This is one of the principle things that led to the LHTR; delaying the implementation of techs prevents the “Sealion” strategy.
I have been playing the game for months but very new to the LHTR. I just downloaded the rule and it seems mostly the same as the OOB rule and I can not see the difference at a glance.
Could you kindly point me out what difference delays the implementation of operation “sealion”?
Well, some of the differences are really minor. Things like Technologies taking effect at the end of your round instead of the start of your round and that you have to physically move your fighters to the sea zone you are building the carrier in to have them land on a newly built carrier.
For most of us it won’t change game play much, but it brings the rules into line to be a bit more fair to players who have not yet even had a turn to play.
The BIGGEST changes are to the National Advantages changing them from trump cards for the Allies to more even advantages between axis and allies.
Or an even better solution – just get rid of tech altogether! It just unbalances the game, mostly.
1. Delayed tech is a big change, not ‘minor’ at all.
2. Tech isn’t unbalancing. A good part of the game is about taking risks.
Tech allows for more depth to the game. The same old grind into the Pacific or northern Europe/Africa gets, well, old.
1. Delayed tech is a big change, not ‘minor’ at all.
2. Tech isn’t unbalancing. A good part of the game is about taking risks.
Tech allows for more depth to the game. The same old grind into the Pacific or northern Europe/Africa gets, well, old.
Those who complain about the dice being too big a factor in the outcome of A&A games should be the ones most against using tech. Tech is pure, unadultered dumb luck and very little to do with skill. If you get lucky and get the right tech, you have a big advantage over your opponents. If you get bad luck, you get stuck with something useless or, worse yet, nothing at all for your trouble and IPCs spent. Tech should have been eliminated when they came out with revised. It did not work well in Classic (which is why NO ONE played tournaments with tech) and still sucks in Revised. It sure hasn’t done you any good in our game, NPB.
I think it still has a place, for FUN games.
But for League or Tournament play… no tech is the only way to play.
I always wondered what people had against tech? Especially in league games. One would think that is when tech SHOULD be allowed so as to be as close to out of the box as possible while still making it a fair game.
Honestly, I like tech AND national advantages. Though, for tech I like the rules i read in a variant of the game:
You pay 20 IPC and get 4 rolls. If you fail to get the one you want, you pay 10 IPC and get it automatically the next round.
1. Delayed tech is a big change, not ‘minor’ at all.
2. Tech isn’t unbalancing. A good part of the game is about taking risks.
Tech allows for more depth to the game. The same old grind into the Pacific or northern Europe/Africa gets, well, old.
Those who complain about the dice being too big a factor in the outcome of A&A games should be the ones most against using tech. Tech is pure, unadultered dumb luck and very little to do with skill. If you get lucky and get the right tech, you have a big advantage over your opponents. If you get bad luck, you get stuck with something useless or, worse yet, nothing at all for your trouble and IPCs spent. Tech should have been eliminated when they came out with revised. It did not work well in Classic (which is why NO ONE played tournaments with tech) and still sucks in Revised. It sure hasn’t done you any good in our game, NPB.
“Tech is pure, unadulterated dumb luck”
Guess what, so’s the whole damn game. Which is not something you should be crying about in our current game, Gamer. Hell, you should be damn happy about your luck.
As far as Classic, people didn’t do tech because of heavy bombers. End of story.
Revised, tech doesn’t suck. There are sucky people that don’t like it though. :lol:
Those who complain about the dice being too big a factor in the outcome of A&A games should be the ones most against using tech. Tech is pure, unadultered dumb luck and very little to do with skill. If you get lucky and get the right tech, you have a big advantage over your opponents. If you get bad luck, you get stuck with something useless or, worse yet, nothing at all for your trouble and IPCs spent. Tech should have been eliminated when they came out with revised. It did not work well in Classic (which is why NO ONE played tournaments with tech) and still sucks in Revised. It sure hasn’t done you any good in our game, NPB.
You seem to have missed the bit in Revised where it says you can choose which tech to roll for, so it’s entirely your own fault if you get left with a useless tech. I will only become a fan of techs when we get specific pieces to represent the new units, as I don’t like having to remember who has what.
Those who complain about the dice being too big a factor in the outcome of A&A games should be the ones most against using tech. Tech is pure, unadultered dumb luck and very little to do with skill. If you get lucky and get the right tech, you have a big advantage over your opponents. If you get bad luck, you get stuck with something useless or, worse yet, nothing at all for your trouble and IPCs spent. Tech should have been eliminated when they came out with revised. It did not work well in Classic (which is why NO ONE played tournaments with tech) and still sucks in Revised. It sure hasn’t done you any good in our game, NPB.
You seem to have missed the bit in Revised where it says you can choose which tech to roll for, so it’s entirely your own fault if you get left with a useless tech. I will only become a fan of techs when we get specific pieces to represent the new units, as I don’t like having to remember who has what.
The usual way to mark techs is to place power markers on the tech research chart.
Of course, the power markers blend in with the chart . . .
I find it better in games that involve tech to put pennies on the ones that haven’t been researched.
Those who complain about the dice being too big a factor in the outcome of A&A games should be the ones most against using tech. Tech is pure, unadultered dumb luck and very little to do with skill. If you get lucky and get the right tech, you have a big advantage over your opponents. If you get bad luck, you get stuck with something useless or, worse yet, nothing at all for your trouble and IPCs spent. Tech should have been eliminated when they came out with revised. It did not work well in Classic (which is why NO ONE played tournaments with tech) and still sucks in Revised. It sure hasn’t done you any good in our game, NPB.
You seem to have missed the bit in Revised where it says you can choose which tech to roll for, so it’s entirely your own fault if you get left with a useless tech. I will only become a fan of techs when we get specific pieces to represent the new units, as I don’t like having to remember who has what.
Whatever. It’s STILL a question of dumb luck IF you get the tech. There is absolutely no skill involved in rolling a “6”.
Actually, I think you have to roll the number of the tech you are researching…
And with $30 bucks, the odds are rather good for a hit…
Switch is right. You have to declare the number you are rolling for. You can’t just “hope” to roll a 2 or 6 just by throwing in a whole bunch of dice.
Whatever. It’s STILL a question of dumb luck IF you get the tech. There is absolutely no skill involved in rolling a “6”.
“Luck is just one of my many skills.” - Isamu, “Macross Plus”
I think that playing with Low Luck dice and no tech the “whole damn game” is not at all dumb luck.
:-o
I agree.
LL and no tech. removes a lot of variables that can sway the game drasticly. What remains is good strategies and sound play to win the day! Most of the time anyway. The die sever hates me anyway :cry:
Anybody up for a game!?
C.I. :roll:
The problem is that if you chose to spend 20 IPC for 4 dices and you do not get the tech, the there are 20 IPC less to spend for units.
And you still not have the tech, too much penalizing IMHO.
To make technolgies more interesting, for me, there should be the sureness to get the technolgy and the only random factor should be the turn when you get it.
For example in A&A Revised Enhanced if you spend for at least 4 dices in a round, and you do not get the tech, then in the following round if you spend for at least for 2 dices you get automatically the tech in the deployment phase of that round (so that you are able to use it from that moment on).
I think that played in this way tech may become a real addition to the game strategy.
For example in A&A Revised Enhanced if you spend for at least 4 dices in a round, and you do not get the tech, then in the following round if you spend for at least for 2 dices you get automatically the tech in the deployment phase of that round (so that you are able to use it from that moment on).
I think that played in this way tech may become a real addition to the game strategy.
I too like how Enhanced treats tech rolls. You can be risky and spend only $20 (66% odds) or guarentee the tech for $30. Key is the $20 spent is not ‘lost’, but can carry over. The only thing lost is the one round of tech if you miss.
Key also in this system is no cheap techs. I can not spend $5 as germany and get rockets…. (minimum tech roll is 4 dice)
Tech should definately be removed completely!
But I would like to see some options to buy “improved” units, like DD’s with coastal bombardment,
long range aircraft and jet power. If u can buy these improvements for a set price, then maybe that could work?
Best option overall, is to have all units/values set from the start of the game.
There should be a “skill variant”, low luck, no tech, no NA’s, no SBR etc. Then this variant would
attract ppl who would like to play A&A where the winner is not decided by the one who has sacrificed most
blod to the dice gods, but by pure skills, and virtue!!!
