Larry's new tank rules for Global 1940 Alpha Beta

[Imperious Leader]

So tacs never travel with an equal ftrs even though every nation has more ftrs than tacs (except Ger, who has EQUAL, not less ftrs than tacs)? In reality there are MORE ftrs than tacs.

Never travel? I guess about as many times as i might fight a hit and run with examples using exactly equal IPC, but thats usually like NEVER. The actual battles have even greater advantages.

I like to use all my pieces in different ways depending on the situation and never once utter “proclamations” that i would never do this or never do that or never buy tanks because it usually means somebody else can make an example that clearly shows situations ( and common ones at that) where it was mistake to ever utter the word “NEVER”.

Why are all these tacs magically flying around without the ftrs that begin paired (at least) with them? That is not a deflection. For your point to be valid, you need to show that tacs flying without ftrs occurs often, otherwise your situations where tacs are flying around without ftrs are just magic unrealistic scenarios fabricated to “prove” your useless argument.

Magic you say? Like Houdini?  I guess you don’t use the SBR rules in your games?  You bring tactical fighters costing +1 IPC as bomber escorts?

Or do you only fight battles where both sides have exactly the same IPC?

I think you understand that having a 6 IPC unit boosting a tactical bomber is more EFFICIENT, than a 10 IPC fighter boosting a tactical bomber?  Either that or someone has not been paying attention in math class.

So what if your point exists? Why does it MATTER?

It seems to matter to you because you keep trying to show its false, when i repeated prove that wrong with math, so your left with emptying the kitchen sink of screwball ideas as a last resort?

I agree that tanks are better in magical situations where there are for some reason less ftrs than tacs AND it’s an attack where only inf/art will be lost AND the only battles the tanks will ever fight will be battles where 0 tanks ever have a chance of being lost.

But Magic does not exist. You see you still can’t accept the conclusion. You need value added words to make things look more phantom and impossible. Impossible like situations in the recent example of 2 tactical bombers and 1 fighter. How impossible is that?

Most situations will be my planes attacking with tanks in areas where the defender does not even have a single plane. Hit and run is often used to hit weak points with great units, so as to exact maximum damage and retreat without exposing these good units to counters.

But what’s better in REALITY?

The difference between my  example and yours is that you can divide mine by 2 or multiply by 7, the RATIO is still realistic. Yours are unrealistic because it is based on a ratio of tacs to ftrs that doesn’t exist and has little chance of existing.

NO one example is a plausible combat example with as few units as possible, your example is for barbarian hordes of forces that could never exist and also ones where you deliberately remove the combined arms component to make the examples weaker. I at least add various examples of all the units.

Its not impossible no matter how much you protest to have a situation of 2 tactical fighters and 1 fighter used in combat.

The minimum example would be 2 tanks and 3 mech due to the way you need to set up the math so the IPC are equal.

MY examples show the typical units used in these battles and the results are proven true.

[Imperious Leader]

You keep distracting away from any claim relevant to the actual game and retreating back into the one insiginifcant point you have that holds some water, so I’l help you out.

When mechs attack at 2 (w/o arty) and can blitz alone, what is the point of BUYING tanks when every power STARTS with more tac boosters (tanks and ftrs) than tacs?

LMFAO!!!  I am not distracting about anything. I made a statement about tanks being better with mixed force using hit and run tactics and combined arms, for 10 pages you attempted to argue against this truth with “distractions” about things that nobody made a claim about, namely either insane examples of 100 Infantry, 60 tanks, or fight to the death, or your in a cardboard box and “have 2 tanks or three mech, which you like”

It is you that argue about items i never made a claim about, then try to make it seem like id take tanks over mechs in any type of combat. It is you that constantly bring in these “you brought in more tacs than fighters, thats magic or impossible”, Or “you know mechs are better and nobody would ever never buy tanks for any reason”… These are your own salient points that are not for discussion, but you like to use them nonetheless. I guess thats the only option left for you to ignore and deflect the issue since entering this thread.

The only situations where tanks are superior are when the attacker has less ftrs than tacs. Don’t forget though, that many powers start out with tanks, so even if tanks are necessary to boost, what then is the point of BUYING tanks?

Well, not true either. I could have bombers too? Perhaps you want to say when i have less combined arms units which is not often against mechs, since mechs have no combined arms component and tanks do.  I can have bombers and win. I can have lots of fighters on attack and boosting the tactical.

Here is another example…sigh…

you defending : 4 infantry, 2 artillery, 3 mech, 2 tactical, 3 fighter, 1 bomber= 8+4+6+6+12+1=37

me attacking : 2 infantry, 2 artillery, 3 tanks, 2 tactical, 3 fighter, 1 bomber=4+4+9+8+9+4=38

You see i just busted another one of your misconceptions. More fighters than tactical.

Now i guess you got to go back to the drawing board and refine your ideas? Or you want to bring up another nonsense issue?

Mechs with 2 att and lone blitzing make it pointless to buy tanks. I have never said any different.

Thats good, so showing situations where the tanks fair better and blowing out your idea about “hey dude you rigged it so their are less fighters”, or hey i got this kitchen sink argument that i want to throw out…

Just give it a rest. 10 pages of arguing about something you should have caught on about and was clearly evident from the get go, is just too much.

[Imperious Leader]

This has nothing to do with one person buying tanks while the other is forced to buy mechs because the first person bought tanks. Why does one person have tanks when the other has mechs? Why is one attacking and one defending when we are seeing who is a better attacker?

Right it has nothing to do with black holes either or any other issues other than to show in this latest example that having more fighters than tactical bombers is not an argument to demonstrate that the only time where tanks using hit and run and combined arms are greater than mechs. It shows that with equal forces if one side had tanks and the other mechs , that the tanks are better in hit and run with combined arms. You said players would have ZERO reason to buy tanks. I just gave you many examples that showed how tanks are better and all you can now do is dance around this with kitchen sink ideas. You start with one idea, i prove that wrong. You send up another idea, i prove that wrong too.

You make silly statements that “hey dude your idea only works when you got more tacs than fighters.”

Then when I shoot that down, you start with bombers?

Next you will just start with “dude you got tanks in the battle… not fair”

All you proved is that bombers have a higher attack value than a defense value. Such genius!

No i proved you wrong yet again… I proved that you don’t need more tactical fighters than fighters, Before that i proved that tanks are better using hit and run tactics and combined arms, Before that i proved that to say their is zero reason to buy tanks is a stupid statement, because clearly in some situations they are better.

Look at this example, this is no different fundamentally from what you are doing:

My 3 inf 3 art 3 mechs 1 ftr 1 tac 7 bombers

attacking your

3 inf 3 art 4 tanks 1 ftr 1 tac 7 bombers

Attacker: 6+6+6+3+4 +28=53

Defender: 6+6+12+4+3+7=38

53 to 38! Wow mechs are great! You are so wrong!

No different? 7 bombers? really? Yea thats a typical example ( for you)

It only proves that in some situations tanks are better, others mech are. BUT ITS NOT A CASE OF HAVING PLENTY OF COMBINED ARMS FOR TANKS!!!.

I said like 1,000,000 before that in situations of hit and run with good combined arms that tanks are better than mechs. All you proved yet again was about something i didn’t say anything about and tried yet again to make an argument where you deliberately avoid the prerequisite to such a battle: you either say its fight to the death, or don’t have an example using many combined arms. Since its not the type of example i was making claims about their is no need to address it.

You clearly made a NON-combined arms example.

See, even though there are MORE tanks than mechs, the mechs are still so much better! I have proven everything you have said wrong through my superb scientific analysis with a proper approach to variable manipulation necessary for empirical study!  rolleyes

Again you didn’t employ combined arms. The fact that you cant face the reality of the actual example thats very realistic in gameplay conditions ( unlike 7 bombers nonsense).

But you see thats all you have been doing this entire time. Just arguing with self evident examples since you can’t find holes in them. You just ignore them and try to make new examples like 7 bombers. I just gave you an example that had more fighters than tactical, when for 10 pages you harped about “dude not realistic …too many tactical”

you defending : 4 infantry, 2 artillery, 3 mech, 2 tactical, 3 fighter, 1 bomber= 8+4+6+6+12+1=37

me attacking : 2 infantry, 2 artillery, 3 tanks, 2 tactical, 3 fighter, 1 bomber=4+4+9+8+9+4=38

now which is more common?

mine above or this crap:

My 3 inf 3 art 3 mechs 1 ftr 1 tac 7 bombers

attacking your

3 inf 3 art 4 tanks 1 ftr 1 tac 7 bombers

[Imperious Leader]

Does it matter? My point (as you naturally in your ignorance missed) is that having one side with attacking bombers and one side with defending distorts the comparison and makes meaningful comparison meaningless. Do you know what this symbol means:  rolleyes

Oh so this is your kitchen sink idea? So when you back off the silly nonsense of "hey dude what you say has no relevance because you got more tactical bombers than fighters, now since that failed, its become " hey dude you added one bomber, not fair!

Just come off it. I proved the point long ago and you just can’t let go. I proved this with real examples and not 7 bomber examples, or 100 infantry and 60 tank examples.

1. If you want a meaningful comparison, pick a defense.
2. Then pick an attacking force without mechs or tanks (since all powers have at least as many ftrs as tacs, there’s no reason to have more tacs than ftrs in the comparison, unless you are purposely avoiding throwing in that extra 3 to give yourself less hits. It’s called logic.)
3. Then, to that attacking force, add 2X tanks. That’s group A. Take the same attacking force from step 2, and add 3X mech (with 2 attack of course), that’s group B
Have Group A attack the defense
Have Group B attack the same defense

I gave you many examples of which all proved my points. YOU really need to address them first, then to reach in the bag of kitchen sink ideas and pull out another busted idea.

The only person who is perpetually making silly examples is you.  I didn’t make this example that had more tacs. It had more fighters! Instead of ignoring the truth, how bout you actually address the example given?

Here it is:

you defending : 4 infantry, 2 artillery, 3 mech, 2 tactical, 3 fighter, 1 bomber= 8+4+6+6+12+1=37

me attacking : 2 infantry, 2 artillery, 3 tanks, 2 tactical, 3 fighter, 1 bomber=4+4+9+8+9+4=38

Even if you want to say that tacs can be without ftrs (just because it’s possible doesn’t mean it’s LIKELY), is that common enough to warrant BUYING tanks? What about when we think about the tanks that powers ALREADY HAVE at the start?

You really want the cake and eat it too? First i have more tactical than fighters… you complain saying its impossible

Now i got more fighters than tactical… you still complain saying its impossible.

You are really funny!

is that common enough to warrant BUYING tanks?

You said their is zero reason to buy them. I maintain that in some situations they are better than mech. This is one such example. You may not like to be proven wrong so many times, but unlike you i am more flexible in saying only what i know. I am very specific and you want to make general statements, as if my idea is less correct because in others forms of combat tanks are not the best.

So just accept that ( not by magic) that tanks are better in hit and run with combined arms and not with more tactical than fighters, or some other gibberish. In do or die situations mech may be better, but i was not talking about these situations. To make blanket statements like “zero reason to buy tanks” is asinine. There are specific situations where tanks are clearly better than mechs.

You may not understand or accept that but its the truth.

What do you think is a realistic percentage of battles in a game that will be 1. Hit and run,

Every time i use my tanks unless its for the defense of my capital or the capture of the enemy capital, i usually employ hit and run with tanks. I use planes for small do or die battles.

2. There is 0 chance of the attacker losing anything beyond inf and art,

The same chance that i will totally hit everything and the defender will miss everything, close to 5%  I often use tanks when i got great odds,not ones where i will lose tanks. Remember i buy both mechs and tanks so you left them out  in your example ( mechs)

3. The defender will get 0 aa hits,

What a stupid statement! The defender has just as much reason to lose planes if attacked by mechs and planes or tanks and planes. So why don’t you advocate to not buy planes either? Jesus.

4. there will be more tac than ftrs plus tanks (that the player started with)? Take a realistic guess. Do you still think it’s worth it to BUY tanks?

Very common. I use tactical and tanks for land combat, in naval i use fighters and tactical. This is because tanks cant fight naval, and tanks boost tactical for a 6 IPC unit, so its less efficient to use a 10 IPC fighter to do the same thing.

Yes its worth buying tanks anything else? Its worth buying all the different units and not just one type. It DEPENDS ON THE SITUATION. Something clearly beyond your scope of understanding.

[Imperious Leader]

If the situation is something that happens 0.1% of the time against a good player, I guess it does depend on the situation.

That might be true, except you must be using a % of some other occurrence, rather than what we are talking about, which is hit and run operations with tanks and mixed force with combined arms. These are like 30%-50% of a decade of my battles.

Fact is that there are already more than enough tac boosters on the board for every power, and if tanks aren’t boosting tacs, it’s better to have 50% more mechs with 2 att than those tanks with 3 attack.

It might be in do or die battles or battles with no fodder. I don’t leave my tanks to be slaughtered. They are protected. I use tactical bombers in my land combat since i got tanks, its more efficient. I guess you don’t. But i never said anything about these types of battles. Thats your own discourse.

Buying tanks is pointless in your system under all but the most extreme situations. Since you edited your proposal to have mechs with 1 attack it’s obvious you agree with me, but your ego just can’t admit it.

I guess by extreme situations you really mean typical hit and run battles, where intelligently you prepared the units to attack so as to maximize their effectiveness. If thats what you call extreme, then fine.  AS far as ego’s keep bringing in more of those 7 bomber examples, and keep saying “extreme”, “.001%”, “Never buy tanks for any reason” You might find happiness that ridiculous statements can be rewarded with some measure of comfort knowing you were proven wrong, but still struggle against phantoms and can use such narrow minded black and white propositions.

Since the new member doesn’t seem to put off by your rudeness and and ignorance I will take a step back so you can roll around in that pile of filth of yours that you might be tempted call an intellect.

Ok Kettle you got it.  if thats how you know your arguments failed, so be it. Leave with some dignity.

[M7574]

OMG!  I can’t believe you two are still going at it.  I have two suggestions:

1. conduct this blood-fued via PM.  I can’t speak for everyone, but I doubt anybody is reading all this.

2. play each other.  2 games simutaneously, with each of you getting a game as the axis and the allies.  Now THAT would command peoples attention.  Unless one of you fears your intellect will be exposed in this manor :wink:

[Imperious Leader]

Its not a “blood feud”. I should be merely an exploration of how tanks would fair under a system where you changed the mech. So it’s predicated on a new type of mech unit that does not even exist.

So if you had normal tanks vs a new mech that was 2-2-2-4 and was not boosted by artillery, in what situations would the tank still come out better.

I just proved that in hit and run attacks, using combined arms with mixed force, your tank force can defeat a mech force since the mechs dont boost and tanks still boost tactical.

THAT WAS MY ONLY POINT, AND THIS MANTLEFAN HAS ARGUED AGAINST THIS SIMPLE SELF EVIDENT IDEA FOR 9+ PAGES!

The math examples just show that unlike claims of .01% or NEVER buy tanks, that if you had a 2-2-2-4 mech unit that could blitz on its own.

The provided examples show that in these situations the tanks win. Mantlefan tries to make many counterarguments that don’t hold water, but he likes to try.

With the last of his kitchen sink ideas, we arrive here. Now i suppose mantlefan will attempt to show that i insulted you ( since thats all he’s left with) or try to make you his buddy and use the word “we” alot or whatever means and gimmicks he uses to avoid the actual point and counterpoint.

He claims he will “take a break from this conversation”, but we all know thats temporary.

[Koningstiger]

@mantlefan:

@dadler12:

wasn’t this thread about discussing the proposed new tank rule?

It was until IL derailed it with a comment that mechs should have 2 attack without artillery and should be able to blitz alone.

The reality is that that would mean the only tanks that would be used by anyone would be tanks that start on the board.

That’s exactly what’s happening to my MECH units now. So in my opinion they DO need to be changed, but NOT have a standrad to attack. I’d like them to keep the values they have now (better for game balance, as far as realism is concerned a “2” attack would actually be more befitting) but add the Blitzing capability.

[dadler12]

@M7574:

OMG!  I can’t believe you two are still going at it.  I have two suggestions:

1. conduct this blood-fued via PM.  I can’t speak for everyone, but I doubt anybody is reading all this.

2. play each other.  2 games simutaneously, with each of you getting a game as the axis and the allies.  Now THAT would command peoples attention.  Unless one of you fears your intellect will be exposed in this manor :wink:

I don’t mean to be rude, or to start a fight with anybody, but I have to agree here.  Can you guys battle it out on a separate thread and leave this one for the purpose for which it was created, to discuss the new changes to tanks.  It’s like two kids in a schoolyard.

[Imperious Leader]

If you read the last couple of posts, you might conclude that it was finished.

And as was explained the entire discussion is about a unit that does not exist, a 2-2-2-4 mech that can blitz alone. To play online with this new idea would require some programming?

I ask because i never play online.