@SS-GEN Mate I must be blind as a bat 😂
Thanks! 👍
Will Rockets be a gamebreaker?
-
@Imperious:
There is nothing broken about the game. It probably plays fine. If somebody gets rockets the other side can get heavy bombers and start an arms race. Whatever it takes to end the game after no more than 3-4 hours is just great.
I wouldn’t go THAT far, that there is NOTHING broken, but it is too early to say with certainty if anything is/isn’t at this point.
i think its more of a 1/6 lol and if u spend 30 ipcs on rockets chances r 6/6=1 you will ge rockets lol.
rockets for germany is good but really bobmers for u.s.a and rokets for gerry important thats why i like a&aE cuz no tech no gamble only armies very good except i wouldnt mind lik paying 20 ipcs for somthing upg that would b good or 30?Actually, just to clarify, the odds of buying 6 die and getting a tech from it that turn is about 68%, if I calculated that right (been a few years since my Statistics classes, lol). The odds of not getting a hit is 5/6, so 5/6^6 is .32, so subtract that from 1.00 and you got the percent chance of getting a hit (there is a way to do it by directly getting the percent of success, but that’s more difficult because getting two 6’s and getting 1 six both yield the same result… can’t remember how to do it that way).
-
@Rakeman:
(there is a way to do it by directly getting the percent of success, but that’s more difficult because getting two 6’s and getting 1 six both yield the same result… can’t remember how to do it that way).
You take the chance of getting a hit on exactly that roll (meaning every roll before it missed) and add it to the chance of getting a hit on every other roll before it. In other words: (1/6) + (1/6)(5/6) + (1/6)(5/6)^2 + … + (1/6)*(5/6)^n where n+1 = number of rolls.
About the direct chance of getting rockets in AA50. If you spend 5 IPC on tech in one round you will continue to roll an attempt to achieve a tech every turn thereafter. So eventually 5 IPC will get you a tech, at which point it becomes a 1/6 chance to get rockets if that’s the tree you go into. But yeah, on any given roll it’s 1/36.
-
I’m happy that tech is an optional rule in AA50. Larry said he hates tech and I certainly agree with him. Tech in Revised is definately broken, and it seems like it will be broken in AA50 also. Tech rules would need very radical modifications to be acceptable. Most lobby players never use tech, and tech is not used in most tournaments. HB will certainly be a gamebreaker in AA50 if someone
is lucky in the first few rnds of the game. Also rockets will be a gamebreaker if you get a shot with each AA gun…The difference between tech research in A&A and WW2 was that no power produced less units because of science. It was more the opposite, even if there’s a difference from engineers who are creative enough to construct better tanks and stuff, and scientists making true innovations as jet power.
It’s not like soldiers can’t have tanks because techies spend their money in the lab trying to invent nukes :roll:
-
@Cmdr:
It’s no more broken then rockets are in Axis and Allies Revised.
There too, you can build up enough AA Guns to fire at every complex in range doing dozen’s of D6 worth of IPC damage for 5 IPC invested.
Hi Cmdr Jennifer,
I agree, Revised OOTB was broken as well with no damage caps on a territory, and techs immediately coming into effect
LHTR fixed it to some degree by capping damage at IPC value of a territory.
With that said, it’s more of a gamebreaker in AA50 because:
1. Damage is capped at double the IPC of the territory
2. There are FOUR ICs within range, rather than three
3. The risk is much lower as money spent on Tech is not lost on a failed attempt. You basically keep getting free shots until you succeed. -
Welcome, Cousin_Joe. It’s good to “see” you again, though I’m a bit disappointed to see you joining the ranks of those declaring the game to be broken before they’ve even had a chance to play it.
Hi Kreighund.
I love a lot of the new features. The map looks great and I like what’s happened with territories, victory cities, and unit costs. A lot of improvements all the way around and a great job by Mr. Harris.For the casual player (eg. teenagers, beer & pretzel guys), I think the game with Tech as is, is fine. However, for the competitive player (eg. online rankings, tournaments, players playing to outstrategize their opponents) the Tech system is a huge disappointment and clearly broken.
Let’s say Player A and Player B are playing against each other, and Player A, based on skill and experience is a 70-30 favourite to win the match. Player B, playing Axis, gets Rockets for 5-10 IPC, and then suddenly he is the favourite to win the match. Sure, some will say bad dice can affect the odds too, but not that much and rolling so few dice.
This is the nature of Weapons Development. It’s an optional rule, so you don’t have to play with it if you don’t want to. Many prefer not to, for this very reason.
At least we agree :-) However, it’s a shame that this element has to be removed for competitive play. There are some well thought out Techs, and if balanced properly, would add a lot of depth to the game.
In fact, it’s less “broken” than it is in Revised. In Revised, each bomber or rocket’s damage was limited to the IPC value of the territory, so in effect damage is limited only to the victim’s IPCs on hand, given enough attacks.
I don’t quite understand your response here Kreighund :?
I thought you replied that Rocket damage works like SBR damage in terms of damaging IC production
ICs could be damaged to up to double their IPC value, although the owner of the IC has the option of how much he wants to repair if at all
Is this correct? -
@Rakeman:
I disagree about rockets being as broken as you say, the odds of Germany spending one roll and getting rockets is 1/36. That is not a significant number to worry about.
The odds are actually much more than that Rakeman…
-Recall, if Germany spends 5IPC, it gets to keep rolling every round until they hit something
-Furthermore, I’d probably look at spending 10IPC 1st round, maybe another 5IPC 2nd round (Hitting Rockets for 15IPC is still a Gamebreaker)
-You’re getting 2-3 rolls/round now to hit your rockets
-In 3 rounds, that could be 9 rolls to hit Rockets… it’s not quite 9/36 to hit, but definitely a lot higher than 1/36. Personally, I wouldn’t want to be Allies when it happens.And as far as countering with HB, good luck. Because Tech is random, and money is lost if you succeed but don’t get the tech you want, it can cost you a lot of time and money before you eventually hit.
Furthermore, the fact that you’re thinking of going for HB if the opponent gets Rockets only serves to reinforce my point about the game coming down to tech rolls rather than strategy :-)
-
In revised the only two technologies worth getting was rockets and heavy bombers. All other was not worth the cost.
I’ve played with a house rule in revised: roll 2 dices. If they are alike you get that technology. Ie 1/6 probability each turn to get a random technology. And from my experience this rule (which is very similar to the AA50 ones) adds a lot of fun and the probability for it having an devestating effect is actually very very small.
The reason is, yes germany can get rockets for a cheap price, but
- they are in no way garanteed to get rockets
- it will probably take some time to get it.
- Technology is equaly good for all nations.
- Rockets is a vell tested technology and HB is concidered more gamebreaking.
I’m actually more conserned about ‘paratroopers’. It may prove very fun, but in some spesific situations it might be realy harsh. (like being able to take large portion of the pacific without a single transporter or escort for that transporter).
Germany in a lucky turn gets paratroopers & UK have placed very few land units in UK cuz Germany has no transporter. Woops walla, UK falls. -
For the casual player (eg. teenagers, beer & pretzel guys), I think the game with Tech as is, is fine. However, for the competitive player (eg. online rankings, tournaments, players playing to outstrategize their opponents) the Tech system is a huge disappointment and clearly broken.
Let’s say Player A and Player B are playing against each other, and Player A, based on skill and experience is a 70-30 favourite to win the match. Player B, playing Axis, gets Rockets for 5-10 IPC, and then suddenly he is the favourite to win the match. Sure, some will say bad dice can affect the odds too, but not that much and rolling so few dice.
This is the nature of Weapons Development. It’s an optional rule, so you don’t have to play with it if you don’t want to. Many prefer not to, for this very reason.
At least we agree :-) However, it’s a shame that this element has to be removed for competitive play. There are some well thought out Techs, and if balanced properly, would add a lot of depth to the game.
My understanding is that techs aren’t used in most competitive games. If they are, both players know the risks.
Frankly, I find the viewpoint of wanting to have techs, but not wanting them to affect the game outcome too much, amusing. The whole point of military technological research is to gain an advantage over the enemy, and hopefully a significant one. If that advantage is relatively small, the research isn’t really worth the expense. I’m not saying that techs should be game-breakers, just that they shouldn’t be nerfed to the point where they’re not worth trying for.
In fact, it’s less “broken” than it is in Revised. In Revised, each bomber or rocket’s damage was limited to the IPC value of the territory, so in effect damage is limited only to the victim’s IPCs on hand, given enough attacks.
I don’t quite understand your response here Kreighund :?
I thought you replied that Rocket damage works like SBR damage in terms of damaging IC production
ICs could be damaged to up to double their IPC value, although the owner of the IC has the option of how much he wants to repair if at all
Is this correct?Yes, that’s correct. I was talking about how it works in Revised. The total SBR damage in a round in AA50 is limited to twice the territory’s IPC value, whereas in Revised it’s limited to the total IPCs on hand.
-
Personally, I like the 4:2 tech rule. It retains chance (the tech will either cost 20 OR 30 IPC, be implemented this round OR next) but it requires both a serious investment (20 IPC as opposed to a crapshot a turn for 5 IPC) and has the guarantee that you WILL get the tech you want within 2 rounds.
The problem with tech to me is the law of large numbers… if you roll 100 dice (as you will over the course of the game’s combat), the odds are you will get near equal hits for every number. If you roll a few die for tech, it can go either way (extremely good luck, extremely poor luck, and anything in between). As for techs, you are allowing the rolling of relatively few die to make a HUGE impact on the game. I like the idea of technology and I think AA50 has technology the best of any A&A official game yet, but I still think it has a ways to go…
-
With the other techs available in the Anniversary game, rockets by themselves will not change the game. However, rockets with heavy bombers and another technology could change the game into your favor.
-
i chose undecided because it is depending what are the objectives of germany and other countries stupid ehough to buy rockets.
really germany needs rockets and maybe russia if russia in military strenght is = more or barely less and germany has trouble else were (not afrca unless germany sent many units there)
so rockets can b if ur objective/strategy uses rockets which is good but also bad -
SBR is not broken in Revised, at least not LHTR-revised. LHTR means territory turn limit…? So in Revised LHTR, which is mostly used, at least regarded to the SBR rules, US+UK may bomb Germany for 10 ipc damage for each power and each turn, that is 20 ipc loss for Germany at maximum, + the IC in SE could be 6 ipc*2=12 ipc + 20=32 ipc…? But SBR strats are hardly used. Bmrs too expensive.
So if we look only at the SBR rules it may seem bad, but game mechanics in Revised is not broken neither generally, or specifically regarding SBR issues. The reason is not the rules but the cost of bombers.
In AA50 SBR rules make sure that Germany cannot lose more than 20 ipc to SBR attack by one power, and because Germanys turn is before UK, and then US last, the order of play assures that Germany can loose only 20 ipc each round.?But bombers are much cheaper in AA50, so maybe it’s a lot easier to make Germany lose 20 ipc in AA50, than in Revised to make Germany loose 32 ipc each round.
And about the production setback rules, SBR is not optional rules, tech is optional so I can play AA50 without tech, but with the new SBR rules + bmrs cost 12 this is likely a game breaker, I can choose not to repair the IC and then I can choose not to play the game a all… :cry:
By all means, I’m happy about the reduced cost of bmrs, but what’s missing in AA50 is the possibillity to buy more AA guns, and each AA guns fires one shot each. Most players would not buy AA guns if not needed, tanks+inf+art+ftrs is much more useful. So what seems broken in AA50 is not SBR rules regarding bmrs+damage, but that the rules constrict players from using approriate countermeasures if faced by massive SBR attacks.
-
@Subotai:
SBR is not broken in Revised, at least not LHTR-revised. LHTR means territory turn limit…? So in Revised LHTR, which is mostly used, at least regarded to the SBR rules, US+UK may bomb Germany for 10 ipc damage for each power and each turn, that is 20 ipc loss for Germany at maximum, + the IC in SE could be 6 ipc*2=12 ipc + 20=32 ipc…? But SBR strats are hardly used. Bmrs too expensive.
So if we look only at the SBR rules it may seem bad, but game mechanics in Revised is not broken neither generally, or specifically regarding SBR issues. The reason is not the rules but the cost of bombers.
In AA50 SBR rules make sure that Germany cannot lose more than 20 ipc to SBR attack by one power, and because Germanys turn is before UK, and then US last, the order of play assures that Germany can loose only 20 ipc each round.?But bombers are much cheaper in AA50, so maybe it’s a lot easier to make Germany lose 20 ipc in AA50, than in Revised to make Germany loose 32 ipc each round.
And about the production setback rules, SBR is not optional rules, tech is optional so I can play AA50 without tech, but with the new SBR rules + bmrs cost 12 this is likely a game breaker, I can choose not to repair the IC and then I can choose not to play the game a all… :cry:
By all means, I’m happy about the reduced cost of bmrs, but what’s missing in AA50 is the possibillity to buy more AA guns, and each AA guns fires one shot each. Most players would not buy AA guns if not needed, tanks+inf+art+ftrs is much more useful. So what seems broken in AA50 is not SBR rules regarding bmrs+damage, but that the rules constrict players from using approriate countermeasures if faced by massive SBR attacks.
Not only are bombers cheaper, UK starts off the game with a good 50 IPC income, America 50 as well. This number quickly deteriorates for both, however.
I think bombing will probably be broken, but we will see. Also keep in mind, strategic bombing Italy could make Italy destroyed… if Southern Europe is about 8 IPC, Italy may lose MORE than it can repair. If Italy is making 15 IPC a turn (one bonus + starting territories, I think), they wouldn’t even be ABLE to completely repair the industrial complex. I imagine they would settle repairing till they have enough to build a single unit, then buy an infantry :-(
Good thing America can only make 4 of those bombers a round or so…
LHTR rules can be found on this site, yes it includes territory turn limit, plus numerous other rules (nerfing heavy bombers and buffing the other techs, for example)
-
/Rakeman
You really raised a thorny issue here with Italy being hit by SBR. I hadn’t even thought about it. As you say, Italy can be reduced to almost no production with just 3 bombers or so attacking per turn.
This means a lot for game-balance, since Italy will very vulnerable and can be hit easily from UK (even more so now that AA-guns don’t even hit bombers flying over). There is never anything Italy can do against this strategy (no interceptions, cannot afford tech, etc). At best, with Egypt and Transjordan in Italian hands, Italy would be reduced from 23 IPCs (10 at-start, + double 5 IPC bonuses, plus 2+1 for EGY and TRJ) to 11 IPCs/turn. Not very inspiring income after achieving your conquests. :-(
I fear the cries for a reduction of the SBR limit will be coming fairly quickly and as far as I can see I wouldn’t mind it being limited to just the IPC value of the area! :?
-
Given that Techs are going to be optional, I am not sure if you can say that any tech is a game breaker. It is not like once you decide on doing research, you are automatically going to get the tech you want the next turn. An average game lasts what 10, maybe 15 turns? If you go with the minimum research cost of 5 IPC every turn, I would be surprised if any player gets more than 2 or 3 techs, plus you have to work off of two different charts. Getting the Rocket Tech is not a given by any means, or Heavy Bombers, or Increased Production.
What Techs like Rockets do introduce into the game is uncertainty, which clearly does not make many players happy. They would like the game to be precisely predictable, so that a given strategy, except for the chance effect of dice rolling, will work every time. However, war is not predictable. Odd things happen, like your supposedly unbreakable code, Enigma, being broken, and then it never being realized by the Germans. With the way tech development works, you never are also never quite sure what you are going to get. Another uncertainty. Welcome to life. I am not certain any given day if I will be able to walk.
If I play the UK, I am likely going to be trying on the Land Chart for War Bonds and Increased Factory Production, but instead, I get Rockets. If I do, then I buy another AA gun, and start pounding away at Italy as well as Germany. And if I can convince the US player to get some bombers, and join it, the Axis are going to have a very hard time, with or without the Heavy Bomber tech.
If I am playing the US, I am more likely going to be rolling on the Air/Naval chart. If I get Long Range Aircraft, with the availability of paratroops and all of those islands in the Pacific worth bonuses, I will likely try for Paratroops. Instead, I get Rockets. Oh well, not a whole lot of good against the Japanese, but Germany is another story. I go buy two AA guns, ship them to the UK and start sending lots of friendly emissaries to Germany and Italy. Add some regular bombers, and the Germans and Italians get many headaches.
I would really prefer Paratroops, as then the Japanese player is going to have to defend every one of his islands in the Pacific, and since I can use the bomber as a bomber as well as a transport, the Japanese are going to need more than a single defender per island. Actually, even with just regular bombers, Paratroops in the Pacific are extremely attractive, to say nothing of Morocco-Algeria. With the advent of National Objective Bonuses, any enemy territory with only a control marker on it or only a single infantry is fair game if I have Paratroops. Given all of the flap over Rockets, I am surprised that no one has consider Paratroops a major problem in the game. National Control Markers are a thing of the past with Paratroops in the game. You are going to have to garrison every conquered territory that can be hit by Paratroops. Just think, Germany goes all out to take Africa, and then has it taken back by Paratroops from the US operating out of Brazil.
And no, I do not play Axis. Maybe Russia, but never Axis.
-
sorry about my last mistakes was rly tired but anyways rockets can be but i dotn rly like arm races lol
arm races between usa and germany are a bit like saying if i get this then u get that also germany wont spend that much now since russia will probably fight germany mroe then germany get a few rolls and japan uses tank stra on russia blitz east russia :-o
-
@Subotai:
By all means, I’m happy about the reduced cost of bmrs, but what’s missing in AA50 is the possibillity to buy more AA guns, and each AA guns fires one shot each. Most players would not buy AA guns if not needed, tanks+inf+art+ftrs is much more useful. So what seems broken in AA50 is not SBR rules regarding bmrs+damage, but that the rules constrict players from using approriate countermeasures if faced by massive SBR attacks.
Exactly! And that is my point with Rockets. Sure, they may not be to the same degree as SBRs, but in both scenarios, you are faced with a significant amount of damage which you can do very little about. Furthermore, any thoughts of strategic maneuvering and gameplay are thrown out the window as you are basically reduced to just trying to survive! :-D
This scenario applies to Rockets, Heavy BMBRs, and even just plain SBR. And true enough, one can always suggest nerfing SBRs and getting rid of Tech entirely, but by doing this, we decrease the game’s depth, rather than increase it. Providing appropriate countermeasures would be the approach I would like to see.
-
yea one out of 36. I would not worry about rockets but worry about bombers and heavy bombers because that you have right away. Hopefully the game will be over before anybody can waste enough research IPC for rockets.
-
Given all of the flap over Rockets, I am surprised that no one has consider Paratroops a major problem in the game.
Hey timerover,
I was going to get this one eventually :-) (Mechanized Infantry is the other :-D), but yes, I completely agree with you. And I’m not even thinking about the little islands, I’m thinking about the big territories and the capitals.
A consistent mechanic in A&A has always been maintaining big stacks at your fronts. Since defense is stronger than offense, you typically want to build up your stack to eventually overcome the opponents stack. The reason paratrooper rules in general have always failed, is it turns that whole mechanic upside down. Instead of thinking offensively, players will now be forced to play defensively. They will have to worry about territories behind the main front getting captured, and worst of all, their capital itself.
Paratrooper rules will force players to keep their INF back, essentially slowing the game to a halt. Ability to apply any forward pressure will be minimized. The opponent that faces paratroopers will be significantly handicapped, as they will be forced to hold forces back at the expense of their ability to maintain and extend their front lines.
I’m not a big fan of the paratrooper Tech for these reasons :-(
-
Given all of the flap over Rockets, I am surprised that no one has consider Paratroops a major problem in the game.
Hey timerover,
I was going to get this one eventually :-) (Mechanized Infantry is the other :-D), but yes, I completely agree with you. And I’m not even thinking about the little islands, I’m thinking about the big territories and the capitals.
A consistent mechanic in A&A has always been maintaining big stacks at your fronts. Since defense is stronger than offense, you typically want to build up your stack to eventually overcome the opponents stack. The reason paratrooper rules in general have always failed, is it turns that whole mechanic upside down. Instead of thinking offensively, players will now be forced to play defensively. They will have to worry about territories behind the main front getting captured, and worst of all, their capital itself.
Paratrooper rules will force players to keep their INF back, essentially slowing the game to a halt. Ability to apply any forward pressure will be minimized. The opponent that faces paratroopers will be significantly handicapped, as they will be forced to hold forces back at the expense of their ability to maintain and extend their front lines.
I’m not a big fan of the paratrooper Tech for these reasons :-(
Well, wouldn’t a paratrooper capping a territory just allow the territory to be retaken easily next round? Besides capitals, I don’t see a huge flaw here. I kind of want improved artillery. 2 transports = 2 inf, 1 art, 1 armor = nice combo.
Suggested Topics
