G40 VANN FORMULAS RESULTS

Hi Vann,

Thank you for sharing your idea’s with us. I understand that you contribution to the community so far is not really appreciated. I can also understand that. Your communication so far was not really positive!

But about the formula. Interesting! I did something similar. Indeed showing that in a straight forward fight a tank is obsolete. But there are other factors which are geographical factors like distance etc. which I do not see translated in your formula. What is your opinion about that?

Looking forward to hear from you!

I agree with Triple A X Ray.  Seems like this power rating chart doesn’t take a lot of variables into account.

Van shoes are stupid because they don’t account for reach. A fighter moves 4 times farther than an infantry, so it can reach weaker enemy pieces.

look at this garbage:  You can mostly divide it back to the combat ratios

Attack/defense=A/D
INFANTRY        1.85/3.7  ( 1-2)
MECH              1.04/2.08  (1-2)
ARTILLERY      2.08/2.08  ( 2-2)
TANK              1.39/1.39
FIGHTER          .5/.667
TECHBOMB      (.413/.551)/.413
BOMBER          .463/.116  ( 4-1)
SUB                1.39/.463
DESTROYER      .521/.521
CRUISER          .347/347
CARRIER          0/.139
BATTLESHIP    .267/.267  ( BB’s take 2 hits- this only accounts for cost divided into combat ratings- technically the first hit counts squat because it can infinitely be repaired)

Additionally some units cant attack others, land cant attack naval. or Submarines get preemptive hit based on what they roll. Nobody will ever use this because it don’t take into account what you use these units for. Its just divide the attack and defense into its cost.

Sorry nothing here to be bothered and i suspect the person who came up with this is just trying to get some idea named after him. So from now on its Van Shoes. Thats it move along people.

There is a few numbers to correlate with but you didn’t plainly break the code IL.
Namely, Fg is clearly the same as Attack 3 (50%) and Defense 4 (66.7%) combat values, cost being 10.
The cost factor modifier and calculation is nullify for 10 IPCs.

I’m still curious about it, even if it didn’t consider range and 2 hits factor.

There is a few discrepancies with Cruiser, Battleship and Carrier, for sure.
Cruiser have to be the lowest end, just above StB defense.

Also, a few US StBs on defense may be just enough to prevent a Sea Lion.
These movement and power projection factors are not considered in formula, it’s clear.

@Dauvio:

I see where you guys are coming from, and I owe the A&A community a apology. I didn’t really show any respect to any of you, and I’m sorry for that.

I will give you the G40 unit strengths based on their cost. These numbers are derived from the VANN FORMULAS.

Attack/defense=A/D
INFANTRY        1.85/3.7
MECH              1.04/2.08
ARTILLERY       2.08/2.08
TANK              1.39/1.39
FIGHTER          .5/.667
TECHBOMB       (.413/.551)/.413
BOMBER          .463/.116
SUB                1.39/.463
DESTROYER      .521/.521
CRUISER          .347/347
CARRIER          0/.139
BATTLESHIP    .267/.267

These other stats is one to one ratio.

INF/ART          2.72/2.72
MECH/ART       2.08/2.08
MECH/TANK     1.33/1.67

Now the one to one stats could be a little off because I don’t know the G40 rules. However I know the MECH/TANK numbers should be higher, but I didn’t have time to run the numbers through.

Happy hunting everyone!!! Smiley

The opening post does not deserve all these negatives.
In itself, it is only an apology and infos bring forward.

Earlier post were worst in lacking of politeness than this one.
Here it is clearly a shot at the messenger, not the message.

Finding some relations between hit, points, costs and movement optimization, even if not that accurate doesn’t deserve such a bash.
However, pretending that a single formula can solve the game and make you unbeatable is a lack of humility toward all players, especially most experienced ones.

it feels like it is a bot undeserved. As he said, his grammar wasn’t good.

A lot of his numbers agree fairly well with my own calculations, except for accounting for reach and some other key features:

Feature 1:
Subs can hit planes, and are therefore unable to defend TTs. Therefore you can either chose to defend against an air only attack with either DDs or Carrier + Ftrs.  These two options perform fairly similarly in defence, however, the fighter can be used on land and to snipe ships without exposing your fleet. This dual purpose of fighters is valuable.

Feature 2: range.
Range is some times very important. If you can get 1 unit to do the job of two units, you are getting great value. One example is to stack W Germany with mech only. Those mechs can counterattack any allied landing in france. So you can either have 20 mechs in W germany (and 6 art in paris), or 20 inf in W germany + 20 inf in Paris (and 6 art in paris). The first option is much cheaper than the second.
In general, if you are using units to create killzones, you can killzone more areas with longer range units. Germany can have a bomber attacking in USSR and landing close enough to hit any allied landing, therefore having dual purpose.

Feature 3: hitpoints. Carriers does not have 0 value in attack. If I attack with 20 subs and 10 carriers against 20 DD, I will do much better than if I just attack with 20 subs. The carriers can soak 20 hits, and the first 10 of them are free.

Feature 4: Dual Purpose
planes can fight both on land and in the sea. This gives them a very important extra ability.

In general, I agree that we should look at what use you get out of a unit, for what cost. Where a unit can operate and what it can threathen is a very important concideration that should not be missed. When I build my army, I try to combine the maximizing raw fighting power i need with the appropriate ability to project that power.
Your calculation does not take hits into account, a few months ago there was a much better thread with calculations by myself and others where we show that the fightingpower of a stack was about ((#number hitpoints)^2)*(Average strength) . This formula is fairly easy to prove mathematically.  From what i can see, this formula is better than yours.

Other than that I agree that the following units are weak: Tac, Tank, Cruiser, BB. Most other units have purposes that are valuable in the right amount.

Baron, I down ticked, because of the very unnecessary over emailing and troll stalking by this man to our very own YG. we have to stick up for our own members. This person came here with his own agenda, disrespectfully and rudely, and it does not fit in here.
In my six years here, I have only ever down ticked a possible three times. I do not do it lightly or happily. @Baron:

The opening post does not deserve all these negatives.
In itself, it is only an apology and infos bring forward.

Earlier post were worst in lacking of politeness than this one.
Here it is clearly a shot at the messenger, not the message.

Finding some relations between hit, points, costs and movement optimization, even if not that accurate doesn’t deserve such a bash.
However, pretending that a single formula can solve the game and make you unbeatable is a lack of humility toward all players, especially most experienced ones.

@Kreuzfeld:

In general, I agree that we should look at what use you get out of a unit, for what cost. Where a unit can operate and what it can threathen is a very important concideration that should not be missed. When I build my army, I try to combine the maximizing raw fighting power i need with the appropriate ability to project that power.
Your calculation does not take hits into account, a few months ago there was a much better thread with calculations by myself and others where we show that the fightingpower of a stack was about ((#number hitpoints)^2)*(Average strength) . This formula is fairly easy to prove mathematically.  From what i can see, this formula is better than yours.

Other than that I agree that the following units are weak: Tac, Tank, Cruiser, BB. Most other units have purposes that are valuable in the right amount.

Yeah, it glosses over some things, for sure.  Subs increase in value if you can use them for convoy strikes, for instance.  Tacticals’ value is in how it improves other units, or striking naval/air bases.

Tanks are about finding the balance between needed speed and/or having enough infantry to not lose any tanks.  The example Vann used was spending 300 ipcs and attacking a stack of infantry and showed the 300 ipcs of infantry was a better buy than tanks.  Except it ignored mixing infantry (17% chance of hit but can afford twice as many) and tanks (50% hit rate + more mobile) as the most efficient use (well, actually infantry/artillery and tanks).

cruiser and BB have been proven to be obsolete OOB. that’s why I proposed A5D5C20 BB and A3D3C10 cruiser.

It’s the cheap air units that can do double duty (Land and Air) with double the range and similar or better attack powers, that destroyed the viability of cruisers and battleships.

I like the idea of a $10 cruiser; so atleast it’s a fair match against air.  But I also like the common suggestion that cruisers should have a “built in” AAA function.  Shooting at up to 3 planes pre-emptive, just like AAA on land.

@Gargantua:

It’s the cheap air units that can do double duty (Land and Air) with double the range and similar or better attack powers, that destroyed the viability of cruisers and battleships.

I like the idea of a $10 cruiser; so atleast it’s a fair match against air.  But I also like the common suggestion that cruisers should have a “built in” AAA function.  Shooting at up to 3 planes pre-emptive, just like AAA on land.

Cruisers A4D4C12
Battleships A5D5C20

Danger! Danger! Danger!
You are near a warp zone…  :|
I still agree with YG and GKhan.
(CA A3 D3 C10 vs BB A4 D4 C18 or BB A5 D5 C20
CA A4 D4  C12 vs BB A5 D5 C20) all three combos work.

Stop talking about different  values of units or this going into HRs forum nebula.
:-)

@ Kreutzfell,
do you think 3 pickets Infantry are more cost efficient than a single one, based on your formula?
Does it means you should never block with 2 Infantry?
3^2*2= 18 points for 9 IPCs 2.00 ratio

2^2*2= 8 points for 6 IPCs 1.25 ratio

1^2*2= 4 points for 3 IPCs  1.25 ratio

IDK how Vann formulas can answer these two questions.

Price modifications are the toughest changes ever to adapt to.

Why?
Does habbits are too rooted in A&A battle hardened players?

Or because on F-2-F players’aids become inaccurate?

(DK have no issue with a 8 IPCs TP, but he invest a lot in such player’s aids.)

Or competitive players don’t like tweaking on OOB balance?

@Baron:

Why?
Does habbits are too rooted in A&A battle hardened players?

Or because on F-2-F players’aids become inaccurate?

(DK have no issue with a 8 IPCs TP, but he invest a lot in such player’s aids.)

Or competitive players don’t like tweaking on OOB balance?

I feel like all 3 would be factors in that.

@Young:

Price modifications are the toughest changes ever to adapt to.

@Hunter:

@Baron:

Why?
Does habbits are too rooted in A&A battle hardened players?

Or because on F-2-F players’aids become inaccurate?

(DK have no issue with a 8 IPCs TP, but he invest a lot in such player’s aids.)

Or competitive players don’t like tweaking on OOB balance?

I feel like all 3 would be factors in that.

Any other factor is welcome.

My players group does not seem to be reluctant to such change as long as changes are known and, if complex HRs, be written, at the beginning of the game.

@Baron:

Why?
Does habbits are too rooted in A&A battle hardened players?

Or because on F-2-F players’aids become inaccurate?

(DK have no issue with a 8 IPCs TP, but he invest a lot in such player’s aids.)

Or competitive players don’t like tweaking on OOB balance?

I said it was tough… not impossible.

I was genuinely asking for your POV, issued from a much deeper experience with more players types.
I just suggested these 3 factors coming into my mind, as purely hypothetical.

@Baron:

I was genuinely asking for your POV, issued from a much deeper experience with more players types.
I just suggested these 3 factors coming into my mind, as purely hypothetical.

Sorry, looks like I came across as facetious… was not my intent.

I just got some booklets sent to me via email, they were expansions for the classic edition, here are the prices.

escort 8
destroyer 8
transport 8
submarine 8
aircraft carrier 18
cruiser 15
battleship 24
fighter 12
bomber 15
infantry 3
tank 5
AA gun 5
factory 15

BTW… I always try not to hijack threads, but I don’t mind it in this one.