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

@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!

Jen, true or false:

Japan has a 1/36 chance of getting super subs.

They way you are doing it you get:

Germany has a 1/36 chance of getting Super Submarines in OOB Rules
+
Italy has a 1/36 chance of getting Super Submarines in OOB Rules
+
Japan has a 1/36 chance of getting Super Submarines in OOB Rules

Therefore:

The Axis have a 3/36 (or 1 in 12) chance of getting Super Submarines in OOB Rules

Don’t think that’s valid.

@Cmdr:

They way you are doing it you get:

Germany has a 1/36 chance of getting Super Submarines in OOB Rules
+
Italy has a 1/36 chance of getting Super Submarines in OOB Rules
+
Japan has a 1/36 chance of getting Super Submarines in OOB Rules

Therefore:

The Axis have a 3/36 (or 1 in 12) chance of getting Super Submarines in OOB Rules

Don’t think that’s valid.

Well, this is incorrect and not what I was saying anyway.

Technically, you can’t add those probabilities to get 1/12 because they are not mutually exclusive events (although 1/12 is a decent approximation in this case). Germany and Japan could both gets super subs, for example. The correct way to calculate the odds of one or more Axis nations acquiring super subs, if they each roll exactly one die and have no technologies, is to find the odds that none of them get the tech and subtract that from 1:

1 - (35/36)^3 = 8.1%

But we’re not interested in the odds of at least one Axis nation getting super subs. We’re interested in the odds of Japan getting super subs right? Since they are one of the nations you say can “break” the tech.

The odds of any particular nation getting super subs is 1/36. Since one nation acquiring a tech (or failing to acquire one) doesn’t affect the probability of other nations acquiring a tech, they are independent events. Thus, whether Germany or Italy get super subs in no way affects the probability of Japan getting super subs.

Japan can always buy a tech token on their turn. If they do so, they get a 1/6 chance of tech. If they get a tech, they get a 1/6 shot at super subs. That’s 1/36 to get super subs; there are no other random events to account for here.

Don’t make it more complicated than it needs to be: you roll 1 die to get a 6, then 1 die to get a 1… if you do, boom, super subs. 1/36 chance, end of story.

I can’t believe I’m still explaining this.

I can believe you are still explaining it.

What I can’t believe is that you are off on this tangent which has absolutely nothing to do with Anniversary Enhanced since Super Submarines don’t even exist in Anniversary Enhanced.

Thank you for the ‘C’ section answers.

Now for the direct answers to the last section: ‘D’.

@Cmdr_Jennifer:

WHO MAKES THE RULES:

1. Who submits the ideas for changes to the rules?
2. How is the decision made as to which rules get enacted/changed?
3. What ratio of votes are needed to make a change or prevent one?
4. What level “expertise” does the voting people possess that gives them the right to place a vote?  There are several people here on the site that may have this expertise.  Most of them are listed as people I don’t know up in my disclaimer.  I’m assuming that not every person testing has a vote on which rules get enacted/changed/removed.

It’s not BS logic.

Here’s the logic:

1)  Tech is assured
2)  Submarines are really cheap
3)  Cruisers are really expensive
4)  Submarines have sneak attack abilities
5)  Submarines have to be detected before they can be attacked
6)  Super submarines turn submarines into cruisers

Conclusion:  Super Submarines tech is unbalanced with Enhanced rules.

Remedy:  Instead of making Submarines upgradable, make Destroyers upgradable.  Cost difference between Revised and Anniversary for the unit is nil; attack power change is nil; destroyers don’t get sneak attacks; destroyers don’t have to be detected before they can be sunk; destroyers are not immune to air power only attacks.

It’s the perfect solution to a blatant and obvious problem.

BadSpeller:

Read all the replies I have given.  The answers to your D section of questions are all there.

Are you going to concede that your probability calcs were wrong or not?

@Unknown:

Are you going to concede that your probability calcs were wrong or not?

Just after you concede your probability calcs are wrong.

You fail to take into account the number of nations AND you fail to take into account the number of rounds.  A success could occur on the wrong nation or in the wrong round both of which negate the “success.”