of the tank, to celebrating how much tanks rock! :mrgreen:
I think we’ll need a new poem, allweneedislove. Do you think you could get us a celebratory poem? :wink:
-
Allweneed is the only one making sense in this thread. I agree with him wholeheartedly: compared to mechs, armor is overpriced. I’ll buy my armour now as I would fighters: only when it’s absolutely necessary (to blitz or to get attacking power to the front fast). Any other case, mechs are a better buy.
transport argument: put 1 inf 1 rtl in it, and you’ll save yourself 2 bucks for the same attacking power as 1 inf 1 arm.
3 inf vs 1 inf and 1 arm 1 rtl vs 1 inf: turn it the other way around. I bet the infs are better on defense, which is also worth an ipc.
every unit has it’s specific situation: true, but the specific situations for tanks become slim, to say the least. It used to be a cool unit, making up about 1/3 of your land force (inf being 1/2). Now it’ll be more like 1/10. That’s not close to the ideal 1/4 (4 land units).
Suggested Topics
