A Serious Discussion of Technologies in 1941

@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.

@Ó:

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.

The problem is there are a few techs that when achieved and used in that round, CAN be game breakers: Long range is the biggest one, Heavy Bombers as well.  Paratroopers too if you have a few bombers, hell, even mechanized inf could swing a huge battle.

Getting shipyards will take a few rounds to affect a game.

So not every tech can have immediate game changing outcomes the round they are attained.

Someone else said this earlier, and I agree, that you can not defend against every potentially killer weapon (like the 4 I listed above).  You would become paralyzed with paranoia and never leave your capital with your units.  The game is about managing risks, and the odds are against your opponent getting these “Yahtzee” game winning tech dice.

I’ve enjoyed reading this thread.  I would like to discuss something that doesn’t seem to have been addressed regarding technology: how much should be spent each turn on tech rolls?  I’ve been thinking about this a lot recently in regards to Russia and here are my ideas:

Turn 1: Spend 10 IPCs on tech rolls
Turn 2: If not successful on turn 1, spend 10 more IPCs.

In most games, this will yield Russia a technology by turn 2 for the cost of only 20 IPCs.  The drawback is that Russia now has 20 IPCs less of units on the board.  So the question becomes, will the technology that Russia gains be worth the fewer units on the board?  Let’s look at Chart 1:

Advanced Artillery:  Russia starts out with a lot of infantry and a 1 artillery build now gives Russia an attack of 4 instead of 3.  That’s like buying a bomber for the cost of only 4 IPCs (although admittedly, these “bombers” can only attack land and are limited to one space).  Such a tech would make it much more difficult for Germany to secure any territory of Russia’s that is next to an industrial complex.  In my opinion, the benefits for Russia are huge if they snag this tech.  Definitely worth the 20 IPC cost.

Rockets:  Not as useful as advanced artillery, especially if Germany takes and secures Karelia but quite useful nevertheless.  The Caucasus AA can attack Italy each turn.  As long as Russia owns Karelia then Germany can be attacked each turn.  Russia can retreat the AA in Karelia to Archangel if they think Germany is going to take and hold onto Karelia, and make its way to Russia, freeing up the Russian AA to go east and attack any Japanese AA built on the mainland.  Worth the 20 IPC cost.

Paratroopers:  If Russia can afford to build bombers, then it is probably over for the Axis anyway.  In MOST games, I think this is the only tech in Chart 1 that is totally useless for Russia.  Not worth the 20 IPC cost, IMHO.

Increased Industrial Production:  If Russia gets this by turn 2 AND still owns Karelia, then it’s going to be much more difficult for Germany to capture and hold onto Karelia, especially if UK built some fighters on turn 1 and move them all to Karelia for added protection.  Plus, this tech makes SBRs half as effective, so the German player might very well use any bombers they have on something else instead of SBRs.  The more money Russia has to spend, the better.  The problem is, Russia might not own Karelia, especially after G2, so this tech may not be quite as useful as advanced artillery.  Worth the 20 IPC cost.

War Bonds:  Limited in value, but hey, free money is free money.  Definitely not useless, but on average, Russia will gain 3.5 IPCs per turn from this tech.  So Russia will not begin to profit from it until turn 6.  IMHO, those 20 IPCs would be better spent on units since the game will probably be decided before turn 6 anyway. Usually not worth the 20 IPC cost, unless you get lucky and recover the cost quickly (by getting the tech on roll 1 and rolling  a six on both turn 1 and 2).

Mechanized Infantry:  This tech is only useful for Russia if they have tanks AND if they are in a position to attack two spaces away from where they built the tanks.  It seems to me that this tech would be useful mainly on turn 2, assuming that Russia built six tanks on turn 1.  Make sure you position six infantry (two from Caucasus, two from Novo, and two from Kazakh) into Russia and you now have six additional units that can attack Karelia and be used as fodder if Germany moved into Karelia strongly.  If Germany took Karelia on G1 and has most of their air force in Karelia after G2, then this tech just might give Russia the chance to destroy the entire German air force on G2.  A game changer right there.  Of course, this tech could still be useful once Japan gets within two spaces of Russia but if Russia is at that point in the game then it might be better just to buy all infantry at that point. Worth the 20 IPC cost IF conditions are right to utilize the tech; otherwise, limited usefulness and NOT worth the cost.

If Russia gets a very good tech, then I think it would probably be best not to spend much more money on future tech rolls.  However, buy at least one more tech roll.  You never know when that one research marker, being rolled turn after turn until you get another tech, will come in handy and make things even easier for you.  Instead, just maximize the advantage that you have while you have it.

Well, those are my thoughts on tech rolls regarding Russia.  I would appreciate someone doing the same for another country.  Thanks.

@Cmdr:

It’s all random though, Axis.

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?

I fail to see how getting War Bonds is any worse than the defender scoring 3 hits out of 3 chances against your attacking bombers in a major battle, or how getting Radar is any worse than two defending submarines hitting your attacking battleship and your battleship missing.

Hmm, interesting thought… I think you’re right tech isn’t higher on the luck-scale than the average A&A sea + air battle or bombing raid. So it does make sense to include it if playing ADS.

Aah well, LL still rulz  8-)

@mikecool70:

Advanced Artillery:  Russia starts out with a lot of infantry and a 1 artillery build now gives Russia an attack of 4 instead of 3.  That’s like buying a bomber for the cost of only 4 IPCs (although admittedly, these “bombers” can only attack land and are limited to one space).  Such a tech would make it much more difficult for Germany to secure any territory of Russia’s that is next to an industrial complex.  In my opinion, the benefits for Russia are huge if they snag this tech.  Definitely worth the 20 IPC cost.

Err, your numbers are wrong: adv art gives you 6 attack instead of 5 when buying 2 inf 1 rtl. Now, let’s calculate how much attack you can buy for 20 IPC’s: 4 inf and 2 rtl = 10 attack 12 defense 6 hits >= 30 extra “power”. To match this with adv art, you would need to buy at least 30 x 2 inf 1 rtl = 60 inf 30 rtl = 400 IPC’s >= 15 Russian turns. Not mentioning the benefit of the immediate extra army over the prolonged time Russia would need before really benefitting from this tech. So I think you got something wrong here, adv art is definitely not worth the cost of 20 IPC’s…

@mikecool70:

Advanced Artillery:  Russia starts out with a lot of infantry and a 1 artillery build now gives Russia an attack of 4 instead of 3.  That’s like buying a bomber for the cost of only 4 IPCs (although admittedly, these “bombers” can only attack land and are limited to one space).  Such a tech would make it much more difficult for Germany to secure any territory of Russia’s that is next to an industrial complex.  In my opinion, the benefits for Russia are huge if they snag this tech.  Definitely worth the 20 IPC cost.

Err, your numbers are wrong: adv art gives you 6 attack instead of 5 when buying 2 inf 1 rtl. Now, let’s calculate how much attack you can buy for 20 IPC’s: 4 inf and 2 rtl = 10 attack 12 defense 6 hits >= 30 extra “power”. To match this with adv art, you would need to buy at least 30 x 2 inf 1 rtl = 60 inf 30 rtl = 400 IPC’s >= 15 Russian turns. Not mentioning the benefit of the immediate extra army over the prolonged time Russia would need before really benefitting from this tech. So I think you got something wrong here, adv art is definitely not worth the cost of 20 IPC’s…

One artillery attacks at a 2.  It also raises an infantry from a 1 to a 2.  So that’s an additional 3 attack if one artillery is bought.  With advanced artillery, an additional infantry is raised from 1 to 2.  So this gives the player a total of 4 extra attack if you have advanced artillery and buy one artillery.  That is how I came up with the “4 instead of 3” statement from my last post.

I did make a mistake in my last post regarding Mechanized Infantry.  If you spend 10 IPCs on R1, then obviously you are limited to 4 tanks built on R1 instead of 6.

Another thing I’ve thought of, it might be actually better to spend 15 IPCs on turn 1 for Russia.  That way, the Russian player could not spend any money on tech on turn 2 and still get 3 rolls if they did not get tech on turn 1.  They would still get 6 rolls but save 5 IPCs in the process.  Of course, this would result in 5 IPCs less of units for Russia on turn 1, so it’s debatable whether or not it’s worth it or not.

I think Russia should only spend 5 on Tech in Rd 1.  I don’t think they can afford 15 or even 10.  Germany can be pretty aggressive in rd 1 and regardless of the Tech Russia got if successful the lack of 5 infantry is going to hurt.  Plus there are only a few Techs that will help Russia and other than War bonds, the offensive techs would either require you to build boms, rt, or arm and are mainly good for attack where you are likely to be on the defensive early.

I would invest 5 because you never lose the roll and can always add one more roll on rd 2 if you did well in round 1.

I would think Jet ftrs would be pretty killer for Germany as well.  A 10 ipc unit that attacks and defends at 4.  Yikes!

I’d probably take my chances rolling on that chart, either HB or Jets would be awesome, LRA/Radar are certainly serviceable, while subs (unless rd 1) and shipyards require a strategy shift or are useless.

If you got Jets and LRA early enough, game over.  The Allies wouldn’t be able to keep a ship in the water.

I thinking about the Heavy Bomber Tech. Is it optimal in the way it looks today?

I think there is two options:

• Keep it the way it looks today: 2D6 SBR dmg, 2D6 @4 on attack
• Use the LHTR variant: SBR-damage = D6+2, Attack value = 5, Defense value = 1

Any thoughts?

Super Submarines are useful. They are the cheapest ship and they can sink otehr ships without them retaliating. Of course Destroyers are their bane, but that doesn’t mean if the opponent has destroyers your subs are useless. Far from it, they can be used to pick off lonely ships, which would force your opponent to mass his fleet, which is in itself an advantage because they cannot sprawl all across the oceans hitting multiple targets. And subs can take out ships more powerful than themselves, I’ve seen plenty of battles where subs kill destroyers, cruisers, carriers, and even battleships. I’ll trade a sub for any of those, any day. Super Subs just make them even better at attacking. I’ll admit that it isn’t a huge improvement, but still it’s nice to sink those ships on a 3, when they could have fired back and killed your sub otherwise.

The problem with Heavy Bombers, they way I see it, is that they are extremely powerful against navy…

A unit that is rolling 2@4, and costs 12…
Sure, it can only soak 1 hit, but still… How can build anything to defend against that?

For 34 ipc, the naval defender can buy  2FTRs+1CV, equal 2@4 1@2, “3 hitpoints”
For 36 ipc, the HB Attacker can buy 3 Heavies, equalling 6@4, and also “3 hitpoints”…

The HB:s will just clear the oceans, the way I see it…

I am new to this site, but a long time AA player with a few dozen AA50 games under my belt, and I thought I would throw in my few cents about tech. 
It seems that tech has been a huge determining factor in the games I have played thus far.  Long range aircraft and heavy bombers have been game changing developments, usually allowing for the sinking of a previously assumed safe navy.  And in several games Germany has received Mech Inf just when Russia seemed to have staved off the initial onslaught. 
And while I can’t say that I enjoy having my plans laid to waste, I do enjoy the extent of variety the tech creates from game to game.  No two have even been similar, as we are forced to adapt to the changing dynamic.
  Also I must say that super subs (and subs at all) can be very useful if played correctly.  While I would rather have other techs instead, I have seen America dominate the Pacific with this advancement, and Germany keep the allies at bay in the Atlantic (assuming an IC in France).

The problem with tech is that as Axis you need to get the NO’s ASAP in order to have some comfortable buying cushion for them. 
Now your strategy is –strive to get NO’s --to get tech --to blow out opponent.  This strategy just seem too linear.

Also, the 3% chance is skewed thinking.  Heavy Bombers is not the only bone-crushing tech.

Certain tech can be devastating for certain powers depending on who gets them. 
The US, because of its location of safety on the map and its diverse battlefronts, can utilize more of the tech than other nations, that will increase the 3% to 6%, 12% or over 20%- big difference. 
I don’t want my game decided by large amounts of chance like that.  Its like playing roulette- or Russian roulette for that matter!

Like I’ve said before, I think playing with tech is fun, and even though it is much better than Revised, it still skews the game greatly.  In FTF tournaments, they never play with tech because of this very logical reasoning.  IMHO-leave tech for entertainment night.

Questioneer
:-)

Question is then, maybe figure out how to rebalance out the weaker and stronger of the techs such that they are all balanced, and all useful, and not instantly game crushing.
If Long Range Aircraft cripples enemy plans because of the fact that it is an instantaneous and indefensible attack, then perhaps make that one take effect at the end of the round. If Heavy Bombers at 2x4 is too decimating compared to other techs, perhaps make it powerful enough but not fleet crippling…perhaps 1 auto hit every round, and a strategic bombard always of 6? It’s more powerful than just increase its strength to 5, but can only still manage one kill a round so whole fleets wont fall to just a handful of heavy bombers.
Now, by making stronger techs weaker, you must make weaker techs stronger to still balance the system. Question is then, which are the weaker techs, and how do you justify their usefulness?

You can’t identify the weaker techs because for every tech there is a country that benefits more than others. For example, Improved shipyards help Japan, UK and US but do little for Germany and Russia.

Your best bet would be to dumb down the more powerful techs

I think for heavy bombers, an attack 5/defense 2 and +2 damage on SBRs is adequate. No unit(except rockets) should ever auto-hit in a game.

LRA should add only 1 move instead of 2 to the range of aircraft.

And there should be a limit to the number of infantry capable of being moved as mech infantry, such as 1 or 2 per turn. Or keep the unlimited number of moves, but limit it to being used only during non-combat.