Technology is a bad strategic investment

[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.

[RedHunter]

USA can afford to spend money on tech and the fleet one would be very useful as they will need to control both oceans.

[Holden]

@allweneedislove:

i used 30ipc for my analysis as i think it is a representation of what you will pay to acquire a tech. i am not sure what other number to use, as it is so variable…

Ummm. The entire premise for your analysis is flawed right from the get go.

30 IPC’s is not the average cost to aquire a tech. In truth there is no average cost. Each time you roll the d6 it is a distinct and seperate event that has no history or bearing on any past d6 rolls you may have made.

This misconception is extremely common and is known as “the Gamblers Fallacy” or “the Law of Averages”. It is the false belief that past failures of a singular random event in some way contribute to a possible future success. It’s like that old joke where someone brings a bomb on board a plane because the odds of there being two bombs on a plane are astronomical.

If you spend 30 IPC’s on tech you have 6 seperate 1 in 6 chances to aquire a tech.

BTW: if you want to calculate what the odds are that you will roll any given number on a d6 with a certain number of rolls use the following equation: 1-(5/6)x (where x=the number of dice rolled).

Therefore if you rolled 6d6 the odds of attaining a result of 6 is 66.5% (however this is largely meaningless as the results of getting any other result is also 66.5%).

[bigopfer]

@allweneedislove:

Paratroopers – the bestest and super most fun idea. but the worst of the 12 techs. Can someone actually find a way to take advantage of this rule laden technology? Here are the steps

1 you must control a territory within 3 spaces of your target
2 you must have or build an airbase
3 you must get 2infantry to that airbase
4 you must position other non paratrooper land units to also get to your target

There is no power that can take advantage of this technology.

In my first game, I took UK with Germany and their paratroopers on G2.

[knp7765]

I kind of agree that Technology Development can be a bad investment.  Especially early on in the game.  It’s hard to risk IPCs on a maybe chance of getting the tech you want when they could be better spent on units for an attack or defense.  Then you leave yourself open to an opponent’s attack, even if you did get the tech you wanted.  In most games I’ve played, usually the only time a nation tries for a tech breakthrough is when they are pretty much already winning anyway (like if Germany controls Europe and has taken Russia out, or if the USA and UK have smashed Germany and Italy and everyone is turning on Japan).
I also don’t like the randomness of it.  It really sucks if you need Heavy Bombers for a big air attack and end up getting Super Subs or Radar.  I like the Revised version better where you direct your research.  It’s still pretty much the same chance but at least you are trying for the research you want and don’t end up with one that is useless to you.  I also use the research tokens from the Anniversary game.  That was a fantastic idea I think.
One thing I DON’T like is the way they have changed Heavy Bombers.  You use 2 dice but only get to pick one of them?  To me, that totally negates the concept of “Heavy” Bombers.  A Heavy bomber carries a bigger bomb load and therefore can get more hits in combat or cause more damage to facilities.  You still have the chance of rolling a 5 or 6 with one or even both dice, (which could represent faulty bombsights, dud bombs, bad directing, etc.) but you still should be able to count BOTH dice.  Heck, on my most recent game, I had an attack with 2 heavy bombers and 1 fighter supported TAC bomber (5 dice) and ended up rolling just 1 hit out of all of that.  So, even heavy bombers aren’t a sure thing.  Plus, they are still vulnerable to AA fire and interceptors and still only take 1 hit to down.  In my games, we will always count BOTH dice for heavy bombers.

[gamerman01]

knp I’m with you on the heavy bomber complaint.  There were so many whiners who called it overpowered that they castrated them, and here we are.  :|

[calvinhobbesliker]

@gamerman01:

knp I’m with you on the heavy bomber complaint.  There were so many whiners who called it overpowered that they castrated them, and here we are.  :|

They should change the name to “precision bombers”

[gamerman01]

@calvinhobbesliker:

@gamerman01:

knp I’m with you on the heavy bomber complaint.  There were so many whiners who called it overpowered that they castrated them, and here we are.  :|

They should change the name to “precision bombers”

Agreed!!

[gamerman01]

@gamerman01:

knp I’m with you on the heavy bomber complaint.  There were so many whiners who called it overpowered that they castrated them, and here we are.  :|

Er, that was a little ambiguous.

They castrated the heavy bombers, not the whiners, although some may wish they had castrated the whiners (then they could whine with higher voices, though).  :roll:

[allweneedislove]

@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.

your idea of trying to acquire tech if you can make a big move like take uk’s capital or kill a large fleet is good, but the chance that you get the tech that you need to accomplish that goal is very low.

[allweneedislove]

@RedHunter:

USA can afford to spend money on tech and the fleet one would be very useful as they will need to control both oceans.

improved naval shipyards is not very useful. it is unlikely that you will recoup the cost of the tech with the savings of the future ship builds.

[allweneedislove]

@Holden:

30 IPC’s is not the average cost to aquire a tech. In truth there is no average cost.

30ipc is the most cost effective average.

the most cost effective way to acquire tech is by rolling only one die a turn as not to waste two or more rolls of a 6 in the same turn.

if you roll for one tech a turn the average cost to acquire a tech is 30ipc which is 6 rolls at 5ipc each. if you roll more dice per turn the average goes up.

@Holden:

Each time you roll the d6 it is a distinct and seperate event that has no history or bearing on any past d6 rolls you may have made.

This misconception is extremely common and is known as “the Gamblers Fallacy” or “the Law of Averages”. It is the false belief that past failures of a singular random event in some way contribute to a possible future success.

the average cost has nothing to do with the gamblers fallacy. i am not saying that every 6th roll a tech will succeed, and the first 5 rolls will miss.

@Holden:

It’s like that old joke where someone brings a bomb on board a plane because the odds of there being two bombs on a plane are astronomical.

i do not understand your joke.

@Holden:

If you spend 30 IPC’s on tech you have 6 seperate 1 in 6 chances to aquire a tech.

yes but this does not effect the average cost to acquire tech if rolling one die a turn(30ipc). you can figure out the average cost to acquire tech if you always roll 6 dice per turn. i am not that good at math so i can not give you the formula, however i estimate it to cost an average of 43ipc. maybe math teacher gamerman can help me by posting the formula.

@Holden:

BTW: if you want to calculate what the odds are that you will roll any given number on a d6 with a certain number of rolls use the following equation: 1-(5/6)x (where x=the number of dice rolled).

this accurately shows the probability of acquiring a tech with x number of rolls. but this does not show the average cost to acquire tech. assuming you only roll 1 die at a cost of 5ipc per die roll then the average number of rolls to acquire a tech is 6. 5ipc * 6rolls = 30ipc = average cost to acquire tech

@Holden:

Ummm. The entire premise for your analysis is flawed right from the get go. 30 IPC’s is not the average cost to aquire a tech. In truth there is no average cost.

no, the entire premise for the analysis is not flawed. you can argue risk and reward, tactics, and game mechanics but you can not argue the lowest average cost to acquire tech is not 30ipc.

[allweneedislove]

@knp7765:

I kind of agree that Technology Development can be a bad investment.  Especially early on in the game.  It’s hard to risk IPCs on a maybe chance of getting the tech you want when they could be better spent on units for an attack or defense.  Then you leave yourself open to an opponent’s attack, even if you did get the tech you wanted.

i agree.

@knp7765:

I also don’t like the randomness of it.  It really sucks if you need Heavy Bombers for a big air attack and end up getting Super Subs or Radar.  I like the Revised version better where you direct your research.  It’s still pretty much the same chance but at least you are trying for the research you want and don’t end up with one that is useless to you.

i agree that revised had a better method of acquiring tech.

@knp7765:

I also use the research tokens from the Anniversary game.  That was a fantastic idea I think.

i think the tech tokens was the best method for acquiring tech. but using the directed tech from revised and the tech tokens from anniversary can make some techs too cheap to acquire.

@knp7765:

One thing I DON’T like is the way they have changed Heavy Bombers.  You use 2 dice but only get to pick one of them?  To me, that totally negates the concept of “Heavy” Bombers.

yeah heavy bombers were neutered. but if you compare them to the 2 most similar techs they get even more of a boost. super subs give subs one more attack pip, jet fighters give fighters 1 more attack pip. heavy bombers add about 1.3 attack pips.

now think about improved mech and improved art they add one attack pip but you must also have other units to make it work.

@knp7765:

A Heavy bomber carries a bigger bomb load and therefore can get more hits in combat or cause more damage to facilities.  You still have the chance of rolling a 5 or 6 with one or even both dice, (which could represent faulty bombsights, dud bombs, bad directing, etc.) but you still should be able to count BOTH dice.  Heck, on my most recent game, I had an attack with 2 heavy bombers and 1 fighter supported TAC bomber (5 dice) and ended up rolling just 1 hit out of all of that.  So, even heavy bombers aren’t a sure thing.  Plus, they are still vulnerable to AA fire and interceptors and still only take 1 hit to down.  In my games, we will always count BOTH dice for heavy bombers.

you can not think too realistically with anything in axis and allies. remember that the game uses broad brush strokes to represent history. one bomber piece on the board represents an entire bomber division and supporting personnel and equipment.