G40 VANN FORMULAS RESULTS

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.

Riiiiiiggggghhhhtttttt.

well now that I have some substantial recent experience playing G40 OOB, I can say building a navy is pretty useless in general (in most cases excluding US and reluctantly Japan). The reason is that air force is so much more powerful than navy for the cost. Planes can attack land AND air, can defend two spaces at once (Scramble), have better range than boats, and are cheaper for the same attack and defense values.

I think the naval and air units need a complete redesign in G40. In anniversary ed. it wasn’t so bad because there were no air bases. Also UK could build a navy out of range of german planes. In this edition of the game, there is no space except for Canada where UK can safely build ships.

@Baron:

@ 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.

I am not sure I understand what you mean.

The formula is not meant the figure out the value of a unit, it is meant to figure out the COMPARATIVE strength of a stack.

What I mean is. If you are going to compare two stacks in a battle, you can use this formula to figure out which stack is strongest. So, you can ask, Will 3 inf win when attacking 2 infs? (3^2 1 = 9), vs (2^22 = 8 ). If you run that in the sim, you get that the 3 inf will win 51-52%, 4 -5 % draw and about 44% lose.  So, If you have a stack, and you need to figure our how to spend your 30 IPC and your only goal is to increase it offensive power, then you can use the formula to figure out if you need more inf of art.  Similarly with fleets, you can figure out if you need more subs or carriers to maximize your defence.

Edit; Had to edit, 8 ) became 8)

I tried to apply your formula to a special case.
For instance, the defensive picket made usually by Russia to prevent Germany’s blitzkrieg while retreating main force behind this front line.

Usually, you need to commit 1 ground unit, as much as possible the cheapest: 1 infantry.

But your formula seems to show that it can be more cost effective to put 3 Infs, even if it costs 9 IPCs to inflict more casualty to the attacker.
At 1 or 2 units, it keeps the same ratio for the investment (1.25) but beginning with 3 units the stack get stronger per IPC invest  (2.00).
Often, the picket Inf brings no result except blocking but if you block and get 1 casualty or more, it is far better.

So, does this formula is showing a better use of unit in this tactictal retreat?

@Baron:

I tried to apply your formula to a special case.
For instance, the defensive picket made usually by Russia to prevent Germany’s blitzkrieg while retreating main force behind this front line.

Usually, you need to commit 1 ground unit, as much as possible the chespest: 1 infantry.

But your formula seems to show that it can be more cost effective to put 3 Infs, even if it costs 9 IPCs to inflict more casualty to the attacker.
At 1 or 2 units, it keeps the same ratio for the investment (1.25) but beginning with 3 units the stack get stronger per IPC invest  (2.00).
Often, the picket Inf brings no result except blocking but if you block and get 1 casualty or more, it is far better.

So, does this formula is showing a better use of unit in this tactictal retreat?

Simple answer is no, it does not. For two reasons, 1, your goal with the scirmishers is not to inflict dammage, but to prevent blitzing. So the purpose is different. And the other reason is covered below.

Longer answer is: The formula does only give the strength of the stack, you need a different formula to figure out what damage that will result in. If the stack will die anyways (like your example) it might be that adding the 2 extra inf not will inflict the needed 6 ipc of damage to the germans attacking it.

On an extra note:

@Baron:

But your formula seems to show that it can be more cost effective to put 3 Infs, even if it costs 9 IPCs to inflict more casualty to the attacker.
At 1 or 2 units, it keeps the same ratio for the investment (1.25) but beginning with 3 units the stack get stronger per IPC invest  (2.00).
Often, the picket Inf brings no result except blocking but if you block and get 1 casualty or more, it is far better.

It actually shows that a bigger stack is more costeffective than a smaller. So if you have 50 units, it it better to have them in 1 big stack, rather than 2 smaller. it is a more costeffective way of fighting :) But I guess everybody already knew that ;)

Thing about tanks costing 5 is that the side that wants to attack will just buy tanks.