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!!!
But it already exist, it is possible to play A&A without NAs, without research and with Low Luck.
But it is also interesting to play a game in wich uncertainty is more present, and research do that.
What is in discussion here, is that if you would t play with researh it is important to have a little rationality in research roll, otherwise player may be really screwed by the dices, losing the IPC and do not achieving the tech!
Enhanced tech is really interesting.
When we want to play with research, and sometime we do, we use the 4-2 rule from Enhenced.
@Crazy:
:-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:
Lol.
Here, I will make a good strategy.
I will always have a standing army of 100 men. The enemy will never invade with more than 50 men.
Arguably, my strategy is pretty kickass. Oh wait, I think I will make it even better.
I will always have a standing army of 1,000,000,000 men. The enemy will never invade with more than an angry hamster armed with wet noodles.
–
When you have a game about WAR, bad luck should always be a factor.
You pick the tech you are going for and if you roll the number of the tech you shot for, you get it. It’s basically like getting a ‘6’. There’s no second roll after you succeed like in Classic. You get it, or you dont. That’s why a lot of the techs were nerfed to make them less powerful.
Anyway, the new best tech is Rockets for Germany. Get to hit Russia and England every turn. WEG
I will always have a standing army of 1,000,000,000 men.
This is the current absorb-the-enemy-philosophy of modern and ancient China, and the numbers increase each year :-)
Chess isn’t millitary strategy?
Most games are not simulations for that matter, try Harpoon or similar pc games.
No boardgames are simulation of wars or battles.
Legend says chess was made for a king who couldn’t live without war.
A&A was never meant to be a simulation of WW2.
And both chess and A&A are games in which millitary strategy is an important factor.
U think Hitler and Hirohito lost because they didn’t sacrifice enough blood to the dice gods?
And FDR, Churchill and Stalin bled themselves dry, made dice gods happy, and therefore won the war???
Chess isn’t millitary strategy?
When your bishop says “Hell no I ain’t takin that queen, Imma get killed by that rook next turn”, then your bishop gets up off the board and runs away, then planning a game of chess will be like military strategy.
Most games are not simulations for that matter, try Harpoon or similar pc games.
No boardgames are simulation of wars or battles.Main Entry: sim·u·la·tion
Pronunciation: “sim-y&-'lA-sh&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English simulacion, from Anglo-French, from Latin simulation-, simulatio, from simulare
1 : the act or process of simulating
2 : a sham object : COUNTERFEIT
3 a : the imitative representation of the functioning of one system or process by means of the functioning of another <a computer=”" simulation=“” of=“” an=“” industrial=“” process=“”>b : examination of a problem often not subject to direct experimentation by means of a simulating deviceMOST games ARE simulations. And there are certainly boardgames that are simulations of wars AND there are boardgames that are simulations of battles.
Legend says chess was made for a king who couldn’t live without war.
A&A was never meant to be a simulation of WW2.orly
And both chess and A&A are games in which millitary strategy is an important factor.
wat?
U think Hitler and Hirohito lost because they didn’t sacrifice enough blood to the dice gods?
I fail to see where anyone said anything of the sort.
And FDR, Churchill and Stalin bled themselves dry, made dice gods happy, and therefore won the war???</a>
<a computer=“” simulation=“” of=“” an=“” industrial=“” process=“”>Give me back my crack pipe.</a>
Lucifer, I play Chess also and it feels different from A&A.
I do not know if A&A may be called a simulation. I heard that it is classified Light Wargames. But the point is not that.
Tech may be used to have more variability in the game, more possibilities of spending and so on.
What we need is to have a little rationality in research roll, otherwise player may be really screwed by the dices, losing the IPC and do not achieving the tech, and I do not like to win for those reason, and I thing that no one want to win for those reason.
But this do not means that we should remove any randomness from the Game, radomness is fundamental for two things.
First it give the sense of uncertainty about the actions that we are going to do, because nothing happens for sure. Lucky exists also in the real conflicts. Napoleon said that he dismisses for sure the capable but unlucky general and keeps the incompetents if they are lucky!
Second, it give more variability to the games if A&A was with limited randomness it will become repetitive and boring.
Chess is not repetitive because it has an almost uncountable numbers of possible games (10^48 if my memory do not fail me) and then
does not need randomness for being various.
Chess isn’t millitary strategy?
When your bishop says “Hell no I ain’t takin that queen, Imma get killed by that rook next turn”, then your bishop gets up off the board and runs away, then planning a game of chess will be like military strategy.
Most games are not simulations for that matter, try Harpoon or similar pc games.
No boardgames are simulation of wars or battles.Main Entry: sim·u·la·tion
Pronunciation: “sim-y&-'lA-sh&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English simulacion, from Anglo-French, from Latin simulation-, simulatio, from simulare
1 : the act or process of simulating
2 : a sham object : COUNTERFEIT
3 a : the imitative representation of the functioning of one system or process by means of the functioning of another <a computer=”" simulation=“” of=“” an=“” industrial=“” process=“”>b : examination of a problem often not subject to direct experimentation by means of a simulating deviceMOST games ARE simulations. And there are certainly boardgames that are simulations of wars AND there are boardgames that are simulations of battles.
Legend says chess was made for a king who couldn’t live without war.
A&A was never meant to be a simulation of WW2.orly
And both chess and A&A are games in which millitary strategy is an important factor.
wat?
U think Hitler and Hirohito lost because they didn’t sacrifice enough blood to the dice gods?
I fail to see where anyone said anything of the sort.
And FDR, Churchill and Stalin bled themselves dry, made dice gods happy, and therefore won the war???</a>
<a computer=“” simulation=“” of=“” an=“” industrial=“” process=“”>Give me back my crack pipe.</a>
<a computer=“” simulation=“” of=“” an=“” industrial=“” process=“”>Newpaintbrush, your posts should be collected in a book: “How to write great posts!”
:-)</a>
it seems that Hunter in Chess called Bishop in english
in my language its Hunter
Romulus, you re Italian how it is called in Italian
thanks
Amon sul,
In Italian Hunter is called “Alfiere”, that is a “standard bearer”.
Other names are only the translation from the English. The only difference is for the Queen that other than “Regina” (transaltion of Queen) is also called “Donna” (woman).
What’s your point nuno?
Don;t mind him Lucifer. He is just a boor who posts inane little jabs at anyone and everyone.
@ncscswitch:
Don;t mind him Lucifer. He is just a boor who posts inane little jabs at anyone and everyone.
+1 karma for that post
@ncscswitch:
Don;t mind him Lucifer. He is just a boor who posts inane little jabs at anyone and everyone.
SMITE!
Mods should be as civil as Englishmen. Luckily, I’m not a mod, so I can post like an American.
BOOYA :-D
@ncscswitch:
Don;t mind him Lucifer. He is just a boor who posts inane little jabs at anyone and everyone.
Mods should be as civil as Englishmen. Luckily, I’m not a mod, so I can post like an American.
That WAS civil… and accurate.
Had I been rude or crass (as well as accurate), the post would have been a bit different :-P
@ncscswitch:
That WAS civil… and accurate.
Had I been rude or crass (as well as accurate), the post would have been a bit different :-P
I enjoy masturbating. :-D
Civil. 8-) Accurate. :oops:
But is it APPROPRIATE, is all I’m saying, you see? :wink:
That sounds like an Extrem strategy for G1!
I enjoy masturbating. :-D
1. Make love not war.
2. If you can’t be with the one you love, love the one you’re with.
3. Consequently, if you feel like war, but you’re all by your lonesome self, you should … see above!
That would make some of us more civil, I think. :wink:
Back on topic - luck adds a lot to the fun of the game, and gives you a really good excuse when you lose. Why would you get rid of that.
I want to play a game where everyone gets 2 techs and 2 NAs or something like that, just to spice things up. I have never once yet played with any of either.
Not even by myself. :wink:
That sounds like an Extrem strategy for G1!
I enjoy masturbating. :-D
1. Make love not war.
2. If you can’t be with the one you love, love the one you’re with.
3. Consequently, if you feel like war, but you’re all by your lonesome self, you should … see above!That would make some of us more civil, I think. :wink:
:-D An almost perfect logic reasoning Frood! Karma +1 for you!
Back on topic: we often play with NA and they add new option to the game strategy. They are not thought to be balanced, but to introduce variety in the game I think! And usually we select them.
Dice and luck/low luck can be both good and bad.
This week I played 2 games in the lobby, both multiplayer, where my team won only because of good dicerolls.
Last game, G had 82% on sealion rnd 2. It failed. G lost all except a bomber…. :-D :-D
I played on the allies team both games and the opponents conceded rnd 3-4.
No strat beats dicerolls!
It’s always nice to win, but if u win with lowluck then u know for sure that u played more skillfully in the games u win.
For some strange reason I don’t feel good even if I can blame losses on bad dice.
And winning is better than losing, but the taste of victory doesn’t taste that sweet when u have to go to the
hospital to get a bloodtransfusion after everygame u win win with reg.dice :evil:
