Larry's new tank rules for Global 1940 Alpha Beta

[Imperious Leader]

YOU ATTACKING:

1. 3 infantry, 6 mech, 4 artillery, 3 fighters, 2 tactical bombers, 1 bomber=42

ME DEFENDING
2.  3 infantry, 4 tanks, 4 artillery, 3 fighters, 2 tactical, 1 bomber=45

Now reversed:
ME ATTACKING:
3. 3 infantry, 4 tanks, 4 artillery, 3 fighters, 2 tactical, 1 bomber=47

YOU DEFENDING
4.  3 infantry, 6 mech, 4 artillery, 3 fighters, 2 tactical bombers, 1 bomber=45

Again overall winner: ME, mixed forces of tanks using combined arms can be greater than mixed forces with equal number of mechs.

NOW case closed.

Remember that ftrs boost tacs? Ftr’s do boost tacs, tanks aren’t the only boosters.

Yes on attack only and for the purpose of this example which is hit and run. I only need to prove one round to be right.

So we do one round using the new numbers and see.

YOU ATTACKING:

1. 3 infantry, 6 mech, 4 artillery, 3 fighters, 2 tactical bombers, 1 bomber= NOT 42, BUT 45 Corrected…

I will even make this Uber easy for you to see: 6+12+8+9+6+4=45

ME DEFENDING
2.  3 infantry, 4 tanks, 4 artillery, 3 fighters, 2 tactical, 1 bomber=45

6+12+8+12+6+1=45

Result: draw… for the same money in fighting power

Now reversed:
ME ATTACKING:
3. 3 infantry, 4 tanks, 4 artillery, 3 fighters, 2 tactical, 1 bomber=47

6+12+8+9+8+4=47

YOU DEFENDING
4.  3 infantry, 6 mech, 4 artillery, 3 fighters, 2 tactical bombers, 1 bomber=45

6+12+8+12+6+1=45

Result I still have a +2 advantage over you…with tanks.

So force 1 from above
3inf(arty support)=6, 6 mechs=12, 4 arty=8, 3 ftr=9, 2 tac (ftr support)=8, 1 bmb=4
6+12+8+9+8+4= 47

So 1 and 3 have 47, both of them. However, what happens when the defender gets past the inf/art (which are constant in both), and into the variable that is NOT constant; the mechs/tanks.

Result is you added wrong. The actual result is 47 to 45…or two points in my favor. Also this is not get past the infantry, its hit and run. Leave before you trade more than you lose.

In for one round and based on the average loses (or not)  i am not cutting into units costing more than 4 IPC.

Forces 1 and 3 both do 7-8 hits on average (47/6=7 with Remainder 5)

If the defender does 7 or less hits, both 1 and 3 lose equal amounts of IPC. They are equal.

However, what happens when the defender does 8 hits?

YOU remove 7-8 hits:
1. 3 infantry, 6 mech, 4 artillery, 3 fighters, 2 tactical bombers, 1 bomber=45 or 7.5 units killed 1st round, removed indicated in bold and possible mech unit

I remove 7 hits:
3. 3 infantry, 4 tanks, 4 artillery, 3 fighters, 2 tactical, 1 bomber=47 or 7.83 units killed 1st round, removed indicated in bold

So in the stated example you DID NOT PROVE THAT MECH MIXED FORCE VS. TANK MIXED FORCE WITH ONE ROUND OF COMBAT IS MORE FAVORABLE FOR MECH. Edge slightly to tanks ( one way its a draw, reversed a few points stronger)

Summary:
Tanks in a mix and using hit and run tactics are better than mixed force with mechs for the same IPC.

Thank You.

[Imperious Leader]

….UNTIL the attacker must start taking tanks

We are only dealing with hit and run, so attacks of this will never occur where trading of tanks for mechs will ever occur. I have no idea why you keep bringing up points that nobody made claims for or against.

The very bottom line here from what was proven is as long as a mixed force of tanks with other units in combat against a mixed force of mech and other units, as long as the combat loses do not dig into units greater than 4 IPC for loses, the advantage is with the tank force.

When loses exceed the 4 IPC mark, the advantage swings to the mech force because the mech force on average will be able to sustain more hits for an equal spend.

The key is we are only dealing with the advantage in terms of a limited ( hit and run) approach.

Another point to consider which you don’t understand is that a tank force has greater potency than mech because its a 3 over a 2. The situation in Russia or in any area with lots of land spaces close together, is that tanks at three can maximize the punch of an attack… they being stronger on average gives them a greater propensity to hit the defender harder than mech infantry. So if you had a force split in half and the attacker did the same, but was first to move and he had tanks and you had equal value in mechs, He could move his entire force against the one half and destroy it, while the other 50% of your force could not exact revenge on his tanks w/o greater loses. If you reverse the attacks, the new result would be that the side with tanks would come out better anyway.

I can see how or why mechs require a tank to blitz… this puts some limitations of them. SO i guess i still favor a 2-2-2-4 mech, but in combat moves two with tank only 1:1.

Either that or the game must allow 2 tanks for 11 IPC and remove the movement restriction for mechs giving it a proper 2-2-2-4 no restrictions

[Imperious Leader]

It’s never possible that tanks could be lost in a hit and run battle?
Seriously?

Its not the type of hit and run interaction i would call a “good idea”  The definition of hit and run is to attack for a short duration because you are in the advantage for this. If you were not in the advantage, like sending one tank attacking 300 infantry, this is not hit and run, but rather hit and die.

What happens when the defender gets 8 hits in our scenario? Outside of Lowluck, it’s QUITE possible in ONE round. (don’t forget that not everyone plays lowluck)

Nice try but won’t help you. I don’t play battles where i would significantly approach any situation like that. Also, its not hit and run anyway. I don’t play with low luck, but made it easy for you on the math so you and others can see based on any standardized empirical and accepted way of doing studies like this. What is also possible is i can kill more so its not an argument to say in a hit and run situation that your mechs can kill more than the tanks, because the tanks can also do more harm and based on the numbers they have a greater propensity to do so.

If you are ONLY talking about lowluck let me know. Otherwise, the defensive forces in BOTH situations are quite capable of getting 8+ hits.

---

Yes and they are all capable of missing or hitting everything, in which case both sides would lose the SAME

YOU ATTACKING:

1. 3 infantry, 6 mech, 4 artillery, 3 fighters, 2 tactical bombers, 1 bomber= 47

6+12+8+9+8+4=47

ME DEFENDING
2.  3 infantry, 4 tanks, 4 artillery, 3 fighters, 2 tactical, 1 bomber=45

6+12+8+12+6+1=45

Result: YES RIGHT MECH HAS +2

Now Reversed:
ME ATTACKING:
3. 3 infantry, 4 tanks, 4 artillery, 3 fighters, 2 tactical, 1 bomber=47

6+12+8+9+8+4=47

YOU DEFENDING
4.  3 infantry, 6 mech, 4 artillery, 3 fighters, 2 tactical bombers, 1 bomber=45

6+12+8+12+6+1=45

Result I still have a +2 advantage over you…with tanks.

The result in this example only shows a draw under a comparison of both types of combat.

So what really happens in this example is nothing is proven, so we need another example:

Example #2
YOU ATTACKING:

1. 8 infantry, 3 mech, 4 artillery, 3 fighters, 3 tactical bombers, 2 bomber= 55

12+6+8+9+12+4=57

ME DEFENDING
2.  8 infantry, 2 tanks, 4 artillery, 3 fighters, 3 tactical, 2 bomber=55

16+8+8+12+9+2=55

Result: NO CHANGE
reversed:

YOU DEFENDING:
1. 8 infantry, 3 mech, 4 artillery, 3 fighters, 3 tactical bombers, 2 bomber= 53

16+6+8+12+9+2=53

ME ATTACKING:
2.  8 infantry, 2 tanks, 4 artillery, 3 fighters, 3 tactical, 2 bomber=57

12+8+8+9+12+8=57

I HAVE AN ADVANTAGE OF +4 IN ONE ROUND.

[Imperious Leader]

Its not the type of hit and run interaction i would call a “good idea”  The definition of hit and run is to attack for a short duration because you are in the advantage for this. If you were not in the advantage, like sending one tank attacking 300 infantry, this is not hit and run, but rather hit and die.

Nice try but won’t help you. I don’t play battles where i would significantly approach any situation like that. Also, its not hit and run anyway. I don’t play with low luck, but made it easy for you on the math so you and others can see based on any standardized empirical and accepted way of doing studies like this. What is also possible is i can kill more so its not an argument to say in a hit and run situation that your mechs can kill more than the tanks, because the tanks can also do more harm and based on the numbers they have a greater propensity to do so.

The point is that if you are not at risk to lose any units BEYOND the inf and artillery screen, there is NO difference in the combat effectiveness of 4 tanks compared to 6 mechs, or 6 mechs compared to 2 tanks and 3 mechs.

No. Again thats not what has been proven. In overall effectiveness the combined arms aspects of tanks boosting tactical bombers making it a 4 vs. a 2 shows with no doubt that based on attack and defense the overall winner is the mixed tank force with combined arms.

These are all equal IPC arrangements of mechs and tanks. AS LONG AS THE HITS ARE NOT BEING TAKEN ON THE MECHS AND/OR TANKS, they are EVEN when supporting a hit-and run attack.

If hits ARE being taken on mechs and/or tanks, the army that has more mechs relative to tanks is STRONGER

Your point is mechs are stronger and i proved that false. Also, hits are not being taken on tanks because as stated 5,000,000 time before i am no entertaining an attack that would do that in order to prove that tank force is better than mech force.

Again the Math proves otherwise.

Quote from: Imperious Leader on March 15, 2011, 09:12:18 pm

So what really happens in this example is nothing is proven, so we need another example:

No, it proves that they are EQUAL in terms of attack strength. It proves the only inequality is how many hits each arrangement can take. Mechs can take more hits, losing less IPC and less attack value per hit. Mechs are sometimes even to tanks, sometimes better, but not worse.

What is proved was in this example no determination, so i made a new example THAT SHOWED THAT TANK MIXED FORCE IN HIT AND RUN WINS AGAINST MECH MIXED FORCE, OF WHICH YOU IGNORED BECAUSE AGAIN THE MATH PROVED YOU WRONG.

Quote from: Imperious Leader on March 15, 2011, 09:12:18 pm

Example #2
YOU ATTACKING:
1. 8 infantry, 3 mech, 4 artillery, 3 fighters, 3 tactical bombers, 2 bomber= 55
12+6+8+9+12+8=55
ME DEFENDING
2.  8 infantry, 2 tanks, 4 artillery, 3 fighters, 3 tactical, 2 bomber=55
16+8+8+12+9+2=55

Result: NO CHANGE

reversed:
YOU DEFENDING:
1. 8 infantry, 3 mech, 4 artillery, 3 fighters, 3 tactical bombers, 2 bomber= 53
16+6+8+12+9+2=53
ME ATTACKING:
2.  8 infantry, 2 tanks, 4 artillery, 3 fighters, 3 tactical, 2 bomber=57
12+8+8+9+12+8=57

I HAVE AN ADVANTAGE OF +4 IN ONE ROUND.

Absolutely Brilliant!

First of all, you claim to be after “empirical” evidence in measuring which is a better hit-and run ATTACKER.  Why when comparing who is a better ATTACKER do you have one DEFEND against the other’s ATTACK.

Because all i need to do is prove my point in one round. If the odds are to my advantage in any round, my hit and run attack continues. Again you want to take me down the example where my tanks are exchanged and i told you 50 times before , that this is hit and run. I fight as long as my advantage remains and you are losing more in net IPC then me. Thats why it is one round in this example. Nice try.

We need to look at how each would fare ATTACKING against a CONSISTENT defensive force.  HOW do we measure the usefeulness of a force to do a hit-and-run ATTACK when it is DEFENDING?Huh?

NO we don’t, i know thats what you like to do since the math proves my point because this is a hit and run example, not “lets get my tanks killed in battle, so the numbers move over to mantlefans favor”

Now repeat:  HIT AND RUN, HIT AND RUN….

TO DO THIS PURPOSEFULLY YOU NEED A CONSTANT DEFENSE

No rather to make the numbers swing to your favor you want something other than hit and run, and as i stated 50 times before hit and run is only a value while the loses are less for the tank side, than for the mech side.

It’s so easy! PICK A DEFENSIVE FORCE. Have the mech force fight that defense. Have the tank force fight the SAME defense.

So you need
1.  A defense
2. A mech-supported attack force
3. A tank supported attack force
4 (If you want) a mech/tank mixed attack force

Yes i did that with 4-5 examples and each time it makes your point fail. Read prior examples…

You need a constant defense to compare both sets of attackers against, otherwise the comparison gets bogged down in considerations about the differences in defense value for bombers for example, which really has nothing to do with what they attack at.

I was wondering when you would start crying about bombers, but alas again i only need to prove my point using the same total IPC per each side, and i did.

Second, your math is off for this unscientific multiple-variable exercise anyways.

8 inf (with 4 arty support)=12, 3 mech=6, 4art=8, 3 ftr=9, 3 tac (BOOSTED BY FTRS!!)=12, 2 Bmb=8
12+6+8+3+9+12+8= 58, NOT 57. FIFTY-EIGHT

Wait. :-D now please slip in another THREE to make the math better?  Ahh that feels better? Nice try.  55 Bud. LOL

Attacking:
8 inf=16, 4 arty=8, 2 tanks=6, 3 ftr=12. 3 tac=9, 2bmb=2
16+8+6+12+9+2= 53, NOT 55. FIFTY-THREE

Bombers attack at 1? what ruleset you using?  :-D

I think you are confused about attack or defense. I assume you MEANT DEFENSE?

8 inf=16, 4 arty=8, 2 tanks=6, 3 ftr=12. 3 tac=9, 2bmb=2
16+8+6+12+9+2= 53 RIGHT.

The reversal:( YOU ATTACKING)
8 infantry, 3 mech, 4 artillery, 3 fighters, 3 tactical bombers, 2 bomber=

12+6+8+9+12+8=55

Defender also has 53 (only difference is 3 mechs instead of 2 tanks; 2x3=3x2)
Attacker ALSO has 58 (only difference is 2 tanks  instead 3 of mechs; 2x3=3x2)

If you do this scientifically rather than either make up numbers or mess up the math like you are doing, the best way to see who is a more effective ATTACKER is to have the mech-supported force fight a defender, then have the tank-supported fight the SAME DEFENDER. NOT THE MECH ARMY. NOT THE TANK ARMY (unless you want them BOTH to fight a mech army or BOTH fight a tank army)

When comparing who is the better ATTACKER, they need to fight an IDENTICAL DEFENSE. It really doesn’t matter what you pick, as long as Mech force attacks the defending force, and the tank force attacks the SAME defending force. Not the mech-supported-attacking tank-supported or vice versa, the fact that bmbs and infantry have different attack and defense values draws attention away from how mechs or tanks would fit the role of mobile support.

NO. Thats not the form of study because the tank force needs its combined arms component to be greater than the mech force that does not boost anything. IN hit and run tactics, i am using the greater potency of tanks with the combined arms to show that tank force are greater than mech force in these hit and run tactics.

YOU just want to make the study into a stripped tank vs mech fight, which is not what this is about. I said from the start that as long as a tank force with plenty of combined arms wins against a mech force, i was proven right.

Example #4

Me Attacking:

10 infantry, 6 artillery, 8 tanks, 8 tactical bombers, 4 fighters=96

16+12+24+32+12=96

You Defending:

10 infantry, 6 artillery, 12 mechs, 8 tactical bombers, 4 fighters=

20+12+24+24+12=92

I win with +4

REVERSED:

Me Defending:

10 infantry, 6 artillery, 8 tanks, 8 tactical bombers, 4 fighters=96

20+12+24+24+16=96

You Attacking:

10 infantry, 6 artillery, 12 mechs, 8 tactical bombers, 4 fighters=92

16+12+24+12+16+12=92

Again i win with +4 advantage.

Ok this is getting boring. I proved my point.

[Imperious Leader]

Your point has merit ONLY when there are MORE attacking tacs than attacking ftrs. Only then. (And how often is that the case? It’s just not significant in scope to the point I have been making all along)

Not true at all. It wins in other situations as well:

Here is just one: ( not one tac or fighter)

Me attacking:
10 infantry, 10 artillery, 6 tanks, 2 bombers=66

20+20+18+8=66

You defending:
10 infantry, 10 artillery, 9 mech, 2 bombers=60

20+20+18+2=60

I win by +6 in first round.

REVERSED:

Me defending:
10 infantry, 10 artillery, 6 tanks, 2 bombers=

20+20+18+2=60

You attacking:
10 infantry, 10 artillery, 9 mech, 2 bombers=

20+20+18+8=66

on defense in this case you have a +6.

Summary: tanks are greater on attack in mixed force using hit and run, then mech. If reversed and the mech are attacking, they have the advantage.

So if you can hit him first with tanks, you got the advantage with all other things being equal.

If we add in tacs, and or fighters lets see how this changes:

Me attacking:
10 infantry, 10 artillery, 6 tanks, 2 bombers=66  ( adding 3 tacs and 3 fighters)

20+20+18+8=66 + 12+9=87

You defending:
10 infantry, 10 artillery, 9 mech, 2 bombers=60 ( adding 3 tacs and 3 fighters)

20+20+18+2=60  + 9+12=81

I win by +6 in first round. Still win by 6

REVERSED:

Me defending:
10 infantry, 10 artillery, 6 tanks, 2 bombers=60  ( adding 3 tacs and 3 fighters)

20+20+18+2=60 ( the math shows the same result)

You attacking:
10 infantry, 10 artillery, 9 mech, 2 bombers=66  ( adding 3 tacs and 3 fighters)

20+20+18+8=66

on defense in this case you have a +6.  ( the math shows the same result)

Summary: no tacs and no fighters makes no difference with with either side. Who attacks first has the advantage and who defends first has the disadvantage.

I think that air power boosts with combined arms is the key to getting tanks the best overall.

Ways tanks are stronger:

1. when tacs and bombers outnumber fighters
2. when artillery and infantry get equal or greater numbers with boosts over defending non-tank land units

But then again this all has to do with combined arms ability which is my first point.

OK I admit that in cases where the attacker has Tacs AND for some reason has NO ftrs or LESS ftrs than tacs, an attack with tanks is stronger (assuming that only infantrry will be lost)

However, how relevant to the issue is this piece of information? As has been my point all along, Mechs under your idea makes it pointless to BUY tanks.

I just proved that the party that attacks first has the advantage ( no tacs or bombers were involved) so your point is false.

EVERY power that starts out with tacs, their ftrs+their tanks>their tacs.

Therefore, BUYING tanks to boost tacs makes zero sense. There are already more than enough tac boosters on the board. Unless a player is unwise (or EXTREMELY unlucky) and squanders tanks and ftrs, there will always be plenty of tac BOOSTERS on the board to boost the relative few amount of tacs that are on the board comparitively.

In battles where one has to lose planes (lets say for example 5 tacs and 5 ftrs attack 1 Carrier w 2 ftr, 1 DD, 1 BB, and 1 Cruiser), they will lose Ftrs and tacs roughly evenly. Why? Because ftrs boost tacs.

We don’t need naval combat examples to mess up the study of tanks and mech.

**I think now that the tank should boost the mech to a 2-2-4 unit, but that the mech should have blitz capability on its own. Otherwise, the mech is a 1-2-2-4 unit.

The two attack is only with a tank at 1:1 basis. This should kill any more studies.

Also, the tank should be boosted by the tactical bomber ( not the other way around)

Fighters can still also boost tacs.

Bombers should be boosted on defense to 2 as long as they got a fighter.**

These are my new ideas after all this number crunching.

[cond1024]

@SgtBlitz:

Fellow Axis and Allies aficionados:

A call goes out to all WWII history buffs, armchair generals, and in-general board game freaks:  Larry has decided that current Armor units are Somewhat Overpowered with a 3 Defense Value, even when the cost was revised upwards to 6 IPCs for the AA1940 game.  He has decreed that Armor Units will Now Roll with a 2 on Defense Without an Accompanying Infantry Unit.  THIS MUST NOT STAND.  This insults everyone here, and our intelligence, our dignity, nay, our very LIVELIHOODS, as WWII board game enthusiasts, is at stake.

Who here does NOT enjoy playing the new Alpha +.2 with the newly reinvigorated Axis powers?  Who does NOT enjoy the thrill of attempting and winning Sealion attacks against all odds, or rolling armies of new Panzer divisions into Russia a year ahead of schedule?  Well, the pride and joy of the German Wehrmacht, emerging from the legendary genius of General Heinz Guderian, the revolutionary new military equipment that changed the face of modern warfare forever, yes, OUR BELOVED PANZER DIVISIONS, are at stake.  We are talking about introducing changes that will forevermore change the face of the WWII boardgame, for YEARS to come, wherein armor will NOT be built by Germany, since it will be “considered a sub-optimal buy”, in the wake of waves of infantry supported by artillery, with massive stacks of planes behind the front lines.  SAY IT WILL NOT BE SO!  WE SHALL NOT GIVE UP OUR 3/3/2 6 IPC ARMOR UNITS WITHOUT A FIGHT!

SAY NO TO THESE PROPOSED CHANGES BY LARRY HARRIS.  He is essentially turning his back on the glory of the armored unit in its heyday, wherein the world saw more combat involving these behemoths than in any war thereafter, wherein anti-tank guns and planes were specially developed for defeating them in combat!  WE SHALL FIGHT THESE CHANGES, AND WE SHALL WIN.  WHO IS WITH ME?

I am with you, I am going over to Larry’s site to post my disapproval.

[Imperious Leader]

But larry rescinded the bad idea.

[cond1024]

@Imperious:

But larry rescinded the bad idea.

I noticed that when I went to Larry’s website and could not find mention of that rule change anywhere. 
Glad to hear he removed it!!

[Imperious Leader]

What’s your point IL? In the scenarios you just showed, since there was never more attacking tacs than attacking ftrs, BOTH attackers had the SAME attack value.

You said that the structure was dependent on tactical fighters or fighters. I just proved otherwise. It actually just depends on the items listed in my past post.

The tank force, when attacking, attacks at 66
So does the mech force, at 66

Both defending defend at 60

They attack the same and defend the SAME as each other (THE SAME)
66=66
60=60
What is then the ONLY difference? There are MORE mechs than tanks. That is why mechs are better overall.

They are not better in hit and run with combined arms. If you follow the two points on how to gain the edge with tanks, you come out better, If you attack first you also come out better and it has nothing to do with mechs or tanks if we are dealing with hit and run.

Whether you realize it or not the tank force and the mech force are EQUAL when attacking UNTIL hits are taken beyond the inf and artillery.

Do you also realize that nobody cares about that because this entire discussion is only dealing with hit and run, “not hit and keep hitting till every damm tank is lost is stupid battles”

HIT AND RUN

You yourself say whoever attacks first has the advantage, and whoever defends first has the disadvantage. OK, fine. So what? If the only advantage is in being the attacker than being the defender, what does that have to do with mechs and tanks? Does buying one make you the attacker and buying the other make you the defender? I thought this was all about ATTACKING. They attack equally, until the inf and art are burned through.

Yes but its not the case that in these hit and run situations that mechs do better than tanks, if anything the potential is the OPPOSITE, as long as you got the combined arms going.

You want to test whether mechs or tanks are better, but you do this by having the variable in the tests be the combat value of BOMBERS on defense as opposed to offense?

Again i need to correct you: its not mechs or tanks. Its in a mixed force of combined arms units and hit and run tactics, which group does best… the tank mixed force or the mech mixed force.

You keep trying to make this silly 3 mechs is better than 3 tanks nonsense, but thats not what i made any claim about , nor is it a hit and run attack.

What makes one side superior is that it is ATTACKING, not that it has mechs or tanks. They attack and defend the same as the other group. UNTIL tanks or mechs need to be selected as casualties. Up to that point, they are equal.

That is only true in the example with no fighters or tactical bombers, which you claimed were necessary for tanks to have the edge. I proved that wrong as well.

If the tanks do have alot of combined arms bonuses, they will do better than a mixed force of mechs in hit and run tactics. That much was borne out in the study.

2 Tanks and 3 mechs are still equal when attacking and defending UNTIL those units may start to take hits, in which case the mechs are better.

Here you go again with the 3/2 thing. We are not talking about this. I made no claims about this. Forget it.

Your argument is that who attacks first is better. WHY are these forces OPPOSING each other when we are discussing whether a player should buy mechs or buy tanks? Why does who attacks FIRST have anything to do with who attacks BEST based on the units involved? Does buying tanks mean you always get to be the attacker or something?

Who attacks first only in that example. IN other examples the tanks with nice boosts played out better, than mixed mech force in hit and run

It’s pretty clear that your changing of mechs to 2 attack ONLY with a tank boost (an idea which I have agreed with way back when whoever invented it invented it) shows that you see that (with the exception of the unlikely scenario of tacs without support from ftrs), mechs and tanks attack and defend completely equally, EXCEPT that mechs can take more hits, which means that mechs are superior.

Well what it does show is i prefer a more clear advantage of tanks over mechs to sustain the real strengths. To tie the tanks boosting the mechs just makes the edge even greater and never suspect to glitching. Again i prefer that tanks rule not just in hit and run, but in any combat situations even w/o bonuses of combined arms.

Both mech needs more strength and tanks. I think its stupid that mechs need a tank to move 2 , as if they are towed units.

The attack at 2 boosted with tanks makes players make mobile hordes of units for quick reaction. I can’t accept for a second that artillery has anything to do with helping out Halftacks and armored cars and light tanks. I think artillery should just boost infantry and thats it, Tanks boost mech on attack , and mech just move 2 no matter what.

Having mechs blitz by themselves isn’t too damaging for tanks, but having them be 2 attack unsupported in addition to that would have removed all practical reasons for BUYING tanks.

Well it does make them strong, so if boosted only with tanks, it will naturally make sence that tanks and mech work together.

Having mechs need a booster (as your revised proposal states) to get to 2 att will still leave reason to buy tanks, so it’s much more reasonable and workable.

And finally yes this restores tanks domination as the main land unit.

SO again i will now push for mech boosted on attack only by tanks, but gets a 2 move independent.

Tactical bombers boost tanks, and not the other way around. Who the hell can consider a tank helping out a stuka. Its the plane that helps out the tanks!

This study was entirely worth my time.

[Imperious Leader]

“They are not better in hit and run with combined arms. If you follow the two points on how to gain the edge with tanks, you come out better, If you attack first you also come out better and it has nothing to do with mechs or tanks if we are dealing with hit and run.”

Ok, so success on hitting and running is not about mechs and tanks says you. It’s about attacking first. So which should you buy to support the hit and run, mechs or tanks? If you have enough ftrs and tanks starting on the board to boost your tacs (and everyone does), when you want to buy a movement 2 land unit, should you buy  mechs or tanks?

No. In some situations it’s about attacking first, in other situations it was shown that the tanks were just better in hit and run with mixed force.

You should buy both, depending on the situation and who you are fighting.

Why is someone attacking first, and why does that matter when choosing between mechs or tanks to support your hit-and run force? Isn’t the discussion about whether I should support my force with mechs or support my force with tanks? Doesn’t the turn order stay the same whether I buy tanks, mechs, or aa guns?

Germany has the advantage in this regard over Russia ( they play first). The choice matters because you need the combined arms boosts to beat the defending force. The turn order is the same and the advantage for Germany over Russia in this regard is clear. They play first.

Unless there are tacs w/o ftrs, the tank force and the mech force attack the same. Your post shows that; they both attacked at 66 in your example.

Yes correct, I bet i can make an example where with no tacs or fighters, the tanks mixed force can win in hit and run.

“Do you also realize that nobody cares about that because this entire discussion is only dealing with hit and run, “not hit and keep hitting till every damm tank is lost is stupid battles”

Do you not realize that even when going one round, it’s quite possible that you may lose all inf/artillery supporting the attack and may have to lose a couple mechs or tanks?

Do you also realize that if all my units roll a one, all your units are gone?  WE are talking odds, not “i just rolled 45 ones, jackpot” so thats how mechs can win over tanks. Using the odds anything can happen and if an advantage exists statistically its worth it to try.

So EVERY hit-and-run you have EVER done and will EVER do had and will have a 0% percent chance of EVER losing units beyond inf and artillery? Lol. Doubt it.

So this is your new angle? I also never said this. I only claim that tanks are stronger than mech in mixed force with enough combined arms. I didn’t say these are the only attacks i make.

Thats just some attempt by you to sidetrack some new argument that nobody made.

If that’s true then that means you must have attacked with a lot, which means that it’s entirely possible that you could kill every defending unit even if you didn’t want to, in which case you would need to defend the next round against an attack that may not be hit-and-run, in which case it would be better to have mechs than tanks.

I like to attack first, and weaken the Soviets, who are now in a worse position to counter, because i won the exchange earlier.

“Again i need to correct you: its not mechs or tanks. Its in a mixed force of combined arms units and hit and run tactics, which group does best… the tank mixed force or the mech mixed force.”

Jeez you’re nitpicky. I have NEVER been talking about ONLY having mechs or ONLY haveing tanks. Never.

Then don’t bring up this silly “would you prefer 2 tanks or 3 mech” like 40 times already in this thread. Its not about that, but you might like it to be  :-D

Only when I use shorthand terms (“mech force” instead of “Mech-supported force including many units”) do you come after me for saying things I never have been saying because you have no real argument.  The variable here is mechs or tanks. You are looking for  a 2-movement unit (this does not mean you never look for 1-move units or planes or ships). When you are looking for a 2-movement unit, which is better for the cost, mech or tank? Apart from the scenarios where a person needs to buy tanks to boost his tacs because he squandered unwisely all of his ftrs and all of his  starting tanks, mechs are a better buy. They do the SAME damage, but eventually (you can’t do only hit and run battles all game!), once they need to take hits, the mechs will be better.

I doubt all the posts about “would you prefer 2 tanks or 3 mechs” is not “shorthand” ( air quotes)  for mixed force of tanks using hit and run and combined arms bonuses vs. a mixed force of mechs that have less combined arms capability

Good try however.

“You keep trying to make this silly 3 mechs is better than 3 tanks nonsense, but thats not what i made any claim about , nor is it a hit and run attack.”

Lol. That’s just dirty. The claim was that in situations where you will buy tanks or mechs, 3 mechs is a much better buy than 2 tanks  (not 3 or 3, it’s 3 or 2)(If you aren’t looking for units with 2 movement, just buy inf and art, they are a better value). Tanks and mechs (assuming one has 50% more mechs because of their cost) are the same in hit-and-runs when attacking (except when inf/art fodder are burned through), the same in hit-and runs in defending (therefore for the neither is better in hit and runs). There is no reason to buy one over the other for hit-and-run reasons, unless you are purposely keeping the tac boosters away from the tacs so you can give yourself an excuse to buy tanks.

Hit and run is only valid if you are not losing more material, than you gain in total IPC. Tanks in most situations were proven better in this regard than mechs.

“That is only true in the example with no fighters or tactical bombers, which you claimed were necessary for tanks to have the edge. I proved that wrong as well.”

How? This is just asinine.  I was talking about tacs without ftrs to match up with them. Please quit misrepresenting my arguments. When there are no tacs (or when there are at least as many ftrs as tacs), who has a higher attack value, a force supported by 3x mechs or a force supported by 2x tanks? As we have shown repeatedly (even though you see not to realize it), the attack strength is identical.

I made an example that was not dependent on fighters or tactical, which concluded that the advantage was who attacked first. You said tanks are better only if something about having more tacs than fighters, and i just made an example where this is not the case to prove that tanks can have the advantage w/o the tacs

““If the tanks do have a lot of combined arms bonuses, they will do better than a mixed force of mechs in hit and run tactics. That much was borne out in the study.””

How do they get that edge? How do tanks get that edge? They need to have tacs with them that don’t have ftrs. When there are no tacs or at least as many ftrs as tacs, 3x mechs and 2x tanks attack equally (as long as the other support is identical of course). They attack equally UNTIL the inf/art barrier is broken. Oftentimes this doesn’t happen. So what? Tanks are either equal or worse. Only in very rare situations where the attack for some strange reason does not have enough ftrs to support his tacs would the tanks be better. Only then.

Tanks have the edge with the boosts at 4 for tactical. The inf/ art barrier is never broken in hit and run, if its its not it’s not hit and run. Hit and Run does not equate to losing tanks. It means hitting to kill moire expensive enemy units and losing cheaper units in the exchange to gain a small advantage.

Yes tanks are better in these situations, thats all i was proving. It is you that wants to prove that in normal “fight to the death” combat that mechs are better. I made no claims about this, but you keep trying to twist the argument in that second direction, so i constantly only deal with my contention about hit and run and combined arms makes tanks best.

Tanks are only better when there are tacs without ftrs (and this is rare), as I have said all along.

Well no. If i bring in bombers the attacker is stronger, also in other situations as was proven that the first attacker wins, which may be tanks.

In no case where mechs stronger than tanks in hit and run using mixed force and hit and run…in any case.

[Imperious Leader]

OK, I’ll simplify this for you.

Hey you might just want to say this instead. “Hey since you are right about tanks being better in hit and run with mixed force and combined arms, how bout i take another stab and trying to validate another position that i want you made no claims about, so i can prove a result that you didn’t make any claims about?”

Let’s put ourselves in Germany’s shoes. They are a power that probably needs more 2-movement land units than any other power. Since we are Germany, we can’t control what the enemy buys. Therefore, if we buy tanks, that doesn’t mean that the Soviets would buy mechs, or vice versa. We don’t know what Russia will buy. But it actually doesn’t even matter when seeing whether we should buy mechs or tanks (Russia’s buys do matter in determining whether we should buy inf and arty instead of 2-movement land units, but it has no effect on which 2-movement land units we would buy if we wanted to buy 2 movement land units under the mech system you proposed) for OUR attack. Somehow you have painted this into a scenario where one side bought tanks and the other was thereby forced to buy mechs and that one side somehow had the right to attack first because of their buy. Besides, what guarantee do you have that the enemy will be exposing the main body of its force to you? (unless you are at the gates of their capital, in which case you would usually want to win outright, not hit-and-run.)

I didn’t paint anything, I just demonstrated that mixed force of tanks with lots of combined arms bonus are greater than mixed mech force, since the latter does not boost or is boosted by anything.  Anything else you want to bring up is not relevant to this study. I only made claims and proved my own points before.  IN the example that shows the side that attacks first, is only one example, and not the only one. Other show that normal combat ( defense ) gives tanks or can give tanks the edge.

So we, as Germany, like everybody else, start with a sum of ftrs+tanks that is greater than the amount of tacs we have. Therefore, we have more than enough boosters for our tacs, so buying tanks or ftrs to boost tacs is pointless, they wouldn’t have any tacs to boost since those tacs already have plenty of boosters.

So, it gets to our buy,  we buy some inf and subs perhaps (or whatever) and we have 36 IPCs left that we want to spend on land units with 2 movement to support a hit-and-run attack that has inf, art, bmb, some tacs and some ftrs.

So 36 IPCs can get us 6 tanks or 9 Mechs. Which do we buy?

This is not what you buy, this is about how and under what circumstances make tanks greater than mechs, which is in mixed units with combined arms. What you buy depends on too many factors. If it was ever proven that you just buy mechs and no other unit, the game would be broken. I know that a stack of infantry on defense is the most effective defense, but hardly dynamic for attacks or mobility sake.

Well, since like every power, Germany has more than enough tac boosters already on the map, we don’t need to worry about boosting tacs by buying tanks. Put another way, there’s no reason to buy units to boost tacs when there are already more than enough units to boost the tacs. It’s like buying a mop to clean the floor when you already have more than enough mops. Both tanks and mechs can blitz alone, and both have 1 attack point per 2 IPCs of cost. Which then should we buy?

Well the fighters can escort the bombers for SBR, and tacs and tanks attack land units, along with art and infantry. Also, its not about what you will buy. I made no claims about what to buy or supported no conclusion except the ones i proved.

So let’s examine:

With the mechs, we can have

10 inf, 10 Art, 9 mechs, 4 ftr, 4 tac, 1 bmb
20+20+18+12+16+4

If we buy the tanks instead:
10 inf, 10 art, 6 tanks, 4 ftr, 4 tac, 1 bmb
20+20+18+12+16+4

So we need to choose between those two forces by making our buy: 9 mechs or 6 tanks. As you can see however, the two forces have the same attack. They have the same effectiveness in the first round of combat.

Therefore, for our hit-and-run attack, there is no reason to buy one over the other. They attack equally(9x2=6x3 (and of course the infantry, arty, tacs, bmb, and ftrs all hit the same).

You didn’t establish who is attacking or defending and who is hitting and running. That is the only point we are here for.

So both buys are equal in hit-and-runs. Therefore it really doesn’t matter which you buy, does it? But wait:

They are not equal the bomber attacks at 4 and defends at 1, they are not equal in that example.

Not every hit-and-run guarantees that only inf and artillery will be lost. Maybe you say that’s not a big difference, but so what? It’s still a difference. If one thing is even a little better than the other, isn’t it still better?

Nothing is guaranteed, and to argue that dice gods can allow for one mech to take out 5,000,000 tanks are not to be used as arguments, because the opposite can also be stated as an argument.

Not only that, but NOT every battle is a hit-and-run. Therefore, when evaluating the claim that “There will be effectively 0 reason to BUY tanks under this proposal for mechs,” hit-and-runs are not the only things we can look at. As I already showed, mechs are better because they can take more hits and you lose less attack power for each hit you take. If you play a game where you never have to take a mech or a tank as a casualty, you are either extremely lucky or playing a very inexperienced player.

Every battle we are studying here is and thats what my claim has always been, tanks are better at mechs in hit and run with mixed force and combined arms. Again you want to argue about things nobody made claims about, then try to tie the conclusions of two different solutions together. This will not work.

So tanks and mechs are equal when attacking when only inf and /or arty are taking casualties, beyond that, mechs are better. The only possible exception is when the attacker has more tacs than ftrs, but this is rare. That’s why mechs are a better buy.

Beyond that? Oh you mean beyond “losing more in the exchange, which is not hit and run anyway and not subject to any claim i made or this study”. You would be more correct in stating that instead to be accurate.

I agree that it’s better to have tanks than mechs when there are tacs who do not have ftr pairs and the infantry/art have no chance of being burned through. But what does that have to do with the DECISION to BUY mechs or tanks when one is looking to buy 2-movement land units?

Then what are you arguing about? I made no other claims other than what i keep repeating.

You can have your little insignificant point. It really has no relevance to the issue I have been proving for pages, because for you point to matter , somehow a player will need to have squandered a good portion of the tac boosters he will have started out with,  and tac boosters (tanks and ftrs) are among the last units to be selected as hits in many battles). Your point is insignificant when choosing to buy tanks or mechs (note that I am not saying that tanks and mechs are the only purchase options, but when you want a 2 movement land unit, they are the
options).

If this where true we would not be here doing this. Clearly, i made my point and proved it and you still try to make arguments about claims nobody made in order to tie the conclusions together into a summary that nobody made any claims about.

[Imperious Leader]

You just don’t get it.

Why does one of them need to be defending? Aren’t we seeing who is a better hit-and-run ATTACKER?

It depends on the example. The ones we looked either showed that with mixed force with combined arms using hit and run tactics that:

1. sometimes tanks were better on defense
2. sometimes tanks were better on offense
3. sometimes whom did the attacking first determined which was better

Not once did the overall conclusion show that mechs did better than tanks: except it was possible under study #3.

Therefore, what i said was proven. I only said “hit and run” and Hit and run is only an attack which exchanges off infantry for mech, or more enemy units costing four, for my own units costing three and four.

In the scenarios you make, you have one Force 1 attacking while Force 2 is defending.

How do you see who is a better attacker when one is attacking and one is defending? How do you judge who is better between supporting with mechs or supporting with tanks when you have the variable combat value of bombers distorting the comparison?

WE saw in some studies that bombers made the attack stronger. Has nothing to do with tanks.

Why are you relying on the choices of the defender to see which force is a better attacker? Why do you assume that when you buy tanks the other player will automatically buy mechs? Why do you assume that when you have two bombers the other player will leave two bombers for you to attack? Why do you assume that the opposing player is ever going to present a large enough force to you for you to hit and run?

Why do you assume i ever made any claims. I just made examples showing how equal cost force pools in semi realistic looking types of battles can demonstrate that tank force is stronger in hit and run as long as i got good supply of combined arms and fodder for at least one hit.

Why do you determine who is better at hit-and run attacks by having one side attack and the other defend? If we are seeing how they ATTACK, shouldn’t we see how they ATTACK and not how they defend?

I do both: each side has a chance to attack and defend against its foe. This is a valid way of showing the math. I remember another example had the tanks as stronger on defense, than mech.

It just goes to show depending on how you set it up, you usually come out with tanks gaining an edge in most situations with mixed force and hit and run tactics than mech.

[Imperious Leader]

I am done trying to show mechs are better with mixed force in hit and run attacks. You proved your point many times, no matter how much I want to distract from it with having one force attack and one defend while saying tanks are better because they were benefiting from attacking bombers and other combined arms boosts while the mechs were fighting with no combined arms and fair less well in hit and run as was also proven.

I tend to agree and thats fine.

Anyone who can tie their shoes without assistance should be able to see that a system where tanks boosting tactical fighters are attackng at 3 and can blitz alone, there is zero reason to attempt to prove otherwise since its too obvious to anybody. because the only time mechs would be better than tanks is when there are no combined arms attacks for the tanks, or you dont have any artillery or bombers. tacs attacking without ftrs (or without tanks that started on the map), and this is rare.

Yes but this is not about anything except hit and run, something you demonstrated nothing about and kept harping on “if your in the desert with 2 tanks and the mechs came along and they fought to the death, who do you favor” and proceeded to twist the claims into entirely something nobody commented on or proved.

Otherwise, mechs are less or at best equal when attacking in hit-and-runs and worse in cases where something other than inf/art need to be taken. Overall mechs with 2 att and lone blitzing are statistically better than tanks cost-wise, Though i admit I’m trying to make this into a do or die battle and not a hit and run, because the math says tanks are better with mixed force and good combined arms in hit and run tactics, I am sorry i kept trying to change your point into making it seem that you were against mechs in a do or die situation whether or not my ego will permit me this.

Yes and i never once said mechs are not better than tanks in non-hit and run situations with or without combined arms bonuses.

If I want to believe otherwise that is my right, even though the math showed otherwise. I will continue to misrepresent, continue to commit dozens of ancillary arguments, though admittedly, know very well that mixed force of tanks in hit and run and good combined  arms is better than mechs as the study showed. and continue destroy any productivity and scientific validity of statistical analysis, I’m not done. I’m pretty sure that I am  just arguing to argue now; and my attempt to changing your idea to make this a scenario where you fight for longer duration or with examples of 100 infantry and 60 mechs and other realistic battles such as that, all failed since you stuck to your guns and kept me on track and proved that tanks are greater with mixed force in hit and run battles with good combined arms bonuses.

Well it just goes to show that math usually is best to show the fallacy in ideas.

[Duncan-O]

Mantlefan is right.  His methods are better…in any experiment, you test your control (tanks) and your variable (2/2/2/4/no boost mechs) under the same conditions (an identical defense).  Throwing four variables into a hat and stirring them up muddies the issue.

He’s not right about everything in this ever-broadening discussion, but about a 2/2/2/4/no boost Mech being a bad idea.  This makes them mini tanks, with both defensive and offensive punch-per-IPC equal to tanks, except now you have more units by buying mechs.

Hit-and-run or not, more units is pretty much always better.  This makes a 2/2/2/4/no boost Mech a better buy in pretty much any situation except for those rare ones when you have more tac bombers than fighters or tanks.

Of course there are situations like minor IPCs where production limits etc can be a factor, but when you boil all of this down, a 2/2/2/4/no boost mech is superior to the OOB/Alpha tank.

[Imperious Leader]

Mantlefan is right.  His methods are better…in any experiment, you test your control (tanks) and your variable (2/2/2/4/no boost mechs) under the same conditions (an identical defense).  Throwing four variables into a hat and stirring them up muddies the issue.

He’s not right about everything in this ever-broadening discussion, but about a 2/2/2/4/no boost Mech being a bad idea.  This makes them mini tanks, with both defensive and offensive punch-per-IPC equal to tanks, except now you have more units by buying mechs.

Hit-and-run or not, more units is pretty much always better.  This makes a 2/2/2/4/no boost Mech a better buy in pretty much any situation except for those rare ones when you have more tac bombers than fighters or tanks.

Of course there are situations like minor IPCs where production limits etc can be a factor, but when you boil all of this down, a 2/2/2/4/no boost mech is superior to the OOB/Alpha tank.

You have no idea what the study was about. It was about one and only one thing ONLY. To prove that with combined arms and mixed force, that tanks have the best overall value in hit and run tactics. Hit and run tactics are ONLY tactics where i am losing infantry and killing either infantry or more expensive units.

You fell in the same trap, by addressing the entire discussion as some study of “if you were on an island with just tanks against an equal force of mechs based on cost, who would win?” this is what Mantlefan kept sidetracking the study into after claiming that the area in bold would show that in a mixed force of mechs using hit and run tactics that the mech force would be stronger.

I NEVER ONCE MADE ANY CLAIM THAT TANKS WERE STRONGER THAN MECHS ALONE OR IN NORMAL " TO THE DEATH" COMBAT. This is what you didn’t get and why you just made the incorrect assumption of that the study was about or attempted to prove.

[Imperious Leader]

Here is another math based example how this is possible:

I agree its not realistic, but just to show the math how this works with combined arms…

Me attacking: ( this is hit and run and for this purpose its 1 round)

20 infantry, 20 artillery, 20 tanks, 20 tactical bombers= 220= 36 hits

40+40+60+80=220= 36 hits against mantle

Result and action:
Lose 20 infantry and 13 artillery, then retreat.

combat costs me: 60+52= 112 IPC one round

Mantlefan defending:

20 infantry, 20 artillery, 30 mech, 20 tactical bombers

40+40+60+60=200, or 33 hits

Result and action:
Mantlefan lost 36 units or

20 infantry, and 16 artillery, for a total of  60+64= 124 IPC lost.

So i killed 12 IPC worth of units more than him.

Another example:
Imperious:
5 infantry, 5 artillery, 6 tanks, 6 tactical bombers= 62

10+10+18+24=62

Mantlefan:
5 infantry, 5 artillery, 9 mech, 6 tactical bombers=58

10+10+18+18=58

I got +4 over him in first round, so probably en extra hit

The other issue is alot harder to quantify. It has to do with fighting in an area with lots of factories and land areas, like between Berlin and Moscow.

Having the tanks gives you flexibility to react and punch the defender with advantages, than what is possible with mechs. The combined arms will boost the tactical to 4, and the mech can’t get any fours because it has no combined arms aspect. Its hard to beat a bunch of twos with a bunch of twos and exchanging twos for twos on attack and defense. In this situation having alot of infantry defending against mechs on defense with tanks is stronger than mechs. The reason is because you can move a tank two spaces and it attacks at three, vs. a mech that has no combined arms ability moving at two. So with tanks you are moving more power ( combined with tactical fighters) a greater distance, than with mechs.  The planes moving four spaces can assist more tanks with greater efficiency than mechs, because these are now attacking at four, vs. three with mech.

The key is to make sure you got good coordination of this advantage or its wasted and mechs can be stronger.

Get out 12 infantry, 12 artillery, 6 tanks, 6 tactical bombers of two colors

One way of describing this scenario is to lay out equal IPC forces on a grid of 4x4. Each side divides up its force into thirds on the back file.  Separate and Place all your infantry and artillery in front and split in thirds. Let the force with tanks fight first and see how well their power reaches with greater efficiency. Repeat with mechs and see how they do.

[Duncan-O]

You have no idea what the study was about. It was about one and only one thing ONLY. To prove that with combined arms and mixed force, that tanks have the best overall value in hit and run tactics. Hit and run tactics are ONLY tactics where i am losing infantry and killing either infantry or more expensive units.

You fell in the same trap, by addressing the entire discussion as some study of “if you were on an island with just tanks against an equal force of mechs based on cost, who would win?” this is what Mantlefan kept sidetracking the study into after claiming that the area in bold would show that in a mixed force of mechs using hit and run tactics that the mech force would be stronger.

I NEVER ONCE MADE ANY CLAIM THAT TANKS WERE STRONGER THAN MECHS ALONE OR IN NORMAL " TO THE DEATH" COMBAT. This is what you didn’t get and why you just made the incorrect assumption of that the study was about or attempted to prove.

I didn’t fall into any trap.  I don’t think anybody is trying to make any claims about “all tanks against all mechs” on an island or anywhere else.  Nobody’s accusing you of making claims you’re not making, either.  I understand what you’re trying to say; you’re just wrong and the methods you’re relying on to prove your point are flawed.

I’m not sure why you keep lining up a tank-based force against a “Mantlefan’s mechs”-based force in these mythical situations where players have 97 thousand tac bombers and mysteriously no fighters or tanks to back them up.  As Mantlefan pointed out somewhere, this just wouldn’t happen.  Furthermore, nobody is trying to make any arguments that deny the existence of the tac-bomber bonus, so I don’t know why you keep leaning on that to prove your point.  Of course you want combined arms to back each other up, no matter if it’s hit-and-run OR “to the death” combat.

And yet again, you’re lining up these forces against each other (and not against an third TBD defending force, as the scientific method would call for) and rattling off hit numbers that don’t mean anything.  These other units you’re introducing into the fray have different attack and defense values, so you’re adding variables that do nothing but confuse the issue and make your data meaningless.  If you’re only trying to prove your point about hit-and-run, why are you using defense numbers to bolster your argument?

ALL I’m saying (and once you cut through all the noise, I think Mantlefan is trying to say) is that a 2/2/2/4/no boost mech is a terrible idea.  Here’s why:

IF you already have enough tanks or fighters to back up the dozens of tac bombers that all players just have lying around[/sarcasm], there would be no reason to buy any more tanks, EVER, barring circumstances like forward minor ICs etc.  A 2/2/2/4/no boost mech is equal, punch-per-IPC, to a tank.  Being cheaper than tanks, it’s cheaper to lose them (and you’ll have more left alive) when your opponent’s 42 tac bombers score the same number of hits regardless if they’re facing tanks or mechs or whatever.

Even if they are just “a bunch of twos”, as you say, 48 IPCs worth of these mechs is statistically as likely to deal the same number of hits (4) as 48 IPCs of tanks.  Please remember, I’m assuming that the apparently all-important and almighty tac bomber bonus is covered, since I’ve never seen a situation when it wasn’t.  This makes a 2/2/2/4/no boost mech equally strong as a tank per IPC, but a superior buy since you get 1.5x more of them for that buy.

Thus, a 2/2/2/4/no boost mech is a SUPERIOR unit to purchase instead of a tank in 99% of foreseeable, real-life situations, and thus is a terrible idea.

[knp7765]

Here is a couple of ideas regarding mechs:
1.  Keep them at 1-2-2-4 and able to be boosted by attacking artillery on a 1:1 ratio, but let them blitz on their own, without having to have an accompanying tank.

2. Call them Armored Infantry and increase their values to 2-2-2-5 with no artillery boost and have the ability to blitz by themselves.  This way the cost difference between them and tanks wouldn’t be so great which I think is part of the problem people are having with this idea.  Also, this could be a Tech Improvement to mechs.

[Imperious Leader]

Thus, a 2/2/2/4/no boost mech is a SUPERIOR unit to purchase instead of a tank in 99% of foreseeable, real-life situations, and thus is a terrible idea.

Except for hit and run attacks and this ‘phantom’ 99% number, because hit and run with mixed force of tanks and plenty of combined arms is nearly always superior to mechs. And this alone was the only point i was proving, so you went back to the ‘trap’ of labeling the study into some tanks vs mechs in standard combat situations.

If tanks have strong combined arms component they win against mech (using these proposed numbers like more than 50% of the time).

Any other point brought up holds no value because his point was to prove that in any situation mechs are stronger, and they aren’t.

BUT tanks need to be stronger in every situation no matter what, so in terms of fight to the death situations, i advocate mechs are boosted by just tanks at 2 attack, but they now gain a 2 move no matter what.

Now you got infantry and artillery as a pair and mech and tanks as a supporting pair.

Now order is restored, except that tanks should be also boosted by either fighters or tactical to four’s

Here is a couple of ideas regarding mechs:
1.  Keep them at 1-2-2-4 and able to be boosted by attacking artillery on a 1:1 ratio, but let them blitz on their own, without having to have an accompanying tank.

Fixed Artillery has nothing to boost for armored cars and half-tracks. if they did then they should boost tanks too.

2. Call them Armored Infantry and increase their values to 2-2-2-5 with no artillery boost and have the ability to blitz by themselves.  This way the cost difference between them and tanks wouldn’t be so great which I think is part of the problem people are having with this idea.  Also, this could be a Tech Improvement to mechs.

This might need to be a 2-3-2-5 unit instead, at 2-2-2-5 people would not buy them because spending 1 IPC gets +1 attack and +1 defense.

[Duncan-O]

Except for hit and run attacks and this ‘phantom’ 99% number, because hit and run with mixed force of tanks and plenty of combined arms is nearly always superior to mechs. And this alone was the only point i was proving, so you went back to the ‘trap’ of labeling the study into some tanks vs mechs in standard combat situations.

If tanks have strong combined arms component they win against mech (using these proposed numbers like more than 50% of the time).

Any other point brought up holds no value because his point was to prove that in any situation mechs are stronger, and they aren’t.

No I didn’t.  No no no no no.

And when you talk about combined arms, you’re really talking about the tac bomber bonus.  And the examples you have given regarding this are bunk.

I can see that the ground on which you’re attempting to stand is exactly the size and shape of a split hair, so I can tell this is going nowhere.