Nix, do you have a link for the fig strat?
Here is a link to some of Nix’s stuff.
I really wish this community would get over it’s hysteria in regards to technologies. It’s not as ridiculous as it was in classic. There’s no winning or losing tech. It’s not perfectly balanced, since no tech is going to counter another tech, but each side has equal access to equal technology and can chose to research the technology that fits their strategy best.
I agree with Jen on this one. Tech sucks, and there’s no reason to ban it. It does however give you some interesting options once in a long while that you may need to beat the opponent, like combined arms or like Jen was saying LRA or rockets. The good players would still never roll for tech, and while the lesser players may win because of it every so often, usually they’re strategically bombing themselves head over heels to try to get the tech.
@Bean:
The good players would still never roll for tech
I disagree. I’ve seen many good players tech to break a stalemate, which can happen often between good players playing (gads!) IPM… yes, IPM rules still apply in Revised.
I disagree. I’ve seen many good players tech to break a stalemate, which can happen often between good players playing (gads!) IPM… yes, IPM rules still apply in Revised.
I need to clarify - good players will not roll tech early on. Rolling tech is very inefficient. If good players do it, it’s only because they’re bored, not because the math agrees with them. For every time you get the tech on roll one, you’re not getting it within 5+ rolls and strategically bombing yourself for 20-30 IPCs with no result early on hurts you quite badly to the point where you can’t recover even if you get the tech after that.
You may need to roll tech at some point for instance combined arms is the best way hands down to take out island nations.
@Cmdr:
I’ve toyed with the idea of 100% navy in Round 1 and Round 2 for Germany. Subs and carrier in SZ 5 and subs and carrier in SZ 14. Means you’ll be really weak against Russia militarily, but the allies will be having kittens trying to figure out ways to land in Africa and Europe for a long time.
The fighter strat sounds decent, but this one sounds bad IMO. Britain would probably just build a massive fleet of fighters and then eventually decimate your navy with minimal losses. Meanwhile, building 0 ground units the first 2 turns would be giving away a lot of territory to Russia, making it an economically significant force. Heavy US/UK airforce would lock both your fleets in their respective seas, unable to unify…then the baltic fleet would fall, as it’s within two spaces of the UK, and the Med. fleet would be mostly useless ( as if it ever moved to a location where it actually threatened anything, it would be within range of the air force).
You delay help to Russia, but Russia no longer needs help!
Really, and how are you going to use those fighters against:
9 Submarines, 2 Transports, Battleship, Destroyer, 2 Carriers, 4 Fighters?
That’s going to get mighty expensive, mighty fast. Especially with Germany in striking distance of SZ 10 and SZ 2.
Meanwhile, Russia (Earning 24) is facing Germany (Earning 40) and Japan (Earning 30) all by itself. That’s almost 3:1 odds for the axis.
And each Tech has a use. They’re risky, sure. You could be throwing money away (then again, stacking 4 infantry in Ukraine could be throwing money away too, none of them could hit on defense and die to a single attacking infantry and 5 fighters) or you could be getting a tech to help you win the war.
If the allies are building strong in Russia, Rockets may help you keep their stacks down so you can build up faster. If the Americans need to sink the Japanese fleet faster, Super Submarines are pretty darn cost efficient, especially since you can shoot carriers out from under fighters and retreat. Need to keep the allies at bay, get LRA with Germany, now you can fly out to their rear transports and threaten them (probably cost the allies 2 or 3 destroyers just to make sure you don’t attack them.) etc.
Techs are very inefficient. You’re not even guaranteed to get them after 6 rolls. Those times when you get them at a good cost work fine, but in the other cases you are just asking for a quicker defeat. I’m sure we’ve all seen many situations where 6 figs escape any aa fire, which would be the same as the tech eluding you after spending 30 IPCs on it. You have to consider that happens a lot of the time - so while you may be threatening the Allies for instance as Jen says to build 2-3 dest to protect their rear transports, you at the same time spent 30 IPCs to do it.
Correct. But 20 IPC for the tech is less then the 36 IPC for the destroyers. (Assuming you buy 4 rolls and no more.)
Sure, tech can be very expensive and not worth it. That’s part of the gamble. And, if you are facing a 600 IPC army defending Russia (comprised of Russians, English and Americans) and have your own 500 IPC armies (1 for Germany, 1 for Japan) you might want to take the risk on techs to help cut off the flow of reinforcements or bomb IPCs or make your fighters immune to AA fire, whatever since you have no worries about adding to defense, you just don’t have the offense right now.
It’s not something you do on Round 1. It’s something you do when you have time, resources, and position to do it. Or, when you have nothing to lose. For instance, if America just lost it’s transports, stranding men in England and North America, why not roll for Jets? At least those fighters in Russia will defend better this time out.
Assuming you buy 4 rolls, there’s a 48% chance you will not achieve the tech. (5/6 is the chance you will miss the tech, raised to the power 4 for 4 rolls give you the chance every single one will miss, 48%). It’s basically a coin toss; heads you maybe gain a little, tails you strategically bombed yourself for 20 IPCs. For every time that you pat yourself on the back for getting it for 4 rolls, you’ll be crying that those 20 IPCs could have been put into infantry or fighters.
It’s not something you do on Round 1. It’s something you do when you have time, resources, and position to do it. Or, when you have nothing to lose. For instance, if America just lost it’s transports, stranding men in England and North America, why not roll for Jets? At least those fighters in Russia will defend better this time out.
I agree…a couple instances where I really want to roll techs is in the uber late game when both Moscow and Japan have fallen and you’re staring at AA guns all over Europe; then you really want Jet Fighters so you can trade territories. The other is if you need to beat up England after it’s reduced to its capital + canada; then it’s time for combined arms. Also it’s nice to have the option to roll rockets as you abandon your capital so your AA guns can become a huge annoyance.
Techs should not be discounted. I have seen many games where effective use of them resulted in an easy win, or a surprise comeback.
Combined Arms can be utilized to devastating effectiveness against Japan. Nearly any nation (except Russia…but especially Germany)can benefit from Long Range Aircraft or Jets.
Who’s discounting them? I correctly said they are inefficient in the early game.
Big Luftwaffe gets even nastier when a sizable Japanese fleet gets to Brazil and further into Atlantic.
German increasing threats force even more UK-US cooperation to defend the 2 fleets. But that’s easier when the position needs to be ‘neat’ only after Russian moves. After UK it can be as ‘messy’ as needed.
But add a Japanese threat, and any UK-US cooperation gets extremely cumbersome - any ally moving out of position leaves the other easy prey…
Even wiping/chasing away the Japanese isn’t easy - UK-US being divided to defend transports. And the optimal purchase to protect against Luftwaffe - carriers+(fighters) is not as good as lots of submarines to chase Japan… but subs are of very little use against Germany.
Two hard dilemmas - of timing, of force composition. Any solutions around ?
