AA50 League and/or Tournaments

Well, the obvious solution to the tech problem is to make it a player choice. That way the gamblers can gamble and the skill players can have a less wobbly playing field. I see no reason why we can’t just make the baseline game either 41’ with NO’s or 42’ with NO’s and techs up to the two players.

Personally, as a skill player, and a decent one at that, I suppose having some people playing with techs is in my favor because, knowing the inherent volatility of techs, it makes it harder for a player who plays “tech only” to dominate the league since a low skill player can much more easily defeat a high skill player when techs are in play than when they are not. Tech it up guys! But, only if you want to.  :-D

So I vote “tech optional”. But, if I am forced to choose firmly between tech or no tech then I vote “no tech”.

@Cmdr:

Techs are a part of the game.  I don’t really see them turning a losing battle into sudden victory the way Industrial Production or Heavy Bombers did in Classic.  But having it can augment your ability to recover if you are not getting the pants beat off you.

No, techs are not part of the game. They are an “optional” part of the game. Big difference. And it was made that way for a very good reason.

And no, maybe it can’t turn a game around where you’re about to lose your capital. But, it can radically alter a game where you are losing with a slim chance of winning or shift a tight game heavily into one side’s favor.

There is no OTHER $5 purchase or placement that you can make that can so radically alter a game. And it has nothing to do with strategy. It’s buying an “everybody wins something” lottery ticket because eventually you will be rewarded with something but there is no guarantee that it will have a miniscule effect or a huge effect. How that is not gambling is beyond me.

Case in point. We all can pretty much assume that if Germany spends $5 on G1 and gets rockets, IFP, or mechanized infantry on one chart or LRA, jets, or heavy bombers on the other chart, that they will immediately have an big advantage. This would happen in an average of 1 in 12 games. That’s almost 10% of the games when Germany invests just $5 into techs. Even super subs helps because they start the game with 3 of them in position to do a good deal of damage. And techs like mech infantry and heavy bombers are virtually instant game winners right off the bat. Now, someone explain to me how it can even be considered a strategy when one player can be put firmly in control of a game after only ONE country plays it’s turn. At the very least, techs should go back to coming into effect AFTER the country plays their turn.

No, they are part of the game.

National Objectives are optional, but I think the game is strongly anti-Axis if you take them out, so to avoid the need to bid, just leave them in.

As for Techs, it already is player choice.  You chose to buy researchers or not.  No one says you HAVE to buy them.  See, player choice!

There is no OTHER $5 purchase or placement that you can make that can so radically alter a game. And it has nothing to do with strategy. It’s buying an “everybody wins something” lottery ticket because eventually you will be rewarded with something but there is no guarantee that it will have a miniscule effect or a huge effect. How that is not gambling is beyond me.

Actually, in this analogy, Tech Rolls present more uncertainty than a state lottery.  In a state lottery, you can guarantee yourself a share of the grand prize if you buy up every number combination.  In A&A, you can buy eight tech rolls and still not be guaranteed a Tech.  Nor are you ever assured a specific tech at a specific part of the game.  So yes, Tech Rolls are ABSOLUTELY Gambling.  Anyone who states otherwise is flat out wrong.

The Bigger question is, So what?  So what if it is gambling?  To stake or risk money, or anything of value, on the outcome of something involving chance.  A competent player will seek opportunities that maximize his potential for progress, while minimizing his risks of disproportionate loss.  Just because you’re gambling does not mean there’s no strategy involved.  If you can’t handle the element of chance, then Axis and Allies isn’t the game for you.  Perhaps chess is more up your alley.

National Objectives are optional, but I think the game is strongly anti-Axis if you take them out, so to avoid the need to bid, just leave them in.

As for Techs, it already is player choice.  You chose to buy researchers or not.  No one says you HAVE to buy them.  See, player choice!

My rationale is that the Person who HATES tech does not mind playing against an opponent who invests heavily in tech, yet unlocks nothing.  That Person only gets upset when the other player unlocks something worthwhile.

Tech can be strategy.  If you do it wisely, you are not spending overly much and hedging that eventually you will unlock something of use.

As for “tech being random game win buttons” so are AA Guns.  For that matter, every time you enter into combat or defend against someone making combat you are entering into a gamble.

I can’t even count how many times I lost a game because I attacked in Caucasus when I had 99% odds to win and been slaughtered by the defenders in Revised.  Does that mean all those games were bogus and I should have been handed the victory anyway, since the other guy “cheated” and relied on “luck” to win?

In other words, saying we can’t use tech because it introduces luck into the game is a strawman argument to start with.  It’s all luck!  Even low luck is luck.  Even no luck is still luck (since you are lucky if your opponent makes a tactical error.)  Even Chess has an element of luck to it.  If you want to play without luck, go play a computer game against an artificial AI, something that doesn’t take dice into consideration.

That said, unlike previous incarnations of the game from Larry, this version at least has tech do something other than buff units.  We finally have a version that sometimes buffs units, sometimes negates the buffs of units and abilities.

For instance:

Rockets, Heavy Bombers and SBRs are countered by Not Repairing Damage, Cap on total damage you can take in a turn, War Bonds, Improved Factories and Radar

Mechanized Infantry are countered by Paratroopers (just drop a guy behind the lines and stop the tanks from blitzing infantry up, or at least slow them down, hence they counter each other.)

Jet Fighters, Long Range Aircraft and Heavy Bombers counter Advanced Shipyards and Improved Factories

Etc.  The list goes on.

In summation, I think the only reason people (in general, not anyone specifically) vote against technologies in games is because they have a pat move plan and they don’t want someone to discover a technology that would make them think of something new to do.  In other words, they are relying 100% on luck to make sure their plan works this time like it did before.

@Cmdr:

In summation, I think the only reason people (in general, not anyone specifically) vote against technologies in games is because they have a pat move plan and they don’t want someone to discover a technology that would make them think of something new to do.  In other words, they are relying 100% on luck to make sure their plan works this time like it did before.

Wow.

Sometimes your posts are way out there: They’re head scratchers.

What are you saying?

This is wrong in so many ways.
I’ll be brief and list two:

1).  People have already stated they do not like tech for the additional randomness that it brings to the game, not because they are rigid in their strategic thinking.  How do you come to that conclusion?

2).  If people like to run the same strategy over and over again, they probably have worked out some / most of the numbers to specifically ELIMINATE the “luck” of dice outcomes.  I would say the complete opposite:  These people want to rely on 0% luck, not 100% luck.

Axis_Roll,

I have to agree more with Jennifer than I can with you.  I will be the first to agree that some techs (namely Heavy Bombers) ARE quite powerful and perhaps this tech should be tweaked slightly, but techs were an integral part of every country’s national budget during WWII, and to not have them in the game is ahistorical.  Just look at the stats in the Battle of the Atlantic for Allied losses to German Subs before and after Radar was utilized by air units to basically NULLIFY the German Sub fleet, and you will see how important tech was to the war.

@Bardoly:

Axis_Roll,

I have to agree more with Jennifer than I can with you.  I will be the first to agree that some techs (namely Heavy Bombers) ARE quite powerful and perhaps this tech should be tweaked slightly, but techs were an integral part of every country’s national budget during WWII, and to not have them in the game is ahistorical.  Just look at the stats in the Battle of the Atlantic for Allied losses to German Subs before and after Radar was utilized by air units to basically NULLIFY the German Sub fleet, and you will see how important tech was to the war.

I guess you can infer that because I don’t particularly like the randomness of tech (and prefer more strategic game play WRT Tech), that I said tech should not be part of the game.

Techs are an optional part of the game.  The poll was should they be part of the league / tourney play.  My choice was no tech because it adds even more randomness to the game.  BTW, I was not alone in voting no to tech in league/tourneys.

This is a personal choice.  Perhaps with more games (only 1 with tech thus far) I will end up thinking the current tech system is ok.

We should start talking about allies bid. I can stand a no tech game (even if I think a no tech game needs less strategical and tactical knowledge than a game with techs), but each game I play in 1941, I hate more and more Godzilla Japan. I almost never pick Japan in fun games if I can (too easy to be fun), but if we get a vanilla competitive league, I’ll play Japan all the games I can  :-D

I say at least bid 12 IPCs to China in 1941, maybe more  :-P

I am not convinced at all that the Allies need a bid. I would recommend we start with rolling for sides and perhaps re-evaluate this decision some time down the road after more games have been played.

I have said my piece on tech but I do want to ask Darth if he has even tried any games of 50 with tech?

The only Tech that is game destroying is Heavy Bombers, it should be roll 2 dice and take the best result, not roll two and add them together…

…having said that there are aspects of the game that I hate… but that you just have to accept if you want to get on and play it, It’s a game of luck, and in the end I think Techs should be included, even if they screw you up… because you have the same chance to screw up the opponent  :-D

Yes, our play groups play with LHTR regarding Heavy Bombers.

As for a bidding system, I think an Open Bidding System works best.

ie You can bid for Axis OR Allies.  There are too many conflicting opinions about which side is better, especially now with both 1941/42 scenarios.

@Funcioneta:

We should start talking about allies bid. I can stand a no tech game (even if I think a no tech game needs less strategical and tactical knowledge than a game with techs), but each game I play in 1941, I hate more and more Godzilla Japan. I almost never pick Japan in fun games if I can (too easy to be fun), but if we get a vanilla competitive league, I’ll play Japan all the games I can  :-D

I say at least bid 12 IPCs to China in 1941, maybe more  :-P

Good idea, since China can’t spend any IPCs. ;)

no 2 on 2 tourney this year?

how are me and mojo gonna defend our title?

im thinking about a compromise to the league, how bout limited each country to just one tech? that way tech can still be a part of the game but not overwhelming

Since we are running an '09 Revised league how about keep that the way it is for the technophobes and launch the AA50 league with the OOB full bells and whistles so we will actually know what is broke and what aint broke. And that means no bids as it remains to be seen if bids are even needed.

@DarthMaximus:

This is not a sign-up.   :-D
Just trying to gather info.

This is for PBF of course.

1.  If there was an AA50 League, would you like two seperate divisions - one for 41 and one for 42?

2.  NOs - yes (no), Tech - yes (no)?

3.  Sides chosen by random in-house roll?  (or would bidding, even if both bid 0, be used and ties broken randomly by Frood)

4.  Anything else?

Tournaments

It is likely that we’ll do a tournament sometime this year, so sort of the same questions.

1 - 41 or 42?  or both?
2 - NO and tech (yes/no)?

1. Yes two separate leagues.

2. Yes, Tech.

Technology has been a fundemental historic fact in warfare from the earliest days.  Iron swords vs. Bronze swords, the chariot, the Long bow, Gun Powder, the repeating rifle, the machine gun, aircraft, rockets, missles, the list is endless.

I disagree with those who say Tech is for the less skilled players, it requires even more skill to deal with a technological breakthrough by your opponent.

The Rules Larry has come up with for Tech are brilliant, first you have to hire scientists to make a breakthrough (no easy task since they are all lazy government employees, who spend more time sipping lattes than they do working on projects), then if you do get a breakthrough you have to decide which chart to choose from, then the Tech from that chart is random.  So unlike AAR where you can make strategic decisions (I’m gonna buy Tech X and do Y), now you have no Idea what Tech you’ll get if any, so tech is rarely a game changing proposition.

For me, I will only be playing games that include Tech.

3. Rolling for Sides seems best, bidding will just degenarate to a tie breaker anyway.

@Emperor:

now you have no Idea what Tech you’ll get if any, so tech is rarely a game changing proposition.

You can like tech or not or have issues with how it’s implemented or not but I do not think I can agree with the statement that tech is rarely a game changing proposition.

Add +2 to your planes range instantaneously will most certainly change a game.

Agree 100% with an earlier post by BigDog about Long Range:  SCAREY STRONG

@allies_fly:

@Emperor:

now you have no Idea what Tech you’ll get if any, so tech is rarely a game changing proposition.

You can like tech or not or have issues with how it’s implemented or not but I do not think I can agree with the statement that tech is rarely a game changing proposition.

Add +2 to your planes range instantaneously will most certainly change a game.

Agree 100% with an earlier post by BigDog about Long Range:  SCAREY STRONG

You missed my point.  In AAR you could roll for the Tech you wanted so you could make a calculated decsion to get a specific tech that would completely change the game.  Under the new rules you can’t.  If you base your strategy on getting Long Range Air (or any tech for that matter), you’re gonna lose.  Tech’s achieved are an enhancement to your overall might, but can rarely turn a loosing situation into a winning one.

But hey, to each his own.  As i’ve said, i’ll only be playing games that include tech.

@Emperor:

@allies_fly:

@Emperor:

now you have no Idea what Tech you’ll get if any, so tech is rarely a game changing proposition.

You can like tech or not or have issues with how it’s implemented or not but I do not think I can agree with the statement that tech is rarely a game changing proposition.

Add +2 to your planes range instantaneously will most certainly change a game.

Agree 100% with an earlier post by BigDog about Long Range:  SCAREY STRONG

You missed my point.  In AAR you could roll for the Tech you wanted so you could make a calculated decsion to get a specific tech that would completely change the game.  Under the new rules you can’t.  If you base your strategy on getting Long Range Air (or any tech for that matter), you’re gonna lose.  Tech’s achieved are an enhancement to your overall might, but can rarely turn a loosing situation into a winning one.

But hey, to each his own.  As i’ve said, i’ll only be playing games that include tech.

Thanks for the clarification.  I agree.

Might I add:  Tech can be a fun part of the game.