THE OBSOLETE TANK

[Ichabod]

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).

[Ichabod]

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.

[Mr_Tricorder]

I just ignore him every time he says something about his vaunted Vann Formulas. So far it sounds like nothing we didn’t already know, so there’s no sense in getting upset about him keeping such useless information from the community.

He’s right that his proposed Armored Car unit doesn’t have anything to do his so-called Vann Formulas. It’s just a fun idea for a custom unit, which is a perfectly legitimate topic for the House Rules forum.

Here’s the way I see it. Imagine that you meet someone who goes around wearing a chicken on his head. He tells you and everyone else that your lives would be better if you all wore chickens on your heads but then says he won’t tell you where he got the chicken. How would you handle this person? Would you be polite and tolerate his presence as long as he and his chicken behave themselves? Would you get upset that he won’t tell you where to get your own chicken? Do you publicly berate him for his ludicrous life improvement through poultry headgear theory?

Personally, prefer to be polite and tolerant as long as he’s not being overly disruptive. I have no interest in his head-chicken formulas, but he can wear them all he wants as far as I’m concerned.

[Gargantua]

We should see the VANN formula’s put to the test in some games.

I bet this guy can’t play his way out of a wet paper bag.

[General 6 Stars]

Why would I want to ignore him if he keeps posting about the VANN Dam Formulas? He just posted earlier in the forumns thread that Larry Harris doesn’t know what he’s doing.

That should not be ignored and also don’t come on site telling everybody we are playing all the AA games wrong.

Either you post the VANN dam stuff and prove it or other wise keep your mouth shut and stop posting telling everybody it’s wrong. WT$

[Ichabod]

Mr. Tricorder,

Noted. Your right. I should be nice and polite. It’s in keeping with my beliefs as to how I should act towards a fellow human.
Sorry Vann.

On the flip side, your chicken head analogy could easily be deemed non-polite. If I had an idea which I thought would be a eureka moment and named it something most compelling like the “ICHABOD SYSTEM,” and you compared it to a guy wearing “poultry headgear,” I might think you were under handedly saying I was silly. By the way, someone told me to not feed the troll, but that comment has since been deleted.

Lastly, on a side note to your chicken hat reference, I wouldn’t want Michael Bolton’s software because he wouldn’t know how to install it. He could keep that formula to himself.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7tVvx4Vv3M

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I80QQ1gbpX8

[Mr_Tricorder]

@Ichabod:

On the flip side, your chicken head analogy could easily be deemed non-polite. If I had an idea which I thought would be a eureka moment and named it something most compelling like the “ICHABOD SYSTEM,” and you compared it to a guy wearing “poultry headgear,” I might think you were under handedly saying I was silly. By the way, someone told me to not feed the troll, but that comment has since been deleted.

You make a good point. To Mr. Vann, I apologize. If I have offended you, please understand that was not my intention. I was trying to make a point by making a joke at your expense, and that was wrong of me.

[Ichabod]

Mr. Tricorder,

The other posters are right to call out the VANN Formula. In the axis and allies arena of ideas, if you say something, or put something up for debate, and it’s found to be silly or make no sense than either you put up or admit your wrong. Usually it leads to a private or public message challenging the other player to a PBEM game.

But in this case, the end state might just be fun banter about chicken heads or Office Space references. (Office Space, best comedy from the 1990s…brings back memories of my college days).

[Young Grasshopper]

The problem I have with this guy and his VANN FORMULAS is that it’s the ONLY thing he’s talking about… and that speaks volumes.

[CWO Marc]

To cite a couple of possibly relevant analogies:

• The United States Patent and Trademark Office has an official policy stating that they won’t grant patents for perpetual motion machines unless the inventor claiming that he’s created such a device provides a working model.  Mere blueprints and written descriptions aren’t considered adequate proofs that the inventor has actually created such a device, for the good reason that perpetual motion machines violate the laws of thermodynamics and are thus considered to be a scientific impossibility.

• I once attended a public lecture by a university professor who, among his interests and activities, debunks fake science and pseudo-science (notably through such lectures as the one I attended).  As part of his methodology, he demonstrates some of the stage-magic tricks which, in their proper applications, are used to entertain people, but which are sometimes misapplied by fraudsters to make people think that they have genuine psychic powers.  He told us that, during one such lecture he’d given in the past, a woman in the audience stood up and claimed that she could project herself in spirit to any part of the world and see what was going on there.  She offered to prove her claim by projecting herself right away to any city of the professor’s choice and describing to him and to the audience what was going on there.  The professor answered, “Well, that’s very nice of you, but I really don’t want to put you to the trouble of going as far away as that.  Here’s something much easier: I have a deck of cards here, so what I’ll do is shuffle it, I’ll pull out a card without looking at it, and I’ll put it face up on top of his cabinet over here, and then you can project yourself above the cabinet and tell all of us what the card is.”  The woman replied scornfully that she wasn’t going to waste her talents on an obvious “unbeliever” like him, and she marched out of the lecture hall.

[Gargantua]

Fake news

[Dauvio Vann]

I see where you guys are coming from, and I owe the A&A community a apology. I didn’t really show any respect to any of you, and I’m sorry for that.

I will give you the G40 unit strengths based on their cost. These numbers are derived from the VANN FORMULAS.

Attack/defense=A/D
INFANTRY        1.85/3.7
MECH              1.04/2.08
ARTILLERY      2.08/2.08
TANK              1.39/1.39
FIGHTER          .5/.667
TECHBOMB      (.413/.551)/.413
BOMBER          .463/.116
SUB                1.39/.463
DESTROYER      .521/.521
CRUISER          .347/347
CARRIER          0/.139
BATTLESHIP    .267/.267

These other stats is one to one ratio.

INF/ART          2.72/2.72
MECH/ART      2.08/2.08
MECH/TANK    1.33/1.67

Now the one to one stats could be a little off because I don’t know the G40 rules. However I know the MECH/TANK numbers should be higher, but I didn’t have time to run the numbers through.

Happy hunting everyone!!! :)

[Young Grasshopper]

@Dauvio:

I see where you guys are coming from, and I owe the A&A community a apology. I didn’t really show any respect to any of you, and I’m sorry for that.

I will give you the G40 unit strengths based on their cost. These numbers are derived from the VANN FORMULAS.

Attack/defense=A/D
INFANTRY        1.85/3.7
MECH              1.04/2.08
ARTILLERY       2.08/2.08
TANK              1.39/1.39
FIGHTER          .5/.667
TECHBOMB       (.413/.551)/.413
BOMBER          .463/.116
SUB                1.39/.463
DESTROYER      .521/.521
CRUISER          .347/347
CARRIER          0/.139
BATTLESHIP    .267/.267

These other stats is one to one ratio.

INF/ART          2.72/2.72
MECH/ART       2.08/2.08
MECH/TANK     1.33/1.67

Now the one to one stats could be a little off because I don’t know the G40 rules. However I know the MECH/TANK numbers should be higher, but I didn’t have time to run the numbers through.

Happy hunting everyone!!! :)

The Man you want to talk to is Baron Munchhausen… If anyone can tell if your right or wrong on this stuff, it would be him.

[Ichabod]

@Dauvio:

These numbers are derived from the VANN FORMULAS.

Attack/defense=A/D
INFANTRY 1.85/3.7
MECH 1.04/2.08
ARTILLERY 2.08/2.08
TANK  1.39/1.39
FIGHTER  .5/.667
TECHBOMB(.413/.551)/.413
BOMBER.463/.116
SUB1.39/.463
DESTROYER.521/.521
CRUISER  .347/347
CARRIER  0/.139
BATTLESHIP  .267/.267

Acknowledged on the apology to the axis and allies community. Good step in the right direction. You can write me off, I’m just a guy who likes G40. But remember, the guys out there who make youtube videos, and at times engage in projects which increase our gaming experience, are well respected, appreciated, and admired by the community. I don’t need to name names here, but everyone else knows the several individuals I’m referring to.

The OBSOLETE TANK - Debate Cont.

What do these decimals mean? How are they derived? Is the higher the decimal the better? Doesn’t make sense to me. Here’s a decimal percent, .0001%. That’s the chance you’ll change my mind, but if you respond “it was derived from the VANN Formula and I don’t know if I want to give out the secret,” I’m DONE with you. I don’t care about your formula like I want to “steal it,” and right now it means zilch to everyone. In the arena of ideas, winning games against others is the best way to establish creditability. You might want to consider playing some people on triplea.

Does your formula take into account: strategy, high tempo, exploitation, deception, lethality, maneuver, and end state goals? A unit rolling @4 that can attack at all points of the compass versus a unit rolling @1 or 2 regardless of the cost is important. Mobile units are huge in G40.

Mechs and tanks are very important so that you’re stack of troops can move about the battlefield seeking opportunities of exploitation. Tanks are far from obsolete; and so important that it’s more fair for them to be priced at 6 IPCs rather than the original 5 IPCs.

Fraction of a penny…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7tVvx4Vv3M

[Dauvio Vann]

@Ichabod:

@Dauvio:

These numbers are derived from the VANN FORMULAS.

Attack/defense=A/D
INFANTRY 1.85/3.7
MECH 1.04/2.08
ARTILLERY 2.08/2.08
TANK  1.39/1.39
FIGHTER  .5/.667
TECHBOMB(.413/.551)/.413
BOMBER.463/.116
SUB1.39/.463
DESTROYER.521/.521
CRUISER  .347/347
CARRIER  0/.139
BATTLESHIP  .267/.267

Acknowledged on the apology to the axis and allies community. Good step in the right direction. You can write me off, I’m just a guy who likes G40. But remember, the guys out there who make youtube videos, and at times engage in projects which increase our gaming experience, are well respected and appreciated. I don’t need to name names here, but everyone else knows the several individuals I’m referring to.

The OBSOLETE TANK - Debate Cont.

What do these decimals mean? How are they derived? Is the higher the decimal the better? Doesn’t make sense to me. Here’s a decimal percent, .0001%. That’s the chance you’ll change my mind, but if you respond “it was derived from the VANN Formula and I don’t know if I want to give out the secret,” I’m DONE with you. I don’t care about your formula, but right now it means zilch to everyone. In the arena of ideas, winning games against others is the best way to establish creditability. You might want to consider playing some people on triplea.

Does your formula take into account: strategy, high tempo, exploitation, deception, lethality, maneuver, and end state goals? A unit rolling @4 that can attack at all points of the compass versus a unit rolling @1 or 2 regardless of the cost is important. Mobile units are huge in G40.

Mechs and tanks are very important so that you’re stack of troops can move about the battlefield seeking opportunities of exploitation. Tanks are far from obsolete; and so important that it’s more fair for them to be priced at 6 IPCs rather than the original 5 IPCs.

Fraction of a penny…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7tVvx4Vv3M

I like the video. :)

The numbers are not percents. They are the actual strengths of the units when buying them. Lot of the time people look at the percent what the unit can hit when buying them, and that can be very misleading. You also have to factor in the cost to see the real strength is on that unit with attack, and defense.

I also factor in the subs sneak attack, and the two hits on the battleship and carrier.

[CWO Marc]

In their recent posts above, toblerone77 and Ichabod both pointed out that the usefulness of a particular A&A unit can’t simply be judged by its raw numbers (attack, defense, movement and cost values), which are dictated by the rulebook; it also depends enormously on how the unit gets used by the players – and this is something that can vary greatly from one game to another and therefore can’t be accounted for by a formula.  And that’s even assuming that the formula is valid in the first place.  The results that are obtained from any equation won’t just depend on the data that’s inputted into the equation (in this case meaning attack, defense, movement and cost values of an A&A unit); they will also depend on how the equations are structured in the first place and on the validity of the theoretical model on which the equations are based.

To give a deliberately silly example, I’ll invent right now an arbitrary concept (Total Military Value, or TMV) and an arbitrary equation to calculate it.  Let’s say that the Total Military Value of an A&A unit is attack value times defense value times movement value, divided by cost value – or to express this as an equation: (A x D x M) / C = TMV.  Now let’s plug in some figures.  According to the Global 1940.2 rulebook, the A/D/M/C figures for an infantry unit are 1/2/1/3 and for a tank are 3/3/2/6.  If we run figures through my arbitrary formula, we can compute that the infantry unit’s TMV is 0.66 and that the tank’s TMV is 3; comparing these two results allows us to see that the tank’s TMV is 4.54 times greater than the infantry unit’s TMV, and therefore that the tank is 4.54 times more useful as a purchase than the infantry unit.  Do I believe the conclusion to which I’ve just come?  Of course not.  Why not?  Because as I mentioned, this formula is arbitrary.  I invented it off the top of my head.  There’s no rationale behind, no theoretical model, and therefore it’s useless because its validity can’t be verified.  If the theoretical model behind an equation isn’t valid, then the equation derived from it won’t be valid, and the results computed from the equation won’t be valid either.  The validity of an equation can’t be proven by just presenting the figures computed from it, without presenting both the details of the equation itself and of the theoretical model that underpins the equation.

[Dauvio Vann]

@CWO:

In their recent posts above, toblerone77 and Ichabod both pointed out that the usefulness of a particular A&A unit can’t simply be judged by its raw numbers (attack, defense, movement and cost values), which are dictated by the rulebook; it also depends enormously on how the unit gets used by the players – and this is something that can vary greatly from one game to another and therefore can’t be accounted for by a formula.  And that’s even assuming that the formula is valid in the first place.  The results that are obtained from any equation won’t just depend on the data that’s inputted into the equation (in this case meaning attack, defense, movement and cost values of an A&A unit); they will also depend on how the equations are structured in the first place and on the validity of the theoretical model on which the equations are based.

To give a deliberately silly example, I’ll invent right now an arbitrary concept (Total Military Value, or TMV) and an arbitrary equation to calculate it.  Let’s say that the Total Military Value of an A&A unit is attack value times defense value times movement value, divided by cost value – or to express this as an equation: (A x D x M) / C = TMV.  Now let’s plug in some figures.  According to the Global 1940.2 rulebook, the A/D/M/C figures for an infantry unit are 1/2/1/3 and for a tank are 3/3/2/6.  If we run figures through my arbitrary formula, we can compute that the infantry unit’s TMV is 0.66 and that the tank’s TMV is 3; comparing these two results allows us to see that the tank’s TMV is 4.54 times greater than the infantry unit’s TMV, and therefore that the tank is 4.54 times more useful as a purchase than the infantry unit.  Do I believe the conclusion to which I’ve just come?  Of course not.  Why not?  Because as I mentioned, this formula is arbitrary.  I invented it off the top of my head.  There’s no rationale behind, no theoretical model, and therefore it’s useless because its validity can’t be verified.  If the theoretical model behind an equation isn’t valid, then the equation derived from it won’t be valid, and the results computed from the equation won’t be valid either.  The validity of an equation can’t be proven by just presenting the figures computed from it, without presenting both the details of the equation itself and of the theoretical model that underpins the equation.

You sound just like Doctor Theopolis from Buck Rogers, and I love it!!! :) :) :)

[baron Münchhausen]

Bumped.
@Panther or Wittmann,
Please move into Player help.
Thanks.

[baron Münchhausen]

Here is a longer thread about Tank cost in Axis & Allies Global 1940 forum:
Tank Purchases R.I.P.
@allweneedislove:

_My tank was a unit that was strong and fast
it loved threatening all with such joy and pride
that it lit up every time we were together.

There was never a time that I could not attack with it.
Some of you may not have known my tank the way that I did,
but for those who did not get to see this side of him
missed out on knowing a great unit.

A unit that made sure that its power was taken care of
even if it meant it had to sacrifice itself.*_

*i ripped this of eulogyspeech.net and replaced the words father with tank, man with unit, he with it, talk with attack, family with power, kind and generous with strong and fast. i also added the words threatening

The title is self explaining about this topic in  Axis & Allies Global 1940 forum:
Are Mechs Too Strong?
@Zhukov44:

Pondering the reason why Axis strategies seem to be improving faster than Allied strategies (resulting in escalating bids for Allies), I keep coming back to the mobility of mechanized infantry on a map where Eurasia is a huge, contiguous continent, where it is possible to blitz inaccessible places like China, Africa, Siberia, etc.

The main weakness of AA50 was that tanks (at $5) were way too strong.  The increased map size of AA50 relative to Revised made them even stronger than in Revised (where they had been improved to 3/3 to make for more dynamic offensive play and less defensive stacking).

So the decision to increase tanks to $6 was well-grounded.  However, mechs may be too cheap at $4.  Even though a mech attacks at only 1 (w/o artillery support), the defensive capacity of the mech is just too much.  If Germany and Japan had only tanks at their disposal, then it would be easier for Allies to counterattack tank stacks driving into Eurasia.  However, when Axis powers can buy mechs at 4$, defensive stacks deep inside Eurasia are too strong and too mobile.  Axis can use its positional advantage to exploit the excessive strength of mechanized infantry by conquering Eurasia.

A selected post (more to read in this Revised thread) about the change from Tank A3 D2 C5 to A3 D3 C5 and how it changes the Infantry Push Mechanic:
IPM Dead in AaA:Revised?
@Magister:

[DarthMaximus said]
I think IPM is still valid.
Simply put if you are buying 10 inf (30 ipc) per turn it is going to take your opponent at least 40 ipc to defeat you.

Right, it’s mostly about how Defender’s advantage changed from Classic to Revised. The addition of arty decreased it.
I define here Defender’s advantage as the ratio of IPC costs for attacker to be ‘equivalent’ to defender (both grind to zero with average luck). Any better for one side gets a cascading victory.

Pure infantry is still the best at pure defender.
Inf vs inf: the advantage is ~1.41 (SQRT 2) from Lanchester’s theory. Would need slightly more than 14 inf to defeat 10 inf. And this is mutual - if the other side wants to attack the 14 inf, they would need 20 inf. A mutual advantage of 2 x.

A simple mix to defeat pure inf would be Inf+Arty in equal proportions.
5 inf+5 arty (35 IPC) are exactly equal to 10 inf defending (30 IPC). Each unit hits at 2.
The defender’s advantage would be 35/30 = 1.166 x.

Actually, the optimal mix for large attacking forces would be in the proportion of 60% inf, 30% arty, 10% tanks (calculated with a detailed, mathematically quite ugly model). 6+3+1 would cost the same 35IPC.
I’ve tested on simulators, for large forces (30+15+5) this is very slightly better than 25 inf 25 arty. But 6 inf 3 arty 1 tnk is very slightly worse than 5inf 5 arty to attack 10 inf (or 5 inf 5 arty). In general, most optimization problems have a ‘flat optimum zone’ around which small variations in decision result in extremely small variations in value.

If opposed by a similar force, the 50-50-0 force would have no defender’s advantage. The two forces each would cost 35 IPC and fight the same. On defence, the 6+3+1 would be a bit superior due to the 3 firepower of tank. (Roughly like 0.5 inf more, but without its staying power).