Techs

@U-505:

Now I’m not saying that you guys are wrong. HB very well could be broken in Anniversary Edition. What I AM saying is that I don’t care how good a player a person thinks they are, if they’ve managed to network themselves into Larry’s “circle of trust”, or even if they were able to actually touch the display game at GenCon. I am just as good a player as anyone who plays A&A and I simply can’t make anything more than assuptions and educated guesses until I’ve played the game multiple times as well as witnessed games being played by people who’s skills I respect. And neither can anyone else.

After that we can declare the game broken.  :-D

Well said.

@timerover51:

First, guys, you might want to quit hammering at Krieghund, he did not write the rules, nor is he the one responsible for the changes in techologies available.  That is the responsibility of Wizards/AH and Hasbro.

Thanks, Timerover, but I’m not taking this personally.  There are some folks here who are very passionate about the game, and that has helped to make A&A what it is today.  As I’ve said before, being one of the only things even close to an official source of information at this point tends to make me a lightning rod for criticism.  I’ll gladly accept that in order to help clear up misconceptions about the game.

The LHTR committee (myself included, though a late-comer) has every right to be concerned about fixes to AAR that were discarded in AA50.  But, while understandable, the concern is premature at this point.  I can assure everyone that, while some changes didn’t carry over, a lot of LHTR went into the making of AA50, and it’s a better game for it.

@timerover51:

They are in the business to sell games and make a profit.  Toy companies normally look for a 30% return on investment in the first year of a product.  If they get that, or better than that, they are very happy.  If they get a lot less than that, that product line might be axed, like a lot of the old AH board games have been.  They are looking at a product that will appeal to the mass audience, and I suspect that their playtesters decided that bombing someone back to the Stone Age was fun, and therefore acted accordingly with the rules.  It is not like you are going to get any tech automatically, at least as far as is known now, you are rolling dice, and very odd things can happen.  You have no guarantee that you will roll a 6 for a techonology success in the entire game.  The odds say you will, but there is no guarantee.  And for those of you who think that one game of blasting the German and Japanese player to rubble will result in a stop in playing, more than likely, the players will switch sides, and the former German player will then take great glee to blasting the new German player to pieces.

Wizards/AH knows that the competitive and tournament players are going to change the rules, regardless of what the rules are.  So they make a game that will sell the most possible units, at the lowest possible cost, i.e. recycled Italian pieces, to the largest number of people, and the guys running the AH division make their bosses happy, get their bonuses, and we get a game to play.  If you do not like the rules, CHANGE THEM.  I look at rules as a starting point, same with starting positions, and scenario criteria, and unit combat value.  You want to have the game closer to LHTR, do it.  But do not scream that Wizards/AH is not doing what you want.  Wizards is doing what it thinks will make them the most money.  That is what any company is going to do.  I have worked with game companies off and on now since 1985, and the normal rule is make the game attractive enough for the new gamer, and flexible enough to be customized by the diehard gamer.  I would say that Wizards has done just that.

And no, I am not and never have been in the employ of Wizards/AH or Hasbro.  I am more apt to be competing with them.

Thanks for saying this more eloquently than I did.  You’ve apparently got more knowledge of the business end of making games than I do!

@Craig:

As one of the lucky few who was able to be part of the early playtesting, I felt good about being able to right many of the wrongs that were part of the OOB Revised game.

As I was also someone who a part of the LHTR work from version 1.1 on, I was happy to see that it was used as the basis for the Anniversary game.

And I felt good to be a part of a group of experienced players who helped mold many of the new ideas that were being put forth in the new game.

In the end, I didn’t like all that was included in the game, but I felt comfortable that all the parts were workable within the context of the whole.  We worked as a group to come up with what we felt was the best possible combination of rules that would work for ALL levels of gamers.  And that the rules didn’t have any holes, or any that we could see at the time.

This whole thing isn’t specifically about HBs- it is about changes that were made after the game was taken out of our hands and given over to the people at WotC.  We handed over what we thought was a good product.

I only feel bad in that there are now issues that are going to come forth that we clearly saw ahead on time and took the time to fix so that they wouldn’t be a problem.  Now they show back up! :? :-o :? :-o :? :-o :? :-o

I can live with new problems that come about from things that we (a small group of playtesters) couldn’t foresee, but I can’t stand the utter stupidity that comes from disregarding our experience! :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil:

That is why I b**** about this.  I know that they can’t now change the product since it is already been produced.  I would like them to be a bit more proactive in either their acceptance of the mistakes or in officially coming up with changes to fix the problem.

Their track record doesn’t bode well for me in getting such action.  Unfortunately, I was mistaken in thinking that the inclusion of people like myself would help to fix such ineptitude.

And no Krieghund, I can’t go on any longer trying to play the nice guy just because I was “in the know”.  I respect you immensely and know that you are a better man than I when it comes to dealing with the bureaucratic bullshit.  As such, you know that I don’t hold it against you when you continue to be nice and try to do the right thing.  Everyone deals with this in their own way.

You know how I feel about all of this and how I feared this very thing happening.  I can accept being attacked for those things that are of my creation and my responsibility.  What I can not and will not accept is being badgered about things that are the responsibility of others.

There was nothing wrong with what we had come up with.  To change them, they way they have is ridiculous and without proper merit.  It is even without explanation, event though I know that it will be a cold day in hell that they will ever explain why they do what they do.

I will buy my copy (or copies) of the game.  I will play it and I will continue to be an advocate for the A&A game series.  I will continue to GM an A&A tournament and play in others A&A tournaments.  I will continue to be a vocal presence on the various A&A message boards.  I will do all these things and more as a true fan of the game and the people who play it.

BUT, I will continue to rail against the continued mismanagement of the game by the company that produces it.

They are lucky that I am not allowed into the same room with these idiots!  Unbelievable.:roll:

Craig

Well, I do appreciate both your position, and Krieghund’s, and any one else’s. We all do love this game.

And nothing else “bothered” me as much, or stood out to me. Even with the map changes, and the lack of “JTDTM” making it harder for the axis, balanced by the focus on the pacific war (which I have vocally supported for years), plus the pacific VC (also a huge fan), I felt all of these, while perhaps making it harder on the axis, made for a more historical, and better game.

I was glad to see “new” rules, such as the carrier rule, survive. Happy to see many LHTR “fixes” survive.

The ONE thing, the absolute one thing I did NOT want to see, was a return to the OOB HB insta-tech auto-win system which LHTR fixed.

The “bomb to zero” strategy was IMPOSSIBLE for the allies. Despite heavy allied bombing, NEVER was Germany reduced to zero (or -10  :roll:) production capacity. For a game to make HUGE positive strides in making the game historically accurate, only to bring back this travesty, is a big disappointment.

Yope, and anyone else, has a right to be upset. Especially since we all saw this coming…

I do have to say… does anybody ACTUALLY consider heavy bombers a game seller?  I can almost guarantee that nobody would buy the game just because you have the opportunity to get heavy bombers and bomb someone to oblivion.  When newcomers read the back of the box, it doesn’t say something like:

-Exciting realistic WWII strategy!
-600 plastic miniatures!
-Bomb your opponents into submission using technologies!

In order for them to include something broken in order to improve sales, it would have to be something that the public would be excited by.  I can’t imagine any potential buyer would even consider looking at the technologies and examining whether or not heavy bombers was powerful enough for them, and letting that influence their decision… unless they were loyal fans of the series, in which case they clearly want the LHTR solution for heavy bombers!

Also, techs aren’t “optional rules” as some have been saying.  Yes, you can agree not to use them, but that’s using house rules.  Techs are a standard part of the game, as optional as playing without non-combat movement.  :-)

No, no, no!!!

The damage never affects the amount of IPCs that you collect.  It only affects your ability to produce.

On the next turn, no matter what (barring any loss of territories), you would still collect 35 IPCs.  You just wouldn’t be able to produce anything since you hadn’t fixed your IC.

Craig

Craig i got it. you quoted an old post. I know it reduces the CAPACITY… but that was not fleshed out in the first examples of how it works. I know what it is now because of how it works relating to its effect on placement at factories.

@Rakeman:

I do have to say… does anybody ACTUALLY consider heavy bombers a game seller?  I can almost guarantee that nobody would buy the game just because you have the opportunity to get heavy bombers and bomb someone to oblivion.  When newcomers read the back of the box, it doesn’t say something like:

-Exciting realistic WWII strategy!
-600 plastic miniatures!
-Bomb your opponents into submission using technologies!

In order for them to include something broken in order to improve sales, it would have to be something that the public would be excited by.  I can’t imagine any potential buyer would even consider looking at the technologies and examining whether or not heavy bombers was powerful enough for them, and letting that influence their decision… unless they were loyal fans of the series, in which case they clearly want the LHTR solution for heavy bombers!

(Sigh)  I proposed earlier that the idea of including something in the game to “jazz it up” might conceivably be the thought of someone (most likely in marketing) with the intention of increasing sales.  This was my opinion.  No one knows what drives the decisions that AH actually makes.  I’m sorry I ever brought it up!

As I’ve said before, whether or not Heavy Bombers are “broken” in AA50 isn’t a conclusion that can be made at this point.  It depends both on how the game plays and your definition of “broken”, only one of which can be determined right now.

Can we please end this discussion???

@Rakeman:

Also, techs aren’t “optional rules” as some have been saying.  Yes, you can agree not to use them, but that’s using house rules.  Techs are a standard part of the game, as optional as playing without non-combat movement.   :-)

In Anniversary, they are optional.

@Krieghund:

@Rakeman:

I do have to say… does anybody ACTUALLY consider heavy bombers a game seller?  I can almost guarantee that nobody would buy the game just because you have the opportunity to get heavy bombers and bomb someone to oblivion.  When newcomers read the back of the box, it doesn’t say something like:

-Exciting realistic WWII strategy!
-600 plastic miniatures!
-Bomb your opponents into submission using technologies!

In order for them to include something broken in order to improve sales, it would have to be something that the public would be excited by.  I can’t imagine any potential buyer would even consider looking at the technologies and examining whether or not heavy bombers was powerful enough for them, and letting that influence their decision… unless they were loyal fans of the series, in which case they clearly want the LHTR solution for heavy bombers!

(Sigh)  I proposed earlier that the idea of including something in the game to “jazz it up” might conceivably be the thought of someone (most likely in marketing) with the intention of increasing sales.  This was my opinion.  No one knows what drives the decisions that AH actually makes.  I’m sorry I ever brought it up!

As I’ve said before, whether or not Heavy Bombers are “broken” in AA50 isn’t a conclusion that can be made at this point.  It depends both on how the game plays and your definition of “broken”, only one of which can be determined right now.

Can we please end this discussion???

@Rakeman:

Also, techs aren’t “optional rules” as some have been saying.  Yes, you can agree not to use them, but that’s using house rules.  Techs are a standard part of the game, as optional as playing without non-combat movement.   :-)

In Anniversary, they are optional.

Ok ok, sorry for beating a dead horse apparently.

Sorry, Rakeman.  I didn’t mean to take my frustration out on you.  I apologize.

And to everyone else, as well.

Well if technology is optional, then the Heavy Bomber thing has no impact as a ‘game breaker’

but also remember the thread is about technology for AA50 and thats it.

Personally Mechanized infantry technology is a joke. That should have been a new unit included in the game. To motorize your infantry is a matter of economics rather than technology. Trucks and armored cars were invented in WW1. It should be a new unit built at the choice of any player

Also, the artillery technology is like a contrived ‘filler’ technology. Where does the idea that your Artillery got better, so they boost 2 Infantry rather than one? What/Where was this pulled out from?

I have a bad feeling about this Anniversary Edition… in some way AH is managing to ruine what could have been a milestone in A&A series.

This disappoint me. I believe that Craig A Yope and Kreighund are even more disappointed than me.

I am wondering how Larry Harris felt all this, I suppose that also him is disappointed.

@Romulus:

This disappoint me. I believe that Craig A Yope and Kreighund are even more disappointed than me.

I am most assuredly not disappointed in this game.  What have I said that would give you that idea?  There are certain minor aspects that disappoint me, such as the Italian minis, but overall I’m quite pleased.

@Romulus:

I am wondering how Larry Harris felt all this, I suppose that also him is disappointed.

From Larry’s site:

I will tell you this … although I did not get everything I wanted in this game (due to the simple realities of cost, etc) I’m one happy camper when it comes to the final results of AA50.

@Krieghund:

In Anniversary, they are optional.

Just a question on this point.

In classic and the cd, tech was in unless both agreed not to use it. Same in revised. All the clubs/tournaments play this way.

Are you saying for AAAv that tech is out unless both sides agree to use it. Would this be the official club position? tournament position. AAAv LHTR position?

Yea come on Romulus you gotta be kidding? This game is the best game they ever put out. No more micro map and cheap cardboard tokens, and lots of stuff. How can anybody possible complain?

The rules have the most historical feel of any of the other games. Some of the bugs like transports blowing up battleships and taken as combat loses AS IF they are human shields is now over.

The only thing they left out of major importance was defender retreats.

@Krieghund:

@Romulus:

This disappoint me. I believe that Craig A Yope and Kreighund are even more disappointed than me.

I am most assuredly not disappointed in this game.  What have I said that would give you that idea?  There are certain minor aspects that disappoint me, such as the Italian minis, but overall I’m quite pleased.

@Romulus:

I am wondering how Larry Harris felt all this, I suppose that also him is disappointed.

From Larry’s site:

I will tell you this … although I did not get everything I wanted in this game (due to the simple realities of cost, etc) I’m one happy camper when it comes to the final results of AA50.

Count me in as well.  :-D

@Imperious:

The only thing they left out of major importance was defender retreats.

That would really change the game play mechanics and involve more changes to A&A then I think they were ready to make.

@Imperious:

Well if technology is optional, then the Heavy Bomber thing has no impact as a ‘game breaker’

but also remember the thread is about technology for AA50 and thats it.

Personally Mechanized infantry technology is a joke. That should have been a new unit included in the game. To motorize your infantry is a matter of economics rather than technology. Trucks and armored cars were invented in WW1. It should be a new unit built at the choice of any player

Also, the artillery technology is like a contrived ‘filler’ technology. Where does the idea that your Artillery got better, so they boost 2 Infantry rather than one? What/Where was this pulled out from?

I like alot of the new techs. Not overpowering, but provides a nice bonus for developing it. The advanced art being a favorite.

@Krieghund:

@Romulus:

This disappoint me. I believe that Craig A Yope and Kreighund are even more disappointed than me.

I am most assuredly not disappointed in this game.  What have I said that would give you that idea?  There are certain minor aspects that disappoint me, such as the Italian minis, but overall I’m quite pleased.

Same things that also disappoint me but I am not involved in the LHTR process. I supposed that you could have been more disappointed than me. Excuse me, I apologize for the wrong supposition.

I am not only a customer of AH (I own all the A&A Games) I am a supporter of A&A. A fan.

I have pre-ordered the game. I am eagerly awaiting for it. I am greedly reading everywhere trying to collect as more info is possible. A lot of things I have read are interesting and I like. Few things I not like.

@Imperious:

Yea come on Romulus you gotta be kidding? This game is the best game they ever put out. No more micro map and cheap cardboard tokens, and lots of stuff. How can anybody possible complain?

The rules have the most historical feel of any of the other games. Some of the bugs like transports blowing up battleships and taken as combat loses AS IF they are human shields is now over.

The only thing they left out of major importance was defender retreats.

Yes IL, those things are really great! The map I like very much. The addiction of Italy. The bonus objectives. The teo setup. The great number of miniatures.

I am only doubtful on some minor aspects, as I said. Maybe I am too much interested in the details and I am no looking at the big picture. Maybe I have to calm down and wait!

I apologize, I do not want to create problems but I am like a man that is waiting for is wife giving birth to his son!

@squirecam:

@Krieghund:

In Anniversary, they are optional.

Just a question on this point.

In classic and the cd, tech was in unless both agreed not to use it. Same in revised. All the clubs/tournaments play this way.

Are you saying for AAAv that yech is out unless both sides agree to use it. Would this be the official club position? tournament position. AAAv LHTR position?

In the Classic and Revised (including LHTR) rules, tech was not optional.  Playing without it would fall into the realm of house rules.  This would explain the stance of tournament and clubs.

In Anniversary, the tech rules are stated to be optional.  There is no indication of whether the “default” position is to include them or exclude them, only that “players should decide”.  This leaves anyone the option of declaring the default to be either way, though I would tend to lean toward exclusion, simply on the meaning of “optional”.

@Krieghund:

@squirecam:

@Krieghund:

In Anniversary, they are optional.

Just a question on this point.

In classic and the cd, tech was in unless both agreed not to use it. Same in revised. All the clubs/tournaments play this way.

Are you saying for AAAv that yech is out unless both sides agree to use it. Would this be the official club position? tournament position. AAAv LHTR position?

In the Classic and Revised (including LHTR) rules, tech was not optional.  Playing without it would fall into the realm of house rules.  This would explain the stance of tournament and clubs.

In Anniversary, the tech rules are stated to be optional.  There is no indication of whether the “default” position is to include them or exclude them, only that “players should decide”.  This leaves anyone the option of declaring the default to be either way, though I would tend to lean toward exclusion, simply on the meaning of “optional”.

This helps. Although I’d hate to lose some of the great new techs just because of one.

As to this “color” thing, the pieces never bothered me, nor the sculpts. For me, how the game playes is the thing. Whether 2 countries share the same plastic tank model… really I could care less.

The discussions about tech amazes me…

In both classic and AAR, tech was always excluded in all Club, PBEM and Tournaments games I’ve played. In AA50 it is stated an optional rule.

Still, the thread concerning this optional rule, sees the most posts of them all  :-)