Technology is a bad strategic investment

[gamerman01]

Hmmmmmmm……  I rolled 1 tech die with my Axis powers for 4 consecutive turns and hit a 6 every single time.  (This game is in the play boardgames section and is at G5, I believe)

At round 3, I have radar and war bonds for Germany (totally awesome).  The war bonds will get me about 70 IPC’s in 20 rounds.  They cost me 5 IPC’s.

I have heavy bombers with Japan and Italy.  Cost to each - 5 IPC’s.

You can’t win if you don’t play.  It’s a lottery.  If you don’t buy a lottery ticket you can’t win.  If you play the lottery regularly, you will almost certainly lose money over time.  But you also have that small chance of hitting the jackpot.

You don’t want to take risks with buying tech?  Your point is taken.  But when I roll a tech die each turn and hit LRA or radar, etc. you won’t be happy.  But it’s not my problem - I’m playing according to the rules.  :-D

And your logic is flawed.  A tech does not cost 30 IPC’s, it costs 5 to have a 1/6 chance of hitting a tech.  I understand that on average it will cost you 30 IPC’s per tech (and that’s only if you buy 1 at a time).  But you’re forgetting something else.  You (my opponent) are counting on my stack of subs in my fleet attacking at 2 and my fighters at 3 and my bombers at 4.  If I spend 20 IPC’s on research for an approx. 50-55% chance of getting a tech, and I then have a 50% chance of Super subs, jets, long range air, or heavy bombers, that may be just the boost I need to annihilate your fleet.  So you are forgetting the “surprise factor”.  Tech improvements take place immediately, but your new units that you are buying take time to be created, then deployed, then moved into position.  Tech takes place to all units (Jets, subs, bombers, etc) all over the board and can immediately pummel your opponent.  This is but one of the aspects you are completely ignoring in your analysis.

Also, you are biased in trying to make your point.  Don’t look at the 15% discount on battleships (for improved shipyards), look at the 18.75% discount on carriers or the 16.7% discount on subs.

Respectfully,
Gamer

[gamerman01]

@allweneedislove:

Jet fighters -  your engineers have found that compressing air then combusting it allows your planes to fly faster. For this you get 1 extra attack pip. for 30ipc you could just buy 3 more propeller fighters that would get you 9 more attack pips, 12 more defence pips and 3 more units that can soak up hits.

Logic is FLAWED.

How about Japan?  Have 20 fighters (or could have more) = 20 more pips, and again, all the fighters are already deployed and many are presumably in a position to attack the next round.  Your 3 new propellor fighters have to be purchased, then placed, then moved into position (which could take a couple more rounds, in some cases).

PLUS - your opponent is NOT EXPECTING this sudden boost in power.

[Hobbes]

Allweneedislove, I agree with the mathematics that you posted and I hardly use tech myself but this point can’t be dismissed:

@gamerman01:

PLUS - your opponent is NOT EXPECTING this sudden boost in power.

Technology above all creates opportunities, since it is activated immediately. And it might not change the strategic situation but in some cases it just might completely change the dynamics on a region.

[MaherC]

Tech is fun.  That’s the point.  Like playing the lottery.  And I recall it is an OPTIONAL rule?

[Hobbes]

@MaherC:

Tech is fun.

Some disagree, me included  :wink:

[MaherC]

so don’t use it?

[dadler12]

@allweneedislove:

Paratroopers – the bestest and super most fun idea. but the worst of the 12 techs. Can someone actually find a way to take advantage of this rule laden technology? Here are the steps

1 you must control a territory within 3 spaces of your target
2 you must have or build an airbase
3 you must get 2infantry to that airbase
4 you must position other non paratrooper land units to also get to your target

There is no power that can take advantage of this technology.

I think you need to reconsider this statement. If you look at the map this is the most useful technology in the game. With Germany u can use France to help Sealion, West Germany to reinforce Russian advance, and if you build an airbase in Germany, Romania with a minor IC, or both it can help crush Russia by beefing up your stacks with 4-6 inf a round. Not to mention you will crush Allied landings in most of Europe as long as you have a force in France to respond with.
With England you can harass Germany everywhere in the Atlantic. With the US, after crushing Southern Italy you can take the Baltic States and practically assure the fall of France. Russia can use it to help counterattack Germany/get troops to China to face a rowdy Japan. I think the only powers to which it is useless are Japan, ANZAC, China, and France

[MaherC]

@paratroopers for sea lion

you realize that for the cost of researching paratroopers you could just buy a transport?  and it doesn’t have a 1/6 shot of being AA’d.

[dadler12]

Well a transport cost 7IPC and must be defended by a fleet or else it gets sunk forever. My point was additional support for Sealion. Why are you so testy MaherC?

[MaherC]

if you are going to sea lion, then you already have a navy full of transports and some protection, yes?

5 IPC spent gives you a 1/6 shot at getting a tech token, and then you have a 1/6 shot at getting paratroopers.    I’d spend 7IPCs on a sure thing v. 5IPCs on a 1/36 chance.

or are you suggesting that you will sea lion w/only paratroopers?

stop reading into things on the internet.  wasn’t being testy, merely proposing a counter-point to yours.

[dadler12]

Point taken. I personally would not attempt Sea Lion without rolling paratroopers on G1. On a separate note, I think people would not misunderstand you as much if you phrased your responses less tersely/aggressively.

[calvinhobbesliker]

Yes, but you all forget what Caspian Sub called Tech Power Projection. Sure, you can buy 1 Transport cheaper than a paratrooper, but your paratroopers may be closer to the front line than the transports.

[pmelmike]

I tend to agree with allweneedislove.  Most countries just cant afford the risk/benifit ratio.  My strategy:  if you are an offensive and wealthy nation like the US, Germany or Japan (after you take india), then buy tech rolls.  If you are defensive or poor like USSR, UK (in the beginning), Italy or ANZAC then don’t.

[Uncle_Joe]

So from a ‘balance’ standpoint, using the AA50 tech tokens might actually bring the tech back to cost effectiveness rather than making it ‘overpowered’ due to the higher incomes?

[gamerman01]

@Uncle_Joe:

So from a ‘balance’ standpoint, using the AA50 tech tokens might actually bring the tech back to cost effectiveness rather than making it ‘overpowered’ due to the higher incomes?

Too early to say, I think.  If you play with tech tokens, you’ll get what you had in AA50 - that is, Italy can easily get 3-4 techs (and now ANZAC) and sometimes even scored more techs than the USA, which is ridiculous.

I advise we all play as is for several games, and then re-assess.  I think the OOB system will work well, myself.

[xzorn]

Paratroopers can help by getting troops to the front, as well as threatening a number of other places. Suddenly the jerries can drop four more guys on England.

The second benefit is the immediate effect. Sure, I would be better off with an extra seven artillery on the Russian front. But I can’t get them there any time soon. However, a +1 for the eight artillery I DO have on the Russian front could open up a whole new array of possibilities.

On the other hand, I think the tech tokens are a more fair way to do tech, making it less luck-dependent and allowing smaller powers to make a small investment in hopes of getting a tech at some point down the line.

So what if Italy or Anzac gets a tech spending 10 IPCs? Would you rather have two jet fighters eventually or three normal fighters now? That doesn’t even account for something like heavy bombers, which would take a hell of an investment to pay off for a smaller power.

[allweneedislove]

@gamerman01:

Hmmmmmmm……  I rolled 1 tech die with my Axis powers for 4 consecutive turns and hit a 6 every single time.

this only proves you got very lucky. for every game where you get 4 of 4 techs you would have a game were you roll 39 dice and get no tech. both outcomes have about  0.08% chance of happening. these outcomes are pretty rare and should not be used to decide if tech is a good strategic investment. it would make more sense to use 30ipc as the average cost of the tech. (however if you want the tech instantly it would cost more than 30ipc)

@gamerman01:

The war bonds will get me about 70 IPC’s in 20 rounds.  They cost me 5 IPC’s.

and they will get you 448ipc by round 128. but that still does not make it a good investment. use the average cost of the tech being 30ipc. it takes you about 8 or 9 rounds to recoup your investment. but the bigger weakness is the time value of money. ipc spent now can be used to buy units now that can take territories sooner that can generate units sooner, and conversely the opposite effect to your opponent.

@gamerman01:

You can’t win if you don’t play.  It’s a lottery.  If you don’t buy a lottery ticket you can’t win.  If you play the lottery regularly, you will almost certainly lose money over time.  But you also have that small chance of hitting the jackpot.

that is a mediocre analogy. investing in tech is low odds like the lottery. but the payoff for winning is not economy altering like winning the lottery.

@gamerman01:

You don’t want to take risks with buying tech?  Your point is taken.  But when I roll a tech die each turn and hit LRA or radar, etc. you won’t be happy.  But it’s not my problem - I’m playing according to the rules.  :-D

i would not be upset to see my opponent making a bad strategic investment by rolling for tech

@gamerman01:

And your logic is flawed.  A tech does not cost 30 IPC’s, it costs 5 to have a 1/6 chance of hitting a tech.  I understand that on average it will cost you 30 IPC’s per tech (and that’s only if you buy 1 at a time).

you should reread your quote. you will see my logic is not flawed. the average cost of a tech is 30ipc(at a minimum). we can not say what the cost to acquire a tech is but we can say what the average cost is.

@gamerman01:

But you’re forgetting something else.  You (my opponent) are counting on my stack of subs in my fleet attacking at 2 and my fighters at 3 and my bombers at 4.  If I spend 20 IPC’s on research for an approx. 50-55% chance of getting a tech, and I then have a 50% chance of Super subs, jets, long range air, or heavy bombers, that may be just the boost I need to annihilate your fleet.  So you are forgetting the “surprise factor”.

if you spend 20ipc you are right you have about 50% chance to achieve a tech breakthrough. then you get to roll and have a 1 in 6 chance of getting those super subs. so you can spend 20ipc for a 8% chance of beefing up your subs by 1 pip each. i would welcome my opponent to do this several times a game.

@gamerman01:

Tech improvements take place immediately, but your new units that you are buying take time to be created, then deployed, then moved into position.  Tech takes place to all units (Jets, subs, bombers, etc) all over the board and can immediately pummel your opponent.  This is but one of the aspects you are completely ignoring in your analysis.

you are correct the beauty of tech is that they take place immediately for your units already deployed in far away places. my analysis is of tech as a strategic investment. that is why i am using 30ipc as the cost as i am assuming one die roll per turn so its not like a surprise. we can try to make an analysis for instant tech but it gets pretty complicated factoring that you must pay more and still not be guaranteed to acquire a tech let alone the tech that could tactically help you. i would be very impressed if you or anyone else could create and post the analysis.

you can find rare times that tech can be a good tactical investment. but i do not believe anyone can prove that tech is a good strategic investment.

@gamerman01:

Also, you are biased in trying to make your point.  Don’t look at the 15% discount on battleships (for improved shipyards), look at the 18.75% discount on carriers or the 16.7% discount on subs.

yes i am biased in making my analysis, but the analysis is still correct. we can use the the carrier as the example instead

If you buy 10 carriers you can save 30ipc!!! Or you can just not spend the 30ipc on the tech in the first place.
so if you spend 130ipc in navy you can save 30ipc. but you must keep in mind the time value of money. and the money is better spent on units now rather than saving a few ipc in the future.

@gamerman01:

Respectfully,
Gamer

i also respect your posts and the way you make your arguments. however, i believe they are incorrect and hope my posts can help add information in your decision making process.

[allweneedislove]

@gamerman01:

@allweneedislove:

Jet fighters -  your engineers have found that compressing air then combusting it allows your planes to fly faster. For this you get 1 extra attack pip. for 30ipc you could just buy 3 more propeller fighters that would get you 9 more attack pips, 12 more defence pips and 3 more units that can soak up hits.

Logic is FLAWED.

How about Japan?  Have 20 fighters (or could have more) = 20 more pips, and again, all the fighters are already deployed and many are presumably in a position to attack the next round.  Your 3 new propellor fighters have to be purchased, then placed, then moved into position (which could take a couple more rounds, in some cases).

PLUS - your opponent is NOT EXPECTING this sudden boost in power.

again, i do not think the logic is flawed. you have found a rare situation where it would be very powerful.

if you have 20fighters for any power(the game is probably over by then anyways) then acquiring jet fighters for that power would be very helpful. but remember not only must you get a tech breakthrough you then have to roll again to see if you get the 1 in 6 chance of hitting jet fighters.

you can always create a very rare scenario where tech is a good investment but they are not the norm.

[allweneedislove]

@Hobbes:

Allweneedislove, I agree with the mathematics that you posted and I hardly use tech myself but this point can’t be dismissed:

@gamerman01:

PLUS - your opponent is NOT EXPECTING this sudden boost in power.

Technology above all creates opportunities, since it is activated immediately. And it might not change the strategic situation but in some cases it just might completely change the dynamics on a region.

the sudden boost is the beauty of tech. however the unexpectedness is not what makes it so great. everyone knows what techs exist and what the chance of your opponent of getting a specific tech is. you also do not expect your opponent make a poor attack and get very lucky dice and win the battle. this is an analogy of your opponent acquiring a tech that can turn a low odds attack into a win. both are unlikely and both can happen with dice. however both will not happen in most scenarios in most games.

[allweneedislove]

@MaherC:

Tech is fun.  That’s the point.   Like playing the lottery.   And I recall it is an OPTIONAL rule?

now that is logic that i can agree with. we play these games to have fun, and if you find rolling for tech fun then you should role tech.

i am not saying to not use the optional rule of tech. i am saying they are a bad strategic investment. i would welcome my opponent to roll for tech in my games. but i think it is better to just houserule a fix like using the 50anniversary tech token rules.