Will Rockets be a gamebreaker?

i chose undecided because it is depending what are the objectives of germany and other countries stupid ehough to buy rockets.
really germany needs rockets and maybe russia if russia in military strenght is = more or barely less and germany has trouble else were (not afrca unless germany sent many units there)
so rockets can b if ur objective/strategy uses rockets which is good but also bad

SBR is not broken in Revised, at least not LHTR-revised. LHTR means territory turn limit…? So in Revised LHTR, which is mostly used, at least regarded to the SBR rules, US+UK may bomb Germany for 10 ipc damage for each power and each turn, that is 20 ipc loss for Germany at maximum, + the IC in SE could be 6 ipc*2=12 ipc + 20=32 ipc…? But SBR strats are hardly used. Bmrs too expensive.

So if we look only at the SBR rules it may seem bad, but game mechanics in Revised is not broken neither generally, or specifically regarding SBR issues. The reason is not the rules but the cost of bombers.
In AA50 SBR rules make sure that Germany cannot lose more than 20 ipc to SBR attack by one power, and because Germanys turn is before UK, and then US last, the order of play assures that Germany can loose only 20 ipc each round.?

But bombers are much cheaper in AA50, so maybe it’s a lot easier to make Germany lose 20 ipc in AA50, than in Revised to make Germany loose 32 ipc each round.

And about the production setback rules, SBR is not optional rules, tech is optional so I can play AA50 without tech, but with the new SBR rules + bmrs cost 12 this is likely a game breaker, I can choose not to repair the IC and then I can choose not to play the game a all… :cry:

By all means, I’m happy about the reduced cost of bmrs, but what’s missing in AA50 is the possibillity to buy more AA guns, and each AA guns fires one shot each. Most players would not buy AA guns if not needed, tanks+inf+art+ftrs is much more useful. So what seems broken in AA50 is not SBR rules regarding bmrs+damage, but that the rules constrict players from using approriate countermeasures if faced by massive SBR attacks.

@Subotai:

SBR is not broken in Revised, at least not LHTR-revised. LHTR means territory turn limit…? So in Revised LHTR, which is mostly used, at least regarded to the SBR rules, US+UK may bomb Germany for 10 ipc damage for each power and each turn, that is 20 ipc loss for Germany at maximum, + the IC in SE could be 6 ipc*2=12 ipc + 20=32 ipc…? But SBR strats are hardly used. Bmrs too expensive.

So if we look only at the SBR rules it may seem bad, but game mechanics in Revised is not broken neither generally, or specifically regarding SBR issues. The reason is not the rules but the cost of bombers.
In AA50 SBR rules make sure that Germany cannot lose more than 20 ipc to SBR attack by one power, and because Germanys turn is before UK, and then US last, the order of play assures that Germany can loose only 20 ipc each round.?

But bombers are much cheaper in AA50, so maybe it’s a lot easier to make Germany lose 20 ipc in AA50, than in Revised to make Germany loose 32 ipc each round.

And about the production setback rules, SBR is not optional rules, tech is optional so I can play AA50 without tech, but with the new SBR rules + bmrs cost 12 this is likely a game breaker, I can choose not to repair the IC and then I can choose not to play the game a all… :cry:

By all means, I’m happy about the reduced cost of bmrs, but what’s missing in AA50 is the possibillity to buy more AA guns, and each AA guns fires one shot each. Most players would not buy AA guns if not needed, tanks+inf+art+ftrs is much more useful. So what seems broken in AA50 is not SBR rules regarding bmrs+damage, but that the rules constrict players from using approriate countermeasures if faced by massive SBR attacks.

Not only are bombers cheaper, UK starts off the game with a good 50 IPC income, America 50 as well.  This number quickly deteriorates for both, however.

I think bombing will probably be broken, but we will see.  Also keep in mind, strategic bombing Italy could make Italy destroyed… if Southern Europe is about 8 IPC, Italy may lose MORE than it can repair.  If Italy is making 15 IPC a turn (one bonus + starting territories, I think), they wouldn’t even be ABLE to completely repair the industrial complex.  I imagine they would settle repairing till they have enough to build a single unit, then buy an infantry  :-(

Good thing America can only make 4 of those bombers a round or so…

LHTR rules can be found on this site, yes it includes territory turn limit, plus numerous other rules (nerfing heavy bombers and buffing the other techs, for example)

/Rakeman

You really raised a thorny issue here with Italy being hit by SBR. I hadn’t even thought about it. As you say, Italy can be reduced to almost no production with just 3 bombers or so attacking per turn.

This means a lot for game-balance, since Italy will very vulnerable and can be hit easily from UK (even more so now that AA-guns don’t even hit bombers flying over). There is never anything Italy can do against this strategy (no interceptions, cannot afford tech, etc). At best, with Egypt and Transjordan in Italian hands, Italy would be reduced from 23 IPCs (10 at-start, + double 5 IPC bonuses, plus 2+1 for EGY and TRJ) to 11 IPCs/turn. Not very inspiring income after achieving your conquests.  :-(

I fear the cries for a reduction of the SBR limit will be coming fairly quickly and as far as I can see I wouldn’t mind it being limited to just the IPC value of the area!  :?

Given that Techs are going to be optional, I am not sure if you can say that any tech is a game breaker.  It is not like once you decide on doing research, you are automatically going to get the tech you want the next turn.  An average game lasts what 10, maybe 15 turns?  If you go with the minimum research cost of 5 IPC every turn, I would be surprised if any player gets more than 2 or 3 techs, plus you have to work off of two different charts.  Getting the Rocket Tech is not a given by any means, or Heavy Bombers, or Increased Production.

What Techs like Rockets do introduce into the game is uncertainty, which clearly does not make many players happy. They would like the game to be precisely predictable, so that a given strategy, except for the chance effect of dice rolling, will work every time. However, war is not predictable.  Odd things happen, like your supposedly unbreakable code, Enigma, being broken, and then it never being realized by the Germans.  With the way tech development works, you never are also never quite sure what you are going to get. Another uncertainty.  Welcome to life.  I am not certain any given day if I will be able to walk.

If I play the UK, I am likely going to be trying on the Land Chart for War Bonds and Increased Factory Production, but instead, I get Rockets.  If I do, then I buy another AA gun, and start pounding away at Italy as well as Germany.  And if I can convince the US player to get some bombers, and join it, the Axis are going to have a very hard time, with or without the Heavy Bomber tech.

If I am playing the US, I am more likely going to be rolling on the Air/Naval chart.  If I get Long Range Aircraft, with the availability of paratroops and all of those islands in the Pacific worth bonuses, I will likely try for Paratroops.  Instead, I get Rockets.  Oh well, not a whole lot of good against the Japanese, but Germany is another story.  I go buy two AA guns, ship them to the UK and start sending lots of friendly emissaries to Germany and Italy.  Add some regular bombers, and the Germans and Italians get many headaches.

I would really prefer Paratroops, as then the Japanese player is going to have to defend every one of his islands in the Pacific, and since I can use the bomber as a bomber as well as a transport, the Japanese are going to need more than a single defender per island.  Actually, even with just regular bombers, Paratroops in the Pacific are extremely attractive, to say nothing of Morocco-Algeria.  With the advent of National Objective Bonuses, any enemy territory with only a control marker on it or only a single infantry is fair game if I have Paratroops.  Given all of the flap over Rockets, I am surprised that no one has consider Paratroops a major problem in the game.  National Control Markers are a thing of the past with Paratroops in the game.  You are going to have to garrison every conquered territory that can be hit by Paratroops. Just think, Germany goes all out to take Africa, and then has it taken back by Paratroops from the US operating out of Brazil.

And no, I do not play Axis.  Maybe Russia, but never Axis.

sorry about my last mistakes was rly tired but anyways rockets can be but i dotn rly like arm races lol

arm races between usa and germany are a bit like saying if i get this then u get that also germany wont spend that much now since russia will probably fight germany mroe then germany get a few rolls and japan uses tank stra on russia blitz east russia  :-o

yea one out of 36. I would not worry about rockets but worry about bombers and heavy bombers because that you have right away. Hopefully the game will be over before anybody can waste enough research IPC for rockets.

@cousin_joe:

@timerover51:

Given all of the flap over Rockets, I am surprised that no one has consider Paratroops a major problem in the game.

Hey timerover,

I was going to get this one eventually  :-) (Mechanized Infantry is the other  :-D), but yes, I completely agree with you.  And I’m not even thinking about the little islands, I’m thinking about the big territories and the capitals.

A consistent mechanic in A&A has always been maintaining big stacks at your fronts.  Since defense is stronger than offense, you typically want to build up your stack to eventually overcome the opponents stack.  The reason paratrooper rules in general have always failed, is it turns that whole mechanic upside down.  Instead of thinking offensively, players will now be forced to play defensively.  They will have to worry about territories behind the main front getting captured, and worst of all, their capital itself.

Paratrooper rules will force players to keep their INF back, essentially slowing the game to a halt.  Ability to apply any forward pressure will be minimized.  The opponent that faces paratroopers will be significantly handicapped, as they will be forced to hold forces back at the expense of their ability to maintain and extend their front lines.

I’m not a big fan of the paratrooper Tech for these reasons  :-(

Well, wouldn’t a paratrooper capping a territory just allow the territory to be retaken easily next round?  Besides capitals, I don’t see a huge flaw here.  I kind of want improved artillery.  2 transports = 2 inf, 1 art, 1 armor = nice combo.

@cousin_joe:

@timerover51:

Given all of the flap over Rockets, I am surprised that no one has consider Paratroops a major problem in the game.

Hey timerover,

I was going to get this one eventually  :-) (Mechanized Infantry is the other  :-D), but yes, I completely agree with you.  And I’m not even thinking about the little islands, I’m thinking about the big territories and the capitals.

A consistent mechanic in A&A has always been maintaining big stacks at your fronts.  Since defense is stronger than offense, you typically want to build up your stack to eventually overcome the opponents stack.  The reason paratrooper rules in general have always failed, is it turns that whole mechanic upside down.  Instead of thinking offensively, players will now be forced to play defensively.  They will have to worry about territories behind the main front getting captured, and worst of all, their capital itself.

Paratrooper rules will force players to keep their INF back, essentially slowing the game to a halt.  Ability to apply any forward pressure will be minimized.  The opponent that faces paratroopers will be significantly handicapped, as they will be forced to hold forces back at the expense of their ability to maintain and extend their front lines.

I’m not a big fan of the paratrooper Tech for these reasons  :-(

Hmm, CJ.  Please refernce the Paratrooper tech again:

@AA50:

3. Paratroopers
   Each of your bombers can act as a transport for up to one infantry, but it must stop in the first hostile territory it enters during a turn and drop off the infantry, ending its combat movement. The bomber may still attack during the Conduct Combat phase, but it cannot make a strategic bombing run in a turn that transports an infantry unit. The infantry unit may retreat normally to a friendly adjacent space during combat.

The red highlighted part keeps you from jumping ‘over’ the front lines.

Being guaranteed a tech is a big thing for me.  I hated how you could spend money on techs and be literally throwing it down the toilet.

I also agree that Random techs are disappointing.  I suppose we must take the good (guaranteed tech) with the bad (you wont know what tech it is).

When you have a say in your tech, you can use it to build strategies (in a strategy game).

“Hmm… I know, I’ll invest 15 IPC in super sub technology to counter his little Aircraft Carrier fleet.”

“Well, since Australia isn’t worth many IPC, I will build a complex AND invest in industrial technology, so I can take down the Japanese!”

“ROCKETZ LOL!!!”

You get the idea  :-)

I think a problem is that, for Revised, there was an article by the devs about how hard it was to try to make all 6 technologies appealing, so that none would be left out by the players.  I guess it was decided that balancing 12 techs to make them all appealing and worth the same amount of IPC would be too much work, so just make it random.

I think it would just be nicest to allow the techs to always be directed, but some form of direction would be better than none.

(Side note:  Interesting how rockets and long range aircraft are the only technologies that have NEVER been changed, from Classic to Revised to LHTR to AA50.  I guess they are considered perfect balance.)

@cousin_joe:

It doesn’t stop you from going around though  :-D (ie. over a SZ or empty land territory)
I suppose the empty land territory could be considered hostile… I’m not sure…
But surely the SZ, even if occupied by enemy boats should be OK?  maybe? 
For sure empty SZs couldn’t be considered hostile  :-)

Any territory controlled by the enemy is hostile, whether it has units in it or not.  Hostile sea zones don’t block paratroopers.  The idea here is simply to keep paratroopers from “leapfrogging” over enemy-held territory and dropping troops far behind enemy lines.

But wasn’t that exactly the point of paratroops, dropping them behind enemy lines?

I could see a house rule really opening up the game if the rule about having to drop them at the 1st hostile territory was eliminated.

@Constantinople:

But wasn’t that exactly the point of paratroops, dropping them behind enemy lines?

Yes, the point was to drop them behind enemy lines, but not hundreds of miles behind enemy lines.  Paratroopers needed to be supported fairly quickly, otherwise their supplies would run out and they’d be helpless.  By their nature, they couldn’t carry much with them.  They were intended to spearhead an attack, not carry it out all by themselves.

In the scale of this game, paratrooper drops would have to occur adjacent to a friendly territory or a sea zone from which support could be provided.

ahh if u want to add a house rule for that to make germany more worser thats fine but if u want to stay the same thats fine to

@Krieghund:

@cousin_joe:

It doesn’t stop you from going around though  :-D (ie. over a SZ or empty land territory)
I suppose the empty land territory could be considered hostile… I’m not sure…
But surely the SZ, even if occupied by enemy boats should be OK?  maybe? 
For sure empty SZs couldn’t be considered hostile  :-)

Any territory controlled by the enemy is hostile, whether it has units in it or not.  Hostile sea zones don’t block paratroopers.  The idea here is simply to keep paratroopers from “leapfrogging” over enemy-held territory and dropping troops far behind enemy lines.

Thanks for the clarification, Krieghund.  I kind of thought that sea zones would not be a block to Paratroops. That is definitely going to make things more complicated for Japan in the Pacific. I can see it now, Paratroop drop in China, lovely.  Japan is going to have to have troops all over the place.  Lovely.  Might make Paratroops a first choice for US, since the other techs, except for Mech Infantry are also ones that I would like.  Rockets on Germany, Paratroops on Japan, War Bonds, Increased Factory Production, and Advanced Artillery to kill everyone.  Add a couple of house tech rules, life will be very good for Allies, very bad for Axis.