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
@Imperious:
Admiral T: 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.
I believe Admiral T was arguing against cruisers getting AA, while Bardoly was arguing for it.
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
Someone’s math is a bit off. Battleships cost 20 IPC and Aircraft Carriers cost 14 according to the information given on the fact sheet. Improved Shipyards lower the cost by 2 IPC. Now, based on my “Old Math” mind, that means that Battleships should cost 18, not 17, and carriers should cost 12, not 11.
thats right.
If you’re confused by the way Krieghund’s post is structured, I believe he was simply quoting Lynxes’ guess at the Improved Shipyards tech in order to follow it with a corrected version, not saying that WotC_Mike was confirming Lynxes’ guess.
Cruisers and other naval units SHOULD NOT get the same abilities as AA guns. The reasoning for this is as follows.
A typicla WW2 European cruiser carried eight to twelve 4 inch guns, assuming that it was fairly large. US heavy and light cruisers carried eight 5"/25 or 5"/38 AA guns if prewar, twelve 5"/38 if war-buillt Cleveland or Baltimore-class ships. US AA light cruisers carried 16 early or 12 if later-built 5"/38. Japanese heavy cruisers carried typically carried eight 5"/40 AA guna, but also had very poor AA fire control systems. British AA cruisers carried eight 4" if converted WW1 ships, or eight to ten 5.25" guns if war-built. Special note should be made of the HMS Delhi, which was converted in the US to carry five 5"/38 guns in single mounts with a US fire control system, and was also viewed by the Royal Navy as an AA CRUISER. This was the same armament and fire control system carried by the US Fletcher-class destroyers!!!
Compare this to the heavy AA gun defenses of Great Britain in 1940-41. Source of the information is There Finest Hour by Winston Churchill, volume 2 of his History of WW2 series. In July of 1940, there were 1200 guns of 3 inch or larger caliber, in December of 1940 there were 1450 such guns, and in May of 1941 there were 1687 such guns, with the beginning of radar-directed fire control systems for the guns. This represents the equivalent of 100 to 140 cruisers. In addition, AA guns on land would be located either in the immediate vicinity of the expected targets or along the route to the targets that the attacking air forces must take. Ships are spread out over a much larger area, typically a thousand yards or so between vessels,which considerably reduces their ability to concentrate AA fire on specific targets.
Now, if this were a tactical-level game, with each ship representing a single vessel, and each aircraft representing perhaps 6 to 12 aircraft, I can see separate AA roles for ships, if they are the objects of the attack, or are very nearly in line to the target of the attack, like a destroyer or cruiser screening a battlehip or carrier. I have been playing TACTICAL NAVAL GAMES since 1970, and assisted in developing them. Axis and Allies is not a TACTIAL LEVEL game. It is a STRATEGIC LEVEL GAME, albeit played with miniature ships, planes, guns, tanks, and infantry, rather than cardboard counters. Giving cruisers the same ability as AA guns is definitely mixing the two levels.
i wouldnt mind that it would get more people to buy cruisers and anyways i would allow this if it was on though the game would need to change a bit but radar only allows cruisers to do 1 never a 2 or else cruiser would need to go up to about 16
Cruisers and other naval units SHOULD NOT get the same abilities as AA guns
In terms of the game they may have similar rules, but really its basic AA defense that all naval units have specifically against planes as opposed to surface ships or subs and this total aggregate effort is being assumed to go to cruisers which more than any other unit are specialized for this task than other units.
I can see separate AA roles for ships
The game features specific ASW rules when planes are attacking a destroyer or when a sub gets its first strike bonus depending on destroyers around or not. This is no different from that kind of “tactical” rule.
But really its a house rule and we should stay on topic with techs.
Timerover51,
I agree, Cruisers should not have the SAME abilities as AA guns. That’s why I limited the AA shot to 1 per Cruiser, with a maximun number of shots equal to the number of attacking air units, with the attacker chhoosing the casualties.
Sorry for being off-topic, but when I first posted in this thread, I was trying to find out what others feel about the Radar tech. I feel that it is too weak as is.
What do y’all think? Radar is too weak? Too powerful? Just right?
1 wouldnt be bad get back to topic!
That’s why I limited the AA shot to 1 per Cruiser, with a maximun number of shots equal to the number of attacking air units
Thats what i said as well. look at the aa50 house rules…just like AA gun with one shot at start of combat one per plane. thats it.
cruiser aa guns would make them more valuable but i fea that the only reason destroyers are 8 is for italy ohoh
No, dd are 2/2 surface ships who can defend trannies from aircraft. Their cost is OK
destrpyers do not need anytihng else but 2/2 8ipcs perfect cost italy will use them alot! and a few subs a ha
An analysis of tech Heavy Bomber tech:
Each tech roll gives a 16.7% chance of scoring a tech. But added rolls are not cumulative but rather diminishing.
The math goes as follows:
16.7% = 1 tech roll.
16.7 + (16.7 x .833 (which is 1 - .167) = 30.6% = 2 tech rolls.
30.6 + (16.7 x .694 (which is 1 - .306) = 42.2% = 3 tech rolls
42.2 + (16.7 x .578 (which is 1 - .422) = 51.9% = 4 tech rolls
51.9 + (16.7 x .481 (which is 1 - .519) = 59.9% = 5 tech rolls
59.9 + (16.7 x .411 (which is 1 - .599) = 66.6% = 6 tech rolls
66.6 + (16.7 x .334 (which is 1 - .666) = 72.1% = 7 tech rolls
Multiply this % by .167 to determine you chances of getting a single specific tech (like heavy bombers).
Multiply by .333, .5, .666 and .833 for your chances of getting one tech in 2, 3, 4 or 5 techs respectively.
So for instance, if you make 7 tech rolls you have a 72.1 x .167 (or 12%) chance of getting heavy bombers.
Now if we can determine the IPC value of Heavy Bombers vs.we can a make cost analysis. Since heavy bombers attack twice, their cost is best compared to simply buying a second bomber…
Heavy bombers cannot undertake separate missions, roll two ones or take two hits on defense. But if we are just comparing their SBR capacity: heavy bombers take neither an extra AA gun hit nor do they offer a second target, compared to a second bomber. Since AA guns have less than a 50% chance of hitting, this makes heavy bombers worse by (16.7% - 16.7%) or 2 IPCs. Thus heavy bomb tech is worth 10 per existing bomber
So given the choice with 36 IPCs to buy 3 bombers or 5 tech rolls what is the proper choice? Three bombers is worth exactly 36. But as we’ve seen 7 tech rolls only has a 12% chance per turn to get heavy bombers. (Granted it has a 72% chance per turn to get some tech, but 35 for any OTHER tech is ludicrous).
Even if we already have 10 bombers on the board and we get a tech this turn, we still only have a 16.7% of heavy bombers. So the bombers are worth 36 and the tech is worth 16.7 IPCs at most.
I hope this conclusively proves that any money invested into securing a specific tech in a tournament length game (or probably even a marathon game) is wasted.
As an aside this means that rolling to get one of the two SBR mitigation techs (AA guns and Factory upgrade) isn’t really a strong option either.
Finally, it is worth noting that any financial commitment to SBR precludes at least SOME lack involvement in the traditional theaters of combat. This has the effect of letting the Axis gain money through more easily achieved national objectives and marginal IPC territories (such as those found in Africa). It also denies the allies (mostly England) progressively more IPCs. It is for this reason that I think SBRs, while definitely a sound strategy, appear to be more game-breaking than perhaps they really are.
I just saw a mistake i have been making action sequence 7 i put as 1 lol i laugh lol i had no idea now ill have to start going the opposite way my friends and me will be working on new strats great!
Anyways if i was usa heavy bombers and time to get japan and send 2 inf. from a transport to great brtian for defense!
U.s.a. needs bombers and (i always go for pacific house rules add soem flavour man)
Turg I like your math but I look at it slightly differently
Also while a bomber costs 12, it does 1/60+5/6(3.5) SBR a turn = 2.92 IPC a turn that means the opportunity cost of delaying a bomber purchase by 1 turn is 2.92 IPC that you could of taken away from your enemy, while gaining 12/IPC a turn income for yourself. The damage done by a SBR with the tech is 1/60+5/6(2+12)/2 =5.83, which is a gain of 2.92 IPC/turn.
So lets say i delay 5 bomber purchases for 1 turn each, to buy 2 tech dice. I could of had 5 more bomber turns, which i could of done 2.92 damage x 5. HVY bombers would make up the difference in 1 turn, by doing on avg 5.83 dmg a turn, if i had 5 bombers.
Now if we can determine the IPC value of Heavy Bombers vs.we can a make cost analysis. Since heavy bombers attack twice, their cost is best compared to simply buying a second bomber…
Heavy bombers cannot undertake separate missions, roll two ones or take two hits on defense. But if we are just comparing their SBR capacity: heavy bombers take neither an extra AA gun hit nor do they offer a second target, compared to a second bomber. Since AA guns have less than a 50% chance of hitting, this makes heavy bombers worse by (16.7% - 16.7%) or 2 IPCs. Thus heavy bomb tech is worth 10 per existing bomber
So given the choice with 36 IPCs to buy 3 bombers or 5 tech rolls what is the proper choice? Three bombers is worth exactly 36. But as we’ve seen 7 tech rolls only has a 12% chance per turn to get heavy bombers. (Granted it has a 72% chance per turn to get some tech, but 35 for any OTHER tech is ludicrous).
Because there is no way to dig in vs bombers besides tech, there is no way brace for an attack. Waiting to a turn to build a bomber, does not allow the opponent to build up defenses, like you can for sea and land battles. Tech purchases have value of time bonus, since they stick around if you miss.
1 tech rolls = 1- (5/6) = 1/6 = 16.67%
2 tech rolls = 1- (5/65/6) = 11/36 =30.55%
3 tech rolls = 1- (5/65/6*5/6) = 42.12%
4 tech rolls = 1- (5/6)^4 = 51.7%
6 tech rolls = 1 -(5/6)^6 = 66.5%
8 tech rolls = 1-(5/6)^8 = 76.7%
9 tech rolls = 1-(5/6)^9 = 80.6%
Now Since die are carried over from turn to turn… They have a cumulative effect… notice the pattern bellow:
1 tech roll change to hit in less than
1 turn : 16.67 … less than 2 ( 1/6+5/61/6) = 30.5% less than 3 (1/6+1/65/6+5/65/61/6) = 42.1%
2 tech roll change to hit in less than
1 turn : 30.55% less than 2 (11/36+ 25/3611/36) = 51.7% less than 3 ( 11/36+25/3611/36+25/3625/3611/36) = 66.5%
Rolling 2 twice and hitting in 1 turn is just as probable as rolling 1 twice and hitting in at least one of the two turns. This works with any dice combination, rolling 8 dice in turn has the same chance as 4 over 2, or 2 dice over 4 turns.
I think the optimal way to play this strategy is to buy 1 bomber a turn. If you hit a tech that turn buy 2 tech dice instead. Hitting Bombers alone will pull you ahead under my strategy, if you have enough bombers still alive to take advantage of it.
DPDLC: Thanks for the response. You seem better at odds than I am :-P And yes I know that the same number of dice offer the same chance to roll a tech whether they happen at once or over turns.
I like your strategy, but I don’t think it was on point as a response to my post. I was arguing against the feasibility of strategies for trying to roll heavy tech while your strategy is far more cost-effective and thus better, but it does not illustrate an example of breaking the game with heavy bombers. Perhaps you weren’t really disagreeing with me. I couldn’t tell by the tone of your post. :-)
I agree that techs are neat and spending at least 5 or so is highly worthwhile for most nations. And of course sometimes someone will get heavy bombers quite early, giving their opponents a very rough time of it.
But the only way to guarantee heavy bomb tech early is to waste insane levels of IPCS
_Example: America spends 10 IPCs per turn on tech giving them 12 rolls by each third turn. For the sake of argument we’ll say that on they’re a tad lucky and on each 3rd turn they get a tech. On which turn do they you get the heavy bombers? 16% on turn 3. 33% by turn 6. 49% by turn 9. 74% by turn 12. Your chance does not exceed 50% until turn 12 but with a spot of luck you might have them turn 9. There’s a good chance one side has won (or cannot be stopped from winning) by turn 9. So unless you get lucky or the game goes into super over-time you’re paying a fortune for techs that are not worth the investment or won’t come into play soon enough to see the desired effect.
_
_Example: America spends 10 IPCs per turn on tech giving them 12 rolls by each third turn. For the sake of argument we’ll say that on they’re a tad lucky and on each 3rd turn they get a tech. On which turn do they you get the heavy bombers? 16% on turn 3. 33% by turn 6. 49% by turn 9. 74% by turn 12. Your chance does not exceed 50% until turn 12 but with a spot of luck you might have them turn 9. There’s a good chance one side has won (or cannot be stopped from winning) by turn 9. So unless you get lucky or the game goes into super over-time you’re paying a fortune for techs that are not worth the investment or won’t come into play soon enough to see the desired effect.
_
12 rolls to get a tech is a tad lucky? Spending 10 IPCs on techs per turn will average you a tech much closer to once every 2 turns than once every 3 (it might average exactly once/2turns, have to think about it). And with techs working the way they do in AA50 you don’t have to worry about multiple tech hits in a single turn being wasted the way they were in Revised. So, every now and then you will get 2 or more techs when you roll multiple die. I believe that’s how it works anyway, it would make much more sense than the alternative. But, just to go flat averages with that, it would be turn 2 = tech1, turn 4 = tech2, turn 6 = tech3, turn 8 = tech4, turn 10 = tech5, turn 12 = tech6.
The probability that you get heavy bombers BY one of these tech rolls would be:
tech1 = (1/6) = 16.67%
tech2 = (1/6)+(5/61/5) = 33.33%
tech3 = (1/6)+(5/61/5)+(5/64/51/4) = 50%
and so on…tech4 = 66.67%, tech5 = 83.33%, tech6 = 100%.
Now, obviously you can’t just say there’s a 1/6 chance of having the tech by turn 2 because of the 1/6 chance to get it on your first tech. Nor can you say you will have half of the techs by turn 6. But on AVERAGE you will have half of the techs (3) after turn 6’s roll, not 1/3 of the techs (2). That’s how I see the math at least. And I’m not trying to argue that US SHOULD go tech-crazy in the hopes for heavy bombers. Simply that they should hit techs more often than in your example, and that their chance of hitting heavy bombers specifically is slightly different than your numbers.
And by the way there is a slight flaw in how you guys were looking for the probability to hit a specific tech by a specific roll. That is, you weren’t taking into consideration the chances that you would get multiple tech hits by a certain roll. You were only figuring the probability to get at least one tech hit by a certain roll. If you were to draw your formulas out to infinite rolls you’d end up with a 100% chance to get ONE tech, and still only a 1/6 chance to get a specific tech.
To figure out the precise chance of getting heavy bombers with a specific number of rolls, I think you would have to find the odds of hitting EXACTLY one tech in those given rolls (multiplied by 1/6 to get the specific tech), then the odds of hitting EXACTLY two techs (multiplied by 1/3), then three techs (*.5), four techs (*2/3), five techs (*5/6), and six techs. Add all those odds together and that would be the chance you get heavy bombers after a specific number of rolls.
EDIT: As an example of what I was saying at the end of my post, there is a 1/6 (16.67%) chance to get heavy bombers (or any specific tech) by your 6th roll, contrary to Turgidson’s 12% by roll #7. This is because, while there is only a 66.51% chance to get at least one tech (which would result in an 11.1% chance to hit a spec. tech) a lot of that percentage is comprised of multiple hits. More boring math…to get the specific tech:
Probability of getting the exact # of hits * Probability of hitting the specific tech after getting that # of hits
1 hit = 40.2% * (1/6) … + 2 hits = 20.1% * (1/3) … + 3 hits = 5.36% * (1/2) … + 4 hits = .8% * (2/3) …rest is almost negligible
6.7% + 6.7% + 2.68% + .54% + .054% = 16.7%
