Caspian Sub Policy Paper #16: Tech assessment.



  • Caspian Sub has just posted their latest article on the use of tech.

    It is Policy Paper #16 in the Files section.

    Read it there:
    http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/Caspian_Sub/files/

    Discuss it here.


  • 2018 2017 2016 '11 Moderator

    Considering most games take the tech aspect out of them before the game starts, I don’t know what good it will be to discuss it. 🙂



  • If anyone would care to post the actual paper, instead of a “membership required” link, then perhaps we can all take a look at it 🙂


  • 2007 AAR League

    Incoming!
    Tech?  Blech!
    An analysis of Weapons Development

    Caspian Sub PP16, 1v0


    Paper Topic

    Weapons Development: The uses, the costs, the benefits, the aversion.


    Paper Summary

    In the typical face to face game, most techs are about as desirable as a Canadian nickel:  sure, if you have tech, you’ll use it, but you won’t go out of your way to get it.

    Since Caspian Sub rules have tech taking effect at the end of the round instead of when acquired, the surprise value of the tech is removed, making most techs unimpressive compared to their cost.

    In general, the only time tech is really useful is for ‘tech power projection’ (see below).

    NOTE: The scope of this paper is the typical face-to-face game that won’t last many rounds.  If you get into a game that lasts 20 rounds (relatively common in a Triple A game), the numbers will look very different.  That will be covered in the Policy Paper on Marathon Games.


    Details

    In a great many instances, accessories make the man.  Boba Fett had his jet pack.  Dire Straights had their head bands.  Wayne Gretzky had his Marty McSorley.  Gadgets are cool, so when a game gives you the chance to gadgetize your gear, you naturally want to take it.  Heavy bombers?  Yes!  That’s twice the death, and twice the death is cool.

    The very first game of AA4 I played, I bought two rounds of destroyers for the US, upgraded them with tech, and then I bought more destroyers.  I beat the Vichy French down like… er… Frenchmen.  That game was going my way in a huge fashion until MightyAirforce bought a tech of his own: Rockets.  Now rockets are a coward’s technology, so M.A. knew how to use them to devastating advantage and my game was lost (I ask you, what kind of fighting is it to kill money instead of units?).

    Admittedly we were playing that way just for the novelty of trying the new techs and to learn the game, but there’s no denying the ‘cool’ factor of good upgrades.

    But coolness has its price.  Is it worth it?  Let’s go through the numbers.

    Costs
    To get a tech, you spend $5 per 1 in 6 chance at a tech.  Sometimes you will roll one die and get the tech, sometimes you will spend $40 on eight dice to get the tech.  If you look at all the times where you spend $5 and all the times you spend $80, you find that on average you will need six dice to get the tech, so that’s $30.

    But that number is decpetively low.  The $30 cost assumes you roll the dice one at a time and stop when you get the tech you want.  The problem with that model is that almost no one goes for tech that way.  Since you can only research tech once per turn, what is far more common is to throw multiple dice on a given turn in the hopes of getting the tech quickly.  This is necessary because if you use the most cost-effective method of buying tech (one die at a time), then you are very likely to get the tech long after it is useful and certainly long after it would determine your strategy.  So most folks buy tech dice in cost-inefficient batches.  That drives up the practical cost of tech.

    But to keep it simple, we will stick with the $30 cost for this analysis.  Just keep in mind that the practical cost is higher.

    Benefits
    Ok.  You now have your “laser” from the “Alan Parsons Project”.  What are you going to do with the thing?  How much beam of death did your money buy?  There are three main factors to evaluate when determining how good a particular tech is.  They are: cost of upgrade vs. comparable units, game length, and Tech Power Projection.

    Cost of Upgrade vs. Comparable Units - CUCU
    This measurement simply asks the question, “How does $30 of units compare to $30 of tech?”  Subs are an easy example.  $30 buys nearly 4 subs, so you will need to determine if $30 of tech is equivalent to $30 of subs.

    Game Length
    The length of the game will determine the cumulative value of the tech.  If you only get to use your new toy for a single round you will get a lot less return on investment than in a game that goes 20 rounds where you can use the tech again and again.  To get a baseline comparison, let’s assume the majority of games will have a winner in about 7 rounds.  Because tech is active at the end of your turn, that means the return on your investment will come over 6* rounds of play if you get it on the first round.  So at an average cost of $30 per tech, that amounts to $5 per round of benefit.  To make the tech worthwhile you need $30 of value or $5 a round.

    This paper only addresses the short face to face game.

    *Jet Power is slightly different because it is active at the end of the round it is acquired, but that won’t change our assessment.  You’ll see.

    Tech Power Projection
    You can determine from CUCU (cost upgrade vs comparable units) analysis whether or not the unit is a good buy in and of itself.  But what if you are upgrading units far away from your production facility?  There may be tremendous value in upgrading Japanese fighters on Berlin, and that can’t necessarily be compared to just buying fighters for Tokyo.  For this paper, using tech to transfer power away from your production facility is called Tech Power Projection (TPP).

    Now that we have defined the costs and benefits in general terms, let’s figure out the specific benefit of each individual tech.


  • 2007 AAR League

    Part 2

    Individual Tech Assessments

    1. Jet Power
    Upgrading from a fighter to a jet fighter lets you defend hitting on 5 instead of 4.  That’s 1/6 more death per defending fighter.  How often will you use this tech?  Perhaps defending your navy, perhaps defending a key territory, almost certainly for defending your capital.  Best case scenario is perhaps two or three big battles per game.  You won’t use it much more than that, because if you “use” the advantage, you’ll likely lose the fighter in that battle.  And if you’re not going to lose that fighter, your opponent probably won’t be attacking you (there is probably a small deterrent benefit in that).

    CUCU:  So if it costs you $30 to get the tech, could you have done something better with $30?  How about just buying three more fighters?  That adds a dPunch of 12 to each cycle of combat, so to get a comparable affect from the tech you would need to upgrade 12 fighters.  Note that having dCount in the battle is important too, so buying 3ftr has advantages a simple upgrade does not.  I think it is safe to say that in most instances having three additional fighters will be much better than upgrading fighters already on the board.  Jet Power is for defense, and buying $30 of infantry, or even fighters, will be larger than the defense bump you receive from the tech.

    TPP:  If you are near the end of the game, such as in a time-limited tournament, then upgrading fighters may be a great use of your money when the fighters you build at home can’t be used.  Three fighters built in Tokyo may be better on a CUCU basis than two Japanese fighters upgraded in Berlin, but if the Tokyo fighters never roll a die then their value is zero.  The inefficiency of the CUCU is outweighed by the value of getting the power where you need it.

    Bottom line: For a risky $30, the CUCU analysis shows you are almost certainly better off buying 3ftr.  If you need TPP, however, go ahead and pull the trigger.

    2. Rockets
    Sacking a paycheck is good, but how much is it worth?

    CUCU: Start with the fact that if you get the tech you will do an average damage of $21 per gun (6 rnds * $3.5 average damage).  That’s $9 less than the $30 it will take to get the tech, so you need to find a way to make it juicier.  Can you do two attacks per round?  In some instances you could, such as using the two starting Russian AA guns.  But the Russians can’t afford the $30 upfront cost for the tech.  Germany can do better, but for at least one gun you’re hitting the Caucasus, which is capped at $4 of damage, or you are targeting London, which is a much less useful target.  You can move a German gun up to hit Moscow, but then your own ICs are exposed to free bombing and your AA can be captured.  You could build extra AA guns, but then your startup cost is higher.  Not to mention that $30 of troops in the ground war is a lot of money for Germany, especially early in the game.

    The other powers are in worse positions to use the guns, so they would waste turns moving the guns and buying more guns.  In a seven round game, you are simply hard pressed to justify laying out $30 for this tech.

    TPP:  It is hard to envision a scenario where this could really be projected in a meaningful way.  No TPP.

    Bottom Line: Avoid it.  The powers that can really use it can’t afford it.

    3. Super Subs
    Now this is what was needed: taking a gimmicky unit and adding another gimmick!  So now your sub hits on a 3.  How much does that beef up your unit?

    CUCU:  Well, with that $30 tech fee you could buy about 4 subs, or an extra 8 oPunch per round.  Depending on the number of subs you have, you can recoup something close to that money within a few rounds of combat.  Your oCount for that group of subs is lower, but you do have a nice punch upgrade.  On the other hand, 4 subs can be split into multiple sub groups, whereas the $30 on tech can’t control any extra territory.  On a CUCU basis, you could make this tech pay for itself if you are buying a lot of subs.  In quick and rough terms, $30 of subs equates to an oPunch of 8.  So if you’re upgrading 8 subs, you’re getting equivalent punch though your count does not go up.  On a CUCU basis you wouldn’t upgrade until you have at least 8 subs on the board.

    TPP
    So suppose you have four subs with a US off the coast of the East Indies.  On a CUCU basis you know the tech isn’t great, but building subs in LA won’t help your main fleet.  In that instance, the TPP may be the best thing you can do to help for a pending naval battle.  You may even want to build your navy with that in mind; many subs early, upgrade with tech right before the big fight.

    Miscelaneous
    Pro: Of course subs are early strike units, so super is better. 
    Con: But destroyers might be present. 
    Pro: But they can submerge. 
    Con: But they can’t hit planes. 
    Pro: But they move through other naval units. 
    Con: But the first ‘early’ hit may just damage a battleship. 
    Pro: But… frickin subs…

    Bottom line: Complications aside, this tech has some mojo to it.  For TPP, this could certainly be worth the cash.  Just remember you are going to pay through the nose for it (like spending $40 bucks for eight dice on round five), and you still might not get the upgrade.  You are probably best off building a large sub fleet and then throwing for tech all at once later on.  That is not cost efficient, but you will get the maximum projection of your dollars.

    4. Long Range Aircraft
    Before the rule that delayed tech acquisitions, this was the Queen of Tech in AA4.  The standard move was to put a pile of planes just out of range of the target, let your opponent underestimate the planes available for the battle, and then upgrade the fighters/bombers for a surprise attack.  Early on this won a lot of games (or lost it when the dice didn’t deliver the tech).  After everyone had been burned a time or two, it still had the effect of spreading out defenses or forcing early withdrawal from a front.  With delayed tech, the big advantage of this tech is gone.

    CUCU:  If you need long range fighters for attacks, why not use the upgrade cost to upgrade 6 fighters to 6 bombers?  And if you need long range bombers the round before you actually use them, what the heck are you doing?  If you can’t get a bomber in position in 1 round, you have a very interesting and rare situation.

    TPP:  In extremely limited situations you may need long range aircraft to put your planes somewhere else on the board, but I can’t think of any major instance of this that is worth analyzing on a cost basis – if you need this tech, you won’t need math to tell you whether or not it is a good idea.  In the rare instance you need it, you’ll need it regardless of cost.

    Bottom line: Don’t bother with this as a primary strategy.  If you need it for some weird circumstance, you’ll know it.

    5. Bombarding Destroyers
    This tech has the potential to simply be fun.  Few things feel better than throwing one guy onto a beach and ripping down 5 or 6 units with no risk beyond 1inf.  And one of the cool things about bombardment is that it weakens the territory under attack before the ground troops land.  That means every territory in range of your amphibious assault has to be defended more strongly.  So there is no doubt it is a nice feature.  But is it worth the cost?

    CUCU:  A destroyer bombarding on a 3 will kill 1 infantry _ of the time, or 1.5 IPCs per bombardment.  In a standard game that comes to 9 IPCs of damage per destroyer (1.5 IPCs per round * 6 rounds), then subtract the cost of the grunt you’re sacrificing on the beach each round.  You need 3 active destroyers before you’re close to recouping your investment on straight value.  On the other hand, if you spend 24 IPCs on a battleship, that could generate 12 IPCs of value (2 IPCs per round * 6 rounds, then subtract grunt sacrifice) with no risk buying tech.  So the comparable unit with no risk, the battleship, is already attractive in terms of cost vs. risk.

    The total equation is much more complicated.  Here are some of the questions that impact the final calculation: How many rounds will be spent positioning your assaults?  Will ground troops be available for the sacrifice?  What is the value of utilizing destroyers already on the board that would otherwise do nothing?  Can your opponents buy subs to block your bombardments?  How many destroyers do I need to buy to justify the tech?  Etc.  But since the basic cost assessment already shows a comparable value to a battleship, I believe it is safe to say that going for bombarding destroyers is not going to be an efficient strategy.

    TPP:  If you are near game end, this could be valuable since your target may be far from your ICs.  But that would also imply that you have no better use for your cash, such as buying more planes or going for heavy bombers.  Perhaps in the next to last round of a US assault on Germany you would want this.  That’s about the only case.

    Bottom line: Don’t use this as a main strategy, but watch for the very rare instance of TPP.

    6. Heavy Bombers
    In the old game (AA3 & earlier), many games ended with a desperate roll for tech when only heavy bombers would help.  The old version gave heavy bombers 3 dice, and AA guns did not target individual aircraft, making it possible to protect them with a fighter escort.

    In AA4, the heavy bomber tech essentially doubles your bomber fleet.  Clearly that is a strong benefit, so let’s get to work on the numbers to see if it is worth the cost.

    CUCU:  First off, you could use the $30 upgrade cost to simply buy 2bmr at no risk.  If you don’t already have 2bmr on the board, your first move would be to just buy bombers.  This first observation of the cost eliminates most of the powers from going for heavy bombers.  If you have one bomber, you need to spend $30 on the tech and another $15 for a second bomber before it is equal to just spending $45 on three bombers right from the start.  In the first case your $45 dollars buys a bomber and tech for two heavy bombers; in the second case you have 1bmr to start and you just buy three more.  Who has that kind of cash in a typical game where you have no benefit from your tech until you buy the third bomber for a total outlay of $60?  That’s $60 just to put two more units on the board.  Only the US and perhaps the Axis power not under attack are candidates for heavy bombers as a strategy.

    Second, it is true that the 4bmr are exposed to more AA fire than 2 heavy bmr, but you can also separate the 4bmr to attack two more groups than the upgraded bombers.  And with the heavies, your count is reduced.  So heavy bombers are not a clear value compared to just buying more bombers in a short game.

    Third, heavy bombers do not help you much in strategic bombing raids because you will quickly hit the cap for damage on a territory.  If you can’t hit Berlin for more than $10, then you don’t need much air power to hit that cap.  Not to mention the time it takes to build the bombers and fly them into position, plus the round to get the tech, so strategic bombing with heavy bombers is likely a bad plan in a standard time limited game.

    TPP:  But once again, TPP might make good use of this tech.  If you have a bomber on the board and you don’t need defense, upgrade your bomber(s) before the last battle.  But note one other facet: if you are doing this with Japan for an attack on Moscow, you’re still probably better off just building the bombers on a mainland factory and bringing them to the fight.  This is mostly to help the US; every other power can probably build more bombers and just hit the target with fresh units.

    Bottom line: It’s a nice tech, but most powers can’t afford it, and the other two powers need to scale up production capabilities before spending on air power.  Heavy bombers are certainly a nice upgrade on a per-unit assessment, but because they are so expensive you simply won’t get enough of them into the game early enough to be difference makers.  By the time you have a Mighty Airforce, Moscow or Berlin is likely dead.

    NOTE: heavy bombers are one tech that may be devastating in a long term game.  As noted, this paper is about a typical short game; the math will be very different for a 20 round game.


    FAQ
    1. What happened to the great old tech that reduced the cost of an item by an IPC?
    Two things on that.  First off, it wasn’t as great in the old game as many people thought.  To recoup the money spent on tech you needed to buy one unit per dollar spent on tech.  So if you spent $30 on tech, you haven’t made your money back until you build your 30th unit.  That’s a lot of units.  If you got the tech on the cheap it was nice, but then you were just lucky.

    Second, with the targeted tech in AA4, that particular tech becomes a big chaos factor in the game.  If you spend $10 the first round and you get it, you’re going to have a massive advantage.  It’s true you will often waste a lot of money waiting for the tech, but you are turning the game into a game of luck based on getting the tech.

    So it was killed, likely because it wasn’t powerful enough with untargeted tech and it was too randomly powerful with targetted tech.  It is better that the tech is not in AA4.

    2. Why are you down on tech in the rules?  By delaying them, you pretty much eliminate them.  Isn’t it realistic to have them in the game?
    Actually, it would be more realistic for tech to have an even bigger impact.  Think about radar or, best of all, the atomic bomb.

    The problem in this case is that the “real world” makes for a poor game.  If you spend four hours moving troops around just to have the game end with an atomic bomb, that makes for a pretty unfulfilling game.


    Wrap Up
    Tech is rarely a good strategy on a per-unit basis.  Think of it as a way to pump up your units in the late game when the units you build won’t be used significantly.  Looking at the cost of the upgrade vs. the cost of comparable units usually favors the extra units, not the upgrade.  But using tech to project power may be worth more than the unit analsys alone would show.


    Version and Unresolved Issues
    1v0 Date: 5/13/06
    Unresolved issues: None.  This is perfect in every way.


  • 2007 AAR League

    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.  😛


  • 2007 AAR League

    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.


  • 2018 2017 2016 '11 Moderator

    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.


  • 2018 2017 2016 '11 Moderator

    @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. =(


  • 2018 2017 2016 '11 Moderator

    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.



  • Jet fighters do something else on your carriers then just hit harder.

    In normal games missing only on a 6 has a bigger psycholgical effect then having 2 units hitting on a 3 or less. It scares the opponent out of attacking you and you dont want your fleet to fight it is there to protect the trannies that bring the fighting units to the front.

    Rockets are usefull for germany thought. Consider that you can hit 3 IC every turn for an average of about 3.5 ipcs that is 10 damage each turn. russia taking the brunt with 6 ipcs that is 2 inf less each turn. If you have 10-15 ipcs spare you can risk to take them.

    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.



  • @ShadowHAwk:

    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.


  • 2018 2017 2016 '11 Moderator

    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.



  • @Jennifer:

    @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


  • 2018 2017 2016 '11 Moderator

    @squirecam:

    @Jennifer:

    @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.



  • @Erwin:

    @ShadowHAwk:

    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.

    True, i just posted that to illustrate that the argument of lucky dice in weapon development is the same as the luck in battles. So that saying techs just make it a game of luck is a empty argument.

    The C-sub paper tends to focus a lot on the costs and just downgrades the techs where some are invaluable. LRA for example cant be replaced by just another turn flying.


  • 2007 AAR League

    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.  😄



  • Well germany with rockets. About 6 ipcs from russia and 3 from the UK lost every turn. That cant be all so bad for germany.

    Also combined bombardment is good for a pacific fleet. That way once you get into a position to tie up the japs main fleet a destroyer with a tranny can capture an island. Destroyers are cheaper to make then a battleship and 2 destroyers for shore bombardment beats any battleship.

    You should go for the tech that fits your strat. Jet fighters would be a lot less usefull for japan/US if the US is not going after japan with a fleet but verry valuable if the US goes pacific.



  • @Jennifer:

    @squirecam:

    @Jennifer:

    @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?

    Larry and Mike Selinker were sorta “partners” on AAR. I imagine there was somewhat of a disagreement that Mike somehow won.

    Squirecam


Log in to reply
 

Suggested Topics

  • 31
  • 5
  • 4
  • 2
  • 13
  • 21
  • 4
  • 28
I Will Never Grow Up Games

60
Online

13.5k
Users

33.8k
Topics

1.3m
Posts