A Serious Discussion of Technologies in 1941

Yep, agreed that techs definately stir the pot. Its very difficult indeed to know that ‘I always build ‘x’ in ‘y’ situation’ when techs are in play. For long term play, I agree that their use prevents the game from getting stale. The trade off is that indeed, you are adding another random factor to an already pretty random game.

@Uncle_Joe:

Yep, agreed that techs definately stir the pot. Its very difficult indeed to know that ‘I always build ‘x’ in ‘y’ situation’ when techs are in play. For long term play, I agree that their use prevents the game from getting stale. The trade off is that indeed, you are adding another random factor to an already pretty random game.

And it’s already random enough.

Bah humbug to more outcomes determined by luck

(Christmas is still in my mind……)

@Cmdr:

But the randomness is what makes it fun.

If I wanted to play with a calculator, I can go to frood.net and sit there for hours a day. :P

I guess everyone has a different level for what they feel is ‘fun’ randomness in a game.

Almost total randomness in a game is like Yahtzee, whereas (almost) no randomness exists in chess (a flip of a coin to be white).

I am of the ilk that a less random A&A is a better game (there’s enough already)
I however do not like so much less randomness as to like low luck.

Seems to be a personal preference, one that is hard to measure too.

I really like the current tech structure as it is in AA50. I don’t really like the guaranteed tech from enhanced that I read about in your other thread. My biggest problem with that system is it basically divides things into the haves and the have nots. I also don’t like the targeted techs either. In my opinion then tech can become overpowering. Since you know what you get and when you get it you can build up to fully exploit it. Yes I know all those decisions are strategic decisions I am just thinking that it does make some techs a bit too powerful.

I like the current system of weighing risk and reward. I also like the random selection as it forces you to adapt to the situation, not just check of that unit y was bought on round x.

And as far as being random, none of it truly is. With real dice I can warm them up to where I get good rolls pretty consistently and the dice server here at AA, well it aint random at all. That thing well and truly hates me! :-D I have even got some results so low out of it frood wont even calc them.

Don’t be dissing on Chess Jenn. That’s how I paid a lot of my bar tabs in Germany.

I don’t see where a compromise is needed. Classic was screwed up. Revised had to have LHTRs. I am not convinced that there is anything wrong with AA50-41 yet. I just think the community has done got used to HAVING to re-write the rules to the point that they are looking for stuff to change right off the bat.

@Cmdr:

Advanced Artillery:  At first glance I was all over this technology!  1 Artillery would increase the offensive punch of two infantry by +1 each.  On a purely cost evaluation basis, this means that for 10 IPC you can have 6 Defensive Punch and 6 Offensive Punch in 3 units vs having the same in 2 units (2 armor.)

However, after getting quite a few games under my belt, I’m not really hungry for this tech.  It’s still good, mind you, but it’s limited in use for everyone.

My guess would be, this is best for Russia and maybe for Germany, it’s very limited in power for England and America and almost useless for Japan and Italy. (Still useful, just almost useless.)

Hmm, you have to compare after upgrade / before upgrade: 10 IPC’s after = 6/6 and 3 hits. 10 IPC’s before = 5/6 and 3 hits. Now tell me, is this a good technology? Equal to war bonds, even for Russia?
No, it is not. It is bad. I’d prefer every tech above this one. All it does, is giving you 2 attack extra every Russian turn (assuming you’re buying only land units). War bonds gives you 1 attack, 2 defense, 1 hit every turn (3,5 IPC’s ~ 1 inf), excluding flexibility of what units to purchase (war bonds let’s you choose, adv art is only good when buying art).

About super subs: some day I’m gonna write a paper about the use of subs in AA50, they’re difficult to play correctly, but they’re VERY strong, especially in the pacific. Whenever it comes to a Pacific war, subs decide the outcome. Or super subs ;) But ofcourse, don’t use them to defend in small numbers, that’s simply using them wrong. Use VAST numbers (they’re butt cheap!), like 6 subs every turn with USA or Japan or Germany, and don’t be bothered by DD’s: one DD can only kill one sub when you spread your subs out, and a counter sub strike is sure to follow (with the great attack value of subs :) ).

Hmm, owkey, we both agree it’s not great, but I still think it is the absolute worst tech by far. War bonds are pretty good, simply needed a decent tech to compare adv art to to show its worthlessness. Ow, I just saw your thread on fixing subs, not gonna argue with you about those for now  8-)

@Cmdr:

War Bonds arn’t bad either, really.  They are like an ANTI-Rocket technology, which is a neat concept.

=> Isn’t that advanced factories? (War bonds is the 1d6 of extra income)

Thanks for your feedback

@a44bigdog:

I really like the current tech structure as it is in AA50. I don’t really like the guaranteed tech from enhanced
….
And as far as being random, none of it truly is. With real dice I can warm them up to where I get good rolls pretty consistently and the dice server here at AA, well it aint random at all.

Funny, you said you don’t like guarenteed tech
because your premise is that you can the techs you are supposed to get cause the dice aren’t really random at all.

Hmmm.

when those dice start missing more than hitting, you may change your mind.

Axis-Roll the dice server here hates me with a purple passion. I can go find more than 1 dice roll I have made this week with a less than 1% outcome.

Again I think the tech system is fine. I think people are just so used to re-writing the rules of A&A games that it has become an ingrained habit.

I don’t like your directed purchased tech either for the reason that Japan will “buy” shipyards the US will “buy” Heavy Bombers, and Germany will “buy” Improved Industry. Baring the standard luck that is imposed on all the countries now. Italy, the UK, and Russia will be left without.

@a44bigdog:

I don’t like your directed purchased tech either for the reason that Japan will “buy” shipyards the US will “buy” Heavy Bombers, and Germany will “buy” Improved Industry. Baring the standard luck that is imposed on all the countries now. Italy, the UK, and Russia will be left without.

You can only buy off up to two sides.
Then you have a one in 4 chance of getting those coveted weapons that you mentioned.

You also pay another penalty for targetting the ‘good techs’ (eliminating two outcomes): They are not instantly effective like if you were to randomly roll for a tech.

Additional cost of the $3 per side eliminated is also incurred.

Targetting is not guarenteed and a bit costly.

You always have the option of rolling for a tech (1 in 6 chance) and getting it active immediately.

More options (less subject to rolls) equates to more strategy. 
At least that’s the theory. :mrgreen:

@Cmdr:

It’s all random though, Axis.

It doesn’t have to be.  You can reduce some of the randomness.
That’s the whole point.

@Cmdr:

The only difference is, is your strategy strong enough to survive a surprise strategy move or a surprise technology or is your strategy so mired in tradition that any deviation completely throws you off your game?

Where did you come up with this idea?

OOB Revised Tech was deemed so broken due to the chance of a G1 sea lion, they changed the tech to be delayed until the end of a players turn (LHTR rules, the defacto standard)

By making techs instantenous, you are indeed ‘rebreaking’ AA50 along the above line of thinking.

FWIW, I think AA50 is not quite as broken in this regard as Revised was, so I am ok with the instant tech.

I love the randomness that technology offers. Then again, I’m Irish and I believe strongly in luck and like to take chances. Besides, Karl von Clausewitz, the great German military theorist himself recognized that “War is the Realm of Chance.” I think it accurately protrays the war as well, since the U.S. took a gamble on the Manhatten Project, and though it could have been a huge waste of money, it paid off and it changed the whole situation of the War in the Pacific. I agree totally with Jenn, if your strategy is so flimsy as to fall apart if someone rolled “Shipyards” or “Long Range Aircraft” then it probably wouldn’t hold up without techs.

That being said, I do recognize that techs can decisively alter the situation of the board. If Japan gets shipyards, then it will be in a position to fight the U.S. much more effectively and for alot longer. Likewise if Russia gets Improved Artillery, then they can hold back Germany much easier, I would not underestimate this techs value. They can also be decisive in another way, much more favourable to those who hate techs. They can be a huge waste of money, and while your opponent spends money hoping to get Paratroops or Heavy Bombers, you can be pumping out more units to overwhelm them. Everything has consequences in this game.