Riiiiiiggggghhhhtttttt.
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.
@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 ratio2^2*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)
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?
@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 ;)
Thing about tanks costing 5 is that the side that wants to attack will just buy tanks.
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.
carrier and bomber spam kind of reduces the fun for me
This game is actually a lot of fun to play. Try not to forget that while you are staring at your calculators.
Still trying to come to grips with the fact that I agree with a Canadian on something…
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.
I’ve stressed this in another thread.
@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 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?
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 ;)
I might widen my line of questioning then.
Simply put, your formula specific changes when reaching 3 Infantry (for 9 IPCs), like the start of an exponential curve (there is a square operation in the formula x^2), makes me wonder if there is some circumstances in which a stronger picket of 3 Infs is more potent.
Probably if your totally outwhelmed, in any case your picket will only roll once, but if limited number of units are involved maybe there is a threshold of enemy units in which throwing 3 Infs get you more than a single roll on defense and you get the opportunity to make more casualty on enemy before the decisive battle.
Is it possible?
Why are you guys still discussing this? Didnt we already decide that we aren’t interested? Or am I nuts?
After showing many shortcomings on Vann formula, Kreutzfeld compared with his own formula (which can be more easily use on game without using AACalc, to measure two stacks strength).
Then I tried to showed or validate some tactical combat (for a different optimal tactical retreat) implications from his formula which cannot be implied by Vann formula either.
If someone said he does not want to talk about pratical impact of measuring combat values, it does not mean everyone is clueless. And I cannot see why it was not a correct line to investigate an idea.
Aside some different combats values thrown in (which may condamned this thread to HR even if this was not OP intent) because Vann formula is still able (or unable) to point a few obsolete or weak units in OOB roster.
I would never have think about a possible different way of optimizing a tactical retreat if this specific comparison about mathematical formulas had not been push forward.
And don’t tell me TripleA players never check odds on BattleCalc before sending their final moves in PBF.
:-D
@Baron:
I might widen my line of questioning then.
Simply put, your formula specific changes when reaching 3 Infantry (for 9 IPCs), like the start of an exponential curve (there is a square operation in the formula x^2), makes me wonder if there is some circumstances in which a stronger picket of 3 Infs is more potent.Probably if your totally outwhelmed, in any case your picket will only roll once, but if limited number of units are involved maybe there is a threshold of enemy units in which throwing 3 Infs get you more than a single roll on defense and you get the opportunity to make more casualty on enemy before the decisive battle.
Is it possible?
I guess it would be possible to construct some examples where stronger pickets might be better. But it would require some limitations on your opponent.
If we assume that germany and ussr are picketing each other on the east front. And we assume that they are both strong enough to deadzone the area between their main stackes. And we also assume that they have 3 or 4 areas where then can scirmish. And we also assume that most of the short range luftwaffe are tied up west and cant participate, only the two german bombers can, and 1-2 fighters. If you then put out 3 inf in each area, germany would have to send in at least 3 inf + bomber to reliably take the terr. So, if you are able to picket back with 3 inf and ussr plane, you might be able to force an increase in the losses to scirmishing on the east front. germany would very quickly run out of inf, and would have to use mechs instead. This could be very favourable for the soviet. Therefore the german might go for only attacking 2 of the terrs with 2 planes and 2 infs instead of picketing all 4. But then, you are preventing the german from getting income from 2 of the terrs and you only have to pay with 1 extra inf in each of the two areas that does get hit. So you can picket right back with the red air force and some infs.
So in this very spesific situation, you might want to picket with 3 infs. However, if germany have 2 planes for each terr (so 8 in total), instead of 1 for each, then this picketing strat is getting worse.
Others might be able to think of other scenarios where having more troops scirmishing is beneficial.
This thread is still here also !!!
I also see VANN DANN still can go on site here but is banned from speaking.
So, as a rule of thumb, if the enemy can bring 2 aircrafts in addition to the same number of Infantry picket, then you are toasted. Right?
2 Fgs & 3 Infs^2 * A9/5 = 25*1.8 = 45
3 Infs^2 * D2 = 18
It is more than double value of picket stack.
45 vs 18 = 5 : 2 ratio
But, if there is only 1 additional plane in attack, it is workable for defender?
(1A3+3A1)^2 *A6/4 = 16 * 1.5 = 24
24 vs 18 = 4 : 3 ratio
So, whenever the attacker get only 4:3 ratio or less, the defender should try it.
Is it a right way to apply your formula?
Thats why you use the Larrymarx formula to solve these issues.
@Baron:
So, as a rule of thumb, if the enemy can bring 2 aircrafts in addition to the same number of Infantry picket, then you are toasted. Right?
2 Fgs & 3 Infs^2 * A9/5 = 25*1.8 = 45
3 Infs^2 * D2 = 18
It is more than double value of picket stack.
45 vs 18 = 5 : 2 ratioBut, if there is only 1 additional plane in attack, it is workable for defender?
(1A3+3A1)^2 *A6/4 = 16 * 1.5 = 2424 vs 18 = 4 : 3 ratio
So, whenever the attacker get only 4:3 ratio or less, the defender should try it.
Is it a right way to apply your formula?
@Imperious:
Thats why you use the Larrymarx formula to solve these issues.
For now, this is Kreuzfeld formula that I’m applying here.
Someday, there maybe a way to use both but for now it is two different beasts.
And the Baron-Larrymarx formula does not help, not accurate or too many calculations to get to something.
Kreuzfeld formula is simpler for a F-2-F game, and few numbers.
Kreuzfeld formula.
As long as its not named after a member… better.
@Imperious:
Kreuzfeld formula.
As long as its not named after a member… better.
For now, it is the case all Vann, Kreuzfeld, Baron and Larrymarx are members.
If you have an idea for a more suitable name for Baron-Larrymarx, I’m opened to it, as long as others agree.
I cannot deny Vann, Larrymarx then me filiation (or line of succession) to this Baron-Larrymarx formula.
But Kreuzfeld bring his own much earlier. And it is a different beast, for a different purpose.
