C/M/A/D
TANK STATS: 6/2/3/3
INFANTRY STATS: 3/1/1/2
As you can see the tank cost twice as much than the infantry. If you buy two infantry which is the cost of a tank, the two infantry will have more offensive power than the one tank has. Making the tank obsolete to buy. Now people would argue that the tank is twice as fast as the infantry, but I would go with power over speed any day. Now the VANN FORMULAS will tell me exactly how much more power the infantry will have over the tank. Meaning I don’t need to use the punch drunk formulas.
Why is this under House Rules?
Agreed. Mech Infantry is better off being bought than armor and if you want the firepower of armor, just attach artillery to infantry.
What are these VANN FORMUAS spoken of above?
@Caesar:
Agreed. Mech Infantry is better off being bought than armor and if you want the firepower of armor, just attach artillery to infantry.
How did you come up with these conclusions???
Math. Compare the combine arms ability to what you get with a tank, what keeps the tank relevant for G40 is the ability to blitz and/or the ability to reinforce an area fast.
my math says 1 Inf + 1 Artillery=7 ipc’s for CV of 4, 1 Mech + 1 Artillery=8 ipc’s for CV of 4, 1 tank =6 ipc’s for CV of 3 so for CV 24 you need 4 tanks at 24 ipc’s vs 28 ipc’s for Inf / Arty combo or 32 ipc’s for Mech / arty combo and this doesn’t even include unit placement allotments in a complex.
A minor = 3 tanks at 18 ipc’s for CV of 9 or 2 arty and 1 inf for 11 ipc’s for a CV of 6…roughly 70% to 30% chance armor wins
How is 1+1 (2x infantry attack power) = 3?
If you’d go with power over speed, you get both by choosing the tank. So you can choose TANK or TANK.
The bigger the map, the more valuable mobility is. On a small map, 2 moves is ok. On the bigger maps, it makes the +1 cost of Mech Infantry well worth it, and infantry are valuable primarily because they take up a dedicated transport slot.
Infantry are balanced different in every game, even though the cost is the same, because the other aspects of the game (unit cost, stats, map size, other units available as alternatives) are different in every edition.
Except even though G40 is the largest game to date, infantry in all version doesn’t change with the exception of the games that combine arms with Artillery making infantry in that sense stronger. Which is why China’s only industrial unit they can make is US artillery even though the nation actually had every unit already in AnA.
Stop feeding the trolls
TO LATE :-D
Ummm….the troll comment lost me.
Ummm….the troll comment lost me.
They are either talking about Vann commits as he claims to have this new way of playing but somehow doesn’t share it or they are calling me a troll for thinking tanks are not worth their price.
@Caesar:
Ummm….the troll comment lost me.
They are either talking about Vann commits as he claims to have this new way of playing but somehow doesn’t share it for they are calling me a troll for thinking tanks are not worth their price.
Based on cost the infantry on offense is 1.33 times stronger than the tank. :) :) :)
People are forgetting a temporal component here.
Look at a transport for instance. 1 inf 1 art have the save attack value as 1 inf 1 arm. But when the 1 inf dies… the tank is superior to the artillery everytime, because your punch survives deeper into the ensuing combat rounds.
The truth is, no one unit mass produced alone is ever going to win you the game. The best approach is to have a strong mixture of units, so you have a strong mixture of capabilities.
People also aren’t calculating threat factors properly. Your wad of 30 infantry can only strike whats next to it. But a wad of 15 tanks can strike twice as many targets, and has much better oppurtunity and threat factor, based on what you “could” do with it.
This gives you an “invisible” unit factor (like scrambling), where i have to calculate for something that may not occur. These raw calculations are giving absolutely 0 bearing on these types of factors.
People are forgetting a temporal component here.
Look at a transport for instance. 1 inf 1 art have the save attack value as 1 inf 1 arm. But when the 1 inf dies… the tank is superior to the artillery everytime, because your punch survives deeper into the ensuing combat rounds.
The truth is, no one unit mass produced alone is ever going to win you the game. The best approach is to have a strong mixture of units, so you have a strong mixture of capabilities.
People also aren’t calculating threat factors properly. Your wad of 30 infantry can only strike whats next to it. But a wad of 15 tanks can strike twice as many targets, and has much better oppurtunity and threat factor, based on what you “could” do with it.
This gives you an “invisible” unit factor (like scrambling), where i have to calculate for something that may not occur. These raw calculations are giving absolutely 0 bearing on these types of factors.
Except your only good point is that you should have combined arms. tanks are not going to be worth your time if you’re too stupid to give it infantry to take hits, which is why mech infantry are great for this because they can blitz with tanks.
Troll = VANN DAM
@Caesar:
People are forgetting a temporal component here.
Look at a transport for instance. 1 inf 1 art have the save attack value as 1 inf 1 arm. But when the 1 inf dies… the tank is superior to the artillery everytime, because your punch survives deeper into the ensuing combat rounds.
The truth is, no one unit mass produced alone is ever going to win you the game. The best approach is to have a strong mixture of units, so you have a strong mixture of capabilities.
People also aren’t calculating threat factors properly. Your wad of 30 infantry can only strike whats next to it. But a wad of 15 tanks can strike twice as many targets, and has much better oppurtunity and threat factor, based on what you “could” do with it.
This gives you an “invisible” unit factor (like scrambling), where i have to calculate for something that may not occur. These raw calculations are giving absolutely 0 bearing on these types of factors.
Except your only good point is that you should have combined arms. tanks are not going to be worth your time if you’re too stupid to give it infantry to take hits, which is why mech infantry are great for this because they can blitz with tanks.
THIS IS BASED IN COST
INF&ART A/D 2.72/2.72
MECH&TANK A/D 1.33/1,33
This is when you buy a one to one ratio. INF&ART is twice as strong than MECH&TANK.
People are forgetting a temporal component here.
Look at a transport for instance. 1 inf 1 art have the save attack value as 1 inf 1 arm. But when the 1 inf dies… the tank is superior to the artillery everytime, because your punch survives deeper into the ensuing combat rounds.
The truth is, no one unit mass produced alone is ever going to win you the game. The best approach is to have a strong mixture of units, so you have a strong mixture of capabilities.
People also aren’t calculating threat factors properly. Your wad of 30 infantry can only strike whats next to it. But a wad of 15 tanks can strike twice as many targets, and has much better oppurtunity and threat factor, based on what you “could” do with it.
This gives you an “invisible” unit factor (like scrambling), where i have to calculate for something that may not occur. These raw calculations are giving absolutely 0 bearing on these types of factors.
Amen
Run your calculations vs Bomber builds.
On paper you are going to think infantry are value gods, and that bomber builds are insane.
Then play a game vs an axis dark skies strategy, and the calculations will blow your mind, because the bombers have the ability to hit multiple stacks at the same time. Where as your infantry are limited in threat.
For the record, if there’s a broken unit in the game - it’s the disposable $12 bomber
