No one’s put anyone in their place.
Good strategy will beat luck almost every time.
For instance, should we nerf building units because you were tired one night and failed to see the 4 battleships move into range of your fleet resulting in your fleets destruction? Of course not. A good player would not have missed that!
Should we nerf technology because you were tired one night and failed to notice your opponent had 5 of 6 techs on the chart and 6 researchers left over from last round and left your fleet vulnerable to attack if they got the tech (which was an exceptionally high probability?) Of course not!
Should we nerf AA Guns because you made an attack figuring at least one of your 3 aircraft would survive and give you odds of success, but the AA Guns shot down all 3 of your fighters? (Similar odds to someone blindly getting a technology) Of course not.
Should we nerf battleships because someone had 4 of them, they all hit, and you didn’t manage to sink one before losing all your attackers? No.
Can all that happen in a game? Yes. That’s what makes it a game, not a computer program following a script.
PS: Tech is not optional. It’s included in the main body of the rules, it’s never included in the section at the end of the manual with the optional rules. Just because you’re an inferior player does not mean we should be punished because of your inability to adapt to the game rules and board when facing a superior opponent.
Now, does it suck if England gets LRA in round 1 and Germany decided not to attack the SZ 12 fleet? Yes. You very well might lose the Italian fleet before getting to use it. You’re stupid game play for not even attacking the SZ 12 fleet though, not technology’s fault.
Does it suck if Japan scores those HBs and can sink the American fleet? Yes. But it’s your bad game play that left yourself that vulnerable. If Japan’s blowing gobs of cash on technologies, you should own the Pacific and be able to recover from losing your fleet (probably with Paratroopers and LRA if not HBs of your own.)
Does it suck when Germany gets Mechanized Infantry and can bring the war to Russia faster? Yes. But then, Russia shouldn’t leave itself exposed to massive gains if they are being played correctly.
Technology, like units, are just a part of the game. If we start pulling out valid, functioning rules like technology, why don’t we just get rid of all the pieces and have 1 navy unit, 1 air unit and 1 ground unit that way everyone has exactly the same thing…oh wait, your bad game play will still be bad game play and you’ll try to figure out a way to nerf that too.
Anyway, with or without tech, GOOD players will endeavor to do a few things:
1) Italy needs to start getting control of Africa.
2) If the Italian fleet is in imminent danger, it might be wise to put an IC in Egypt. At least it will replace the lost transport.
3) Why leave the fleet unaugmented? A destroyer goes a long way to increasing the long gevity of the Italian fleet. A carrier and another fighter wouldn’t be a bad investment either.
Given that, good allied players won’t rely on one thing to give them a win. Good players will use tech, position and units to win (instead of crying like a 3 year old when they don’t get there way.) So how can the allies take out Italy?
best way is to take out Germany.
Second best way is to control Africa and then move some submarines and bombers in range. If Italy dumps a lot of boats in the water, at least they are not dumping a lot of ground troops on the map.
Third best way is to put a 500 IPC Russian army in Balkans forcing your opponent to chose between Italy and Germany. (They’ll chose Germany probably, and then you can take out Italy.)