This is a great thread.  This is the kind of stuff I registered for, so it’s too bad some people are such negative Nellys.  Who cares if it sounds crazy–splitting the atom used to be a preposterous idea too.

@LuckyDay:

lol…

i thought it was in the forum guidelines that arguing with IL was akin to hoping into quicksand when surrounded by crocodiles.  It won’t end well for you either way…  :-o

Oh, it’s nothing so serious as crocodiles or quicksand.  More like arguing with a spambot that’s been specially programmed to generate irrelevant examples and errors in basic arithmetic.

Seriously, if someone doesn’t understand statistics well enough to see that 12 units rolling at 2 will generate the same number of hits as 8 units rolling at 3, I’m not going to waste my time.

Except for hit and run attacks and this ‘phantom’ 99% number, because hit and run with mixed force of tanks and plenty of combined arms is nearly always superior to mechs. And this alone was the only point i was proving, so you went back to the ‘trap’ of labeling the study into some tanks vs mechs in standard combat situations.

If tanks have strong combined arms component they win against mech (using these proposed numbers like more than 50% of the time).

Any other point brought up holds no value because his point was to prove that in any situation mechs are stronger, and they aren’t.

No I didn’t.  No no no no no.

And when you talk about combined arms, you’re really talking about the tac bomber bonus.  And the examples you have given regarding this are bunk.

I can see that the ground on which you’re attempting to stand is exactly the size and shape of a split hair, so I can tell this is going nowhere.

You have no idea what the study was about. It was about one and only one thing ONLY. To prove that with combined arms and mixed force, that tanks have the best overall value in hit and run tactics. Hit and run tactics are ONLY tactics where i am losing infantry and killing either infantry or more expensive units.

You fell in the same trap, by addressing the entire discussion as some study of “if you were on an island with just tanks against an equal force of mechs based on cost, who would win?” this is what Mantlefan kept sidetracking the study into after claiming that the area in bold would show that in a mixed force of mechs using hit and run tactics that the mech force would be stronger.

I NEVER ONCE MADE ANY CLAIM THAT TANKS WERE STRONGER THAN MECHS ALONE OR IN NORMAL " TO THE DEATH" COMBAT. This is what you didn’t get and why you just made the incorrect assumption of that the study was about or attempted to prove.

I didn’t fall into any trap.  I don’t think anybody is trying to make any claims about “all tanks against all mechs” on an island or anywhere else.  Nobody’s accusing you of making claims you’re not making, either.  I understand what you’re trying to say; you’re just wrong and the methods you’re relying on to prove your point are flawed.

I’m not sure why you keep lining up a tank-based force against a “Mantlefan’s mechs”-based force in these mythical situations where players have 97 thousand tac bombers and mysteriously no fighters or tanks to back them up.  As Mantlefan pointed out somewhere, this just wouldn’t happen.  Furthermore, nobody is trying to make any arguments that deny the existence of the tac-bomber bonus, so I don’t know why you keep leaning on that to prove your point.  Of course you want combined arms to back each other up, no matter if it’s hit-and-run OR “to the death” combat.

And yet again, you’re lining up these forces against each other (and not against an third TBD defending force, as the scientific method would call for) and rattling off hit numbers that don’t mean anything.  These other units you’re introducing into the fray have different attack and defense values, so you’re adding variables that do nothing but confuse the issue and make your data meaningless.  If you’re only trying to prove your point about hit-and-run, why are you using defense numbers to bolster your argument?

ALL I’m saying (and once you cut through all the noise, I think Mantlefan is trying to say) is that a 2/2/2/4/no boost mech is a terrible idea.  Here’s why:

IF you already have enough tanks or fighters to back up the dozens of tac bombers that all players just have lying around[/sarcasm], there would be no reason to buy any more tanks, EVER, barring circumstances like forward minor ICs etc.  A 2/2/2/4/no boost mech is equal, punch-per-IPC, to a tank.  Being cheaper than tanks, it’s cheaper to lose them (and you’ll have more left alive) when your opponent’s 42 tac bombers score the same number of hits regardless if they’re facing tanks or mechs or whatever.

Even if they are just “a bunch of twos”, as you say, 48 IPCs worth of these mechs is statistically as likely to deal the same number of hits (4) as 48 IPCs of tanks.  Please remember, I’m assuming that the apparently all-important and almighty tac bomber bonus is covered, since I’ve never seen a situation when it wasn’t.  This makes a 2/2/2/4/no boost mech equally strong as a tank per IPC, but a superior buy since you get 1.5x more of them for that buy.

Thus, a 2/2/2/4/no boost mech is a SUPERIOR unit to purchase instead of a tank in 99% of foreseeable, real-life situations, and thus is a terrible idea.

Mantlefan is right.  His methods are better…in any experiment, you test your control (tanks) and your variable (2/2/2/4/no boost mechs) under the same conditions (an identical defense).  Throwing four variables into a hat and stirring them up muddies the issue.

He’s not right about everything in this ever-broadening discussion, but about a 2/2/2/4/no boost Mech being a bad idea.  This makes them mini tanks, with both defensive and offensive punch-per-IPC equal to tanks, except now you have more units by buying mechs.

Hit-and-run or not, more units is pretty much always better.  This makes a 2/2/2/4/no boost Mech a better buy in pretty much any situation except for those rare ones when you have more tac bombers than fighters or tanks.

Of course there are situations like minor IPCs where production limits etc can be a factor, but when you boil all of this down, a 2/2/2/4/no boost mech is superior to the OOB/Alpha tank.

You are Russia, so you have lots of men.  Don’t waste them, but don’t be afraid to lose some, either.  Keep them backed up by buying tanks and some arty.  Fighters and the occasional tac bomber for those 4’s on counterattack are a good idea too.  Germany will by necessity have to stretch his lines thin.  If you can catch his tanks in the open with no infantry support, hit them hard.  Use the “retreat to one territory from which your attacking units came” rule to your advantage…this works well for a tactical repositioning for creative counterattacks or that final turtle.  Above all, make him pay for that territory he’s stolen.  Those troops and arty he took all those rounds marching into Russia?  Make sure they marched in vain.  His factories are much further than yours, and as you retreat, you are actually consolidating…so counterattack at every opportunity.

I’ve had a lot of fun with rules variants, including free-for-all situations. And I know tournament rules can get very exacting/creative, but the OOB rules are very clear about how to distribute powers among the various numbers of players possible.  No offense intended, but if the rules you’re playing allow for US and Japan to be played by the same player, you’re not playing Axis and Allies Global 1940 anymore.