I look at tech in 2 ways…
First, it is a matter of luck not strategy. being beaten by someone using Tech is not a “real” win (and I would have said the same thing if my HB’s in the Revised game I just finished with Trihero had given me Russia… he outplayed me, the HB was a desperation gambit that failed).
Second…
The BEST Tech possibility for the Allies fo the game would be Russia with IT. So Russia risks it all and miraculously hits IT (odds are something like 11% of that happening with 20 IPC’s spent). So now Russia gets to buy INF at 2 instead of 3. War won, right? Not quite.
Losing that R1 build (1 INF instead of 8 ) means that Germany takes Karelia on G1 as well as taking out the UK fleet. Russia gets to build 12 INF in R2 thanks to IT. But Germany is now sending 4 INF and 4 ARM toward Karelia, as well as moving every other force they have that can reach in that direction, plus a build in Karelia on G2.
In R3, Russia is only building 9 INF due to loss of Karelia and SFE. But in G3, Germany can hit Russia with 5 figs, 1 bomber, around 10 ARM and a handful of INF. This against about 20 Russia INF.
Round 1:
Germany loses 1 FIG to AA
Germany kills 8 INF
Russia kills 10 units (say 5 INF and 5 ARM)
Round 2:
Germany kills 6 units
Russia kills 3 (more ARM)
Round 4:
Germany kills 3
Russia kills 1 (1 more ARM)
Round 5:
Germany kills 2
Russia MIGHT kill 1 FIG
Round 6:
Last Russian INF dies. Germany occupies with 1 ARM, sends FIGS and Bomber home to trash UK fleet next round.
Game over.
Perfect tech, perfect time (start of game), and it actually makes things WORSE for the nation getting the tech that spent the money to get it.
And remember that that Tech roll could just as easily have been super subs as IT, or NOTHING!
No. Tech is a luck factor. Anyone relying on tech to win a game is doomed to MOST of the time lose for lack of success on tech.
Let me fight without tech and kick the sh*t out of my opponent, or lose to an opponent who out played me.