Destroyers delay the removal of sub casualties, allowing them to fire back in their normal step even if they are hit by a sub. However, both attacking and defending subs always fire in the Opening Fire step, so a defending sub will return fire even if it is hit, regardless of the presence of destroyers. This is because fire within a step is simultaneous. In effect, the presence of a destroyer only affects the ability of surface vessels to return fire when hit by subs.
Caspian Sub Policy Paper #16: Tech assessment.
-
To be honest, I haven’t used tech since my friends and I started playing. The only thing we ever bought were the rockets, subs and either long-range or jet fighters. But for some reason, we went away from that. Guess we wanted to save our money. :-P
-
EDIT: But I would be willing, if the situation ever got desperate or I had enough of one unit, to go after one or techs. The most preferrential would be the jet fighters and … either the rockets or long-range fighters. Mmm, probabl long range. That way you can keep helping your inf retake the Ukr without having to land your fighters in a vulnerable spot.
-
Thank you Fox.
I’ll look this one over as I have time :-)
-
I only have 2 initial comments on this paper…
First: It is written based on Box Rules, with the modification that Tech takes effect at the end of a turn (this is the same for LHTR). However, for those who use LHTR, there is a MAJOR change over box rules for Heavy Bombers. HB do not do 2 dice of damage, they do the HIGHER roll of 2 dice. Technically, HB’s still do only 1d6 of damage per bomber, but you roll 2 dice and take the higher dice. On average this is a 1 IPC or so increase in each SBR; though in combat situations it makes for a near guaranteed hit by the HB every round of combat.
Second: The paper assumes an average 7 round game. It has been my (limited) experience that the average game runs longer than that. 10 turns seems to be closer to average, and 10-15 seems to be the norm. Online gaming, at least on this forum, seems to be either 5 rounds or less before one side surrenders, or goes over 10 rounds. For the very short game, there is no chance for payback on tech from a straight economic view, though there is still the potential for the quick power boost for a final strike. In a longer game, the economics change significantly (as C-Sub stated repeatedly.)
So, other than the two corrections: one that HB are even weaker under LHTR, and that an average game length of 7 is probably not accurate for online play; it otherwise does a good job of basic analysis of Techs.
-
Another flaw that Switch didn’t post and that the writter assumes:
He goes on at length about 30 IPCs costing you units, but let’s look at the techs a bit more:
SSX (SuperSubs), IF you already have like 5 or 6 of these, this upgrade might be worth it. Even if you don’t, we’re talking about making a sub that costs 67% what a destroyer costs at the same combat value as a destroyer.
HB (Heavy Bombers) Yea, they do the best of two dice on SBR, but they can still hit two units on combat. If England/USA were going on an SBR strat (killing off 16 German IPCs per round) and had, oh, say 8 bombers between them, you just got 120 IPCs for the cost of 60. (30 IPC per country, +4 effective bombers per country.) That’s still a good investment, IMHO. Especially if you want to kill off a Japanese fleet or just obliterate 50 infantry on Germany’s capital.
DDB (Destroyer Bombard) Considering you’re probably NOT building battleships with America and Brition and Japan, and IF the allies go KJF, DDB still is effective. Now you can escort a transport with a DD to knock that jap off his island instead of a BB. Not a stellar tech, but I wouldn’t discount it.
Rockets: Ere, okay…not sure what he’s trying to get at. But Brition hits Germany for 16, Russia hits Germany for 16, America hits Germany for 16 per round that’s - 48 for Germany at the cost of 90 IPCs for the allies which, over 3 rounds, is 30 a round, 18 less then the damage done to Germany. Imaging a Germany with 0 income per round starting in Round 2 or 3.
Jet Power: 30 IPCs to raise the defense of 6 free fighters to 5? That’s like getting a free fighter. Okay, it’s only 10 to buy a fighter, but it costs you ten for the fighter, and now you cannot use that ten for something else, so it’s really 20. Not to mention, 2 Jets on a carrier is a much higher threat rating then 2 fighters on a carrier. Especially if you have a couple transports there.
LRA (Long Range): Other then Japan and USA, I really don’t see a use for it. LRA will get fighters from W. USA to W. Europe, which can be nice. LRA will also get fighters from Japan to Moscow.
I dunno, I wouldn’t say tech wasn’t worth it. Especially if you only put 5 ipcs a round into the one you want. But that’s just me
-
Actually, we were BOTH wrong.
HB’s under LHTR:
On attack and defense: Roll 2 dice and take the better of the 2 dice.
On SBR: roll 2 dice, take the better die, and ADD 1. -
@ncscswitch:
Actually, we were BOTH wrong.
HB’s under LHTR:
On attack and defense: Roll 2 dice and take the better of the 2 dice.
On SBR: roll 2 dice, take the better die, and ADD 1.Dang it! I guess it was inevitable that I would one day be proven wrong on SOMETHING on these boards!
HBs are basically worthless in LHTR then. What’s the point in rolling two die and taking the better of the two on attack? I wanna kill a BB with nothing but a bomber! Hasn’t Larry ever heard of skip bombing? Invented by the Americans (Gen. Harper I believe) during WWII to take out Jap carriers!
-
Another flaw that Switch didn’t post and that the writter assumes:
He goes on at length about 30 IPCs costing you units, but let’s look at the techs a bit more:
None of your points make any sense to me.
SSX (SuperSubs), IF you already have like 5 or 6 of these, this upgrade might be worth it. Even if you don’t, we’re talking about making a sub that costs 67% what a destroyer costs at the same combat value as a destroyer.
He mentions exactly that it might be worth it if you already have a lot of subs.
HB (Heavy Bombers) Yea, they do the best of two dice on SBR, but they can still hit two units on combat. If England/USA were going on an SBR strat (killing off 16 German IPCs per round) and had, oh, say 8 bombers between them, you just got 120 IPCs for the cost of 60. (30 IPC per country, +4 effective bombers per country.) That’s still a good investment, IMHO. Especially if you want to kill off a Japanese fleet or just obliterate 50 infantry on Germany’s capital.
I didn’t know that SBRs hit for maximum every time and AA guns never hit!
DDB (Destroyer Bombard) Considering you’re probably NOT building battleships with America and Brition and Japan, and IF the allies go KJF, DDB still is effective. Now you can escort a transport with a DD to knock that jap off his island instead of a BB. Not a stellar tech, but I wouldn’t discount it.
He doesn’t discount it. He says you might use it in the late game.
Rockets: Ere, okay…not sure what he’s trying to get at. But Brition hits Germany for 16, Russia hits Germany for 16, America hits Germany for 16 per round that’s - 48 for Germany at the cost of 90 IPCs for the allies which, over 3 rounds, is 30 a round, 18 less then the damage done to Germany. Imaging a Germany with 0 income per round starting in Round 2 or 3.
I didn’t know rockets hit for maximum damage every time!
Jet Power: 30 IPCs to raise the defense of 6 free fighters to 5? That’s like getting a free fighter. Okay, it’s only 10 to buy a fighter, but it costs you ten for the fighter, and now you cannot use that ten for something else, so it’s really 20. Not to mention, 2 Jets on a carrier is a much higher threat rating then 2 fighters on a carrier. Especially if you have a couple transports there.
I don’t follow. 30 IPCs = 3 fighters. Buying 3 fighters adds 3 count and 12 defense points, whereas Jets with 30 IPCs with 6 fighters add 6 defense points. Which is clearly superior? 2 Jets on a carrier is not what I would call a “much higher threat.” 2 Jets on a carrier causes .66 more casualties per round. Why not purchase a carrier + fighter (26 IPCs, 4 saved) to add 1.16 casualties per round, and add to your naval count for units that can die?
LRA (Long Range): Other then Japan and USA, I really don’t see a use for it. LRA will get fighters from W. USA to W. Europe, which can be nice. LRA will also get fighters from Japan to Moscow.
You don’t see a point for it, the Csub editor didn’t see a point in it.
HBs are basically worthless in LHTR then. What’s the point in rolling two die and taking the better of the two on attack? I wanna kill a BB with nothing but a bomber! Hasn’t Larry ever heard of skip bombing? Invented by the Americans (Gen. Harper I believe) during WWII to take out Jap carriers!
I agree, Heavy Bombers blow in LHTR. =(
-
I didnt’ say they hit for max. But if you have 4 Bombers you have an average of 16 damage. (4 per.) If you have 2 HBs you should have the same average. That means you can spend less on bombers to keep max damage on Germany’s IPC count and more towards taking land, in OOB rules.
-
It is stated that techs win the game but without LL you win the game by luck most of the time. UK keeping egypt first turn, Pearl fleet surviving that kind of lucky rolls just make the game.
I can´t agree with you at all.
As Germany or Japan it hasn´t happened to me yet that I´ve lost one of the battles you´ve taken as an example.
I win (or loose ) the big majority of my games because of my gaming qualities and not because of luck.
What makes out a good commander is the ability to react on situations which were totally unforeseen and when the chances are against you and still win a battle.But this thread deals with the Csub policy paper 16 and not with Luck or no Luck.
If you want to discuss that you should look after one of the countless threads to that topic. -
Actually, yea, if you loose Pearl or Egypt it’s because you relied on the luck of the dice, not the over whelming fire power you shoudl have had.
-
@ncscswitch:
Actually, we were BOTH wrong.
HB’s under LHTR:
On attack and defense:Â Roll 2 dice and take the better of the 2 dice.
On SBR: roll 2 dice, take the better die, and ADD 1.Dang it! I guess it was inevitable that I would one day be proven wrong on SOMETHING on these boards!
HBs are basically worthless in LHTR then. What’s the point in rolling two die and taking the better of the two on attack? I wanna kill a BB with nothing but a bomber! Hasn’t Larry ever heard of skip bombing? Invented by the Americans (Gen. Harper I believe) during WWII to take out Jap carriers!
Larry does NOT like Tech. This was his way of “killing” it for tournament play.
Squirecam
-
@ncscswitch:
Actually, we were BOTH wrong.
HB’s under LHTR:
On attack and defense: Roll 2 dice and take the better of the 2 dice.
On SBR: roll 2 dice, take the better die, and ADD 1.Dang it! I guess it was inevitable that I would one day be proven wrong on SOMETHING on these boards!
HBs are basically worthless in LHTR then. What’s the point in rolling two die and taking the better of the two on attack? I wanna kill a BB with nothing but a bomber! Hasn’t Larry ever heard of skip bombing? Invented by the Americans (Gen. Harper I believe) during WWII to take out Jap carriers!
Larry does NOT like Tech. This was his way of “killing” it for tournament play.
Squirecam
Larry created the game, right? If I’m right on that, then why did he make tech if he hates it?
-
Actualyl, most of te changes were done to make the game more playable.
For example, LRA usign Box Rules creates a game where the Axis wins or loses based on the results of the German Tech Roll on G1. If they hit LRA, London falls. If they miss the tech roll, the total lack of purchases on G1 dooms them.
Downgrading HB was to get rid of the Axiom from Classic: Whoever gets HB’s (assuming sufficient income to build Bombers) wins. Dropping from 3 dice to 2 helped, but still created a situation where UK and USSR just had to defend, and strike at targets of opportunity, until American Heavy Bombers decimated the Axis income.
Now, they are still good, but not game imbalancing.
And like most tech, only worthwhile in longer games, or in very specific situations.
-
I would say a long range aircraft tech for my Germany AF strat would be devestating for Allies.
The figs could threathen a good deal of the atlantic from France, and Bmb could hit eastern US sea zone, they would need massive protect their shiping lines, and i could also use my whole AF to trade territories in whole Europe and still get back to France….
And i could hit cauccasus from France (western europe).
It would definatley be worth 30 IPC.
-
Long-Range Aircraft is, in my opinion, the only tech that’s worth going for with ANY country…provided you have the spare cash. It’s also the only tech that I regularly try to roll for.
Sure, Russia can’t make that much use of it, but it is a boon to any nation, and certainly aids Germany, as well as America (makes the Pacific MUCH easier).
About the only other tech I ever bother with is Jet Fighters, and then only with America or Japan for the defensive boost to the Carriers.
Although I have, at one point or another, gotten every tech. America with Jet Fighters, Heavy Bombers, and Long-Range Aircraft is a force to be reckoned with. :-D
-
@ncscswitch:
Actually, we were BOTH wrong.
HB’s under LHTR:
On attack and defense:Â Roll 2 dice and take the better of the 2 dice.
On SBR: roll 2 dice, take the better die, and ADD 1.Dang it! I guess it was inevitable that I would one day be proven wrong on SOMETHING on these boards!
HBs are basically worthless in LHTR then. What’s the point in rolling two die and taking the better of the two on attack? I wanna kill a BB with nothing but a bomber! Hasn’t Larry ever heard of skip bombing? Invented by the Americans (Gen. Harper I believe) during WWII to take out Jap carriers!
Larry does NOT like Tech. This was his way of “killing” it for tournament play.
Squirecam
Larry created the game, right? If I’m right on that, then why did he make tech if he hates it?
Larry and Mike Selinker were sorta “partners” on AAR. I imagine there was somewhat of a disagreement that Mike somehow won.
Squirecam
-
Rockets can do heavy cash damage and even “safe Moscow” in some games!
Germany has 2 initial ICs (GER & SEU), Japan normally builds a new one in IND (in this game also one in SIN was built).
Immagine Russia has an average to strong russian army and an average UK-army protecting only Moscow, but it is cut off from further allied supply as Germany firmly holds LEN and Japan is in CAU so that neither the US-Army in Egypt, nor much more UK-troops can advance (besides some trades of NOR and ARC and amph. assaults on all countries around the Mediterranean). With US-rockets on 5 ICs (aa-guns placed in GBR, ALG, LIB, EGY & MOS) and a allied navy in the Med, this really helps to slow down the axis and I even plan to devellop rockets for UK! If you have 4 or more potenial targets, it
s imho definitely worth going for it! Average demage is twice 3,5$ (SEU, GER), once 3$ (CAU) and once 2,5$ (IND). Thats a demage of 12,5$ per round with an US-investment of about 43$ (“average cost” of 33$ with two dice per round for gaining the tech and 10$ for two additional aa`s). And it this strategic situation there is nohing better to do for USA. Game is a toss-up and will certainly take very long!SuperSubs are great if USA only invests in a Pacific battle and can be used as a strategy!
HB & ComB are imho a little too week in LHTR and are used very rarely.
Jets are only good for tactical use, i.e. if you have to increase your fgt-defence immediately from 4 to 5 as you expect an attact on a key territory! As a (long-term) strategy they are almost useless (e.g. immunity against aa`s is fine, but buying another fgt for 10$ to compensate an aa-theat is much cheaper)!
LRA may be “nice to have” is some situaitions (both strategic and tactical), but as you can only use it next round, they are never a “game-breaker”
-
I still disagree with Policy Paper #16 in regards to rockets.
Other posters must remember that Policy Paper #16 is based on CaspianSub rules (LHTR rules for tech similar in regards to delay factor).
–
OOB, going tech is a valid strategy. I’m going to pull my old Rocket tech strat out for Germany.
To wit -
I think Policy Paper 16 was released prematurely. It is written for LHTR and CaspianSub rules, and makes no mention of OOB with/without FAQs. It assumes a chunk of 30 IPC spent at one time on tech. Although the paper does not specifically say so, I think it likely that it was even more specifically aimed at tournament play (short games).
It should be rewritten, I think.
-
It is written for LHTR and CaspianSub rules, and makes no mention of OOB with/without FAQs.
Nope, it was written for CSub rules. You’ll notice it is a CSub site :-D
Why would we write about OOB strategies when we’ve already demonstrated that OOB is flawed?
It assumes a chunk of 30 IPC spent at one time on tech.
Nope. The paper assumes an average cost of 30 IPCs, and it specifically says that the most cost efficient method is $5 at a time while most people actually buy tech in batches. The paper does not say people spend exactly $30 on tech.
Although the paper does not specifically say so, I think it likely that it was even more specifically aimed at tournament play (short games).
Uh, how about the line in the paper summary that says: "NOTE: The scope of this paper is the typical face-to-face game that won’t last many rounds." That is as specific as you can get that the paper is about short games. Tournament games are a subset of short games and don’t require separate treatment. And in fact, tournament play is a minor part of the CSub editors’ gaming.
Thanks for the input.
Suggested Topics
