AA50 League and/or Tournaments

I would like to play without techs-period.
I don’t want to play hard and then suddenly lose because someone got Heavy Bombers.
The Tech is better than Revised but I would like an option to play games without it.
I think there should be an option to play with or without the NOs also… the option to play with or w/o the 2 new optional rules Larry gave us on his new FAQs on Jan 12th. as well.

Thanks

Questioneer

If you suddenly lose because someone got a tech, then you were playing hard, but not smart.

You should never put yourself in a position where one technology gained by the opponent will suddenly change the game.  IE, your fleet should assume the enemy has those long range fighters or those heavy bombers (or both).

You should assume your enemy will get those improved factories before you decide to make your SBR runs.

You should defend as if the enemy has advanced artillery and/or mechanized infantry.

In other words, the best players will assume the enemy has all 12 technologies and act accordingly taking risks where they must, but being ready with a plan to recover should the technology come and the battle turn so as not to lose the war.

@Cmdr:

If you suddenly lose because someone got a tech, then you were playing hard, but not smart.

In other words, the best players will assume the enemy has all 12 technologies and act accordingly taking risks where they must, but being ready with a plan to recover should the technology come and the battle turn so as not to lose the war.

Exactly my point!!!  Then it would be hard to do much of anything, everything would be a risk!!!  Look, the game already has the chance factor with the dice rolling, why skew the game on potential game breaking tech.  Don’t get me wrong, its fun and all, but leave it for the casual games, not tournaments.  Just ask those who play at “real” tournaments at GenCon and Origins- most like the no Tech options. 
I understand your strong opinion for tech, but there is just as much of a voice for “no tech”.  So good luck lobbying.

Questioneer

Which is exactly my point, if everything is at risk, then you have to use strategy to manage the risk and stop relying on dice calculators to give you favorable odds all the time!

This is supposed to be a game of skill, not a game of statistics right?

Anyway, with darn near 100 games right now (15 of which are active) and all of them with technologies, I’ve yet to see a game lost because someone got a tech suddenly or a game won because suddenly someone got a tech.  Generally, the person who won did so after recovering over a long period of time after getting the technology, or was already winning and the technology just sped things up a bit.

heavy bombers can seem like a game breaker if you already have 15 bombers on the board.  If you only have 1, it’s not quite so powerful!

Advanced Artillery the turn before your tanks arrive at the door of moscow (where you already have infantry and artillery) could allow you to take moscow a turn early, but at that point, you were probably on the brink of taking moscow anyway, all it did was allow you to do it one round earlier than you would have if you had to wait for that last wave of reinforcements.

If you don’t defend your fleet adequately enough and the 4 fighters your enemy has turns into jets and that little extra “oomph” gives him the punch needed to win, it was not because he got the tech you lost, odds were probably good he could have won without the tech, just not as well, it was bad strategy on your part.

In other words, if you cannot win the game when technology is a factor (for you or against you) then perhaps you need to play more games and learn some skills on how to deal with technology?  You are aware we’re the only online club I know of that does not play with technology in our AAR league and tournaments, right?  No one else seems to have a problem with technology.

You also need to be aware that getting a technology is not a sure thing.  In AAR it was much more sure than now, at least you could buy the dice for a specific technology.  Now you have a 1 in 36 chance of getting the tech you want. (You have to get a 6 and then get the number you want on the next roll!)  That’s only going to happen 3% of the time.

You want to eliminate an important part of the game and unbalance the entire thing over a 3% possibility???  Your odds of getting shot down on an SBR run is 6 times greater than the odds your enemy is going to get a technology s/he wants!

@Cmdr:

Which is exactly my point, if everything is at risk, then you have to use strategy to manage the risk and stop relying on dice calculators to give you favorable odds all the time!

This is supposed to be a game of skill, not a game of statistics right?

Anyway, with darn near 100 games right now (15 of which are active) and all of them with technologies, I’ve yet to see a game lost because someone got a tech suddenly or a game won because suddenly someone got a tech.  Generally, the person who won did so after recovering over a long period of time after getting the technology, or was already winning and the technology just sped things up a bit.

heavy bombers can seem like a game breaker if you already have 15 bombers on the board.  If you only have 1, it’s not quite so powerful!

Advanced Artillery the turn before your tanks arrive at the door of moscow (where you already have infantry and artillery) could allow you to take moscow a turn early, but at that point, you were probably on the brink of taking moscow anyway, all it did was allow you to do it one round earlier than you would have if you had to wait for that last wave of reinforcements.

If you don’t defend your fleet adequately enough and the 4 fighters your enemy has turns into jets and that little extra “oomph” gives him the punch needed to win, it was not because he got the tech you lost, odds were probably good he could have won without the tech, just not as well, it was bad strategy on your part.

In other words, if you cannot win the game when technology is a factor (for you or against you) then perhaps you need to play more games and learn some skills on how to deal with technology?  You are aware we’re the only online club I know of that does not play with technology in our AAR league and tournaments, right?  No one else seems to have a problem with technology.

You also need to be aware that getting a technology is not a sure thing.  In AAR it was much more sure than now, at least you could buy the dice for a specific technology.  Now you have a 1 in 36 chance of getting the tech you want. (You have to get a 6 and then get the number you want on the next roll!)   That’s only going to happen 3% of the time.

You want to eliminate an important part of the game and unbalance the entire thing over a 3% possibility???  Your odds of getting shot down on an SBR run is 6 times greater than the odds your enemy is going to get a technology s/he wants!

Wow!!!  Unbelievable!!!  There are so many of your points that we so disagree on I cant fit it on this post.  Each of your paragraphs needs a swift rebuttle.  I will start with one and do the rest later.

I commend you for playing online, it gives you good practice.  I am a tournament chess player.  Many people play online and OTB(over the board) too.  Online ratings can be very skewed- a person can have an online rating of 2000 yet be only a 1400 player OTB!  To compare OTB play versus online is ridiculous.  OTB is far superior.  Playing 100 games doesn’t necessarily make you better. 
If you played 100 OTB games then I would be impressed.  Besides, your online record wasn’t that great in 07/08 was it? :cry:
Last time I checked, your name was not listed at GenCon in the Masters tournament for OTB play- ah, alas, I digress.

Questioneer

P.S.  if its a game of skill than why add another chancy component to your gameplay to mess up the strategy!!!- Uggghh.  :roll:

Wow Questioneer, way to throw venom, malice and personal attacks into that post. As an almost solely FTF player now venturing into online play I’d like to say that I think online play is no less challenging than ftf play. Online play tends to bring up a wider variety of players and play styles, which I think makes it more challenging than ftf (gaming groups, friends, etc tend to have a similar assortment of people). If your argument is that only ftf at tournaments counts for anything, then you’re insisting that a tiny minority of all A&A players should declare what the game should play like, including ONLINE play.

To counter your chess analogy: look at professional poker. For years now the people winning the WSOP have been online players. It’s not the same but…well none of these are the same!

Personally I’d say play with tech for now in a league setting. The game just came out and no one could claim to be an expert at AA50 just yet. If after this season the results are clear that tech far and away won most games, then that will be the first credible evidence as to its efficacy.

@Tarling:

Wow Questioneer, way to throw venom, malice and personal attacks into that post. As an almost solely FTF player now venturing into online play I’d like to say that I think online play is no less challenging than ftf play. Online play tends to bring up a wider variety of players and play styles, which I think makes it more challenging than ftf (gaming groups, friends, etc tend to have a similar assortment of people). If your argument is that only ftf at tournaments counts for anything, then you’re insisting that a tiny minority of all A&A players should declare what the game should play like, including ONLINE play.

To counter your chess analogy: look at professional poker. For years now the people winning the WSOP have been online players. It’s not the same but…well none of these are the same!

Personally I’d say play with tech for now in a league setting. The game just came out and no one could claim to be an expert at AA50 just yet. If after this season the results are clear that tech far and away won most games, then that will be the first credible evidence as to its efficacy.

Nicely said, +1

@Tarling:

Wow Questioneer, way to throw venom, malice and personal attacks into that post. As an almost solely FTF player now venturing into online play I’d like to say that I think online play is no less challenging than ftf play. Online play tends to bring up a wider variety of players and play styles, which I think makes it more challenging than ftf (gaming groups, friends, etc tend to have a similar assortment of people). If your argument is that only ftf at tournaments counts for anything, then you’re insisting that a tiny minority of all A&A players should declare what the game should play like, including ONLINE play.

To counter your chess analogy: look at professional poker. For years now the people winning the WSOP have been online players. It’s not the same but…well none of these are the same!

Personally I’d say play with tech for now in a league setting. The game just came out and no one could claim to be an expert at AA50 just yet. If after this season the results are clear that tech far and away won most games, then that will be the first credible evidence as to its efficacy.

Personal attacks???  Is that what you call telling the truth???  Oh, but assuming that I “don’t play smart” isn’t insulting- hmmmm. right.

On the poker thing, you’re right, its NOT the same.  FTF is better for credibility.  thanks for proving my point.

Lastly, I’m not knocking on those that want tech, I just want a CHOICE to turn the option off.  Remember, National Objectives and Tech are OPTIONAL rules according to the official rules.  It should be treated that way in the league also, not forced to play them.  That’s why Larry instilled them as OPTIONAL.

uuggh - times 2 :roll:

Questioneer
:?

I actually thought questioneer brought up some good points.

#1.  Questioneer dislikes tech because he thinks it adds an extra element of randomness to the game.  Which it does.

#2.  Questioneer believes face to face matches are superior in skill level to online games.  I tend to agree with that, based on personal experience.  When I play someone live versus over the internet, I tend to make less play mistakes.  However, Tarling did make make some good counterpoints; in online play you’re exposed a wider variety of players and play styles, ect.

Anyways, to prevent this from turning into some pointless flamewar, shelve argument #2.  It really doesn’t belong here.

As for #1, Darth made it perfectly clear. Let tech people play tech and let the non-tech players play without tech. It’s really that simple.  I don’t know why we keep having these arguments even with what Darth said.  If someone does/doesn’t want to play with techs, then let him.  Don’t try to enforce your own out ethics into him.

@TG:

I actually thought questioneer brought up some good points.

#1.  Questioneer dislikes tech because he thinks it adds an extra element of randomness to the game.  Which it does.

#2.  Questioneer believes face to face matches are superior in skill level to online games.  I tend to agree with that, based on personal experience.  When I play someone live versus over the internet, I tend to make less play mistakes.  However, Tarling did make make some good counterpoints; in online play you’re exposed a wider variety of players and play styles, ect.

Anyways, to prevent this from turning into some pointless flamewar, shelve argument #2.  It really doesn’t belong here.

As for #1, Darth made it perfectly clear. Let tech people play tech and let the non-tech players play without tech. It’s really that simple.  I don’t know why we keep having these arguments even with what Darth said.  If someone does/doesn’t want to play with techs, then let him.  Don’t try to enforce your own out ethics into him.

Amen!  I agree 100%!

+1 Karma

Well Darth it sounds like you have the answer worked out. So when are you going to kick off the '09 AA50 League?

@captainjack:

@Tarling:

Wow Questioneer, way to throw venom, malice and personal attacks into that post. As an almost solely FTF player now venturing into online play I’d like to say that I think online play is no less challenging than ftf play. Online play tends to bring up a wider variety of players and play styles, which I think makes it more challenging than ftf (gaming groups, friends, etc tend to have a similar assortment of people). If your argument is that only ftf at tournaments counts for anything, then you’re insisting that a tiny minority of all A&A players should declare what the game should play like, including ONLINE play.

To counter your chess analogy: look at professional poker. For years now the people winning the WSOP have been online players. It’s not the same but…well none of these are the same!

Personally I’d say play with tech for now in a league setting. The game just came out and no one could claim to be an expert at AA50 just yet. If after this season the results are clear that tech far and away won most games, then that will be the first credible evidence as to its efficacy.

Nicely said, +1

Ditto, +1

@Cmdr:

You should never put yourself in a position where one technology gained by the opponent will suddenly change the game.  IE, your fleet should assume the enemy has those long range fighters or those heavy bombers (or both).

First turn Heavy bomber roll by an enemy UK or USA player. GG, you lose. Rommel wouldn’t even argue this.

In other words, the best players will assume the enemy has all 12 technologies and act accordingly taking risks where they must, but being ready with a plan to recover should the technology come and the battle turn so as not to lose the war.

The biggest tech advantage is one of the few extremely powerful techs (Hvy Bombers,  Paratroopers, Advanced Shipyards) are rolled on the first turn. Against a competent player you may as well just say “nice game, you win” and restart the game.

P-Unit you are making what I consider one of the WORST mistakes in strategic thinking to validate your argument. You are assuming that everything falls your way.

So the US gets Heavy Bombers turn one. How much did they spend to get it? What is the effect of this in reduced round 1 purchases? What happens if the AA guns blow them out of the sky? What happens if they roll 1s and 2s? What happen if your target gets Improved Industry or radar on their first or second turn?

Answering these kinds of questions is what Jenn is referring to in her stating that you would assume your opponent has all 12 techs.

@a44bigdog:

P-Unit you are making what I consider one of the WORST mistakes in strategic thinking to validate your argument. You are assuming that everything falls your way.

So the US gets Heavy Bombers turn one. How much did they spend to get it? What is the effect of this in reduced round 1 purchases? What happens if the AA guns blow them out of the sky? What happens if they roll 1s and 2s? What happen if your target gets Improved Industry or radar on their first or second turn?

Answering these kinds of questions is what Jenn is referring to in her stating that you would assume your opponent has all 12 techs.

Bigdog, you are making an equally false assumption. Can you count on AA’s knocking more that an average number of bombers out? no. What happens if they roll average or above instead of 1’s and 2’s? What are the odds of Germany getting Improved Industry or radar? Very small without a large tech investment and even then it’s no guarantee. And Germany getting radar means you can move an AA to Italy but Improved Factories doesn’t help Italy at all.

And just remember that radar doesn’t make SBR’s unprofitable. It only brings the cost/benefit numbers back to a relatively normal level with the advantage still being with the bombers. You knock twice as many bombers out, but the ones that survive still do double damage. You can figure [6 bombers v. radar] means on average 2 lost bombers with 4 remaining bombers rolling 8 damage dice as opposed to [6 bombers v. AA] with on average 1 lost bomber and 5 remaining bombers rolling 5 damage dice. Radar doesn’t exactly offset heavy bombers completely.

And heavy bombers don’t just help with SBR’s. They affect the entire gameboard. This game isn’t so much about winning the dice battles. It is more about leverage. Forcing your opponent to abandon a weak position without having to risk large amounts of your units. And that includes naval as well. All of those people who say that Japan can stop a US SBR campaign with Japan landing in Alaska can’t do that against heavy bombers. Ask yourself what Japanese player is going to place their navy within range of US heavy bombers just to try and slow down bomber production.

The fact remains that if the US, Japan, Germany, or UK get heavy bombers on their first turn, it is over for the vast majority of games. The only ones that can be salvaged when your opponent does that are the ones where you happen to roll heavy bombers early as well and hopefully without a massive tech investment that would cripple your unit production which is very slim indeed.

I don’t really care anymore. If we are allowed to make gentleman’s agreements about not purchasing tech in a game then I’m happy. And if I play a game with tech and I manage to win a game because I lucked into heavy bombers or any other exactly right tech rolled at exactly the right moment then I’ll know it was a cheap win that I didn’t deserve. At least I’ll admit it. I won’t pretend it was some kind of master strategy.

I made no assumptions.

I merely posed realities that can happen. Heavy Bombers is not an automatic win. Period Full STOP. I never said any of those outcomes were the likely outcomes.

And as Far as Japan you might want to count spaces from England to the Pacific. Not ALL coastal Seazones are in range. At most the US would probably have 4 bombers in the US. Japan also can send in unguarded transports too if they are so concerned with capital ship losses.

Chances of unlocking Heavy Bombers on the first turn:

1/36 = 0.0277…

3 percent or once every 35 games.

Assuming all nations roll for tech in the first round, the probability goes up to 16 percent or once every 6 games.

Either way, I’m willing to live with those odds.

@U-505:

And just remember that radar doesn’t make SBR’s unprofitable. It only brings the cost/benefit numbers back to a relatively normal level with the advantage still being with the bombers. You knock twice as many bombers out, but the ones that survive still do double damage. You can figure [6 bombers v. radar] means on average 2 lost bombers with 4 remaining bombers rolling 8 damage dice as opposed to [6 bombers v. AA] with on average 1 lost bomber and 5 remaining bombers rolling 5 damage dice. Radar doesn’t exactly offset heavy bombers completely.

And heavy bombers don’t just help with SBR’s. They affect the entire gameboard. This game isn’t so much about winning the dice battles. It is more about leverage. Forcing your opponent to abandon a weak position without having to risk large amounts of your units. And that includes naval as well. All of those people who say that Japan can stop a US SBR campaign with Japan landing in Alaska can’t do that against heavy bombers. Ask yourself what Japanese player is going to place their navy within range of US heavy bombers just to try and slow down bomber production.

The fact remains that if the US, Japan, Germany, or UK get heavy bombers on their first turn, it is over for the vast majority of games. The only ones that can be salvaged when your opponent does that are the ones where you happen to roll heavy bombers early as well and hopefully without a massive tech investment that would cripple your unit production which is very slim indeed.

I don’t really care anymore. If we are allowed to make gentleman’s agreements about not purchasing tech in a game then I’m happy. And if I play a game with tech and I manage to win a game because I lucked into heavy bombers or any other exactly right tech rolled at exactly the right moment then I’ll know it was a cheap win that I didn’t deserve. At least I’ll admit it. I won’t pretend it was some kind of master strategy.

Finally, someone with some sense.  3 or 16 %-who cares its too dicey- might as well play russian roulette or craps.  If you tech people “love” tech so much than you guys can play me everytime and I’ll start out with heavy bombers and you- nothing.  I mean c’mon “tech doesn’t effect the game that much right???”

Look, I think the people deserve a CHOICE to turn the option on or off as well as the NOs.  Also, what about the 2 new optional rules that Larry gave us in the new FAQs- use them or no???

Questioneer

@questioneer:

Finally, someone with some sense.  3 or 16 %-who cares its too dicey- might as well play russian roulette or craps.  If you tech people “love” tech so much than you guys can play me everytime and I’ll start out with heavy bombers and you- nothing.  I mean c’mon “tech doesn’t effect the game that much right???”

Come on.  Why should someone just give you a free tech?  Are you that insecure in your strategy?  Just because we “tech players” love tech so much, doesn’t mean that we even use tech in every single game.  It’s just an additional strategic option which also happens to be very historical.

Look, I think the people deserve a CHOICE to turn the option on or off as well as the NOs.  Also, what about the 2 new optional rules that Larry gave us in the new FAQs- use them or no???

Questioneer

Haven’t you been reading the posts?  It has been proposed and accepted that players could request and play non-tech games.

In my opinion, for the 2 new optional rules, the Intercepter rule would help shut up the whining about SBRs, so I say use it.  Personally, in my group’s games, SBR is rarely used, so, the new rule won’t affect us much.  For the closing of the Dardanelles, it will definitely change our games by keeping Italy off of Russia’s back, but the rule is more historical, so I also say let’s use it.