_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
in the past tanks were purchased at a good ratio with other units. no one could win a high level game with one power only buying tanks, but in moderation they were a good buy for germany, russia, and japan(and even a couple a turn with the uk).
now that tanks cost 6ipc and mechanized infantry have been introduced at 4ipc, tanks are a bad purchase.
no tanks are ever purchased in pac40 because china is not allowed to, uk is too poor and island hopping nature of usa, anzac and japan.
some people are envisioning euro40 with tanks blitzing between berlin and moscow, and over the african continent. but i dont think it will happen, especially not with purchased tanks.
@Slow:
But tanks can BLITZ……tanks rule
in the game everyone trades dead zones between berlin and moscow so there is always one or two infantry on the border territories making blitzing impossible. moving two spaces is very important, but a mechanized infantry can move two spaces to the front lines just like a tank can.
@Slow:
But tanks have great defence……tanks rule
2tanks cost the same as 3mech. despite both having 6 defensive pips the first round of battle the mech provide a much better defence.
for example
2 tanks attack 2 tanks. defender wins 41.5% of the battles
2 tanks attack 3 mech. defender wins 66% of the battles
@Slow:
But tanks have great offence……tanks rule
even on offence mech can be better than tank if there is air involved in the attack which is usually the case.
for example
2 tanks, 1fighter, 1 tac bomber attack 5 infantry. attacker wins 54% of the battles most commonly with 1 unit remaining
3 mech, 1fighter, 1 tac bomber attack 5 infantry. attacker wins 62% of the battles most commonly with 1.5 units remaining
@Slow:
But these are just statistics, they bear no resemblence to the game
i understand that these are just scenarios but they show how the game mechanics work.
i also understand that tanks are useful units and the ones that start on the board are very useful.
i am sure that there will be some rare scenarios that tank purchases will be the best purchase possible. however for most games…
the cost benefit of tanks is not favourable when compared to infantry, mechanized inftantry, and air units.
2 tanks attack 2 tanks. defender wins 41.5% of the battles
How do you figure that? In an even battle, the defender usually wins.
@The:
2 tanks attack 2 tanks. defender wins 41.5% of the battles
How do you figure that? In an even battle, the defender usually wins.
tanks attack and defend at a 3 or less. so it is an even battle. 41.5% for attacker, 41.5% for defender, and 17% tie
Nice results if mathematicians go to war. Very nice… :-P
Can’t imagine a game without tanks purchases.
Have it your way…
It’s not that simple. The game can’t be boiled down to math.
For example: Tanks can threaten to blitz, which means that you opponent must spread out his forces in unoccupied territories to prevent a blitz. Tanks are very effective in the late game P40 when polishing off china for this reason. Effective in a way that mechs aren’t.
Tanks also combine with tacs to raise tac’s offenensive rolls to 4 rather than 3, so re-do your scenario with 2 tanks 2 tacs and 5 infantry versus 3 mech 2 tacs and 5 infantry.
also why not try 3 mech attack 3 infantry versus 2 tanks attack 3 infantry.
I won’t go through every example for you. Instead, I propose we play a forum game of europe 40 where you promise never to buy tanks and see if you can win the game.
The game can’t be boiled down to math.
I think “we” are thinking this out too much. Just enjoy the gaming experience. :lol:
Problems with this analysis:
Mech infantry are not to be considered, the tank argument refers to problems since AAR and AA50 and AA42 as well as original AAE.
Secondly, Germany out produces Russia typically in games and also starts with more material in range of her vitals.
Thirdly, Nobody is saying “just buy tanks”, rather the idea is to buy mostly tanks, backed up with infantry as soakers. Typically this might be twice as many tanks as infantry.
Fourth, These are hit and run tactics with the purpose of killing defenders and exchanging only attacking infantry ( fodder). Attacker then backs out when they got the better in the exchange.
Fifth, the constant weakening of chosen points and adding the increasing difference in material produced and the inability for Russia to take back lost areas ( because battle sims show horrible results of infantry stacks attacking tanks and a few infantry) shows this gradual loss of position.
Six, the mobility of tanks allows them to pick the battle they want to fight and the infantry cant always get into the position to fight back because of their one space movement.
The result of this is the typical games in AAR, AAE, AA42, and AA50 where Japan drives tanks and Germany does the same. The axis can’t win by defeating Russia with all infantry buys because infantry attacking is producing terrible results. If Russia just buys infantry it will still lose. It needs other units. Germany and japan cannot win against Russia unless they mostly buy tanks.
All your information does not take into account either hit and run, greater material advantage, or ability to choose where to attack and not be able to defend every point or be able to counter because the tanks reached another weak point.
This is why for example even with 3-2-2-5 tanks in AAE, Russia is basically doomed, and tanks just run to take out weak points and Russia cant reach the lost area with too much.
AAE40 has essentially the same configuration as AAE, and this will favor Germany in mostly tank buys. Russia cant move her infantry in enough strength to fight the tanks and Germany will hit and run with impunity at selected areas and use Infantry as soakers so they they remain whole.
@Slow:
But tanks can BLITZ……tanks rule
in the game everyone trades dead zones between berlin and moscow so there is always one or two infantry on the border territories making blitzing impossible. moving two spaces is very important, but a mechanized infantry can move two spaces to the front lines just like a tank can.
Mech Infantry require a tank to move with in order to move two spaces.
@Slow:
But tanks can BLITZ……tanks rule
in the game everyone trades dead zones between berlin and moscow so there is always one or two infantry on the border territories making blitzing impossible. moving two spaces is very important, but a mechanized infantry can move two spaces to the front lines just like a tank can.
Mech Infantry require a tank to move with in order to move two spaces.
Ir requires a tank to blitz 2 spaces. Otherwise it can move 2 on it’s own.
I think the great thing about the new rules is it makes the math pretty complex and it is now almost impossible to keep up with it during a game (will my opponent blitz, will they support their armor with tacs etc.)
@Imperious:
Problems with this analysis:
Mech infantry are not to be considered, the tank argument refers to problems since AAR and AA50 and AA42 as well as original AAE.
this is the Axis & Allies Global 1940 forum. my post is about global40 and i have referenced the two games that make up global40.
my analysis was done solely on this basis.
do your points 2 through 6 refer to this thread? if so, i will comment on them. if not, then they are off topic.
do you still have a problem with my analysis? remembering that my analysis is for global40
i enjoy discussing opposing tactics and strategy just want to know we discussing the same topic
Nice results if mathematicians go to war. Very nice… :-P
you sound similar to Slow Guy That Enjoys Disagreeing But Does Not Have a Point. but your line is very funny, i actually did laugh at my computer screen
my analysis is for global40
Thats fine, count them in. It will make the analysis even worse however because these are 1-2-1-5 units. In combat sims they are terrible because of the increased cost. Especially as the defender.
no one could win a high level game with one power only buying tanks
Nobody said this. Your argument if it is to prove only this can be proven, however the reality of this tactic is to buy mostly tanks ( spending most of a turns IPC on tanks as opposed to infantry).
The result of a 5 IPC tank shows that this is a superior strategy, but in AAE40/AAP40 it remains unproven quantity.
If your “Slow Guy Who Thinks Tanks Rule” comments apply to 6 IPC tanks again nobody is arguing that point. The point is regarding 5 IPC tanks and WHY the tanks went to 6 IPC in the first place IS THE POINT. They went to this cost because of the results of mostly tank buys by Germany and Japan, which were used with great effect against Russia in previous games, while other games were broken because of this tactic ( AAE).
Also where is the battle sim for AAE40? Where do you get the combat results? Tanks provide bonus to other units ( tactical bombers). In battles using one group of mostly infantry and a few other units defending vs. another group of mostly tanks and other units in hit and run battles where the combat loses demonstrate loses only to infantry, the defender will lose more everytime. I don’t need a sim to show that because its true just using low luck.
It’s not that simple. The game can’t be boiled down to math.
thats almost the same line that i made up for Slow Guy That Enjoys Disagreeing But Does Not Have a Point.
i understand that these are just scenarios but they show how the game mechanics work.
For example: Tanks can threaten to blitz, which means that you opponent must spread out his forces in unoccupied territories to prevent a blitz.
lets consider 4 scenarios
1. opponent has units on border territories
2. opponent has units 2 territories deep
3. opponent has units 3 territories deep
4. opponent has more than 3 territories with no units
1. tanks dont have blitz oppurtunity. mechs are better purchase
2. tanks can blitz and get to opponents units, but it is only the expensive tanks and no cheap infantry to soak up hits. bad move
3. tanks can blitz but then they are open to counter attack with only expensive tanks and no cheap infantry to soak up hits. bad move
4. you probably forgot to setup the game
Tanks also combine with tacs to raise tac’s offenensive rolls to 4 rather than 3, so re-do your scenario with 2 tanks 2 tacs and 5 infantry versus 3 mech 2 tacs and 5 infantry.
this is a function of tacs, and tacs can also be raised by fighters. i also think tacs are not as good a purchase as fighters and bombers but i will leave that for another thread. the most effective tactic is cheap units supported by air units. i believe the idea of buying tacs and tanks is inferior to buying cheaper ground units and fighters(or bombers)
but here is the results of using two tacs
2 tanks, 2 tac bomber attack 5 infantry. attacker wins 60% of the battles most commonly with 1.2 unit remaining
3 mech, 2 fighters attack 5 infantry. attacker wins 62% of the battles most commonly with 1.5 units remaining
tanks are almost as good as the mech but mech can use cheaper fighters for even more effectiveness.
also why not try 3 mech attack 3 infantry versus 2 tanks attack 3 infantry.
because if you are buying tanks or mechs to go into attacks unsupported by air, like your example, you are making a big mistake.
also it makes my argument look bad
2 tanks attack 3 infantry. attacker wins 28% of battles
3 mech attack 3 infantry. attacker wins 18% of battles
I won’t go through every example for you. Instead, I propose we play a forum game of europe 40 where you promise never to buy tanks and see if you can win the game.
i would love to play a forum game. it is fun to talk about the game, but much more fun to play it. i hope my comments do not read negativly as i dont want to upset anyone, i am here to have fun like everyone else, but sometimes written words read more negative than spoken words.
@AA_fourlife:
The game can’t be boiled down to math.
I think “we” are thinking this out too much. Just enjoy the gaming experience. :lol:
i can be included in the “we” but i enjoy discussing the games and that is all we can do until it is released.
@Imperious:
Problems with this analysis:
Mech infantry are not to be considered, the tank argument refers to problems since AAR and AA50 and AA42 as well as original AAE.
since you said in a later post that you are talking about global40 then you are wrong that mech intantry are not to be considered.
@Imperious:
Secondly, Germany out produces Russia typically in games and also starts with more material in range of her vitals.
does this have anything to do with tanks being a good/bad purchase? unless you are inferring that germany can afford to run an inferior strategy because they have more material to start with.
@Imperious:
Thirdly, Nobody is saying “just buy tanks”, rather the idea is to buy mostly tanks, backed up with infantry as soakers. Typically this might be twice as many tanks as infantry.
i am glad no one is saying all tank buys are good. if you are buying tanks with some infantry as soakers then your tanks are waiting for your soaker infantry, you would be much better off buying infantry and artillery.
@Imperious:
Fourth, These are hit and run tactics with the purpose of killing defenders and exchanging only attacking infantry ( fodder). Attacker then backs out when they got the better in the exchange.
same as your third point.
@Imperious:
Fifth, the constant weakening of chosen points and adding the increasing difference in material produced and the inability for Russia to take back lost areas ( because battle sims show horrible results of infantry stacks attacking tanks and a few infantry) shows this gradual loss of position.
i am unsure what you mean here. can you explain this in other wording. (sorry if i am slow)
@Imperious:
Six, the mobility of tanks allows them to pick the battle they want to fight and the infantry cant always get into the position to fight back because of their one space movement.
mech can also move two land spaces. i understand that tanks can blitz, but blitzing is rare and if you want to blitz as a means of trading dead zones then only one tank is needed. chances are you have a tank that you started the game with for those rare occasions. fighters can move 4 spaces(sometimes 5 as industrial complexes and airbases are often in the same territory) this does not show that tanks are a good purchase.
@Imperious:
All your information does not take into account either hit and run, greater material advantage, or ability to choose where to attack and not be able to defend every point or be able to counter because the tanks reached another weak point.
my information does show that tanks are a bad purchase. 4 of your 6 points do not show that tanks are a good purchase the other 2 points are either ambiguous or you need to clarify them.
tank purchases are dead. did you not read the eulogy?
:-o im sorry were you talking to me? :-o
It really depends on who you use. With Germany, there’s no doubt you’ll still need to buy tanks, because the 3 offensive roll will be invaluable. With the Soviets, you may want a couple around for the same reason if you need to counterattack, although in a small number.
Anyone else sans US though, indeed, you probably won’t see very many tank purchases anymore due to infantry/artillery being more cost efficient.
