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

[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.)

[Cmdr_Jennifer]

@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:

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

My apologies for misunderstanding what you meant in the upper quote.  I thought you meant anyone in the game.

I agree with your math and I think I understand what your saying.  Based on a single side getting Super Subs (in the future) for the correct nation at the exact time it needs them is 1 out of 108.  However, that is not how the game is played.  One has to assume that you wouldn’t be rolling for them unless you wanted them.  So, why divide by 3?  If you didn’t know which nation you were playing then, yes, divide by 3.  Because then there would be a 1/3 chance that you were playing the correct nation that wanted Super Subs at the time you rolled for them.  But you already know who needs them and will roll for the tech duing that nations turn.  So we are back to 1/6 * 1/6 = 1/36.  Likewise (small detail here but not figured into your calculation), you are assuming that only a single tech token is purchased.  The probability goes up slightly if you figure in multiple purchased tokens.

[Unknown Soldier]

Jen, this is not meant as an insult, but your understanding of probability is lacking (as is most people’s). So instead of always insisting that you’re right in an area where you lack expertise, perhaps you would do better to see where you went wrong, because I really don’t want to spend 10 posts discussing this.

@Cmdr:

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

Unfortunately, they are not correct. I’m not misunderstanding how your arrived at 1/108, I see what you’re trying to do. The problem is, what you’re doing is simply invalid, from a probability standpoint.

The problem lies here:

@Cmdr:

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.

No, you don’t.

You don’t roll for tech and then determine who gets it randomly. That’s not how the game works. There is a 100% chance someone will be playing Japan or United States and will have the opportunity to roll for tech. Each nation has a 1/36 chance of getting super subs. It therefore follows that Japan and the US each have a 1/36 chance to get super subs. Not 1/108.

Your method would be correct if instead the game worked like this:

(1) The Allies roll for tech together (1/6 to get a tech)
(2) If successful, the Allies roll on chart 2 (1/6 to get ss)
(3) If successful, the Allies roll a die to determine who gets the tech: 1-2 = USSR, 3-4 = UK, 5-6 = USA (1/3 chance for US)

Odds of US getting super subs = (1/6)(1/6)(1/3) = 1/108

But, the game actually works like this:

(1) Determine who’s turn it is (100% chance the US gets a turn)
(2) On the US turn, roll for tech (1/6 to get a tech)
(3) If successful, the US rolls on chart 2 (1/6 to get ss)

Odds of US getting super subs = (1)(1/6)(1/6) = 1/36

See the difference?

[Unknown Soldier]

@Cmdr_Jennifer:

But you already know who needs them and will roll for the tech duing that nations turn.  So we are back to 1/6 * 1/6 = 1/36.

Exactly.

[Unknown Soldier]

@Cmdr:

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

How is it that heavy bombers isn’t broken then?

HBs provide an attack punch of 8 for 14 IPCs (.571 punch/IPC), while SSs have an attack punch of 3 for 6 IPCs (.500 punch/IPC). Then consider that bombers have a range of 6, compared to 2 for a sub. Oh, and then there’s the fact that bombers can attack land, sea and air targets while a sub can attack sea targets only. And heavy bombers have better economic attacks.

The sub abilities don’t even compare to the bomber’s, and they can be negated by a DD anyway.

So HBs have better attack punch/IPC, better abilities, and are much more versatile unit. So I don’t see how super subs > heavy bombers.

[Jennifer]

@Unknown:

@Cmdr_Jennifer:

But you already know who needs them and will roll for the tech during that nations turn.  So we are back to 1/6 * 1/6 = 1/36.

Exactly.

But you cannot specify what nation will get a certain technology out of the box.

For instance:

You could have the correct nation and get a 6 but roll one of the other 5 technologies. {1-(1/61/61/3)}
You could have the correct nation, not get a 6, and can’t roll for a technology. {1-(1/61/3)}
You could have the correct nation and get a 6 and roll the correct technology. {1/61/61/3}
You could have the wrong nation, get a 6, but roll one of the other 5 technologies. {1-(1/61/62/3)}
You could have the wrong nation, not get a 6 and can’t roll for a technology. {1-(1/62/3)}
You could have the wrong nation and get a 6 but correct the right technology. {1/61/62/3}

6 Distinct Possibilities per side.  You have to account for that.

Just like you can’t say “well, my armor missed last round, so it’s going to hit this round” you also can’t say “I’ll only get Super Submarines if Japan rolls a 6, I’ll get one of the other 5 if Germany or Italy roll a 6.”  It’s an invalid method of calculating probability.

You two seem to want to discount the odds that you get super submarines with one of the other nations and not with Japan.

[Unknown Soldier]

“HAVING THE CORRECT NATION” IS NOT A PROBABILITY EVENT