Larry's new tank rules for Global 1940 Alpha Beta

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

SO tanks with lots of combined arms and mixed force employing hit and run tactics are weaker than mechs?

Prove it. You cant. And don’t try and prove something else. We are only dealing with this topic.

you’re really talking about the tac bomber bonus.

Tanks only can boost these and their is nothing wrong with that. If you got enough bonuses no equal force of mechs ( and not tanks) can win in an overall comparison. That is all i was proving and nothing more, so if you are arguing with that, i can’t help you.

Congratulations IL, you have proven that tanks are superior as long as they use hit and run tactics with mixed force and have plenty of combined arms.That much is clear in all these posts and im sorry it took me 50 posts to get that.

I knew i was right

Your point’s validity requires that  1. the opponent give themselves up to you for you to hit-and-run, 2. that there are 0 aa gun hits when you do attack, 3.  that it be impossible that the attacker could ever take hits beyond inf/art, and  4. That every battle you do involving tanks or mechs is a hit-and-run.

Give themselves up? Laughable. Nobody is strong everywhere, if they were the game would be never played more than once. AA guns are not in every area and they don’t always hit, Hit and run tactics are not ones where you lose tanks to infantry ( how many times i need to tell you this)

So what this boils down too is you just can’t let down the fact that exactly what i said is exactly correct in the situation as described. Tanks are better!  All your fireworks were some poor attempt to make what i said something else and attempt to prove that, while avoiding the TRUTH which i knew all along.  I only make claims that i am sure of.

Let’s play a game like that where you follow the rules you set for yourself.  I guarantee you will lose.

Save the trouble, just use any of the examples. Math is easy

You MIGHT have an opportunity for a large hit-and-run, IF your opponent wants to give themselves up to you. If you want to WIN (and are playing an opponent who isn’t totally new), it’s MUCH more common to need to have a battle to the death  than some giant hit-and-run.  Are you really so arrogant to think you can pick the moves of your opponent so your asinine strategies can be “proven” “right”
?

Here we go again making claims about things i never said. I not once addressed “fight to the death” this rather is another one of your inventions to show mechs are better, while i made no claims about this form of combat and you know it.

So even though your point was proven, why does it matter to the game?

Why not ask that question 10 pages ago instead of trying to prove that mech are better in hit and run situations if the other side has combined arms?

Even if you can have the satisfaction of being “right,” why should anyone care? Why is your point significant enough in scope to have any strategic impact on a game where mechs would att at 2 and could blitz alone? Will players (who are reasonably good) be making a good move when BUYING tanks?

I don’t know why don’t you ask yourself the same question. I innocently made the comment thinking it was common knowledge, then you tried to prove otherwise and failed.

So even if you are right in these absurd situations your mind has cooked up, is that significant enough for anyone to BUY tanks under an att 2/lone blitz mech system?

I think it is because i use hit and run with regularity, since i don’t like my tanks exposed on the front line. Do you?

You keep talking about claims no one ever made and how you don’t have to defend what you didn’t say. Look a few pages back!

Quote from: mantlefan on March 13, 2011, 03:35:40 pm
If mechs are 2-2-2-4 and can blitz alone there will be 0 reason to buy tanks outside of having to make sure you spend all of your cash the turn before your capital is taken.

Your response:

Quote from: Imperious Leader on March 13, 2011, 06:02:45 pm
Sure they will be because tanks are 3-3 units and infantry defend at 2 so to overcome the deficit you need a greater value and fodder to back up the attack.

Tanks are the best hit and run unit available. If you want to send a bunch of two’s attacking two’s you will likely be trading a 4 for a 3, but if you bring tanks, artillery, and infantry as well as mech you can hit and run while weakening the defender each turn till he falls.

Well you just said zero reason, then admit in the attacks of mixed force with tanks and combined arms, that tanks are better!  Hows that for ignorant.

If anything the game teaches that you must have a combined arms component to win battles. Stacks of just one type of unit will cost a player more, except as pure defense per IPC spent which still makes infantry King.

So you did make the claim that there is still good reason to buy tanks. It’s right there. Defend it, admit you’re wrong, or just shut up. Why should anyone BUY tanks? You say you don’t have defend claims you didn’t make. Fine. There’s a claim you did make. cheesy

Infantry is king on DEFENSE ONLY. Tanks with mixed force and plenty of combined arms and fodder are king in hit and run tactics. See easy defense. Both are best in their element. I guess for you everything must be the best in every situation?  Again, i just think you know i am right all along just want to turn the argument into something else in a vain attempt to make it false. Too bad for you that i understand what i said and don’t sway into these stupid tricks.  I just keep defending the central point which you already admit is true so you argue about other things in order to hide the truth about what i really said. I guess you prefer smoke and mirrors to truth?

You have your narrow useless point that is only relevant when a player is going out of their way to buy a stupid amount of tacs or be stupid and not send in ftrs with the tacs, , but when it comes to issues that are significant in scope to the actual game (rather than your delusions), you have NOTHING. cheesy

If it was a useless narrow point, why waste my time arguing about it for 10 pages? It should be self evident of what i said was beyond this study. IN terms of the actual scope of the GAME, it is magnified since the battles i fight are not with EQUAL IPC FORCES. IN all cases i have the advantage and its large. The tanks slash these small defending stacks because i bring all the pieces and retreat so as not to expose my tanks to counters, i bring up rearguard infantry to restock the fodder, regroup and use the same tactic again.

You might try it sometime?

Why should anyone BUY tanks when they already have more than enough tanks and ftrs to boost their tacs?

Because in one example fighters can assist SBR as escorts, or used on carriers somewhere else. Tactical bombers are specifically for killing land and naval targets used with either tanks or fighters

Since tanks are costing 6 and fighters cost 10, their is not enough fighters to go around.  How else would you employ hit and run tactics? What units would you use? Tanks, not mech and use the combined arms that mech dont have.

Quote from: Imperious Leader on March 13, 2011, 06:02:45 pm
Prove it. You cant. And don’t try and prove something else. We are only dealing with this topic.

Why are you the fuehrer of discussion? Perhaps it’s because you realized you were wrong about all the other claims you made except for your narrow useless point where there are a half-dozen tacs but no ftrs? Which power starts out with 6 tacs and 0 ftrs?

Prove it. You cant. And don’t try and prove something else. We are only dealing with this topic.  In terms of an example this 6 tactical fighter nonsense is just another deflection…. from the truth. Not unlike the famous gaff in another thread: “30-50% of a decade ago”  when you really tried to inflate the numbers ( as usual) to make the other sides point look false. You know nobody said the game was cut in time by up to 50%, I clearly said 33%-35%. But you used 50% to make my claim look suspect, then tried to backtrack and said you meant when i said i played these rules since 2004, that  it was “last played 30-50% of a decade ago”  Since we both know this is you backtracking because any normal person would say “since back in 2004” rather than this ridiculous way of expression: “30%-50% of a decade ago”.

Here is yet another simple math example:

you defending : 2 infantry, 2 artillery, 3 mech, 2 tactical= 4+4+6+6=20

me attacking : 2 infantry, 2 artillery, 2 tanks, 2 tactical=4+4+6+8=22

You see i win again!  I can’t make this any more easier for you. If you want to continue to argue ideas that no claim was made about:

I don’t want to see any of your common deflection arguments like these:

1. your on desert island and make love to either tank or mech. which is it?
2. you fight to the death: which is better?
3. You buy roses. Do you buy them for the tanks or mechs?

They have nothing do do with the topic.

Don’t tell us what we can and cannot discuss. We are breaking no rules by proving that a 2-2-2-4 mech that can blitz alone makes tanks pointless to buy. Just because you are right when there are 10 tacs and 0 ftrs (which never happens) doesn’t mean there is any applicability of that point.

What another deflection? OH and this WE thing. Is that another attempt at the same?  it would not make tanks pointless to buy, since it was proven that with combined arms, you can beat an equal force of mechs.

I think just under the proposed scenario, that all units have purpose and a value in different situations.

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.

No it wasn’t till you started to disagree that tanks were better in hit and run with combined arms with mixed force. Then realized that i was right, you tried to change the arguments into some do or die battle with tanks and mechs or various other shenanigans to make the math fuzzy.

Check the thread when you entered and started the problems.

Reply #69 on: March 14, 2011, 08:09:10 am »
Reply with quoteQuote Modify messageModify Remove messageRemove Split TopicSplit Topic
With 2-2-2-4 Mechs that can blitz by themselves;

When buying a tank, you get 50% more punch for 50% more IPCs than a mech. So they are even in that regard.

The difference is, you get MORE mechs for the same amount of money. When you buy tanks you are paying more to do the same amount of damage BUT being able to take less hits, which means you won’t be firing as many times, which means in the long run you are severely handicapping yourself.

It’s not a matter of opinion. If you don’t believe me type “Statisitical analysis” into google and see for yourself.

Even if hitting and running, I’d take 6 mechs over 4 tanks any day. You get the same odds to hit for the same cost, BUT you can take more hits, and when you take a hit, you lose lower cost units.

You may think 4 tanks hit more often than 6 mechs, but probability says you’re wrong.

If you buy a tank (or 2 tanks over 3 mechs, rather), you are paying for nothing better, you only sacrifice hits you can take.

I suppose one possible exception is when you have a ton of IPCs but not enough factory capacity to spend them at, in which case tanks may be acceptable then, but nearly all of the time, buying tanks instead 2-2-2-4 independent blitzing mechs is just stupid if you’re looking to win.

With this post you indicated that “even with hit and run mechs are better than tanks”. I proved this to be otherwise with many examples and you just come up with silly posts about all sorts of items that don’t deal with that fact.

I just stood by my knowledge that in a number of cases this is not true at all, and tanks have much to offer even with the change.

….irrelevant examples and errors in basic arithmetic.

I guess this is factually incorrect then right?

Here is yet another simple math example:

you defending : 2 infantry, 2 artillery, 3 mech, 2 tactical= 4+4+6+6=20

me attacking : 2 infantry, 2 artillery, 2 tanks, 2 tactical=4+4+6+8=22

Why not try to show how this math is wrong, then to make claims?

Oh and if you want to make the “hey he deliberately left out fighters so i cant win argument”

Here it is again. Knock your socks off…

you defending : 2 infantry, 2 artillery, 3 mech, 2 tactical, 1 fighter, 1 bomber= 4+4+6+6+5=25

me attacking : 2 infantry, 2 artillery, 2 tanks, 2 tactical, 1 fighter, 1 bomber=4+4+6+8+7=29

now i increased my advantage to FOUR.

And this is a realistic combat situation, so don’t label what mantlefan usually puts up like 100 infantry, 60 mechs, etc… for his examples.

Mantlefans attempt at providing a realistic combat example:

Lets say we have some amount of infantry, 100. Let’s say also we can choose between (it really doesn’t matter what amount, some are more easily divisible however) 240 IPCs of Tanks or Mechs under your system

Situation 1: 100 infantry, 40 tanks
Situation 2: 100 infantry, 60 mechs
Situation 3: 100 infantry, 20 tanks, 30 mechs

(Artillery will only complicate this as we are looking at what the differences between MECHS and TANKS are, in all honesty we don’t even need infantry to illustrate this point, I just put them in so you could see that)

Let’s say they fight 130 infantry (the number doesn’t matter as long as it’s constant between all three scenarios and is enough to feasibly get past the infantry)

Against 130 inf:
100 inf, 40 tanks: Win 80% (avg ipc loss: 408)
100 inf, 60 mechs: Win 94% (avg ipc loss: 376)
100 inf, 30m, 20t: Win 91% (avg ipc loss: 376)

Against 135 inf:
100 inf, 40 tanks: Win 55% (avg ipc loss: 468)
100 inf, 60 mechs: Win 80% (avg ipc loss: 424)
100 inf, 30m, 20t: Win 74% (avg ipc loss: 420)

Against 140 inf:
100 inf, 40 tanks: Win 29% (avg ipc loss: 510)
100 inf, 60 mechs: Win 58% (avg ipc loss: 472)
100 inf, 30m, 20t: Win 47% (avg ipc loss: 474)

Posted from Knp7790:

Mantlefan, all of your formulas, statistical probabilities and examples are just a bunch of nonsense.  I mean, who ever comes up with these huge forces you are making up –- 100 inf, 20 art, 5 fighters & tacs, etc. vs. 150 inf and 10 fighters?  You would have to do nothing but just build up for 3 or 4 rounds to get such forces.  What’s happening on the rest of the game board?  Maybe you were just using these numbers as an example to work with, but realistically it just doesn’t happen during normal game play.

It’s very simple.  Tanks hit at 3 and Mechs hit at 2.  If you want a stronger punch in your attack, you get some tanks.  If you want a few more numbers, or to take over some unopposed territories, you get some mechs.  I don’t care about your silly probability formulas that say this many tanks will hit at X percent but this many mechs will hit at Y percent.  Those numbers only apply to those massive made-up forces you were using as examples.  In regular game play, we are looking at much smaller numbers working WITH other types of units.
Also, each unit type has different characteristics and abilities so they ALL have a place on the board.  Granted, if we give Mechs the ability to blitz themselves, then tanks do lose a LITTLE of their own prestige as blitzing units.  However, they still have a stronger punch at 3 so they still have their place.  If you want to not buy tanks anymore in favor of 2 hit Mechs, then that is your choice.  I will still get both, depending on the needs of my battles

I guess IL must be right because there are SO many powers that start out with more tacs than ftrs.

Another deflection?  Why not state: "IL is right four nations have at least 2 tactical fighters, so in his example of 2 tanks and 3 mech he is still right since most of the major powers have these units.:

you defending : 2 infantry, 2 artillery, 3 mech, 2 tactical, 1 fighter, 1 bomber= 4+4+6+6+5=25

me attacking : 2 infantry, 2 artillery, 2 tanks, 2 tactical, 1 fighter, 1 bomber=4+4+6+8+7=29

Yes so many that have 2 tactical and 1 fighter. Lets see…

Germany
UK
Japan
USA

Italy and Soviet Union need to just buy one tactical to have two.

Already a majority of the principle nations have two tactical.

The point is much more effective than “hey dude i got 140 infantry, 60 tanks against 140 infantry and 90 mechs nonsense”  So again i wonder which example is harder to get in a real game?

Yours or mine?  Nice try however.

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.

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.