Does tech take effect as soon as you mark it? This gives a 1 turn advantage since purchased units can only be used next turn, while tech can be used instantly…
@Craig:
Phase 1: Research & Development
Note: This is an optional rule- players should decide whether or not this phase will be included in their game.Research & Development Sequence
1. Buy researcher tokens
2. Roll research dice
3. Roll breakthrough die
4. Mark development
@Craig:
Step 4: Mark Development
If your research was successful, place one of your national control markers inside the appropriate advancement box on the research & development chart. Your development becomes effective immediately.
Looks like yes.
roll “1” darnit didn’t get technology p:
Even assuming your adjusted math of a tech every 2.5 turns is correct and my estimated 3 turns is wrong (once again assuming a fixed 10 ipcs on tech rolls per turn), you still only have better than a 50% chance of getting heavy bomber tech on your 3rd successful tech or (7-8th turn).
Assuming you get heavy bomber tech on turn 7, there are still four possible problems here…
1. Over the long run of the game you are spending massive IPCs to obtain a single tech that could elude you. Tech rolls are never a sure thing. Even if you get the tech on turn 7, the game might be over already.
2. UK/USA could be inflicting max damage on every complex in range already.
3. By turn 6 you could have instead just bough 5 more bombers doing a total of 10 (4 + 3 + 2 +1) bombing runs before you ever see heavy bombers.
Yep. Like I said, I wasn’t trying to argue in favor of a heavy bomber '“strat”, just trying to get a bit more accurate numbers since the difference between 2 turns/tech and 3 turns/tech is pretty significant. But because I was working off faulty assumptions, the difference is far less significant than I thought. With the system the way it is, rolling less dice offers you more techs per IPC investment AND per roll, which works against tech-heavy builds.
Meh! im not a bombing person
Bombing is ok, but if you must be persistant. But that assumes you are willing to keep spending money on it, which depending may not be an option.
THe trick to bombing is to be in the better spot example if germany has most of russia they can finish it or take a few bombers and explode the brits so taht way both allies are crusshed with “fear” Me i skip bombing and worry about landing and such do not kid me wrong bombers i start with i win with them or lose with them becausei send them with fights (1st turn get income thats what i do) 1 bomber and my fighter 's and many inf. v lets say 3 tanks then i have a totaly force of 7+ aircraft and inf are the key to victory for russia (artillery as well)
I just come to think that, if heavybombers and rockets were removed from AA50, then there’s a small possibillity that it could be fun playing AA50 with techs…
After trying AA50, it seems like the reduced cost of bmrs probably isnt a gamebreaker after all, but combine 12 ipc bmrs + rockets + HB :roll:
Techs are random. Do you really fear a rockets + hb combo? 1 of 36 chances of getting both with only 10 ipcs in 2 turns. Not a great strat :-P Allied massive bombing strat is preventing by Godzilla Japan attacking Alaska, and Axis massive bomb strat is prevented by starting superior income of Allies. I fear more buggy sparring China, nerfed logistics for USA at Pacific and powered up pokemon Japan
Even if the chance of getting either rockets or HB is only 1/12(?) after hitting @6(?), you never know when this is going to occure, so for my part it means that tech is a gamebreaker because of 2 out of 12 techs is going to ruin the game I’m playing, assuming tech is on. But it’s really sad because the only 2 techs that have nothing to do with genuine strats is rockets and HB, all other techs could be fun and are not gamebreakers. It’s not only about one specific tech is going to shift the balance of the game, point is that
10 techs is about strats, 2 techs is just rolling some dice. To use most of the 12 techs you must also know how to use them, you’re not getting automatic advantage by just being lucky. There are actually several techs that seems ok (as of now). After taking a look at the fact sheet, I think all other techs are ok, just not rockets and HB.
The chance increases every turn!
Anyways more people will buy bombers.
The only time that i use bombers for is when iuse there 4attack.
example: im russia and i send my 11 bomber with 4 inf. lose 2 inf. 2 inf. stay send bomber back.
I use my bomber as a tricky savior of my army not bombing i have found it works better then buying them for bombing unless you do not got anything better to do!
New to this forum, but been reading here for a little while now.
Of course we are not sure of how strong heavy bombers will actually be in the game yet but with hb your average “gain” from a single sb raid will be about (7*5)/6-(12/6) IPCs or something like 3,8 IPCs in net gain on average. Of course the figure gets a little more balanced if the opposition has improved production or radar, and if he has both it won’t be wise to bomb him at all.
There might be a big problem if one country gets hb during the first rounds of play, and it is this coincidental situation that bothers me, as others have previously mentioned, the game should be about strategy, not plain luck.
Welcome!
I agree the game should be more about strategy, but you don’t have to play with tech if you don’t want to. The group that I play with likes to play with tech, and I believe that it can make the game mnore fun.
@Subotai:
Even if the chance of getting either rockets or HB is only 1/12(?) after hitting @6(?), you never know when this is going to occure, so for my part it means that tech is a gamebreaker because of 2 out of 12 techs is going to ruin the game I’m playing, assuming tech is on. But it’s really sad because the only 2 techs that have nothing to do with genuine strats is rockets and HB, all other techs could be fun and are not gamebreakers. It’s not only about one specific tech is going to shift the balance of the game, point is that
10 techs is about strats, 2 techs is just rolling some dice. To use most of the 12 techs you must also know how to use them, you’re not getting automatic advantage by just being lucky. There are actually several techs that seems ok (as of now). After taking a look at the fact sheet, I think all other techs are ok, just not rockets and HB.
I think the best would be reducing max damage to IC to its IPC value, not allowing “negative production”. Thus, Germany could get 10 points of damage, not 20 as now, and minor ICs would not be so utterly damaged. This would solve rockets. For HB, make the bomber a 5/2 unit instead of two dices stuff, and give a +1 to strat bombing.
A solution to HB problem is a house rule like Funcioneta suggested, but it doesnt solve the problem with the AA50 game design, it looks very good overall, but here are som minor issues, like the everlasting HB problem….
In F2F game one can always agree to use tech, but not HB.
HB is not only about SBR, this tech is gamebreaker even with a house rule with no SBR attacks.
For naval combat, ftrs and subs are most effective (in AAR rules) when calcing cost/attack punch. In AA50 this changes because bmrs are cheaper and also subs are cheaper in AA50. So in AA50 the units which are most effective in naval combat are bmrs and subs. HB is twice as effective in naval combat compared to other units.
If one player in a AA50 game gets HB rnd 1 or rnd 2, then this will shift the game balance and the player who got lucky to get HB is going to win, if both players are somewhat equally experienced.
And this will aply also regardless of SBR attacks. HB is so powerfull both in naval and land combat that the only hope for the other player is also to get HB.
If US gets HB and going after Jap, Jap will be in deeeeeep trouble. And vice versa…
With HB it will be an arms race in tech and not a competion of who got most skills making strategic decisions.
But you have boosting techs for subs and fighters, both cheaper than bombers. Maybe making HBs a 5 attack, 2 defense unit who gets a +1 for strat bombings would be enough.
Anyway, with OOB rules, as Subotai said, I’m more afraid of HB affecting naval combat. I’m not sure about this, maybe reduced cost of ships (even more with shipyards) can counter HBs.
Another item is that HB could be too powerful in Atlantic and Mediterranean with so small distances, but Pacific is another story, it has larger distances. And you need some fleet for defending your trannies and take that yummy islands. Figs can defend fleets, HBs not.
Of course, a first round HB tech could be very powerful, but chances of it with 1 dice are 1/36, less than 3%, and there are few bombers on board. Maybe is too heavy forbid techs only for so slim percent. Even so, I prefer a mandatory tech with less powerful HBs than no tech in all. Techs give a special taste to the games
Bombers are good for 1 thing for russia mobilty of 3 spaces and back and if i had to choose from a 3-4 fighter 10money - a bomber 12money and 4-1 id prob choose the bomber most likely unless i need that for 4 inf.
@Subotai:
Even if the chance of getting either rockets or HB is only 1/12(?) after hitting @6(?), you never know when this is going to occure, so for my part it means that tech is a gamebreaker because of 2 out of 12 techs is going to ruin the game I’m playing, assuming tech is on. But it’s really sad because the only 2 techs that have nothing to do with genuine strats is rockets and HB, all other techs could be fun and are not gamebreakers. It’s not only about one specific tech is going to shift the balance of the game, point is that
10 techs is about strats, 2 techs is just rolling some dice. To use most of the 12 techs you must also know how to use them, you’re not getting automatic advantage by just being lucky. There are actually several techs that seems ok (as of now). After taking a look at the fact sheet, I think all other techs are ok, just not rockets and HB.
I agree completely Subotai
If a game of strategy can depend so much on a single dice roll (ie. getting lucky and rolling HB), then said game of strategy is not worth playing (or at least the subset of rules that would allow such… ie. Tech)
This is most unfortunate as some of these Techs would indeed make the game more fun and strategic. This leads to my second point, and that is Tech should not be random.
A game of strategy should involve decision making, not just closing your eyes, rolling for some random Tech, and seeing what fate gives you. They had it right in Revised, I have no idea why they would go back. :?
I think the best would be reducing max damage to IC to its IPC value, not allowing “negative production”. Thus, Germany could get 10 points of damage, not 20 as now, and minor ICs would not be so utterly damaged.
Completely agree…
At 10IPC max damage to Germany, it’s a STRATEGY
At 20IPC max damage to Germany, it’s an EXPLOIT
@Subotai:
HB is not only about SBR, this tech is gamebreaker even with a house rule with no SBR attacks.
For naval combat,…. HB is twice as effective in naval combat compared to other units…
If US gets HB and going after Jap, Jap will be in deeeeeep trouble. And vice versa…
With HB it will be an arms race in tech and not a competion of who got most skills making strategic decisions.
I’m actually not bothered by HB itself as a Tech. What I am bothered by though, is as you imply, that there is no adequate counter to HBs.
Right now, radar is the only real counter, and that will only help land attacks and SBRs
For Naval, they should have Radar giving Cruisers and Battleships a single 1@1 AA shot
They should also have Techs increasing SUB survivability, so that going to a strong SUB fleet becomes a nice counter
Another SBR Counter would be Interceptor Tech, eg. a single 1@1 AA shot for every FTR in the territory under SBR.
Even just the existence of potential counters is enough to discourage HB (cost-effectiveness drops dramatically). The only other thing you would need to include is Directed Tech to get these counters rather than just the Random Tech nonsense that is present now.
