Posts made by Genghis Khan

the tables and formula (and its proof) work for when all attacking units are the same unit and when all the defending units are the same unit. Otherwise you have to approximate by calculating an average power and average number of units. Example:

on attack:  5 infantry, 4 tanks, 2 fighter.

Total pips: 5+4(3)+2(3) = 23.
Number of units = 5+4+2 = 11

23/11=2

So we can approximate this stack with 11 units hitting at 2, or 11 artillery.

I guess you would use power level 2 and number of units 11 for the purposes of lanchester tables.

Awesome Baron, I will go over the math later but does this proof validate the Lanchester table?

yes I could have done that. Could have also upgraded the IC in sydney. You can also just buy strategic bombers and a transport and pick off lone japanese transports and take back islands.

In our group, we are testing a modification to the ANZAC national objective to require Cairo AND Malaya while at war with Germany and Italy to get 5 IPCs. This way if Japan wants to declare war early, they have the option to deny two bonuses by taking Malaya, but they also have to take philippines to deny the american bonus. So they have to choose. They can’t do everything: money islands, philippines, malaya, yunnan etc. If they don’t declare war early, then Anzac will be able to build up better for the inevitable declaration later on.

In the tournament we consistently had over 40 IPCs with anzac with not enough complexes to build units. I find if America gets an extra 5 and they bring everything they have against Japan PLUS anzac consistently gets over 30 in income, it might be too much for the allies.

Larry Marx has nothing to do with battle estimation, it’s for evaluating HR units and comparing unit to one another.

Ok so I tested manually 141 infantry attacking 100 infantry defending and the results was 12 infantry left standing on the attacks vs 0 on the defense. AAcalc gives this result as well.

Shouldn’t the remaining infantry be the same on both sides if the battle is supposed to be exactly 50:50 according to the table/formula?

I’m posting videos of the G40 Invitational:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wk9ooowEKQ0&lc=z22pw54h2sr4wbu1yacdp434fwhc4ndionykygiwloxw03c010c

Hey guys, this formula is really useful. I would love to see the proof for this. It’s not that I don’t trust you, I just want to see how you derived it, thanks!

-GK

For the UK submarine NO, what sea zones does the Atlantic include? I just want to make sure. I think it’s a good rule, you can’t simply put a sub in the med or in the white sea. plus I like to build subs with germany anyways :)

@Young:

@Leatherneckinlv:

Whatever the rules are….as long as they don’t change with the wind…People are going to practice in accordance to the rules and structure

Based on what I’ve learned last weekend and getting feedback from many participants including Gold medalists like Gargantua… we have settled on the following modifications. I can assure you that there will be no more changes after this because I have to design cards for each change made, and I desperately want to stop making cards. For those that paid for card decks already sent in the mail without the modifications, I will be shipping them free replacement cards for the few changes that were made. Therefore, practice with this rule set… it is now set in stone for better or for worst.

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=40610.0

No changes to unit cost for cruiser and BB? I would like to buy one of those someday.

I just add up punch on both sides and divide by 6, round and then remove that many casualties. Then keep going for the next round and the next round etc. until one is left with no units.

yes but battleships doesn’t only have two hits as ability. It also has ability to soak hits and then heal, which cruisers don’t have. This isn’t taken into account in the formulas. (Assuming the BB survives the combat). that’s why I think it’s OK if the strength factor decreases all the way to BB.

it’s normal that Infantry + Artillery seems optimal in the stack formula. it’s because the movement value isn’t taken into account. And tanks pay a premium for that extra point of movement and ability to blitz. Perhaps mech infantry and tanks is better if you want to put pressure on the enemy faster.

For comparing two stacks I will stick to the punch formula to determine number of hits and leftover units after the battle.

yes tanks are 3 times stronger on offense then bombers but that doesn’t take into account the fact that bombers can reach everywhere in the turn after they are built whereas tanks often take at least two turns and don’t have the flexibility of hitting sea units as well.

@Cow:

You get the middle east by buying air and attacking ground with it.

Air force > Navy in this game

the correct cost of cruiser and BB are 10 and 18 according to baron-larymarx formulas and using OOB DD values as benchmark.

Also tanks has better offense than MI but worse defense than MI according to baron-larymarx.

baron-larymarx shows STB as 1 on offense, and two tanks as 3.92. For tanks I used P=6, C=12 and H=1
P=power, C=cost, H=hits. For STB, P=4, C=12, H=1

value = 36P/(C^2)*(1+(H-1)(1.618))

You misunderstand what the formula is used for. It’s not for comparing two units that have different movement values. You have to compare the ones that have the same role in the game. For example you can choose to use a destroyer or cruiser to defend your fleet. I we want to determine what the ACTUAL cost of a cruiser should be if we want it to be as effective as a destroyer, then we can use the Baron-larymarx formula to determine this. It’s actually 9.78 so a cruiser should really cost 10 IPCs.

Mostly it’s to determine the cost efficiency of units with similar roles. So comparing an infantry with a tank does not work. However you could compare the battleship with destroyer or cruiser with destroyer for example. In order to determine if you will win a stack battle, better to use AAcalc or punch formula, Vann or baron-larymarx will not help with this.

You’re dismissing the formulas without having read any of the logic behind the derivation of the formulas. If you even bothered to read the thread you would see that they make sense for their intended purpose.

I think standard stack formula or AAcalc is better for battle outcome predictions while Vann-Baron formulas are excellent at predicting what a new house rule unit should cost or what the current units should cost when using a unit as benchmark.