@armedace
Those are some pretty cool ideas, I’ve thought about incorporating marines and how to do so-your ideas seem good. I also like the idea of interceptors at 2, more realistic and makes you think about SBR more. Although I’m not so sure about reducing air bases costs and increasing their ability to scramble to nearby land-seems OP.
AA50: Strategic - Core Rule #3 –> Making Techs Viable for Competitive Play
-
These rules sound great! I will have too try them out in my next game of AA50!(three week from now :oops:)
Bring on the global/allied/axis techs. I also agree with IL, get rid of the Advanced artillery and war bonds techs. they are just stupid and useless.
-
Keep Advanced artillery. Just make it better. (Artillery become 3/3 units).
I wouldn’t mind dumping war bonds altogether though.I don’t really like the air-sea-land cost ratios. It seems that the AA50 decreased the price of bombers to make them more viable on land, but increased the price of ships (slightly) to fit in a new ship and to even out ship battles. Even normal bombers with 12 IPCs and 4 attack make the cruisers look weak. Sure the cruisers can bombard, but the bombers can actually participate in the battle. Fighters are very much the same way. A 10 point unit with 3/4 combat values doesn’t fit too well in the sea. To even this out they made a virtually useless 14 point carrier needed to hold them. This is only normal planes. Now imagine a bomber throwing 2 dice. I realize your wish to not change the techs, but I really think that heavy bombers need to be modified. This isn’t AARe where bombers cost 14. They only cost 12. I think it is better to make heavy bombers more playable than to make them unobtainable (super expensive). Perhaps make heavy bombers increase the price of your bombers by 3 (existing bombers must pay 3 to upgrade). This is not necessarily the right choice, just another idea.
-
Keep Advanced artillery. Just make it better. (Artillery become 3/3 units).
Artillery cant be the same as tanks. Also ‘advanced artillery’ is a phantom idea inserted from imagination in terms of its ability to “boost 2 infantry +1 on defense” It is based on nothing that exists where any artillery is of greater aid to the defender as if they invented something special. They didn’t.
If you go the route where your changing the unit profile to a 3-2 unit…you might as well replace it with heavy tanks or elite armor which could be a 4-3 or 4-4 unit, or make mobile artillery that moves 2 spaces with technology, but this too is not under the realm of “technology” but NA’s.
War Bonds are guys who fought with valor and bravery touring the nation promoting the sale of government bonds…or Bob Hope dancing and singing with Dorothy Lamay… hardly a ‘technology’
I think either the notion of technology needs to be scrapped and re-scripted or kept pure and add in NA’s that could include ‘war bonds’
Yea i know some will say " hey we just want stuff that adds options and don’t care about reality"
I am saying just don’t call them technology and make a separate category for them and eliminate things that never existed. Otherwise you might as well include NAZI flying saucers and Godzilla because they didn’t exist either.
As far as that UK factory thing… id get rid of it because it really closes options, forcing UK to commit to a predefined strategy to justify its new advantage. If anything fix China like everybody else says because that is the key for keeping Japan in check… UK can use it to make its own decision of how to play and not spoonfeed it some complex that it now might want in Australia or Egypt or elsewhere.
Tanks should be 6 IPC. This should have been done a while ago since they made tanks a 3-3 unit.
All other units are priced correctly except Cruisers, which either need to go down by 1-2 points or give them ASW like subs, or give them a AA gun in the first round ( one ship gets one sot at planes at 1 before first round) and keep the price at 12.
Also, add in the mech infantry as they are along with tactical bombers.
-
Why don’t you come up with a better name than “tech” and stop complaining about it? The name that tech is called doesn’t matter. That’s aesthetics. We can deal with it later. Please, drop the issue.
On the other hand, the 6 point tank I could be willing to try. I am not saying its a good idea, but I haven’t tried it.
As for the Advanced artillery, I have already given 2 alternatives to the 3/3 that is “too close to tanks”: making them have a surprise strike first round of combat at 3 (AARe german 88s) or makiong them support infantry to attack and defend with 3. As to the comment about that making them the same as tanks, look at jet fighters. Jet fighters attack wit the same power as bombers but have less range. A 3/3 heavy artillery would attack with the same as tanks but have less range. Tanks power is their speed. A 6 point 3/3 unit with 1 move would be pointless.
Unless we have purchased AAP40 and AAE40, tac bombers and mech inf wouldn’t work since we DON’T HAVE ANY!
An 11 point cruiser could fly with me. Also @ CJ’s idea for ASW tech: consider adding AA and increased bombard power. - or - maybe a tech called Improved fleet Logistics (or whatever) - your cruisers can now detect subs, and fire 1 additional shot @1 at planes, your destroyers may transport 1 infantry unit in non combat.
-
I am not complaining about tech, rather to eliminate what is not tech and make them NA’s because thats what they are. I advocate separation of the two ideas.
War bonds is an Allied NA’s
Lend Lease is an American NA
Heavy Tanks is a technology
and so on.
Artillery that is 3-3-1-4 is a game breaker. People would forget buying infantry entirely, but since their is no 5 point unit and a 4 and 6 point land unit it fits the script to find a 5 Point unit.
But to justify it it has to make sence… so 3-2-2-5 seems to work if you were forced to come up with “advanced artillery” But since no such thing ever existed ever, it might be better to come up with technology that did exist like heavy tanks, sonar, radar, codebreakers, etc…
That conveys the flavor of the war better. Anybody can just insert all sorts of bogus ideas that never existed and calm them ‘greater options’ or ‘play variability’ , but then what is stopping Godzilla and Space Cruiser Yamato as Technology? They also never existed.
-
We use better artillery pieces now than we did back then. The technology of artillery has improved. You seem to be saying that artillery technology can be improved. More advanced artillery guns would fight better. Advanced artillery qualifies as a tech just as much as heavy tanks. Any nation could have improved their artillery. It had nothing to do with NA. I agree that When I first saw the ide for 3/3 artillery I thought why build infantry. This suggestion was just one of my ideas. I actually prefer this idea. Artillery get surprise fire first round of combat @3 (offense, maybe defense if too weak) (This is to represent artillery guns that can shoot farther and hit the enemies before they can shoot back).
Just because it didn’t exist, doesn’t mean it couldn’t have been developed. Axis and Allies is not a game about recreating World War II. It is an opportunity to try to change history and win as the axis, or stop the axis more quickly. Remember the original name for technology? It was weapons development. More developed weapons fight better. -
We use better artillery pieces now than we did back then
yes but back then they didn’t have anything that improved artillery. They always had different types of guns, but developments in technology began to decline static warfare and favor mobile warfare, of which artillery languished in terms of developments. Tanks are what nations saw as having combat utility for technological improvements.
It is obvious to me if not to some that if advanced artillery were never introduced in AA you would have no reason to defend it like this. Mistakes in games should be pointed out and fixed JUST as many have saw the need to alter other aspects of the game like how subs interact with ships. If you can make changes in that regard you can also replace other failing aspects of the rules that make no sence.
Advanced Artillery should be replaced with a REAL technology.
Like Heavy Tanks, self propelled artillery, sonar, radar, codebreakers, atomic bombs, etc… these are real technologies. Its a shame to preclude a real vital technology that EXISTED in favor of a contrived useless technology that did not. right?
Just because it didn’t exist, doesn’t mean it couldn’t have been developed. Axis and Allies is not a game about recreating World War II. It is an opportunity to try to change history
Good then add NAZI flying Saucers then? Add Lazer guided turrets on the battleships and let the battleships fly in space… that can be a tech too?
The point is to be consistent and that it does not preclude the ‘opportunity’ to alter History. Axis and Allies is a game based on WW2 and can as such ALSO allow different outcomes. I have no idea why you feel these run against each other.
-
@Imperious:
We use better artillery pieces now than we did back then
Advanced Artillery should be replaced with a REAL technology.
Like Heavy Tanks, self propelled artillery, sonar, radar, codebreakers, atomic bombs, etc… these are real technologies. Its a shame to preclude a real vital technology that EXISTED in favor of a contrived useless technology that did not. right?
This makes alot of sence. I would like to see all those techs in the game before war bonds and advanced artillery, which add very little to the game even in terms of strategy. As far as i can tell the only reason people like them is because they are OOB, which of couse is an absurd reason. Same thing with making escorts and intercetors techs.
-
people like them is because they are OOB, which of course is an absurd reason.
exactly! Just because it’s a mistake should not require people to keep it in making house rules. Its not like it adds GREATER OPTIONS than say a REAL TECHNOLOGY.
if the game was broken or imbalanced you fix THAT PROBLEM.
If you feel the game should allow greater options, then add MORE OPTIONS. Artillery boosting 2 inf rather than 1 is not really an option changer. If planes boost 6 IPC tanks +1 by introducing “Blitzkrieg” as a technology you could have some interesting changes in play. Or if you took a technology that actually existed but was not included, you could also have a greater option to ‘alter the outcome’
Thats the whole reason why the technology became optional because the ideas are rather sketchy. If your house ruling technology because of dissatisfaction with it you would look at all the OOB rules and keep the best parts of it and reconfigure it to something sensible. Advanced Artillery is the most glaring mistake… it it was advanced it would move 2 spaces not “boost 2 infantry rather than one” right?
-
“What’s in a name…?”
Technology…Weapons Development…National Advantages
Advanced Artillery…Heavy Artillery
Heavy Tanks…Advanced Tanks
We just want to play a fun game, and while being historical is important, I’ll grant you that, arguing over names is just splitting hairs.
The problem is that with House Rules, one can personalize the way that one wants to play with one’s own circle of players, but the problem is that when one wants to create House Rules for many players so that many players could enjoy them, one must have a standard. So, what is the standard for creating house rules for Axis and Allies?.. I submit to you that it is the OOB rules and pieces for Axis and Allies itself. This means that for one’s house rules to be widely accepted by many players, that one’s house rules should have a basis in the OOB game. Therefore, since we have a unit called Artillery, and we have an Advanced Artillery technology/weapons development/whatever one wants to call it, we who want to have fun playing the game, could tweak the unit and/or technology/weapons development/ whatever one wants to call it to be something more useful in the game, more fun to play with, AND yet still somewhat similar to the OOB ruleset while staying simple to implement. Hence, having Advanced/Heavy Artillery could be a good thing if one is willing to look at it from a proper perspective.So, how to utilize the Artillery unit AND the Advanced/Heavy Artillery technology in such a way that it is useful, fun, somewhat similar to OOL, AND simple to implement?
Instead of criticizing, let’s come up with some good ideas which follow the above stipulations so that MANY players would like to use them.
Here are a couple of ideas.
Play regular artillery units as per OOB.
Advanced/Heavy Artillery Technology/Weapons Development/whatever one wants to call it– The attack and defense values of your Artillery units are now 3. Of course, they may still support 1 infantry unit each. This change strengthens an otherwise pretty weak technology/weapons development/whatever one wants to call it. From this point on, all Artillery units are Advanced/Heavy Artillery units and cost 5 IPCs to produce. This last line I’m still considering.
Letting artillery or advanced/heavy artillery have preemptive hit is a good idea also, but the specific unit stats may need to be discussed.
-
I submit to you that it is the OOB rules and pieces for Axis and Allies itself. This means that for one’s house rules to be widely accepted by many players, that one’s house rules should have a basis in the OOB game.
Sure and here are the other ideas:
Advanced/Heavy Infantry Technology/Weapons Development/whatever one wants to call it– The attack and defense values of your Infantry units are now 3. This change strengthens an otherwise pretty weak technology/weapons development/whatever one wants to call it.
Advanced/Heavy Tank Technology/Weapons Development/whatever one wants to call it– The attack and defense values of your tanks units are now 4. This change strengthens an otherwise pretty weak technology/weapons development/whatever one wants to call it.
Advanced/Heavy Fighter Technology/Weapons Development/whatever one wants to call it– The attack and defense values of your fighter units are now 5. This change strengthens an otherwise pretty weak technology/weapons development/whatever one wants to call it.
Advanced/Heavy Bomber Technology/Weapons Development/whatever one wants to call it– The attack values of your Bomber units are now 5. This change strengthens an otherwise pretty weak technology/weapons development/whatever one wants to call it.
Advanced/Heavy Battleship Technology/Weapons Development/whatever one wants to call it– The attack values of your Battleships units are now 5. This change strengthens an otherwise pretty weak technology/weapons development/whatever one wants to call it.
Advanced/Heavy Cruiser Technology/Weapons Development/whatever one wants to call it– The attack values of your Cruisers units are now 4. This change strengthens an otherwise pretty weak technology/weapons development/whatever one wants to call it.
etc…
Lets add them too because their is no reason not too. WE now just added a new technology for each and every unit and we did it because they are in the game anyway and its easy. Now i am sure their is not reason why we should exclude other units into our ‘advanced category’ and we no longer have to adhere to what actually existed as a technology right?
I am guessing that is correct based on previous discussion?
What do you think of these? I guess every unit can be “advanced” just by calling it such and adding things to it, but its not very realistic or creative from a framework of “adding options to allow alternative outcomes”
-
@Imperious:
I submit to you that it is the OOB rules and pieces for Axis and Allies itself. This means that for one’s house rules to be widely accepted by many players, that one’s house rules should have a basis in the OOB game.
Sure and here are the other ideas:
Advanced/Heavy Infantry Technology/Weapons Development/whatever one wants to call it– The attack and defense values of your Infantry units are now 3. This change strengthens an otherwise pretty weak technology/weapons development/whatever one wants to call it.
Advanced/Heavy Tank Technology/Weapons Development/whatever one wants to call it– The attack and defense values of your tanks units are now 4. This change strengthens an otherwise pretty weak technology/weapons development/whatever one wants to call it.
Advanced/Heavy Fighter Technology/Weapons Development/whatever one wants to call it– The attack and defense values of your fighter units are now 5. This change strengthens an otherwise pretty weak technology/weapons development/whatever one wants to call it.
Advanced/Heavy Bomber Technology/Weapons Development/whatever one wants to call it– The attack values of your Bomber units are now 5. This change strengthens an otherwise pretty weak technology/weapons development/whatever one wants to call it.
Advanced/Heavy Battleship Technology/Weapons Development/whatever one wants to call it– The attack values of your Battleships units are now 5. This change strengthens an otherwise pretty weak technology/weapons development/whatever one wants to call it.
Advanced/Heavy Cruiser Technology/Weapons Development/whatever one wants to call it– The attack values of your Cruisers units are now 4. This change strengthens an otherwise pretty weak technology/weapons development/whatever one wants to call it.
etc…
Lets add them too because their is no reason not too. WE now just added a new technology for each and every unit and we did it because they are in the game anyway and its easy. Now i am sure their is not reason why we should exclude other units into our ‘advanced category’ and we no longer have to adhere to what actually existed as a technology right?
I am guessing that is correct based on previous discussion?
What do you think of these? I guess every unit can be “advanced” just by calling it such and adding things to it, but its not very realistic or creative from a framework of “adding options to allow alternative outcomes”
I think that over the course of WWII, probably just about every single starting unit/weapon saw at least some impovement in it by the time that the war had ended, so as long as it is done in a simple-yet-close-to-OOB way, then I would be happy if every single unit in Axis and Allies had some sort of upgrade which could be researched/developed/whatever one wants to call it. The key thing is to keep it simple yet also make it fun to use where it adds to the playability of the game.
-
With AA50 OOTB rules, any donkey of a player can roll 5 IPC for Tech, score Heavy Bombers, and proceed to win the game. Did he outstrategize his opponent? No. He just got lucky. This is why most tournaments don’t even use Tech, as it just kills the whole competitive nature of the game.
Back to the topic of the OP.
First, trying to establish a bit of credibility, as you can see I have over 10,000 posts to this site as I have played a number of games PBF. By my count, in playing 1v1 AA50 with a wide variety of players, I have played 38 games, winning 30 of them. I have seen a lot of A&A action, and have played many games of Classic and Revised in years gone by.
Just my opinion, but I disagree whole-heartedly with the original premise that techs are not viable for competitive play. Tech is a default in league play on this site, although no tech is permissable as well. Any donkey of a player can roll 5 IPC for tech and score heavy bombers, yes, but after that part, I disagree. The other donkey of a player will also be rolling tech, and with the token rule where researchers are never lost almost ensures techs on both sides. Several techs help take away the sting of your opponent’s heavy bombers, even before the latest FAQ nerf, which was totally unnecessary, in my opinion. Tech doesn’t “kill the whole competitive nature of the game” by any stretch of my imagination. It enhances it. I never cease to be amazed at how everyone always picks on heavy bombers as the end all be all tech. Many techs are situational, and depend on the timing, country who acquired it, country’s income, and country’s units already in play. Isn’t it obvious? Russia starts with 3 AA guns, so if she gets Rockets in the first turn, look out. Tech is prolific in AA50 with the researcher rules and increased income. It is common to have about 15-20 techs in play at round 10. So what if America gets heavy bombers in round 1? Japan may get improved shipyards early, and Germany get mech infantry at a key time, and it pretty much balances out. Improved shipyards, increased production, and radar all serve to deaden the sting of heavy bombers. Not to mention interceptor rules, which I normally play with.
I have played several games both ways, but mostly play with OOB tech. When not in league play, I play with some slightly altered OOB tech. My current preferences that I play with my closest A&A friend:
1) Increased production is +1 on 1 and 2 IPC value territories (not + 0 as per errata - why should India be 5 and Burma and FIC 2 with the tech?)
2) War bonds - best of 2 dice
3) LRA - +1 (not +2) LRA is the most powerful tech even when Heavy bombers are 2 hit heavies, in most situations. LRA coupled with 2 hit heavies is over-the-top, I’m sure most would agree. +1 LRA helps a lot with this. +1 LRA is still very powerful.
4) Heavy bombers - 2-hit heavies. I find it funny that the OOB rulebook is totally ambiguous about whether heavy bombers can score 2 hits or not. I had to ask Krieg in the FAQ and errata thread. This was before the latest errata. Krieg said they were 2-hit heavies. Then the errata came out, and made heavy bombers weak, weak, weak. Jeez, in the original game they were THREE dice and 3-hit heavies. Of course, with the right tech, infantry could be built for 2 IPC’s each, and there was no limit to production on any original complexes!That said, I like your idea of improving the game with more realistic techs. Speaking of which, I would like IL to describe how Godzilla could be implemented into the game, or German flying saucers. For Godzilla, maybe after getting the tech, you build him for 15 IPC’s, and he’s a 6-6-1 unit that attacks twice each round. So automatically scores 2 hits each round. Only one can be built at a time - when he’s destroyed, you can build him again. My point is, house rules or modifications can be very fun, whether realistic or not. You just have to find someone to agree to play you with them.
IL, since you like mech infantry and tacs and stuff, you just need to get going on the 1940 game once Europe is available! Then house rule it all you want, and you’ll have the most fun WWII themed board game yet!
-
With AA50 OOTB rules, any donkey of a player can roll 5 IPC for Tech, score Heavy Bombers, and proceed to win the game. Did he outstrategize his opponent? No. He just got lucky. This is why most tournaments don’t even use Tech, as it just kills the whole competitive nature of the game.
Back to the topic of the OP.
First, trying to establish a bit of credibility, as you can see I have over 10,000 posts to this site as I have played a number of games PBF. By my count, in playing 1v1 AA50 with a wide variety of players, I have played 38 games, winning 30 of them. I have seen a lot of A&A action, and have played many games of Classic and Revised in years gone by.
Just my opinion, but I disagree whole-heartedly with the original premise that techs are not viable for competitive play. Tech is a default in league play on this site, although no tech is permissable as well. Any donkey of a player can roll 5 IPC for tech and score heavy bombers, yes, but after that part, I disagree. The other donkey of a player will also be rolling tech, and with the token rule where researchers are never lost almost ensures techs on both sides. Several techs help take away the sting of your opponent’s heavy bombers, even before the latest FAQ nerf, which was totally unnecessary, in my opinion. Tech doesn’t “kill the whole competitive nature of the game” by any stretch of my imagination. It enhances it. I never cease to be amazed at how everyone always picks on heavy bombers as the end all be all tech. Many techs are situational, and depend on the timing, country who acquired it, country’s income, and country’s units already in play. Isn’t it obvious? Russia starts with 3 AA guns, so if she gets Rockets in the first turn, look out. Tech is prolific in AA50 with the researcher rules and increased income. It is common to have about 15-20 techs in play at round 10. So what if America gets heavy bombers in round 1? Japan may get improved shipyards early, and Germany get mech infantry at a key time, and it pretty much balances out. Improved shipyards, increased production, and radar all serve to deaden the sting of heavy bombers. Not to mention interceptor rules, which I normally play with.
I have played several games both ways, but mostly play with OOB tech. When not in league play, I play with some slightly altered OOB tech. My current preferences that I play with my closest A&A friend:
1) Increased production is +1 on 1 and 2 IPC value territories (not + 0 as per errata - why should India be 5 and Burma and FIC 2 with the tech?)
2) War bonds - best of 2 dice
3) LRA - +1 (not +2) LRA is the most powerful tech even when Heavy bombers are 2 hit heavies, in most situations. LRA coupled with 2 hit heavies is over-the-top, I’m sure most would agree. +1 LRA helps a lot with this. +1 LRA is still very powerful.
4) Heavy bombers - 2-hit heavies. I find it funny that the OOB rulebook is totally ambiguous about whether heavy bombers can score 2 hits or not. I had to ask Krieg in the FAQ and errata thread. This was before the latest errata. Krieg said they were 2-hit heavies. Then the errata came out, and made heavy bombers weak, weak, weak. Jeez, in the original game they were THREE dice and 3-hit heavies. Of course, with the right tech, infantry could be built for 2 IPC’s each, and there was no limit to production on any original complexes!That said, I like your idea of improving the game with more realistic techs. Speaking of which, I would like IL to describe how Godzilla could be implemented into the game, or German flying saucers. For Godzilla, maybe after getting the tech, you build him for 15 IPC’s, and he’s a 6-6-1 unit that attacks twice each round. So automatically scores 2 hits each round. Only one can be built at a time - when he’s destroyed, you can build him again. My point is, house rules or modifications can be very fun, whether realistic or not. You just have to find someone to agree to play you with them.
IL, since you like mech infantry and tacs and stuff, you just need to get going on the 1940 game once Europe is available! Then house rule it all you want, and you’ll have the most fun WWII themed board game yet!
As to the increased production change to +0 I must have missed this errata (probably will continue to ignore it).
I generally don’t mind heavy bombers. If one person gets heavy bombers, the other person can go for radar and build more AA. This is for the land.
Unfortunately, there is no AA guns in the sea (maybe radar should give BBs/cruisers AA guns)
However, the problem comes in the sea. Already in the sea, bombers are slightly superior to ships. 12 point unit with 4 attack and nice range. Add two dice and no once with a fleet stands a chance. However, with them being an ultimate tech, I am willing to try them as are.You can’t say that LRA is too powerful because it can be combined with HB. Isn’t it then HB that is too powerful?
Also if you look at CJs proposed tech system, LRA and HB are 2 of the 3 ultimate techs, requiring a minimum of 30 IPCs each. To get both one must invest 60 IPCs thats 5 bombers worth.Also, I changed my mind. I would be willing to let advanced artillery go. might cry though. :cry:
-
Actually LRA is too powerful even without heavy bombers. It is THE premier tech especially for Japan and USA. I have really enjoyed +1 LRA since I’ve started playing with it. It’s a happy medium. Still provides that devastating surprise factor, but isn’t so extreme.
But yes, +2 LRA + 2 hit heavies is a big advantage if you can’t answer.
-
So are you saying that LRA is better than HB? I can believe that. In AARe, I take LRA more often than HB and they are same price, but then in AARe bombers are 14 not 12. However, I think I will test out this current tech system (heavies and LRA minimun 30 IPC cost) and see how it goes.
-
Unfortunately, there is no AA guns in the sea
Sure their were. These were called AA cruisers. IN fact all warships have AA guns and Cruisers were designated as most suitable for this role based on their fast speed and that they provided the best escort duty and can keep up with carriers.
Under my proposal this would also justify their cost at 12 which is too high for what they do, compared to destroyers at 8. This free roll of 1 for each cruiser against any air and a ASW capability will give them some special value to justify the costs.
You could even make a tech that cruisers become ‘heavy cruisers’ with 2 hit capability, but that would need playtest.
-
So are you saying that LRA is better than HB?
Yes I am - I think it is better in most cases. If I’m Japan or USA, long range air is the best, in my opinion. For Germany HB is probably better.
-
So are you saying that LRA is better than HB?
Yes I am - I think it is better in most cases. If I’m Japan or USA, long range air is the best, in my opinion. For Germany HB is probably better.
You seem to be saying that depending on what nation you are one tech is better than the other, right? If that’s true wouldn’t that make them roughly the same?
Also are you saying that LRA is bad because it is too good for its price or just too good. Because if it is too good for its price, in this version (at least for now) LRA is an ultimate tech meaning that it costs a minimum of 30 IPCs to research. (If you only buy 2 (30 IPCs) dice, it may take 2-3 rounds to get) What is your take on CJs tech system? -
You seem to be saying that depending on what nation you are one tech is better than the other, right?
Yes.
If that’s true wouldn’t that make them roughly the same?
I think you mean, they are roughly comparable as to desirability, overall. If so, yes, they are roughly the same. Sometimes it’s better to get HB, but probably more often it’s better to get LRA. It’s situational - but my pet peeve is when people act like heavy bombers is by far the best, all the time, bar none. I think LRA is usually better. I don’t think 2-hit heavies are grossly overpowered. I think +2 to the range of all aircraft is overpowered.
Also are you saying that LRA is bad because it is too good for its price or just too good.
Well, actually, I don’t think any of the techs are bad, because everyone can get them. If your opponent gets LRA or HB or mech infantry, or paratroopers, or any other tech that suddenly gives them a huge advantage - well - you won’t always win an A&A game just from being a superior strategist and tactician. Sometimes you just tip your cap and say “good game”. That said, I’ve only lost due to my opponent getting just the right tech at just the right time a couple of times, and I’ve won at least as many the same way. It’s just the nature of the game - it’s the surprises that add to the fun, and the #1 reason I play A&A is for fun. If I get tired of all the dice rolling (which happens in tech or no tech) I go play chess or something.
Because if it is too good for its price, in this version (at least for now) LRA is an ultimate tech meaning that it costs a minimum of 30 IPCs to research. (If you only buy 2 (30 IPCs) dice, it may take 2-3 rounds to get) What is your take on CJs tech system?
Cousin Joe is to be commended for trying to make a great game better, or more realistic. I have several house rules myself that I like to play with.
LRA would be an “ultimate tech”, yes, and making it impossible to get it for 5 (or 10, or 25, for that matter) is not a bad idea. I try not to get too used to too many house rules, or variations that are dramatically different (like this one) because it would reduce my edge in competitive play - the rules that are generally accepted - which are still OOB + official errata.
Maybe I didn’t read the original post closely enough, but I think it’s a problem if you research some expensive tech and don’t get the one you want. What if I research an ultimate tech with the USA because I want LRA or HB, but get mech infantry?Also, I see from re-reading the post that a player could get more than 1 new tech into play at one time. I think this is just as problematic as the OOB rules, where any donkey of a player can nail an “ultimate tech” for 5 IPC’s in the first round. How would you like to be tooling along, and suddenly your opponent’s major power hits Heavy bombers and paratroopers at the same time?? Or LRA and Paras at the same time? Not good!! Cousin Joe, I think you need to reconsider on that one. At least don’t allow 2 techs to come into play at the same time that work together (LRA, HB, Paras, etc.).
Suggested Topics
