Especially want one that can be used with just Pacific Edition 1940 2nd edition please:)
SOME VANN FORMULAS REVEALED
-
@Baron:
@Dauvio:
It came to my attention that one of my formulas are already out there that I discovered 30 years ago.
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?action=profile;u=185969 has also discovered the formula P^2*N=S
And just for fun you can try these formulas also. S/P^2=N. √(S/N)=P
P=POINTS
N=NUMBER OF UNITS
S=STRENGTH OF ONE KIND OF UNITS IN A TERRITORY
This formula should replace the punch formula. It is much better then the punch formula.If you have any questions about these formulas, please ask.
It is a different formula : avgPN^2 compared to P^2N
Now, which one is more accurate?
3 Infs D2 23^2= 18 compared to 2^23= 12
11 A2 vs 9 D3 gives almost 50%-50%
11^22 vs 9^23
242 vs 243OR
112^2 vs 93^2
44 vs 81I think you put the square on the wrong figure…
Yes you are right, LIKE A DUMMY I SWITCH THE TWO BY MISTAKE!!! Stupid on me!!!
-
I MADE A MISTAKE ON THE FIRST FORMULA PEOPLE. IT SHOULD BE THIS.
It came to my attention that one of my formulas are already out there that I discovered 30 years ago.
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?action=profile;u=185969 has also discovered the formula N^2*P=S
And just for fun you can try these formulas also. S/N^2=P. √(S/P)=N
P=POINTS
N=NUMBER OF UNITS
S=STRENGTH OF ONE KIND OF UNITS IN A TERRITORY
This formula should replace the punch formula. It is much better then the punch formula. -
@Baron:
Thanks for sharing Dauvio.
I found the way to calculate the increase of Strength per unit based on cost when such unit have 2 or 3 hits.http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=40290.msg1684908#msg1684908
And apply it to price units according to their strength. √((P100)/(S6))=C
I did not get through as well as you put: √((P100)/(S6))=Cost
It was more a matter of trials with higher and lower costs to determine designer’s right price POV:
@Baron:
This a revised version derived and adapted to G40 2ed units roster from Vann formula.
It has no pretense about game-play strategy or tactic.
All the implications of this formula are yet to be discovered.One purpose is to get an idea of the relative strength of a given unit in relation to its combat value and IPCs per hit ratio. It say if you get enough for your bucks.
Mainly, it provides a single number as guideline to determine if at a given cost (same IPCs basis) and a given power such custom units of yours is either in the upper or the lower hand of the spectrum. Of course, it is more fruitful to compare similar type of units.
The benchmark has been fixed upon the Tank A3 D3 C6 at a offense & defense factor of 3.00
Same number as attack and defense combat values but for other units it varies.From highest to lowest offense or defense factor, you get:
8, 5.88, 4.50, 4.00, 3.00, 2.33, 2.25, 2.00, 1.74, 1.50, 1.44, 1.17, 1.143, 1.125, 1.08, 1.00, 0.89, 0.75, 0.25, and there is more.When 2 units have near-same factor, it means that on AACalc with same IPCs basis, these units will be even and near 50%-50% odds of survival against each other. But, you no more need to make simulations to get the relative strength of your costum units. Just file in the number you have in mind and compare with similar units.
I provided an example of an HR Mechanized Artillery A2 D2 M2 C5 costum unit at the end of this table.
Is this stronger or weaker than an OOB Tank? Does is it a better defense than an OOB D3 Tank?
Does combined arms remains within other OOB combined arms?You will get an accurate idea with this.
@Baron:
Here is the table based on Baron-Larrymarx formula completed on effective cost vs combat points ratio:
For all 1 hit unit, you use : 36 Power/(cost^2) = offense or defense factor*
For 2 hits and 3 hits unit : 36 Power/(cost^2) {1+[(nb hit -1)/11.618034] }= offense or defense factor*For combined arms and multiple units you have to average both combat points per unit and cost per unit.
Then you can add it into the formula.Tank is the basic reference and gives also 3 offense and defense factor (same as attack or def point)
Tank A3 D3 M2 C6
offense & defense factor: 36*3/(6^2)= 3Mech Infantry A1 D2 M2 C4 would get
Offense factor:
36*(1/4^2) = 2.25
Defense factor:
36*(2/4^2)= 4.50Artillery A2 D2 M1 C4
Offense & Defense factor:
36*(2/4^2)= 4.50Infantry A1 D2 M1 C3
Offense:
36*(1/3^2) = 4
Defense:
36*(2/3^2) = 8AIRCRAFTS:
Fighter A3 D4 C10, 1 hit
Offense factor:
36*(3/10^2) = 1.08
Defense factor:
36*(4/10^2) = 1.44Tactical Bomber A3 D3 C11, 1 hit
Offense & Defense factor:
36*(3/11^2) = 0.893Strategic Bomber A4 D1 C12, 1 hit
Offense factor:
36*(4/12^2) = 1
Defense factor:
36*(1/12^2) = 0.25Combined ARMS:
Infantry & Artillery A4 D4 M1 C7, 2 hits
Offense factor:
36*(2/3.5^2) = 5.88
Defense factor:
36*(2/3.5^2)= 5.88Mech Infantry & Artillery A4 D4 C8, 2 hits
Offense factor:
36*(2/4^2) = 4.50
Defense factor:
36*(2/4^2)= 4.50Tactical Bomber & Tank A7 D6 C17, 2 hits
Offense factor:
36*(3.5/8.5^2) = 1.744
Defense factor:
36*(3/8.5^2)= 1.495Tactical Bomber & Fighter A7 D7 C21, 2 hits
Offense factor:
36*(3.5/10.5^2) = 1.143
Defense factor:
36*(3.5/10.5^2)= 1.143WARSHIPS:
Submarine A2 D1 C6
Offense:
36*(2/6^2) = 2
36*(2.33/6^2) = 2.33 surprise strike
Defense:
36*(1/6^2) = 1
36*(1.17/6^2) = 1.17 surprise strikeDestroyer A2 D2 C8, 1 hit
Offense & Defense factor:
36*(2/8^2) = 1.125Cruiser A3 D3 C12, 1 hit
Offense & Defense factor:
36*(3/12^2) = 0.7501942.2 Carrier A1 D2 C14, 1 hit
Offense factor:
36*(1/14^2) = 0.184
Defense factor:
36*(2/14^2) = 0.3671942.2 Carrier Full Fighters A7 D10 C34, 3 hits
Offense factor:
36*(1/14^2) = 0.184, need to be below 0.736
36*(3/10^2) = 1.08
36*(3/10^2) = 1.08
2.344/3= 0.781 to be revised
36* (7/3)/(34/3)^2 = 0.654Defense factor:
36*(4/10^2) = 1.44
36*(4/10^2) = 1.44
36*(2/14^2) = 0.367
3.247/3= 1.082 to be revised
36* (10/3)/(34/3)^2 = 0.934G40 Carrier A0 D2 C16, 2 hits
Offense factor:
36*[0/ (16^2)] * 2.618034 = 0
Defense factor:
36*[2/ (16^2)] * 2.618034 = 0.736G40 Carrier A0 D2 C16, 2 hits with 2 Fgs A6 D8 C20, 2 hits
Offense factor:
6/2 C36/2 2 additionnals hit/2
36*[3/ (18^2)] * 2.618034 = 0.873Defense factor:
10/2 C36/2 2 additionnals hit/2
36*[5/ (18^2)] * 2.618034 = 1.454G40 Carrier A0 D2 C16, 2 hits with 1 Fg & 1 TcB A7 D7 C21, 2 hits
Offense factor :
7/2 C37/2 2 additionnals hit/2
36*[3.5/ (18.5^2)] * 2.618034 = 0.964Defense factor:
9/2 C37/2 2 additionnals hit/2
36*[4.5/ (18.5^2)] * 2.618034 = 1.239G40 Carrier A0 D2 C16, 2 hits with 2 TcBs A6 D6 C22, 2 hits
Offense factor :
6/2 C38/2 2 additionnals hit/2
36*[3/ (19^2)] * 2.618034 = 0.783Defense factor:
8/2 C38/2 2 additionnals hit/2
36*[4/ (19^2)] * 2.618034 = 1.044Battleship A4 D4 C20, 2 hits
Offense & Defense factor:
36* 4 / (20^2) * 2.618034 = 0.9425Battleship flag ship A4 D4 C24, 3 hits
Offense & Defense factor:
36* 4 / (24^2)* (1+21.618034) = 1.06
Real factor according to AACalc simulation: Fg A3 36(3/10^2) = 1.08Sound very good…
This last example confirmed that the formula is right on!!! :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:
HR unit examples:
Mech Artillery A2 D2 M2 C5 gives +1A to Inf or MI
Offense & Defense factor:
36*(2/5^2) = 2.880Mech Infantry & Mechanized Artillery A4 D4 M2 C9, 2 hits
Offense factor:
36*(2/4.5^2) = 3.556
Defense factor:
36*(2/4.5^2)= 3.556Now, is it the end of Tank purchase? Not if you restrict Blitz to Tank only.
Or, add a combined arms with Tank and Mech Artillery.
That way, Tank will remain interesting.Another example, a 2 hits Cruiser at 14 or 15 or 16 IPCs to replace OOB Cruiser?
Cruiser A3 D3 C???, 2 hits
Offense & Defense factor:
36* 3 / (14^2) * 2.618034 = 1.4436* 3 / (15^2) * 2.618034 = 1.26
36* 3 / (16^2) * 2.618034 = 1.10
Do you want it better than a Battleship A4 D4 C20, 2 hits at 0.9425?
Weaker than a Destroyer? A2 D2 C8 at 1.125If you want this progression SS>DD>CA>BB, then you go for 16 IPCs.
Now rise the question of an OOB obsolete BB…
But, you can change for a 3 hits BBs… of very similar strength to Cruiser, but 3 hits give more latitude for strafing enemy’s fleet:
Strong Battleship A4 D4 C24, 3 hits
Offense & Defense factor:
36* 4 / (24^2)* (1+2*1.618034) = 1.06Or maybe at 22 IPCs?
36* 4 / (22^2)* (1+2*1.618034) = 1.26And you get a similar factor with 15 IPCs 2 hits Cruiser.
36* 3 / (15^2) * 2.618034 = 1.26It remains up to the designer to choose among these possibilities.
HTH
I also did some work on the double hall battleship, and on the sneak attack of the sub. This is what I found.
BATTLESHIP A4/A4 FACTOR OF 1.6
SUB A2 FACTOR OF 1.5
BATTLESHIP A6/A6 FACTOR 1.5The two battleship comparison I am puzzle with. I have to do more research on the matter.
-
Do you use a A2 D2 C6 Submarine?
How can you get 1.5 for surprise strike?
2.5 maybe… 3…
The formula is 36*…
Not same as yoursA Battleship A6 D6, 2 hits, which always hit the mark what is the point?
-
nobody uses Vann anymore they use the Larrymarx formula :roll:
-
@Dauvio:
I MADE A MISTAKE ON THE FIRST FORMULA PEOPLE. IT SHOULD BE THIS.
It came to my attention that one of my formulas are already out there that I discovered 30 years ago.
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?action=profile;u=185969 has also discovered the formula N^2*P=S
And just for fun you can try these formulas also. S/N^2=P. √(S/P)=N
P=POINTS
N=NUMBER OF UNITS
S=STRENGTH OF ONE KIND OF UNITS IN A TERRITORY
This formula should replace the punch formula. It is much better then the punch formula.Knowing this, does it changed the way you use blocker or picket Infantry?
Punch formula ? for 3 Inf+1 Fg A3+A3 A6, 4 units =10? vs 3 Infs D6, 3 hits = 9
4^21.5 = 24 vs 3^22 = 18
The second formula seems to show a clear advantage for attacker, as seems the case.
AACalc:
Overall %*: A. survives: 72.1% D. survives: 23.3% No one survives: 4.6%
1 Fg 2 Infs A5 vs 2 Inf D4
3^21.67 = 15 vs 2^22 = 8, ratio 15: 8 or 1.875 : 1
Less than before but better on Calc…
A. survives: 80.8% D. survives: 13.8% No one survives: 5.4%
But it is working as a fight to death.
Which would not be the case for exchanging 1 TT.See this other thread:
@Baron:So, as a rule of thumb, if the enemy can bring 2 aircrafts in addition to the same number of Infantry picket, then you are toasted. Right?
2 Fgs & 3 Infs^2 * A9/5 = 25*1.8 = 45
3 Infs^2 * D2 = 18
It is more than double value of picket stack.
45 vs 18 = 5 : 2 ratioBut, if there is only 1 additional plane in attack, it is workable for defender?
(1A3+3A1)^2 *A6/4 = 16 * 1.5 = 2424 vs 18 = 4 : 3 ratio
So, whenever the attacker get only 4:3 ratio or less, the defender should try it.
Is it a right way to apply your formula?
-
Here we go again.
-
I really wish this would die out I’m sick of seeing it pasted everywhere
-
I really wish this would die out I’m sick of seeing it pasted everywhere
contribute to the discussion or just leave the thread.
-
I really wish this would die out I’m sick of seeing it pasted everywhere
In addition, the moderator Panther, thanks to him, deals with this issue by regrouping all threads in this sub-forum.
Vann was new conscript and spammed similar posts and PM everywhere, and he got a full load of negative reactions, of course. But, I think he learned the lesson.
Aside from the messenger, the message was still relevant. It get to underlying maths relations between units and the A&A dice combat process with hit and value points. Before the code was plainly revealed the only way to figure was on AACalc and just between 2 units.
This give the strength to cost of units on the same scale basis.
Now, to what extent this can help the decision process in a game, that is for Vann to explain, since he pretends that this changed his way of playing the Classic game.Sorry for you, but these threads are in the right place now and maybe tell more than meets the eyes.
-
@Dauvio:
I MADE A MISTAKE ON THE FIRST FORMULA PEOPLE. IT SHOULD BE THIS.
It came to my attention that one of my formulas are already out there that I discovered 30 years ago.
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?action=profile;u=185969 has also discovered the formula N^2*P=S
And just for fun you can try these formulas also. S/N^2=P. √(S/P)=N
P=POINTS
N=NUMBER OF UNITS
S=STRENGTH OF ONE KIND OF UNITS IN A TERRITORY
This formula should replace the punch formula. It is much better then the punch formula.@Genghis:
I also have doubts on how we can use these formulas because they state that two infantry are better than a tank (both on offense OOB), not taking into account movement which is wrong according to AACALC
The Vann or Baron-Larrymarx formulas only tell that on same IPCs basis, buying 2 Infs (4.00) will give better odds on AACalc than 1 Tank (3.00).
Vann, you need to explain how it can guide purchasing mix of units like:
Baron-Larrymarx PUNCH STACK formula (Kreuzfeld & Vann, quote and link above)
4 Infs 44.00 / 8.00 = 16.00 / 32.00 A4 D8 4 hits 4^21= 16 / 4^22= 32
3 Artillery 34.50 = 13.50 A6 D6 3 hits 3^22= 18 / 3^22= 18
2 Tanks 23.00 = 6.00 A6 D6 2 hits 2^23= 12 / 2^23= 12
1 Tk 3.00 & 2 Infs 24.00=11.00/19.00 A5 D7 3 hits 3^21.67= 15 / 3^22.33= 21The Stack formula gives the right strength of each mix.
Much accurate than both Punch and Baron-Larrymarx (which is misleading for Inf vs Artillery, if you multiply by number of units).Vann, does it requires to calculate the average number of all units purchase with Baron_Larrymarx?
Baron-Larrymarx PUNCH STACK formula (Kreuzfeld & Vann, quote and link above)
4 Infs 44.00/4= 4.00 / 8.00 A4 D8 4 hits 4^21= 16 / 4^22= 32
3 Artillery 34.50/3 = 4.50 A6 D6 3 hits 3^22= 18 / 3^22= 18
2 Tanks 23.00/2 = 3.00 A6 D6 2 hits 2^23= 12 / 2^23= 12
1 Tk & 2 Infs (3.00+24.00)/3 = 3.67 A5 D7 3 hits 3^21.67= 15 / 3^22.33= 21This say the best attack will be 4.50 with 3 Artillery followed by 4 Infantry 4.00 then mixed group.
First example, if I buy 1 1942.2 Carrier A1 D2, 1 hit (0.184 / 0.367) and 2 Fgs (1.08 / 1.44)
So Offence would give (0.184 +1.08+1.08)/3 = 0.78
and Defence would give (0.367+1.44+1.44) = 1.08But this is dubious for Carrier…
Another example, if I buy 1 G40 Carrier (0 / 0.736) and 2 Fgs (1.08 / 1.44)
So Offence would give (0+1.08+1.08)/3 = 0.72
and Defence would give (0.736+1.44+1.44) = 1.21And this is dubious too for G40 Carrier because of 0 value but 2 hits …
Maybe, if it is only use to add up units to get an average of potential strength might be OK.
G40 Carrier A0 D2 C16, 2 hits
Offense factor:
36*[0/ (16^2)] * 2.618034 = 0
Defense factor:
36*[2/ (16^2)] * 2.618034 = 0.736 -
@Baron:
Do you use a A2 D2 C6 Submarine?
How can you get 1.5 for surprise strike?
2.5 maybe… 3…
The formula is 36*…
Not same as yoursA Battleship A6 D6, 2 hits, which always hit the mark what is the point?
I only use the battleship A6 D6 as a comparison.
A sub A2 with sneak attack is the same as a unit A3 without a sneak attack.
We have different approach, but our results are the same.
I misplace some of my formulas, so I am trying to recreate them. That’s what i’ll be doing if I can’t find them.
I have to do more research on triple haul units though, and multi unit stacks in a territory for their strength.
I would like to work with you for more advance formulas for the game Baron Munchhausen if that’s possible.
-
I’m much open to hit.
As you probably see, the 36* factor was meant to make easier calculation with the second edition A&A Tank A3 D3 C6.
(Your formula is less functional as it is with 100* factor.)
It reveals easier to add things up like Infantry 4/8, Art 4.5/4.5, Mech 2.25/4.5, Tank 3/3 and some others like bombers 1 /0.25.Based on the limited example in my last post, I believe it is the way to go.
Add up all units strength, then get the average. But this probably works only if you have the same IPCs basis to compare to stack.If you get 3 Infs A1 (4.00) against 2 Tanks D3 (3.00), it seems to say that 3 Infs is better.
But 3^21= 9 vs 2^23= 12
And Calc gives: A. survives: 32.3% D. survives: 62.8% No one survives: 4.9%
Probably the Stack formula work for all situations while this Baron-Larrymarx has limited values in game.In addition, you need to learn a different set of values above the usual units values.
This is not very practical.I think Stack formula (Kreuzfeld or zergxies?) is both useful for optimizing purchase and comparing stack strength.
Here is the thread where it appears in G40 forum:
Method for Estimating the Outcomes of Large Battles
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=39526.msg1640769#msg1640769
@Ozymandiac:@zergxies:
Interesting difference between your ideas is that HolKann claims the number of units is more important than the power; while your calculations show metapower is a multiplication of power and the number of units so they are symmetrically important.
I think my results support HolKann’s.� Given that metapower = units * power = units^2 * avg(power), I think it’s safe to say that the number of units is more important metapower than power is, and in fact, this shows you how much more important it is.� And also how skew doesn’t add much :)
I like the term skew much more than distribution; I spent forever trying to come up with a better word and this eluded me!
Pft why didn’t I think of that (numbers^2). Thanks, that’s it.
A sub A2 with sneak attack is the same as a unit A3 without a sneak attack.
I found it with AACalc simulations too thanks, I corrected this point.
How do you find it?
I also use AACalc for D1 first strike value of Sub to be D1.33, and since 36*1…/6^2= 1… but IDK it can be 1.30.If there is another way to get the strength, tell me please.
-
I think standard stack formula or AAcalc is better for battle outcome predictions while Vann-Baron formulas are excellent at predicting what a new house rule unit should cost or what the current units should cost when using a unit as benchmark.
-
Ususally, subs is the most costeffective unit to buy for defence.
I’m not following this. Suppose I have 48 IPCs and want to buy a defensive fleet.
-I buy 8 subs, receive metapower=881=64.
-I buy 6 destroyers, receive metapower=662=72.Aren’t destroyers the units with a higher metapower and as such better as defensive units?
I see they also use this Metapower formula to get an optimized purchase.
And it is confirmed by AACalc.
If there is 24 IPCs to spend on Inf, Art, MI and Tank, it will be easier to decide since in case of combined arms, you can add it too.8 Infs A8 D16 8 hits 8^21= 64 / 8^22= 128 tot.: 192
6 Artillery A12 D12 6 hits 6^22= 72 / 6^22= 72 tot.: 144
4 Tanks A12 D12 4 hits 4^23= 48 / 4^23= 48 tot.: 961 Tk & 6 Infs A9 D15 7 hits 7^21.29= 63.2 / 7^22.14= 104.9 tot.: 168.1
2 Tk & 4 Infs A10 D14 6 hits 6^21.67= 60.1 / 6^22.33= 83.9 tot.: 144
3 Tk & 2 Infs A11 D13 5 hits 5^22.2= 55 / 5^22.6= 65 tot.: 120
3 Art & 4 Infs A14 D14 7 hits 7^22= 98 / 7^22= 98 total: 1961 Tk, 3 Art, 2 Infs A13 D13 6 hits 6^22.17= 78.1 / 6^22.17= 78.1 tot.: 156.2
1 Tk, 2 Art, 1 MIs, 2 Infs A12 D13 6 hits 6^22 = 72 / 6^22.17= 78.1 tot.: 150.1
1 Tk, 1 Art, 2 MIs, 2 Infs A10 D13 6 hits 6^21.67= 60.1 / 6^22.17= 78.1 tot.: 138.2
1 Tk, 3 MIs, 2 Infs A8 D13 6 hits 6^21.33 = 47.9 / 6^22.17= 78.1 tot.: 126Even with such low 24 IPCs, it seems rather complex to sort out these numbers.
Unless having a few tables with various combinations, it only points out that it is cumbersome and also, Artillery with combined arms clearly gives better offensive.It might help choose but the Punch formulas might be enough in this case.
Probably the things were different in Classic time with Tank A3 D2 C5.
So, this formula seems more useful when calculating odds between two stacks.
-
its ok Vann helsing.
This is why nobody uses the Van formula and now they use the Larrymarx formula. Thanks for everything!
-
@Genghis:
I think standard stack formula or AAcalc is better for battle outcome predictions while Vann-Baron formulas are excellent at predicting what a new house rule unit should cost or what the current units should cost when using a unit as benchmark.
I think the same.
Stack formula replace AACalc for mental calculation.
The Baron-Larrymarx based on Vann tables are better for evaluating if a given cost is correct or not.
What about finding a more accurate name for this formula?
Something like Enigma formula to decode A&A combat and cost structure.
Any idea? -
the correct cost of cruiser and BB are 10 and 18 according to baron-larymarx formulas and using OOB DD values as benchmark.
-
@Genghis:
I have used the baron formulas that take into account the hits in order to come to the following conclusions:
Taking the benchmark DD value of 1.125 as the basic ship: Cruiser should cost 9.79 IPCs and BB should cost 18.28 IPCs. Alternatively a BB with 5/5 stats should cost 20.43 IPCs. (Assuming special abilities of ships are equal)
@Genghis:
the correct cost of cruiser and BB are 10 and 18 according to baron-larymarx formulas and using OOB DD values as benchmark.
I cannot agree more.
All these 3 units are very similar in the A&A roster: surface vessel warships, able to fight all naval or air units.
So, the basic assumption was to keep the same benchmark, here the better one of DD, in a way increasing the cost (and BB or Cruiser are among the most expensive ones) will not change their attack and defense factor.So, the way to keep offense & defense factor 1.1125 is DD 8$, CA 10$ and BB 18$.
But, then you may ask, why not use the usual decrease of strength as you get for ground units?
Infantry A1 D2 C3 (4.00/8.00) & Subs A2 D1 C6 (2.00/ 1.00) double cost, 4 times weaker
Artillery A2 D2 C4 (4.50) & DD A2 D2 C8 (1.1125) double cost, 4 times weaker
Tank A3 D3 C6 (3.00) & Cruiser A3 D3 C12 (0.75) double cost, 4 times weaker
? ? ? & Battleship A4 D4 C20, 2 hits (0.94)That allows for the fodder tactic, lower combat value have much off/def factor because low cost per hit.
If you wish to keep it, you may put Cruiser at 11 IPCs while keeping BB at 20 IPCs.
Cruiser C11: 363/11^2= 0.893
Cruiser C10: 363/10^2= 1.08At 10, it would follow the ground unit decrease rule, but BBs are so prohibitive that you cannot really desire this luxury item without affecting your fleet strength compared to 2 Cruisers. Even if from pure offense factor compared to Art or Art+Inf, Tank is weaker; it is still more affordable (than BB) for low economy Powers, have speed and have special blitz ability.
At 11, Cruiser can play the part of having a weaker strength factor than a fodder unit (Destroyer) but, because 11 IPCs make for better affordable unit than BB for most of low economy Powers. So, it is not as best as BB, you can still put a better punch unit in SZ than DD.
Unfortunately, the double cost for warships cost structure is strongly impregnated.
11 was not a well round number compared to 12 or 10.
10 is a fine number, but Larry (in addition to not changing the cost structure progression) wanted that Battleship remains a viable purchase and not a totally obsolete unit.
And he never consider to reduce BB cost to 18, even if 18 was 6 times Infantry cost or 3 Tanks cost.
Battleship C18, 2 hits: 36* 4 / (18^2) * 2.618034 = 1.16I also suggested elsewhere, instead of a double cost per combat points, *a 1.5 cost multiplier.
That would have give a more practical and affordable roster from odds in pure combat POV:Submarine A2 D1 C5 (4.5 rnd up) 362/5^2= (2.88/ 1.44)
Destroyer A2 D2 C6 362/6^2=(2.00)
Cruiser A3 D3 C9 363/9^2=(1.33)
Carrier A0 D2 C12, 2 hits 36 2 / (12^2) * 2.618034 = (1.31)
Battleship A4 D4 C15, 2 hits 36* 4 / (15^2) * 2.618034 = (1.68)From Sub to BB, the same strength curve of decrease then increase for Battleship occurs, as OOB.
But, now being at 9 IPCs, Cruiser becomes a kind of luxury (as Tank) some Powers may purchase because not willing to place all their eggs on a Battleship. And, to increase the similarity, you may make it a M3 faster warship.However, making a little change in cost for Battleship, it would fit into a constant decrease pattern.
Battleship C18, 2 hits: 36* 4 / (18^2) * 2.618034 = (1.16) -
yes but battleships doesn’t only have two hits as ability. It also has ability to soak hits and then heal, which cruisers don’t have. This isn’t taken into account in the formulas. (Assuming the BB survives the combat). that’s why I think it’s OK if the strength factor decreases all the way to BB.
Suggested Topics
