Is teching for rockets with UK an effective strategy? With the UK bomber and 1 or 2 from the US it seems like a worthwhile investment. However, like all techs, not getting it ends up being a waste of money. So how many rolls would you buy on UK1? I was thinking 3-4.
I typically play without technology. That said, I have considered getting rockets with them midgame, not right away. What happens is they need to retreat their AA gun from India and bring it up at least to Caucuses, if it could safely make it to Karelia, great. If the UK has the Indian AA gun in position and has excess money beyond what they can build on London, yeah, rockets are a good buy if playing with tech. They will cause an average of $7 damage each round.
Don’t think of getting a technology as an effective strategy. As the UK, take advantage of your proximity to Germany and blow stuff up. If you have 5-6 transports and several planes, the Germans need to be stacking their core territories pretty high in order to deter an attack. There are no die rolls involved in setting up that threat, those purchases are guarunteed to pay off unlike rolling for rockets, heavy bombers, etc.
Well its obvious that a tech is a risk. Should it pay off however germany can be strat bombed without the risk of being shot down and can be supported by the US’s own bombing methods. I think getting it sooner then later would prove helpful in damaging Germany’s money prior to their move on russia. And the UK, unlike some, doesn’t have to worry about a real threat to london 70% of the time, meaning they can take the IPC loss easier then others should you not get the tech.
The thing with spending that much money on technology is that Germany has less threat to their actual units unless you luck out and get it right away. Just by capturing Norway and liberating or preventing the fall of Africa, you prevent the Germans from collecting an extra $14($15 if you count T-J) each turn and that money isn’t destroyed, it stays in your own paycheck. In some games, the UK is collecting a lot and has excess cash beyond what they
I read your post in another thread and you mentioned Germany getting rockets, I think you overestimate them. The only time rockets might be worth it for Germany is if they get them on the cheap like $5-15 or so. If we assume Germany spends $30 G1 to sucessfully develop rockets, and gets a bid of 7, and no early Allied dice disasters, I would win as Allies. I’d be playing with LHTR. I’d be willing to play against you on that one if you have Triple A and want to test it.
I use GTO. I used it a few times last night and I gotta be honest, it was underwhelming. UK got it on turn 2 but with my bomber being shot down on its first strat run it really didn’t make a difference. I did however see a UK use it against me the other day with success. They somehow managed to move aa everywhere like algeria + caucus causing 12+ damage a turn with 2 US bombers doing their own thing.
Rockets might be useful at GTO which uses the out of box rules. Most places such as here on the forums use the Larry Harris Tournament Rules (LHTR) where the maximum IPC damage is the territory value. so Germany would only have to give up 10. Of course Southern Europe could also be hit for a total of 16.
With tech rolls being a one time thing and not carrying over like in AA50 (Anniversary Edition) I would be hesitant to spend much on tech and just go for boots on the ground.
I don’t much like playing Revised with tech… basically it means the game revolves around whether you get the techs early on. Like say if you tech for rockets with UK and get them on Round 1 then Axis is pretty much screwed, but if UK techs for several rounds and doesn’t get them then they fall way behind. Not to mention the fact that heavy bombers are very unbalanced, particuarly if USA gets them.
The game plays out beautifully w/o tech–why screw it up by making game outcomes exclusively determined by luck?
