A Serious Discussion of Technologies in 1941

[DarthMaximus]

I would think Jet ftrs would be pretty killer for Germany as well.  A 10 ipc unit that attacks and defends at 4.  Yikes!

I’d probably take my chances rolling on that chart, either HB or Jets would be awesome, LRA/Radar are certainly serviceable, while subs (unless rd 1) and shipyards require a strategy shift or are useless.

If you got Jets and LRA early enough, game over.  The Allies wouldn’t be able to keep a ship in the water.

[Perry]

I thinking about the Heavy Bomber Tech. Is it optimal in the way it looks today?

I think there is two options:

• Keep it the way it looks today: 2D6 SBR dmg, 2D6 @4 on attack
• Use the LHTR variant: SBR-damage = D6+2, Attack value = 5, Defense value = 1

Any thoughts?

[Jennifer]

It’s fine as is Perry.  If we make any changes at all to the box rules, they should be absolute MINIMUM changes.  For one, I would like to change Super Submarines (useless) to Super Destroyers (useful and what was probably originally intended given the new role of destroyers in this game.  Destroyers in AA50 = Submarines in AAR/Classic)

Chart 1 has 6 things Germany can use right away, albeit, one is of limited use (Rockets).
Chart 2 has 4 things Germany can use right away.

I’d stick with Chart 1 with Germany, DM.  Less risk involved.  Just how I see it though.

[Ó Ruanaidh]

Super Submarines are useful. They are the cheapest ship and they can sink otehr ships without them retaliating. Of course Destroyers are their bane, but that doesn’t mean if the opponent has destroyers your subs are useless. Far from it, they can be used to pick off lonely ships, which would force your opponent to mass his fleet, which is in itself an advantage because they cannot sprawl all across the oceans hitting multiple targets. And subs can take out ships more powerful than themselves, I’ve seen plenty of battles where subs kill destroyers, cruisers, carriers, and even battleships. I’ll trade a sub for any of those, any day. Super Subs just make them even better at attacking. I’ll admit that it isn’t a huge improvement, but still it’s nice to sink those ships on a 3, when they could have fired back and killed your sub otherwise.

[Perry]

The problem with Heavy Bombers, they way I see it, is that they are extremely powerful against navy…

A unit that is rolling 2@4, and costs 12…
Sure, it can only soak 1 hit, but still… How can build anything to defend against that?

For 34 ipc, the naval defender can buy  2FTRs+1CV, equal 2@4 1@2, “3 hitpoints”
For 36 ipc, the HB Attacker can buy 3 Heavies, equalling 6@4, and also “3 hitpoints”…

The HB:s will just clear the oceans, the way I see it…

[birdbrain]

I am new to this site, but a long time AA player with a few dozen AA50 games under my belt, and I thought I would throw in my few cents about tech. 
It seems that tech has been a huge determining factor in the games I have played thus far.  Long range aircraft and heavy bombers have been game changing developments, usually allowing for the sinking of a previously assumed safe navy.  And in several games Germany has received Mech Inf just when Russia seemed to have staved off the initial onslaught. 
And while I can’t say that I enjoy having my plans laid to waste, I do enjoy the extent of variety the tech creates from game to game.  No two have even been similar, as we are forced to adapt to the changing dynamic.
  Also I must say that super subs (and subs at all) can be very useful if played correctly.  While I would rather have other techs instead, I have seen America dominate the Pacific with this advancement, and Germany keep the allies at bay in the Atlantic (assuming an IC in France).

[questioneer]

The problem with tech is that as Axis you need to get the NO’s ASAP in order to have some comfortable buying cushion for them. 
Now your strategy is –strive to get NO’s --to get tech --to blow out opponent.  This strategy just seem too linear.

Also, the 3% chance is skewed thinking.  Heavy Bombers is not the only bone-crushing tech.

Certain tech can be devastating for certain powers depending on who gets them. 
The US, because of its location of safety on the map and its diverse battlefronts, can utilize more of the tech than other nations, that will increase the 3% to 6%, 12% or over 20%- big difference. 
I don’t want my game decided by large amounts of chance like that.  Its like playing roulette- or Russian roulette for that matter!

Like I’ve said before, I think playing with tech is fun, and even though it is much better than Revised, it still skews the game greatly.  In FTF tournaments, they never play with tech because of this very logical reasoning.  IMHO-leave tech for entertainment night.

Questioneer
:-)

[Tarling]

Question is then, maybe figure out how to rebalance out the weaker and stronger of the techs such that they are all balanced, and all useful, and not instantly game crushing.
If Long Range Aircraft cripples enemy plans because of the fact that it is an instantaneous and indefensible attack, then perhaps make that one take effect at the end of the round. If Heavy Bombers at 2x4 is too decimating compared to other techs, perhaps make it powerful enough but not fleet crippling…perhaps 1 auto hit every round, and a strategic bombard always of 6? It’s more powerful than just increase its strength to 5, but can only still manage one kill a round so whole fleets wont fall to just a handful of heavy bombers.
Now, by making stronger techs weaker, you must make weaker techs stronger to still balance the system. Question is then, which are the weaker techs, and how do you justify their usefulness?

[U-505]

You can’t identify the weaker techs because for every tech there is a country that benefits more than others. For example, Improved shipyards help Japan, UK and US but do little for Germany and Russia.

Your best bet would be to dumb down the more powerful techs

I think for heavy bombers, an attack 5/defense 2 and +2 damage on SBRs is adequate. No unit(except rockets) should ever auto-hit in a game.

LRA should add only 1 move instead of 2 to the range of aircraft.

And there should be a limit to the number of infantry capable of being moved as mech infantry, such as 1 or 2 per turn. Or keep the unlimited number of moves, but limit it to being used only during non-combat.

[Tarling]

Fair enough on the points on weaker techs, but I kind of think auto-hitting bombers would be neat, sort of represents the complete saturation from increased payloads. A defense of 2 is useless on something that really never ever should have to defend anything.

[bugoo]

How do heavy bombers fair against improved shipyard destroyers though.

5 @ 2 /w 5 HP +1 IPC
4 @ 4 /w 3 HP

looks a bit more even.

[Bardoly]

@bugoo:

How do heavy bombers fair against improved shipyard destroyers though.

5 @ 2 /w 5 HP +1 IPC
4 @ 4 /w 3 HP

looks a bit more even.

I believe that your numbers are a bit off.

I believe that you are trying to say the following:

Compare Improved Shipyard Destroyers to Heavy Bombers.

Purchase 5 DDs for 35 IPCs vs 3 Heavy Bombers for 36 IPCs.  This will produce the following:

5 @ 2 with 5 Hits (Save 1 IPC.)
vs
6 @ 4 with 3 Hits

After the first round, it should be down to 1 DD vs 1 Bomber, which results in most scenarios, the Heavy Bombers winning with 1 Bomber left over, destroying 35 IPCs for a cost of 24 IPCs.  Clearly the Heavy Bombers still have the distinct advantage.

[questioneer]

@U-505:

You can’t identify the weaker techs because for every tech there is a country that benefits more than others. For example, Improved shipyards help Japan, UK and US but do little for Germany and Russia.

Your best bet would be to dumb down the more powerful techs

I think for heavy bombers, an attack 5/defense 2 and +2 damage on SBRs is adequate. No unit(except rockets) should ever auto-hit in a game.

LRA should add only 1 move instead of 2 to the range of aircraft.

And there should be a limit to the number of infantry capable of being moved as mech infantry, such as 1 or 2 per turn. Or keep the unlimited number of moves, but limit it to being used only during non-combat.

I think this is the right idea here, however, it very difficult to “measure” the value of the tech because of the different variables involved- what country gets them and at what time in the game, etc.- all left to chance.  Might as well play paper, rock, scissors to see who wins the game.
Just say “no” to tech- except for casual games of course.

Questioneer.

[U-505]

@Tarling:

Fair enough on the points on weaker techs, but I kind of think auto-hitting bombers would be neat, sort of represents the complete saturation from increased payloads.

Yes, but even heavy bombers in reality missed their targets on occasion. And the nature of the game makes it impossible to even come close to accurately representing World War 2 realism. Our goal is to keep the game playable. You want to make techs worth investing in, but you want to try to prevent some techs from being able to turn the game upside down.

A unit that auto-hits would still turn the game upside down. It guarantees that you would always be able to trade a territory without a chance that you could lose the battle. [1 bmb, 2 inf v. any 1 unit] is an automatic win. Nothing should be automatic.

A defense of 2 is useless on something that really never ever should have to defend anything.

Have you even been attacked in a territory where you had to choose whether to lose the bomber first to save an infantry or risk keeping the bomber and it’s pathetic defensive value? I have, quite a few times. As a matter of fact, it happens to Germany in most games and in 42’ it happens to Russia since they start with a bomber, too.

It doesn’t happen every game or to every country, but if it happens to you, you’re begging for your bomber to hit as well as an infantry so you can push it further up the OOL list.

[Lynxes]

I’m with Perry on the Heavy Bombers problem. It’s just too strong to have 2 dice. I think, I’m not alone on this I know, that this will mean techs will be less used which is a shame now that we finally have a really good tech system.

My fix for H BMBs: if you play with optional rule interceptors: attack on ‘5’, 2d6 SBR damage. If you don’t: attack on ‘5’, 1d6+2 SBR damage.

I’m fine with techs being unequal, I just don’t think one tech should be triple the value of other techs as it is now (Jet fighters: 33% increase attack value, H BMBs OOB: 100% increase attack value, PLUS SBR boost).

[Perry]

The problems with HB:s , is their power vs fleets…

Imagine 3 HB:s VS 2 ftr 1 CV (the most bang for defensive bucks)

attacker

36 ipcs in unitcost
3 ‘hitpoints’
6 dice @4  = 24 attackpower

defender

36 ipcs in unitcost
3 hitpoints
2@4 1@3 = 11 defendpower

It will be really difficult to keep a fleet in the water, when faced with an opponent with HB:s…

[a44bigdog]

Perry that statement is totally flawed as it is using Revised prices and defense stats for the fleet.

HBs can hit a fleet hard. However they do not stand up real well to the counter-fire. You also have to have a landing zone for the bombers.

3 tanks have a 14.9% chance of successfully attacking 5 infantry, yet I don’t hear anyone lamenting how weak tanks are on offense or how over powered infantry is on defense.

[Perry]

Thanks for alerting me!  :-)

Ok, so the numbers are:

attacker

36 ipcs in unitcost
3 ‘hitpoints’
6 dice @4  = 24 attackpower

defender

34 ipcs in unitcost
3 hitpoints
2@4 1@2 = 10 defendpower

But that really does not change the picture, does it?
My point is that HB:s are terribly effective VS fleet, and that you need to spend more IPCs, then a potential attacker, in order to defend against a HB threat.

Sure , landingspace must be taking into consideration. But I do not really think that it does change the calculus that much.

[a44bigdog]

Now lets remove this from the accounting sheets to the game board.

What nations have fleets?
The German Navy is usually gone after UK1 and isn’t all that important anyway.
The Italian Navy is on borrowed time as well.
The Japanese start with a huge fleet.
The Americans have to have a fleet to go anywhere.
The British also for most intents and purposes have to have a fleet as well to go anywhere.
What Nations will normally acquire Heavy Bombers?
The US normally starts working chart 2.
Japan normally starts working chart 2.
The UK sometimes works chart 2.
Germany normally works chart 1.
Italy normally works chart 1.
Russia normally works chart 1 and if they are buying bombers and working chart 2 why is the game still in progress?  :-D
Where will targets for Heavy Bombers be found?
The Atlantic/Mediterranean theater is cleared early and easily enough of Axis ships to negate discussion of such.
With the potential strength of Japan I think a pure KGF is folly in the extreme so I will conclude limited Allied ships in the Atlantic(mostly UK).
The Japanese are strong in the Pacific at the start.
The US should be pressuring Japan in the Pacific.

Given these parameters I think it would be safe to state that most HB vs Navy engagements will be fought in the Pacific. Most of the HB vs Navy engagements will be between Japan and the US. This is WHY I brought up the issue of landing zones for the bombers. Without long range utilizing air assets in the Pacific can be a major headache requiring a fleet to go forth and acquire territory for a landing zone. That right there is money taken away from the pure purchase of HBs. Without working in coordination with Destroyers the HBs cannot touch subs which can neutralize the fleet required for the aforementioned landing zone issue. The aforementioned subs can be dispersed further complicating the issue of pinning them with destroyers.

I am aware in your example you were trying to provide an equal IPC equation to illustrate the fleet killing abilities of heavy bombers. I would not consider a lone fully loaded carrier a fleet nor would you either I suspect. Look at what happens when a well rounded fleet anchored by two or three battleships that can freely soak hits is attacked by a pack of heavy bombers. Watch how quickly the striking power of the heavy bombers goes down as units are lost. Again keep in mind the points I made above about the need to acquire landing zones so I suspect the fleet and air armada of Heavy Bombers will not be comprised of an equal IPC amount of units.

Summary of a long wall of text. Yes Heavy Bombers are nice for attacking fleets but I do not believe they are the be all end all that some people are mentally projecting them to be.

I am not 100% certain but I am gaining the feeling that I would spot the US having Heavy Bombers on round 1 if I could have Paratroopers with Germany on round 2.

[Jennifer]

Okay, but first we need to realize that the chances of getting Heavy Bombers is 1 in 36 where as the chances of being able to have 2 fighters and a carrier is 100%.

Secondly, we have to factor in the scenario on the game board.  Just because you get the technology does not mean you are in a position to use it.  How good are German Heavy Bombers against the American fleet in the Pacific?  Russian heavy bombers are even less valuable if Russia has been beaten back to Moscow (and was desperately hoping for Radar.)

Third, can your opponent keep replacing carriers and fighters all day long while you are dwindling on resources throwing heavy bombers round after round at it?

Fourth, is there nothing better for your bombers to do? (Like supporting ground assaults or bombing your enemy into submission?)

Lastly, even if you are in a position to use the tech, you luckily got the tech, you don’t need to bomb your opponent, your ground assaults have adequate air cover, your opponent cannot afford to keep replacing those naval units and air units; and the enemy is in range, what are the odds your opponent has left 2 fighters and a carrier without significant resources to protect it?