G40 VANN FORMULAS RESULTS

[Witt]

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.

[weddingsinger]

@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).

[Genghis Khan]

cruiser and BB have been proven to be obsolete OOB. that’s why I proposed A5D5C20 BB and A3D3C10 cruiser.

[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.

[Young Grasshopper]

@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

[baron Münchhausen]

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.

[Young Grasshopper]

Price modifications are the toughest changes ever to adapt to.

[baron Münchhausen]

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?

[Hunter Jones]

@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.

[baron Münchhausen]

@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.

[Young Grasshopper]

@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.

[baron Münchhausen]

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.

[Young Grasshopper]

@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.

[Hunter Jones]

Riiiiiiggggghhhhtttttt.

[Genghis Khan]

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.

[Kreuzfeld]

@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)

[baron Münchhausen]

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?

[Kreuzfeld]

@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 ;)

[Cow]

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

[GeneralHandGrenade]

I don’t understand why everyone still wants to debate this mess. First of all you are all way off course. His formula was based on Classic not on G40 so the numbers are all off to begin with. The 2 games are vastly different in almost all respects so even if the costs and values were the same the numbers would still be bogus. Throw in the others here who want to change the values of units instead of debating the formula which was based on a game which none of you are talking about in the first place and based on OOB values to begin with. So…WHAT THE SAM HELL ARE ALL OF YOU WASTING YOUR TIME HERE FOR?!?

Put your stupid calculators away and learn how to play the game using your intelligence and creativity. This game was created to be played between people, not machines. If you want to talk about changing the values then go to the House Rules section where there are already several threads to discuss that.

This game is actually a lot of fun to play. Try not to forget that while you are staring at your calculators.