Bombers and tech…

gamerman01

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. 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. 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.

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.

When I play a game with tech, I’m always worried the game will be ruined by something like this. And I take no pleasure in a win where I hit a big tech like heavies early and am able to determine the game that way. 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. 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.

The game dynamics already favor bomber buys, and since there are 3 bomber friendly techs, I suppose playing with tech exacerbates this dynamic. I don’t like the idea of increasing the price of bombers though…air is part of what makes AA50 so fun and it really goes a long way towards eradicating the boring infantry push mechanic.

gamerman01

@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.

gamerman01

@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.

gamerman01

@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.

Zhukov44

Gamerman,

All I’m saying is that if you think about it, if you play with tech in a game between evenly matched opponents, more than 50% of the time tech will unbalance the game and give one side or another the advantage. And please don’t pretend that super subs or improved shipyards is a counter to a huge tech like heavies or mech inf or rockets or paras…that’s silly. If all the techs were equal you might have a point but they manifestly aren’t equal, which is what creates the unbalance. Tech only improves the game experience if the side that is losing gets the tech…but that will only happen 50% or less statistically.

In the end it’s mostly about experience… For me, on the balance, playing with tech has been less fun than no tech games, because the unbalance created by tech roll outcomes trivializes the game result. I just don’t care about a win if I got heavies or rockets during the game…why should I take satisfaction in getting luckier than my oppo? When my opponent inevitably complains about the unbalanced dice outcomes, all I can do is apologize for not insisting on a no tech game from the start.

If you start a game with tech, one player could get LRA and heavies on Turn 1. At that point, unless the other side also hit a big tech, it’s better to restart and play a balanced game. I’d rather play without that contingency. Also, I suspect that most of the A&A community agrees that LRA and heavies taking effect immediately is broken and detracts from the game overall. A delayed tech house rule definitely helps alot.

I guess the short version is this…the game is hella fun and plays out beautifully without tech… but if you play with tech you risk an unbalanced game. So what’s the point? Why trivialize an outstanding game?

I’ll concede that up to 40% of the time, tech can make the game more interesting. But I prefer not to take that chance…not without some house rules to make tech more fair and balanced.

gamerman01

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.

mojo

i remember the old classic game & revised also. my buddys would spend so much money going for tech, and i would just sit back and wait until someone gets heavys & then it’s game on for tech. i had to get heavys or loose, but i usally had a big unit advantage at that point where i could win without it. i love this game, but i don’t love tech, and i hate SBR. but i don’t wanna get rid of them. and i like the way this game sets damage. but gamer had a good point it does test your skills when tech comes into play. i’ve been thinking about defending para’s before you even got them. get rid of the tokens might help, but delaying some if not all of them might be the way to go. that will give you a rd. to figure out how to defend it. the old classic days we would wait until your ready to attack the capitol and roll all your money for heavys.
either way if you play tech. if your opponet gets good ones and you don’t your screwed. i like alot of these techs and will play techs again even if i’m getting wacked by them now. hey i can’t post until late tonite or maybe tomorrow. 1 is time and 2 is i’m not sure where to go with UK. freaking paratroopers :x

gamerman01

Thanks for bringing in your perspective, Mojo.
GL with the UK, man.
Yeah, Germany and Italy are just waiting for the “cavalry”.
I set up a couple of polls - would be cool if you voted in them.

mojo

yea gamer those are great points. i have to admit without the tokens i would not buy as many techs. i am fiscal conservative. which is why i don’t SBR. my bombers usally get shot down. so like the tech tokens. i guess we want the game to start balanced, at least i do. 42 does favor axis. 41 is great fair and balanced. dice will mess up great strats all the time. and if you add tech, look out. i have to admit i would vote against tech, and almost did not play your game because i don’t like tech. but i’m liking it more and more. the first game i played dude rolled and got para and dropped inf. in w usa. i had no chance ha, ha, ha

mojo

ok i voted. and yea i do think in tech games bombers are to cheap. i think the cost got lowered because bombers didn’t get purchased as much. i know my games i don’t buy BB or BOM. even with cheaper BB i just don’t buy them. i never bought bom, because i don’t SBR and 15 bucks was too much to defend at 1. i just bought figs. now at 12 with techs. the next game i play you will see lost of them.

gamerman01

@mojo:

i have to admit i would vote against tech, and almost did not play your game because i don’t like tech. but i’m liking it more and more. the first game i played dude rolled and got para and dropped inf. in w usa. i had no chance ha, ha, ha

Just wait 'til YOU are the one getting them! Then you’ll really have fun.
You think it isn’t fun terrorizing you with paras in our game? Haha - yes, just wait until you are the lucky one - it is a ball.

Funcioneta

Just my thought: I usually play tech games as default choice, and when I play without tech, many times I think “this is too easy, I have not to care about paras or mech inf surprising me” or “a pity, I could use this strat if I could try roll for some tech”

As for HBs and LRA, I’m more worried about the setup than a rogue tech. If setup is unbalanced, you are smited 100% of times, while supertechs only ruin the game a small amount of times

Lucifer

You all made some good points, even if you are trying to argument from a neutral and objective point of view.

Different game preferences is all about personal subjective feelings.

Some of us don’t like the excessive randomness that occurs in many A&A games, that’s why we prefer no-tech and LL. Maybe there was more randomness in the real WW2 than in a 1vs1, no-tech, LL, A&A game, but we choose the settings that makes the game most fun.

Maybe it is hard to accept, but for some A&A players, it is a good thing if game settings makes it more like chess, b/c in chess there is very little luck and randomness.
And I still got the impression that many tech and reg.dice players simply don’t understand that even some no-tech LL games are won by luck!!!

critmonster

you make a good point. one could argue that the effect of luck in a LL game can be even more extreme, what if my lone dice always seems to hit/miss and yours does or doesn’t?

Lucifer

LL is less random than regular dice, it’s a mathematical fact and applies as a general rule, but it is not 100% sure that in 100% of all LL games, (the number of hits) are less random than reg.dice. This is b/c the randomness is mathematically reduced, it is not possible in LL battles that one player hits with i.e. 90% of all attacking or defending units, but this is possible, and sometimes happens with reg.dice.
For a series of games, there is also less randomness in LL, and then this also applies for single games, you are not guaranteed that a single LL game have less randomness than reg.dice, but the probability is much higher.

But for a series of games, (i.e. best of 10-20 games) the best player(s) will win in the long run regardless of LL/reg.dice or tech/no-tech. It’s for single games that the LL setting have most impact, b/c there is much more probable that hits will be distributed more even between the sides compared to a single reg.dice game.

This also applies for LL and tech games. We don’t have to play many games to know that some techs are game breakers, and this means that if one side gets a powerful tech, the other side must also get an equally powerful tech, or lose the game is most cases.

Also, the randomness, or reduced randomness, will be more visible and make more impact in a 1vs1 experienced player setting, b/c both players will (usually) play relatively more efficient, compared to semi-decent, casual players, and in multiplayer games. And ofc, if one player is better than the opponent, it will hardly matter what settings the game is played in.

Conclusion: in 1vs1 games, if both players are reasonable experienced, and if both players have pretty much the same skills/experience, then the randomness plays a much bigger role than in other settings.

Zhukov44

Well looking back I’ll apologize to Gamer for sabotaging his thread with my anti-tech ramblings. I guess I find that heavy bombers, particularly USA heavies, are impossible to counter if used right. So perhaps house rules changing the way heavies work are in order. I suppose if one plays tech and techs alot then the price of the bomber should probably go up, but on the other hand, unlike in Revised, bomber dominance isn’t so unfair to Axis since they have plenty of incentive to buy bombers and income equalizes pretty quick in AA50.

Sub you make a good point that the meat of the discussion is subjective feelings about what constitutes a good game–for me fairness, balance, vigorous competition and fun for both sides are right up there. The fun consists in being challenged and refining one’s strats and trying to make good decisions in response to dice outcomes. Personally, I never much liked low luck in Revised, but I enjoy playing with it in AA50. The reason is long KGF build-ups seemed common playing ll in Revised, but in AA50 the game tends to break one way or another before the end of 10 rounds. So I find I enjoy both dice and ll settings. I think in both settings, the player with the better game-plan should win 90% or more…I suppose in ll that goes up to around 95%.

gamerman01

@Zhukov44:

I just don’t care about a win if I got heavies or rockets during the game…why should I take satisfaction in getting luckier than my oppo? When my opponent inevitably complains about the unbalanced dice outcomes, all I can do is apologize for not insisting on a no tech game from the start.

I see your point here.
Yes, I almost feel guilty for drilling my opponent with numerous long-range paratroop dropping bombers.
But that’s your reward for taking the risk of investing in tech, when you might get absolutely nothing for your money. It’s nothing to apologize for. You’re both playing with the same rules. But I know what you’re saying.

gamerman01

@Zhukov44:

I think in both settings, the player with the better game-plan should win 90% or more…I suppose in ll that goes up to around 95%.

That’s an interesting statement.
I think even in chess, the better player does not win 90% of the time. Because even in chess, there is “situational happenstance”. I’m an advanced chess player, and I would have to be very much better than my opponent to win 9 out of 10. So I don’t know how, low luck or not, tech or not, a better player is going to win 9 out of 10 games against a worse player in Axis and Allies.
Yes, you hijacked my thread, but that doesn’t bother me. Thanks for the apologies.
I like talking about anything A&A related.

gamerman01

@gamerman01:

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

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.
…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.

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? In this game, 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?

OK, here are some of the things I wanted to discuss. Thanks!

Bombers and tech…

Featured Topics

T-shirts, Hats, and More

Suggested Topics

Defending aircraft on A/C with long range tech.

Heavy Bombers…...AGAIN!!

Non-tech games: How many rounds does it usually take for one side to win?

Subs/Destroyers/Bombers and you!

Heavy Bombers Question…

Killing Fleets with Bombers

41?…42?..Nos?....Tech?....

Will you play AA50 with NO's and/or Tech rules?

48

17.4k

39.9k

1.7m