Technology is a bad strategic investment

[Raeder]

@allweneedislove:

@MaherC:

Tech is fun.  That’s the point.   Like playing the lottery.   And I recall it is an OPTIONAL rule?

now that is logic that i can agree with. we play these games to have fun, and if you find rolling for tech fun then you should role tech.

i am not saying to not use the optional rule of tech. i am saying they are a bad strategic investment. i would welcome my opponent to roll for tech in my games. but i think it is better to just houserule a fix like using the 50anniversary tech token rules.

Last time I played, the US player rolled for tech the first three rounds. Got Radar, Long range, Heavy bombers. Needless to say, that proved to be quite a problem for me as the Axis for the remainder of the game. Not saying you’re wrong, but I think his radar shot down more of my planes, his aircraft could fly from US to Normandy, and his heavy bombers hit every time and did more strategic damage.

[JamesAleman]

I agree, since I prefer strategies that minimize luck as best as one strategy can. And tech rolls by there very nature require luck to be “more” useful or at least more “affordable”.

I think people would agree that an extremely expensive breakthrough is more harmful then useful. Imagine spending 10 ipcs a round for 5 rounds and not having a breakthrough. For Germany, that is like choosing to not collect 2 National Objectives until turn 6. Lets say they do that and get 3 breakthroughs over those 5 rounds, I’d still believe they were behind in the piece count vs Russia. Give them super subs, heavy bombers, and Jet power and I’d say they don’t have enough land units to take and hold ground from a Russian counterattack. They’d have to build even fewer land units to build more bombers/air units/or subs. Heck, I’d violate neutrality as the allies out of guilt, just to give them 14 more land units.

Any time I leave a battle to luck, I usually come up short of success. Over the years this has lead to more “over kill” attacks. I mostly stick to battles where I send enough in to end the battle in 1 round by odds, and that usually still takes me 2 or 3 rounds, because I am very good at missing. In fact I won’t flip a coin (attack with a single tank or plane as my main offense) as I often go three combat rounds missing and maybe hit on the 4th. To kill 1 infantry I always send 2 infantry and 2 “3’s” or better. This means that my strategies also rely on over kill for success. I won’t attack Moscow unless I have 10 more units in the battle, regardless of pips. In AA50 with Italy, I chose 2 cruisers to bombard, over the better 1 cruiser and 1 battleship. Give me a single die, and I’ll give you a miss, toss two and I usually find 1 hit. Is this logical? no…emotional? yes

Take sealion as a strategy, it fits in this case. As you need 4-5 battles to end with success before the attack on London can occur, and that even needs to end in success or you will be in a worse position when taking on Russia. Lose just 1 of the 4-5 battles and your whole plan fails.

Do my opponents use this against me? Yes. They build fleets that are smaller in defense as they know I won’t commit expensive pieces unless I am forced or have a large advantage. Do they leave less in a capital than they otherwise might? Yes.

Now, as a conservative player, I take fewer risks and I lose fewer battles. Meaning I conserve force to deploy again and again. I make fewer mistakes and as a result, I win more games then I lose in our gaming group. I’ve lost my share of games to heavy bombers, especially in aa50 or later as transports don’t defend and 1 heavy bomber costs 12 and needs to be countered with 2 DD’s or better at 16 or more IPC’s. Since the allies are the ones that need a fleet to win. Give the axis nukes and its game over. I don’t begrudge a person rolling for powers, and with the new ones, I won’t mind if they get them all. I’ll use the piece advantage I have, as getting all powers will cost 60 IPC’s if they get them all on the first try. Heck, give them 3 powers at 15 IPCs early enough in the game and I will make it hurt. You can play Germany with the powers stated above on turn 1, as long as you start the game with 15 IPC’s instead of 30. Now Japan’s a different story ;)

[Uncle_Joe]

The thing is, that if someone is winning by getting lucky on tech, they could just as easily be winning by getting lucky on the combat dice.

But unlike combat dice, tech is a bigger risk/reward. If you get lucky by spending 5 IPCs and getting something good, that’s worth quite a lot of good luck in combat. Conversely, if you get hosed and spend 40+ IPCs and dont get a tech, you are likely dooming yourself far worse than simply rolling bad in a battle here and there (depending on the scale of the battle).

I agree with allweneedislove in that if you play the averages, tech is probably not worth it. But that’s not what tech is about in the standard rules. Tech IS about ‘keeping your opponent honest’ because that investment COULD pay off into something really dangerous and that affects his planning (or should). And for that, the tech cost MIGHT be worth it with average luck.

[shintokamikaze]

If buying 1 technology dice per round you would average 1 technology per 30ipc.

You can not direct your technology so you have a 1 in 6 chance of getting the technology you want (but there probably is not any technology that your really want) you would be better off buying units that you can direct to be exactly what you want.

All techs are worthless, worth less than 30ipc

Tell us that when the usa is pounding germany with heavy long range bombers with jet fighter escorts,and the uk are sending over v2 rockets,its game over LOL

[dadler12]

I meant that from Southern Italy USA could build an airbase and take all of the Balkan states, not Baltic. Also I think Germany spending 15 IPC on an airbase turn 2 is a fine idea. Allows their fighters to reach Soviet Union and still be in position to defend the European coast. Transports can never move 4 spaces unless I have seriously misread the rulebook. I think you are just sour on tech. Germany rolling improved mech is a killer. Sure artillery will upgrade the attack to 2 as well but artillery cant move 2 spaces a turn. Mechanized infantry for a well played Germany is a game breaker and Moscow will fall. Also US will almost always buy tech tokens and when they finally have shipyards and some of the air techs the axis are hard pressed to win. You don’t have to like tech allweneedislove, nice name by the way I love the Beatles, but I think in a dice game where luck is always a factor, if you are feeling lucky it is a good idea.

[marechallannes]

I like the tech-option.

First, I was sad, that they didn’t copy the anniversary tech-token-thing (keep the tokens if research fails), but this would give the US-player too much power.

Think both, Japan and Germany will invest a few IPCs for secret weapons to reach the “Endsieg”.

The tech-dices should be less expensive for the axis.

Maybe 4 IPCs for Germany, 5 IPCs for Japan and 6 IPCs for the rest.

[allweneedislove]

@Funcioneta:

The system in AA50 was the better until the date, and I’m not going to play many games of AAG40 with the OOB system: I’ll play with tech tokens

i think this is the best decision to fix the overpriced techs

@Funcioneta:

Now, I’ll add a bit about Classic (AAG40) system. It’s a very bad strategical option, but it can be a very good tactical option if you’re losing or if you are about to fight a mayor battle: spend 5 IPCs to see if lady luck smiles you. Any other case, Classic (AAG40) tech sucks

yes i agree with you that tech can be a good tactical option if you are in a losing situation and there is a tech or 2 that if you acquired would turn the odds of an important battle. but i still think it is a bad strategy.

[allweneedislove]

@Arminius:

1. The Aribase is situated in France, not in Normandy…

2. Paratroopers from West Germany Airbase could be used for Sea Lion too !
   (3 Spaces) or am I missing something  :?

3. Most useless… I don´t know.
   But looking at the Paratroopers rules for the first time I was slighty disapointed  :oops:
   Because of the “limited” use for the Player (only for combat) I thought of adding a   non-combat movement Air Transoprt ability to this tech. Similar to some inoffical rules wich we played with the 2nd edition. But there it wasn´t a tech, every Bomber could be used for paratroopers and transport.

1. i am wrong. you are correct about the airbase.

2. west german airbase can add 2inf subject to aafire into a sea lion attack. i was only replying to your statement that west german airbase could help add units to attack ussr. and the only ussr units it could attack is in baltic states, east poland and finland if under ussr control. again if you are going for sealion an extra transport would be better.

3. i still think it is the most useless of the 12 techs. it is a very rare situation that you can use it. however i have yet to play against an opponent that has paratroopers so maybe they can show me something that i am missing.

[allweneedislove]

@JamesAleman:

I agree, since I prefer strategies that minimize luck as best as one strategy can. And tech rolls by there very nature require luck to be “more” useful or at least more “affordable”.

sounds like you might enjoy lowluck dice.

@JamesAleman:

I think people would agree that an extremely expensive breakthrough is more harmful then useful. Imagine spending 10 ipcs a round for 5 rounds and not having a breakthrough. For Germany, that is like choosing to not collect 2 National Objectives until turn 6. Lets say they do that and get 3 breakthroughs over those 5 rounds, I’d still believe they were behind in the piece count vs Russia. Give them super subs, heavy bombers, and Jet power and I’d say they don’t have enough land units to take and hold ground from a Russian counterattack. They’d have to build even fewer land units to build more bombers/air units/or subs.

well said

@JamesAleman:

Is this logical? no…emotional? yes

now you are talking. i love it when you can get emotional or excited by a board game. then you know you are having fun. so far i think the best argument i have seen for tech is maherc’s position that rolling for tech is fun.

@JamesAleman:

Do my opponents use this against me? Yes. They build fleets that are smaller in defense as they know I won’t commit expensive pieces unless I am forced or have a large advantage. Do they leave less in a capital than they otherwise might? Yes.

its fun when your opponent makes up strategies due to your personal play style.

[allweneedislove]

@shintokamikaze:

If buying 1 technology dice per round you would average 1 technology per 30ipc.

You can not direct your technology so you have a 1 in 6 chance of getting the technology you want (but there probably is not any technology that your really want) you would be better off buying units that you can direct to be exactly what you want.

All techs are worthless, worth less than 30ipc

Tell us that when the usa is pounding germany with heavy long range bombers with jet fighter escorts,and the uk are sending over v2 rockets,its game over LOL

yes it probably is game over. game over for allies if they acquired those 3 techs they probably spent a fortune on them and have few actual units.

[allweneedislove]

@dadler12:

1. I meant that from Southern Italy USA could build an airbase and take all of the Balkan states, not Baltic.

2. Also I think Germany spending 15 IPC on an airbase turn 2 is a fine idea. Allows their fighters to reach Soviet Union and still be in position to defend the European coast.

3. Transports can never move 4 spaces unless I have seriously misread the rulebook.

4. I think you are just sour on tech.

5. Germany rolling improved mech is a killer. Sure artillery will upgrade the attack to 2 as well but artillery cant move 2 spaces a turn. Mechanized infantry for a well played Germany is a game breaker and Moscow will fall.

6. Also US will almost always buy tech tokens and when they finally have shipyards and some of the air techs the axis are hard pressed to win.

7. You don’t have to like tech allweneedislove,

8. nice name by the way I love the Beatles, but I think in a dice game where luck is always a factor, if you are feeling lucky it is a good idea.

1. easy mistake to type baltic instead of balkans. however if usa has northern italy they must also have other units in on the attack of balkan states. all balkan states except greece are within two space of northern italy. mech inf could reach all but greece. i still feel paratroopers will very rarely be helpful.

2. you might be right i have not thought enough about it. i do try to stay away from spending on infrastructure as mush as possible thou.

3. the transports do not move 4 spaces the units on the transports move 4 spaces.
transport picks up unit from territory(ground units have now moved 1 space)
transport moves 2 spaces(ground units have now moved 3 spaces)
transport unloads unit into new territory(ground units have now moved 4 spaces)
they can move 5 with a naval base
for example an infantry can go from west germany to morroco via a transport which is 5 spaces away.

4. you are right, i am sour on tech as the rule is written. thats probably why a made this thread.

5. i dont think that improved mech inf for germany is a game breaker. yes it is helpful to germany more than any other power but remember you only have 8 tanks(i think) to start the game with so thats only 8 extra pips. yes you can buy more but now you are spending lots of money on tanks and matching mech inf.

6. i do like the idea of tech tokens i think that would make the game better(more fun for me)
yes shipyards is best for usa, but think how bad it would be for ussr to get shipyards. even if usa gets shipyards they will probably never save the amount of ipcs it costs to acquire the technology. and even if it does break even or save money over many rounds, i believe they would be better off with more navy earlier.

7. i do like tech. that is probably why i spent so much time lamenting the method of acquiring tech. i think either directed tech, cheaper tech, or my favourite of tech tokens would make the game more fun. its not the tech i do not like its the expensive, risky, and highly variable method to acquire tech that i do not like.

8. thanks i also love the beatles. but note that i have changed “you” to “we”

[dadler12]

I personally play with tech tokens so I guess we agree.

[JamesAleman]

Of all the tech systems, even though I don’t like tech as a long term plan:

I will say I actually rolled dice and designed ideas around targeted tech. It actually made sense that you might develop an improvement on ideas you choose to work on.

With regard to low luck, I will not play a version with it. I used to play in rated Chess leagues. Its kind of boring, you are either better then them or they are better then you. Dice can be a good equalizer. That said: Luck is very powerful for me, as I can minimize risks, and reap huge rewards when my opponents fail to do the same. That is why I hold France round 1 against the axis, or keep my Italian fleet, because you “don’t need” to send the carrier in.

Can luck also bite me in the rear, yes, but it will typically be at those worse times….defending a capital, capturing a blocking territory.

It just “feels” good to win, even when they throw the kitchen sink at you, and it hits you in just the right places…Uphill battles are fun, if you get to the top.

[eudemonist]

I would think it would go without saying that relying on a chance breakthrough to win a war is not a sound tactical decision.  Betting on luck is never good strategy, but it does work sometimes.

[gamerman01]

@eudemonist:

Betting on luck is never good strategy, but it does work sometimes.

I’m generally a very kind and generous person, but this is the stupidest statement I’ve heard today so far.

[eudemonist]

Really?  Seems pretty sensible to me.

Good strategy would not rely on luck.  In fact, I would posit that the BEST strategy would eliminate luck as a factor entirely, so that there is no chance of losing.  Does that part make sense?

Sometimes you get lucky.  The odds are against it, but when it happens, it’s a great boon, and can turn the tide of a battle.  Does that part make sense?

[gamerman01]

@eudemonist:

Good strategy would not rely on luck.

This is sensible.

In fact, I would posit that the BEST strategy would eliminate luck as a factor entirely, so that there is no chance of losing.  Does that part make sense?

No.  You have got to be kidding me.  It is absolutely impossible to eliminate luck as a factor entirely in A&A.  Come on.

Sometimes you get lucky.  The odds are against it, but when it happens, it’s a great boon, and can turn the tide of a battle.  Does that part make sense?

The odds are not against getting lucky.  I am just as likely to be lucky as I am to be unlucky.  In fact, the odds are against me having average luck all the time.  That is highly unlikely.  I think you need to take some math and logic classes.

Your friend,
Gamer

[eudemonist]

I know it is impossible to eliminate luck in Axis & Allies.  Never said it wasn’t.  Just pointing out the general decision-making paradigm.

_The odds are not against getting lucky.  _

Really?  I think that’s WHY they call it “lucky”.  The odds of getting lucky are equal to the odds of getting unlucky, sure.  If an average result exists, however, it would not fall in the “getting lucky” category, thereby tilting the odds in favor of “not-getting-lucky”, which is distinctly different from getting unlucky.  Plainly the odds are against you having average luck all the time, but the fact that you can have average luck sometimes means that if your chances of getting lucky and unlucky are equal, the odds are against getting lucky.

Let’s use percentile, minimizing an “average” window.  Say 1-49 is lucky, 50 and 51 are average, and 52-100 are unlucky.  Are the odds in favor of getting “lucky”?

I think in math-speak it might look something like:
L=Lucky
A=Average
N=uNlucky

1=PL + PA + PN
PL = PN
PL = 1-(PA + PN)

If PA>0, odds are against getting lucky.

[RedHunter]

@allweneedislove:

[[quote]yes it probably is game over. game over for allies if they acquired those 3 techs they probably spent a fortune on them and have few actual units.

USA can afford it. They are either not at war(early game depending on what Japan does) or they are at war and have extra income to play with.

[Wilson2]

I would say only buy tech if it could help you that turn to do something that was not prepared against. If you spend 30 on buying tech for six rounds (under those conditions) and get one on the sixth round that allows you to take UK’s capital or kill a 60 IPC fleet you have payed off. By buying in this method, you can increase your odds of having those “special circumstances” in which tech is worth it.