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.
This is so ridiculous… A tank is also a formidale defense weapon and this rule doesn’t bring balance it brings ridiculousness to the game.
I think Mech Inf are too powerful at 2-2-2-4 with independant Blitz.
I think should instead be 1-2-2-4 with independant Blitz.
I think Mech Inf are too powerful at 2-2-2-4 with independant Blitz.
I think should instead be 1-2-2-4 with independant Blitz.
Well, perhaps not too powerful, but rather too cheap for what they do then. Why buy a tank then? So although I think that a 2 attack value is probably more in line with the actual capabilities of motorized infantry (speed is essential in attacks!), they would be too cheap. 5 on the other hand would be too expensive and for just one more point it would then really be an obviously better choice to buy a tank instead.
Therefore I agree with 1-2-2-4 with independant Blitz (I hardly buy mech infantry, because for the Blitzing capability I buy tanks and in most other respects artillery is the better choice for the same point cost). Giving them an idependant Blitz capability might actually make me invest more heavily in mech. rather than in artillery.
remember to consider the mech a 2-2-2-4 unit with no boost from artillery.
Tanks defending at 2 and still costing 6 is pretty bad, but now we have to be prepared to fight off the rule ‘change’ of fighters attacking at 3 unless paired with an Infantry as spotter to increase them to 4!
woo-hoo! just being facetious, couldn’t resist! :roll: :-D :-o
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.
Has anyone thought of different priced tanks for different countries? Although this really would mean that A&A uses a 10 sided dice now with the rule that the lower the number the better.
Something like this:
Germany
Cost: 6
Attack: 5
Defense:5
Russia/US:
Cost: 5
Attack: 4
Defense : 4
UK
Cost: 5
Attack: 4
Defense:3
Japan/Italy
Cost: 4
Attack: 3
Defend: 3
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.
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.
Here is another idea for what we call Mechanized Infantry at present. A while back, I think it is on the FMG pieces discussion thread, someone came up with an idea for different values for 11 different types of land units. This was when we thought FMG was going to give us a light tank with each set. Since FMg is giving us trucks as well as half-tracks/armored cars, the trucks could be used to create “Mobile Infantry” with a value of 1-2-2-4. We could use the half-tracks/armored cars to create “Armored Infantry” with a value of 2-2-2-5.
So, maybe that might be even better than Mechanized Infantry at 2-2-2-4 with blitzing capability. We could change it to Armored Infantry at 2-2-2-5 with blitzing capability. This way, our Mech/Arm inf pieces could still blitz on their own and have a decent attack factor at a more appropriate cost. Tanks would still retain their stronger punch for a little higher cost. Perhaps this way the ratio of how many tanks vs how many mech/arm inf that you could get for the same IPCs wouldn’t be quite so big.
@mantlefan:
@Imperious:
remember to consider the mech a 2-2-2-4 unit with no boost from artillery.
Was this directed at me?
Your proposal seems to be changing 2 things about mechs
1. They attack at 2, whether there is an artillery or not.
2. They can blitz without a tank.My posts were made with those potential changes in mind.
Which again would make artillery a less desirable buy. I think a normal attack of “1” that CAN be boosted by artillerry is the best way to go (remain) as far as game-balance is concerned. I WOULD allow them to Blitz. Then it would really depend on the actual situation on the board which one (artillery or mech) I’d buy. With the suggested change I’d nearly ALWAYS take the mech.
Another poster said that 6 mechs are as good as 4 tanks. While this may be true, once you start taking losses on the mechs (which you’ll take before losses on the tanks) the odds change very quickly! (I’m assuming you do have a mixed force also with infnatry cover, but one heavier on mech, the other heavier on tanks. Attacking with ONLY mechs or ONLY tanks is something you should avoid anyway unless you’re in a desperate situation (have to take back a crucial territory) or potential game-winning/ balance tipping situation (take territory holding enemy factory, capital, Egypt, India etc.).
Yes 3 mechs are better than 2 tanks do to number of die throws, but with 10 inf and 6 mech attacking at 22 and 10 inf and 4 tanks defending at 32 no way are mech better.
You were talking about blitzing with mechs, I’m just saying if you attack with your mechs and inf you won’t have nothing left to blitz with. Sorry I fric blew up.
EDIT:
I’m going to forget everything else you’ve said and I’ve said, even though I still disagree with a lot of your posts, and try to move this forward.(I think) We both want to see which is a better buy under a system where mechs attack at 2 and can blitz alone. Therefore, the question is, what is a better buy, 2 tanks or 3 mechs?
Again you ask the wrong questions or try to prove things that nobody ever brought up.
The entire point which i will continue to remind you is in situations in attack or defense where a mixed force attacking with combined arms benefit or on defense are greater than any pure force of just one type of unit with the exception of just a stack of infantry defending.
Nobody can claim having just infantry on defense is the best deal, but hardly the best all around force for both attack or defense.
I also claim that in situations where both sides have the same units, with the exception that one side has an equal value of mech and the other side has an equal value of tanks, that in attack or defense, the group with tanks are better than the group with mech.
Anybody with basic math skills knows that 3 mech beat 2 tanks, you can keep asking this but its not nor ever was the issue here, or even any issue anybody can argue against.
So address any further questions with the scope of this and this only in mind…
And another thing: ridiculous examples of 100 infantry, 40 tanks etc are not to be used. They are not helping anybody trying to figure this out. From now on you stick to real game examples.
Perquisite:
Mechs are 2-2-2-4 unit, artillery do not boost mech
Tanks boost tac
Fighters boost tac
Art boost infantry
Example:
YOU ATTACKING:
9 infantry, 3 mech, 6 artillery, 3 fighters, 2 tactical bombers, 1 bomber=49
ME DEFENDING
9 infantry, 2 tanks, 6 artillery, 3 fighters, 2 tactical, 1 bomber=60
Now reversed:
ME ATTACKING:
9 infantry, 2 tanks, 6 artillery, 3 fighters, 2 tactical, 1 bomber=54
YOU DEFENDING
9 infantry, 3 mech, 6 artillery, 3 fighters, 2 tactical bombers, 1 bomber=55
overall winner: ME, mixed forces of tanks using combined arms can be greater than mixed forces with equal number of mechs.
Another Example:
YOU ATTACKING:
3 infantry, 6 mech, 4 artillery, 3 fighters, 2 tactical bombers, 1 bomber=42
ME DEFENDING
3 infantry, 4 tanks, 4 artillery, 3 fighters, 2 tactical, 1 bomber=45
Now reversed:
ME ATTACKING:
3 infantry, 4 tanks, 4 artillery, 3 fighters, 2 tactical, 1 bomber=47
YOU DEFENDING
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.
NOW REMEMBER :THE QUESTION IS NOT WHICH IS BEST 3 MECHS OR 2 TANKS. T_he actual question is which of these units in a mixed force fairs best for the purpose of hit and run tactics. I have just proven the 1st round shows that tank force is superior in these situations based on the value of combined arms bonuses._
All Mantlefan:
Why do people keep makiing these comparisons?
You are using other irrelevant variables to make your distorted argument.
Mantlefans “example” to support his argument.
Force 1
100 inf, 20 art, 60 mechs, 5 ftr, 4 tac, 5 bmb
Force 2
100 inf, 20 art, 40 armor, 5 ftr, 4 tac, 5 bmb
LMFAO!!
