A Serious Discussion of Technologies in 1941

[Count_Zeppelin]

Rockets:  These are not quite as useful in AA50 as they were in AAR.  Mostly this is due to the range between European and Russian Industrial Complexes coupled with the fact Germany only has the one Industrial Complex to be hit anyway.

I disagree. Rockets is still a killer technology. There is just no real use in it for japan and limited use for the USA.

Super Submarines:  Again, the most useless technology in the game.  Does Larry have a Jones for Submarines or something???  Honestly, submarines are already pretty much useless, all this technology does is make the couple you might have slightly stronger on attack. (Does not effect defense, so all your hundreds of super submarines still die to one destroyer and a few dozen heavy bombers doing nothing but sinking the destroyer, if you’re lucky.)

Super Submarines is one of the strongest technologies ever if rolled by Japan, the USA or GB. Its of limited use for Germany, Italy and Russia.

Submarines when deployed in an offensive role are up till now the strongest units in naval warfare and super submarines destroy every fleet in this game. There is nothing that can stop them. The problem about submarines is building them without being preemptively attacked. Can you imagine what pain in the ass 4 super subs are in striking distance to western united states?

[a44bigdog]

This is from frood vs what the US should have at the end of US 1, Which is 1 destroyer 1 carrier 2 planes 2 battleships

Overall %*: A. survives: 0.6%  D. survives: 100%  No one survives: 0%

Attacker results:
Probability % # units / losses
  0.01% 4: 4 SSub. no units. : 0 IPCs
  0.01% 3: 3 SSub. 1 SSub. : 8 IPCs
  0.15% 2: 2 SSub. 2 SSub. : 16 IPCs
  0.39% 1: 1 SSub. 3 SSub. : 24 IPCs
  99.44% 0: no units. 4 SSub. : 32 IPCs
Defender results:
Probability % # units / losses
  57.3% 7: 2 Fig, 1 Des, 1 Car, 2 Bat. no units. : 0 IPCs
  27.51% 5: 2 Fig, 1 Car, 2 Bat.           1 Des. : 12 IPCs
  11.94% 4: 2 Fig, 2 Bat.           1 Des, 1 Car. :  28 IPCs
  2.38% 3: 2 Fig, 1 Bat. 1 Des, 1 Car, 1 Bat. :  52 IPCs
  0.87% 2: 2 Fig.         1 Des, 1 Car, 2 Bat. :  76 IPCs
Defender IPC losses in excess of Attacker IPC losses:
Probability % IPC loss differential
0.2% 60 IPCs
0.4% 52 IPCs
0.3% 44 IPCs
2.4% 20 IPCs
11.9% -4 IPCs
27.5% -20 IPCs
57.3% -32 IPCs

So I can imagine Japan’s pain when their 29 IPCs (you had to spend 5 to get the tech) worth of junk goes glugg, glugg. Some of yall want submarines to be a great unit so bad it is not funny. They have  a very limited use in AA50. Yes they were very effective in the real war but A&A games have very little to do with the real war.

[Jennifer]

Count:

I didn’t say Rockets were useless.  I just said they are not as strong as they were in revised due to the distance between AA Guns and Enemy Industrial Complexes now.

For instance, a Gun in Germany cannot hit Caucasus or Russia and Karelia’s kind of a joke to rocket attack.  That means you either need to buy more guns (which are more expensive now) or leave your complex undefended to attack Russia with rockets (and vice versa.)

As for super submarines, I think you are forgetting that submarine technology does nothing for the defense value of those submarines.  Sure, if you already have a lot of submarines and happen to roll the technology right before a major naval engagement, it could be beneficial to you.  However, this is not normally the case.  Normally, if you have a submarine, you only have it and maybe one other and they’re usually running away from the enemy fleet, not towards it!

In my honest opinion, submarines and super submarines are just about useless.  They’re like Midway in Revised.  Sometimes it comes in handy to have it, for the other 3649 days of the decade, it’s useless and so is the infantry sitting on top of it.

[Count_Zeppelin]

submarines

• cannot be attacked as long as you are not in an enclosed space of water as subs are as fast as every other ship and cannot be attacked by airpower alone
• submarines are the cheapest available naval units, so losing some doesnt hurt you the same as losing other ships or aircraft; therefore they are expendable

now if the other side is too strong, you just retreat into aircraft operations range.

• if the oponent should follow, you attack without losing valuable units
• if the oponent doesnt follow, you have won another round and can build more subs / aircraft
• if even by retreating back to your IC and building more units there the opponent would have the upper hand, concentrate on land warfare - at least you haven’t built any expensive units that cannot also fight on land. Earlier or later you will have the chance to strike back again - the opponent wont catch you.

Normally, if you have a submarine, you only have it and maybe one other and they’re usually running away from the enemy fleet, not towards it!

Exactly! But if you have only two submarines, you invested only 12 IPC in naval units. The optimal combination is one bomber supporting every submarine. Try out some fleet building. The most potent defense against this combination is destroyers only.

5 destr = 40 IPC
2 subs + 2 bomb = 36 IPC

even in this worst case scenario, with the destroyers scoring two hits in turn 1 the bombers can return home having sunk 2 destroyers and lost 2 subs

[Uncle_Joe]

Some of yall want submarines to be a great unit so bad it is not funny. They have  a very limited use in AA50. Yes they were very effective in the real war but A&A games have very little to do with the real war.

For the record, I dont want them to be a great unit, they are a great unit. ;) When I first played AA50 I was planning on not bothering with them but game experience taught me how valuable they could be. And a few games later I had refined my usage to the point where I (and my opponents!) considered them to be a very serious threat.

Their cost to benefit ratio is extremely favorable if used properly. Are they a wonder weapon to win every game? Of course not. But they are an effectivenaval unit to use for control of the sea. If you HAVE control of the sea (like England in the Atlantic) then yes, they are useless. But in the Pacific (and particularly for the US) they are far more valuable.

That said, I would not like to roll Super Submarines as I dont believe that it is necessary at all. I’d much rather have a capability I did not previously have (Long Ranged Aircraft, Paratroops etc) or a significant upgrade in a power on a main unit (Heavy Bombers, Jet Fighter) than an upgrade on a more nitch unit. Winning the seas is important, but honestly subs are cheap enough that ‘wasting’ a tech on them is not necessary.

[Jennifer]

Tell ya what, Joe.  Let’s play a game online.  You can have submarines, I can have anything else.  Let’s see who wins.

---

Count:

If your submarines are running away from my destroyers, fighters and bombers, how are they helping you win the game?  Did you not, in effect, just SBR yourself for 6 IPC for each one of those submarines fleeing into the Indian Ocean as the American flotilla hunts them down?

[Uncle_Joe]

Again, you are totally missing the point, but thats OK.

I believe you are suffering from a serious case of ‘group think’. I suppose we all do on certain things.

[Jennifer]

The point is, Joe, and trust me on this, I have a ton of experience sinking enemy fleets, is that the submarine in this incarnation of the game is a laughingstock.  There is use for one or two, but as a main battle unit, it’s horribly lacking and underpowered.  Even with super submarines, the odds of them actually being used as a super submarine is about nil.  (You get in range, I attack and sink you since they all defend at a 1, even with the technology.)

Destroyers are the main warship in this game.  Coincidentally, they are identical to submarines in previous versions (minus their sneakiness).  They cost 8, move 2, attack 2, defend 2, just like submarines of old.  They can block enemy movement, they can prevent transports from loading and unloading all like submarines.  They are submarines, on the surface of the water, for all intents and purposes of this discussion.

What do submarines do now?  They make use of sloppy gamy play by your opponent.  If he leaves a carrier alone with nothing but fighters, you can send your submarine or two submarines in to attack it and kill the carrier and planes.  If he leaves transports unprotected you can swoop in for the auto kills going under his fleet (assuming he doesn’t have destroyers.)

Otherwise, your main fodder piece are destroyers.

[Uncle_Joe]

No, they arent main battle units. Nor should they be. That was completely silly in the older editions.

BUT they are far from useless. At the very least they provoke a response. And in actual fleet attacks, they are every bit as good or better as DDs.

If everything else is equal, of course a fleet without subs isnt going to let itself be attacked by one with. But everything else is NOT equal. If someone moves their fleet to a spot where you MUST contest, then they can attack you. The AA50 map is FILLED with situations like that. It appears to have been specifically designed to FORCE those types of decisions.

I dont think anyone is advocating trying to use subs as THE main naval unit. But they make wonderful ADDITIONS given the geography of the new map. The Pacific campaign has a lot of aspects of a game of chicken. Subs can help break up that standoff or else put you in decent position to win if your opponent pulls the trigger first.

[Jennifer]

The problem is, if my fleet is in range of your submarines, your submarines are in range of my fleet.  I’ll gladly attack your fleet to stop your submarine from attacking at 3 or less and make them defend at a 1. (this is the tech thread, so i assume you have the tech.)

My destroyers, regardless of defense or attack, do so at a 2.

[a44bigdog]

Ya know what tech scares me the most? It isn’t Heavy Bombers. Strategic bombing campaigns are not the easiest things to properly execute and can be nullified almost completely with the proper tech. No the one that scares me the most is Long Range. I find that one is the one that seems to hit the hardest. Paratroopers may make you go chase after scattered infantry here and there. Mechanized infantry may speed infantry to the front, but Long Range just completely changes things. All those ships and other stuff you thought was safe. Nope not no more. Of course after they have achieved Long Range you will have taken it into consideration. It is the turn they get it on that can be a disaster.

[axis_roll]

How about making tech a little less ‘dicey’?

please read and offer your thoughts to:

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?board=41.0

[Jennifer]

Yea tell me about it, A44!  The worse thing about LRA (on the receiving side) is that it takes effect immediately.  Really makes you think before putting your fleet somewhere…sure, there’s only a 2 or 3% chance your opponent will buy 1 researcher, get a break through and roll Long Range Aircraft if he has no technologies already, but do you want to risk 200-400 IPC fleets to that kind of chance?

Now, someone is going to pipe up and say “see, that’s why we can’t have technologies in league.”  Hogwash.  It’s only 3% of the time and if your entire game goes up in smoke because someone got a technology, then I submit that you are already a substandard player and were probably only winning based on luck of the dice anyway.

[axis_roll]

@Cmdr:

It’s only 3% of the time and if your entire game goes up in smoke because someone got a technology,

well realistically it’s closer to a 1 inf 6 chance (16%) if you wanted to spend enough for researchers….

[Jennifer]

I was thinking per die roll.

1 in 6 to get a tech
1 in 6 to get that specific tech

.17 X .17 ~ 3%

[a44bigdog]

I don’t mind technology. I figure I get diced way more than I am going to get burned by tech. Not only does your opponent have to have a breakthrough, they then have to hit the critical tech AND be in a position to benefit from it. I will leave working out all those factors to the probability experts around here.

I would readily submit that you will get burned by bad dice in a critical battle before you get burned by tech. I again state that my feelings about the people that are against it because they are afraid the conditions will change and their oh so carefully prepared strategy will go out the window. Guess what, the dice can already do that.

I also like the random tech in AA50. While once you receive a breakthrough you do know you will get something, you do not know exactly what. It is just like combat in the game, there are no guarantees. Having the two charts also can lead to strategic decisions. I currently have Radar with Germany in a game where I really could have used HB, LR, or even ship yards. Anything off of chart 1 would have been a guaranteed help. However due to conditions on the board  I weighed my chances and rolled chart 2. I didn’t get what I needed or even something that could have even helped me as I think there have been no Allied SBRs in that game. But I am fine with that. Its just the breaks just like the dice in combat.

[tcnance]

i just dont know yet, i guess because my dice in getting tech have been bad so far

[Uncle_Joe]

While I dont really have anything against techs per se, you have to admit that they DO add ANOTHER layer of randomization to the game- and one that has widely varying results. For combats, you can easily see the benefit of adding ‘x’ or ‘y’ more of ‘z’ unit to the battle. Sure it might not always work out the way its ‘supposed’ to, but it is far more measurable than techs (precisely BECAUSE its a random roll to get a random tech that you may or may not be in position to take advantage of).

But to say that it isnt adding more luck to the game because the game is already dice based is incorrect. Suppose we added in a rule where every time a unit wants to move you roll a die and if you roll a 1, you cant move it. All that is doing is adding another roll to a game based on rolls anyways, right? But I think most people would agree that it DOES make the game more ‘luck dependent’. Same thing for tech - more dice dependent (important!) events you add, the more ‘luck based’ the game is going to become (for better or worse).

[Jennifer]

I have to agree.  The most vocal opponent I have dealt with on any of the boards (AA.org, AAMC or C-Sub where I actively discuss) was a man who couldn’t handle the slightest deviation from his calculated plans.  He would rip, roar and brutalize anyone who disagreed with him on the boards and then seek to prove himself right in a game, but the instant you started to win that game, he’d claim you cheated or whatever, and stop playing. (One such instance was a game where I claimed Russia could go on the offensive and hold Germany back with support from England while America disassembled Japan in Revised.  I still have that map if anyone wants to see it.  He quit very early.)

I only mention this person because it seems indicative of the majority of players who have historically been very vocal in their opposition to technologies.  It seems, from experience, and I know it is not true of everyone who takes this position, that the weaker players are the ones who refuse to play with technologies.

But while that may be true, it may be false, the important thing is that we are the only gaming community who does not allow technologies in our tournaments, to my knowledge, at least online.  Flames of Europe allows them, DAAK allowed them, probably still does, and I know AAMC encourages you to use technology in tournaments.

So let’s join the rest of the world and use all the good things Larry has given us!

To me, Axis and Allies without National Objectives and without Technologies is like playing Chess where all your pawns are queens.  Sure, it’s fun for a while, but it gets old.  There’s no dynamics any longer, it becomes stagnant.

[Uncle_Joe]

Yep, agreed that techs definately stir the pot. Its very difficult indeed to know that ‘I always build ‘x’ in ‘y’ situation’ when techs are in play. For long term play, I agree that their use prevents the game from getting stale. The trade off is that indeed, you are adding another random factor to an already pretty random game.