And BTW, those calculations you gave for getting super subs are flakey.
Given that you have no techs already, its a 1/6 chance to get a tech, then another 1/6 chance to get a particular tech on chart 2 (the one with super subs). That’s 1/6*1/6 = 1/36, or 2.78%.
You don’t divide by 3 because only some nations will want them, or whatever it is you’re trying to do. Given that you’re rolling for tech and have none already, it’s a 1/36 chance per roll, end of story.
Reread what axis_roll said.
He’s questioning your assertion that only super subs break the game under instant directed tech.
For example, how do you come to the conclusion that super subs are broken but heavy bombers are not?
@Capt.:
I have 7INF 1ART and 2ARM from Karelia with 3INF and 3ARM from Russia attacking Belorussia’s German tank column. I want to strafe attack 1 round and retreat all surviving forces to Russia?
Perfectly legal AFAIK.
If you have seriously changed your position on super subs in the past 2 months, fine. I can appreciate that ideas and strategies evolve over time. I obviously disagree, but we can discuss that later.
The point I’m trying to make right now is about your stance on OOB tech rules. You said:
If you want to find a way to break it, you’ll find a way. I can do it in any game. For instance, Anniversary 1941 OOB: Get Super Submarines just before attacking the American fleet thereby giving you 6 IPC Cruisers for your attack.
Many players, including myself, were arguing exactly this in a thread 9 days ago. Yet, at the time, you refused to accept that the OOB tech rules are broken. In your own words:
Technology is not broken, you made a bone-headed move and a superior player capitalized on it.
So according to you, the Americans simply made a bone-headed move: what were they thinking, they left their fleet within range of potential super subs! There are plenty more examples of you vehemently defending the OOB tech rules, even claiming that anyone who complains about them is just “unable to think critically” or just bad at strategic planning.
Yet, 9 days later, you cite an example of a game-breaking situation that can arise due to tech. Your positions in these threads are contradictory. And don’t try to tell me you changed your mind for AA50:Jen, because that thread was started after you released your rules.
I mean, do you really not see this? On the one hand, you say tech is fine when I argue otherwise in the 1941 forum, but now its broken when you need to pimp your new rule set. This two-faced attitude you invoke to suit your current agenda really makes it hard to take you, or your rules, seriously. It tells me that your position on any given rule is not necessarily based on logic or playtesting, but on your flavor of the week, which is likely just the opposite position of someone you don’t like personally. The problem is that you would rather win every argument than accept that someone else’s argument has merit. This is not conducive to creating a good rule set.
@Cmdr:
No, I am saying that instant tech cannot lead to game-breakage if your opponent is strategically and tactically sound in his or her game play.
Then your example makes no sense at all. The American player can simply “plan ahead” to avoid the situation you descibed, right? By your logic, this should not be game-breaking, yet you cite this as an example of how the OOB rules can be broken. :? You are contradicting yourself here.
@Cmdr:
However, super submarines in Anniversary can be used in a game breaking manner. Which is why super submarines were disposed of in Anniversary:Enhanced.
So let me get this straight… you took super subs out because they’re broken? Sorry, but that is just lol, and you know it. Here’s a quote from you in a thread you started in the 1941 forum:
Okay, tech is a bit random, so what? You have a choice on what chart you roll on, so that’ll help a lot, and really, outside of Super Submarines, I don’t see a “bad” technology on the charts. (Thinking about it, if we fixed Super Submarines to negate Battleship 2 hit abilities, then they would be good!)
Here’s a hint: super subs aren’t the problem. If you disagree, then give me an exmple of how super subs can be used in a game-breaking manner which does not involve the exploitation of instant tech.
@Cmdr:
If you want to find a way to break it, you’ll find a way. I can do it in any game. For instance, Anniversary 1941 OOB: Get Super Submarines just before attacking the American fleet thereby giving you 6 IPC Cruisers for your attack.
So what you’re saying is… instant tech can lead to game-breaking situations?
And with super-subs, no less. :lol:
Well, your idea is quite a bit different than what was proposed in the OP.
I do like your’s better, it seems cleaner and less overpowering. But still… how is making bombers more powerful an improvement to the game? If anything, they should be nerfed slightly.
Sorry, but I don’t really like this change at all. Not only does it needlessly complicate the rules, it makes a very powerful (some would argue broken) unit even stronger.
What is the logic behind implementing this rule?
This thread just got a whole lot better.
@Cmdr:
PS: axis_roll: guarantee has two ‘a’s’. Doesn’t your web browser have a spell checker function? If not, may I suggest FireFox?
@Cmdr:
It’s no longer possible to get enough victory cities or National objectives to win in the first round, guarantying that the game will have a round 2 now.
Apparently your spell checker sucks. Seems it can correct ‘guarantee’ but not ‘guaranteeing’.
Now could you please get off your high horse for a second to address this, instead of continuing to ignore it:
Now for Questions #2-6 (or maybe part B #1-5)
TESTERS:
- Who are they?
- What are their playing levels?
- How many games of AARe and AA50 have they played? (Because you are incorporating both sets of rules)
- Who have they beaten?
- What side(s) do they play (Axis, Allies, both)?
Again, direct answers please
Thanks for the update, Krieg.
Everything starts from AARe, though.
But this is exactly the wrong way to approach things. AARe =/= AA50.
No, instead you’d rather flame and troll around.
If you wanna call me a troll or whatever, fine, but how about just addressing the issue at hand instead of calling me names? You brought this on yourself, so deal with it.
How can you possibly say that there was not the same level of thought and playtesting in these as there was in AARe if you have not even attempted to play them?
Its pretty simple, really. You read the rules. Which, despite your accusations, I did do. There are obvious flaws, one of which was pointed out to by axis_roll in the other thread. I questioned whether you playtested the rules in my first post in that thread, which was promptly deleted by IL. Then axis_roll asked you about playtesting, specifically, who was involved.
You responded with:
Most of the dev team were gamers who live in Northern Illinois. After the rudiments were put in place, we had a month of online gamers testing it from the four major gaming sites that I know of: DAAK, FOE, AAMC and here.
Wow, that sounds impressive.
Then axis_roll asked you the following:
I ask WHO they were (online monikers). How many players as well? You also didn’t indicate their background (i.e. years experience, AARe experience, etc) I know most, if not all of the Enhanced players.
To which you refuse to respond.
So, call me a skeptic, but I’m just not buying your story here. It seems as though maybe you didn’t bother playtesting much, if at all. It seems like you’re just saying things to sell us on your rules.
@Cmdr:
Coming from someone who has played AA50:Enhanced exactly how many times, Unknown Soldier? My bet, ZERO
LOL, obviously I haven’t played it.
My whole point is that these rules aren’t worth playing because you haven’t demonstrated that the same level of thought and playtesting that went into AARe went into your rules, even though you try to present them as such.
Now are you going to address these concerns, or continue to avoid them by simply attacking me?
If you dislike the rules, then you probably dislike the AARe rules since they are virtually the same. In fact, any legitimate argument against AA50 enhanced would be equally legitimate against AAR enhanced.
Once again, you completely miss the point. Just because you copied and pasted rules from AARe to AA50 does not mean your game will necessarily have the same strategic variety and game balance that was achieved inr AARe. You can’t just slap together a bunch of rules from a different game and expect them to function in the same way. Your failure to even acknowledge this point does not help your credibility as a game designer, and it casts serious doubt on the quality of your rule set. This is why people take issue with your use of the name “enhanced”: you’re taking the name of a well-established rule set in order to give your rules credibility.
Do your rules deserve that credibility? No, not as far as I can see.
Never mind the fact that people haven’t even figured out the basic game yet, you make bold claims about how your rules were thoroughly playtested by expert online players. Yet, when pressed for actual names of these players by axis_roll you simply ignore the question. Hmmm. Not a single other person who can vouch for you, huh? Not helping the credibility along.
If you haven’t playtested the rules, that’s fine. Just say so. People post rules all the time that I’m sure haven’t even been tried once. I just don’t see why you have to lie about it, and instead steal the name of an established rule set in order to legitimize your own.
Any pedantic players’ attempts to bring the USA Bomber from the UK to a Hawaiian Sea Zone battle Turn 1 must be greeted with prodigious eye-rolling; said player must then go posthaste to get me a beer from the fridge.
LOL! I guess my rulebook has a misprint. :-D
You mean the sliver of the Hudson bay that touches the edge of the board? I really don’t think that counts as touching Western Canada.
Exactly how big does it have to be to “count” then? :?
Unless there is a specific rule/errata covering this (I’m not aware of any), I don’t see why w. can and sz1 wouldn’t be considered adjacent.
If you’re only interested in eliminating the cases of extreme luck from the game, here’s a good solution I’ve seen used: give each nation one (and only one) “re-roll token” at the start of the game. This token can be used at any time throughout the game in any battle involving the nation which wants to use their token. Basically, it gives them the option to re-do (or force an opponent to re-do) any one roll of their choosing during the battle. Once you use your token, that’s it, you don’t get another one. Therefore, you must use it wisely.
Stoob, good to see some numbers. My experience is similar to yours, though the Allies have been getting better and better at KIF lately in my games. I haven’t seen Japan break 100 yet, but they seem to always have 80+ when the Axis wins.
+1 Karma granted. :-D
Perhaps you are not thinking critically enough.
:roll:
Yet another insult to my intelligence. What about the people who agree with me? I guess they’re just “not thinking critically enough” either, huh?
I’m sorry, I just cannot feel sorry for someone who puts their fleet in range of a dozen bombers when their opponent has 5 of the 6 technologies on their chart and gets the last one, Heavy Bombers, and sinks their fleet.
That’s obviously NOT what I’m talking about here. Why must you always resort to straw-man arguments and ad-hominem attacks to prove your point? Perhaps YOU are the one who is not thinking critically enough?
I can feel a little sorry for the guy who leaves his capitol undefended and his opponent gets Paratroopers taking it without loss when he had no technologies at all.
This is the kind of thing I’m talking about. How would it be a bad thing to eliminate these Yahtzee plays from the game? This is a strategy game, not roulette. Yes, luck play a part. But you should’t be able to lose the game on round 1 from one lucky roll, in my opinion.
