Here is a longer thread about Tank cost in Axis & Allies Global 1940 forum:
Tank Purchases R.I.P.
@allweneedislove:
_My tank was a unit that was strong and fast
it loved threatening all with such joy and pride
that it lit up every time we were together.
There was never a time that I could not attack with it.
Some of you may not have known my tank the way that I did,
but for those who did not get to see this side of him
missed out on knowing a great unit.
A unit that made sure that its power was taken care of
even if it meant it had to sacrifice itself.*_
*i ripped this of eulogyspeech.net and replaced the words father with tank, man with unit, he with it, talk with attack, family with power, kind and generous with strong and fast. i also added the words threatening
The title is self explaining about this topic in Axis & Allies Global 1940 forum:
Are Mechs Too Strong?
@Zhukov44:
Pondering the reason why Axis strategies seem to be improving faster than Allied strategies (resulting in escalating bids for Allies), I keep coming back to the mobility of mechanized infantry on a map where Eurasia is a huge, contiguous continent, where it is possible to blitz inaccessible places like China, Africa, Siberia, etc.
The main weakness of AA50 was that tanks (at $5) were way too strong. The increased map size of AA50 relative to Revised made them even stronger than in Revised (where they had been improved to 3/3 to make for more dynamic offensive play and less defensive stacking).
So the decision to increase tanks to $6 was well-grounded. However, mechs may be too cheap at $4. Even though a mech attacks at only 1 (w/o artillery support), the defensive capacity of the mech is just too much. If Germany and Japan had only tanks at their disposal, then it would be easier for Allies to counterattack tank stacks driving into Eurasia. However, when Axis powers can buy mechs at 4$, defensive stacks deep inside Eurasia are too strong and too mobile. Axis can use its positional advantage to exploit the excessive strength of mechanized infantry by conquering Eurasia.
A selected post (more to read in this Revised thread) about the change from Tank A3 D2 C5 to A3 D3 C5 and how it changes the Infantry Push Mechanic:
IPM Dead in AaA:Revised?
@Magister:
[DarthMaximus said]
I think IPM is still valid.
Simply put if you are buying 10 inf (30 ipc) per turn it is going to take your opponent at least 40 ipc to defeat you.
Right, it’s mostly about how Defender’s advantage changed from Classic to Revised. The addition of arty decreased it.
I define here Defender’s advantage as the ratio of IPC costs for attacker to be ‘equivalent’ to defender (both grind to zero with average luck). Any better for one side gets a cascading victory.
Pure infantry is still the best at pure defender.
Inf vs inf: the advantage is ~1.41 (SQRT 2) from Lanchester’s theory. Would need slightly more than 14 inf to defeat 10 inf. And this is mutual - if the other side wants to attack the 14 inf, they would need 20 inf. A mutual advantage of 2 x.
A simple mix to defeat pure inf would be Inf+Arty in equal proportions.
5 inf+5 arty (35 IPC) are exactly equal to 10 inf defending (30 IPC). Each unit hits at 2.
The defender’s advantage would be 35/30 = 1.166 x.
Actually, the optimal mix for large attacking forces would be in the proportion of 60% inf, 30% arty, 10% tanks (calculated with a detailed, mathematically quite ugly model). 6+3+1 would cost the same 35IPC.
I’ve tested on simulators, for large forces (30+15+5) this is very slightly better than 25 inf 25 arty. But 6 inf 3 arty 1 tnk is very slightly worse than 5inf 5 arty to attack 10 inf (or 5 inf 5 arty). In general, most optimization problems have a ‘flat optimum zone’ around which small variations in decision result in extremely small variations in value.
If opposed by a similar force, the 50-50-0 force would have no defender’s advantage. The two forces each would cost 35 IPC and fight the same. On defence, the 6+3+1 would be a bit superior due to the 3 firepower of tank. (Roughly like 0.5 inf more, but without its staying power).
