Tank purchases still DEAD

[baron Münchhausen]

@Uncrustable:

Not since revised I don’t think
It should be like that in all editions
It adds value, gives more reason to be purchased

AAA have 1 out of 6 chance to hit anyone aircraft (max: up to 3 aircrafts/ AAA).
I read somewhere that the real effectiveness was around 1/10.
So, giving a preemptive strike to AAA on any aircraft attacking a territory is already a greater advantage that they should have.
Of course, it is quite annoying seeing them on the side after the first cycle of battle. But you should tell yourself it has done more than it would normally.

Maybe, if you accept to give up the preemptive strike on 3 planes on the first cycle and considering AAA as part of the regular phase but still attacking @1 on up to 3 planes.
It could be acceptable (keeping a balance) on the other round to let each individual AAA after first round making 1@1 against an aircraft.

It seems a simple  compromise. I changed my mind. See on the other tread.

[Derek]

No baron this will not turn into spaghetti at the wall

The original AA gun (official rules) was not OP ftw
It just added another element to the game, and AA guns played a larger role in the game
Players had to either plan aircraft routes around AA sites or risk the dice on flyovers
You used to need an AA gun to defend against SBR

Now AA is just battle fodder and an afterthought, an almost worthless piece on the board

[baron Münchhausen]

@Uncrustable:

No baron this will not turn into spaghetti at the wall   :-D

The original AA gun (official rules) was not OP ftw
It just added another element to the game, and AA guns played a larger role in the game
Players had to either plan aircraft routes around AA sites or risk the dice on flyovers
You used to need an AA gun to defend against SBR

Now AA is just battle fodder and an afterthought, an almost worthless piece on the board

Hi Uncrustable,
What does mean

OP ftw?

Out of Proportion Fighters Weapon?  :-D

You used to need an AA gun to defend against SBR

It is still the case even if they are in-built with the new IC.
I don’t understand what you mean.

What was the older rule?
Is it something like during combat move all planes passing over a territory with AA gun get 1@1 shot?
Under non-combat move, there is no AA fire.

I would like to throw spaghetti at the wall…  :roll:
Don’t you?

As I said:

AAA have 1 out of 6 chance to hit anyone aircraft (max: up to 3 aircrafts/ AAA).
I read somewhere that the real effectiveness was around 1/10.

I would like to make an AAA defense (and make it more useful and adding this element on attack) when Planes pass over a territory to get to another.
But 2 AAA @1 for each aircraft means 11/36 chance to kill each aircraft.
It becomes far from historical reality.
Maybe with a 12 sides dice. Each AAA kill on 1/12.
You can easely allow 1 first strike shot and even continuous firing @1 for each AAA after first round.

But to leap from 1/6 to 11/36 for every plane is a huge gap.

Aircrafts cost a lot and on a 1 on 1 basis casuality almost lose more; so they need ground/ocean support.
(StrB = Cruiser (TacB and Fgt) > DD / TT/ Subs/ Arm /AAA/ Art / MecInf /Inf)
Only Carrier and Battleship are really more expensive.

That’s why I think most player prefer the actual rule and accept the fatal “1” and first strike.

If you wish to answer, I suggest to go to the other tread on AA.
This post will be there also.

I don’t want to derail it more than it is.

[Derek]

Baron you over think everything lol
And OP = over powered
Ftw = fukkk the world

You do not need an AA gun to shoot at planes SBRing under current OOB rules
Used to be you have to have anAA gun to protect your IC from SBR

Used to be you had to think about aircraft routes to avoid AA shooting at you

Now AAguns are worthless cannon fodder that no one thinks about buying

And ftw AA guns should not be able to attack that is absurd
All land units have mobile AA within their unit and can shoot down planes under current OOB rules

To me an AA gun represents a territory wide network of strategically placed radar, aircraft spotters and surface to air weapons platforms

[baron Münchhausen]

@Uncrustable:

Baron you over think everything lol
And OP = over powered
Ftw = fukkk the world

You do not need an AA gun to shoot at planes SBRing under current OOB rules
Used to be you have to have anAA gun to protect your IC from SBR

Used to be you had to think about aircraft routes to avoid AA shooting at you

Now AAguns are worthless cannon fodder that no one thinks about buying

And ftw AA guns should not be able to attack that is absurd
All land units have mobile AA within their unit and can shoot down planes under current OOB rules

To me an AA gun represents a territory wide network of strategically placed radar, aircraft spotters and surface to air weapons platforms

I have a question for you in the “AA Guns” tread.

[allweneedislove]

Lots of good posts here, was fun to read.
Even thou I disagree with most posts as I was sure that tanks are bad purchases.

But I agree with everyone about cruiser purchases and aagun purchases. They are dead too

[JDOW]

I haven’t read all the posts but I think it can be proven mathematically easily that tanks can be worth being purchased.

Let’s assume a typical German/Russian situation.
Germans attack with

26 inf
9 mech
5 art
9 tanks
4 figs
4 tacs
2 Bombers

Russian defend with
41 inf
4 mech
9 art
3 tanks
2 figs
1 tacs
4 AA

The Germans have 13% odds to win that battle.

Now let’s assume the Germans can add 36 IPC either worth in tanks or in mech to that attack.
If you add 9 mech to this attack the odds for the Germans to win that battle go up to 64%
However, if you add 6 tanks to that attack the odds go up to 69%

So we have mathematical proof that investing into tanks rather than mech can have benefits for attacking purposes.
Thus tanks are definitely NOT a bad purchase by definition compared to mech.

q.e.d. or did I overlook something?

[DessertFox599]

AAA gubs should not be in the game period. Artillery should have the option of either shooting air or land. So you would have some shoot about 90% shoot ground while the rest shoot air.  As for tanks, i always buy aton of tanks and mechs.  infantry and fighters are the best defense whiles mechs tanks and planes if available are the best offense.

[variance]

I think a good compromise on the price of tanks would be if tanks cost $6 and mechs cost $4 if purchased separately, but if you buy a tank and a mech together you only pay $9. 
Anniversary sale price

[JDOW]

@variance:

I think a good compromise on the price of tanks would be if tanks cost $6 and mechs cost $4 if purchased separately, but if you buy a tank and a mech together you only pay $9. 
Anniversary sale price

May I ask, why compromises? I believe I have proven above that tanks are definitely worth their money :)

[JDOW]

And I admit that I am a bit disappointed that nobody either falsified my calculation/conclusion or gives me the credit that I prove AWN to be wrong about tanks :)

[baron Münchhausen]

@JDOW:

And I admit that I am a bit disappointed that nobody either falsified my calculation/conclusion or gives me the credit that I prove AWN to be wrong about tanks :)

Being able to bring 12 additional Infantry, would have been better for odds of victory for Germany.

But I suppose you are assuming there is only M2 units types available.
I don’t have Triple A Calc, but is it possible that 3 MechInf with 4 Tanks would have been better for Germany’s success?

Main things is that skew is always better and in very specific conditions a few Tanks maybe needed.

[Zhukov44]

I think Allweneed’s original premise was that inf/art/mech combinations are such a good value that they make tank purchases superfluous (rather than that mech are more cost-efficient than tanks for all purposes).  But there’s a couple reasons this is wrong.

1. Sometimes it’s good to buy tanks in circumstances when you have money and need to add extra punch.  It can be good to buy bombers and tactical bombers for the same reason.  If it’s possible to take a capital like India or Moscow, then it’s better to do it a turn earlier using mobile units like tanks or bombers rather than waiting another turn for slower artillery.  The cost of buying the more expensive units is offset by the gains from sacking capitals and securing national objectives a turn earlier.

2. Large stacks of tanks/mech open up strategic opportunities (especially on the Eastern front) and tank/mech stacks are most efficient when there are almost as many tanks as mechs (somewhere b/w 1:1 to 1:2 being best).

3. Tanks are the lowest cost mobile attack unit and are a better value than planes in many circumstances.

[gamerman01]

I will repeat a couple of my earlier points

Many times you have limited capacity, like a minor IC.
Also limited are transports.  The most potent load for a transport is infantry/tank
And don’t forget about damaged IC’s - when damaged, the cost of every unit goes up 1.  Infantry costs 4, arty/mech cost 5, and tanks cost 7.  Now the relative cost of tanks over cheaper land units is decreased.

But even in normal circumstances (like building in Berlin or Moscow), tank purchases can make sense because of what Zhukov and JDOW have said.

Of course Allweneed is right that tanks costing 6 instead of 5 is a significant nerf, but the tanks at 5 in earlier versions (with a defense value of 3) were overpowered

[Midnight_Reaper]

@Gamerman01:

I will repeat a couple of my earlier points

{snip}

Of course Allweneed is right that tanks costing 6 instead of 5 is a significant nerf, but the tanks at 5 in earlier versions (with a defense value of 3) were overpowered

Then how do A3/D2/M2/C5 tanks stack up against A3/D3/M2/C6 tanks? On the attack, the D2/C5 tanks are a bargain. But when the offense turns to defense, are D3/C6 tanks that much better than D2/C5 tanks? The defense value of tanks was driven from 2 to 3 when A&A Revised came out because of how much better D2C3 Infantry were at defending than D2C5 Tanks were, per IPC spent. Then, D3C5 tanks were found to be too good. Which led to D3C6 tanks…

But are D2C5 tanks better or worse than D3C6 tanks? And if one is better, by how much is it better?

-Midnight_Reaper

[General 6 Stars]

@Midnight_Reaper:

@Gamerman01:

I will repeat a couple of my earlier points

{snip}

Of course Allweneed is right that tanks costing 6 instead of 5 is a significant nerf, but the tanks at 5 in earlier versions (with a defense value of 3) were overpowered

Then how do A3/D2/M2/C5 tanks stack up against A3/D3/M2/C6 tanks? On the attack, the D2/C5 tanks are a bargain. But when the offense turns to defense, are D3/C6 tanks that much better than D2/C5 tanks? The defense value of tanks was driven from 2 to 3 when A&A Revised came out because of how much better D2C3 Infantry were at defending than D2C5 Tanks were, per IPC spent. Then, D3C5 tanks were found to be too good. Which led to D3C6 tanks…

But are D2C5 tanks better or worse than D3C6 tanks? And if one is better, by how much is it better?

-Midnight_Reaper

Tank
D2 C5 = 1.92
D3 C6 = 2.00. Just a bit stronger  but other wise same

[baron Münchhausen]

To get an exact corresponding strength between A2 D2 M2 vs A3 D3 M2, one would  have cost 4.5 IPCs while the other 5.5 IPCs.

5 pips for 5 IPCs was overall correct, but 6 pips for 5 IPCs was too cheap.
Any M2 A2 D2 was weak for 5 IPCs.

In D12, you would have get
4/12 C5 vs 9/12 C6 is about same strength.
Meanings in D6s: 2/6 Cost 5 vs 4.5/6 cost 6.

[JDOW]

@Baron:

@JDOW:

And I admit that I am a bit disappointed that nobody either falsified my calculation/conclusion or gives me the credit that I prove AWN to be wrong about tanks :)

Being able to bring 12 additional Infantry, would have been better for odds of victory for Germany.

But I suppose you are assuming there is only M2 units types available.
I don’t have Triple A Calc, but is it possible that 3 MechInf with 4 Tanks would have been better for Germany’s success?

Main things is that skew is always better and in very specific conditions a few Tanks maybe needed.

Yep, the extra movement is of course a special value, otherwise 9 arty would be the by far most powerful addition to the army :-)

And also yes, a mixture could be the optimum.