Just wondering what your trying to do?
If you want to see a specific setup just load it into TripleA.
Larry's new tank rules for Global 1940 Alpha Beta
-
No this:
1. They attack at 2, artillery does not boost them +1 making it a 3.
2. They can blitz without a tank.So what you got is a artillery unit in ( in terms of stats) but moving 2 spaces and not boosting anything. (Net change: trading +1 attack boost for movement +1 )
-
With 2-2-2-4 Mechs that can blitz by themselves;
When buying a tank, you get 50% more punch for 50% more IPCs than a mech. So they are even in that regard.
The difference is, you get MORE mechs for the same amount of money. When you buy tanks you are paying more to do the same amount of damage BUT being able to take less hits, which means you won’t be firing as many times, which means in the long run you are severely handicapping yourself.
NO when you buy a combination of units ( combined arms) and perform hit and run attacks ( e.g. attacking as long as you are trading your infantry, for defenders mechs) you cause more damage than having one type of unit. Also, the added investment for getting threes overcomes any two unit defending allowing for hit and run tactics of weakening the defender till he falls.
It’s not a matter of opinion. If you don’t believe me type “Statisitical analysis” into google and see for yourself.
Yes and if you think a 3 is the same as a 2 if you are doing a hit and run attack, look up Statistical ( correct spelling BTW) analysis and Google that, or read the book on Statistics for Dummies.
Even if hitting and running, I’d take 6 mechs over 4 tanks any day. You get the same odds to hit for the same cost, BUT you can take more hits, and when you take a hit, you lose lower cost units.
Thats just the problem, you are comparing a bunch of one type of unit to another bunch of one type of unit. Combined arms approach/ hit and run of Tanks and Infantry and some artillery do the trick best, and in your ridiculous example which seldom occurs, consider if possible a group of infantry vs a group of mechs, Infantry defending wins, so does that mean you just buy infantry? NO. You need many types of units for a dynamic ability for offensive and defensive options. A stupid bunch of tanks or a bunch of mech with no fodder is a stupid move or buy. Again you need combined arms.
You may think 4 tanks hit more often than 6 mechs, but probability says you’re wrong.
You can make up things that not one person ever said in any post and make it their point, but you may look stupid for assuming the same. Again combined arms approach with hit and run is best not stupid stacks of 50 mechs or 50 tanks.
If you buy a tank (or 2 tanks over 3 mechs, rather), you are paying for nothing better, you only sacrifice hits you can take.
Again i guess you don’t believe in combined arms/ hit and run approach. YOU just buy mech then, well in your next game just buy them and nothing else. You can bring up all the examples of tanks vs mechs all day but if you consider a real combined arms/hit and run approach of tanks, infantry, artillery, and mech as well as planes, you find greater success in your results.
I suppose one possible exception is when you have a ton of IPCs but not enough factory capacity to spend them at, in which case tanks may be acceptable then, but nearly all of the time, buying tanks instead 2-2-2-4 independent blitzing mechs is just stupid if you’re looking to win.
I say a combined arms and hit and run tactics is the best overall but the land units have to be in a perfect ratio and that “just buy mechs never buy tanks mantra” is not the way to go.
using the new values in a battle of Eight 2-2 mechs costing 32 IPC vs. 10 infantry costing 30 IPC, the infantry win on defense 84.5%, so does this mean you should only buy infantry? NO.
-
Do you know what a straw man argument is? It’s taking one part of someone’s argument and arguing against that making it the main focus, even if it’s not even close to a main point much less a point of theirs at all.
Somehow it was interpreted that when I said under a 2-2-2-4 lone blitzing mech system, one should buy mechs instead of tanks, all of a sudden I am being painted as though I said mechs should be bought instead of everything.
3 mechs are better than 2 tanks under IL’s system for mechs. The post below will prove it.
NO rather you paint my position as a comparison of mech and tanks. I never advocated this. Under the Alpha rules with combined arms and hit and run tactics if you stop buying tanks and just fight any other defending force with mech, you will lose more economically because at some point you are trading defending infantry for mechs and losing 4 for 3 gained.
-
Has anyone thought of different priced tanks for different countries? Although this really would mean that A&A uses a 10 sided dice now with the rule that the lower the number the better.
Something like this:
Germany
Cost: 6
Attack: 5
Defense:5Russia/US:
Cost: 5
Attack: 4
Defense : 4UK
Cost: 5
Attack: 4
Defense:3Japan/Italy
Cost: 4
Attack: 3
Defend: 3 -
Your point was that combined arms (by that we are talking a mix of tanks and mechs, I’m not denying that inf are important too) is better than all tanks or all mechs. Logic and statistics prove that wrong.
Can you really say 4 tanks and 6 mechs plus x infantry, y artillery, and z planes is better than 12 mechs plus x infantry, y artillery, and z planes? If so, prove it statistically!
Let me help you with the actual games rules dealing with combined arms:
Artillery boost infantry on attack to 2
Tanks boost tactical bombers to a 4
Both at 1:1Just do 1-2 rounds of combat using combination’s of all the units and change only the amounts of tanks vs mech keeping all the other units the same.
For example: Attacking 10 infantry 4 tanks 4 tactical bombers, 5 artillery
Defending: 10 infantry, 6 mechs, 5 artillery, 4 tactical bombers. these are both 118 IPCAttacking: 5 ones, 10 two’s, 4 threes, 4 fours= 53 –— against Defending: 21 two’s, 4 three’s =54.
1st ROUND:
each side will lose 9 units in the first round on average. Both sides remove 9 infantry…battle is draw…2nd ROUND:
Attacking: 1 one’s, 5 two’s, 4 three’s, 4 fours= 39------------- against defending: 12 twos, 4 threes = 36.Each side loses 6 units ( note the attackers are really getting 6.5 hits vs. 6.0 for defender: attacker loses 1 infantry, 5 artillery= 23 ipc Defender loses 1 Infantry, and 5 artillery= 23 ipc…Draw
So here neither side gained in hit and run, so lets see how they fair reversed:
Remember in this we are using the new ideas mech are not boosted by artillery…
Defending 10 infantry 4 tanks 4 tactical bombers, 5 artillery
Attacking: 10 infantry, 6 mechs, 5 artillery, 4 tactical bombers.
these are both 118 IPC1st Round:
Defenders=54
Attackers=44No need for math, on defense mech vs tanks is no issue, but since math is not a strong suit lets do it anyway…
54/6=9 hits
44/6=7 hits2nd Round:
Attackers left with 1 infantry, 6 mechs, 5 artillery, 4 tactical bombers.
Defender left with 3 infantry 4 tanks 4 tactical bombers, 5 artilleryAttacker 35
Defender 4035/6 =6 enemy killed
40/6 =7 enemy killed3rd Round
Attackers left with 5 mechs, 4 tactical bombers.
Defender left with 4 tanks 4 tactical bombers, 2 artilleryAttacker 22/6= 4 enemy killed
Defender 32/6=5 enemy killed4th Round:
Attackers left with 4 tactical bombers.
Defender left with 2 tanks 4 tactical bombersIn the end the defense has a net of 12 IPC more, if you continue the odds get worse.
Summary: on attack groups of tanks mixed in with other units vs mech mixed in with other units no advantage to either side in hit and run tactics.
On defense tanks with mixed units vs mech on attack with combined units shows tanks fair better.See? case closed. I KNEW I WAS CORRECT.
All your examples are for types of combat that i made no claim about, so just drop it. Nobody said anything about how a group of just tanks and just mech fighting it out will prevail. Eventually, you lose mech to my infantry and I’m trading off your 4 for my 3.
ON the defense it just gets worse for you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hit-and-run_tactics
http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/585492/tactical-bombers-and-tanksfighters
http://www.mathsisfun.com/associative-commutative-distributive.html
http://www.bymath.com/studyguide/ana/ana_topics.html -
I think you need to reread my post which i was working on and finished BEFORE you made your last two posts.
Last Edit: Today at 05:30:07 pm by Imperious Leader »
Reply #80 on: Today at 05:36:18 pm » by Mantlefan.I usually check and double check not only my spelling but make it easy to read.
-
I suppose if you are attacking with 10 tanks and 10 tactical bombers (+inf/art of course) without any fighters, the amount of Tac boosts you get could be quite relevant. But the more tacs you are putting into a battle the more likely there are to be fighters with them, unless just to “prove” your point, from now on you purposely avoid using fighters with your tacs even if it benefits you to use the ftrs. Ask around. I think you’ll find that people use ftrs with tacs more often than tanks with tacs
I could add fighters but on defense attacking the tanks with your mech and all other things being equal, you lose.
ON the attack i suppose i could also bring BOMBERS. Would you LIKE THAT TOO? NO i think not!
I wanted to bring the minimal land units that provided a combat bonus to show the point that you are wrong, that Mech are not gaining against tanks on defense and far WORSE as attackers vs. tanks.
try and deny that.
-
1.Outside of hit and run situations, what is better?
-100 infantry and 60 mechs
-100 infantry, 30 mechs, 20 tanksPurposely avoiding combined arms and providing examples of the same is NOT EVEN ONCE WHAT ANYBODY HAS STATED TO THE CONTRARY HERE. i WONT WASTE TIME IN A REPLY BECAUSE ITS OBVIOUS THAT MECHS IN STACKS DEFENDING AGAINST TANKS WITHOUT AID OF COMBINED ARMS OR HIT AND RUN.
The only point that was proven here that tanks beat mech on defense, and tanks on attack against mech is a washout.
2. In hit and run situations (where the attacker hasn’t gone out of his way to make sure that no ftrs are flying with his tacs), which is more effective against a constant defense, Tanks with inf & art OR 1.5x that as many mechs with the same amount of infantry and art?
See answer key above.
3. ONLY if there is a large number of tacs without fighters (which I still don’t understand why 4 tacs have 0 ftrs with them) might tanks be better in a hit and run. Otherwise mechs and tanks are effectively even when backing up the infantry/art in a hit and run. Agree? If no, why not?
I don’t understand why Bombers are not involved either. So in future examples bring in 5 fighters and 5 bombers per side in addition to the other units. ok?
Tanks are more effective than mech on defense as long as other units are involved. Naked stacks notwithstanding.
4. Does the potential for tanks’ superiority in hit-and-runs (assuming 1st that hit-and-runs are very significant, 2nd that those tanks are attacking oftentimes with a large number of tacs, 3rd that those tacs are coming WITHOUT ftrs and 4th that the times that tacs come without ftrs or without many ftrs will be quite common), does the importance of hit and run battles (even if there are more of the latter) outweigh the importance of battle-to-the death affairs that often decide the fate of capitals?
I make no claims regarding this, but you can add in BOMBERS as well for each side. Why are you so fixated on fighters? Also, the combined aspect of item 3 is not valid (Tanks boost tacs, and fighters boost tacs) so the tacs get boosted without fighters and fighters have no say in the matter. The importance of each type of combat action is only dependent on the results of previous battles. A do or die proposition is only worth it ( by this we mean ‘go for broke’ losing more in material because you gain more by taking the capital and it can’t be taken back). It is not dependent on anything else. Again, if you can take a capital and it wont be taken back, its a good deal to ‘go for broke’ losing more now to gain more latter.
-
Mantlefan, all of your formulas, statistical probabilities and examples are just a bunch of nonsense. I mean, who ever comes up with these huge forces you are making up –- 100 inf, 20 art, 5 fighters & tacs, etc. vs. 150 inf and 10 fighters? You would have to do nothing but just build up for 3 or 4 rounds to get such forces. What’s happening on the rest of the game board? Maybe you were just using these numbers as an example to work with, but realistically it just doesn’t happen during normal game play.
It’s very simple. Tanks hit at 3 and Mechs hit at 2. If you want a stronger punch in your attack, you get some tanks. If you want a few more numbers, or to take over some unopposed territories, you get some mechs. I don’t care about your silly probability formulas that say this many tanks will hit at X percent but this many mechs will hit at Y percent. Those numbers only apply to those massive made-up forces you were using as examples. In regular game play, we are looking at much smaller numbers working WITH other types of units.
Also, each unit type has different characteristics and abilities so they ALL have a place on the board. Granted, if we give Mechs the ability to blitz themselves, then tanks do lose a LITTLE of their own prestige as blitzing units. However, they still have a stronger punch at 3 so they still have their place. If you want to not buy tanks anymore in favor of 2 hit Mechs, then that is your choice. I will still get both, depending on the needs of my battles. -
Here is another idea for what we call Mechanized Infantry at present. A while back, I think it is on the FMG pieces discussion thread, someone came up with an idea for different values for 11 different types of land units. This was when we thought FMG was going to give us a light tank with each set. Since FMg is giving us trucks as well as half-tracks/armored cars, the trucks could be used to create “Mobile Infantry” with a value of 1-2-2-4. We could use the half-tracks/armored cars to create “Armored Infantry” with a value of 2-2-2-5.
So, maybe that might be even better than Mechanized Infantry at 2-2-2-4 with blitzing capability. We could change it to Armored Infantry at 2-2-2-5 with blitzing capability. This way, our Mech/Arm inf pieces could still blitz on their own and have a decent attack factor at a more appropriate cost. Tanks would still retain their stronger punch for a little higher cost. Perhaps this way the ratio of how many tanks vs how many mech/arm inf that you could get for the same IPCs wouldn’t be quite so big. -
@mantlefan:
@Imperious:
remember to consider the mech a 2-2-2-4 unit with no boost from artillery.
Was this directed at me?
Your proposal seems to be changing 2 things about mechs
1. They attack at 2, whether there is an artillery or not.
2. They can blitz without a tank.My posts were made with those potential changes in mind.
Which again would make artillery a less desirable buy. I think a normal attack of “1” that CAN be boosted by artillerry is the best way to go (remain) as far as game-balance is concerned. I WOULD allow them to Blitz. Then it would really depend on the actual situation on the board which one (artillery or mech) I’d buy. With the suggested change I’d nearly ALWAYS take the mech.
Another poster said that 6 mechs are as good as 4 tanks. While this may be true, once you start taking losses on the mechs (which you’ll take before losses on the tanks) the odds change very quickly! (I’m assuming you do have a mixed force also with infnatry cover, but one heavier on mech, the other heavier on tanks. Attacking with ONLY mechs or ONLY tanks is something you should avoid anyway unless you’re in a desperate situation (have to take back a crucial territory) or potential game-winning/ balance tipping situation (take territory holding enemy factory, capital, Egypt, India etc.).
-
Yes 3 mechs are better than 2 tanks do to number of die throws, but with 10 inf and 6 mech attacking at 22 and 10 inf and 4 tanks defending at 32 no way are mech better.
-
You were talking about blitzing with mechs, I’m just saying if you attack with your mechs and inf you won’t have nothing left to blitz with. Sorry I fric blew up.
-
EDIT:
I’m going to forget everything else you’ve said and I’ve said, even though I still disagree with a lot of your posts, and try to move this forward.(I think) We both want to see which is a better buy under a system where mechs attack at 2 and can blitz alone. Therefore, the question is, what is a better buy, 2 tanks or 3 mechs?
Again you ask the wrong questions or try to prove things that nobody ever brought up.
The entire point which i will continue to remind you is in situations in attack or defense where a mixed force attacking with combined arms benefit or on defense are greater than any pure force of just one type of unit with the exception of just a stack of infantry defending.
Nobody can claim having just infantry on defense is the best deal, but hardly the best all around force for both attack or defense.
I also claim that in situations where both sides have the same units, with the exception that one side has an equal value of mech and the other side has an equal value of tanks, that in attack or defense, the group with tanks are better than the group with mech.
Anybody with basic math skills knows that 3 mech beat 2 tanks, you can keep asking this but its not nor ever was the issue here, or even any issue anybody can argue against.
So address any further questions with the scope of this and this only in mind…
And another thing: ridiculous examples of 100 infantry, 40 tanks etc are not to be used. They are not helping anybody trying to figure this out. From now on you stick to real game examples.
Perquisite:
Mechs are 2-2-2-4 unit, artillery do not boost mech
Tanks boost tac
Fighters boost tac
Art boost infantryExample:
YOU ATTACKING:
9 infantry, 3 mech, 6 artillery, 3 fighters, 2 tactical bombers, 1 bomber=49ME DEFENDING
9 infantry, 2 tanks, 6 artillery, 3 fighters, 2 tactical, 1 bomber=60Now reversed:
ME ATTACKING:
9 infantry, 2 tanks, 6 artillery, 3 fighters, 2 tactical, 1 bomber=54YOU DEFENDING
9 infantry, 3 mech, 6 artillery, 3 fighters, 2 tactical bombers, 1 bomber=55overall winner: ME, mixed forces of tanks using combined arms can be greater than mixed forces with equal number of mechs.
Another Example:
YOU ATTACKING:
3 infantry, 6 mech, 4 artillery, 3 fighters, 2 tactical bombers, 1 bomber=42ME DEFENDING
3 infantry, 4 tanks, 4 artillery, 3 fighters, 2 tactical, 1 bomber=45Now reversed:
ME ATTACKING:
3 infantry, 4 tanks, 4 artillery, 3 fighters, 2 tactical, 1 bomber=47YOU DEFENDING
3 infantry, 6 mech, 4 artillery, 3 fighters, 2 tactical bombers, 1 bomber=45Again overall winner: ME, mixed forces of tanks using combined arms can be greater than mixed forces with equal number of mechs.
NOW case closed.
NOW REMEMBER :THE QUESTION IS NOT WHICH IS BEST 3 MECHS OR 2 TANKS. T_he actual question is which of these units in a mixed force fairs best for the purpose of hit and run tactics. I have just proven the 1st round shows that tank force is superior in these situations based on the value of combined arms bonuses._
All Mantlefan:
Why do people keep makiing these comparisons?
You are using other irrelevant variables to make your distorted argument.Mantlefans “example” to support his argument.
Force 1
100 inf, 20 art, 60 mechs, 5 ftr, 4 tac, 5 bmb
Force 2
100 inf, 20 art, 40 armor, 5 ftr, 4 tac, 5 bmbLMFAO!!
-
YOU ATTACKING:
1. 3 infantry, 6 mech, 4 artillery, 3 fighters, 2 tactical bombers, 1 bomber=42
ME DEFENDING
2. 3 infantry, 4 tanks, 4 artillery, 3 fighters, 2 tactical, 1 bomber=45Now reversed:
ME ATTACKING:
3. 3 infantry, 4 tanks, 4 artillery, 3 fighters, 2 tactical, 1 bomber=47YOU DEFENDING
4. 3 infantry, 6 mech, 4 artillery, 3 fighters, 2 tactical bombers, 1 bomber=45Again overall winner: ME, mixed forces of tanks using combined arms can be greater than mixed forces with equal number of mechs.
NOW case closed.
Remember that ftrs boost tacs? Ftr’s do boost tacs, tanks aren’t the only boosters.
Yes on attack only and for the purpose of this example which is hit and run. I only need to prove one round to be right.
So we do one round using the new numbers and see.
YOU ATTACKING:
1. 3 infantry, 6 mech, 4 artillery, 3 fighters, 2 tactical bombers, 1 bomber= NOT 42, BUT 45 Corrected…
I will even make this Uber easy for you to see: 6+12+8+9+6+4=45
ME DEFENDING
2. 3 infantry, 4 tanks, 4 artillery, 3 fighters, 2 tactical, 1 bomber=456+12+8+12+6+1=45
Result: draw… for the same money in fighting power
Now reversed:
ME ATTACKING:
3. 3 infantry, 4 tanks, 4 artillery, 3 fighters, 2 tactical, 1 bomber=476+12+8+9+8+4=47
YOU DEFENDING
4. 3 infantry, 6 mech, 4 artillery, 3 fighters, 2 tactical bombers, 1 bomber=456+12+8+12+6+1=45
Result I still have a +2 advantage over you…with tanks.
So force 1 from above
3inf(arty support)=6, 6 mechs=12, 4 arty=8, 3 ftr=9, 2 tac (ftr support)=8, 1 bmb=4
6+12+8+9+8+4= 47So 1 and 3 have 47, both of them. However, what happens when the defender gets past the inf/art (which are constant in both), and into the variable that is NOT constant; the mechs/tanks.
Result is you added wrong. The actual result is 47 to 45…or two points in my favor. Also this is not get past the infantry, its hit and run. Leave before you trade more than you lose.
In for one round and based on the average loses (or not) i am not cutting into units costing more than 4 IPC.
Forces 1 and 3 both do 7-8 hits on average (47/6=7 with Remainder 5)
If the defender does 7 or less hits, both 1 and 3 lose equal amounts of IPC. They are equal.
However, what happens when the defender does 8 hits?
YOU remove 7-8 hits:
1. 3 infantry, 6 mech, 4 artillery, 3 fighters, 2 tactical bombers, 1 bomber=45 or 7.5 units killed 1st round, removed indicated in bold and possible mech unitI remove 7 hits:
3. 3 infantry, 4 tanks, 4 artillery, 3 fighters, 2 tactical, 1 bomber=47 or 7.83 units killed 1st round, removed indicated in boldSo in the stated example you DID NOT PROVE THAT MECH MIXED FORCE VS. TANK MIXED FORCE WITH ONE ROUND OF COMBAT IS MORE FAVORABLE FOR MECH. Edge slightly to tanks ( one way its a draw, reversed a few points stronger)
Summary:
Tanks in a mix and using hit and run tactics are better than mixed force with mechs for the same IPC.Thank You.
-
….UNTIL the attacker must start taking tanks
We are only dealing with hit and run, so attacks of this will never occur where trading of tanks for mechs will ever occur. I have no idea why you keep bringing up points that nobody made claims for or against.
The very bottom line here from what was proven is as long as a mixed force of tanks with other units in combat against a mixed force of mech and other units, as long as the combat loses do not dig into units greater than 4 IPC for loses, the advantage is with the tank force.
When loses exceed the 4 IPC mark, the advantage swings to the mech force because the mech force on average will be able to sustain more hits for an equal spend.
The key is we are only dealing with the advantage in terms of a limited ( hit and run) approach.
Another point to consider which you don’t understand is that a tank force has greater potency than mech because its a 3 over a 2. The situation in Russia or in any area with lots of land spaces close together, is that tanks at three can maximize the punch of an attack… they being stronger on average gives them a greater propensity to hit the defender harder than mech infantry. So if you had a force split in half and the attacker did the same, but was first to move and he had tanks and you had equal value in mechs, He could move his entire force against the one half and destroy it, while the other 50% of your force could not exact revenge on his tanks w/o greater loses. If you reverse the attacks, the new result would be that the side with tanks would come out better anyway.
I can see how or why mechs require a tank to blitz… this puts some limitations of them. SO i guess i still favor a 2-2-2-4 mech, but in combat moves two with tank only 1:1.
Either that or the game must allow 2 tanks for 11 IPC and remove the movement restriction for mechs giving it a proper 2-2-2-4 no restrictions
-
It’s never possible that tanks could be lost in a hit and run battle?
Seriously?Its not the type of hit and run interaction i would call a “good idea” The definition of hit and run is to attack for a short duration because you are in the advantage for this. If you were not in the advantage, like sending one tank attacking 300 infantry, this is not hit and run, but rather hit and die.
What happens when the defender gets 8 hits in our scenario? Outside of Lowluck, it’s QUITE possible in ONE round. (don’t forget that not everyone plays lowluck)
Nice try but won’t help you. I don’t play battles where i would significantly approach any situation like that. Also, its not hit and run anyway. I don’t play with low luck, but made it easy for you on the math so you and others can see based on any standardized empirical and accepted way of doing studies like this. What is also possible is i can kill more so its not an argument to say in a hit and run situation that your mechs can kill more than the tanks, because the tanks can also do more harm and based on the numbers they have a greater propensity to do so.
If you are ONLY talking about lowluck let me know. Otherwise, the defensive forces in BOTH situations are quite capable of getting 8+ hits.
Yes and they are all capable of missing or hitting everything, in which case both sides would lose the SAME
YOU ATTACKING:
1. 3 infantry, 6 mech, 4 artillery, 3 fighters, 2 tactical bombers, 1 bomber= 47
6+12+8+9+8+4=47
ME DEFENDING
2. 3 infantry, 4 tanks, 4 artillery, 3 fighters, 2 tactical, 1 bomber=456+12+8+12+6+1=45
Result: YES RIGHT MECH HAS +2
Now Reversed:
ME ATTACKING:
3. 3 infantry, 4 tanks, 4 artillery, 3 fighters, 2 tactical, 1 bomber=476+12+8+9+8+4=47
YOU DEFENDING
4. 3 infantry, 6 mech, 4 artillery, 3 fighters, 2 tactical bombers, 1 bomber=456+12+8+12+6+1=45
Result I still have a +2 advantage over you…with tanks.
The result in this example only shows a draw under a comparison of both types of combat.
So what really happens in this example is nothing is proven, so we need another example:
Example #2
YOU ATTACKING:1. 8 infantry, 3 mech, 4 artillery, 3 fighters, 3 tactical bombers, 2 bomber= 55
12+6+8+9+12+4=57
ME DEFENDING
2. 8 infantry, 2 tanks, 4 artillery, 3 fighters, 3 tactical, 2 bomber=5516+8+8+12+9+2=55
Result: NO CHANGE
reversed:YOU DEFENDING:
1. 8 infantry, 3 mech, 4 artillery, 3 fighters, 3 tactical bombers, 2 bomber= 5316+6+8+12+9+2=53
ME ATTACKING:
2. 8 infantry, 2 tanks, 4 artillery, 3 fighters, 3 tactical, 2 bomber=5712+8+8+9+12+8=57
I HAVE AN ADVANTAGE OF +4 IN ONE ROUND.
-
Its not the type of hit and run interaction i would call a “good idea” The definition of hit and run is to attack for a short duration because you are in the advantage for this. If you were not in the advantage, like sending one tank attacking 300 infantry, this is not hit and run, but rather hit and die.
Nice try but won’t help you. I don’t play battles where i would significantly approach any situation like that. Also, its not hit and run anyway. I don’t play with low luck, but made it easy for you on the math so you and others can see based on any standardized empirical and accepted way of doing studies like this. What is also possible is i can kill more so its not an argument to say in a hit and run situation that your mechs can kill more than the tanks, because the tanks can also do more harm and based on the numbers they have a greater propensity to do so.
The point is that if you are not at risk to lose any units BEYOND the inf and artillery screen, there is NO difference in the combat effectiveness of 4 tanks compared to 6 mechs, or 6 mechs compared to 2 tanks and 3 mechs.
No. Again thats not what has been proven. In overall effectiveness the combined arms aspects of tanks boosting tactical bombers making it a 4 vs. a 2 shows with no doubt that based on attack and defense the overall winner is the mixed tank force with combined arms.
These are all equal IPC arrangements of mechs and tanks. AS LONG AS THE HITS ARE NOT BEING TAKEN ON THE MECHS AND/OR TANKS, they are EVEN when supporting a hit-and run attack.
If hits ARE being taken on mechs and/or tanks, the army that has more mechs relative to tanks is STRONGER
Your point is mechs are stronger and i proved that false. Also, hits are not being taken on tanks because as stated 5,000,000 time before i am no entertaining an attack that would do that in order to prove that tank force is better than mech force.
Again the Math proves otherwise.
Quote from: Imperious Leader on March 15, 2011, 09:12:18 pm
So what really happens in this example is nothing is proven, so we need another example:
No, it proves that they are EQUAL in terms of attack strength. It proves the only inequality is how many hits each arrangement can take. Mechs can take more hits, losing less IPC and less attack value per hit. Mechs are sometimes even to tanks, sometimes better, but not worse.
What is proved was in this example no determination, so i made a new example THAT SHOWED THAT TANK MIXED FORCE IN HIT AND RUN WINS AGAINST MECH MIXED FORCE, OF WHICH YOU IGNORED BECAUSE AGAIN THE MATH PROVED YOU WRONG.
Quote from: Imperious Leader on March 15, 2011, 09:12:18 pm
Example #2
YOU ATTACKING:
1. 8 infantry, 3 mech, 4 artillery, 3 fighters, 3 tactical bombers, 2 bomber= 55
12+6+8+9+12+8=55
ME DEFENDING
2. 8 infantry, 2 tanks, 4 artillery, 3 fighters, 3 tactical, 2 bomber=55
16+8+8+12+9+2=55Result: NO CHANGE
reversed:
YOU DEFENDING:
1. 8 infantry, 3 mech, 4 artillery, 3 fighters, 3 tactical bombers, 2 bomber= 53
16+6+8+12+9+2=53
ME ATTACKING:
2. 8 infantry, 2 tanks, 4 artillery, 3 fighters, 3 tactical, 2 bomber=57
12+8+8+9+12+8=57I HAVE AN ADVANTAGE OF +4 IN ONE ROUND.
Absolutely Brilliant!
First of all, you claim to be after “empirical” evidence in measuring which is a better hit-and run ATTACKER. Why when comparing who is a better ATTACKER do you have one DEFEND against the other’s ATTACK.
Because all i need to do is prove my point in one round. If the odds are to my advantage in any round, my hit and run attack continues. Again you want to take me down the example where my tanks are exchanged and i told you 50 times before , that this is hit and run. I fight as long as my advantage remains and you are losing more in net IPC then me. Thats why it is one round in this example. Nice try.
We need to look at how each would fare ATTACKING against a CONSISTENT defensive force. HOW do we measure the usefeulness of a force to do a hit-and-run ATTACK when it is DEFENDING?Huh?
NO we don’t, i know thats what you like to do since the math proves my point because this is a hit and run example, not “lets get my tanks killed in battle, so the numbers move over to mantlefans favor”
Now repeat: HIT AND RUN, HIT AND RUN….
TO DO THIS PURPOSEFULLY YOU NEED A CONSTANT DEFENSE
No rather to make the numbers swing to your favor you want something other than hit and run, and as i stated 50 times before hit and run is only a value while the loses are less for the tank side, than for the mech side.
It’s so easy! PICK A DEFENSIVE FORCE. Have the mech force fight that defense. Have the tank force fight the SAME defense.
So you need
1. A defense
2. A mech-supported attack force
3. A tank supported attack force
4 (If you want) a mech/tank mixed attack forceYes i did that with 4-5 examples and each time it makes your point fail. Read prior examples…
You need a constant defense to compare both sets of attackers against, otherwise the comparison gets bogged down in considerations about the differences in defense value for bombers for example, which really has nothing to do with what they attack at.
I was wondering when you would start crying about bombers, but alas again i only need to prove my point using the same total IPC per each side, and i did.
Second, your math is off for this unscientific multiple-variable exercise anyways.
8 inf (with 4 arty support)=12, 3 mech=6, 4art=8, 3 ftr=9, 3 tac (BOOSTED BY FTRS!!)=12, 2 Bmb=8
12+6+8+3+9+12+8= 58, NOT 57. FIFTY-EIGHTWait. :-D now please slip in another THREE to make the math better? Ahh that feels better? Nice try. 55 Bud. LOL
Attacking:
8 inf=16, 4 arty=8, 2 tanks=6, 3 ftr=12. 3 tac=9, 2bmb=2
16+8+6+12+9+2= 53, NOT 55. FIFTY-THREEBombers attack at 1? what ruleset you using? :-D
I think you are confused about attack or defense. I assume you MEANT DEFENSE?
8 inf=16, 4 arty=8, 2 tanks=6, 3 ftr=12. 3 tac=9, 2bmb=2
16+8+6+12+9+2= 53 RIGHT.The reversal:( YOU ATTACKING)
8 infantry, 3 mech, 4 artillery, 3 fighters, 3 tactical bombers, 2 bomber=12+6+8+9+12+8=55
Defender also has 53 (only difference is 3 mechs instead of 2 tanks; 2x3=3x2)
Attacker ALSO has 58 (only difference is 2 tanks instead 3 of mechs; 2x3=3x2)If you do this scientifically rather than either make up numbers or mess up the math like you are doing, the best way to see who is a more effective ATTACKER is to have the mech-supported force fight a defender, then have the tank-supported fight the SAME DEFENDER. NOT THE MECH ARMY. NOT THE TANK ARMY (unless you want them BOTH to fight a mech army or BOTH fight a tank army)
When comparing who is the better ATTACKER, they need to fight an IDENTICAL DEFENSE. It really doesn’t matter what you pick, as long as Mech force attacks the defending force, and the tank force attacks the SAME defending force. Not the mech-supported-attacking tank-supported or vice versa, the fact that bmbs and infantry have different attack and defense values draws attention away from how mechs or tanks would fit the role of mobile support.
NO. Thats not the form of study because the tank force needs its combined arms component to be greater than the mech force that does not boost anything. IN hit and run tactics, i am using the greater potency of tanks with the combined arms to show that tank force are greater than mech force in these hit and run tactics.
YOU just want to make the study into a stripped tank vs mech fight, which is not what this is about. I said from the start that as long as a tank force with plenty of combined arms wins against a mech force, i was proven right.
Example #4
Me Attacking:
10 infantry, 6 artillery, 8 tanks, 8 tactical bombers, 4 fighters=96
16+12+24+32+12=96
You Defending:
10 infantry, 6 artillery, 12 mechs, 8 tactical bombers, 4 fighters=
20+12+24+24+12=92
I win with +4
REVERSED:
Me Defending:
10 infantry, 6 artillery, 8 tanks, 8 tactical bombers, 4 fighters=96
20+12+24+24+16=96
You Attacking:
10 infantry, 6 artillery, 12 mechs, 8 tactical bombers, 4 fighters=92
16+12+24+12+16+12=92
Again i win with +4 advantage.
Ok this is getting boring. I proved my point.
-
Your point has merit ONLY when there are MORE attacking tacs than attacking ftrs. Only then. (And how often is that the case? It’s just not significant in scope to the point I have been making all along)
Not true at all. It wins in other situations as well:
Here is just one: ( not one tac or fighter)
Me attacking:
10 infantry, 10 artillery, 6 tanks, 2 bombers=6620+20+18+8=66
You defending:
10 infantry, 10 artillery, 9 mech, 2 bombers=6020+20+18+2=60
I win by +6 in first round.
REVERSED:
Me defending:
10 infantry, 10 artillery, 6 tanks, 2 bombers=20+20+18+2=60
You attacking:
10 infantry, 10 artillery, 9 mech, 2 bombers=20+20+18+8=66
on defense in this case you have a +6.
Summary: tanks are greater on attack in mixed force using hit and run, then mech. If reversed and the mech are attacking, they have the advantage.
So if you can hit him first with tanks, you got the advantage with all other things being equal.
If we add in tacs, and or fighters lets see how this changes:
Me attacking:
10 infantry, 10 artillery, 6 tanks, 2 bombers=66 ( adding 3 tacs and 3 fighters)20+20+18+8=66 + 12+9=87
You defending:
10 infantry, 10 artillery, 9 mech, 2 bombers=60 ( adding 3 tacs and 3 fighters)20+20+18+2=60 + 9+12=81
I win by +6 in first round. Still win by 6
REVERSED:
Me defending:
10 infantry, 10 artillery, 6 tanks, 2 bombers=60 ( adding 3 tacs and 3 fighters)20+20+18+2=60 ( the math shows the same result)
You attacking:
10 infantry, 10 artillery, 9 mech, 2 bombers=66 ( adding 3 tacs and 3 fighters)20+20+18+8=66
on defense in this case you have a +6. ( the math shows the same result)
Summary: no tacs and no fighters makes no difference with with either side. Who attacks first has the advantage and who defends first has the disadvantage.
I think that air power boosts with combined arms is the key to getting tanks the best overall.
Ways tanks are stronger:
- when tacs and bombers outnumber fighters
- when artillery and infantry get equal or greater numbers with boosts over defending non-tank land units
But then again this all has to do with combined arms ability which is my first point.
OK I admit that in cases where the attacker has Tacs AND for some reason has NO ftrs or LESS ftrs than tacs, an attack with tanks is stronger (assuming that only infantrry will be lost)
However, how relevant to the issue is this piece of information? As has been my point all along, Mechs under your idea makes it pointless to BUY tanks.
I just proved that the party that attacks first has the advantage ( no tacs or bombers were involved) so your point is false.
EVERY power that starts out with tacs, their ftrs+their tanks>their tacs.
Therefore, BUYING tanks to boost tacs makes zero sense. There are already more than enough tac boosters on the board. Unless a player is unwise (or EXTREMELY unlucky) and squanders tanks and ftrs, there will always be plenty of tac BOOSTERS on the board to boost the relative few amount of tacs that are on the board comparitively.
In battles where one has to lose planes (lets say for example 5 tacs and 5 ftrs attack 1 Carrier w 2 ftr, 1 DD, 1 BB, and 1 Cruiser), they will lose Ftrs and tacs roughly evenly. Why? Because ftrs boost tacs.
We don’t need naval combat examples to mess up the study of tanks and mech.
**I think now that the tank should boost the mech to a 2-2-4 unit, but that the mech should have blitz capability on its own. Otherwise, the mech is a 1-2-2-4 unit.
The two attack is only with a tank at 1:1 basis. This should kill any more studies.
Also, the tank should be boosted by the tactical bomber ( not the other way around)
Fighters can still also boost tacs.
Bombers should be boosted on defense to 2 as long as they got a fighter.**
These are my new ideas after all this number crunching.
-
Fellow Axis and Allies aficionados:
A call goes out to all WWII history buffs, armchair generals, and in-general board game freaks: Larry has decided that current Armor units are Somewhat Overpowered with a 3 Defense Value, even when the cost was revised upwards to 6 IPCs for the AA1940 game. He has decreed that Armor Units will Now Roll with a 2 on Defense Without an Accompanying Infantry Unit. THIS MUST NOT STAND. This insults everyone here, and our intelligence, our dignity, nay, our very LIVELIHOODS, as WWII board game enthusiasts, is at stake.
Who here does NOT enjoy playing the new Alpha +.2 with the newly reinvigorated Axis powers? Who does NOT enjoy the thrill of attempting and winning Sealion attacks against all odds, or rolling armies of new Panzer divisions into Russia a year ahead of schedule? Well, the pride and joy of the German Wehrmacht, emerging from the legendary genius of General Heinz Guderian, the revolutionary new military equipment that changed the face of modern warfare forever, yes, OUR BELOVED PANZER DIVISIONS, are at stake. We are talking about introducing changes that will forevermore change the face of the WWII boardgame, for YEARS to come, wherein armor will NOT be built by Germany, since it will be “considered a sub-optimal buy”, in the wake of waves of infantry supported by artillery, with massive stacks of planes behind the front lines. SAY IT WILL NOT BE SO! WE SHALL NOT GIVE UP OUR 3/3/2 6 IPC ARMOR UNITS WITHOUT A FIGHT!
SAY NO TO THESE PROPOSED CHANGES BY LARRY HARRIS. He is essentially turning his back on the glory of the armored unit in its heyday, wherein the world saw more combat involving these behemoths than in any war thereafter, wherein anti-tank guns and planes were specially developed for defeating them in combat! WE SHALL FIGHT THESE CHANGES, AND WE SHALL WIN. WHO IS WITH ME?
I am with you, I am going over to Larry’s site to post my disapproval.
Suggested Topics
