# THE OBSOLETE TANK

• C/M/A/D
TANK STATS: 6/2/3/3
INFANTRY STATS: 3/1/1/2

As you can see the tank cost twice as much than the infantry.  If you buy two infantry which is the cost of a tank, the two infantry will have more offensive power than the one tank has. Making the tank obsolete to buy. Now people would argue that the tank is twice as fast as the infantry, but I would go with power over speed any day.  Now the VANN FORMULAS will tell me exactly how much more power the infantry will have over the tank. Meaning I don’t need to use the punch drunk formulas.

• Why is this under House Rules?

• Agreed. Mech Infantry is better off being bought than armor and if you want the firepower of armor, just attach artillery to infantry.

• What are these VANN FORMUAS spoken of above?

• @Caesar:

Agreed. Mech Infantry is better off being bought than armor and if you want the firepower of armor, just attach artillery to infantry.

How did you come up with these conclusions???

• Math. Compare the combine arms ability to what you get with a tank, what keeps the tank relevant for G40 is the ability to blitz and/or the ability to reinforce an area fast.

• my math says 1 Inf + 1 Artillery=7 ipc’s for CV of 4,  1 Mech + 1 Artillery=8 ipc’s for CV of 4, 1 tank =6 ipc’s for CV of 3 so for CV 24 you need 4 tanks at 24 ipc’s  vs 28 ipc’s for Inf / Arty combo or 32 ipc’s for Mech / arty combo and this doesn’t even include unit placement allotments in a complex.
A minor = 3 tanks at 18 ipc’s for CV of 9 or 2 arty and 1 inf  for 11 ipc’s for a CV of 6…roughly 70% to 30% chance armor wins

• How is 1+1 (2x infantry attack power) = 3?

If you’d go with power over speed, you get both by choosing the tank.  So you can choose TANK or TANK.

The bigger the map, the more valuable mobility is.  On a small map, 2 moves is ok.  On the bigger maps, it makes the +1 cost of Mech Infantry well worth it, and infantry are valuable primarily because they take up a dedicated transport slot.

Infantry are balanced different in every game, even though the cost is the same, because the other aspects of the game (unit cost, stats, map size, other units available as alternatives) are different in every edition.

• Except even though G40 is the largest game to date, infantry in all version doesn’t change with the exception of the games that combine arms with Artillery making infantry in that sense stronger. Which is why China’s only industrial unit they can make is US artillery even though the nation actually had every unit already in AnA.

• Stop feeding the trolls

• TO LATE

• Ummm….the troll comment lost me.

• Ummm….the troll comment lost me.

They are either talking about Vann commits as he claims to have this new way of playing but somehow doesn’t share it or they are calling me a troll for thinking tanks are not worth their price.

• @Caesar:

Ummm….the troll comment lost me.

They are either talking about Vann commits as he claims to have this new way of playing but somehow doesn’t share it for they are calling me a troll for thinking tanks are not worth their price.

Based on cost the infantry on offense is 1.33 times stronger than the tank.

• People are forgetting a temporal component here.

Look at a transport for instance.  1 inf 1 art have the save attack value as 1 inf 1 arm.  But when the 1 inf dies…  the tank is superior to the artillery everytime, because your punch survives deeper into the ensuing combat rounds.

The truth is, no one unit mass produced alone is ever going to win you the game.  The best approach is to have a strong mixture of units, so you have a strong mixture of capabilities.

People also aren’t calculating threat factors properly.  Your wad of 30 infantry can only strike whats next to it.  But a wad of 15 tanks can strike twice as many targets, and has much better oppurtunity and threat factor, based on what you “could” do with it.

This gives you an “invisible” unit factor (like scrambling), where i have to calculate for something that may not occur.  These raw calculations are giving absolutely 0 bearing on these types of factors.

• People are forgetting a temporal component here.

Look at a transport for instance.  1 inf 1 art have the save attack value as 1 inf 1 arm.  But when the 1 inf dies…  the tank is superior to the artillery everytime, because your punch survives deeper into the ensuing combat rounds.

The truth is, no one unit mass produced alone is ever going to win you the game.  The best approach is to have a strong mixture of units, so you have a strong mixture of capabilities.

People also aren’t calculating threat factors properly.  Your wad of 30 infantry can only strike whats next to it.  But a wad of 15 tanks can strike twice as many targets, and has much better oppurtunity and threat factor, based on what you “could” do with it.

This gives you an “invisible” unit factor (like scrambling), where i have to calculate for something that may not occur.  These raw calculations are giving absolutely 0 bearing on these types of factors.

Except your only good point is that you should have combined arms. tanks are not going to be worth your time if you’re too stupid to give it infantry to take hits, which is why mech infantry are great for this because they can blitz with tanks.

• Troll = VANN DAM

• @Caesar:

People are forgetting a temporal component here.

Look at a transport for instance.  1 inf 1 art have the save attack value as 1 inf 1 arm.  But when the 1 inf dies…  the tank is superior to the artillery everytime, because your punch survives deeper into the ensuing combat rounds.

The truth is, no one unit mass produced alone is ever going to win you the game.  The best approach is to have a strong mixture of units, so you have a strong mixture of capabilities.

People also aren’t calculating threat factors properly.  Your wad of 30 infantry can only strike whats next to it.  But a wad of 15 tanks can strike twice as many targets, and has much better oppurtunity and threat factor, based on what you “could” do with it.

This gives you an “invisible” unit factor (like scrambling), where i have to calculate for something that may not occur.  These raw calculations are giving absolutely 0 bearing on these types of factors.

Except your only good point is that you should have combined arms. tanks are not going to be worth your time if you’re too stupid to give it infantry to take hits, which is why mech infantry are great for this because they can blitz with tanks.

THIS IS BASED IN COST

INF&ART      A/D    2.72/2.72
MECH&TANK A/D    1.33/1,33

This is when you buy a one to one ratio. INF&ART is twice as strong than MECH&TANK.

• People are forgetting a temporal component here.

Look at a transport for instance.  1 inf 1 art have the save attack value as 1 inf 1 arm.  But when the 1 inf dies…  the tank is superior to the artillery everytime, because your punch survives deeper into the ensuing combat rounds.

The truth is, no one unit mass produced alone is ever going to win you the game.  The best approach is to have a strong mixture of units, so you have a strong mixture of capabilities.

People also aren’t calculating threat factors properly.  Your wad of 30 infantry can only strike whats next to it.  But a wad of 15 tanks can strike twice as many targets, and has much better oppurtunity and threat factor, based on what you “could” do with it.

This gives you an “invisible” unit factor (like scrambling), where i have to calculate for something that may not occur.  These raw calculations are giving absolutely 0 bearing on these types of factors.

Amen

• Run your calculations vs Bomber builds.

On paper you are going to think infantry are value gods, and that bomber builds are insane.

Then play a game vs an axis dark skies strategy, and the calculations will blow your mind, because the bombers have the ability to hit multiple stacks at the same time. Where as your infantry are limited in threat.

For the record, if there’s a broken unit in the game - it’s the disposable \$12 bomber

• @SS:

Troll = VANN DAM

I dismissed him as a troll too after his initial Vann Formulas post, but I think his subsequent threads have sparked some decent discussion. He’s a little full of himself, and his “game changing” formulas seem to be nothing more than the standard cost-per-hit ratios that any experienced player should already know, but I don’t think he’s deliberately trolling. Also, I think this discussion has brought up some useful points that other players simply may not have considered or have always taken for granted, such as the importance of additional movement that higher cost units can provide and just how strongly that should be weighed against straight cost-per-hit ratios in certain situations. Interrupting that discussion to make sure everyone knows he’s a troll quite frankly does not contribute positively to the conversation.

• So I  guess you haven’t gotten an unsolicited PM from him telling you how you don’t know what you’re talking about yet? I have no problem with hearing everyone else’s opinions that’s how we learn more. I do have a problem with someone who only shows up here to tell everyone else they don’t know how to play the game. From what i can tell he bases all of his opinions on Classic A&A and really has no idea on how his precious formula works on more modern versions of the game. Apparently he hasn’t taken the time to count up the number of spaces on a Global map and compared it to the number of spaces on the Classic map. Assuming that an infantry would be just as effective on both maps is foolish and quite frankly just plain lazy. I didn’t label him a troll because his opinion differs from mine, I did so because he is trolling people. If he doesn’t know what that means maybe he should learn how to use Google and look up “internet troll.”

• So I  guess you haven’t gotten an unsolicited PM from him telling you how you don’t know what you’re talking about yet? I have no problem with hearing everyone else’s opinions that’s how we learn more. I do have a problem with someone who only shows up here to tell everyone else they don’t know how to play the game. From what i can tell he bases all of his opinions on Classic A&A and really has no idea on how his precious formula works on more modern versions of the game. Apparently he hasn’t taken the time to count up the number of spaces on a Global map and compared it to the number of spaces on the Classic map. Assuming that an infantry would be just as effective on both maps is foolish and quite frankly just plain lazy. I didn’t label him a troll because his opinion differs from mine, I did so because he is trolling people. If he doesn’t know what that means maybe he should learn how to use Google and look up “internet troll.”

No, I haven’t and didn’t know that was going on. I did receive a PM from him, but it was a legitimate question about a comment I made on one of his threads and was very polite. It was a forum etiquette question (which forum is appropriate for which thread topic) and didn’t have anything to do with the game itself, so I guess that’s why I was spared that particular experience.

• This whole thread’s notion is ridiculous to me. Tanks are not obsolete.

Sometimes a G2 build of mine is 10 tanks and a destroyer. That’s says to Russia, Germany is serious and is advancing some hard hitting pieces forward which catch up to my G1 slow mover purchase.

Anyone playing this game with battle calcs or many table top games of G40 under their belt know that an infantry stack slow marching it’s long way from Germany most likely will not be enough to force Russia back from Bryansk. Without a huge complimentary stack of tanks and some tac. bombers/s. bombers; two things will occur.

A. Russia will run a battle calc and realize it can defend in place and therefore not retreat:

B. Russia will run a battle calc, decide to retreat to Moscow because their huge stack will join with their next build of 10 artillery, Germany moves into Bryansk, then Russia counter attacks and wins because the German stack doesn’t have enough @3 dice to swing the defense in time to their favor.

I see a particular guy who buys tons of mech. He gets to W. Ukarine and that’s it. Russia never has to retreat for a very long time. He advances a lot of defense strength @2 dice, but no teeth @3 dice (tanks).

• This is my PM from VANN.

“No I’m not a troll, but the VANN FORMULAS does work. The armored car is not based on the VANN FORMULAS.”

Left me wondering why post that if it was not based on the “formula?”

Also, am I supposed to beg for his formula and then forsake my 75+ games of triplea and 10-12 table top games if it shows me stuff I already know; like for instance, that at 6 IPCs a tank is expensive. However, I still find it a very valuable purchase because I value building the strength to do stuff like sack Moscow.

1

3

1

1

4

16

3

5