Technology is a bad strategic investment

@gamerman01:

Hmmmmmmm……  I rolled 1 tech die with my Axis powers for 4 consecutive turns and hit a 6 every single time.

this only proves you got very lucky. for every game where you get 4 of 4 techs you would have a game were you roll 39 dice and get no tech. both outcomes have about  0.08% chance of happening. these outcomes are pretty rare and should not be used to decide if tech is a good strategic investment. it would make more sense to use 30ipc as the average cost of the tech. (however if you want the tech instantly it would cost more than 30ipc)

@gamerman01:

The war bonds will get me about 70 IPC’s in 20 rounds.  They cost me 5 IPC’s.

and they will get you 448ipc by round 128. but that still does not make it a good investment. use the average cost of the tech being 30ipc. it takes you about 8 or 9 rounds to recoup your investment. but the bigger weakness is the time value of money. ipc spent now can be used to buy units now that can take territories sooner that can generate units sooner, and conversely the opposite effect to your opponent.

@gamerman01:

You can’t win if you don’t play.  It’s a lottery.  If you don’t buy a lottery ticket you can’t win.  If you play the lottery regularly, you will almost certainly lose money over time.  But you also have that small chance of hitting the jackpot.

that is a mediocre analogy. investing in tech is low odds like the lottery. but the payoff for winning is not economy altering like winning the lottery.

@gamerman01:

You don’t want to take risks with buying tech?  Your point is taken.  But when I roll a tech die each turn and hit LRA or radar, etc. you won’t be happy.  But it’s not my problem - I’m playing according to the rules.  :-D

i would not be upset to see my opponent making a bad strategic investment by rolling for tech

@gamerman01:

And your logic is flawed.  A tech does not cost 30 IPC’s, it costs 5 to have a 1/6 chance of hitting a tech.  I understand that on average it will cost you 30 IPC’s per tech (and that’s only if you buy 1 at a time).

you should reread your quote. you will see my logic is not flawed. the average cost of a tech is 30ipc(at a minimum). we can not say what the cost to acquire a tech is but we can say what the average cost is.

@gamerman01:

But you’re forgetting something else.  You (my opponent) are counting on my stack of subs in my fleet attacking at 2 and my fighters at 3 and my bombers at 4.  If I spend 20 IPC’s on research for an approx. 50-55% chance of getting a tech, and I then have a 50% chance of Super subs, jets, long range air, or heavy bombers, that may be just the boost I need to annihilate your fleet.  So you are forgetting the “surprise factor”.

if you spend 20ipc you are right you have about 50% chance to achieve a tech breakthrough. then you get to roll and have a 1 in 6 chance of getting those super subs. so you can spend 20ipc for a 8% chance of beefing up your subs by 1 pip each. i would welcome my opponent to do this several times a game.

@gamerman01:

Tech improvements take place immediately, but your new units that you are buying take time to be created, then deployed, then moved into position.  Tech takes place to all units (Jets, subs, bombers, etc) all over the board and can immediately pummel your opponent.  This is but one of the aspects you are completely ignoring in your analysis.

you are correct the beauty of tech is that they take place immediately for your units already deployed in far away places. my analysis is of tech as a strategic investment. that is why i am using 30ipc as the cost as i am assuming one die roll per turn so its not like a surprise. we can try to make an analysis for instant tech but it gets pretty complicated factoring that you must pay more and still not be guaranteed to acquire a tech let alone the tech that could tactically help you. i would be very impressed if you or anyone else could create and post the analysis.

you can find rare times that tech can be a good tactical investment. but i do not believe anyone can prove that tech is a good strategic investment.

@gamerman01:

Also, you are biased in trying to make your point.  Don’t look at the 15% discount on battleships (for improved shipyards), look at the 18.75% discount on carriers or the 16.7% discount on subs.

yes i am biased in making my analysis, but the analysis is still correct. we can use the the carrier as the example instead

If you buy 10 carriers you can save 30ipc!!! Or you can just not spend the 30ipc on the tech in the first place.
so if you spend 130ipc in navy you can save 30ipc. but you must keep in mind the time value of money. and the money is better spent on units now rather than saving a few ipc in the future.

@gamerman01:

Respectfully,
Gamer

i also respect your posts and the way you make your arguments. however, i believe they are incorrect and hope my posts can help add information in your decision making process.

@gamerman01:

@allweneedislove:

Jet fighters -  your engineers have found that compressing air then combusting it allows your planes to fly faster. For this you get 1 extra attack pip. for 30ipc you could just buy 3 more propeller fighters that would get you 9 more attack pips, 12 more defence pips and 3 more units that can soak up hits.

Logic is FLAWED.

How about Japan?  Have 20 fighters (or could have more) = 20 more pips, and again, all the fighters are already deployed and many are presumably in a position to attack the next round.  Your 3 new propellor fighters have to be purchased, then placed, then moved into position (which could take a couple more rounds, in some cases).

PLUS - your opponent is NOT EXPECTING this sudden boost in power.

again, i do not think the logic is flawed. you have found a rare situation where it would be very powerful.

if you have 20fighters for any power(the game is probably over by then anyways) then acquiring jet fighters for that power would be very helpful. but remember not only must you get a tech breakthrough you then have to roll again to see if you get the 1 in 6 chance of hitting jet fighters.

you can always create a very rare scenario where tech is a good investment but they are not the norm.

@Hobbes:

Allweneedislove, I agree with the mathematics that you posted and I hardly use tech myself but this point can’t be dismissed:

@gamerman01:

PLUS - your opponent is NOT EXPECTING this sudden boost in power.

Technology above all creates opportunities, since it is activated immediately. And it might not change the strategic situation but in some cases it just might completely change the dynamics on a region.

the sudden boost is the beauty of tech. however the unexpectedness is not what makes it so great. everyone knows what techs exist and what the chance of your opponent of getting a specific tech is. you also do not expect your opponent make a poor attack and get very lucky dice and win the battle. this is an analogy of your opponent acquiring a tech that can turn a low odds attack into a win. both are unlikely and both can happen with dice. however both will not happen in most scenarios in most games.

@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.

@dadler12:

I think you need to reconsider this statement. If you look at the map this is the most useful technology in the game.

i have reconsidered the statement and it still holds true.

@dadler12:

1 With Germany u can use France to help Sealion,
2 West Germany to reinforce Russian advance, and
3 if you build an airbase in Germany, Romania with a minor IC, or both it can help crush Russia by beefing up your stacks              with 4-6 inf a round.
4 Not to mention you will crush Allied landings in most of Europe as long as you have a force in France to respond with.
5 With England you can harass Germany everywhere in the Atlantic.
6 With the US, after crushing Southern Italy you can take the Baltic States and practically assure the fall of France.        7 Russia can use it to help counterattack Germany/get troops to China to face a rowdy Japan.
8 I think the only powers to which it is useless are Japan, ANZAC, China, and France

i think you might not have the full understanding of how paratroopers work. but if you do then here is my response

1 if you are attempting sea lion you must have a unit that is not a paratrooper so you more than likely have a transport that needs to get ground units to london. paratroopers can only transport 2inf from normandy to london and be shot at by aaguns. if you are transporting units to london already you would be better off buying a transport for 7ipc, which would be cheaper than acquiring a tech and is not a gamble. after your attempt at sealion the transport has more options and flexibility.

2 paratroopers only allow movement of 3 spaces away. west germany can only move units to finland if you have to retake it, baltic states or east poland. i think you would be better off spending 2ipc to upgrade 2infantry to mech infantry instead.

3 now you are just making the mistakes even worse by sinking even more money into it

4 too late you did mention it. i do not think making this big an investment on getting 2 axis infantry to western europe a good investment. axis can easily produce units in western europe

5 see point 1

6 i believe the airbase is in northern italy. you can only move 3 spaces so you can not reach the baltic states. france is next to northern italy so you do not need paratroopers

7 you can use the airbase in moscow but you first need to have units in kaz, novo, or tim to help reach the 3 chinese territories within reach. you would be much better off just buying more units to send east.

8 hopefully now you will see that it is probably the most useless tech for all nations

@calvinhobbesliker:

Yes, but you all forget what Caspian Sub called Tech Power Projection. Sure, you can buy 1 Transport cheaper than a paratrooper, but your paratroopers may be closer to the front line than the transports.

paratroopers can move infantry upto 3 spaces, while a transport can move infantry 4 spaces, or 5 with a naval base

@Uncle_Joe:

So from a ‘balance’ standpoint, using the AA50 tech tokens might actually bring the tech back to cost effectiveness rather than making it ‘overpowered’ due to the higher incomes?

i think there definitely need to be some changes to tech. the easiest is just to use 50anniversary tech tokens. other options are to increase the power of all techs, make tech directed, or lower the cost.

i think we will need to play more games to find out. i know i will need more games to help form my opinions

@gamerman01:

@allweneedislove:

if you have 20fighters for any power(the game is probably over by then anyways) then acquiring jet fighters for that power would be very helpful. but remember not only must you get a tech breakthrough you then have to roll again to see if you get the 1 in 6 chance of hitting jet fighters.

Japan starts with “only” 14 fighters, I guess.  But they have 28 aircraft to start (if you’re not playing Alpha setup).

sorry i should have mentioned that i have been playing with larrys alternate setups. last few game have been with alpha.

@gamerman01:

So jets or LRA would be pretty sweet for Japan, not to mention super subs, improved shipyards, or heavy bombers (start with 4).  Sweet enough to buy a research die early in the game to try and get one.

so assuming you are playing with the original setup jets would be good, lra would be great. subs, improved shipyards, and heavy bombers are still a bad investment.

@gamerman01:

I am no moron.  I completely understand the time value of money.  I’m a CPA, for crying out loud.  I think it was misguided for you to say that at round 128 you would have 448 IPC’s.  I used 20 rounds as an example because most games will probably go at least that long.

i hope you did not think i was calling you a moron. the only thing i knew about you before this post was from your previous posts, which i think are well thought out. now i know you make good posts, have a CPA, and teach math for a living.
i was just using the 128 rounds to show that the number of rounds is less important than the having units sooner. i do now see how it looks like i was being a jerk. sorry if i offended you, it was not my intention.

@gamerman01:

Guess what.  I just played G2 on a global game and hit war bonds for 5 IPC’s with Germany.  Yeah, I’d say I got a good deal.  I’m also very gifted in Math (I’m a math teacher, for crying out loud) so you can quit telling me 30 IPC’s, 30 IPC’s, 30 IPC’s.  It only costs 5 when you roll a 6.  I fully understand I’m buying a 1/6 chance at hitting a random tech on a chart of 6.

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. as you are a very gifted math teacher i thought you would agree with me. i guess it was arrogant of me to think that my numbers were correct, but thought that someone would have pointed out where i went wrong. do i not understand the probability correctly?

@gamerman01:

Allweneed, you have clearly made up your mind and are not really listening to any opposing viewpoints.  You are just shooting them down.  If you don’t understand my points, that’s really no concern of mine.

i have made up my mind and posted them here. i am not opposed to listening to new ideas or admitting when i am wrong. if you read my post history you will see i have posted saying i was incorrect or thanked people for their ideas. i disagreed with most of your post and replied with why.

@gamerman01:

But I think you started this thread to make a point, and show everyone how smart you are, and to scoff at us players who actually buy tech on a regular basis, saying that we are not intellectual because we don’t understand that conventional units are a better buy.  I think you’re wrong.

i started this thread to share my ideas and start conversation(is that not why we are all here?). i certainly did not want to scoff at, or put anyone down, i think you have misinterpreted my posts(this happens all the time with written word as opposed to casual speech, i guess i need to be more careful.) check out my nickname, i am not trying to put anyone down.

you succinctly pointed out the gist of my post that conventional units are a better buy and so far i still believe it. these are the types of discussions i had hoped to generate.

@gamerman01:

All that said, I would welcome a challenge from you anytime.  You buy minimal or no tech, and I’ll buy my normal amount (often buying one) and we’ll see how it goes.  But I warn you.  I’m lucky with tech.

i sent you a personal message