Techs

[Admiral T]

Just a nitpicky question here…

I was under the impression that the true fighter jet technology developed by the British and the Germans during WWII was applied to defensive interceptor craft. The Brits used their jet fighters to intercept V1’s, and the Germans used theirs to intercept Allied bomber squadrons. In addition, these jet fighters could only fly for a few minutes before running out of fuel. So, with all this in mind, why has the AA50 jet fighter technology raised the attack value of fighters to 4, essentially making them cheap bombers? The AAR version of this technology seems much more appropriate given the history of these early rocket propelled aircraft (raise the defense value of fighters to 5).

Perhaps a more appropriate name for this technology would be something along the lines of ‘advanced tactical fighter bombers’?

[Bardoly]

My friends and I printed out Blustroke’s Players’ Aid Map, and have played AA50 according to it, and the tech which seems absolutely too weak is Radar.  Both Japan and the US want techs from the Air/Naval Chart, but Radar is basically useless for them.  Even for the other players, Radar just doesn’t seem to be nearly as useful as ANY of the other Land or Air/Naval techs.

I believe that the Radar tech should give advantages to your navy as well.  Possibly by adding +1 to the attack/defense of each of your surface warships in the first round of battle only (even if you are neither attacking Air units nor defending against Air units).  This would fairly represent the advance warning the Radar would give you. (Radar worked also against ships, not only against Air units right?).  Or, another fix would be to ether give Cruisers AA ability (possibly only give each Cruiser 1 or 2 AA shots each, but with the maximum number of AA shots fired to be no more than the total number of attacking Air units) or to give Battleships and Cruisers each 1 AA shot (limited to no more than the total number of attacking plane).  The AA shots should be in addition to the Cruiser or Battleship’s nurmal roll of the dice for the battle.  Probably the AA shots should be preemptive, but it would still be okay with me if they were not (allowing the Cruiser or Battleship to roll both a “1” to only hit Air units and also roll a “3/4” to hit whatever).

What do y’all think?  Radar is too weak?  Radar is too powerful?  Radar is just right?

[Admiral T]

AA guns are already overpowered to begin with… The radar tech makes them absurdly effective.

Putting my gripes about AA guns aside, I think all nations can benefit from this tech. Russia, Germany, Italy, and the UK for obvious reasons. As for Japan, building a few beefed up AA guns and shipping them the key islands, can really put a wrench in the Allies plans. Think of the headaches the US would have if they were unable to take islands because all of their planes have been shot down (or they are afraid of their planes being shot down). Also, radar guns on a few islands would make a pacific paratrooper campaign REALLY risky- if not impossible. They would have to put more money into land units, meaning that their navy would be less powerful, meaning Japan could put up a better fight in the Pacific… you get the idea.

The benefit of AA guns for the USA is less clear however. The first thing that comes to mind for me is shipping a few AA guns to Europe. For example, replacing the AA gun in England with an American Radar AA gun which would really help the UK player. Also, the Americans could install a radar gun in France and/ or Northwest Europe, making it much more difficult for the Germans to take those territories back.

As for adding AA capabilities to ships… Man, I would lose it if a single cruiser shot down a bunch of planes in addition to its normal defense roll!!! I think this idea wouldn’t work. It effectively gives these units two or three defense rolls. It’s WAAAY too much… And to put this into a historical perspective, battleships, while powerful, were extremely vulnerable when faced by attacks by airplanes. Just think of the Yamato!! The mightiest warship of the second world war… sunk by an American fighter squadron which lost only a dozen men in the attack!

[Bardoly]

@Admiral:

AA guns are already overpowered to begin with… The radar tech makes them absurdly effective.

Putting my gripes about AA guns aside, I think all nations can benefit from this tech. Russia, Germany, Italy, and the UK for obvious reasons. As for Japan, building a few beefed up AA guns and shipping them the key islands, can really put a wrench in the Allies plans. Think of the headaches the US would have if they were unable to take islands because all of their planes have been shot down (or they are afraid of their planes being shot down). Also, radar guns on a few islands would make a pacific paratrooper campaign REALLY risky- if not impossible. They would have to put more money into land units, meaning that their navy would be less powerful, meaning Japan could put up a better fight in the Pacific… you get the idea.

The benefit of AA guns for the USA is less clear however. The first thing that comes to mind for me is shipping a few AA guns to Europe. For example, replacing the AA gun in England with an American Radar AA gun which would really help the UK player. Also, the Americans could install a radar gun in France and/ or Northwest Europe, making it much more difficult for the Germans to take those territories back.

As for adding AA capabilities to ships… Man, I would lose it if a single cruiser shot down a bunch of planes in addition to its normal defense roll!!! I think this idea wouldn’t work. It effectively gives these units two or three defense rolls. It’s WAAAY too much… And to put this into a historical perspective, battleships, while powerful, were extremely vulnerable when faced by attacks by airplanes. Just think of the Yamato!! The mightiest warship of the second world war… sunk by an American fighter squadron which lost only a dozen men in the attack!

Okay fine, only give Cruisers AA ability.  Battleships are good enough as is.  But I don’t think you understood what I was saying.  I feel that the Radar tech is too weak, with little use for several countries, and I feel that Naval AA is something missing from Axis and Allies, so, you can kill 2 birds with 1 stone by allowing the Radar tech to upgrade a nation’s Cruisers.  In defensive situations (although I wouldn’t be opposed to allowing it in offensive situations as well),
each individual Cruiser would get 1 (and only 1) preemptive roll of the dice at a “1” not a “2” fired at the attacking Air units.  The attacker could still choose the casualties of course.  (If there were 2 Fighters and 2 Bombers attacking 2 Cruisers, then each Cruiser would roll 1 dice at a “1” (a total of 2 dice), and then if 1 of the 2 dice “hit”, then the attacker would probably choose a Fighter as a casualty leaving 1 Fighter and 2 Bombers to fight in Round 1 against the 2 Cruisers.  Round 1 would then proceed as normal, and in the following rounds, the Cruisers would NOT fire any AA shots.  If you had a situation where the defender had more Cruisers in total than the number of attacking Air units, then the total number of AA shots would be limited to the same number of attacking Air units.  (Example:  A fleet containing a total of 4 Air units attacks another fleet containing a total of 6 Cruisers.  The defender whould only roll 4 dice at “1’s”, NOT 6 dice at “1’s”.  I feel that this would help to make the Radar tech more valuable for the nations for which the current Radar tech doesn’t really help.  (Radar as is helps Germany and Russia some, but doesn’t help Japan and the US.  UK and Italy are kind of in the middle.  Radar upgrading Cruisers would help Japan and US the most, UK and Italy second, and Germany and Russia very little, so I think that this would be a balanced approach to the Radar tech.

[Imperious Leader]

Bardoly: you are my hero. I have been fighting for Cruisers to get the AA shot for like 5 years. I have had discussions for that long with a number of posters and finally found somebody who sees the same thing as me.

That would give them some value other than another ‘in-between unit’ from BB and DD. W/O it having this attribute the argument “why cruisers” has some small merit.

edit: wrong poster cited

[03321]

@Imperious:

Admiral T: you are my hero. I have been fighting for Cruisers to get the AA shot for like 5 years. I have had discussions for that long with a number of posters and finally found somebody who sees the same thing as me.

I believe Admiral T was arguing against cruisers getting AA, while Bardoly was arguing for it.

[Guest]

@Krieghund:

Confirmed today by WotC_Mike on the Avalon Hill boards:

@Lynxes:

Shipyards- cheaper naval costs (minus one SS, TRS, DD, minus two CA, CV, BB)

Improved Shipyards.  Your sea units are now cheaper to build.  Use these revised costs:
Battleship - 17
Aircraft Carrier - 11
Cruiser - 10
Destroyer - 7
Transport - 6
Submarine - 5

Someone’s math is a bit off.  Battleships cost 20 IPC and Aircraft Carriers cost 14 according to the information given on the fact sheet.  Improved Shipyards lower the cost by 2 IPC.  Now, based on my “Old Math” mind, that means that Battleships should cost 18, not 17, and carriers should cost 12, not 11.

[Imperious Leader]

thats right.

[03321]

If you’re confused by the way Krieghund’s post is structured, I believe he was simply quoting Lynxes’ guess at the Improved Shipyards tech in order to follow it with a corrected version, not saying that WotC_Mike was confirming Lynxes’ guess.

[Guest]

Cruisers and other naval units SHOULD NOT get the same abilities as AA guns.  The reasoning for this is as follows.

A typicla WW2 European cruiser carried eight to twelve 4 inch guns, assuming that it was fairly large.  US heavy and light cruisers carried eight 5"/25 or 5"/38 AA guns if prewar, twelve 5"/38 if war-buillt Cleveland or Baltimore-class ships.  US AA light cruisers carried 16 early or 12 if later-built 5"/38.  Japanese heavy cruisers carried typically carried eight 5"/40 AA guna, but also had very poor AA fire control systems.  British AA cruisers carried eight 4" if converted WW1 ships, or eight to ten 5.25" guns if war-built.  Special note should be made of the HMS Delhi, which was converted in the US to carry five 5"/38 guns in single mounts with a US fire control system, and was also viewed by the Royal Navy as an AA CRUISER.  This was the same armament and fire control system carried by the US Fletcher-class destroyers!!!

Compare this to the heavy AA gun defenses of Great Britain in 1940-41. Source of the information is There Finest Hour by Winston Churchill, volume 2 of his History of WW2 series.  In July of 1940, there were 1200 guns of 3 inch or larger caliber, in December of 1940 there were 1450 such guns, and in May of 1941 there were 1687 such guns, with the beginning of radar-directed fire control systems for the guns.  This represents the equivalent of 100 to 140 cruisers.  In addition, AA guns on land would be located either in the immediate vicinity of the expected targets or along the route to the targets that the attacking air forces must take.  Ships are spread out over a much larger area, typically a thousand yards or so between vessels,which considerably reduces their ability to concentrate AA fire on specific targets.

Now, if this were a tactical-level game, with each ship representing a single vessel, and each aircraft representing perhaps 6 to 12 aircraft, I can see separate AA roles for ships, if they are the objects of the attack, or are very nearly in line to the target of the attack, like a destroyer or cruiser screening a battlehip or carrier.  I have been playing TACTICAL NAVAL GAMES since 1970, and assisted in developing them.  Axis and Allies is not a TACTIAL LEVEL game.  It is a STRATEGIC LEVEL GAME, albeit played with miniature ships, planes, guns, tanks, and infantry, rather than cardboard counters.  Giving cruisers the same ability as AA guns is definitely mixing the two levels.

[italiansarecoming]

i wouldnt mind that it would get more people to buy cruisers and anyways i would allow this if it was on though the game would need to change a bit but radar only allows cruisers to do 1 never a 2 or else cruiser would need to go up to about 16

[Imperious Leader]

Cruisers and other naval units SHOULD NOT get the same abilities as AA guns

In terms of the game they may have similar rules, but really its basic AA defense that all naval units have specifically against planes as opposed to surface ships or subs and this total aggregate effort is being assumed to go to cruisers which more than any other unit are specialized for this task than other units.

I can see separate AA roles for ships

The game features specific ASW rules when planes are attacking a destroyer or when a sub gets its first strike bonus depending on destroyers around or not. This is no different from that kind of “tactical” rule.

But really its a house rule and we should stay on topic with techs.

[Bardoly]

Timerover51,
I agree, Cruisers should not have the SAME abilities as AA guns.  That’s why I limited the AA shot to 1 per Cruiser, with a maximun number of shots equal to the number of attacking air units, with the attacker chhoosing the casualties.

Sorry for being off-topic, but when I first posted in this thread, I was trying to find out what others feel about the Radar tech.  I feel that it is too weak as is.

What do y’all think?  Radar is too weak?  Too powerful?  Just right?

[italiansarecoming]

1 wouldnt be bad get back to topic!

[Imperious Leader]

That’s why I limited the AA shot to 1 per Cruiser, with a maximun number of shots equal to the number of attacking air units

Thats what i said as well. look at the aa50 house rules…just like AA gun with one shot at start of combat one per plane. thats it.

[italiansarecoming]

cruiser aa guns would make them more valuable but i fea that the only reason destroyers are 8 is for italy ohoh

[Funcioneta]

No, dd are 2/2 surface ships who can defend trannies from aircraft. Their cost is OK

[italiansarecoming]

destrpyers do not need anytihng else but 2/2 8ipcs perfect cost italy will use them alot! and a few subs a ha

[General Turgidson]

An analysis of tech Heavy Bomber tech:

Each tech roll gives a 16.7% chance of scoring a tech.  But added rolls are not cumulative but rather diminishing.

The math goes as follows:
                                                          16.7% = 1 tech roll.
   16.7 + (16.7 x .833 (which is 1 - .167) = 30.6% = 2 tech rolls.
   30.6 + (16.7 x .694 (which is 1 - .306) = 42.2% = 3 tech rolls
   42.2 + (16.7 x .578 (which is 1 - .422) = 51.9% = 4 tech rolls
   51.9 + (16.7 x .481 (which is 1 - .519) = 59.9% = 5 tech rolls
   59.9 + (16.7 x .411 (which is 1 - .599) = 66.6% = 6 tech rolls
   66.6 + (16.7 x .334 (which is 1 - .666) = 72.1% = 7 tech rolls

Multiply this % by .167 to determine you chances of getting a single specific tech (like heavy bombers).
   Multiply by .333, .5, .666 and .833 for your chances of getting one tech in 2, 3, 4 or 5 techs respectively.

So for instance, if you make 7 tech rolls you have a 72.1 x .167 (or 12%) chance of getting heavy bombers.

Now if we can determine the IPC value of Heavy Bombers vs.we can a make cost analysis.  Since heavy bombers attack twice, their cost is best compared to simply buying a second bomber…

Heavy bombers cannot undertake separate missions, roll two ones or take two hits on defense.  But if we are just comparing their SBR capacity: heavy bombers take neither an extra AA gun hit nor do they offer a second target, compared to a second bomber.  Since AA guns have less than a 50% chance of hitting, this makes heavy bombers worse by (16.7% - 16.7%) or 2 IPCs.  Thus heavy bomb tech is worth 10 per existing bomber

So given the choice with 36 IPCs to buy 3 bombers or 5 tech rolls what is the proper choice?  Three bombers is worth exactly 36.  But as we’ve seen 7 tech rolls only has a 12% chance per turn to get heavy bombers.  (Granted it has a 72% chance per turn to get some tech, but 35 for any OTHER tech is ludicrous).

Even if we already have 10 bombers on the board and we get a tech this turn, we still only have a 16.7% of heavy bombers.  So the bombers are worth 36 and the tech is worth 16.7 IPCs at most.

I hope this conclusively proves that any money invested into securing a specific tech in a tournament length game (or probably even a marathon game) is wasted.

As an aside this means that rolling to get one of the two SBR mitigation techs (AA guns and Factory upgrade) isn’t really a strong option either.

Finally, it is worth noting that any financial commitment to SBR precludes at least SOME lack involvement in the traditional theaters of combat.  This has the effect of letting the Axis gain money through more easily achieved national objectives and marginal IPC territories (such as those found in Africa).  It also denies the allies (mostly England) progressively more IPCs.  It is for this reason that I think SBRs, while definitely a sound strategy, appear to be more game-breaking than perhaps they really are.

[italiansarecoming]

I just saw a mistake i have been making action sequence 7 i put as 1 lol i laugh lol i had no idea now ill have to start going the opposite way my friends and me will be working on new strats great!

Anyways if i was usa heavy bombers and time to get japan and send 2 inf. from a transport to great brtian for defense!
U.s.a. needs bombers and (i always go for pacific house rules add soem flavour man)