Larry's new tank rules for Global 1940 Alpha Beta

If mechs are 2-2-2-4 and can blitz alone there will be 0 reason to buy tanks

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.

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.

remember to consider the mech a 2-2-2-4 unit with no boost from artillery.

No this:

1. They attack at 2, artillery does not boost them +1 making it a 3.
2. They can blitz without a tank.

So what you got is a artillery unit in ( in terms of stats) but moving 2 spaces and not boosting anything. (Net change: trading +1 attack boost for movement +1 )

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.

NO when you buy a combination of units ( combined arms) and perform hit and run attacks ( e.g. attacking as long as you are trading your infantry, for defenders mechs) you cause more damage than having one type of unit. Also, the added investment for getting threes overcomes any two unit defending allowing for hit and run tactics of weakening the defender till he falls.

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

Yes and if you think a 3 is the same as a 2 if you are doing a hit and run attack, look up Statistical ( correct spelling BTW) analysis and Google that, or read the book on Statistics for Dummies.

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.

Thats just the problem, you are comparing a bunch of one type of unit to another bunch of one type of unit. Combined arms approach/ hit and run of Tanks and Infantry and some artillery do the trick best, and in your ridiculous example which seldom occurs, consider if possible a group of infantry vs a group of mechs, Infantry defending wins, so does that mean you just buy infantry? NO. You need many types of units for a dynamic ability for offensive and defensive options. A stupid bunch of tanks or a bunch of mech with no fodder is a stupid move or buy. Again you need combined arms.

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

You can make up things that not one person ever said in any post and make it their point, but you may look stupid for assuming the same.  Again combined arms approach with hit and run is best not stupid stacks of 50 mechs or 50 tanks.

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.

Again i guess you don’t believe in combined arms/ hit and run approach. YOU just buy mech then, well in your next game just buy them and nothing else. You can bring up all the examples of tanks vs mechs all day but if you consider a real combined arms/hit and run approach of tanks, infantry, artillery, and mech as well as planes, you find greater success in your results.

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.

I say a combined arms and hit and run tactics is the best overall but the land units have to be in a perfect ratio and that “just buy mechs never buy tanks mantra” is not the way to go.

using the new values in a battle of Eight 2-2 mechs costing 32 IPC vs. 10 infantry costing 30 IPC, the infantry win on defense 84.5%, so does this mean you should only buy infantry? NO.

Do you know what a straw man argument is? It’s taking one part of someone’s argument and arguing against that making it the main focus, even if it’s not even close to a main point much less a point of theirs at all.

Somehow it was interpreted that when I said under  a 2-2-2-4 lone blitzing mech system, one should buy mechs instead of tanks, all of a sudden I am being painted as though I said mechs should be bought instead of everything.

3 mechs are better than 2 tanks under IL’s system for mechs. The post below will prove it.

NO rather you paint my position as a comparison of mech and tanks. I never advocated this. Under the Alpha rules with combined arms and hit and run tactics if you stop buying tanks and just fight any other defending force with mech, you will lose more economically because at some point you are trading defending infantry for mechs and losing 4 for 3 gained.

Your point was that combined arms (by that we are talking a mix of tanks and mechs, I’m not denying that inf are important too) is better than all tanks or all mechs. Logic and statistics prove that wrong.

Can you really say 4 tanks and 6 mechs plus x infantry, y artillery, and z planes is better than 12 mechs plus x infantry, y artillery, and z planes? If so, prove it statistically!

Let me help you with the actual games rules dealing with combined arms:

Artillery boost infantry on attack to 2
Tanks boost tactical bombers to a 4
Both at 1:1

Just do 1-2 rounds of combat using combination’s of all the units and change only the amounts of tanks vs mech keeping all the other units the same.
For example: Attacking 10 infantry 4 tanks 4 tactical bombers, 5 artillery
                  Defending: 10 infantry, 6 mechs, 5 artillery, 4 tactical bombers. these are both 118 IPC

Attacking: 5 ones, 10 two’s, 4 threes, 4 fours= 53 –— against Defending: 21 two’s, 4 three’s  =54.

1st ROUND:
each side will lose 9 units in the first round on average. Both sides remove 9 infantry…battle is draw…

2nd ROUND:
Attacking: 1 one’s, 5 two’s, 4 three’s, 4 fours= 39------------- against defending: 12 twos, 4 threes = 36.

Each side loses 6 units ( note the attackers are really getting 6.5 hits vs. 6.0 for defender: attacker loses 1 infantry, 5 artillery= 23 ipc  Defender loses 1 Infantry, and 5 artillery= 23 ipc…Draw

So here neither side gained in hit and run, so lets see how they fair reversed:

Remember in this we are using the new ideas mech are not boosted by artillery…

Defending 10 infantry 4 tanks 4 tactical bombers, 5 artillery
Attacking: 10 infantry, 6 mechs, 5 artillery, 4 tactical bombers.
these are both 118 IPC

1st Round:
Defenders=54
Attackers=44

No need for math, on defense mech vs tanks is no issue, but since math is not a strong suit lets do it anyway…

54/6=9 hits
44/6=7 hits

2nd Round:
Attackers left with 1 infantry, 6 mechs, 5 artillery, 4 tactical bombers.
Defender left with 3 infantry 4 tanks 4 tactical bombers, 5 artillery

Attacker 35
Defender 40

35/6 =6 enemy killed
40/6 =7 enemy killed

3rd Round
Attackers left with  5 mechs, 4 tactical bombers.
Defender left with  4 tanks 4 tactical bombers, 2 artillery

Attacker 22/6= 4 enemy killed
Defender 32/6=5 enemy killed

4th Round:
Attackers left with  4 tactical bombers.
Defender left with  2 tanks 4 tactical bombers

In the end the defense has a net of 12 IPC more, if you continue the odds get worse.

Summary: on attack groups of tanks mixed in with other units vs mech mixed in with other units no advantage to either side in hit and run tactics.
On defense tanks with mixed units vs mech on attack with combined units shows tanks fair better.

See? case closed. I KNEW I WAS CORRECT.

All your examples are for types of combat that i made no claim about, so just drop it.  Nobody said anything about how a group of just tanks and just mech fighting it out will prevail.  Eventually, you lose mech to my infantry and I’m trading off your 4 for my 3.

ON the defense it just gets worse for you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hit-and-run_tactics
http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/585492/tactical-bombers-and-tanksfighters
http://www.mathsisfun.com/associative-commutative-distributive.html
http://www.bymath.com/studyguide/ana/ana_topics.html

I think you need to reread my post which i was working on and finished BEFORE you made your last two posts.

Last Edit: Today at 05:30:07 pm by Imperious Leader »
Reply #80 on: Today at 05:36:18 pm » by Mantlefan.

I usually check and double check not only my spelling but make it easy to read.

I suppose if you are attacking with 10 tanks and 10 tactical bombers (+inf/art of course) without any fighters, the amount of Tac boosts you get could be quite relevant. But the more tacs you are putting into a battle the more likely there are to be fighters with them, unless just to “prove” your point, from  now on you purposely avoid using fighters with your tacs even if it benefits you to use the ftrs. Ask around. I think you’ll find that people use ftrs with tacs more often than tanks with tacs

I could add fighters but on defense attacking the tanks with your mech and all other things being equal, you lose.

ON the attack i suppose i could also bring BOMBERS. Would you LIKE THAT TOO? NO i think not!

I wanted to bring the minimal land units that provided a combat bonus to show the point that you are wrong, that Mech are not gaining against tanks on defense and far WORSE as attackers vs. tanks.

try and deny that.

1.Outside of hit and run situations, what is better?
-100 infantry and 60 mechs
-100 infantry, 30 mechs, 20 tanks

Purposely avoiding combined arms and providing examples of the same is NOT EVEN ONCE WHAT ANYBODY HAS STATED TO THE CONTRARY HERE.  i WONT WASTE TIME IN A REPLY BECAUSE ITS OBVIOUS THAT MECHS IN STACKS DEFENDING AGAINST TANKS WITHOUT AID OF COMBINED ARMS OR HIT AND RUN.

The only point that was proven here that tanks beat mech on defense, and tanks on attack against mech is a washout.

2. In hit and run situations (where the attacker hasn’t gone out of his way to make sure that no ftrs are flying with his tacs), which is more effective against a constant defense,  Tanks with inf & art OR 1.5x that as many mechs with the same amount of infantry and art?

See answer key above.

3. ONLY if there is a large number of tacs without fighters  (which I still don’t understand why 4 tacs have 0 ftrs with them) might tanks be better in a hit and run. Otherwise mechs and tanks are effectively even when backing up the infantry/art in a hit and run. Agree? If no, why not?

I don’t understand why Bombers are not involved either. So in future examples bring in 5 fighters and 5 bombers per side in addition to the other units. ok?

Tanks are more effective than mech on defense as long as other units are involved. Naked stacks notwithstanding.

4. Does the potential for tanks’ superiority in hit-and-runs (assuming 1st that hit-and-runs are very significant, 2nd that those tanks are attacking oftentimes with a large number of tacs, 3rd that those tacs are coming WITHOUT ftrs and 4th that the times that tacs come without ftrs or without many ftrs will be quite common), does the importance of hit and run battles (even if there are more of the latter) outweigh the importance of battle-to-the death affairs that often decide the fate of capitals?

I make no claims regarding this, but you can add in BOMBERS as well for each side. Why are you so fixated on fighters? Also, the combined aspect of item 3 is not valid (Tanks boost tacs, and fighters boost tacs) so the tacs get boosted without fighters and fighters have no say in the matter.  The importance of each type of combat action is only dependent on the results of previous battles. A do or die proposition is only worth it ( by this we mean ‘go for broke’ losing more in material because you gain more by taking the capital and it can’t be taken back). It is not dependent on anything else. Again, if you can take a capital and it wont be taken back, its a good deal to ‘go for broke’ losing more now to gain more latter.