Posts made by a44bigdog

I really like the current tech structure as it is in AA50. I don’t really like the guaranteed tech from enhanced that I read about in your other thread. My biggest problem with that system is it basically divides things into the haves and the have nots. I also don’t like the targeted techs either. In my opinion then tech can become overpowering. Since you know what you get and when you get it you can build up to fully exploit it. Yes I know all those decisions are strategic decisions I am just thinking that it does make some techs a bit too powerful.

I like the current system of weighing risk and reward. I also like the random selection as it forces you to adapt to the situation, not just check of that unit y was bought on round x.

And as far as being random, none of it truly is. With real dice I can warm them up to where I get good rolls pretty consistently and the dice server here at AA, well it aint random at all. That thing well and truly hates me! :-D I have even got some results so low out of it frood wont even calc them.

Don’t be dissing on Chess Jenn. That’s how I paid a lot of my bar tabs in Germany.

Well I guess I could mention that in the NOs North West Europe is den and in the hover it is nwe or that Borneo is brn in one place and bor in another

but I think those are small enough issues to let slide.  :-D

I don’t mind technology. I figure I get diced way more than I am going to get burned by tech. Not only does your opponent have to have a breakthrough, they then have to hit the critical tech AND be in a position to benefit from it. I will leave working out all those factors to the probability experts around here.

I would readily submit that you will get burned by bad dice in a critical battle before you get burned by tech. I again state that my feelings about the people that are against it because they are afraid the conditions will change and their oh so carefully prepared strategy will go out the window. Guess what, the dice can already do that.

I also like the random tech in AA50. While once you receive a breakthrough you do know you will get something, you do not know exactly what. It is just like combat in the game, there are no guarantees. Having the two charts also can lead to strategic decisions. I currently have Radar with Germany in a game where I really could have used HB, LR, or even ship yards. Anything off of chart 1 would have been a guaranteed help. However due to conditions on the board  I weighed my chances and rolled chart 2. I didn’t get what I needed or even something that could have even helped me as I think there have been no Allied SBRs in that game. But I am fine with that. Its just the breaks just like the dice in combat.

Ya know what tech scares me the most? It isn’t Heavy Bombers. Strategic bombing campaigns are not the easiest things to properly execute and can be nullified almost completely with the proper tech. No the one that scares me the most is Long Range. I find that one is the one that seems to hit the hardest. Paratroopers may make you go chase after scattered infantry here and there. Mechanized infantry may speed infantry to the front, but Long Range just completely changes things. All those ships and other stuff you thought was safe. Nope not no more. Of course after they have achieved Long Range you will have taken it into consideration. It is the turn they get it on that can be a disaster.

kendric the problem is for you to be in a position to threaten the transports you should be in range of a destroyer. There is no sense chasing after a sub before it is truly a threat. And once it truly becomes a threat it is vulnerable.

I am also beginning to form the opinion once Japan has made its early grab of the Islands and got up and running on the mainland the Islands may not be worth fighting over. NOs or no NOs. One of the most expensive things in A&A is an ignored fleet.

Not sure how long some of Jenn’s games have run. The first few games I played in AA50 were over quickly, say round 6. I just surrendered a game in round 13 that was going to be decided in 2 more rounds. I also have another game that is currently over 10 rounds. At first '41 seems like a slam dunk for the Axis. As you play it more you find more Allied counters, and in turn Axis counters to those counters. I know it is easy to have a Revised game with out any major diceings go into the 20s.  I suspect within a month or two AA50 '41 games will also be like that.

It might give an advantage on the tournament scene to have all the players distracted by your snazzy tinfoil storage!  :-D

sets off to try and break it    :-D

Count_Zeppelin already touched on one problem, that being the money is incorrectly figured.

Here are some others. Since England is buying all bombers, what is preventing the Germans from throwing everything they have at Russia? Who is keeping Italy from having all of Africa? What happens when the AA guns  shoot down all your bombers? What if the bombers roll all ones and twos? Who is keeping Japan company? They might feel left out and seek someone to play with.

Strategic Bombing campaigns are useful, I have used them in Revised by both sides, however, they are not the easy automatic path to victory every one assumes they are. Also a problem with this strategy as laid out is one I find with many. It assumes a static and willing victim for it to succeed and if your opponent is that bad, then do you even need a real strategy?

If there are no destroyers present then it is just the sub vs the carrier. If there is a destroyer present the aircraft may then fire at the sub.

So what happens to your intsa-win when the AA guns shoot down all your bombers (has happened to me in more than 1 game). Hmm again that is another random dice thing. Maybe we should just get rid of the dice all together. How effective are your Hbs if your opponent has Radar or improved industrial? I think HB is nice but I don’t think it is an automatic win. Personally for me if the '09 league is without techs I will not be playing. If I wanted to play a no tech game I might as well just play Revised.

Sorry the argument I see against techs is this: “I had a turn by turn strategy worked out and was playing by my script. Then the conditions changed and I couldn’t adapt.”

B-17, considering how far above the other aircraft produced at the time it entered service.

B-25, I think if it went bang and could be shoe horned in or strapped to one it did.

Arado. Hey they just look cool.

Well since they were getting plenty of co-operation from Spain I would have to say Turkey. This would have allowed them entry into the Black sea without having to ship boats overland (they did that). It would have also allowed them more of a presence with their harassing operations in Iraq and Jordan.

Trust me Jenn well knows the value of subs in OTHER versions of A&A. I use them myself sometimes in the PTO in Revised, however in THIS incarnation of A&A they are nearly worthless.

I thought this was the '41 section. The US has no subs in 41 and the Japanese have to take all those islands in 41. This isn’t revised either and with the kind of money Japan makes I see no pressing need to go fetch all those infantry like revised.

It counts as combat see the side bar on page 19 of the rulebook.

I do not see a specific mention of this. The closest is the sidebar on page 19 of the rulebook.
I would see no reason why the subs could not fire at the transports they are a valid target for the subs. The attacking planes would have to kill the defending planes first before targeting the transport.

Page 27 under the fighters attributes. If you are familiar with Revised you should also be familiar with how the rulebook  seems to scatter stuff all through out it.

And yes it is the same as Revised 1 space.

Seriously Jenn. No Italian player in their right mind would waste money on techs.

This is from frood vs what the US should have at the end of US 1, Which is 1 destroyer 1 carrier 2 planes 2 battleships

Overall %*: A. survives: 0.6%  D. survives: 100%  No one survives: 0%

Attacker results:
Probability % # units / losses
  0.01% 4: 4 SSub. no units. : 0 IPCs
  0.01% 3: 3 SSub. 1 SSub. : 8 IPCs
  0.15% 2: 2 SSub. 2 SSub. : 16 IPCs
  0.39% 1: 1 SSub. 3 SSub. : 24 IPCs
  99.44% 0: no units. 4 SSub. : 32 IPCs
Defender results:
Probability % # units / losses
  57.3% 7: 2 Fig, 1 Des, 1 Car, 2 Bat. no units. : 0 IPCs
  27.51% 5: 2 Fig, 1 Car, 2 Bat.           1 Des. : 12 IPCs
  11.94% 4: 2 Fig, 2 Bat.           1 Des, 1 Car. :  28 IPCs
  2.38% 3: 2 Fig, 1 Bat. 1 Des, 1 Car, 1 Bat. :  52 IPCs
  0.87% 2: 2 Fig.         1 Des, 1 Car, 2 Bat. :  76 IPCs
Defender IPC losses in excess of Attacker IPC losses:
Probability % IPC loss differential
0.2% 60 IPCs
0.4% 52 IPCs
0.3% 44 IPCs
2.4% 20 IPCs
11.9% -4 IPCs
27.5% -20 IPCs
57.3% -32 IPCs

So I can imagine Japan’s pain when their 29 IPCs (you had to spend 5 to get the tech) worth of junk goes glugg, glugg. Some of yall want submarines to be a great unit so bad it is not funny. They have  a very limited use in AA50. Yes they were very effective in the real war but A&A games have very little to do with the real war.