Technology is a bad strategic investment

@SalothSar:

Technology can kill your X-wife!

But it cannot teach people how to spell words correctly.

@SalothSar:

@calvinhobbesliker:

@SalothSar:

Technology can kill your X-wife!

But it cannot teach people how to spell words correctly.

Hey Mr. Spelling Police, you don’t like me?

I generally don’t like people who make unfounded assertions and says “You’re wrong, I’m right” all the time.

I’m sorry, I also don’t like people who assume I’m a homosexual for disagreeing with them.

@allweneedislove:

please stop spamming this thread, and the boards in general.

salothsar is continually spamming the boards, so for all others please do not respond to his off topic posts. it only creates more off topic posts.

Calvin (and everyone), remember that you can always delete your posts (that are not in the Play Boardgames sections).  So it would be nice, Calvin, if you’d delete off-topic posts, at least after the intended user has read them.  I will delete this post in the near future, as well.

@allweneedislove:

they helped to level out the variance in cost of technology.

and they lower the average cost of technology which is overpriced.

rolling for technology is fun, tech tokens bring more tech rolls.

tech tokens = more fun

America at war gets 82+ IPC’s per turn, so if tech tokens only cost 5 I think you will have America and other nations picking up techs very rapidly.

If I house rule and play tokens, I will probably also house rule a cost of 6 or 7 per token, rather than going straight from no tokens to tokens (pretty dramatic change).

So how did that game turn out between gamerman and allweneed?

@maverick_76:

So how did that game turn out between gamerman and allweneed?

Mav -

Actually, I just called for an end to that game.

Larry just came out with a totally re-done ruleset and starting setup for 1940, rendering that game instantly obsolete.

I got diced horribly in that game with Germany and Japan.  I got very lucky and hit 3 early techs, each for 5 IPC’s, proving my point that tech may come much cheaper than 30 IPC’s (that’s just an average).  I got super subs and radar with Japan, and paratroopers with Italy.  The paratroopers with Italy should prove very useful because you can use Ally’s airbases (so three on the mainland alone, and if Gibraltar could be secured, another one there).

Anyway, in my opinion dice ruined our game.  For one example, I lost both German bombers in the most recent round.  One to AA fire on an SBR, and the other to a sub/Bomber combo on a destroyer (and the destroyer survived).

So the game was not long enough to prove one way or the other how valuable those techs would be.  You can look at the game, and some of the maps, and draw your own conclusions since I am of course biased.

I just proposed to Allweneed that we rematch with similar conditions (also with me buying tanks, cruisers, tacs, and battleships freely and him shunning them because he says they’re a bad buy).  I’m awaiting his reply.

@allweneedislove:

it looked like allies were going to win. allies had the better of the dice.

i look forward to the rematch.

let me know if you want to pick a side or we play 2 games at once.

i still believe technology is a bad investment. i wish larry went back to tech tokens.

I agree technology needs a little boost, but tech tokens are a big boost.  I PM’d Larry yesterday, that I think he should go to tech tokens and make them cost 6 or 7.

We were playing an obsolete game with obsolete rules.  America is not allowed to build a major complex in Korea, Norway, or anywhere that’s not American soil under the new rules.  UK can scramble.  The setup has changed (Scotland now has infantry and fighter to start, and London has an ANZAC plane), so the attack on Z110 on G1 has dramatically changed.  Germany and Italy have been buffed.  NO’s have been changed significantly.

I definitely want to play Larry’s Alpha +.
Let’s play 2 at once, yes.  One caveat - I need to get my odds calculator working on my new computer.
Would you like to set up the threads?

For everyone’s information - Allweneed and I are basically playing by a gentleman’s agreement that Allweneed will (happily) avoid purchases of Battleships, Cruisers, Armor, Tactical bombers, and technology dice, and I will not avoid them at all.  Allweneed is allowed to buy such items, but those purchases will be very infrequent.

Hardly scientific, but we hope to subjectively evaluate whether these purchases or lack thereof affects our success in the game.
It’s going to be great fun playing Alpha +.  I have the map already arranged.  See attached.  We will have to do income calculation manually, since NO’s have changed.  You can change the ownership of West India and Brit Col in the Sektor editor of your program so that all incomes will be calculated correctly, but the NO’s will have to be checked manually (no different than if we played F2F).

1940 Alpha+ start.AAM

I agree with the overall thrust of Allweneed’s argument. I also really, really, really don’t like how heavily luck-based tech is.

1. First is the binary tech/no tech luck-based outcome. You could spend 5 IPCs and get a tech. Or you could spend 40 and come away with nothing. Either way, luck would exert a huge influence on the outcome of the game.

2. Once you’ve obtained a tech, there’s the question of whether it’s a tech you actually need. That too is dependent on luck.

3. Assuming the tech is useful, there is then the question of whether you caught your opponent with his pants down. (Tech kicks in right away.) Can your long-range aircraft reach the transport fleet your opponent thought was safe?

If someone gets lucky on 1 - 3, it could decide the game. Which is ridiculous, because that’s not how games should be decided! And don’t tell me that luck is a part of war!! In a real war, it would be possible to build a highly adaptive command structure, where generals and soldiers could adapt quickly to changing circumstances in order to minimize the effects of bad luck while capitalizing on good luck. The interaction between luck and battle outcomes is far more complex than the rolling of a few dice.

What I propose is the following:

• Technology should be purchased for a fixed cost. No more die rolling
• You should choose which technology you’re getting, rather than rolling dice.
• The cost of technology should decline over the course of the game.
• More effective technologies should cost more than less effective technologies.
• Possibly, different nations should pay different prices for specific technologies, depending on the requirements of game balance.
• Technology should not kick in until after you’ve placed new units. That way there’s one less thing for players to worry about.

I think Larry should change the rules for tech to this: buying dice costs 10, and you have to roll a 6 still, but you can then choose the tech you want. And no tokens either.