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.
-
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.
-
CrazyStraw, you know I am illiterate.
No, I guess I just skipped over a lot of the paper, my bad. But am I alone in thinking the paper is generally down on tech?
-
It is definitely tech negative.
But, as CS pointed out, it is a highly specific evaluation in that it pertains to the 7 turn (or less) game. Which I guess is an OK assumption for C-Sub to use due to the way they play. But it is a hyper invalid assumption for most of us here. And the economics of several of those techs, rockets in particular, changes dramatically with just 1 or 2 extra turns of play… and with a player who is using a strategy to maximize the benefits of those techs.
-
CrazyStraw, you know I am illiterate.
Heh :-D
Quite the contrary! The reason I replied is that you have had many good posts in the past, and I expect more in the future.
You’re right; the paper is certainly down on tech as a strategy. It is very pro-tech for Tech Power Projection when you need to buff up a group of units far from your ICs.
I am pleasantly surprised at the various folks pushing back on the assessment, particularly for rockets. It strikes me that this may be a classic example of how different groups have different general modes of play. Like some groups are heavy KJF, others are KGF, some go for tech every game, some do almost exclussive infrantry builds, etc.
This is complicated by the fact that tech out of the box is broken. So the set of fixes you take (Triple A, LHTR, CSub, etc.) will also color your opinion on tech.
Peace
-
LRA Bombers in Hawaii cannot be replicated. They keep Japan free of transports.
Tech allows you to try to save a losing game with a five IPC investment.
Suggested Topics
