Bombers and tech…

[gamerman01]

Thanks for bringing in your perspective, Mojo.
GL with the UK, man.
Yeah, Germany and Italy are just waiting for the “cavalry”.
I set up a couple of polls - would be cool if you voted in them.

[mojo]

yea gamer those are great points.  i have to admit without the tokens i would not buy as many techs.  i am fiscal conservative. which is why i don’t SBR.  my bombers usally get shot down.   so like the tech  tokens.  i guess we want the game to start balanced, at least i do.  42 does favor axis.  41 is great fair and balanced.  dice will mess up great strats all the time.  and if you add tech, look out.   i have to admit i would vote against tech, and almost did not play your game because i don’t like tech.  but i’m liking it more and more.  the first game i played  dude rolled and got para and dropped inf. in w usa.  i had no chance  ha, ha, ha

[mojo]

ok i voted.  and yea i do think in tech games bombers are to cheap.  i think the cost got lowered because bombers didn’t get purchased as much.  i know my games i don’t buy BB or BOM.  even with cheaper BB i just don’t buy them.  i never bought bom, because i don’t SBR and 15 bucks  was too much to defend at 1.  i just bought figs.  now at 12 with techs. the next game i play you will see lost of them.

[gamerman01]

@mojo:

i have to admit i would vote against tech, and almost did not play your game because i don’t like tech.  but i’m liking it more and more.  the first game i played  dude rolled and got para and dropped inf. in w usa.  i had no chance  ha, ha, ha

Just wait 'til YOU are the one getting them!  Then you’ll really have fun.
You think it isn’t fun terrorizing you with paras in our game?  Haha - yes, just wait until you are the lucky one - it is a ball.

[Funcioneta]

Just my thought: I usually play tech games  as default choice, and when I play without tech, many times I think “this is too easy, I have not to care about paras or mech inf surprising me” or “a pity, I could use this strat if I could try roll for some tech”

As for HBs and LRA, I’m more worried about the setup than a rogue tech. If setup is unbalanced, you are smited 100% of times, while supertechs only ruin the game a small amount of times

[Lucifer]

You all made some good points, even if you are trying to argument from a neutral and objective point of view.

Different game preferences is all about personal subjective feelings.

Some of us don’t like the excessive randomness that occurs in many A&A games, that’s why we prefer no-tech and LL. Maybe there was more randomness in the real WW2 than in a 1vs1, no-tech, LL, A&A game, but we choose the settings that makes the game most fun.

Maybe it is hard to accept, but for some A&A players, it is a good thing if game settings makes it more like chess, b/c in chess there is very little luck and randomness.
And I still got the impression that many tech and reg.dice players simply don’t understand that even some no-tech LL games are won by luck!!!

[critmonster]

you make a good point. one could argue that the effect of luck in a LL game can be even more extreme, what if my lone dice always seems to hit/miss and yours does  or doesn’t?

[Lucifer]

LL is less random than regular dice, it’s a mathematical fact and applies as a general rule, but it is not 100% sure that in 100% of all LL games, (the number of hits) are less random than reg.dice. This is b/c the randomness is mathematically reduced, it is not possible in LL battles that one player hits with i.e. 90% of all attacking or defending units, but this is possible, and sometimes happens with reg.dice.
For a series of games, there is also less randomness in LL, and then this also applies for single games, you are not guaranteed that a single LL game have less randomness than reg.dice, but the probability is much higher.

But for a series of games, (i.e. best of 10-20 games) the best player(s) will win in the long run regardless of LL/reg.dice or tech/no-tech. It’s for single games that the LL setting have most impact, b/c there is much more probable that hits will be distributed more even between the sides compared to a single reg.dice game.

This also applies for LL and tech games. We don’t have to play many games to know that some techs are game breakers, and this means that if one side gets a powerful tech, the other side must also get an equally powerful tech, or lose the game is most cases.

Also, the randomness, or reduced randomness, will be more visible and make more impact in a 1vs1 experienced player setting, b/c both players will (usually) play relatively more efficient, compared to semi-decent, casual players, and in multiplayer games. And ofc, if one player is better than the opponent, it will hardly matter what settings the game is played in.

Conclusion: in 1vs1 games, if both players are reasonable experienced, and if both players have pretty much the same skills/experience, then the randomness plays a much bigger role than in other settings.

[Zhukov44]

Well looking back I’ll apologize to Gamer for sabotaging his thread with my anti-tech ramblings.  I guess I find that heavy bombers, particularly USA heavies, are impossible to counter if used right.  So perhaps house rules changing the way heavies work are in order.  I suppose if one plays tech and techs alot then the price of the bomber should probably go up, but on the other hand, unlike in Revised, bomber dominance isn’t so unfair to Axis since they have plenty of incentive to buy bombers and income equalizes pretty quick in AA50.

Sub you make a good point that the meat of the discussion is subjective feelings about what constitutes a good game–for me fairness, balance, vigorous competition and fun for both sides are right up there.  The fun consists in being challenged and refining one’s strats and trying to make good decisions in response to dice outcomes.  Personally, I never much liked low luck in Revised, but I enjoy playing with it in AA50.  The reason is long KGF build-ups seemed common playing ll in Revised, but in AA50 the game tends to break one way or another before the end of 10 rounds.  So I find I enjoy both dice and ll settings.  I think in both settings, the player with the better game-plan should win 90% or more…I suppose in ll that goes up to around 95%.

[gamerman01]

@Zhukov44:

I just don’t care about a win if I got heavies or rockets during the game…why should I take satisfaction in getting luckier than my oppo?  When my opponent inevitably complains about the unbalanced dice outcomes, all I can do is apologize for not insisting on a no tech game from the start.

I see your point here.
Yes, I almost feel guilty for drilling my opponent with numerous long-range paratroop dropping bombers.
But that’s your reward for taking the risk of investing in tech, when you might get absolutely nothing for your money.  It’s nothing to apologize for.  You’re both playing with the same rules.  But I know what you’re saying.

[gamerman01]

@Zhukov44:

I think in both settings, the player with the better game-plan should win 90% or more…I suppose in ll that goes up to around 95%.

That’s an interesting statement.
I think even in chess, the better player does not win 90% of the time.  Because even in chess, there is “situational happenstance”.  I’m an advanced chess player, and I would have to be very much better than my opponent to win 9 out of 10.  So I don’t know how, low luck or not, tech or not, a better player is going to win 9 out of 10 games against a worse player in Axis and Allies.
Yes, you hijacked my thread, but that doesn’t bother me.  Thanks for the apologies.
I like talking about anything A&A related.

[gamerman01]

@gamerman01:

Hey guys -
I wanted to start a discussion about bombers and related tech in AA50.

Everyone who played Classic A&A by OOB rules remembers that HB were usually a game-ender, because they were 3 dice apiece, and there was no cap on SBR damage.  If the other side didn’t get HB themselves, in a hurry, it was usually game over no matter who was ahead at that point (unless it was very lopsided).

However, I think we may have a similar issue in AA50.
…there are 3 techs (previously 2) that significantly improve bomber performance.  Just getting any 2 of them is devastating, especially because the bombers still only cost 12.  These techs are so effective, that it is often a good strategy to buy bombers before you even have the techs.  Even Italy or Russia, sometimes.

Do you think bombers are overpowered or underpriced?

Help me out with my history, here, but did bombers really attack fleets as effectively as they could bomb industrial targets or ground forces?  In this game, Long range and/or heavy bombers can pretty much annihilate all enemy fleets, and especially, keep the enemy from ever starting one.  Is this unrealistic?

OK, here are some of the things I wanted to discuss.  Thanks!

[Bardoly]

@gamerman01:

@Zhukov44:

Immediate tech is also a problem.

Zhukov, you’re a veteran of this game.
Think about it.  Immediate tech is only potentially devastating for a few techs.
Most devastating
1.  Long Range Air
2.  Paratroopers
3.  Heavy bombers
4.  Mechanized infantry
Not so devastating, usually (talking only of immediacy of effectiveness)
1.  Jets
2.  Super subs
3.  Rockets
Better to get them immediate, but not that big a deal (as opposed to delayed tech)
1.  Bonds
2.  Artillery
3.  Increased production
4.  Radar
5.  Shipyards
Like you, I’ve been devastated occasionally by one of the first 4 techs at an inopportune time.  It’s at times like these, I think maybe I should play with delayed tech for the first 4 (giving time to prepare), which I think is probably the easiest, most effective tweak to the tech game.

Not trying to derail the thread here, but I had a thought.  What if all techs, or at least just the ones which most people consider the most drastically game-changing, were delayed 1 round, BUT after one rolled for and achieved a tech breakthrough, one could choose either to immediately roll for which tech would then come into play on the next turn, OR one could wait, and then at the beginning of one’s next turn before the tech phase, then roll for which tech would come into play immediately.  That way one’s opponent would know that one would have an activated tech next turn, but not which one.  You could even require that one declare which chart one would be rolling on for the next turn, but just wait to actually roll the die until then.  Just a thought.

[lozmoid]

Yeah! Or - you can roll for tech every turn but it only lasts the one game round… You no longer pay for tech; just throw a dice at the start of your turn. If you get a six you can then choose tech chart 1 or 2 and roll again to see which tech you get. This tech then lasts until the end of the game round. A bit random though!  :-D

[Veqryn]

Why not just use LHTR for bombers?
(larry harris tournament rules)

if attacking:
roll 2 dice and accept the lowest one

if SBR:
roll 2 dice, accept highest one, then add 1

[gamerman01]

@Lozmoid:

Yeah! Or - you can roll for tech every turn but it only lasts the one game round… You no longer pay for tech; just throw a dice at the start of your turn. If you get a six you can then choose tech chart 1 or 2 and roll again to see which tech you get. This tech then lasts until the end of the game round. A bit random though!  :-D

Interesting.  All brainstorming is appreciated.

[gamerman01]

@Veqryn:

Why not just use LHTR for bombers?
(larry harris tournament rules)

if attacking:
roll 2 dice and accept the lowest one

if SBR:
roll 2 dice, accept highest one, then add 1

Yeah, that’s good, I’m using this in my newest game (except the +1).  We’re also delaying LRA a round.

[Battlingmaxo]

Another possibility for HBs which SBR  is that they only hit on 1-4 which means they max at 8.  I’m sure not all bombs hit their targets.  Also consider capping the total damage at 1-1.5 the value of the territory.