# Mayday Mayday tech error

• developing jetfighters brings an error:

• makes the fighters always in all circunstancies better and cheaper than tactical bombers, so you buy no more tactical bombers.

this was not suposed to hapen

• developing jetfighters brings an error:

• makes the fighters always in all circunstancies better and cheaper than tactical bombers, so you buy no more tactical bombers.

this was not suposed to hapen

The Dems are in power, so it doesn’t matter, but them anyway!

• developing jetfighters brings an error:

• makes the fighters always in all circunstancies better and cheaper than tactical bombers, so you buy no more tactical bombers.

this was not suposed to hapen

The Dems are in power, so it doesn’t matter, but them anyway!

The dems are in power? What does that mean? And didn’t the republicans just win a landslide election…

• so you have a 1:36 chance of this happening for every \$5 you spend…not a big deal.

• MaherC your Math sucks. If you chose chart ii you have 1:6 chance, not 1:36

• MaherC your Math sucks. If you chose chart ii you have 1:6 chance, not 1:36

But you have a 1 in 6 chance of rolling a 6

• well actually if you chose all the time chart 2 then you have a chance of getting jetfigthers in the :

1st development:   1:36
2nd dev: 1:30
3rd dev: 1:24
4th dev: 1:18
5th dev.: 1:12
6th dev.: 1:6

for each 5 ipc spent.

So if during the game you get 4 developments, you have 1/6+1/5+1/4+1/3 chance of getting jetfighters

if you get 6 dev all from chart ii you have 100% chance of getting jetfighters during the game

• well actually if you chose all the time chart 2 then you have a chance of getting jetfigthers in the :

1st development:   1:36
2nd dev: 1:30
3rd dev: 1:24
4th dev: 1:18
5th dev.: 1:12
6th dev.: 1:6

for each 5 ipc spent.

So if during the game you get 4 developments, you have 1/36+1/30+1/24+1/18 chance of getting jetfighters

And the likelihood you get 4 developments in a row is 1:1296

In the end, you spend a lot more money on the tech than you’ll save at 2 bucks per fighter over tactical bomber.

• You don´t need to get 4 dev in a row. If the game has for example 12 rounds (the last we have played had 28 rounds) and you get a dev in each 3 tries, you get the jetfighter.

In our game Japan and USA got the jetfighters and the game was not that good because USA and Japan litterally stoped buying tactical bombers.

• Let’s assume that Japan is making 40 ipc’s at this point in a hypothetical game. They got jet fighters last turn, their first try at tech. They buy 2 fighters this turn. Their net gain is -3 ipc’s, because they get two 4 attackers with 2 fighters instead of 1 tactical and 1 fighter. So they spent 5 to get the tech, and saved 2 by getting another fighter instead of a tac.

So even assuming they get 2 fighters every turn, it takes them 3 turns to actually benefit from that economically. Your point isn’t all that big of a deal, because you need to buy A TON of planes for it to make a difference that you don’t need tacs for the 4 attack.

• Let’s assume that Japan is making 40 ipc’s at this point in a hypothetical game. They got jet fighters last turn, their first try at tech. They buy 2 fighters this turn. Their net gain is -3 ipc’s, because they get two 4 attackers with 2 fighters instead of 1 tactical and 1 fighter. So they spent 5 to get the tech, and saved 2 by getting another fighter instead of a tac.

So even assuming they get 2 fighters every turn, it takes them 3 turns to actually benefit from that economically. Your point isn’t all that big of a deal, because you need to buy A TON of planes for it to make a difference that you don’t need tacs for the 4 attack.

You forgot to count in all the existing fighters (in japan’s case this would make a huge difference, as they already have a ton of planes!)

Also, fighters defend better then tacs, so there is an extra benefit (save 1 IPC and have 1 defence point extra. And a 4 attack even when going solo)

• exactly, thats my point. With jetfigthers dev you save 1 ipc buying a fighter than a tbomber and you get more! defend on 4 instead of 3 and attack solo with 4.

• It’s historically accurate.

I’m pretty sure they stopped making dive-bombers when they figured out how to make a jet-fighter.

• Yes, jet fighters makes tacs obsolete. Isn’t that a good thing finally?

• Seems perfectly reasonable to me the way it is.  If you’re going for tech AND you happen to get Jet Fighers, you don’t need Tac’s any more … so what?  The chances are slim that it will happen, and at great expense typically.  And if you have jets you wouldnt need the Tac’s any more anyway.

• I do not agree.

Jetfigthers make figthers obsolete.

Jetfigthers should not make tacbombers obsolete

• I think that technology should make certain units obsolete.  This is the way it happens.

• Maybe we should just go old school
Jet fighters –> fighter defend at 5

Japan = unstoppable (see above)

• Tacticals are too expensive, even without jet fig tech. Tacticals should move 5 or make SBRs with 1d3 or something, because for defense figs are better, and for range/attack, strats are better

• Tacticals are too expensive, even without jet fig tech. Tacticals should move 5 or make SBRs with 1d3 or something, because for defense figs are better, and for range/attack, strats are better

But tacs can go on carriers, which bombers cant

• I don’t understand the problem. Maybe the OP doesn’t understand the concept of what upgrading tech does? It makes your old tech useless. Otherwise why would you bother?

• well, we don´t have a tech tree in aa games.

there re so many interesting things to put in a techtree.

for example, germany invented a magnetic mine to be atracted to ships and sink them. England invented then a degauss of the hull that prevented magnetic mines to be atracted by the ships metal.

germany invented a torpedo that followed the noise of enemy ships, the allies invented a noise equipment to be pulled by the ship with a cable to cheat the torpedo.

the USA invented a kind of a balloon that was inside the fuell tanks of figthers and other planes so that the empty space created inside the deposit by the comsumption of fuel was not filled with explosive gases. The consequence was that was much more easy to makea zero explode than a dauntless.

usa used CO against fires in carriers that combined with O2 produced CO2. without O2 the fire could not continue burning. Japan used water that boiled with the fire and was a big mess.

• This whole discussion gave me a headache.

• Tact Bombers are still useful even with jet fighters for a very good reason….

They can bomb Airbases and Navalbases.  Yes, regular bombers can do that too, but you can have a dual attack on a location.  Very good for Germany.  SBR London and bomb naval and air bases at the same time.  London can’t scramble enough aircraft to defend.

With Japan, bombing US naval and air bases from Aircraft Carriers is a HUGE deal.  If anything for Japan, it makes Strategic Bombers obsolete.

• Tac Bombers can bomb naval and air bases in Alpha plus, not in original rules.

6

1

7

10

6

2

4

15