Cutting the Italian legs out from under the axis

U. Soldier:

Perhaps you are not thinking critically enough.

Good players will account for the odds their opponents will get the technology to give them an edge.  What goes into those odds includes more than just the dice.

a)  Your opponent may not have a history of rolling for technology in this game.  So the odds of them getting that technology is significantly lower than normal.

b)  Your opponent may not have a history of rolling for technology in any game.  So the odds of them getting that technology is virtually zero.

c)  Your opponent may already have 6 researchers on staff and 5 of the six technologies, so the odds of them getting the last one is virtually guaranteed.

d)  Your opponent may have a few of the technologies and no researchers on staff, so the odds of them getting the one s/he needs is significantly higher than normal.

It’s more than just 1 in 36.  1 in 36 is the odds of getting any technology assuming you have not gotten any on that chart and are only rolling one die.  It’s significant to note, but it’s not the entire calculation a GOOD player will account for.

Bad players, the ones who complain about technology usually, do not account for their opponents playing habits when it comes to technology nor the impact of the technology.

I’m sorry, I just cannot feel sorry for someone who puts their fleet in range of a dozen bombers when their opponent has 5 of the 6 technologies on their chart and gets the last one, Heavy Bombers, and sinks their fleet.  It’s not the technology’s fault, it’s not the fault of getting the technology immediately instead of next round, it’s the fleet owner’s fault for being stupid enough to move their fleet in range without accounting for the significantly high chance their opponent would get the tech needed.

I can feel a little sorry for the guy who leaves his capitol undefended and his opponent gets Paratroopers taking it without loss when he had no technologies at all.

But let’s remember, tech cuts both ways.  Good players can work this to their advantage, bad players whine about not having a full game turn to evade a technology and thereby basically eliminate it as a useful tool.

I usually stay out of the ‘tech’ arguments but honestly, planning for low-odds events does not make you a ‘good’ player. If you have 9 Inf and 1 Fighter in Germany and your Brit opponent can land with 2 Art, 3 Inf and 1 Fighter with a BB shelling his odds of taking Germany are LOW. So does a ‘good’ player reinforce Germany (at the cost of weakening his position in Russia) on the off-chance that he gets abysmally screwed by the dice?
I would think definately ‘no’. But if he makes that attack and you lose, you still lose the game to outright luck.

You have to play the odds or else you will lose in the long run. If you get screwed by bad dice, you get screwed by bad dice whether it be tech or battles or whatever. So that means you more or less have to plan for the odds and try your best to overcome the ones where you get zapped. If its a critical battle or a critical tech, you might lose the game right there. But in either case, its bad luck (or opponents’ good luck, I guess) which is the deciding factor, not some ‘failure to plan’ because you are a ‘bad player’.

Perhaps you are not thinking critically enough.

:roll:

Yet another insult to my intelligence. What about the people who agree with me? I guess they’re just “not thinking critically enough” either, huh?

I’m sorry, I just cannot feel sorry for someone who puts their fleet in range of a dozen bombers when their opponent has 5 of the 6 technologies on their chart and gets the last one, Heavy Bombers, and sinks their fleet.

That’s obviously NOT what I’m talking about here. Why must you always resort to straw-man arguments and ad-hominem attacks to prove your point? Perhaps YOU are the one who is not thinking critically enough?

I can feel a little sorry for the guy who leaves his capitol undefended and his opponent gets Paratroopers taking it without loss when he had no technologies at all.

This is the kind of thing I’m talking about. How would it be a bad thing to eliminate these Yahtzee plays from the game? This is a strategy game, not roulette. Yes, luck play a part. But you should’t be able to lose the game on round 1 from one lucky roll, in my opinion.

I agree and support Unknown Soldier’s opinion.

You seem awfully defensive for a man who I did not attack.

Furthermore, it’s not a straw-man argument, it’s a logical and very often seen scenario.

Say Japan has 5 techs on Chart 2 and none of them are Heavy Bombers.  America moves their fleet into range of LR Bombers, knowing they have a 90% chance to win if attacked as the board is set up now.  Japan rolls and gets heavy bombers (maybe they spent 100% of their cash on it, dunno…logical though considering they have 5 techs already and probably have at least 40 IPC to get 8 rolls for the last one) and now the odds are not 90% defender advantage but now 85% attacker advantage.  Now the Japanese sink the Americans.

Many people, I suppose yourself included based on how guilty you seem to feel and how defensive you are, would whine that technology is broken.  Technology is not broken, you made a bone-headed move and a superior player capitalized on it.  But instead of learning from that mistake, you want to nerf technology so that the same situation would result in you being able to sink the Japanese fleet (since they blew all their cash on technology for HBs instead of buying ships to defend their fleet) or at the least, forcing them out of position and now you can laugh and sail off into the sunset.

Nah, stop trying to screw up the game and learn how to play.  Sorry, it’s brutal, but it’s also true.

Trying to nerf technology like you are is akin to nerfing tank blitzes because you forgot to leave a man in position to stop your opponent from blitzing into your under-defended capitol and you lost.  Just like I won’t support you nerfing blitzing, I won’t support you nerfing technology either.

(PS:  For the record, that last WAS a strawman, I wanted to show you what one was since you obviously have no clue what they are, you just decided it was a cool thing to say so you could appear smarter than your average bear.)

Let’s not change the subject.  Anniversary Enhanced was released for players who enjoyed the added complexities of Revised Enhanced.  It’s a completely different scenario.  Either admit you’re defeated on this topic, or stick to the topic.

Your suspected inability to handle the dynamics of normal game play resulting in your unrealistic hopes of nerfing rules that you seem to be unable to handle is the matter in which we are discussing.

Fact:  Every incarnation of Axis and Allies has been released with technology coming into effect immediately upon discovery.

Sure, LHTR changed this, but LHTR was never officially endorsed by the game manufacturers and has always been considered house rules.

So what does this fact tell us?  It tells us the games have always been designed that technology comes into play the instant it is discovered.

At least in LHTR there was a good reason, getting LRA with Germany round 1 prevented England from ever really playing.  Since there was no way for England to avoid it, something had to be done.

You don’t want to nullify the impact of something you cannot possibly avoid.  You want to nullify the impact of something you should be perfectly capable of avoiding or at least planing contingencies around.

To me this smacks of very bad game play on your part.  This is not an issue of the rules providing a scenario that is both devastating and unavoidable.  This is an issue of your inability to adequately plan your strategies so instead of getting better at the game, you want to screw around with the rules to make it easier for you.

@Cmdr:

Fact:  Every incarnation of Axis and Allies has been released with technology coming into effect immediately upon discovery.

Fact: MANY and I mean MANY Classic and 3rd edition (Cd-Rom) players did NOT play with the much too-random (read dicey) tech rules.

Fact: LHTR fixed this problem.  Tech at the end of a turn does not allow a player to ‘win the game with a yahtzee roll’

And Anniversary fixed this issue too.  Tech is an OPTIONAL rule.

Don’t get me wrong, I actually like the new tech rules, although they are still a bit too random for me (only can target 1 of 6)

I have said it before, and I will say it again:

Directed guarenteed immediate tech is not a good thing.

The enables the team with the most money to leverage their IPC advantage.  No delays, no risk to not get a weapon… I have the cash, tech “A” will give me a huge advantage… I can afford it, I buy it and use it right now.

The game is totally different by allowing techs to be bought and used the same turn.

Apologies for hijacking this thread and turning it into a discussion on tech.

Footsey??

Well I think that If you sink Most of teh UK navy in G1. CA and DD, DD and BB and tran. The I-ties should take gibralter I1 and build a transport and G1 should be reinforcing Lybia with andother tank and Inf.

Why attack when you are weak and your opponet cant reinforece. You can attack G2 with 2 tanks 3 inf and a bomber and 2 fighters form sinking brit fleet and in I2 you can attack with 2 tanks 4 inf a CA’s amd BB and a fighter. Perpare you forces first. then attack. Your loss will be less the more you attack with because there is a more likey chance that there will be a wipe out in the first or second dice roll  not the third or fourth.

@Cmdr:

Trying to nerf technology like you are is akin to nerfing tank blitzes because you forgot to leave a man in position to stop your opponent from blitzing into your under-defended capitol and you lost.

You are actually delusional enough to think that dice rolls and combat moves/non combat moves are the same issues  :roll:

@Cmdr:

I won’t support you nerfing technology either.

Finally we agree on something, because tech should been removed completely. Larry Harris have said that he hates tech, but he has “been told” to keep it in the game. At least its optional in AA50.

Now then, back to the topic, which happens to be eliminating Italy.

Italy’s primary defense is obviously Germany. Britain can’t effectively hit them quickly because the third reich is right smack in between them. Pushing into the Mediterranean will be difficult because of the Italian fleet, which will survive past the first turn if you are playing an experienced player. What can be done about the Italian Navy then?

I intend to focus the US war effort on Japan, so that leaves Italy as Britains problem. My opponents tend to eliminate most of my navy on turn one, so I will have to start from scratch in that department. Aircraft are cheaper than ships though, and have longer striking range. Would a strong air force be Britians best bet at knocking out Italy?

I think Britain could take out Italy’s fleet pretty easily with it’s bombers and shipping, if they aren’t too screwed over by the G1 attacks of course.

And then the USA could send over it’s bomber just in case.

You can squirm all you want, fact is, tech is in the game and if the game is using tech (as most AA50 games do) you have to be a good enough player to account for it.

Missing that someone could get tech with a high probability (due to other techs on the chart already attained and a high number of researchers) is akin to missing that your opponent bought 5 submarines.  You can lose your fleet in either case, but I don’t see people complaining that their opponents bought the submarines!

Seriously, if tech is forced to take an entire turn to come into play, than all purchases should also have to take a turn to come into play.  If it’s good for the goose, it’s good for the gander.

As for Italy, best track I’ve seen thus far is to mass invade Africa with England.  Problem is, Germany generally has enough air power to obliterate the British if they even dream of going to SZ 12 before round 3 or 4, and that assumes England spends buku bucks on naval ships like extra BBs and Carriers and stuff to defend against the 7-10 German Aircraft.

Thats 3 or 4 rounds Italy has to run amuck virtually uncontested.

What has not worked, as far as I have seen, is America spending a paycheck on Submarines and hoping that the bombers and submarines they have is enough to sink the Italians.

If you want the fleet dead at any costs on UK1 land 2 figs on gibralter and 2 inf, sacing the transport, buy 3 bombers and take out the german transport with your egypt fig landing on gibralter or your bomber.  Make the Russians purchase a bomber, or a fig or 2 and place either 2 inf in persia or 1 inf and a tank or two being in cauc.  Keep your 2 inf in trans-jordan as well as the bomber or egypt fig.  On R2 they retake trans-jordan, UK blows up fleet, plus keeps surviving bombers to bomb italy.

Is it worth it?  Not really.  I prefer the US landing in algeria along with UK backup then hitting it with air/sea units preferably with carriers as there fighters can strike 3 spaces away with the carrier chasing them.

And how on earth can the UK not protect SZ12 on turn 2?  They have 43 IPC, plus at least one surviving destroyer along with the US destroyer plus whatever US deploys there turn 1.  The UK can buy up to 2 carriers (28), 1 fig (38), and whatever, land the US fig on the second carrier, if Egypt fig survived land it there and purchase a cruiser or additional transport instead.  There is no way on G3 they will sink 2 loaded carriers and 2 destroyers, not to mention an additional destroyer or two the US buys if they are so inclined, it would take all 4 figs and 4 more bombers to have 1.5 survive and i’d take that trade.  Granted the UK can only send 1 trannie worth of units but Italy really cant send much down and the US can bridge from Canada and that SZ so its not that big of a deal.

One last thought, Jenn, no one is saying that you shouldn’t pay attention when an enemy has 5 researchers and the last tech on the list is heavy bombers that you shouldn’t prepare for it.  People are complaining when the US buys a single researcher on turn 2, gets heavy bombers, and on that turn destroys Japan’s fleet change the course of the game.  Or Germany gets paratroopers on turn 2 and takes moscow when they shouldn’t have been able to reach it.  Those are 1 in 36 odds, much more common than the situation you describe, its rare but you cannot possibly expect a player to always assume that the opponent might buy a researcher, and might get that roll.  That is where the beef is.  The other thing is the only two techs that are this extreme are heavy bombers, and to a lesser extent paratroopers.  Every other tech is less overwhelming or takes time to come into play by its very nature.

And the odds of that happening are less than the chance you lose all your bombers to AA Gun fire costing you the battle and the game.

I don’t see people saying we need to nerf AA Guns which are potentially much more devastating than technology since you are guarenteed access to building AA Guns, but you have to buy researchers AND get a six (and only one per round) AND get the tech number you want.

1 in 36 chance of getting HB.  1 in 6 chance of your AA Gun shooting down the bomber and costing you the game.  Looks to me like AA Guns are a much bigger threat to game stability than technology is….but then, good players would account for that too and send in a tank instead or maybe just make sure they have plenty of units so that losses to AA Fire won’t cost them the battle…and those are probably the same players who say “uh, yea, he’s PROBABLY going to get HBs, so I might want to hang back a bit.”

Anyway, what idiot loses the Japanese fleet on USA 2 when America stumbles on HBs?  On Japan 2 your fleet should be well outside the range of American bombers anyway!

And lastly, tech is not a one way street.  Feel free to get your own tech.  You think the American HBs are winning the game for America, get some Japanese HBs and win the game for Japan.  Obviously the standpoint is you just “get” the technology like you get a battleship or a carrier, right?

Lets keep this thread on topic (discussing Italy).

Feel free to create a new thread for the Tech vs. No Tech debate.

No one’s put anyone in their place.

Good strategy will beat luck almost every time.

For instance, should we nerf building units because you were tired one night and failed to see the 4 battleships move into range of your fleet resulting in your fleets destruction?  Of course not.  A good player would not have missed that!

Should we nerf technology because you were tired one night and failed to notice your opponent had 5 of 6 techs on the chart and 6 researchers left over from last round and left your fleet vulnerable to attack if they got the tech (which was an exceptionally high probability?) Of course not!

Should we nerf AA Guns because you made an attack figuring at least one of your 3 aircraft would survive and give you odds of success, but the AA Guns shot down all 3 of your fighters? (Similar odds to someone blindly getting a technology)  Of course not.

Should we nerf battleships because someone had 4 of them, they all hit, and you didn’t manage to sink one before losing all your attackers?  No.

Can all that happen in a game?  Yes.  That’s what makes it a game, not a computer program following a script.

PS:  Tech is not optional.  It’s included in the main body of the rules, it’s never included in the section at the end of the manual with the optional rules.  Just because you’re an inferior player does not mean we should be punished because of your inability to adapt to the game rules and board when facing a superior opponent.

Now, does it suck if England gets LRA in round 1 and Germany decided not to attack the SZ 12 fleet?  Yes.  You very well might lose the Italian fleet before getting to use it.  You’re stupid game play for not even attacking the SZ 12 fleet though, not technology’s fault.

Does it suck if Japan scores those HBs and can sink the American fleet?  Yes.  But it’s your bad game play that left yourself that vulnerable.  If Japan’s blowing gobs of cash on technologies, you should own the Pacific and be able to recover from losing your fleet (probably with Paratroopers and LRA if not HBs of your own.)

Does it suck when Germany gets Mechanized Infantry and can bring the war to Russia faster?  Yes.  But then, Russia shouldn’t leave itself exposed to massive gains if they are being played correctly.

Technology, like units, are just a part of the game.  If we start pulling out valid, functioning rules like technology, why don’t we just get rid of all the pieces and have 1 navy unit, 1 air unit and 1 ground unit that way everyone has exactly the same thing…oh wait, your bad game play will still be bad game play and you’ll try to figure out a way to nerf that too.

Anyway, with or without tech, GOOD players will endeavor to do a few things:

1)  Italy needs to start getting control of Africa.

2)  If the Italian fleet is in imminent danger, it might be wise to put an IC in Egypt.  At least it will replace the lost transport.

3)  Why leave the fleet unaugmented?  A destroyer goes a long way to increasing the long gevity of the Italian fleet.  A carrier and another fighter wouldn’t be a bad investment either.

Given that, good allied players won’t rely on one thing to give them a win.  Good players will use tech, position and units to win (instead of crying like a 3 year old when they don’t get there way.)  So how can the allies take out Italy?

best way is to take out Germany.

Second best way is to control Africa and then move some submarines and bombers in range.  If Italy dumps a lot of boats in the water, at least they are not dumping a lot of ground troops on the map.

Third best way is to put a 500 IPC Russian army in Balkans forcing your opponent to chose between Italy and Germany. (They’ll chose Germany probably, and then you can take out Italy.)

I’m not in favor of nerfing anything; I’m just saying that a tech can change the winning side to the losing side. This can happen for both the axis and the allies, basing your overall strategy on combating the possibility of the other getting it is ridiculous. Your assumption that we should base our tactics off of the possibility of an enemy getting a tech is worthless. In the basis of this thread it was about saving the Italian fleet not winning all battles, just the first few rounds.

I agree.  Technology can change the winning side to the losing side.  So can an AA Gun, so can a single round of a single battle, so can Battleship/Cruisers and so can superior game play.

I don’t think we need to moan and cry about AA Guns, single rounds of single battles that go way out of the expected range (but within the valid sample set) or battleships and cruisers that cannot seem to hit anything or moaning about better players winning or lesser players lucking out and winning any more than I think we need to cry about technology being unfair or broken.

Technology is not unfair, it’s not broken, it’s not optional, it’s a valid, functioning, integral part of the game.  Good players will account for it’s impact.  Bad players will not.  Just like good players realize there is a chance that an AA Gun will score 12/15 hits when you attack (which is why I run simulators assuming all my BBs/CAs miss and all my fighters/bombers are shot down).  It might be unlikely (like getting a technology is) but it’s still a valid result and should be accounted for, even if you account for it by dismissing it as a valid threat.