Posts made by Greand Stone

I’m geussing the ‘paratrooper’ will be extremle simple.
-Each bomber may carry one paratrooper (infanteri)

Without having the details, I’m starting to image how it is for US to have BOTH partrooper AND heavy bombers at the same time…

And WHY no heavy tanks.  A tech giving tanks +1 ofensive WOULD by no means be overpowered and would have been a lot more fitting than the paratrooper. I just imagine USA taking ALL island in the pacific using only partroopers…

But i’ll give them that all land techs are atleast usefull for almost all nations for almost all situations.  And that the system of getting them is far supperior to the one in revised.

Some of them are correct, and some of them aren’t.  I’ll give out more info a little at a time.  Half the fun is speculation (at least for some folks), and I don’t want to ruin anyone’s fun.  (I’m sure I’ll get some negative karma from some of the other folks for this, but apparently that’s the price of being me.)

Just to say that we know that your list is not 100% corret :)

I have allways said that +2 production capacity and the repair IC thing fits perfectly for 1 tech. As one tech it
makes the entire ‘land’ part of the tech tree more interesting, as I find both of them seperatly quit borring.

Now, if we are missing one tehc, I realy realy hope they have some kind of ‘heavy armor’ tech, but I actually doubt it cuz it would have been easy to remember. Kind of disapointed, cuz it should not be imposible to create a balanced ‘heavy armor’ tech. A heavy armor could be given the ability to support one infanteri.

It has been said that these 2 Techs are actually 1 tech together.
Quote

IC repair- (one IPC removes two points of IC damage)

Improved production- each IC may now produce two more units per turn

If that is so then we are missing 1 tech. What could it be?

From where did you hair this?

Just to clearify, I’m hoping that the two techs above are one and I have been geussing this. But I have no knowledge whatsoever on the subject. Just reasoning that those two fit perfectly as one, both with respect to theme and balance.

Anyway this bonus rule sure seem to complicate things a bit, if you had issues with keeping track of IPC income and VC ownership, this bonus sure give more brain-work. It ain’t even marked on the map, so you need to memorize it too.

Agree. On a 1 v 1 this will complicate the game a lot. You have to remember all allies or all axis bonuses. To forget about one is very easy. Depending on how many there realy are ofcourse.

But a 3 v 3 player game the bonuses will work nice cuz then you only have to think about your own bonuses. I realy enjoy the russian bonus you get if there are noe allies troops in russia :)

Without bonuses, I must realy say that the axis are doomed from the start.

-No allied troops in russia is a very nice part of a russian bonus :)
-US holding on to USA is a realy lame bonus.
-That Japan only needs 4 out of 6 etc. for his bonuses helps. Cuz Japan realy realy needs the boost.

But I’m geussing that Germany Italy and Japan could get one bonus first round, but I’m also geussing that
the allies also gets a few bonuses. Maybe the axis could get +10 or +15 more on bonuses than the allies, but that
does not make up for the fact that the allies gets 55 extra cash to begin with!

-The starting peaces of allies has been estimated be more worth than their Allies counter part.

-The russian army in 1941 senario seems to be weak as it almost only includes infanteri. But that could realy easily be fixed for round 2.

-The japanees navy seems strong, but with few Destroyers, its realy realy wounderable to submarines.

I realy am starting to get a realy bad feeling about the balance of this game, cuz the starting potition does not seem to
favor the axis enough to compansate for atleast 40 less IPC to start with.

WOTC also made D&D 4th edition, and they destroyed my favorit RPG game… Litteraly destroyed it. They did so many things which was incredible stupid…

Japan has to be realy carefull with its carriers.

Without escort of any kind, carriers are extremly wounderable to submarines!
So if USA builds only a few subs Japan do want to retreat all unescorted carrier fleets. (fighters cannot defend against submarines if no destroyers are present in the fleet, and if the subs hit anything the carriers go down!)

I generally hope that the bonus IPC favors the axis. Cuz as it is now the IPC advantage of the Allies is HUGE in the 41 senario.

Axis: Japan 17, Germany 31, Italy 10 =  58
Allies: UK: 43, US: 40, Russia:30      = 113
In addition the allies gets FREE infanteri in china every single turn.

I now that the setup and position of start pieces is very important, but from the pictures russia starts preaty strong in the 41 senario. Japan starts with a huge navy with 3 Carriers but lone carriers are now extremly wounderable to subs. Thats a great boost to the game however balance wise it means that Japan needs to build escorts for their carriers. Having only 17IPC to start with, that might be kind of tricy. Russia starts of with mostly infanteri, which means they might have a hard time hiting back 1st turn. However if russia builds artellery/tanks 1st turn I geuss that russia will very soon (round 2) start to kick Germany out of Russia.

The starting IPC difference are simply to huge. The only thing that can balance the game is the national bonus IPC.

I hope they have playtested the game, but so far I actually fear the worst.

The main problem I see with your plan is that UK in the 41 senario starts with 43 (?) IPC, and can spend every single penny on
a counter move. And UK starts with quit a lot of destroiers allready. Build a few subs as germany might be usefull FIRST round, but my guess is that after first round, UK will have a larger fleet and be able to kill subs very easily.
Building 2 subs meight still be nice first round as it forces UK to build ships and maybe it can delay the invation of europe.

UK might want subs to kill the Italian fleet.
US and Japan might want subs to fight in the pacific.
Italy might ofcourse need a few subs.
So subs will definitivly be usefull in AA50, sadly not so usefull for Germany I guess.

But one question about subs: What happens if 3 subs attack 2 carriers with 4 planes?
: can the planes defend? (no Destroyers in the defending fleet)
: can planes be takes as cassulty?

If the answere is no to both these question, the fact that Japan starts with very few destroyers will be a very very big limitation for them. US can build a few very deadly submarines which can litteraly destroy the Japan fleet.

This is exactly my point. The Uk might have had a even bigger fleet than what is represented in the game, but regardless the German had submarines and they were painfull for UK.

In game terms, a supperior navy wins everything without a fight and insuperior fleets is completly useless. Which is both boring and not realistic.

Lynxes:
I agree with you. If you build a strategy around killing the UK destroyers the first turn, then yes you could benefit a lot from
building a few subs. And by all means, that might be a very good strategy to keep the Uk out of France etc.

However, my point is that you have to set up a strategy spesificly designed to use subs. If you dont, it will probably be stupid to build subs. And if UK builds a Carrier and a few subs herself first turn, in turn 4 and outwards it will probable be completly stupidity to build any more subs as the German player, regardless of earlier strategies.

As of IC repair, yes, I did not think of that, and that way IC repair might not be that far of. Still I find it somewhat disapointing that you need one tech spesificly for germany to counter one spesific strategy. I would much rather see technologies which could be usefull by everyone, regardless of enemy strategy.

I think naval and air prices are dropped for that reason, but it will not help. What the navy part of the game realy needs is
the ability for germany to build subs (anything realy) without UK being able to destroy them at sight. As long as UK can destroy anything that moves without any cassulties, it will be stupidity for germany to even try to build a few ships.

Obviusly I was not thinking when I said A&A has been around for 50 years.  :-P
But A&A has been around for a long time, and its about time they create a balanced game.

Anyway, I enjoy the new submarine. The flyabove with one airplane to autokill lone submarines feature was extremly irritating.
since a sub did cost almost as much as a fighter, and all you need to negate the subs first strike is one single destroyer, it was realy no big point in using them.

Now at 6point it is significantly cheaper than the fighter.
The sub is cheaper than the destroyer but has the same/better attacking power.
In a 1 on 1 attack versus an attack on a cruiser, the submarine would win 50% of the times! (given that subs has first strike)
So, if fighting for naval dominance, super subs is a very nice technology. Even though not as strong as HB, super subs are still very very good.

However I still dont see any reason for germany to build submarines, unless ofcourse you ignore russia, build a HUGE fleet and go for UK first. In the 41 senario UK has to many destroyers, and they will in time kill the german fleet. Having lone submarines will sadly soon be dead and useless. I wish I as the germans could build a few subs which I actually could use. As of now, it is only the side with the largest navy which would benefit of building boats, cuz the superior navy will still destroy anything they see. I realy wish germany could benefit from building 1 sub every now and then.

I’m still very curious about the other technologies.

Is rockets in? If so, as a land technology or a naval technology?

Jet: this must be a technology, but whats the effect? +1 in defence is extremly stupid as it is of totaly no use. Who want to
use fighters as a primary defensive anyway? The attacker just needs to send in a few more men and your fighters are toast.

Still also pussled about the repair IC technology. In many many cases I would say its completly stupidity. If repair IC is the only thing this technology does I would be dissapointed. Stupid for Japan and USA, most probable stupid for Italy, russia and even for UK. If this is one of the technologies I would realy like to see it replaced with a house-rule as soon as possible…

Heavy Bombers may have been slightly overpowered and it might still be. But on the other hand, in my games it was only HB and Rockets which seemed worth to buy. Thats 4 out of 6 technologies which never got used. Thats a shame cuz the 4 unused technologies might have been realy fun to play with. Except for Jet fighters which is boooring.

The new system of buying and getting a technology is great. Almost all nations may find in advantius to invest atleast 5pt into a scientist, and all technologies will be used.
The technology ‘mech. inf’ may not be the most powerfull, but worth 5pt, definitivly.

On the other hand, I can understand some of the frustration. Lets take jet-planes technology. Anyone could see its totaly stupid. Take AA naval miniatures: maybe a good game, but it is completly destroyed by the totaly imbalance of the battleships. Lets take AA miniatures: the old SS-PG was completly inbalanced. And what I read, totaly destroied all turnament plays. (normal persons will ofcourse maybe get 1 SS-pg unit cuz they did not buy enough boxes, but turney players had 5 of them) And you could spot the inbalance right away. Lets take Tide of iron: a great game with balanced units, but a lot of the senarios are completly unbalanced. Hopefully tide of iron becomes a great game with better senarioes.

AA has been around for 50years. If they still dont know how to make a balanced game, i will be extremly unsatisfied. However I hope that the bonus IPC would balance the game.

But over to something completly different: I’m very curious to see what technology on the first main list is WRONG. I have no clue. Some hints please?

The big difference now is that now all techs will be used. Earlier most of them never saw any action, cuz almost none of them was worth the 30Ipc needed to get them.

The difference now is that yes, USA can invest a lot more into tech. But now most contries can definitivly benefit for atleast setting 5Ipc into it at the start.

Lets say USA invest 10IPC every turn, while germany spends 10IPC only when they dont have 2 scientists. In turn 6, USA will in average have 3 technologies paying 60 IPC. Germany would have in average 2 technologies paying only 30IPC for those 2. USA pays a lot for the one extra technology they have. And even if you only pay 5IPC, you will in average have 1 technology at turn 6.

The system of getting technologies is a lot better, and now you could actually use them. Earlier I only saw Germany wanting rockets and USA getting HB. I never saw any other technology in action. Which is a great shame.

I agree that Mech. Inf. and heavy artellery are two very good technologies, which everybody can get some benefit from. What I fear is that too many would be too specilized.

Lynxes, I missunderstood. I thought you bought 2 scientist and rolled untill you got a result.

Yes, investing 10ipc every round gives you 1 technology every 2 turns.
But then it still takes in average 7 turns before getting heavy bobmers and the price has become 70IPC in average.
And as allways nothing is garranteed. Still, the allied benefit in IPC in the 1941 senario is so large thatn US meight
be able to spend 10IPC every round without to large sacrifice. The thing that meight rebalance thins is the bonus IPC.

What I’m more worried about actually is that to many technologies will be too useless in to many situations.
Still, the list or technologies is not 100%. The old ‘jet’ technology is completly useless, so I’m geussing it
has changed, but I dont know how.

First: for USA to be reasonable secure of getting heavy bombers, lets say they need atleast 3 tecs to get heavy bombers. (need 6 to be 100% sure. 3.5 is the average # techs needed to get heavy bombers).  Paying for two scientist for each tec they will have to pay 30pt, and wait in averrage 3 turns for each tech. In average thus US need to wait 9 turns before getting heavy bombers! Thats a LOT of turns.

The thing about science is that 5pt is quit cheap to potentialy get something usefull later in the game. But you cannot build your strategy around it. It just have to be a bonus you get when you get it.

How to counter bombing playing Germany:
Possible solutions:
-build an Extra factory in europe(?)
-Take one or two factories from russia.
Who cares about bombing if you can build all units you want anyway.

-Be “lucky” on technology and get ‘improved factories’ or IC repair or ‘RADAR’
All of these helps fight bombing.

Come on. Heavy bombers are not that insanly powerfull. If you realy want to nerf Heavy bombers, change it so that heavy bombers only uses 2 dices in land attacks ONLY!

In land combat, having 1 artellery and 3 infanteri is by far a stronger army than 1 heavy bomber, both on ofensive and defensive. The bomber gives you flexibility, and it can retreat from combat into a safe potition. With the heavy artellery, the combination 1 artellery and 3 infanteri gives you marginaly less punch, but you can soak up a lot of more cassulties. And even if you concider 2 artellery and 6 infanteri versus 1 artellery, 3 infanteri and 1 HB, the first will be a better attack! Not to speak of AA and possible radars… On land Heavy bombers is not even close to insane. Good, yes but not insanly good.

Besides, you cannot GET heavy bombers. You get a random technology! And if you invest 5pt,  you will in average get a technology in 6 turns. So it takes a long time, and you got to be lucky.

It seems that the national bonuses will be easier to achive in 1941 senario on turn 1 for the axis than for the allies? As I see it Japan, russia, Germany and Italy all have the possibility to get the +5 extra IPC? Maybe US depending on what japn does.

Also the Japan bonuses might have a strong impact on turn what to do on their first turn.
If possible, I would try to go for one of the bonus first to get +5IPC, which Japan realy need.