Couldnt pass up the irony of the 8 year wait
Will Rockets be a gamebreaker?
-
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.
-
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.
Even if you made a house rule saying no paratroopers in territories with AAGuns (essentially would cover the capitals), there’s still a lot of problems with this rule:
- Needing extra defense for factories (eg. Asian factories for Japan)
- The cheap old, I clear territory A with this country(typically UK/U attacking EEur/Balk in Revised), then I can blitz through A into the capital (ie. Germany) with my other country’s ARM (ie. Russia).
- Just the fact that turns will take a whole lot longer to play as you calculate the multitude of attack possibilities for your opponent and his paratroopers
- The big one though, is forcing your opponents into defensive play = long and boring games!
(p.s. paratroopers, already a pretty crazy brunch to begin with, would have to be just NUTS to drop into an area stacked side to side in AAfire)
-
@Rakeman:
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.
I like the 4:2 Tech rule as well Rakeman. You probably didn’t know this, but when it first came out, it was actually the 4:2:1 Tech Rule, meaning you didn’t get your guaranteed Tech until the 3rd round of trying :-)
I actually liked the fact that you’re essentially guaranteed a Tech in this new system as well. The big problem is that they took a big step backwards and made it random again. Random Techs, much like Trix, are for kids :roll:
If I’m playing a game of strategy, I’d rather be thinking… “It looks like my opponent is doing this, what can I do to counter?” rather than… “Oh please Lord, let me roll a 6 so I can get Heavy Bombers… Oh, Crap! Super Subs!!!” :roll:
If I was designing the system, I’d probably take it a little further than Mr. Harris did…
Each dice would still cost 5IPCs, but I would force a minimum investment of at least 10IPCs to start researching Tech (makes it just slightly less likely for players to put money into it willy-nilly. Also makes player pay closer to fair market value of the tech when they hit)
Research Level 1 (Random Tech)
Cost = 1 Research Token (ie. 10 IPCs total)
Roll 2 dice/round
A 6 allows you to choose 1 board and roll for a Tech at random. You will get the Tech corresponding to the number you roll.Research Level 2 (Semi-Directed Tech)
Cost = 2 Research Tokens (ie. 20 IPCs total)
Roll 4 dice/round
A 6 allows you to choose 1 board and roll for a Tech. You may select the Tech corresponding to the number you roll, OR the Techs one number higher or one number lower. (6 is considered next to 1. Basically your roll covers 50% of the board)Research Level 3 (Directed Tech)
Cost = 3 Research Tokens (ie. 30 IPCs total)
Roll 6 dice/round
A 6 allows you to choose 1 board and select the Tech you want.The only other important factor in such a system, would be to have available counters for some of the more powerful techs. Increased Factory Production already counters Rockets. I would add an Interceptor Ability to Jets with the Jet Fighters Tech (Any Jet FTR in the territory with the IC can roll against SBR BMBRs @1/Jet).
The cap obviously is 3 Research Tokens. Players can still get lucky to some degree (hitting a desired Tech at research level 1). However, even if they do hit a strong Tech, the existence of a counter and the ability to semi-direct or direct Techs makes sure getting the Tech is not a gamebreaker. For curiosity’s sake, the chance of hitting a Tech at each level are 30.5%, 51.8%, and 66.5%respectively per round
Anyways, that’s how I’d do it. You’d probably have to do some balancing of the other techs, but that can all be looked at once the game is actually out. As of right now though, Tech as it stands generally wouldn’t be playable in a competitive game.
-
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 :-(
Hmm, CJ. Please refernce the Paratrooper tech again:
@AA50:
- Paratroopers
Each of your bombers can act as a transport for up to one infantry, but it must stop in the first hostile territory it enters during a turn and drop off the infantry, ending its combat movement. The bomber may still attack during the Conduct Combat phase, but it cannot make a strategic bombing run in a turn that transports an infantry unit. The infantry unit may retreat normally to a friendly adjacent space during combat.
The red highlighted part keeps you from jumping ‘over’ the front lines.
- Paratroopers
-
@AA50:
- Paratroopers
Each of your bombers can act as a transport for up to one infantry, but it must stop in the first hostile territory it enters during a turn and drop off the infantry, ending its combat movement. The bomber may still attack during the Conduct Combat phase, but it cannot make a strategic bombing run in a turn that transports an infantry unit. The infantry unit may retreat normally to a friendly adjacent space during combat.
The red highlighted part keeps you from jumping ‘over’ the front lines.
It doesn’t stop you from going around though :-D (ie. over a SZ or empty land territory)
I suppose the empty land territory could be considered hostile… I’m not sure…
But surely the SZ, even if occupied by enemy boats should be OK? maybe?
For sure empty SZs couldn’t be considered hostile :-) - Paratroopers
-
Being guaranteed a tech is a big thing for me. I hated how you could spend money on techs and be literally throwing it down the toilet.
I also agree that Random techs are disappointing. I suppose we must take the good (guaranteed tech) with the bad (you wont know what tech it is).
When you have a say in your tech, you can use it to build strategies (in a strategy game).
“Hmm… I know, I’ll invest 15 IPC in super sub technology to counter his little Aircraft Carrier fleet.”
“Well, since Australia isn’t worth many IPC, I will build a complex AND invest in industrial technology, so I can take down the Japanese!”
“ROCKETZ LOL!!!”
You get the idea :-)
I think a problem is that, for Revised, there was an article by the devs about how hard it was to try to make all 6 technologies appealing, so that none would be left out by the players. I guess it was decided that balancing 12 techs to make them all appealing and worth the same amount of IPC would be too much work, so just make it random.
I think it would just be nicest to allow the techs to always be directed, but some form of direction would be better than none.
(Side note: Interesting how rockets and long range aircraft are the only technologies that have NEVER been changed, from Classic to Revised to LHTR to AA50. I guess they are considered perfect balance.)
-
It doesn’t stop you from going around though :-D (ie. over a SZ or empty land territory)
I suppose the empty land territory could be considered hostile… I’m not sure…
But surely the SZ, even if occupied by enemy boats should be OK? maybe?
For sure empty SZs couldn’t be considered hostile :-)Any territory controlled by the enemy is hostile, whether it has units in it or not. Hostile sea zones don’t block paratroopers. The idea here is simply to keep paratroopers from “leapfrogging” over enemy-held territory and dropping troops far behind enemy lines.
-
But wasn’t that exactly the point of paratroops, dropping them behind enemy lines?
I could see a house rule really opening up the game if the rule about having to drop them at the 1st hostile territory was eliminated.
Suggested Topics
