AA50 League and/or Tournaments

[DarthMaximus]

I think for tournaments it is easy enough to say Tech or No Tech.

I don’t plan on doing 2-2 Tourney for AA50, not after last years disaster, so perhaps we’ll do Spring (No Tech), Fall (Tech) or vice versa.  Assuming there is interest in both.  I think NOs are guaraneteed in all things (League, Tourney) otherwise it is probably too much like Revised.

Now the League, I don’t know.  Most people here probably know I’m anti-tech and I’m freely willing to admit my bias goes back to Classic, but my view of a “League” is to try and standardize as much as possible.  Anything can happen in a tourney bad dice or just do a stupid mistake, but in a League while we all have bad games, over time the better stategies should become apparent.  I think a tech based league might just throw a bit too much randomness into it.  But we’ll see.  Keep up the discussion though.

[Funcioneta]

We should start talking about allies bid. I can stand a no tech game (even if I think a no tech game needs less strategical and tactical knowledge than a game with techs), but each game I play in 1941, I hate more and more Godzilla Japan. I almost never pick Japan in fun games if I can (too easy to be fun), but if we get a vanilla competitive league, I’ll play Japan all the games I can  :-D

I say at least bid 12 IPCs to China in 1941, maybe more  :-P

[a44bigdog]

I am not convinced at all that the Allies need a bid. I would recommend we start with rolling for sides and perhaps re-evaluate this decision some time down the road after more games have been played.

I have said my piece on tech but I do want to ask Darth if he has even tried any games of 50 with tech?

[madquest8]

The only Tech that is game destroying is Heavy Bombers, it should be roll 2 dice and take the best result, not roll two and add them together…

…having said that there are aspects of the game that I hate… but that you just have to accept if you want to get on and play it, It’s a game of luck, and in the end I think Techs should be included, even if they screw you up… because you have the same chance to screw up the opponent  :-D

[TG Moses VI]

Yes, our play groups play with LHTR regarding Heavy Bombers.

As for a bidding system, I think an Open Bidding System works best.

ie You can bid for Axis OR Allies.  There are too many conflicting opinions about which side is better, especially now with both 1941/42 scenarios.

[TimTheEnchanter]

@Funcioneta:

We should start talking about allies bid. I can stand a no tech game (even if I think a no tech game needs less strategical and tactical knowledge than a game with techs), but each game I play in 1941, I hate more and more Godzilla Japan. I almost never pick Japan in fun games if I can (too easy to be fun), but if we get a vanilla competitive league, I’ll play Japan all the games I can  :-D

I say at least bid 12 IPCs to China in 1941, maybe more  :-P

Good idea, since China can’t spend any IPCs. ;)

[tcnance]

no 2 on 2 tourney this year?

how are me and mojo gonna defend our title?

im thinking about a compromise to the league, how bout limited each country to just one tech? that way tech can still be a part of the game but not overwhelming

[a44bigdog]

Since we are running an '09 Revised league how about keep that the way it is for the technophobes and launch the AA50 league with the OOB full bells and whistles so we will actually know what is broke and what aint broke. And that means no bids as it remains to be seen if bids are even needed.

[jsp4563]

@DarthMaximus:

This is not a sign-up.   :-D
Just trying to gather info.

This is for PBF of course.

1.  If there was an AA50 League, would you like two seperate divisions - one for 41 and one for 42?

2.  NOs - yes (no), Tech - yes (no)?

3.  Sides chosen by random in-house roll?  (or would bidding, even if both bid 0, be used and ties broken randomly by Frood)

4.  Anything else?

Tournaments

It is likely that we’ll do a tournament sometime this year, so sort of the same questions.

1 - 41 or 42?  or both?
2 - NO and tech (yes/no)?

1. Yes two separate leagues.

---

2. Yes, Tech.

Technology has been a fundemental historic fact in warfare from the earliest days.  Iron swords vs. Bronze swords, the chariot, the Long bow, Gun Powder, the repeating rifle, the machine gun, aircraft, rockets, missles, the list is endless.

I disagree with those who say Tech is for the less skilled players, it requires even more skill to deal with a technological breakthrough by your opponent.

The Rules Larry has come up with for Tech are brilliant, first you have to hire scientists to make a breakthrough (no easy task since they are all lazy government employees, who spend more time sipping lattes than they do working on projects), then if you do get a breakthrough you have to decide which chart to choose from, then the Tech from that chart is random.  So unlike AAR where you can make strategic decisions (I’m gonna buy Tech X and do Y), now you have no Idea what Tech you’ll get if any, so tech is rarely a game changing proposition.

For me, I will only be playing games that include Tech.

---

3. Rolling for Sides seems best, bidding will just degenarate to a tie breaker anyway.

[allies_fly]

@Emperor:

now you have no Idea what Tech you’ll get if any, so tech is rarely a game changing proposition.

You can like tech or not or have issues with how it’s implemented or not but I do not think I can agree with the statement that tech is rarely a game changing proposition.

Add +2 to your planes range instantaneously will most certainly change a game.

Agree 100% with an earlier post by BigDog about Long Range:  SCAREY STRONG

[jsp4563]

@allies_fly:

@Emperor:

now you have no Idea what Tech you’ll get if any, so tech is rarely a game changing proposition.

You can like tech or not or have issues with how it’s implemented or not but I do not think I can agree with the statement that tech is rarely a game changing proposition.

Add +2 to your planes range instantaneously will most certainly change a game.

Agree 100% with an earlier post by BigDog about Long Range:  SCAREY STRONG

You missed my point.  In AAR you could roll for the Tech you wanted so you could make a calculated decsion to get a specific tech that would completely change the game.  Under the new rules you can’t.  If you base your strategy on getting Long Range Air (or any tech for that matter), you’re gonna lose.  Tech’s achieved are an enhancement to your overall might, but can rarely turn a loosing situation into a winning one.

But hey, to each his own.  As i’ve said, i’ll only be playing games that include tech.

[DarthMaximus]

@tcnance:

no 2 on 2 tourney this year?

how are me and mojo gonna defend our title?

I just ment I won’t be doing any 2-2 for Anniv Edition. 
If there is still interest in 2-2 for Revised in the Fall then we’ll have our normal tourney.

[allies_fly]

@Emperor:

@allies_fly:

@Emperor:

now you have no Idea what Tech you’ll get if any, so tech is rarely a game changing proposition.

You can like tech or not or have issues with how it’s implemented or not but I do not think I can agree with the statement that tech is rarely a game changing proposition.

Add +2 to your planes range instantaneously will most certainly change a game.

Agree 100% with an earlier post by BigDog about Long Range:  SCAREY STRONG

You missed my point.  In AAR you could roll for the Tech you wanted so you could make a calculated decsion to get a specific tech that would completely change the game.  Under the new rules you can’t.  If you base your strategy on getting Long Range Air (or any tech for that matter), you’re gonna lose.  Tech’s achieved are an enhancement to your overall might, but can rarely turn a loosing situation into a winning one.

But hey, to each his own.  As i’ve said, i’ll only be playing games that include tech.

Thanks for the clarification.  I agree.

Might I add:  Tech can be a fun part of the game.

[U-505]

@Emperor:

Tech’s achieved are an enhancement to your overall might, but can rarely turn a loosing situation into a winning one.

I disagree. Techs can very easily turn a losing situation into a winning one. And now that techs have once again become available at the beginning of a turn, there will be many situations where acquiring a particular tech would be indefensible by your opponent.

I am going to go on record that if techs are allowed in their current form it will be a mistake. It is far easier to make techs an option by the players than to force it down peoples throats. Darth, be smart about this.

[WOPR]

@Funcioneta:

1941 is far from being competitive, giving axis a monster advantage (many players are not killing China round 1 and that is the reason of many allied victories, even some players don’t kill the fighter).

Is the Allied player building an IC in India when you kill China on J1?

[Jennifer]

I think the best solution (as in the least number of people will be sobbing in the corner calling you a heartless, terrorist, brute and urinating on themselves) would be a compromise.

All technologies are in.

However, any technologies discovered won’t come into play until the collect income phase.

This way the sobsters out there moaning about Long Range Aircraft suddenly sinking all their boats (which, btw, you won’t need to roll dice for, and you won’t even have to luck out and get the LRA tech, it’ll all be automatic) will not have to ever compensate for the technology coming into play by making sure they have enough boats to protect themselves or are sufficiently far away that even if the enemy does get LRA they won’t be able to bring every blasted plane to bear on them.

Honestly, I think it’s just bad play if you have not looked at the board and said:  “If they get this tech, I might be in trouble.  Should I go here, or there?  Well, if I go here and they get the tech I’m screwed, but i can recover, so it’s worth the risk they’ll just waste the money and not get the tech or if they do get a tech, they’ll get one of the other 5 and not the one I’m worried about.”

[P-Unit]

@Cmdr:

However, any technologies discovered won’t come into play until the collect income phase.

That does address the (defendable) problem with a sudden LRA fleet attack, but does nothing for the even worse early-game Heavy Bombers. I’m sorry, it’s extremely unlikely that anyone is is going  to beat me if I get a lucky first turn heavy bomber roll, nor do I think I can beat a competant player that gets a 1st/2nd turn heavy bomber roll. The only way I see even making a game of it is getting Radar.

Who wants to play a game that can end on a lucky first turn roll? I don’t, especially for a tourney/league.

[TG Moses VI]

However, any technologies discovered won’t come into play until the collect income phase.

Sensible.

Honestly, I think it’s just bad play if you have not looked at the board and said:  “If they get this tech, I might be in trouble.  Should I go here, or there?  Well, if I go here and they get the tech I’m screwed, but i can recover, so it’s worth the risk they’ll just waste the money and not get the tech or if they do get a tech, they’ll get one of the other 5 and not the one I’m worried about.”

The correct way of playing is NEVER to think “what if” your opponent unlocks a certain tech.  Playing to avoid a specific tech (like LRA) represents such a tempo loss for such a small percentage of gain that it simply isn’t worth it.

For example: if I had the option of taking transports to France and it would take me One turn to get to France without considering LRA and Two turns if I want to avoid LRA – the correct move would be to ALWAYS choose the former.

The only time I would even plan for a LRA contingency is if an opponent already has 4 Techs unlocked.

Who wants to play a game that can end on a lucky first turn roll? I don’t, especially for a tourney/league

Again, the odds of unlocking a “game breaking” tech (LRA, Heavy Bombers) is exceedingly small.

[a44bigdog]

I don’t like the delayed tech.

Did we show Japan the A-bomb before we dropped it? NO

Did the British show the Central Powers the tank before it was unveiled in combat? NO

I also find it amusing that the people that are arguing so hard against tech for the most part either have no games played in the '08 league or very few. The people that are arguing for tech played large numbers of games in the '08 league.

I am fairly certain I can win against a US round 1 Heavy Bomber roll. I have seen it in more than one game and it is not an automatic win.

Again I say we play Out Of Box rules so we can actually determine if stuff needs changing. I fully intend to play AA50 with the box rules. If the League plays that way I will participate. If the League does not I will simply play non-League games.

[Bardoly]

a44bigdog, I agree. +1 Karma

I haven’t played in the league or tournaments yet, but it just seems to make sense.  Play with the full complete OOB rules (including techs activate immediately) for several months before you decide that something must be thrown out completely.  If, after many, many games have been played, and the game doesn’t seem balanced in a certain area, such as Heavy Bombers, then I am not opposed to 1 or 2 minor tweaks to the game to rebalance the game for league/tournament play if needed, but don’t just throw out the baby with the bathwater by eliminating techs completely just because 1 or 2 of them can have a not-inconsiderable impact on the play of the game after having been discovered.