Cmdr Jennifer Hijacks “Enhanced” – How do you really feel about it.

[axis_roll]

@Cmdr:

As for Revised:Enhanced, I really enjoyed it.  There was only that one issue where the Axis could roll “Yahtzee” and win the game in Round 1 that was a problem.  It was never fixed.  (A simple fix would have been to require there to be a second round to any game.  This could hardly be seen as breaking Revised Enhanced and it would permanently end the “Yahtzee” win to which I mean: Germany takes Karelia and Caucasus on round 1, Japan takes Hawaii and India on Round 1, thus, game over.  It didn’t happen all the time, but I can remember two games I lost because the Axis did really well with the dice and got the VC before I had a chance to even do America.

That’s poor play by the allied player… allowing 4 VCs to fall round one is bad.
They SHOULD lose then.
UK should know how dire things are before their turn and know they HAVE to hold either India / Australia.

Taking the appropriate NA to ensure that they could hold India would be the proper thing to do.  I am afraid I have to disagree with you here, AARe has no yahtzee wins.

[Jennifer]

Didn’t have to do with good play on anyone’s side, it had to do with the axis playing rolling “Yahtzee”.

As the saying goes, Good Dice Rolls beat Good Tactics Anyday.

[axis_roll]

@Cmdr:

Didn’t have to do with good play on anyone’s side, it had to do with the axis playing rolling “Yahtzee”.

As the saying goes, Good Dice Rolls beat Good Tactics Anyday.

I disagree that this is a problem with Enhanced.

Did you read what I wrote, when UK realizes the game is on the line, they should make prudent moves to prevent 4 VC’s from being lost at the end of Japans first turn.

---

As for crazy dice, that’s a problem with A&A, not just ‘Enhanced’.

[Jennifer]

Yes, crazy dice is always a problem, but in Revised:Enhanced crazy dice can cost you the game in the first round, that’s not true in any other game of Axis and Allies.

Anyway, I’ve seen Japan suicide fighters and bombers to get that 4th VC and win in Round 1, there’s really not much England can do in the face of a Japanese player willing to trade fighters for infantry to get 4 VC.

Just saying, no rule set is perfect including Revised:Enhanced.  If you want to find a way to break it, you’ll find a way.  I can do it in any game.  For instance, Anniversary 1941 OOB: Get Super Submarines just before attacking the American fleet thereby giving you 6 IPC Cruisers for your attack.

[Unknown Soldier]

@Cmdr:

If you want to find a way to break it, you’ll find a way.  I can do it in any game.  For instance, Anniversary 1941 OOB: Get Super Submarines just before attacking the American fleet thereby giving you 6 IPC Cruisers for your attack.

So what you’re saying is… instant tech can lead to game-breaking situations?

And with super-subs, no less.  :lol:

[Jennifer]

@Unknown:

@Cmdr:

If you want to find a way to break it, you’ll find a way.  I can do it in any game.  For instance, Anniversary 1941 OOB: Get Super Submarines just before attacking the American fleet thereby giving you 6 IPC Cruisers for your attack.

So what you’re saying is… instant tech can lead to game-breaking situations?

And with super-subs, no less.  :lol:

No, I am saying that instant tech cannot lead to game-breakage if your opponent is strategically and tactically sound in his or her game play.

However, super submarines in Anniversary can be used in a game breaking manner.  Which is why super submarines were disposed of in Anniversary:Enhanced.

Honestly, if you are not going to read what is typed or the rules, why do you bother commenting?  At least axis showed he glanced at the rules once or twice because his points were well aimed, some of the rules were worded in a less than optimal way.  I’m sure once we’ve played a few games he’ll realize his misgivings are unfounded, that they occurred because of a misinterpretation of the rules or a misunderstanding of the rules.

[Unknown Soldier]

@Cmdr:

No, I am saying that instant tech cannot lead to game-breakage if your opponent is strategically and tactically sound in his or her game play.

Then your example makes no sense at all. The American player can simply “plan ahead” to avoid the situation you descibed, right? By your logic, this should not be game-breaking, yet you cite this as an example of how the OOB rules can be broken. :? You are contradicting yourself here.

@Cmdr:

However, super submarines in Anniversary can be used in a game breaking manner.  Which is why super submarines were disposed of in Anniversary:Enhanced.

So let me get this straight… you took super subs out because they’re broken? Sorry, but that is just lol, and you know it. Here’s a quote from you in a thread you started in the 1941 forum:

Okay, tech is a bit random, so what?  You have a choice on what chart you roll on, so that’ll help a lot, and really, outside of Super Submarines, I don’t see a “bad” technology on the charts. (Thinking about it, if we fixed Super Submarines to negate Battleship 2 hit abilities, then they would be good!)

Here’s a hint: super subs aren’t the problem. If you disagree, then give me an exmple of how super subs can be used in a game-breaking manner which does not involve the exploitation of instant tech.

[Jennifer]

First off, when I say that a good player will take into account your enemy’s technologies, I am referring to Anniversary Enhanced, not OOB.

In OOB, you discount the chances of your opponent getting that one technology that will give them an edge since there is a 1 in 36 chance of getting it.

In Anniversary Enhanced, there is a 100% chance your opponent could get the technology, assuming they have the 30 IPC needed to buy all 6 dice (or 24 IPC if a minor tech, etc.)

Thus, in Anniversary, a good player will say “hey, they have 20 destroyers, I bet they’ll spend the money upgrading them to Suber Destroyers since that will add 20 punch to their attack value and nothing else they can spend 30 IPC on will do the same thing or more!”  So you’ll probably hang your navy back 3 spaces or leave a destroyer between you and the enemy so they cannot immediately attack you that round.

In OOB, there is a chance that your opponent will upgrade their 27 Submarines (roughly the same cost of 20 destroyers) to Super Submarines and have 6 IPC Cruisers in effect.

Honestly, I think 8 IPC Cruisers is more realistic than 6 IPC cruisers with sneak shots.  Most players agreed with me, which is why Super Submarines were replaced with Super Destroyers.

In my opinion, a 6 IPC Unit in the Sea that attacks at 3 or less is major league game breakage.  Especially if the other technology is gotten to make it a 5 IPC unit.

6 IPC at 3 or less = 12 IPC at 3 or less and you can see why people would avoid the cruisers altogether.  Why buy a cruiser when you can have 2 submarines for the same cost and at the same attack value?

8 IPC at 3 or less is not as bad.  It’s still a nice upgrade, but you are not getting twice as much for the money anymore.

---

Lastly, taking a quote from January, about 100 games ago, and trying to apply it to show a contradiction to something posted in March 100 games later is rather silly.

Honestly, you should know better than that.

There is a lot of things from January I no longer advocate doing in Anniversary.

I’ve learned that Anniversary can result in broken things like submarines being made super.  In the case of Super Submarines, the price should be increased from 6 IPC to 8 or 9 IPC.  Or, as we did, change it to Super Destroyers which at least negates sneak attacks at 3 or less and increases the cost to a more realistic ratio.

I’ve learned that Heavy Bombers are cute, but they’re not to die for.  They can help, but they won’t win the game for you.

I’ve learned that Paratroopers are far from useless, they’re potentially the best technology in the game (though many of you don’t agree with me yet, which is why they are a minor technology and not a major technology.)

I mean, you’re going back to something said hundreds of games ago is akin to me going back and getting an essay you wrote in the 9th grade and attempting to show contradiction between what you said then and what you said now.

Sure, you said both, but honestly, one would hope you learned something between then and now and it is what you learned that resulted in a difference in statements.

[Unknown Soldier]

If you have seriously changed your position on super subs in the past 2 months, fine. I can appreciate that ideas and strategies evolve over time. I obviously disagree, but we can discuss that later.

The point I’m trying to make right now is about your stance on OOB tech rules. You said:

If you want to find a way to break it, you’ll find a way.  I can do it in any game.  For instance, Anniversary 1941 OOB: Get Super Submarines just before attacking the American fleet thereby giving you 6 IPC Cruisers for your attack.

Many players, including myself, were arguing exactly this in a thread 9 days ago. Yet, at the time, you refused to accept that the OOB tech rules are broken. In your own words:

Technology is not broken, you made a bone-headed move and a superior player capitalized on it.

So according to you, the Americans simply made a bone-headed move: what were they thinking, they left their fleet within range of potential super subs! There are plenty more examples of you vehemently defending the OOB tech rules, even claiming that anyone who complains about them is just “unable to think critically” or just bad at strategic planning.

Yet, 9 days later, you cite an example of a game-breaking situation that can arise due to tech. Your positions in these threads are contradictory. And don’t try to tell me you changed your mind for AA50:Jen, because that thread was started after you released your rules.

I mean, do you really not see this? On the one hand, you say tech is fine when I argue otherwise in the 1941 forum, but now its broken when you need to pimp your new rule set. This two-faced attitude you invoke to suit your current agenda really makes it hard to take you, or your rules, seriously. It tells me that your position on any given rule is not necessarily based on logic or playtesting, but on your flavor of the week, which is likely just the opposite position of someone you don’t like personally. The problem is that you would rather win every argument than accept that someone else’s argument has merit. This is not conducive to creating a good rule set.

[Jennifer]

Exactly, in my scenario the Americans made a bone-headed move.

Doesn’t change the fact I think a submarine attacking at 3 or less is broken.  Submarines are too cheap.  At least in Revised a submarine cost 8 IPC, so attacking as strong as a destroyer (back then they attacked at 3 or less as well, and cost 10 IPC) wasn’t so much of an issue.  Now a submarine is half the cost of a unit that attacks at 3 or less, that’s broken.  It should virtually never happen where it is cheaper to upgrade a unit than it is to buy new ones.

Advanced artillery is still cheaper to buy new units. (1 Artillery only upgrades 1 extra Infantry by 1, so that’s only +1 punch, a new artillery is +2 punch even without infantry, +3 with an infantry present.  Cheaper to buy new than upgrade old.)

Heavy Bombers is still cheaper to buy two units than upgrade one. (1 AA Shot, no more bombers vs 1 AA shot dropping you to one bomber.  Cheaper.)

Super Submarines is cheaper to upgrade than build new.  They cost 50% as much as a cruiser and attack at the same level.  Why would you pay for a cruiser when you can upgrade your submarines and buy 2 for the price of 1?

---

To me, that’s what makes a technology “broken.”  Once it becomes better to upgrade than to buy new, it’s no longer an augmentation to your strategy, it becomes your strategy.

This is the same argument I presented the testers.  Other people presented other arguments.  Some of them included that submarines had to be attacked by destroyers now so they were much harder to destroy, they could pass through enemy fleets now, they cost less than before, etc.  Thing is, we decided it was better to have super destroyers.  Upgrading them was not cheaper than buying new ones because the price was higher. (12 IPC for a cruiser or 8 IPC for a Super Destroyer after you got the technology.  Cheaper to get the cruiser in the short run.)

---

As for defending OOB tech, I still do.  Out of the box there is only a 1 in 108 chance you’ll get super submarines with the nation you need them for. (1 in 6 to get the tech, 1 in 6 to get the right tech, 1 in 3 that it’s with the nation you wanted it for.)

In Anniversary Enhanced it’s 100% you’ll get the tech you want with the nation you want if you have enough cash.  That’s what makes it broken for Anniversary and not for out of the box.  OOB it’s just dumb luck coupled with a bone-headed move by your opponent that gives you the tech you need at the time you need it to turn the tide of battle.

[axis_roll]

@Cmdr:

In Anniversary Enhanced it’s 100% you’ll get the tech you want with the nation you want if you have enough cash.  That’s what makes it broken for Anniversary and not for out of the box.

So, do my eyes deceive me, or did you just agree with me?

[Jennifer]

@axis_roll:

@Cmdr:

In Anniversary Enhanced it’s 100% you’ll get the tech you want with the nation you want if you have enough cash.  That’s what makes it broken for Anniversary and not for out of the box.

So, do my eyes deceive me, or did you just agree with me?

Not quite.  What I said is Super Submarines would be broken in Anniversary Enhanced, but since they don’t exist, they cannot be broken.  It’s why we changed it from Super Submarines to Super Destroyers (since the destroyer in Anniversary is essentially the submarine of Revised anyway.)

[axis_roll]

@Cmdr:

@axis_roll:

@Cmdr:

In Anniversary Enhanced it’s 100% you’ll get the tech you want with the nation you want if you have enough cash.  That’s what makes it broken for Anniversary and not for out of the box.

So, do my eyes deceive me, or did you just agree with me?

Not quite.  What I said is Super Submarines would be broken in Anniversary Enhanced, but since they don’t exist, they cannot be broken.  It’s why we changed it from Super Submarines to Super Destroyers (since the destroyer in Anniversary is essentially the submarine of Revised anyway.)

Sooooooooooo  only instant super subs tech is broken?

PUH-Lease!

[Jennifer]

@axis_roll:

@Cmdr:

@axis_roll:

@Cmdr:

In Anniversary Enhanced it’s 100% you’ll get the tech you want with the nation you want if you have enough cash.  That’s what makes it broken for Anniversary and not for out of the box.

So, do my eyes deceive me, or did you just agree with me?

Not quite.  What I said is Super Submarines would be broken in Anniversary Enhanced, but since they don’t exist, they cannot be broken.  It’s why we changed it from Super Submarines to Super Destroyers (since the destroyer in Anniversary is essentially the submarine of Revised anyway.)

Sooooooooooo  only instant super subs tech is broken?

PUH-Lease!

No, they are not broken because the odds of getting them is insanely poor. (1 chance in 108 attempts.  Roughly 0.9259% chance of getting them.  And no, the decimal is in the right spot, I didn’t forget to move it.  It’s about nine-tenths of a percent of getting them in any given round OOB.)

They WOULD be broken if they had been included in Anniversary Enhanced is what I am saying.  It’s why we changed them to Super Destroyers instead. (Solves the issue of them being broken since tech is assured in Enhanced and not in OOB.  It’s the assurance that would have made it a broken tech in Enhanced.)

[Unknown Soldier]

Reread what axis_roll said.

He’s questioning your assertion that only super subs break the game under instant directed tech.

For example, how do you come to the conclusion that super subs are broken but heavy bombers are not?

[Unknown Soldier]

And BTW, those calculations you gave for getting super subs are flakey.

Given that you have no techs already, its a 1/6 chance to get a tech, then another 1/6 chance to get a particular tech on chart 2 (the one with super subs). That’s 1/6*1/6 = 1/36, or 2.78%.

You don’t divide by 3 because only some nations will want them, or whatever it is you’re trying to do. Given that you’re rolling for tech and have none already, it’s a 1/36 chance per roll, end of story.

[axis_roll]

@Unknown:

Reread what axis_roll said.

He’s questioning your assertion that only super subs break the game under instant directed tech.

For example, how do you come to the conclusion that super subs are broken but heavy bombers are not?

Thank God someone can understand the arguements I make in this thread.

[BadSpeller]

Cmdr Jennifer, thank you for your answer to the ‘B’ section of questions.

Now, would you please directly answer the ‘C’ section of questions (from the first post)?

@Cmdr_Jennifer:

TESTING PROCEDURES:

1. What testing procedures were used?
2. What strategies have been tested to validate the need for rule changes?  And tested by which testers?  Against which other strategies?  By which side?
3. How many times was each strategy tested?

[Cmdr_Jennifer]

@Unknown:

And BTW, those calculations you gave for getting super subs are flaey.

Given that you have no techs already, its a 1/6 chance to get a tech, then another 1/6 chance to get a particular tech on chart 2 (the one with super subs). That’s 1/6*1/6 = 1/36, or 2.78%.

@Cmdr:

No, they are not broken because the odds of getting them is insanely poor. (1 chance in 108 attempts.  Roughly 0.9259% chance of getting them.  And no, the decimal is in the right spot, I didn’t forget to move it.  It’s about nine-tenths of a percent of getting them in any given round OOB.)

:?

Cmdr Jennifer,
If you’re referring to a round as every nation getting a turn, then it would be 1/6 * 1/6 * 3 (Not 1/3) = 8.33%, because 3 nations have a 1/36 chance of getting it.  Or even more of a problem would be if both sides are trying for them.  In that case it would be 1/6 * 1/6 * 6 = 16.67% chance that some nation will have them after a round.  So if my math is correct, the odds are a lot better than 1 out of 108.  But I could be wrong.  It’s been a long time since I had to rely on my brain for math…and my browser doesn’t have a math-checker or a spell checker.

[Jennifer]

No, my calculations are correct, you are misunderstanding how I derived them.

Assuming a clean slate, no one has technology yet.

You have a 1 in 3 chance of playing the correct nation that needs the technology at the time you roll a 6 on the die.
You have a 1 in 6 chance of rolling a 6 on the die
You have a 1 in 6 chance of getting the technology you want on the chart.

1/3 * 1/6 * 1/6 = 0.9% or 1 in 108 tries to get the technology on the correct nation, out of the box.  That’s a really slim shot at getting it when you need it with the nation you need it for.

You have to divide it by all nations on that side (axis or allies) because you cannot be sure that Germany won’t get Super Submarines when trying for Heavy Bombers while Italy will get Jet Fighters and Japan will get Radar instead of the Super Submarines it wanted.  Just because one of your nations rolls a 6 for chart two and gets super submarines does not mean it was on the nation you wanted to get it.  That’s why you divide it by all nations on that team.  Who cares if Germany gets super submarines if they have no submarines?  It’s not broken then. :P

If it was instant like in Enhanced, then the tech becomes broken because you can plan on definitely having it when you need it, instead of randomness.  It’s like saying your AA Gun automatically gets to shoot down 6 aircraft per game and the owner of the gun gets to determine what battles the fighters and bombers get shot down instead of letting the dice do it randomly.  That would be broken too.

The fix was removing Super Submarines (the one that became broken when switching to the revised system) and replacing it with Super Destroyers.  This changed the cost/benefit scale of the technology while maintaining the integrity of the system.  Remember, AAR submarines are virtually identical to AA50 destroyers now (with the exception that destroyers don’t get sneak shots like submarines did in AAR.)

---

I didn’t answer the testing procedures specifically because I thought everyone was aware, through multiple replies, of how it went.

1)  6 of us got together and made a first draft of the Anniversary Enhanced Rules by virtually (not literally) dragging and dropping the AARe rules onto the AA50 rules. (This is supposed to illicit a picture of someone copying the contents of a folder and dropping it into another folder and then selecting the “overwrite” command so that duplicates will default to the “new” file.)

2)  We then took it to the community that spent 2-3 weeks testing it and getting back to us with results.  (I.e. problems.)

3)  We then hosted a chat session at the end and allowed everyone time to chat for a few hours on Saturday night.  The chat log was printed and edited to erase bickering and non-topic centered comments (i.e. “did you like CSI last night?” etc) and changes that seemed to be acceptable to the group were implemented.

4)  Second draft was released and tested followed by another chat session.

5)  Third draft was approved as being as close to revised enhanced as possible while using the anniversary units, map and rules without any unbalance being introduced.

---

Axis:

I did misunderstand.  Yes, only the Super Submarines tech came up “broken” when shifting to enhanced style technology rules.

It’s cost, ability, upgrade strength and assurance of getting it that did it.  No other technology had that combo of benefits that made it almost impossible to win without getting the technology.  So we had to change it.  At least a destroyer could be sunk by a fighter attacking it, a submarine could not (fighters cannot attack submarines without a destroyer present.)  At least a destroyer cost 8 IPC like all the previous incarnations of submarines did when the original idea of super submarines was first implemented (and each incarnation after that: Second Edition, Revised, Enhanced, etc.)

Super Destroyers technology shifted the combo of benefits away from over powering to just a nice boost.  It also gave us a method of improving the detectability of submarines, which was lacking. (Submarines with Super Submarine tech were originally able to achieve -1 detection values, meaning that even a 0 was too high to find them.  Now they can achieve 0, but the enemy can also achieve a 6 resulting in a game where no matter what, the opportunity to detect enemy submarines exists and the opportunity to prevent auto detection of all submarines exists.  Balance, harmony, bliss.)