Tank purchases still DEAD

I think a good compromise on the price of tanks would be if tanks cost $6 and mechs cost $4 if purchased separately, but if you buy a tank and a mech together you only pay $9. 
Anniversary sale price

@variance:

I think a good compromise on the price of tanks would be if tanks cost $6 and mechs cost $4 if purchased separately, but if you buy a tank and a mech together you only pay $9. 
Anniversary sale price

May I ask, why compromises? I believe I have proven above that tanks are definitely worth their money :)

And I admit that I am a bit disappointed that nobody either falsified my calculation/conclusion or gives me the credit that I prove AWN to be wrong about tanks :)

@JDOW:

And I admit that I am a bit disappointed that nobody either falsified my calculation/conclusion or gives me the credit that I prove AWN to be wrong about tanks :)

Being able to bring 12 additional Infantry, would have been better for odds of victory for Germany.

But I suppose you are assuming there is only M2 units types available.
I don’t have Triple A Calc, but is it possible that 3 MechInf with 4 Tanks would have been better for Germany’s success?

Main things is that skew is always better and in very specific conditions a few Tanks maybe needed.

I think Allweneed’s original premise was that inf/art/mech combinations are such a good value that they make tank purchases superfluous (rather than that mech are more cost-efficient than tanks for all purposes).  But there’s a couple reasons this is wrong.

1. Sometimes it’s good to buy tanks in circumstances when you have money and need to add extra punch.  It can be good to buy bombers and tactical bombers for the same reason.  If it’s possible to take a capital like India or Moscow, then it’s better to do it a turn earlier using mobile units like tanks or bombers rather than waiting another turn for slower artillery.  The cost of buying the more expensive units is offset by the gains from sacking capitals and securing national objectives a turn earlier.

2. Large stacks of tanks/mech open up strategic opportunities (especially on the Eastern front) and tank/mech stacks are most efficient when there are almost as many tanks as mechs (somewhere b/w 1:1 to 1:2 being best).

3. Tanks are the lowest cost mobile attack unit and are a better value than planes in many circumstances.

I will repeat a couple of my earlier points

Many times you have limited capacity, like a minor IC.
Also limited are transports.  The most potent load for a transport is infantry/tank
And don’t forget about damaged IC’s - when damaged, the cost of every unit goes up 1.  Infantry costs 4, arty/mech cost 5, and tanks cost 7.  Now the relative cost of tanks over cheaper land units is decreased.

But even in normal circumstances (like building in Berlin or Moscow), tank purchases can make sense because of what Zhukov and JDOW have said.

Of course Allweneed is right that tanks costing 6 instead of 5 is a significant nerf, but the tanks at 5 in earlier versions (with a defense value of 3) were overpowered

@Gamerman01:

I will repeat a couple of my earlier points

{snip}

Of course Allweneed is right that tanks costing 6 instead of 5 is a significant nerf, but the tanks at 5 in earlier versions (with a defense value of 3) were overpowered

Then how do A3/D2/M2/C5 tanks stack up against A3/D3/M2/C6 tanks? On the attack, the D2/C5 tanks are a bargain. But when the offense turns to defense, are D3/C6 tanks that much better than D2/C5 tanks? The defense value of tanks was driven from 2 to 3 when A&A Revised came out because of how much better D2C3 Infantry were at defending than D2C5 Tanks were, per IPC spent. Then, D3C5 tanks were found to be too good. Which led to D3C6 tanks…

But are D2C5 tanks better or worse than D3C6 tanks? And if one is better, by how much is it better?

-Midnight_Reaper

@Midnight_Reaper:

@Gamerman01:

I will repeat a couple of my earlier points

{snip}

Of course Allweneed is right that tanks costing 6 instead of 5 is a significant nerf, but the tanks at 5 in earlier versions (with a defense value of 3) were overpowered

Then how do A3/D2/M2/C5 tanks stack up against A3/D3/M2/C6 tanks? On the attack, the D2/C5 tanks are a bargain. But when the offense turns to defense, are D3/C6 tanks that much better than D2/C5 tanks? The defense value of tanks was driven from 2 to 3 when A&A Revised came out because of how much better D2C3 Infantry were at defending than D2C5 Tanks were, per IPC spent. Then, D3C5 tanks were found to be too good. Which led to D3C6 tanks…

But are D2C5 tanks better or worse than D3C6 tanks? And if one is better, by how much is it better?

-Midnight_Reaper

Tank
D2 C5 = 1.92
D3 C6 = 2.00. Just a bit stronger  but other wise same

To get an exact corresponding strength between A2 D2 M2 vs A3 D3 M2, one would  have cost 4.5 IPCs while the other 5.5 IPCs.

5 pips for 5 IPCs was overall correct, but 6 pips for 5 IPCs was too cheap.
Any M2 A2 D2 was weak for 5 IPCs.

In D12, you would have get
4/12 C5 vs 9/12 C6 is about same strength.
Meanings in D6s: 2/6 Cost 5 vs 4.5/6 cost 6.

@Baron:

@JDOW:

And I admit that I am a bit disappointed that nobody either falsified my calculation/conclusion or gives me the credit that I prove AWN to be wrong about tanks :)

Being able to bring 12 additional Infantry, would have been better for odds of victory for Germany.

But I suppose you are assuming there is only M2 units types available.
I don’t have Triple A Calc, but is it possible that 3 MechInf with 4 Tanks would have been better for Germany’s success?

Main things is that skew is always better and in very specific conditions a few Tanks maybe needed.

Yep, the extra movement is of course a special value, otherwise 9 arty would be the by far most powerful addition to the army :-)

And also yes, a mixture could be the optimum.