What if these happen? - Extrem G1 Strategy

[Jennifer]

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.

[newpaintbrush]

@Gamer:

@newpaintbrush:

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:

[Flashman]

@Gamer:

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.

[newpaintbrush]

@Flashman:

@Gamer:

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.

[Weekend Gamer]

@Flashman:

@Gamer:

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”.

[Guest]

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…

[General_D.Fox]

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.

[newpaintbrush]

@Gamer:

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”

[Stalebrew]

I think that playing with Low Luck dice and no tech the “whole damn game” is not at all dumb luck.

[Crazy Ivan]

:-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:

[Romulus]

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.

[axis_roll]

@Romulus:

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)

[Lucifer]

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!!!

[Romulus]

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.

[newpaintbrush]

@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.

[Jennifer]

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

[Lucifer]

@newpaintbrush:

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  :-)

[Lucifer]

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???

[newpaintbrush]

@Lucifer:

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 device

MOST 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>

[Romulus]

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.