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

@axis_roll:

@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!

No, they are not broken because the odds of getting them is insanely poor. (1 chance in 108 attempts.  Roughly 0.9259% chance of getting them.  And no, the decimal is in the right spot, I didn’t forget to move it.  It’s about nine-tenths of a percent of getting them in any given round OOB.)

They WOULD be broken if they had been included in Anniversary Enhanced is what I am saying.  It’s why we changed them to Super Destroyers instead. (Solves the issue of them being broken since tech is assured in Enhanced and not in OOB.  It’s the assurance that would have made it a broken tech in Enhanced.)

Reread what axis_roll said.

He’s questioning your assertion that only super subs break the game under instant directed tech.

For example, how do you come to the conclusion that super subs are broken but heavy bombers are not?

And BTW, those calculations you gave for getting super subs are flakey.

Given that you have no techs already, its a 1/6 chance to get a tech, then another 1/6 chance to get a particular tech on chart 2 (the one with super subs). That’s 1/6*1/6 = 1/36, or 2.78%.

You don’t divide by 3 because only some nations will want them, or whatever it is you’re trying to do. Given that you’re rolling for tech and have none already, it’s a 1/36 chance per roll, end of story.

@Unknown:

Reread what axis_roll said.

He’s questioning your assertion that only super subs break the game under instant directed tech.

For example, how do you come to the conclusion that super subs are broken but heavy bombers are not?

Thank God someone can understand the arguements I make in this thread.

Cmdr Jennifer, thank you for your answer to the ‘B’ section of questions.

Now, would you please directly answer the ‘C’ section of questions (from the first post)?

@Cmdr_Jennifer:

TESTING PROCEDURES:

1. What testing procedures were used?
2. What strategies have been tested to validate the need for rule changes?  And tested by which testers?  Against which other strategies?  By which side?
3. How many times was each strategy tested?

No, my calculations are correct, you are misunderstanding how I derived them.

Assuming a clean slate, no one has technology yet.

You have a 1 in 3 chance of playing the correct nation that needs the technology at the time you roll a 6 on the die.
You have a 1 in 6 chance of rolling a 6 on the die
You have a 1 in 6 chance of getting the technology you want on the chart.

1/3 * 1/6 * 1/6 = 0.9% or 1 in 108 tries to get the technology on the correct nation, out of the box.  That’s a really slim shot at getting it when you need it with the nation you need it for.

You have to divide it by all nations on that side (axis or allies) because you cannot be sure that Germany won’t get Super Submarines when trying for Heavy Bombers while Italy will get Jet Fighters and Japan will get Radar instead of the Super Submarines it wanted.  Just because one of your nations rolls a 6 for chart two and gets super submarines does not mean it was on the nation you wanted to get it.  That’s why you divide it by all nations on that team.  Who cares if Germany gets super submarines if they have no submarines?  It’s not broken then. :P

If it was instant like in Enhanced, then the tech becomes broken because you can plan on definitely having it when you need it, instead of randomness.  It’s like saying your AA Gun automatically gets to shoot down 6 aircraft per game and the owner of the gun gets to determine what battles the fighters and bombers get shot down instead of letting the dice do it randomly.  That would be broken too.

The fix was removing Super Submarines (the one that became broken when switching to the revised system) and replacing it with Super Destroyers.  This changed the cost/benefit scale of the technology while maintaining the integrity of the system.  Remember, AAR submarines are virtually identical to AA50 destroyers now (with the exception that destroyers don’t get sneak shots like submarines did in AAR.)

I didn’t answer the testing procedures specifically because I thought everyone was aware, through multiple replies, of how it went.

1)  6 of us got together and made a first draft of the Anniversary Enhanced Rules by virtually (not literally) dragging and dropping the AARe rules onto the AA50 rules. (This is supposed to illicit a picture of someone copying the contents of a folder and dropping it into another folder and then selecting the “overwrite” command so that duplicates will default to the “new” file.)

2)  We then took it to the community that spent 2-3 weeks testing it and getting back to us with results.  (I.e. problems.)

3)  We then hosted a chat session at the end and allowed everyone time to chat for a few hours on Saturday night.  The chat log was printed and edited to erase bickering and non-topic centered comments (i.e. “did you like CSI last night?” etc) and changes that seemed to be acceptable to the group were implemented.

4)  Second draft was released and tested followed by another chat session.

5)  Third draft was approved as being as close to revised enhanced as possible while using the anniversary units, map and rules without any unbalance being introduced.

Axis:

I did misunderstand.  Yes, only the Super Submarines tech came up “broken” when shifting to enhanced style technology rules.

It’s cost, ability, upgrade strength and assurance of getting it that did it.  No other technology had that combo of benefits that made it almost impossible to win without getting the technology.  So we had to change it.  At least a destroyer could be sunk by a fighter attacking it, a submarine could not (fighters cannot attack submarines without a destroyer present.)  At least a destroyer cost 8 IPC like all the previous incarnations of submarines did when the original idea of super submarines was first implemented (and each incarnation after that: Second Edition, Revised, Enhanced, etc.)

Super Destroyers technology shifted the combo of benefits away from over powering to just a nice boost.  It also gave us a method of improving the detectability of submarines, which was lacking. (Submarines with Super Submarine tech were originally able to achieve -1 detection values, meaning that even a 0 was too high to find them.  Now they can achieve 0, but the enemy can also achieve a 6 resulting in a game where no matter what, the opportunity to detect enemy submarines exists and the opportunity to prevent auto detection of all submarines exists.  Balance, harmony, bliss.)

Jen, this is not meant as an insult, but your understanding of probability is lacking (as is most people’s). So instead of always insisting that you’re right in an area where you lack expertise, perhaps you would do better to see where you went wrong, because I really don’t want to spend 10 posts discussing this.

@Cmdr:

No, my calculations are correct, you are misunderstanding how I derived them.

Unfortunately, they are not correct. I’m not misunderstanding how your arrived at 1/108, I see what you’re trying to do. The problem is, what you’re doing is simply invalid, from a probability standpoint.

The problem lies here:

@Cmdr:

You have a 1 in 3 chance of playing the correct nation that needs the technology at the time you roll a 6 on the die.

No, you don’t.

You don’t roll for tech and then determine who gets it randomly. That’s not how the game works. There is a 100% chance someone will be playing Japan or United States and will have the opportunity to roll for tech. Each nation has a 1/36 chance of getting super subs. It therefore follows that Japan and the US each have a 1/36 chance to get super subs. Not 1/108.

Your method would be correct if instead the game worked like this:

(1) The Allies roll for tech together (1/6 to get a tech)
(2) If successful, the Allies roll on chart 2 (1/6 to get ss)
(3) If successful, the Allies roll a die to determine who gets the tech: 1-2 = USSR, 3-4 = UK, 5-6 = USA (1/3 chance for US)

Odds of US getting super subs = (1/6)(1/6)(1/3) = 1/108

But, the game actually works like this:

(1) Determine who’s turn it is (100% chance the US gets a turn)
(2) On the US turn, roll for tech (1/6 to get a tech)
(3) If successful, the US rolls on chart 2 (1/6 to get ss)

Odds of US getting super subs = (1)(1/6)(1/6) = 1/36

See the difference?

@Cmdr_Jennifer:

But you already know who needs them and will roll for the tech duing that nations turn.  So we are back to 1/6 * 1/6 = 1/36.

Exactly.

@Cmdr:

Yes, only the Super Submarines tech came up “broken” when shifting to enhanced style technology rules.

How is it that heavy bombers isn’t broken then?

HBs provide an attack punch of 8 for 14 IPCs (.571 punch/IPC), while SSs have an attack punch of 3 for 6 IPCs (.500 punch/IPC). Then consider that bombers have a range of 6, compared to 2 for a sub. Oh, and then there’s the fact that bombers can attack land, sea and air targets while a sub can attack sea targets only. And heavy bombers have better economic attacks.

The sub abilities don’t even compare to the bomber’s, and they can be negated by a DD anyway.

So HBs have better attack punch/IPC, better abilities, and are much more versatile unit. So I don’t see how super subs > heavy bombers.

@Unknown:

@Cmdr_Jennifer:

But you already know who needs them and will roll for the tech during that nations turn.  So we are back to 1/6 * 1/6 = 1/36.

Exactly.

But you cannot specify what nation will get a certain technology out of the box.

For instance:

You could have the correct nation and get a 6 but roll one of the other 5 technologies. {1-(1/61/61/3)}
You could have the correct nation, not get a 6, and can’t roll for a technology. {1-(1/61/3)}
You could have the correct nation and get a 6 and roll the correct technology. {1/61/61/3}
You could have the wrong nation, get a 6, but roll one of the other 5 technologies. {1-(1/61/62/3)}
You could have the wrong nation, not get a 6 and can’t roll for a technology. {1-(1/62/3)}
You could have the wrong nation and get a 6 but correct the right technology. {1/61/62/3}

6 Distinct Possibilities per side.  You have to account for that.

Just like you can’t say “well, my armor missed last round, so it’s going to hit this round” you also can’t say “I’ll only get Super Submarines if Japan rolls a 6, I’ll get one of the other 5 if Germany or Italy roll a 6.”  It’s an invalid method of calculating probability.

You two seem to want to discount the odds that you get super submarines with one of the other nations and not with Japan.

“HAVING THE CORRECT NATION” IS NOT A PROBABILITY EVENT

@Unknown:

@Cmdr:

Yes, only the Super Submarines tech came up “broken” when shifting to enhanced style technology rules.

How is it that heavy bombers isn’t broken then?

HBs provide an attack punch of 8 for 14 IPCs (.571 punch/IPC), while SSs have an attack punch of 3 for 6 IPCs (.500 punch/IPC). Then consider that bombers have a range of 6, compared to 2 for a sub. Oh, and then there’s the fact that bombers can attack land, sea and air targets while a sub can attack sea targets only. And heavy bombers have better economic attacks.

The sub abilities don’t even compare to the bomber’s, and they can be negated by a DD anyway.

So HBs have better attack punch/IPC, better abilities, and are much more versatile unit. So I don’t see how super subs > heavy bombers.

Heavy Bombers don’t have sneak attacks
Heavy Bombers are subject to Radar Battleship AA Fire (dieing before the first round of battle, in opening fire)
Heavy Bombers are subject to reduced damage capacity by Improved Factories
Heavy Bombers are subject to Battleship AA Fire (again dieing in opening fire and prevented from attacking at all.)

Heavy Bombers come with some really steep penalties.  Submarines have so many blessings such as:

Unstoppable CRD on top of any Rocket/SBR damage
Sneak Attacks
Defender Retreat
Sailing past enemy ships without having to engage them

On top of that, a Submarine is a naval unit that costs 6 IPC, but with Super Submarines, attacks just like a Cruiser which costs 12.  A bomber is an air unit that costs 14 IPC and attacks like a jet fighter which has a cost of 10.

Given all the ways to obliterate bombers and the near impossible nature to take out submarines, added to the flexibility and miniture cost of submarines, bombers are nothing, they’re hardly powerful enough if you want to compare them to Super Submarines.

PS:  Heavy Bomber: Cost 14.  2 Attacks at 4.  Odds of 2 Hits: 44%.  Odds of 1 Hit: 44%.  Odds of 0 Hits: 12%
PS:  Super Submarine: Cost 6.  For 12 IPC you can have 2 Attacks at 3.  Odds of 2 Hits: 25%.  Odds of 1 Hit: 50%.  Odds of 0 Hits: 25%.

It’s still better to buy the submarines.  Especially if you take it to a higher level.

7 Super Submarines (42 IPC) vs 3 Heavy Bombers (42 IPC)

You have 7 Units on one side, you have 3 on the other.  We know from experience that the side with more units, especially more than double, will almost certainly be the stronger force.

You have 7 Attacks on one side (21 Punch) vs 6 attacks on the other side (24 Punch) which is statistically insignificant, at least far less significant than number of units.

You have 7 Defends on one side (7 punch) vs 3 defends on the other side (3 punch) which is more than double the potency again.

Any way you slice it, the Submarines are much more powerful, IPC for IPC than the heavy bombers are and they are immune to AA Fire and immune to almost any attack your enemy can bring to bear.  It’s so lopsidedly unbalancing when you can be 100% positive of getting the technology when you want it, it’s not even close to fair or balanced.

@Cmdr:

But you cannot specify what nation will get a certain technology out of the box.

Yes, you can. It’s specified by by whoever’s turn it is.

@Cmdr:

Just like you can’t say “well, my armor missed last round, so it’s going to hit this round” you also can’t say “I’ll only get Super Submarines if Japan rolls a 6, I’ll get one of the other 5 if Germany or Italy roll a 6.”  It’s an invalid method of calculating probability.

What does this have to do with anything in my post? The ironic thing is, I was explaining this concept to you a few weeks ago.  :lol:

@Cmdr:

You two seem to want to discount the odds that you get super submarines with one of the other nations and not with Japan.

No, I never said anything of the sort in post at all.

@Unknown:

“HAVING THE CORRECT NATION” IS NOT A PROBABILITY EVENT

It is if you are attempting to get technologies with all your nations and you don’t want super submarines for two of them, but only with the third.

You mean, it’s not in the sample set if Japan gets nothing, Italy gets nothing, but Germany gets Super Submarines?  Can’t do that.  It’s part of the possibilities, it’s part of the population.

@Unknown:

@Cmdr:

Just like you can’t say “well, my armor missed last round, so it’s going to hit this round” you also can’t say “I’ll only get Super Submarines if Japan rolls a 6, I’ll get one of the other 5 if Germany or Italy roll a 6.”  It’s an invalid method of calculating probability.

What does this have to do with anything in my post? The ironic thing is, I was explaining this concept to you a few weeks ago.  :lol:

In your case, I was joking and you should have known it.  After I explained that to you, it clicked, or at least, it seemed too.  Funny how you selectively forgot that.

Point is:

Heavy Bombers are powerful, but not game changingly powerful.  There are a myriad of ways to negate the power of the heavy bomber.

Super Submarines were way too powerful to give you the ability to get them whenever you wanted them with whoever you wanted them for.  There was no way to negate their power.

To defeat a Super Submarine you have to buy a Destroyer.

Super Submarine: Attack 3
Destroyer: Attack 2

Super Submarine: Cost 6
Destroyer: Cost 8

On top of it, just having the destroyer did not even mean you’d be able to kill the submarine!  You had to find the blasted thing first and you only have a 33% chance per destroyer to do that.

The way it is in Enhanced is:

Super Destroyer: Attack 3
Submarine: Attack 2

Super Destroyer: Cost 8
Submarine: Cost 6

This is in line with a more balanced game, since the Super Destroyer is only slightly more powerful than the submarine for only slightly higher cost.  The Destroyer is unable to pass through enemy ships without being attacked and does not have to be found first before it can be destroyed.

Your allusion to Heavy Bombers has been shown to be not nearly as powerful as the super submarine.  A quick run down:

Battleships get to shoot bombers down before they can attack, so there’s a 1 in 6 chance your bomber won’t even get an attack.
Battleships cannot sink submarines before they can attack, so there’s a 6 in 6 chance your submarine will get an attack

Battleships can be upgraded with radar giving them a 1 in 3 chance of shooting down your bomber before it even gets an attack.
Battleships cannot be upgraded to give them a chance to sink an enemy submarine before it gets a chance to attack

A bomber has a chance to sink a battleship in one round if it is a heavy bomber.  That chance is 44%.  A battleship has a chance to kill a bomber in one round, that chance is 67%.

2 Submarines have a chance to sink a battleship in one round.  That chance is 25%.  The battleship in that battle would not get a chance to fire back.

So the Bomber can be killed before it gets a chance to attack (and with a 33% chance as well) and only a 44% chance to sink the battleship if it is not shot down in opening fire with a 67% chance of being shot down itself.  Cost: 14 IPC with very poor chances of sinking the battleship.

The submarines can kill the battleship without even letting the battleship return fire.  Cost: 0 IPC, Gain: 20 IPC.  Submarines are WAY better than Heavy Bombers.

If you up that:

7 Submarines with a 21 Punch have a virtual 100% chance to sink a battleship without loss.
3 Bombers will drop to 2 Bombers because of AA Gun fire with a punch of 16 which is virtually assured of killing the battleship, but with the loss of a bomber.

So do you want to lose no equipment, or a third of your equipment?

Most people say no equipment, especially since those submarines can now do 7 CRD to the enemy, the bombers have to survive the AA Gun fire before they can do any damage to the enemy.

They’re just a piss poor investment if you want dominance of the ocean.  At least, when you want dominance and can get any tech you want whenever you want.

@Cmdr_Jennifer:

@Cmdr:

You could have the correct nation and get a 6 but roll one of the other 5 technologies. {1-(1/61/61/3)}
You could have the correct nation, not get a 6, and can’t roll for a technology. {1-(1/61/3)}
You could have the correct nation and get a 6 and roll the correct technology. {1/61/61/3}
You could have the wrong nation, get a 6, but roll one of the other 5 technologies. {1-(1/61/62/3)}
You could have the wrong nation, not get a 6 and can’t roll for a technology. {1-(1/62/3)}
You could have the wrong nation and get a 6 but correct the right technology. {1/61/62/3}

Please explain.  If I’m playing the Axis.  It’s Japan’s turn.  Japan wants Super Subs.  How can it be the wrong nation?  Japan’s odds of getting Super Subs are:
1/6 to roll a 6 (assuming only 1 tech token)
1/6 to get Super Subs

1/6 * 1/6 = 1/36.

I’m not trying to be annoying, I truly want to know.  Because as I see it there is a disconnect from what is mathematically probable and how the game is played.  Some variables are known at the time of rolling that I think you’re not accounting for; like who’s turn it is and how many tech tokens are purchased.  Again, please explain.  Thank you.

Who is to say that Japan will get the super submarine not the other nations?  You can’t just negate their chances.

Let’s put it this way:

You have 1 Super Submarine Tech to give out.

You have 3 Nations looking for Technology with a 1 in 6 chance of getting a technology and a 1 in 6 chance of getting the Super Submarine tech.

Who’s to say that Japan will be the one to get the technology break through and not Italy or Germany?  Doesn’t Japan have the same odds as Germany or Italy even if Germany and Italy are hoping for something else on the tech chart?  Why are we saying with absolute certainty that Germany and Italy WILL NOT get the super submarines tech because they want something else and Japan will get it if it is gotten at all?  That doesn’t make statistical or mathematical sense!  Just because Germany and Italy don’t want the technology does not mean they won’t be the ones to get it if it is all random!