AA50: Strategic - Core Rule #3 –> Making Techs Viable for Competitive Play

@gamerman01:

@cousin_joe:

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.

@Wilson2:

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.

@gamerman01:

@Wilson2:

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?

@Wilson2:

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.).

I think you are still reading it wrong. According to the proposed system you get to pick the exact tech you want to roll for. Once you buy the researchers, it is only a matter of time before you get the tech (and only that tech). Due to the escalating nature of it, it should only take roughly 2-3 turns to get it. (1-2 for 3 or 4 dice) I honestly don’t mind playing with house rules. I am an avid fan of AARe and am not interested in competitive play using OOB rules or LHTR. I still like to play good people (I’d love to play AARe with axis roll or replay pagan sometime) I hope we can develop this rule set to get enough recognition to be generally accepted as more than one players house rule.

BTW anyone know what happened to pagan haven’t seen him since the WOTC board died?