My original calculations did not even consider that Japan has to repair the damage it causes. That extra cost means that over two rounds of strat bombing Japan is at around zero net-gain even if no strat bombers were lost in the process.
Marsh
Technology is a bad strategic investment
-
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.
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
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.
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.
-
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.
-
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”
-
I personally play with tech tokens so I guess we agree.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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 -
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=uNlucky1=PL + PA + PN
PL = PN
PL = 1-(PA + PN)If PA>0, odds are against getting lucky.
-
[[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.
-
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.
-
USA can afford to spend money on tech and the fleet one would be very useful as they will need to control both oceans.
-
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%).
-
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 targetThere is no power that can take advantage of this technology.
In my first game, I took UK with Germany and their paratroopers on G2.
-
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. -
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. :|
-
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”
-
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!!
-
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:
Suggested Topics
