Bombers and tech…

Hey guys -
I wanted to start a discussion about bombers and related tech in AA50.

I’ve played maybe 40 games of AA50 (both scenarios) now, usually with tech and NO’s.

Everyone who played Classic A&A by OOB rules remembers that HB were usually a game-ender, because they were 3 dice apiece, and there was no cap on SBR damage.  If the other side didn’t get HB themselves, in a hurry, it was usually game over no matter who was ahead at that point (unless it was very lopsided).

However, I think we may have a similar issue in AA50.
Now there are 6 nations, and each normally has significantly more income than in previous games, with the NO’s.  Also, the price of bombers has dropped to 12 from 15 (I realize this is in large part because fleet is cheaper) and there are 3 techs (previously 2) that significantly improve bomber performance.  Just getting any 2 of them is devastating, especially because the bombers still only cost 12.  These techs are so effective, that it is often a good strategy to buy bombers before you even have the techs.  Even Italy or Russia, sometimes.

So what I’d like to discuss is these issues.  I’m thinking about a house rule that bombers cost 15 again.  I mean, they can attack everything at 4, have the longest range, and with more territories, there are more places to land them (thus splitting them up sometimes).
Or, that LRA adds 1 MP to fighters and bombers, not 2.  Maybe this whole thing should be in the house rule thread.

Do you think bombers are overpowered or underpriced?

Help me out with my history, here, but did bombers really attack fleets as effectively as they could bomb industrial targets or ground forces?  Long range and/or heavy bombers can pretty much annihilate all enemy fleets, and especially, keep the enemy from ever starting one.  Is this unrealistic?

I have another game going where my opponent acquired LRA in US1 for 10, and has bought almost nothing but air the entire game.  I can’t start a fleet anywhere in the world and keep it alive fore more than a turn.  I have a Japanese fleet with about 7-8 destroyers, 2 loaded carriers, etc. and they all have to huddle together to keep from being destroyed (because there is no reflection of the loss of economies of scale/marginal returns (or whatever) in these games - that is , 10 infantry have 10X the efficiency of 1 infantry)

Sorry, I’m just thinking out loud here, from my A&A experiences.  What do you think?

@gamerman01:

Help me out with my history, here, but did bombers really attack fleets as effectively as they could bomb industrial targets or ground forces?  Long range and/or heavy bombers can pretty much annihilate all enemy fleets, and especially, keep the enemy from ever starting one.  Is this unrealistic?

How about this scenario -
5 heavy bombers and 1 destroyer attacking 7 submarines
The attacker has 63.51% chance of annihilating all 7 subs in one round, and an 83% chance of destroying 6 of them in 1 round.

Someone please tell me if this is complete fantasy, or a real possibility in WW2, that bombers could pound subs.  If not, should bomber attack values be lower against fleet, or not even allowed against subs, or against fleet?
I’ve never seen video footage or read accounts of bombers attacking boats.  It’s always torpedo dive-bombers (fighter planes) or fighter planes.  Someone enlighten me, please.

Thanks, dudes!

Yes, and see the other old thread I resurrected on this topic.

In our mutual game, I spent most UK money on fleet and kept it huddled together, and demanded that cts move his USA DD to follow my fleet everywhere.

Had the German player played better, and had he actually used his HB (some turns he didn’t even SBR or anything) we probably would have lost.
Also, if he would have got paratroopers on top of that - game over.

Again, see the other thread.  I agree with just about everything Cmdr Jenn says regarding bomber attacks on fleet, and the 20% discount on bombers.

Yeah, I like the max # of HB on fleets idea.

And thanks for the replies, but guys, I’m not talking about heavy bombers only.

I have a game where in about round 6-8 Japan has long range, and recently got paratroopers.  You can ask my opponent, this has pretty much wrecked our game.  He had a chance of taking down Germany and Italy, but not anymore. 
He made a brilliant landing with the UK on Poland, giving the Russians the big NO.  But on Japan’s turn, I swooped in with 3 infantry and 3 bombers (not even heavy) from India.  Yes, India.  I annihilated all 4 UK ground units with no losses, and landed in Germany.  I will probably be able to re-unite the bombers with the infantry in Poland next turn, and then I will have 3 long range paratrooping bombers in Germany all cocked and ready to go.  Even the EUS is not safe from the Japs, from the East.  And I have a ton of these bombers.  I’m not even trying hard to get heavies, because it would just get even more ridiculous.

Check out the current situation, and a few of the recent turns.  They are absolutely devastating, and with about 80 income, Japan will quickly rule the world.  That’s why it makes me think of the old 3 dice heavies as a game breaker.  12 IPC long range, heavy bombing, paratrooping bombers are game-breaking.  Here are the maps…

Mojo v gamer 8cG.AAM

Another, right after his UK turn.

Mojo v gamer 7eI.AAM

Oh yeah, Italy’s got them too, so doesn’t even need the fleet  :evil:
Russia is having a hell of a time.

Oh, and another thing.
I have enough air power with Japan to destroy every enemy fleet in the world.  And with a range of 8, no place is safe.
I’ve faced LRA from US1 (different game), and it is the single reason I am having trouble winning it.  I took over the UK in G2 and I’m still having trouble in this game.

Now, I love tech, don’t get me wrong.  But in this game, where everyone has more money and fighters are down to 10 and bombers 12, it is too easy to amass a ridiculous amount of air power, which can dominate air and sea.  LRA makes it overwhelming.
Paratroopers is also an exeedingly powerful tech, even with the nerfs (can’t drop behind enemy lines, must start in tty with inf)
And why is paratroopers even a tech?  What, everyone doesn’t know how to make hollowed out bombers, or parachutes?  Maybe everyone should start with this capability.  Or maybe Bombers shouldn’t be able to drop bombs if they carry paratroopers.  Combination of both would be cool (all countries can carry infantry with bombers, but can’t drop bombs at the same time).  Also then, bombers not participating in combat should be able to move infantry in NCM.  Again, not a tech.  Anybody think these are good ideas?

Amazingly, this game (the attached maps) is the same one where I lost FOUR out of FIVE aircraft over India in J2 to AA fire (and the attack failed miserably after that, of course).

You’re a good man, mojo.
It has been a fun game.
I mean, it’s great being able to buy long range paratroop-equipped bombers for 12 IPC’s with a country hauling in 80, but I almost feel guilty doing it  :lol:
Almost.

You’re putting up a good fight, and I expected nothing less.  Game on!

@Zhukov44:

Without the ability to roll for heavy bombers directly, heavies aren’t anything like what they are in Revised.

I totally disagree.  It is impossible to get partroop-equipped heavies in Revised.  Also, bombers only cost 12 in this one.

But what I find frustrating, and the reason I prefer to play without tech, is that if a player hits a good tech like heavies, then the opponent has no way of countering this lucky fortune.

I totally disagree.  I thought you played a lot of AA50.  Improved shipyards help counter.  Improved industry helps counter.  Super subs helps counter (subs can’t be hit by bombers without destroyers)  Radar helps counter.

Unlike in Revised, I can’t spend a bunch of money rolling for heavies and have decent odds of hitting it, because I could buy 5 tech tokens, and hit super subs!  So in this sense, tech is more uneven and chance-driven than in Revised.

No, I think it’s more even, because you have tokens and so more countries get more techs, evening things out.  The old “flush your tech money down the toilet” rule was pretty extreme.

Immediate tech is also a problem.  If USA hits LRA or heavies Round 1, then we might as well pack up the game….it’s a waste of time to continue playing.

Zhuk, you’re making an awful lot of absolute statements about a grand strategy game involving tons of possibilities and dice rolls.  What if you’re better than your allied opponent?  I am playing an opponent who is quite competent, and he got USA LRA for 10 in round 1.  It’s around round 6 or 8, and I still have a chance.  Taking over England G2 helped some (was at the price of several aircraft).  What if the Axis get a couple of powerful tech in round 1 or 2?  USA getting LRA or heavies in round 1 is hardly a game ender.

When I play a game with tech, I’m always worried the game will be ruined by something like this.

Nonsense, my friend.  Again, there are many possibilities.  I haven’t had many games wrecked by tech.  More often, the effect of tech is to provide wonderful variety and unpredictability to games - testing the adaptability of the players.

@Zhukov44:

So while tech is probably better designed and more fun in AA50 than previous A&A versions, it is still broken and detracts from the game overall.

Totally disagree.

The only way to fix it would be to allow one’s opponent to acquire a discovered tech for the same amount of money that was spent researching that tech.

Are you kidding me?  Again, you’re using an absolute statement - “the only way”.  I’ve read about this idea before, and I think it’s horrible.  Why would anyone take the chance to invest a bunch of resources to discover tech, if their opponent could pick it up for the same amount of money?  Tech isn’t broken, and it doesn’t detract from the game, it adds to the game.

The game dynamics already favor bomber buys, and since there are 3 bomber friendly techs, I suppose playing with tech exacerbates this dynamic.

Yes, that’s what my thread is about.

@Zhukov44:

Immediate tech is also a problem.

Zhukov, you’re a veteran of this game.
Think about it.  Immediate tech is only potentially devastating for a few techs.
Most devastating
1.  Long Range Air
2.  Paratroopers
3.  Heavy bombers
4.  Mechanized infantry
Not so devastating, usually (talking only of immediacy of effectiveness)
1.  Jets
2.  Super subs
3.  Rockets
Better to get them immediate, but not that big a deal (as opposed to delayed tech)
1.  Bonds
2.  Artillery
3.  Increased production
4.  Radar
5.  Shipyards
Like you, I’ve been devastated occasionally by one of the first 4 techs at an inopportune time.  It’s at times like these, I think maybe I should play with delayed tech for the first 4 (giving time to prepare), which I think is probably the easiest, most effective tweak to the tech game.

Zhukov,

For what it’s worth, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with not liking the OOB rules, and specifically, tech.
I don’t think you should speak for the “A&A community” though, most of the players I’ve met and played with like to play with tech.  I have only had 10-20% of potential players insist on no tech.  This tells me that it is popular.

I disagree that tech is only good when it goes the the player who is losing.  One thing I like about tech is that it upsets the balances - the very thing that you don’t like about it.  No tech games in Revised were particularly abominable to me.  They turned in to the “infantry pushing” matches that you referred to earlier.  The game could be nearly interminable at times.
Also, although I said I’ve toyed with the idea of delaying LRA tech, my personal opinion is that no immediate LRA tech is for sissies.  I think it’s ridiculous that you can place whatever you want (like a mass of transports) 1 space out of range of enemy aircraft and be guaranteed that no harm will come there way.  This is a game simulating war, it’s not bingo or rummy.  Tech and dice both do a great job of simulating war.  Both sides in this war would do anything to get the tech advantage they needed to win.  (See Atomic bomb, V-2 rockets, jets, European wall, etc.)
Both sides have approx similar amts of resources and the same access to the same techs, which help both sides in similar ways.
Oh, and improved shipyards absolutely help deflect heavy bombers.  I never called it a “counter”, I don’t believe.  But it definitely helps relieve some of the pain when all your ships are cheaper.
No tech games have just as much luck as tech games.  You can’t tell me luck doesn’t have a huge impact in each and every battle, and especially those involving AA guns.
If you read everything I wrote, I already pointed out that in the game with Mojo where I got LRA and paratroopers with Japan at opportune times, that in round 2 of that same game I had lost 4 out of 5 aircraft to non-radar equipped AA.  You don’t have to have luck with tech to counter luck with tech.  Luck in conventional battles where no tech is even involved is just as huge, if not huger.
I think you are desiring a game where the player with the superior tactics and strategy will win 90% (or so) of the time.  This is not A&A with tech.  It seems a lot of people have a hard time with the fact that A&A was not designed to mimic chess (and many other like games).  It’s just a fun WWII boardgame (or party game, with multiplayer) and many many times the best player (group of players) does not win.
This game is not all about winning, to many of us.  It’s about the fun challenge of the process.  I have met people on this site who enjoy it when their opponents get heavy bombers.  They enjoy the challenge, the adaptations, and the stress it places on their strategies.
Contrary to your assessment that tech somehow “breaks” the game, it is my experience that most think it “makes” the game.
I think I’ll set up a poll now.