AA50 League and/or Tournaments

[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.

[Funcioneta]

@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?

Better if not, or axis victory will be quicker. Without China, India cannot hold, no matter Japan does 1st round. But again, even with China, Japan should be able of taking India round 3-4 with so many starting trannies.

No more asian front in AA50, 1941. We are reduced to Pacific front (a setback from Revised). If I had to choose, I would pick 1942 as base for competitive playing, at least China starts mediocre instead dead, and India can hold against a lone starting trannie.

[DarthMaximus]

There won’t be any “altering” of techs, ie come into effect after your turn or change some of the techs, it will either be Tech or No Tech based on OOB rules.  If you are going to alter them you might as well just eliminate them.  The only exception here would be if there was something updated via a Rules FAQ or something like LHTR for AA50 came out.

[jsp4563]

@DarthMaximus:

There won’t be any “altering” of techs, ie come into effect after your turn or change some of the techs, it will either be Tech or No Tech based on OOB rules.  If you are going to alter them you might as well just eliminate them.  The only exception here would be if there was something updated via a Rules FAQ or something like LHTR for AA50 came out.

I agree.  Larry and his team spent a lot of time developing the game and it’s rules, it should be played as is, fixes should come from them.  They are completely open to suggestions, in fact they welcome them.

[DarthMaximus]

I actually kind of like U-505s idea but switch it up, allow OOB tech rules but allow any players to make an agreement to not use them in their game.  You can simply say looking for a no-tech game.  This way the tech people don’t have to worry and Tech is allowed by defualt but if you want a no tech game you can seek one.  This can also help if we eventually find one side has an advantage since I’m not really interested in introducing any type of bidding (far too early IMO).  This would also be equivalent to a Tech game where no side bought tech or achieved a tech.

[TG Moses VI]

Sounds fair.  :-D

[Jennifer]

That would work for me, DM.

Honestly, I don’t see a lot of victories coming without technology being available.  I could be wrong.  (Seems to me that bidding was only required once technology was abolished anyway….but that could just be perception.)

As for introducing bidding, why not wait until December next year, look at the ratio of allied wins vs axis wins (we’d have to track that somehow, possibly when we say “I won against So-And-So and I was Allies” it would make it easier) and check that against how people scored.

If the top 5 were consistently winning with the axis each game and losing with the allies, then we almost definitely need a bidding system next year!  If the top 20 players average 50/50 win loss with axis and allies, we probably don’t need a bidding system next year!

I’m currently putting my money on games, with tech available, not needing bidding.  Even if you don’t buy the tech, just having the option seems to curtail enemy aggression giving both sides more time to recover.

[Bardoly]

Sounds fair.

[TimTheEnchanter]

I don’t like the “tech-optional” recommendation at all.  First, I think anyone claiming that techs don’t result in additional randomness to the outcome are fooling themselves, just because very few situations have such wide swings in both immediate and long term value on just a few dice.  However, I am not convinced that, in and of itself, is bad.  It certainly should lead to more variability in how games play out. It might let a few poorer players win a few more games if they gain a tech advantage, but overall I think smart play will usually win out in the end.

The problem I see with “tech-optional” is that it seems clear from this thread that there will be one group who only play with techs, and another that refuse to, so there will essentially be two groups playing under different rules within the same league.  There will be a few people who probably switch back and forth for the sake of finding opponents, but I would suspect most people will find their comfort zone in one camp or the other.  This will make it that much harder to find competition for games and to get experience playing all the members across the community.

I think league should be either one way or the other and people will likely learn to adapt to it if they want to play in league - which is where most of the ‘action’ has been for the last year+ that I’ve been here.  Personally, I’d lean toward giving the techs a try and take some more time to see if they really are broken - much like finding out whether bids are really necessary.  If you start with tech, you could always pull them back out.  If you start without them, they’ll never be part of the league.

[Funcioneta]

Yep, you are right. Me, per example, could stand playing without allied bid (I just have to pick axis each time I can  :-P), but I would not play without techs or NOs unless that would be the only way of finding opponents. And with optional tech, I would evade non-tech opponents. A good analisis deserves a +1 karma  :-)

[tcnance]

it wouldnt matter to me if tech were optional or not, in 5 tech games so far ive only unlocked one(but i still keep trying, paratroopers would be way cool)……i would play games in both camps, tech and no tech

[Jennifer]

Everyone keeps forgetting that tech is already optional.  You either opt to buy researchers or you don’t.  If you don’t then you spend the money for units to use now.  If you do, perhaps (17% per roll) you find a tech and perhaps that tech will be useful to your campaign.

For those who don’t want to use tech, then don’t.  But don’t deny the option to your opponents.  After all, if they spend 30 IPC a round on tech then you’re in all that stronger a position, right?

[P-Unit]

Correct me if I’m wrong here, but those who don’t like the randomness of the tech rules do so because of their opponents gaining a insta-win via tech. Sure, I’m all for tech if my opponent doesn’t use it, sign me up. Not going to happen.

[P-Unit]

Keep in mind, the most over-powered tech was slightly put in check with the escort rule in the latest FAQ, and now SBRs from Heavy bombers won’t be as brutal. They’ll still sink almost any fleet but at least you can defend yourself against that and can now defend against massive Heavy Bomber SBRs. The insta-win paratrooper situation still exists though, but at least that can be defended. It’s really not worth trying to defend against having your fleet sunk by a LRA tech roll, it’s too crippling to the plans.