Cmdr Jennifer Hijacks “Enhanced” – How do you really feel about it.

@Cmdr:

Unlike in AAR, instant tech does not mean instant win.

I never said it was an instant win.  I said it breaks the game.

I would forgo a G1 ground unit buy to eliminate both UK transports (and a BB) AND take Egypt.  Sz2 with Super subs and 2 ftrs on a BB & tpt is the weakest battle Germany would face.  Western europe need not be protected the first round of battle.  Germany could play conservative out east to where Russia could not counter anywhere.

That great of an ADVANTAGE for Germany would be VERY hard (if not impossible) to over come.  And this is only the beginning of the pay to play game that would be AA50Jen.

@Cmdr:

So what’s the point in making a huge, game changing, change to the rules?

HOLY SHIT! that is EXACTLY what I have been saying about AA50!  WHY make all these changes to the AA50 rules?  But you insist your GAGGLE of copy-and-paste rules from AARe is exactly what AA50e is all about.

Even YOU admit you’re wrong….

Super submarines don’t exist in AA50e, axis.  More proof you didn’t even bother to read the rules before going on your crusade.

Some rules had to be changed to make an AA50e.  Some people happen to enjoy CRD and submarine detection rules, etc.  To incorporate those rules into AA50 (and others people liked like D-Day and Non-Aggression Treaty, etc) we had to bring all the rules in.  But making huge, ground shaking changes like making tech wait until a full game round had passed before you can use it didn’t make sense.  The board was not set up in such a way that getting tech at the start of your current turn made it an instant win like it was in Revised. LHTR and AARe only made tech come into play after a full game turn because it was an instant win on that game board map.

Anyway, let’s look at your option:

Spend all on tech, save 1.

You have the bomber going to Egypt, so it is not available.

So you have 4 Fighters, 2 Submarines to clear SZ 9, SZ 12 and SZ 2.  Sorry, impossible.  Even if super submarines existed, and they don’t, you’d never have a chance in hell.  Especially since you said 2 submarines and a fighter went to SZ 2 (I’ll ignore the impossible move of the second fighter to SZ 2, the one in NW Europe cannot reach, you were going for SS, not LRA.)

You don’t have the firepower.  Not possible.  You need the bomber to do it, and that means Egypt is probably not falling into Germany’s hands in round 1.  That means you have 3 rounds with no reinforcements, you have no Egypt, England and Russia will absolutely crucify you.

No offense, but dumb move.  It was tried during testing.

Smarter move was attempted, getting LRA and trying for Sea Lion, but that’s 50/50 if you don’t include the AA Gun, it’s 30/70 if you do include it.  But it’s a smarter move.

Anyway, no, in your phrasing, instant guaranteed  technology is not broken.  There’s no way it can be used in Round 1 to adversely affect game play to your advantage, it can be used round 1 to absolutely destroy your chances to win the game though.

However, if you wish to prove me wrong, we can always play a game.  Unless you’re too afraid to stand behind your accusation.

@Cmdr:

Super submarines don’t exist in AA50e, axis.  More proof you didn’t even bother to read the rules before going on your crusade.

Hmmm.  Germany cannot take Wolf packs on G1?  It is one of their NA’s, correct?  So I mislabeled this incorrectly, but the end result is a sub attacking at a three (when undetected)

I have read the rules, I have made a post about all the problems

@Cmdr:

You have the bomber going to Egypt, so it is not available.

So you have 4 Fighters, 2 Submarines to clear SZ 9, SZ 12 and SZ 2.  Sorry, impossible.  Even if super submarines existed, and they don’t, you’d never have a chance in hell.  Especially since you said 2 submarines and a fighter went to SZ 2 (I’ll ignore the impossible move of the second fighter to SZ 2, the one in NW Europe cannot reach, you were going for SS, not LRA.)

You don’t have the firepower.  Not possible.  You need the bomber to do it, and that means Egypt is probably not falling into Germany’s hands in round 1.  That means you have 3 rounds with no reinforcements, you have no Egypt, England and Russia will absolutely crucify you.

This is not the move I proposed.  I never suggested sinking the entire UK navy, just the key ships in sz2 (tpt) and sz9 (tpt) so as to not have to worry about not buying any ground units on G1.  Also, 90% win in Egypt is pretty damn strong in my book, considering most top players believe Egypt is almost a must take for Germany on round 1.

@Cmdr:

No offense, but dumb move.  It was tried during testing.

yes, you are trying to be offensive, please don’t patronize me.

Anyways, please show me the game where my proposed move was tested?

@Cmdr:

Anyway, no, in your phrasing, instant guaranteed  technology is not broken.  There’s no way it can be used in Round 1 to adversely affect game play to your advantage, it can be used round 1 to absolutely destroy your chances to win the game though.

Right, absolutely destroy Germanys chances of winning the game.

Again, instant guaranteed tech breaks the game.  Period.  I never said I would win the game in round one because of it.  I didn’t say instant guaranteed tech WINS the game, I said it breaks the game.

Who wants to play a game where you have to defend against every possible tech (if your opponent has the money)?  THAT sort of game is NOT the Enhanced game I know and love.

Oh yes, and America can do it alot cheaper.  Tech investment for US allows guaranteed 4 dice techs.  That is sickening.  The US player should buy a tech a turn. $20 heavy bombers?  $16 long range (yep, UK would buy long range before USA).  So for $36, US will have long range heavy bombers? for USE ON US2?

THINK about that huge hole in these rules

So for $36, US will have long range heavy bombers for USE ON US2

OK, who used that in play testing?

@Cmdr:

However, if you wish to prove me wrong, we can always play a game.  Unless you’re too afraid to stand behind your accusation.

Why do I want to play a beat such a weak opponent?  I am not sure what crushing you, with rules I have never played, prove?  Wait, in true Jenny-like fashion, how about some off the wall ultimatum:

When we play and I win, you have to remove your post about the ‘OFFICIAL’ AA50e rules?

If you are so confident that my G1 move is so “dumb”, if you are so sure that my move “can be used round 1 to absolutely destroy your chances to win the game”, put your Rule-making reputation on the line.

You have a distinct advantage:

• I have never played the game of AA50Jen (I never wanted to, rules do not appear balanced to me)

• You know what Germany will be doing on G1

• You are so confident that my critique is “dumb” and Germany using it round 1 would “absolutely destroy your chances to win the game.”

Just to make it fair, we’ll make it a three game series.
Each player gets to play each side once.  If a third game is needed, we’ll bid for what ever we agree is the weaker side for game three.

Do you accept my proposal?  I win, you take down your ‘official’ rules post.

You win, I post no more about AA50Jen.

This thread just got a whole lot better.

First off, the National Advantages are additional optional rules, not part of the core rules.  They’re akin to the optional rules released by WOTC including escorts and segregated SZ 16.  I don’t expect a lot of players using them, most of the play testers did not, but there was a strong movement to keep national advantages to offer uniquness to the different nations.

Per your link, let me take them one at a time:

1)  National Advantages are optional, see above.  If they are incorporated at all, then the method of incorporation will be decided between the two players.  I suspect, all national advantages will be in play, or none.  But that does not mean it couldn’t be limited to four per side, or one for each nation, or whatever the players want.  It’s completely optional.

2)  Paratroopers are a minor technology because they are not as powerful as the major technologies and we wanted a balance, 50% major, 50% minor.  Honestly, I wanted Major, Minor and Intermediary, but I was organizing a democracy, not an autocracy.

Anyway, Paratroopers didn’t make it easier or harder to win naval battles, they negate SBR runs and they can really only help turn the tide of the battle in your favor, not change the tide of the battle like Heavy Bombers, Jet Fighters, Super Destroyers (I call them Heavy Destroyers), etc can if enacted late in the game just before a conflict.

3)  Italy’s second NA is actually much broader than either of their National Objectives.  They have to own pretty much everything connected to the Med instead of just a couple of territories.

As for why they got that instead of something else, it is pretty powerful if you collect for it and it brings them in line with the other major nations on the board with 3 NOs basically.

Whether or not there is a better second NA for Italy, I don’t know.  If you think of a better one, I’m sure some of the testers won’t mind trying it.  But since it’s an optional rule anyway, I don’t think it’s a huge deal.

4)  The extra bump in the war bonds was to bring the technology up in power to be like the rest.  It was deemed too weak for anyone to purposely try for it (kinda like Russia buying a battleship, happens sometimes, but not very often.)  Yes, there is a lot of randomness too it, but 83% of the time you’ll be earning 1 to 5 IPC a round off it, the other 17% of the time you’ll get 7 to 12 IPC.  It’s not a huge difference, but it can be nice when it lands in your favor.

5)  New Technologies are acquired when you buy them.  Obviously this can be run to your advantage and this does require your opponent to be much more careful about what s/he does.  But it’s equally powerful for each side, therefore, it’s in balance.

Just because Japan has 12 destroyers that they upgrade to Super Destroyers just before a battle does not mean America couldn’t have done the exact same thing.

Just because Germany can turn their bomber into a heavy bomber does not mean England couldn’t do the same thing.

6)  Technically speaking, everyone can build undetectable submarines.  Literally speaking, players generally get technologies to undo the enemy’s technologies.

For instance, if Japan gets Heavy Bombers, America can get Radar.  Radar would basically eliminate 33% of those heavy bombers from even getting a first attack.

Or let’s say Germany goes for Improved Shipyards making their submarines undetectable, England can counter with Long Range Aircraft and restore the detection value.

7. I don’t know why Germany would put the Artillery in Germany and transport it to the Baltic States for an attack, but yes, you could.  Wouldn’t it be smarter to put it in Poland so you don’t use up a transport spot?

8.) I agree with you on China’s NA.  But since NAs are completely optional, I don’t think it’ll be huge.

Sure, we can do three games, figured one would be all you would be up for, if you would be up for any.

It’ll be AA50e with no optional rules, just core rules.

As for taking down posts, the forum doesn’t let you.

As for AA50:Jen, that already exists, it’s a pure, new set of rules. (Obviously I didn’t invent every new idea in AA50:Jen, some of them were discussed in other places and other times, most in regards to AAR; but it’s new and pure because it’s not based on someone else’s house rules.)

How about this, you edit your posts to read that the game is up to the standards of AARe and is balanced if I win 2 of three, and if I lose 2 of 3, I’ll say that you showed there was an inbalance.  Though, our game history shows you winning more games than I do, so you have a distinct advantage there.  As for experience advantage, there isn’t any, you have more experience with AARe than I do, and since the rules are almost a direct copy of AARe, you have the advantage there as well.

I presently have three games ongoing.  That is my limit.

But I will let you know when I free up to play our game 1.

I also have to defend my current AARe title over at AAMC soon in the final match, so that will take precendence whenever that game is ready to be played.

The funny thing is that (AARe) Enhanced had the national advantages as standard, here they are optional.  Probably better that way anyways, I never thought they should even be included in AA50.

I really think going shopping for a weapon is bad bad bad.

I am sure there is a certain optimal sequence for buying tech for each side that could be found through a few games of play testing.  And by optimal, I mean game breaking strategies.

The key to the success of AARe was that there was no such thing as a game breaking strategy.  When one was found, things were tweaked to fix the issue.  This version of the rules can not have been game play tested enough to tweak out those game breaking strategies.

BTW, it appears I can ‘remove’ a post in this forum.  At least it’s an option on my threads.

I will go over the rules {again} to try and find any gaps.  Did you fix the gaps I found in my first go round?  Please do so and repost.  I want to review an updated version as to not duplicate my previous work.

The rules should be clear enough in a stand alone version.  There should be no gaps/assumptions (like it worked like that in AARe, so you should know that’s how it works).

My bad, you are correct, in this forum I do have the option to remove posts.  I must have been in a forum that did not allow it before, perhaps a game forum when last I checked.

As for your original post of issues, I responded to them each individually.  Most of the issues were related to National Advantages, but those are optional.  As you said, there’s really no valid reason for them in Anniversary, but they were in Revised Enhanced so some players wanted to bring them over anyway.  Their argument was along the lines of “we are working up from Revised Enhanced and NAs are in Revised Enhanced, so you cannot take them out without making huge changes to Enhanced and violating your own rule of minimal changes, Jennifer.” Well, not word for word, but you get the gist of it.  So we included them as completely option with the hopes and dreams they’d never actually be used by the gaming world. :)

As for an optional way to go shopping for technology, in regular Anniversary I advise certain nations to invest 5-10 IPC a round for tech.  Lately I’ve been playing with no tech for myself while letting others go for it because it was pointed out to me that tech is completely optional in Anniversary and I wanted to get a feel for playing without it.  In Anniversary Enhanced, I think tech is brought into play about the same as it was in Revised Enhanced except that you can use it instantly instead of waiting a game turn.  This really helps for major battles where you want to upgrade your destroyers right before a major engagement.  The counter to this, I have found, is that most players will assume your destroyers are super destroyers and factor that in to their movements.  It’s like assuming the enemy will have radar the round before you attack and factoring that into your purchases.  It’s more a planning and strategic thing than breaking technology.

Also, I think you should note, that submarines are able to be undetectable and they are able to be detectable 100% of the time given technologies controlled by each side.  Also, they have been reduced to 1 IPC CRD when adjacent to a complex (this is because bombers are so much cheaper and when coupled with rockets, you can already do incredible damage to the enemy, also because submarines are so blasted cheap in Anniversary it didn’t work out to be fair to have them doing so much CRD.)

As for Revised:Enhanced, I really enjoyed it.  There was only that one issue where the Axis could roll “Yahtzee” and win the game in Round 1 that was a problem.  It was never fixed.  (A simple fix would have been to require there to be a second round to any game.  This could hardly be seen as breaking Revised Enhanced and it would permanently end the “Yahtzee” win to which I mean: Germany takes Karelia and Caucasus on round 1, Japan takes Hawaii and India on Round 1, thus, game over.  It didn’t happen all the time, but I can remember two games I lost because the Axis did really well with the dice and got the VC before I had a chance to even do America.)

I will attempt to reword some of the rules so they are less confusing, without making any changes.  I don’t think it would be fair to make changes without going back to at least some of the testers and asking for input.

@Cmdr:

As for Revised:Enhanced, I really enjoyed it.  There was only that one issue where the Axis could roll “Yahtzee” and win the game in Round 1 that was a problem.  It was never fixed.  (A simple fix would have been to require there to be a second round to any game.  This could hardly be seen as breaking Revised Enhanced and it would permanently end the “Yahtzee” win to which I mean: Germany takes Karelia and Caucasus on round 1, Japan takes Hawaii and India on Round 1, thus, game over.  It didn’t happen all the time, but I can remember two games I lost because the Axis did really well with the dice and got the VC before I had a chance to even do America.

That’s poor play by the allied player… allowing 4 VCs to fall round one is bad.
They SHOULD lose then.
UK should know how dire things are before their turn and know they HAVE to hold either India / Australia.

Taking the appropriate NA to ensure that they could hold India would be the proper thing to do.  I am afraid I have to disagree with you here, AARe has no yahtzee wins.

Didn’t have to do with good play on anyone’s side, it had to do with the axis playing rolling “Yahtzee”.

As the saying goes, Good Dice Rolls beat Good Tactics Anyday.

@Cmdr:

Didn’t have to do with good play on anyone’s side, it had to do with the axis playing rolling “Yahtzee”.

As the saying goes, Good Dice Rolls beat Good Tactics Anyday.

I disagree that this is a problem with Enhanced.

Did you read what I wrote, when UK realizes the game is on the line, they should make prudent moves to prevent 4 VC’s from being lost at the end of Japans first turn.

As for crazy dice, that’s a problem with A&A, not just ‘Enhanced’.

Yes, crazy dice is always a problem, but in Revised:Enhanced crazy dice can cost you the game in the first round, that’s not true in any other game of Axis and Allies.

Anyway, I’ve seen Japan suicide fighters and bombers to get that 4th VC and win in Round 1, there’s really not much England can do in the face of a Japanese player willing to trade fighters for infantry to get 4 VC.

Just saying, no rule set is perfect including Revised:Enhanced.  If you want to find a way to break it, you’ll find a way.  I can do it in any game.  For instance, Anniversary 1941 OOB: Get Super Submarines just before attacking the American fleet thereby giving you 6 IPC Cruisers for your attack.

@Cmdr:

If you want to find a way to break it, you’ll find a way.  I can do it in any game.  For instance, Anniversary 1941 OOB: Get Super Submarines just before attacking the American fleet thereby giving you 6 IPC Cruisers for your attack.

So what you’re saying is… instant tech can lead to game-breaking situations?

And with super-subs, no less.  :lol:

@Unknown:

@Cmdr:

If you want to find a way to break it, you’ll find a way.  I can do it in any game.  For instance, Anniversary 1941 OOB: Get Super Submarines just before attacking the American fleet thereby giving you 6 IPC Cruisers for your attack.

So what you’re saying is… instant tech can lead to game-breaking situations?

And with super-subs, no less.  :lol:

No, I am saying that instant tech cannot lead to game-breakage if your opponent is strategically and tactically sound in his or her game play.

However, super submarines in Anniversary can be used in a game breaking manner.  Which is why super submarines were disposed of in Anniversary:Enhanced.

Honestly, if you are not going to read what is typed or the rules, why do you bother commenting?  At least axis showed he glanced at the rules once or twice because his points were well aimed, some of the rules were worded in a less than optimal way.  I’m sure once we’ve played a few games he’ll realize his misgivings are unfounded, that they occurred because of a misinterpretation of the rules or a misunderstanding of the rules.

@Cmdr:

No, I am saying that instant tech cannot lead to game-breakage if your opponent is strategically and tactically sound in his or her game play.

Then your example makes no sense at all. The American player can simply “plan ahead” to avoid the situation you descibed, right? By your logic, this should not be game-breaking, yet you cite this as an example of how the OOB rules can be broken. :? You are contradicting yourself here.

@Cmdr:

However, super submarines in Anniversary can be used in a game breaking manner.  Which is why super submarines were disposed of in Anniversary:Enhanced.

So let me get this straight… you took super subs out because they’re broken? Sorry, but that is just lol, and you know it. Here’s a quote from you in a thread you started in the 1941 forum:

Okay, tech is a bit random, so what?  You have a choice on what chart you roll on, so that’ll help a lot, and really, outside of Super Submarines, I don’t see a “bad” technology on the charts. (Thinking about it, if we fixed Super Submarines to negate Battleship 2 hit abilities, then they would be good!)

Here’s a hint: super subs aren’t the problem. If you disagree, then give me an exmple of how super subs can be used in a game-breaking manner which does not involve the exploitation of instant tech.

First off, when I say that a good player will take into account your enemy’s technologies, I am referring to Anniversary Enhanced, not OOB.

In OOB, you discount the chances of your opponent getting that one technology that will give them an edge since there is a 1 in 36 chance of getting it.

In Anniversary Enhanced, there is a 100% chance your opponent could get the technology, assuming they have the 30 IPC needed to buy all 6 dice (or 24 IPC if a minor tech, etc.)

Thus, in Anniversary, a good player will say “hey, they have 20 destroyers, I bet they’ll spend the money upgrading them to Suber Destroyers since that will add 20 punch to their attack value and nothing else they can spend 30 IPC on will do the same thing or more!”  So you’ll probably hang your navy back 3 spaces or leave a destroyer between you and the enemy so they cannot immediately attack you that round.

In OOB, there is a chance that your opponent will upgrade their 27 Submarines (roughly the same cost of 20 destroyers) to Super Submarines and have 6 IPC Cruisers in effect.

Honestly, I think 8 IPC Cruisers is more realistic than 6 IPC cruisers with sneak shots.  Most players agreed with me, which is why Super Submarines were replaced with Super Destroyers.

In my opinion, a 6 IPC Unit in the Sea that attacks at 3 or less is major league game breakage.  Especially if the other technology is gotten to make it a 5 IPC unit.

6 IPC at 3 or less = 12 IPC at 3 or less and you can see why people would avoid the cruisers altogether.  Why buy a cruiser when you can have 2 submarines for the same cost and at the same attack value?

8 IPC at 3 or less is not as bad.  It’s still a nice upgrade, but you are not getting twice as much for the money anymore.

Lastly, taking a quote from January, about 100 games ago, and trying to apply it to show a contradiction to something posted in March 100 games later is rather silly.

Honestly, you should know better than that.

There is a lot of things from January I no longer advocate doing in Anniversary.

I’ve learned that Anniversary can result in broken things like submarines being made super.  In the case of Super Submarines, the price should be increased from 6 IPC to 8 or 9 IPC.  Or, as we did, change it to Super Destroyers which at least negates sneak attacks at 3 or less and increases the cost to a more realistic ratio.

I’ve learned that Heavy Bombers are cute, but they’re not to die for.  They can help, but they won’t win the game for you.

I’ve learned that Paratroopers are far from useless, they’re potentially the best technology in the game (though many of you don’t agree with me yet, which is why they are a minor technology and not a major technology.)

I mean, you’re going back to something said hundreds of games ago is akin to me going back and getting an essay you wrote in the 9th grade and attempting to show contradiction between what you said then and what you said now.

Sure, you said both, but honestly, one would hope you learned something between then and now and it is what you learned that resulted in a difference in statements.

If you have seriously changed your position on super subs in the past 2 months, fine. I can appreciate that ideas and strategies evolve over time. I obviously disagree, but we can discuss that later.

The point I’m trying to make right now is about your stance on OOB tech rules. You said:

If you want to find a way to break it, you’ll find a way.  I can do it in any game.  For instance, Anniversary 1941 OOB: Get Super Submarines just before attacking the American fleet thereby giving you 6 IPC Cruisers for your attack.

Many players, including myself, were arguing exactly this in a thread 9 days ago. Yet, at the time, you refused to accept that the OOB tech rules are broken. In your own words:

Technology is not broken, you made a bone-headed move and a superior player capitalized on it.

So according to you, the Americans simply made a bone-headed move: what were they thinking, they left their fleet within range of potential super subs! There are plenty more examples of you vehemently defending the OOB tech rules, even claiming that anyone who complains about them is just “unable to think critically” or just bad at strategic planning.

Yet, 9 days later, you cite an example of a game-breaking situation that can arise due to tech. Your positions in these threads are contradictory. And don’t try to tell me you changed your mind for AA50:Jen, because that thread was started after you released your rules.

I mean, do you really not see this? On the one hand, you say tech is fine when I argue otherwise in the 1941 forum, but now its broken when you need to pimp your new rule set. This two-faced attitude you invoke to suit your current agenda really makes it hard to take you, or your rules, seriously. It tells me that your position on any given rule is not necessarily based on logic or playtesting, but on your flavor of the week, which is likely just the opposite position of someone you don’t like personally. The problem is that you would rather win every argument than accept that someone else’s argument has merit. This is not conducive to creating a good rule set.

Exactly, in my scenario the Americans made a bone-headed move.

Doesn’t change the fact I think a submarine attacking at 3 or less is broken.  Submarines are too cheap.  At least in Revised a submarine cost 8 IPC, so attacking as strong as a destroyer (back then they attacked at 3 or less as well, and cost 10 IPC) wasn’t so much of an issue.  Now a submarine is half the cost of a unit that attacks at 3 or less, that’s broken.  It should virtually never happen where it is cheaper to upgrade a unit than it is to buy new ones.

Advanced artillery is still cheaper to buy new units. (1 Artillery only upgrades 1 extra Infantry by 1, so that’s only +1 punch, a new artillery is +2 punch even without infantry, +3 with an infantry present.  Cheaper to buy new than upgrade old.)

Heavy Bombers is still cheaper to buy two units than upgrade one. (1 AA Shot, no more bombers vs 1 AA shot dropping you to one bomber.  Cheaper.)

Super Submarines is cheaper to upgrade than build new.  They cost 50% as much as a cruiser and attack at the same level.  Why would you pay for a cruiser when you can upgrade your submarines and buy 2 for the price of 1?

To me, that’s what makes a technology “broken.”  Once it becomes better to upgrade than to buy new, it’s no longer an augmentation to your strategy, it becomes your strategy.

This is the same argument I presented the testers.  Other people presented other arguments.  Some of them included that submarines had to be attacked by destroyers now so they were much harder to destroy, they could pass through enemy fleets now, they cost less than before, etc.  Thing is, we decided it was better to have super destroyers.  Upgrading them was not cheaper than buying new ones because the price was higher. (12 IPC for a cruiser or 8 IPC for a Super Destroyer after you got the technology.  Cheaper to get the cruiser in the short run.)

As for defending OOB tech, I still do.  Out of the box there is only a 1 in 108 chance you’ll get super submarines with the nation you need them for. (1 in 6 to get the tech, 1 in 6 to get the right tech, 1 in 3 that it’s with the nation you wanted it for.)

In Anniversary Enhanced it’s 100% you’ll get the tech you want with the nation you want if you have enough cash.  That’s what makes it broken for Anniversary and not for out of the box.  OOB it’s just dumb luck coupled with a bone-headed move by your opponent that gives you the tech you need at the time you need it to turn the tide of battle.

@Cmdr:

In Anniversary Enhanced it’s 100% you’ll get the tech you want with the nation you want if you have enough cash.  That’s what makes it broken for Anniversary and not for out of the box.

So, do my eyes deceive me, or did you just agree with me?

@axis_roll:

@Cmdr:

In Anniversary Enhanced it’s 100% you’ll get the tech you want with the nation you want if you have enough cash.  That’s what makes it broken for Anniversary and not for out of the box.

So, do my eyes deceive me, or did you just agree with me?

Not quite.  What I said is Super Submarines would be broken in Anniversary Enhanced, but since they don’t exist, they cannot be broken.  It’s why we changed it from Super Submarines to Super Destroyers (since the destroyer in Anniversary is essentially the submarine of Revised anyway.)

@Cmdr:

@axis_roll:

@Cmdr:

In Anniversary Enhanced it’s 100% you’ll get the tech you want with the nation you want if you have enough cash.  That’s what makes it broken for Anniversary and not for out of the box.

So, do my eyes deceive me, or did you just agree with me?

Not quite.  What I said is Super Submarines would be broken in Anniversary Enhanced, but since they don’t exist, they cannot be broken.  It’s why we changed it from Super Submarines to Super Destroyers (since the destroyer in Anniversary is essentially the submarine of Revised anyway.)

Sooooooooooo  only instant super subs tech is broken?

PUH-Lease!