Caspian Sub Policy Paper #16: Tech assessment.

  • 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.

  • @newpaintbrush:

    CrazyStraw, you know I am illiterate.

    Heh  😄

    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.


  • 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

  • 15
  • 5
  • 2
  • 18
  • 6
  • 21
  • 8
  • 3
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys