Techs

Lynxes, I missunderstood. I thought you bought 2 scientist and rolled untill you got a result.

Yes, investing 10ipc every round gives you 1 technology every 2 turns.
But then it still takes in average 7 turns before getting heavy bobmers and the price has become 70IPC in average.
And as allways nothing is garranteed. Still, the allied benefit in IPC in the 1941 senario is so large thatn US meight
be able to spend 10IPC every round without to large sacrifice. The thing that meight rebalance thins is the bonus IPC.

What I’m more worried about actually is that to many technologies will be too useless in to many situations.
Still, the list or technologies is not 100%. The old ‘jet’ technology is completly useless, so I’m geussing it
has changed, but I dont know how.

@Krieghund:

Thanks, Lynxes.  However, I haven’t exactly been “recruited”.  I volunteered.  At the time, I didn’t know that “lightning rod” was in the job description.  :wink:

After finally fixing HB with LHTR, you couldn’t see this firestorm coming?   :-D

@squirecam:

@Krieghund:

Thanks, Lynxes.  However, I haven’t exactly been “recruited”.  I volunteered.  At the time, I didn’t know that “lightning rod” was in the job description.  :wink:

After finally fixing HB with LHTR, you couldn’t see this firestorm coming?   :-D

I honestly don’t see what the big deal is. (ducks)

Heavy Bombers needed to be nerfed from Revised because they were too powerful.  The drastic steps taken in LHTR were needed because you could specifically go for Heavy Bombers.  With tech acquisition back to being random, they can be a bit more powerful, as the chances of getting them is much smaller and thus more risky.

The bottom line is that techs are an optional rule.  If you don’t like them, don’t use them.  The idea that the use of an optional rule is needed for game balance is a bit silly.

@Lynxes:

/Krieghund

Yes, you can buy 5 normal bombers for 60 IPCs. But on average, US also gets two out of Rockets, Super Subs, Long-range aircraft, Jet fighters or Shipyards. Not too bad. I’m only worried for game balance though, I don’t have any qualms with the US being technologically superior since that is very much in line with history and character for a WWII game. After all, if you count the B29 as the HBMB you could argue that the US historically got Shipyards, Heavy Bombers and Long-range aircraft, requiring that 60-70 IPC investment!

On average, yes.  But there’s a good possibility that you’ll get less than three of these things, and maybe none at all.  You can buy a lot of war materiel with 60-70 IPCs.

@Krieghund:

@squirecam:

@Krieghund:

Thanks, Lynxes.  However, I haven’t exactly been “recruited”.  I volunteered.  At the time, I didn’t know that “lightning rod” was in the job description.  :wink:

After finally fixing HB with LHTR, you couldn’t see this firestorm coming?   :-D

I honestly don’t see what the big deal is. (ducks)

Heavy Bombers needed to be nerfed from Revised because they were too powerful.  The drastic steps taken in LHTR were needed because you could specifically go for Heavy Bombers.  With tech acquisition back to being random, they can be a bit more powerful, as the chances of getting them is much smaller and thus more risky.

The bottom line is that techs are an optional rule.  If you don’t like them, don’t use them.  The idea that the use of an optional rule is needed for game balance is a bit silly.

I said this at the time, and I’ll say it again now. HB were overpowered, not because you could “target” them (which was bad enough) but because only ONE country could realistically take advantage of them.

Take a look at the board. Japan is not going to benefit from HB. They cant use them on USSR or USA. Germany requires land units. Italy is cash poor.

USA has a safe area (UK) from which to launch HB and its own capital is safe from invasion. This makes HB, in the hands of USA, disproportionally powerful. And since USA has the income to be able to “waste” some on tech, it benefits.

And I care if tournaments (or online play) allow tech use. Which was why people cared about LHTR, as they were the ruleset used for those situations.

@squirecam:

And I care if tournaments (or online play) allow tech use. Which was why people cared about LHTR, as they were the ruleset used for those situations.

Good point.  However, I was under the impression that tournaments generally don’t use techs.  Is this incorrect?

As for on-line play, if the rule is optional, what’s forcing you to use it?

The real question becomes this:  If you nerf techs to the point where they’re nearly useless, what’s the point of having them at all?

Krieghund,

Whenever it is that you decide you can give more details that will enable Germany to be able to fend of an allied bombing strategy, send me a PM.

Notice I didn’t say Heavy Bomber strategy.

Sure, HB’s will make the bombing campaign even more effective, but I doubt they will be necessary, at least that’s my perspective from the few details I have at this time.  There I go, speculating on game strategies without knowing the rules.

Quite hypocritcal of me, I know.  :oops:  :cry:

apologies.

@Krieghund:

@squirecam:

And I care if tournaments (or online play) allow tech use. Which was why people cared about LHTR, as they were the ruleset used for those situations.

Good point.  However, I was under the impression that tournaments generally don’t use techs.  Is this incorrect?

As for on-line play, if the rule is optional, what’s forcing you to use it?

The real question becomes this:  If you nerf techs to the point where they’re nearly useless, what’s the point of having them at all?

Well, lets look at history.

In Classic, you wanted HB. If you got super subs instead, you were disappointed. The point being that tech was not equal, some were obviously better than others.

Revised made tech “directed”, which simply reduced which techs one went for. LHTR saved this by nerfing HB, which would otherwise clearly be the one USA wanted.

Techs, therefore, should be equally good. (or, therefore, equally bad). But more than, that, they should provide a specific benefit that is NOT overpowering. (Nor overpowered in the hands of a specific country).

Advanced artillery, such as allowing art to increase attack values on 2 inf vs one, or mobile infantry (increasing inf movement), or increased IC production by 2 units, are benefits from tech that are not overpowered. Also, ANY country can benefit AND the tech is not disporoprtionally powerful in the hands of one country.

Tech should not be useless. But they should not be a “win”. Otherwise, just have 20 techs. Roll a d20. If you roll a 20, you get nukes. you win. How boring.

Your strategy should determine the outcome more than tech rolls. However, HB usually makes much more of a difference.

As to the point about Bombers being effective even w/o being HB, this too is a concern. Again, LHTR limited bombing damage by 1 country. Now, its back to USA being able to take Germany out by 20 every turn.

And, BTW, even through ALL of the bombing the allies did, Germany was STILL able to manufacture tanks, planes, munitions etc. It is not historically accurate (not to mention fun) for one person to bomb the other player’s IPC into submission. You cannot take away all of the production of a WHOLE COUNTRY just by bombing. It doesnt work that way.

Its also dumb that 6 fighters would stand by and let the IPC be bombed without scrambling and attempting to shoot down the bombers. But because there is no CAP, this situation is again facing us….

@squirecam:

Techs, therefore, should be equally good. (or, therefore, equally bad). But more than, that, they should provide a specific benefit that is NOT overpowering. (Nor overpowered in the hands of a specific country).

Each tech should be useful to most if not all players, while not overpowered.  But they don’t have to be equally good, especially when they are randomly rolled for.  I tend to think that the US will not have heavy bombers very often because of the hopeful need for a pacific navy combined with the randomness of obtaining it.

@squirecam:

As to the point about Bombers being effective even w/o being HB, this too is a concern. Again, LHTR limited bombing damage by 1 country. Now, its back to USA being able to take Germany out by 20 every turn.

And, BTW, even through ALL of the bombing the allies did, Germany was STILL able to manufacture tanks, planes, munitions etc. It is not historically accurate (not to mention fun) for one person to bomb the other player’s IPC into submission. You cannot take away all of the production of a WHOLE COUNTRY just by bombing. It doesnt work that way.

Germany has the option of only restoring 15 of the 20 damage done, and producing 5 units that turn, or other such combinations, meaning successive bombing runs won’t be doing 20 IPCs-worth of damage each turn.  If Germany wants to buy fighters (part of your historical example) they need even less production capacity.

@squirecam:

Its also dumb that 6 fighters would stand by and let the IPC be bombed without scrambling and attempting to shoot down the bombers. But because there is no CAP, this situation is again facing us….

I agree with this.

I thought the AA50 had the same rules from AAE where the fighters could dogfight 1 round before SBR got dropped.

It makes no sence to me considering the effects of SBR to NOT have this. Another house rule coming.

The big difference now is that now all techs will be used. Earlier most of them never saw any action, cuz almost none of them was worth the 30Ipc needed to get them.

The difference now is that yes, USA can invest a lot more into tech. But now most contries can definitivly benefit for atleast setting 5Ipc into it at the start.

Lets say USA invest 10IPC every turn, while germany spends 10IPC only when they dont have 2 scientists. In turn 6, USA will in average have 3 technologies paying 60 IPC. Germany would have in average 2 technologies paying only 30IPC for those 2. USA pays a lot for the one extra technology they have. And even if you only pay 5IPC, you will in average have 1 technology at turn 6.

The system of getting technologies is a lot better, and now you could actually use them. Earlier I only saw Germany wanting rockets and USA getting HB. I never saw any other technology in action. Which is a great shame.

I agree that Mech. Inf. and heavy artellery are two very good technologies, which everybody can get some benefit from. What I fear is that too many would be too specilized.

You make some good points, Squirecam.  However, at this point I must return to the idea that speculation about game balance is purely theoretical at this stage.  I would also like to point out that my posts concerning the Heavy Bombers tech in this thread are purely my own opinions and should in no way be considered “official”.

@Krieghund:

You make some good points, Squirecam.  However, at this point I must return to the idea that speculation about game balance is purely theoretical at this stage.  I would also like to point out that my posts concerning the Heavy Bombers tech in this thread are purely my own opinions and should in no way be considered “official”.

In many instances, yes. Not this one.

I will again repeat what I said the second the article on tech came out on the old AH forums. AAR OOB HB were overpowered. You obviously agree with that opinion.

Yet the game did not have to have been released for both you and I to recognize this mistake.

I knew it before I played. So did you.

Just like I know it now. I have played A&A for 20+. I have a pretty good idea on what rules are overpowering and what isnt. And that experience has taught me HB are overpowered in the hands of USA if not given the LHTR treatment.

@Craig:

The HBs as listed borders (if not actually goes back over the edge) on gamebreaking.  That is not the HBs that I signed off on.

Then we have 2 options.

Introduce LHTR HB rules for AAAv (and limit the amount of IPC that can be bombed), or have a CAP rule.

Either will suffice.

Time for a tidbit of information:

Mechanized infantry- tanks may now carry 1 inf each 2 areas.

This tech is absolutely correct.  Each infantry that is matched up with a tank can move two spaces along with that tank.

So LHTR has been ignored. Interesting, a set of rule developed with a common effort by players, tournament organizers and Larry Harris ignored…

Cui prodest? Who gain from this?

@Craig:

@squirecam:

@Craig:

The HBs as listed borders (if not actually goes back over the edge) on gamebreaking.  That is not the HBs that I signed off on.

Then we have 2 options.

Introduce LHTR HB rules for AAAv (and limit the amount of IPC that can be bombed), or have a CAP rule.

Either will suffice.

This is why I fought so hard during the process, so that we wouldn’t have to do this now. :x :x :x :x :x :x :x

After the Revised OotB debacle, the development of the LHTR was a template for how it should be done.  As such, it was the basis for moving forward.

It was changed/ignored by those who think they know better. :roll:

Now they will reap what they have sown.  :-(

Craig

Well, we can either fix it, or let it remain unfixed. Which would you prefer?

Personally, I’d rather things get fixed. So if a new LHTR is needed, so be it.

Besides, with all due respect, playtest groups were not going to find/fix everything. Once the game got out to the public, there would be tweaks needed based upon things playtesters never saw. There was always going to be a need for LHTR AAAv. It just will be “bigger” now. :-D

CAP is way overpowered IMO. You have to come big with escorts and Bombers to do damage worthwhile. Most likely you are going to lose more ipcs than you would take away during a SBR.

With CAP you won’t be bombing Germany if you are bringing 2 fighters and 1 bomber vs 2 fighters and AA gun, that’s suicide. CAP is worst rule out there. I consider the AA gun as AA gun + fighters on patrol. 1/6 chance to shoot down a plane is quite high already.

Now you got Germany able to only take 20ipc of damage each turn….this lessens the affect of HB and you got your own tech that counters HB. I don’t see a problem.

I think the first thing we should do is stop acting like the US already has Heavy Bombers or that it’s bombers are so numerous as to strain the supply of chips.

Everyone has to agree that Germany will be purchasing at least 1 more IC. And that IC, while small, will most likely be buried enough as to be covered by multiple AA’s, roughly making it unbombable (is that a word?). This means that even during the heaviest of bombing campaigns, Germany will be able to produce units and/or have the option of not fully rebuilding its bombed industrial capacity every turn.

Also, the US generally doesn’t have the opportunity to expand it’s income very much so 10 IPC’s per turn is a significant amount of income to be investing in tech and with the randomness of acquiring techs, heavy bombers is no guarantee. And purchasing a few bombers in the hopes that you do roll HB early is not only more of a drain but also is simply nothing more than gambling and the house usually wins against gamblers. Even at reduced cost, bombing raids without HB or Radar are only a 5 or 6 IPC drain to the Axis over the life of the bomber. You would need a lot of bombers to make it work and doing so would have to leave an opening somewhere.

I think the NO’s (National Objectives) make a US European bombing campaign harder than it looks. Will bombers be the only US investment to the Atlantic theater? If it is, then Italy has a pretty decent chance of achieving it’s control of Africa unless the UK wants to leave Russia head to head with Germany. And if the US devotes more than just bombers then a Japanese heavy push into the Pacific probably guarantees them their Pacific control NO.

Another thing nobody mentions is that, despite their low income, Italy is almost assuredly going to be investing in tech as well. Not at the levels of the US, UK, Japan or Germany, but a little. And that’s the bonus that the Axis carries with regards to defending against bombing. No matter which country gets Radar, Germany or Italy, it will be like both of them getting it. If Italy gets it you will see Italian AA guns defending German IC’s or vice versa.

See, this is exactly why I didn’t want to get into the whole “Hooray! AA50 is coming out 3 months from now. Wee, I’m so giddy!” thing. Because I knew that as soon we got a taste, people would be in the threads bitching about what they don’t like about it.

Now, I’m with everybody else. I think the guys at WOC are douchebags and not just because of A&A. But, am I the ONLY person who resigned himself to the fact that there was a chance that the real people (us, the gamers) would have to end up fixing it if it turned up not quite right. I mean there are historical precedents to look back on here to validate that feeling. Larry didn’t ask ME, so why should I expect him to give me what I want? We all know that we WILL be playing AA50 and we also know that we fixed Revised. In multiple variants, no less. Why should we care if it isn’t perfect? We’ll take what we get and then make it perfect.