Artillery or Tanks... Which are better?

The actual answer is “it depends”.

Yes, by the comparison you gave, Artillery are superior. Even in the editions where TANKs cost 5 IPC (Revised/AA50/etc.), INF/ART pairs are still superior because of the fact that you can buy 2 INF/1 ART (3 HP, 6 punch on defense) for the same cost as 2 TANK (2 HP, 6 punch on defense).

However, you also need to consider the advantage that TANKs have over INF/ART in that they can move two spaces. This is incredibly important and should not be overlooked. For example, let’s say we’re playing on 42SE, I’m playing as Germany, it’s my turn, and I have Karelia (Factory) and West Russia occupied currently. Let’s say that Moscow’s defenses are light at the moment, but in 3 turns or so the US/UK will be able to land enough troops in Europe to give me a serious headache unless I pull the luftwaffe back to defend France/Berlin/wherever. Under these circumstances, I’d prefer to be able to take down Moscow before the US/UK become a serious threat 3 turns from now, so I’m going to build 2 TANKs for the Karelia factory so they can 2-move to Moscow (Karelia -> West Russia -> Moscow) on my next turn to participate in the hypothetical Moscow takedown. If I was acting purely on being cost-efficient, I would buy some combination of INF/ART instead, allowing me one or two extra INF to defend against UK/US with, but lessening the amount of punch I’m going to have against Moscow and slowing my push down to the point where I may not be able to finish off Moscow for several more turns, if at all.

Similarly, most Japane strategies on several maps devolve into “build 1-2 factories on the Asian Mainland, then build as many TANKs as you can and head for Moscow/India)” at some point or another. They’re choosing TANKs over INF/ART because the 2-movement points of the TANKs allow Japan to rack up IPCs incredibly quickly, which makes up for your inefficient use of IPCs by giving you more to work with in later rounds. Of course, as the game drags on, Japan will switch over to INF, but the initial rush is almost always with TANKs.

I know the above example is a bit contrived, but you can see examples of it in practice in a lot of Axis openings, especially in G40, where players often opt to open with Strat Bombers G1, in spite of them being extremely cost-inefficient units, simply because of the incredible benefit that their 6 movement points provide.

Personally, I prefer TANKs as a whole, but not to the point where I’d build only TANKs all the time. A Russia player with their back to the wall in Moscow should not be building TANKs, for example. Neither should a Germany player who has lost the offensive initiative (and is instead playing defense while Japan wins the game).

EDIT: Grammar.

HA Japan tank blitz. Thats funny. Over kill.

Yes Art are better. But as no man said tanks have there advantage and purpose in game too.
Tank C6 AD@3 2.00
vs
Art C4 AD@2 3.00
Inf C3 A@2 - D@2 5.33

Tank C6 AD@3 2.00
vs
Inf C3 A@1 2.67 Inf way stronger than tanks in this d6 game.

2 Tanks C12 AD@6 4.00
vs
3 Art C12 AD@6 9.00

But always best to have an Inf with your Art.
And a Mech which depends on your game pieces.

Tank C6 AD@3 M2 2.00
vs
Art C4 AD@2 3.00
Mech C4 AD@2 3.00 both M2
Pay 2 icps extra for Art move of 2 and Mech getting a 1 attack bonus
still a good buy. Germans love this.

I’m also in the “it depends” camp.

The math here is pretty simple. Artillery are superior to tanks in terms of pure economics. Artillery are just as good or better whether you’re talking about attack power, defense power or hits you can absorb. This is especially true if you have existing excess infantry to pair them with, which you often do at the beginning of the game. If you do have extra infantry than adding an artillery adds as much extra attack power as a tank (2/6 for the artillery and 1/6 for the infantry).

It’s safe to say that artillery are better value in any battle that they are actually present, the question is if they will be. Artillery are a bit like a superstar athlete who gets injured repeatedly. Sure, their stats per game are great, but you can’t help the team win the championship from the sideline. Tanks are more likely to be in the battle, and be in multiple battles through their life.

Tanks create value on utility and re-usability. It’s difficult to put it in numerical terms, but here are some situational examples:

1. Can-Openers -> The ability to abuse the turn order by having a friendly power clear blocking units from a territory so the second power can move through and wreck vulnerable units two spaces away.
2. Axis Timing Push -> The axis usually need rapid expansion to close the income gap with the allies. Tanks are more helpful in getting the job done before the initiative is lost and Allied help arrives. Tanks can catch up to your forward army without it having to pause.
3. Recycling Units -> Tanks can get to the next objective where artillery are often stranded for a long time. (e.g. after a Moscow battle the remaining tanks can re-task to the Middle East or Scandinavia)
4. Limited Production Slots -> If you think of production slots as a resource, then it’s one resource where tanks are cheaper. If you a starved for production tanks can get you more kick on the ground with less production used.
5. American Production on Eurasia -> Getting an American production facility on the continent where the fight is happening is quite helpful. On the periphery this can be done without a tank, but if you want to try to pick up a territory in the Middle East it can happen far sooner with a tank rolling through North Africa than an artillery.
6. Island Hopping -> When trading islands you’re sometimes less concerned with the cost efficiency and more concerned with win probability. (often sending 7IPC transports to be killed for free) Tanks can help edge the win percentage up, especially if you can’t get naval or air support because it will take your fleet out of position.
7. Blitzing Empty Territories -> Obviously.

It’s helpful to envision what the whole life of the unit or group of units might look like. If the purpose is a one-way march to a probable death, then go with the artillery if it can make it in time. If you foresee more variability than that, you might want to favor the tank.

Of course many of these principles apply to mechanized infantry, so if you’re playing G40 that’s another option. In fact, there’s good reason to favor mechanized infantry if you don’t really need additional attack strength, you just need something cheap and mobile to absorb hits.

I think i know what hes asking. Their are no set rules because it depends on:

1. Need. ( is Russia about to fall and you hold Caucasus and you need Tanks to finish her.
2. Positional Advantage ( if by building land units your trying to rush or methodical approach in conjunction with Infantry as fodder
3. Tempo ( Buying Tanks will get you faster to objective and its a race of opposing forces

but ideally IMO its a ratio of the three main types:
4 infantry, 2 Artillery, 1 Tank

I seldom buy like this, but you need fodder and punch
Also, you want to maximize production slots, especially for Russia