They wont be posting them ( national objectives) any time soon. The techs are basically confirmed already sake the scripting as per Krieghunds confirmation. BY the time October 6th comes this site will have even more information figured out. To compare the value of what they post and even make a comparison of two sentences posted over a week to the volume of work compiled by the minds here is no comparison at all. WE got them beat hands down.
The only official thing they will do as usual is wait till a week before and post a few articles they should have posted 6 months earlier when it was Molasses season.
Right now time is running out and hardly anybody from that site barely knows a game is coming out, let alone be compelled to buy a product costing $100 bucks or less because they didnt give anybody a reason to make a buying decision with free advertisement on their site.
Its incredulous to think that you only need to post one sentence of text every 2-3 days AS the prima facie marketing direction for a large company. I should send them a bag of Kibbles and bits for that effort.
Tech update:
Paratroopers- (each bomber may now carry one infantry instead of attacking or performing SBR, and that infantry attacks at a ‘2’.)
Each bomber may carry one infantry to a combat, and it may also still participate in the conventional attack in that territory, but not do an SBR. When doing this, it must attack the first hostile territory that it enters on its flight path. Paratroopers may retreat normally during combat, as long as other attacking land units are in the battle that are eligible to retreat.
Great Krieghund,
Thanks for the info on the Paratroopers. The bomber being able to hit during the attack will definitely add punch to a combined Para drop.
I just wanted to check one item. The summary post states that with jet fighter technology, fighters “attack” at 5. I was wondering if this should be “defend” at 5, since attack at 5 (I would think) would generate more discussion than I have seen around here.
/Krieghund
Thanks for the Paratroopers update! I thought it would include some boost for the attacking infantry, and this is quite a powerful tech now. The restriction of not flying over an enemy territory and attacking behind the line is reasonable and prevents some strange strategies, this is still a powerful tech which especially Germany and UK will be really glad to get hold of.
/Ometiklan
No, attack is correct. I think they wanted to boost Jet fighters compared to other techs, and this is a good change since you normally use fighters offensively until a “last-ditch” defence when you don’t mind losing your fighters. Maybe it also has something to do with avoiding naval stalemates, as Jet fighters on carriers defending on a ‘5’ would be almost impregnable. Transport defending at ‘0’, subs at ‘1’ and carriers at ‘2’ all goes towards a more balanced naval battlefield, very well thought by Larry et al.
When doing this, it must attack the first hostile territory that it enters on its flight path.
I like this… no far flung dropping over an enemy line.
Does sea zones count as ‘hostile’?
Tech update:
Paratroopers- (each bomber may now carry one infantry instead of attacking or performing SBR, and that infantry attacks at a ‘2’.)
Each bomber may carry one infantry to a combat, and it may also still participate in the conventional attack in that territory, but not do an SBR. When doing this, it must attack the first hostile territory that it enters on its flight path. Paratroopers may retreat normally during combat, as long as other attacking land units are in the battle that are eligible to retreat.
So you can only use paratrooping technology during combat?
Can you non-combat troops as well?
So you can only use paratrooping technology during combat?
Can you non-combat troops as well?
No.
So you can only use paratrooping technology during combat?
Can you non-combat troops as well?
No.
well that’s just silly & doesn’t make any sense… unless it’s specifically to limit the US from buying mega bomber numbers and moving inf to london via those bombers. By allowing only combat movement, those US bombers can not bring inf across the ‘pond’ since they’d have no where to land.
Heavy bombers get a 2nd roll @4, while jet fighters go from 3 to 4…laughable
Confirmed today by WotC_Mike on the Avalon Hill boards:
Shipyards- cheaper naval costs (minus one SS, TRS, DD, minus two CA, CV, BB)
Improved Shipyards. Your sea units are now cheaper to build. Use these revised costs:
Battleship - 17
Aircraft Carrier - 11
Cruiser - 10
Destroyer - 7
Transport - 6
Submarine - 5
Radar- AA-guns fire at 2
Correct.
Thanks, Krieghund. We are now 100% confirmed. Everyone: please feel free to join the discussion!
A few notes of mine on some of the techs to help start things up;
Improved production: a great one for Germany to get. Not only will SBR attacks be much reduced in damage, that Karelia factory will be getting 4 units/turn of production.
Mechanized infantry: another great tech for Germany, and also for the Soviets. We will now see some actually worthwhile tech investments by these two powers, which really was never the case in any earlier A&A editions.
Paratroopers: probably most useful for UK and US in Europe, to support invasions. Germany and Japan might also find it useful to get infantry to the front in Russia and China quicker.
Heavy bombers: enough said already. Decisive tech for UK and US, we’ll see how strong it will actually be.
Improved shipyards: US and Japan will be happy to get this, could really tilt the balance in the Pacific for a while.
Radar: a superb tech for Germany and the Soviet Union, but I’m worried they put it on the “Air/naval chart”. Will this mean that they will rarely get it? I’m assuming they will find the other chart much more worthwhile, being land-based powers.
Mechanized infantry: another great tech for Germany, and also for the Soviets. We will now see some actually worthwhile tech investments by these two powers, which really was never the case in any earlier A&A editions.
Not sure what A&A game you’ve been playing, but there indeed HAS been tech that good for both Russia and Germany. Rockets are the uber-tech for Germany, even Russia too
It’s just they were never really ‘affordable’ in terms of forgoing ground units to try for the tech.
Classic was totally different WRT tech.
Just a nitpicky question here…
I was under the impression that the true fighter jet technology developed by the British and the Germans during WWII was applied to defensive interceptor craft. The Brits used their jet fighters to intercept V1’s, and the Germans used theirs to intercept Allied bomber squadrons. In addition, these jet fighters could only fly for a few minutes before running out of fuel. So, with all this in mind, why has the AA50 jet fighter technology raised the attack value of fighters to 4, essentially making them cheap bombers? The AAR version of this technology seems much more appropriate given the history of these early rocket propelled aircraft (raise the defense value of fighters to 5).
Perhaps a more appropriate name for this technology would be something along the lines of ‘advanced tactical fighter bombers’?
My friends and I printed out Blustroke’s Players’ Aid Map, and have played AA50 according to it, and the tech which seems absolutely too weak is Radar. Both Japan and the US want techs from the Air/Naval Chart, but Radar is basically useless for them. Even for the other players, Radar just doesn’t seem to be nearly as useful as ANY of the other Land or Air/Naval techs.
I believe that the Radar tech should give advantages to your navy as well. Possibly by adding +1 to the attack/defense of each of your surface warships in the first round of battle only (even if you are neither attacking Air units nor defending against Air units). This would fairly represent the advance warning the Radar would give you. (Radar worked also against ships, not only against Air units right?). Or, another fix would be to ether give Cruisers AA ability (possibly only give each Cruiser 1 or 2 AA shots each, but with the maximum number of AA shots fired to be no more than the total number of attacking Air units) or to give Battleships and Cruisers each 1 AA shot (limited to no more than the total number of attacking plane). The AA shots should be in addition to the Cruiser or Battleship’s nurmal roll of the dice for the battle. Probably the AA shots should be preemptive, but it would still be okay with me if they were not (allowing the Cruiser or Battleship to roll both a “1” to only hit Air units and also roll a “3/4” to hit whatever).
What do y’all think? Radar is too weak? Radar is too powerful? Radar is just right?
AA guns are already overpowered to begin with… The radar tech makes them absurdly effective.
Putting my gripes about AA guns aside, I think all nations can benefit from this tech. Russia, Germany, Italy, and the UK for obvious reasons. As for Japan, building a few beefed up AA guns and shipping them the key islands, can really put a wrench in the Allies plans. Think of the headaches the US would have if they were unable to take islands because all of their planes have been shot down (or they are afraid of their planes being shot down). Also, radar guns on a few islands would make a pacific paratrooper campaign REALLY risky- if not impossible. They would have to put more money into land units, meaning that their navy would be less powerful, meaning Japan could put up a better fight in the Pacific… you get the idea.
The benefit of AA guns for the USA is less clear however. The first thing that comes to mind for me is shipping a few AA guns to Europe. For example, replacing the AA gun in England with an American Radar AA gun which would really help the UK player. Also, the Americans could install a radar gun in France and/ or Northwest Europe, making it much more difficult for the Germans to take those territories back.
As for adding AA capabilities to ships… Man, I would lose it if a single cruiser shot down a bunch of planes in addition to its normal defense roll!!! I think this idea wouldn’t work. It effectively gives these units two or three defense rolls. It’s WAAAY too much… And to put this into a historical perspective, battleships, while powerful, were extremely vulnerable when faced by attacks by airplanes. Just think of the Yamato!! The mightiest warship of the second world war… sunk by an American fighter squadron which lost only a dozen men in the attack!
AA guns are already overpowered to begin with… The radar tech makes them absurdly effective.
Putting my gripes about AA guns aside, I think all nations can benefit from this tech. Russia, Germany, Italy, and the UK for obvious reasons. As for Japan, building a few beefed up AA guns and shipping them the key islands, can really put a wrench in the Allies plans. Think of the headaches the US would have if they were unable to take islands because all of their planes have been shot down (or they are afraid of their planes being shot down). Also, radar guns on a few islands would make a pacific paratrooper campaign REALLY risky- if not impossible. They would have to put more money into land units, meaning that their navy would be less powerful, meaning Japan could put up a better fight in the Pacific… you get the idea.
The benefit of AA guns for the USA is less clear however. The first thing that comes to mind for me is shipping a few AA guns to Europe. For example, replacing the AA gun in England with an American Radar AA gun which would really help the UK player. Also, the Americans could install a radar gun in France and/ or Northwest Europe, making it much more difficult for the Germans to take those territories back.
As for adding AA capabilities to ships… Man, I would lose it if a single cruiser shot down a bunch of planes in addition to its normal defense roll!!! I think this idea wouldn’t work. It effectively gives these units two or three defense rolls. It’s WAAAY too much… And to put this into a historical perspective, battleships, while powerful, were extremely vulnerable when faced by attacks by airplanes. Just think of the Yamato!! The mightiest warship of the second world war… sunk by an American fighter squadron which lost only a dozen men in the attack!
Okay fine, only give Cruisers AA ability. Battleships are good enough as is. But I don’t think you understood what I was saying. I feel that the Radar tech is too weak, with little use for several countries, and I feel that Naval AA is something missing from Axis and Allies, so, you can kill 2 birds with 1 stone by allowing the Radar tech to upgrade a nation’s Cruisers. In defensive situations (although I wouldn’t be opposed to allowing it in offensive situations as well),
each individual Cruiser would get 1 (and only 1) preemptive roll of the dice at a “1” not a “2” fired at the attacking Air units. The attacker could still choose the casualties of course. (If there were 2 Fighters and 2 Bombers attacking 2 Cruisers, then each Cruiser would roll 1 dice at a “1” (a total of 2 dice), and then if 1 of the 2 dice “hit”, then the attacker would probably choose a Fighter as a casualty leaving 1 Fighter and 2 Bombers to fight in Round 1 against the 2 Cruisers. Round 1 would then proceed as normal, and in the following rounds, the Cruisers would NOT fire any AA shots. If you had a situation where the defender had more Cruisers in total than the number of attacking Air units, then the total number of AA shots would be limited to the same number of attacking Air units. (Example: A fleet containing a total of 4 Air units attacks another fleet containing a total of 6 Cruisers. The defender whould only roll 4 dice at “1’s”, NOT 6 dice at “1’s”. I feel that this would help to make the Radar tech more valuable for the nations for which the current Radar tech doesn’t really help. (Radar as is helps Germany and Russia some, but doesn’t help Japan and the US. UK and Italy are kind of in the middle. Radar upgrading Cruisers would help Japan and US the most, UK and Italy second, and Germany and Russia very little, so I think that this would be a balanced approach to the Radar tech.
Bardoly: you are my hero. I have been fighting for Cruisers to get the AA shot for like 5 years. I have had discussions for that long with a number of posters and finally found somebody who sees the same thing as me.
That would give them some value other than another ‘in-between unit’ from BB and DD. W/O it having this attribute the argument “why cruisers” has some small merit.
edit: wrong poster cited
