Techs

Heavy bombers is not that unballanced in land fights even without AA-gun.
If you record punch/cost the Heavy bomber (assuming the bomber costs 12 points) 8/12=2/3, which compared to the artellery (1/2 or 3/4 if you count support) and tanks is not that insane.

But in sea battles, HB is realy powerfull.

What I think is strange is the repair IC technology. For Japan, Italy and US its definitivly totaly useless as the most probably will never ever get bombed at all, and it is probably useless for UK/russia too as I dont see Germany wanting to build Bombers instead of cheap land-based units. Its only germany which can ‘benefit’ from this technology and that only
if UK/US bombs them.

So my geuss is that this is one of the ‘wrong’ technologies.

The improved production might be realy fun in special situations. For Japan it is definitly nice. For US & Italy it is probably totaly waste. For UK it might be nice, but only if you at the time you get it have build a few extra factories. For Russia it might be neat to be able to crank out land-units closer to the front. Likewise it might be nice for the german player, but only if he is capable of holding one of the factories in Russia.

So in genall Improved production is useless for 2 countries, might be handy for 3 and wonderfull for japan.

Radar is likewise neat for Germany (killing fighters and bombers when the allies invades france…) but useless in extremly many situations.

For this reason we use LHTR!

I don’t really see two dice as too powerful.  AARe restored them to two dice after LHTR nerfed them.

Remember, they still defend with one die at one and they cannot be put on carriers.  So not only do you need to find the technology but also be able to afford the bombers and be in a strong enough position that you do not have to worry about being beaten back after you buy a bunch of bombers.

Bombers cost 13 BTW.

If they are too powerful you just increase the cost to buy a researcher to roll for them.

the idea that all techs ‘cost’ the same amount to develop is not correct. some should be more strong than others, so even by using the balance reasoning over historical, you may want to make a few changes to account for differences in tech strengths

Come on. Heavy bombers are not that insanly powerfull. If you realy want to nerf Heavy bombers, change it so that heavy bombers only uses 2 dices in land attacks ONLY!

In land combat, having 1 artellery and 3 infanteri is by far a stronger army than 1 heavy bomber, both on ofensive and defensive. The bomber gives you flexibility, and it can retreat from combat into a safe potition. With the heavy artellery, the combination 1 artellery and 3 infanteri gives you marginaly less punch, but you can soak up a lot of more cassulties. And even if you concider 2 artellery and 6 infanteri versus 1 artellery, 3 infanteri and 1 HB, the first will be a better attack! Not to speak of AA and possible radars… On land Heavy bombers is not even close to insane. Good, yes but not insanly good.

Besides, you cannot GET heavy bombers. You get a random technology! And if you invest 5pt,  you will in average get a technology in 6 turns. So it takes a long time, and you got to be lucky.

Craig’s right.  The real power of Heavy Bombers is felt in SBRs.  It’s just too easy in OOB Revised for the US to get them, then use them to pound Germany into the ground.  However, since techs are going back to random acquirement in Anniversary, and there are other techs that can counter their SBR power, it shouldn’t be as much of a problem there.

I do not like the rando tech rule in Classic. I like more the way tech improvemente are handled in Revised: you select what are looking for. There are the problem that you may “waste” IPC if not rolling the requested value.

Said this, I think that the rule for tech in Anniversary are interesting for two motivation.
First the tech are powerful enough to be “reasearched” and IPC are not “wasted” they are a sort of investment that soon or later will give some result. Second point is that being powerful it is also useful that they are random selected but having two categories to select where rolling the player may decide which “type” of technology to go after.
This two motivation may allows player to investe moderate quantities of IPCs in the first turns, that will give a benefits in later rounds.

@Krieghund:

Craig’s right.  The real power of Heavy Bombers is felt in SBRs.  It’s just too easy in OOB Revised for the US to get them, then use them to pound Germany into the ground.  However, since techs are going back to random acquirement in Anniversary, and there are other techs that can counter their SBR power, it shouldn’t be as much of a problem there.

Can you be more specific about how to counter cheaper bombers inflicting more damage than in any other version of A&A (IPC and production damage at the same time).  Of all the speculation I have heard about the new game, this one bothers me the most.

@Cmdr:

I don’t really see two dice as too powerful.  AARe restored them to two dice after LHTR nerfed them.

For those of you unfamiliar with AARe (Enhanced), this change was made since there are counters to heavy bombers.  For example, Jet power tech enables defending ftrs to intercept bombers.  In Enhanced, for every move, there is a counter.

Two dice were needed to make HB’s powerful enough to actualy make a difference, especially in naval battles.

@Romulus:

I do not like the rando tech rule in Classic. I like more the way tech improvemente are handled in Revised: you select what are looking for. There are the problem that you may “waste” IPC if not rolling the requested value.

I like it because during war a nation does not just research 1 special weapon at a time. There are multiple projects going on, so who is to say which one is going to hit gold first? The randomness of it is more real to life.

If I had my way the weapons development would be built into an event card system. I believe no one should have to invest ipcs into research because I think it should be assumed that the research is always going on and your ipcs are actually the army/navy/air force budget not the research budget. The event cards would be setup “slightly” to favor Germany and USA over Japan and Russia. Something like a 1/4 chance as compared to 1/5.

@axis_roll:

@Krieghund:

Craig’s right.  The real power of Heavy Bombers is felt in SBRs.  It’s just too easy in OOB Revised for the US to get them, then use them to pound Germany into the ground.  However, since techs are going back to random acquirement in Anniversary, and there are other techs that can counter their SBR power, it shouldn’t be as much of a problem there.

Can you be more specific about how to counter cheaper bombers inflicting more damage than in any other version of A&A (IPC and production damage at the same time).  Of all the speculation I have heard about the new game, this one bothers me the most.

SBRs don’t inflict IPC damage directly.  They only damage the IC.  This gives the victim the flexibility to spend only as much on IC repairs as is necessary to produce the number of units he/she can afford to build, or to not repair the IC at all if they don’t need to use it right away (or if it’s about to fall into enemy hands).  If you capture an IC, you inherit any damage that may be on it, so you must repair it before you can use it.

@Krieghund:

@axis_roll:

@Krieghund:

Craig’s right.  The real power of Heavy Bombers is felt in SBRs.  It’s just too easy in OOB Revised for the US to get them, then use them to pound Germany into the ground.  However, since techs are going back to random acquirement in Anniversary, and there are other techs that can counter their SBR power, it shouldn’t be as much of a problem there.

Can you be more specific about how to counter cheaper bombers inflicting more damage than in any other version of A&A (IPC and production damage at the same time).  Of all the speculation I have heard about the new game, this one bothers me the most.

SBRs don’t inflict IPC damage directly.  They only damage the IC.  This gives the victim the flexibility to spend only as much on IC repairs as is necessary to produce the number of units he/she can afford to build, or to not repair the IC at all if they don’t need to use it right away (or if it’s about to fall into enemy hands).  If you capture an IC, you inherit any damage that may be on it, so you must repair it before you can use it.

Yes, in theory they both don’t occur at the same time, but in practicallity, Germany will need to use it’s full IC capability MOST of the time (especially since Italy is now 1 IC).  So that’s both in my eyes.  Does Germany have more than 1 IC now?  Where are they and what are their capabilities?

I don’t see Industrial Complex as a possible purchase on that card. You may not be able to buy them. Which is sort of realistic anyway.

@Lynxes:

/axis_roll

I’m beginning to wonder if the strong HBMB tech is a way to make techs more valuable and important in the game. If HBMB can be acquired, people will spend more money on tech and that maybe is what Larry wanted.

I have to disagree.  Tech was SO MUCH a part of the second edition, that it basically broke the game IMHO.  A&A boiled down to a game of yahtzee then, get all 6’s and wallah!  You win the game.

Now I know this tech system is better, but I still do not like the randomness of the tech.

@axis_roll:

@Krieghund:

@axis_roll:

@Krieghund:

Craig’s right.  The real power of Heavy Bombers is felt in SBRs.  It’s just too easy in OOB Revised for the US to get them, then use them to pound Germany into the ground.  However, since techs are going back to random acquirement in Anniversary, and there are other techs that can counter their SBR power, it shouldn’t be as much of a problem there.

Can you be more specific about how to counter cheaper bombers inflicting more damage than in any other version of A&A (IPC and production damage at the same time).  Of all the speculation I have heard about the new game, this one bothers me the most.

SBRs don’t inflict IPC damage directly.  They only damage the IC.  This gives the victim the flexibility to spend only as much on IC repairs as is necessary to produce the number of units he/she can afford to build, or to not repair the IC at all if they don’t need to use it right away (or if it’s about to fall into enemy hands).  If you capture an IC, you inherit any damage that may be on it, so you must repair it before you can use it.

Yes, in theory they both don’t occur at the same time, but in practicallity, Germany will need to use it’s full IC capability MOST of the time (especially since Italy is now 1 IC).  So that’s both in my eyes.  Does Germany have more than 1 IC now?  Where are they and what are their capabilities?

Even though Germany doesn’t benefit from multiple ICs, it can still benefit somewhat from optional damage repair.  Here are some examples:

1. Germany has 35 IPCs, and the Allies bomb Germany, inflicting 20 damage points.  Under the Revised system, Germany would just pay 20 IPCs and have 15 left to spend.  Under the new system, Germany could spend 15 on repairs, then spend the other 20 on two tanks, one artillery and two infantry.

2. Germany has 35 IPCs, and the Allies bomb Germany for 10 damage points.  Rather than having 25 IPCs to spend, Germany can elect to spend only six on repairs and buy five tanks and an artillery.

3. Germany has 35 IPCs, and the Allies bomb Germany for 3 damage points.  Rather than having 32 IPCs to spend, Germany can elect to spend nothing on repairs and buy five tanks, an artillery and an infantry.

Obviously, this flexibility won’t always be useful, but sometimes it will, especially if you get the tech that allows you to repair the IC at half cost.

And yes, you can still buy ICs.  Other than the damage rules, they work exactly the same way as they work in Revised.

@Flying:

@Romulus:

I do not like the rando tech rule in Classic. I like more the way tech improvemente are handled in Revised: you select what are looking for. There are the problem that you may “waste” IPC if not rolling the requested value.

I like it because during war a nation does not just research 1 special weapon at a time. There are multiple projects going on, so who is to say which one is going to hit gold first? The randomness of it is more real to life.

If I had my way the weapons development would be built into an event card system. I believe no one should have to invest ipcs into research because I think it should be assumed that the research is always going on and your ipcs are actually the army/navy/air force budget not the research budget. The event cards would be setup “slightly” to favor Germany and USA over Japan and Russia. Something like a 1/4 chance as compared to 1/5.

I am presently working on an random event card system for A&A Classic, Revised, Pacific, and Europe.  In a couple of cases, I have anticipated the techs in A&A50.  Basically, you would cross-reference the card drawn from a deck of cards to an event chart.  I am planning on marketing this as an expansion, so I am using the playing card deck to keep costs down, rather than having custom cards made.  I will need to work up a chart for A&A50 until I have a board to work off of.  I have posted a couple of samples on the harrisgamesdesign.com forum, under  timerover51.  The tech and production boosts will somewhat favor Germany, the US, and the UK over Japan, Russia, and now Italy for A&A 50.

Germany starts with 35, got bombed for 20 IPC, leaving a balance of 15 IPC…

Under the new system, Germany could spend 15 on repairs, then spend the other 20 on two tanks, one artillery and two infantry.

So essentially if you SBR for 10 IPC,leaving 25 IPC, Germany can repair say 5 of it and spend 30 IPC?

Using the same example: If Germany repairs for all ten, then they get 35 IPC to spend again? HUH?

That makes no sence. It should be you lost income from SBR and you spend IPC to rebuild the capacity of the territory, and GAIN the effects on the following turn. That way a constant SBR campaign can bring nations from bunkering.