• house rule

    a bomber can attack 2 territories,

    the bomber has 2 attack values, which the player can determine for each attack, either 3 or 2, the player can use attack 3 for the first round, and attack 2 for the second round, or , attack 2 for the first round, and attack 3 for the second round,

    this house rule would be optional, if a bomber attack’s 1 territory, the bomber would have attack 4

    the first territory that a bomber attack’s, the bomber attacks’ at 3 or 2,

    the second territory that a bomber attack’s, the bomber attack’s at 3 or 2, after the same number of round’s of battle that the bomber would have been involved with during the first attack

    i.e. russia has a bomber at russia, russia send’s 2 infantry, 2 artillery, 1 bomber to belorussia,
    the battle goes for 3 round’s

    russia send’s 3 infantry, 3 armor, 2 fighter’s from karelia to baltic states,

    after 3 round’s of battle the bomber that had participated with the attack at belorussia could attack at the baltic states

    for S.B.R.

    attack at 3 / dice roll  - 2 / if a 1 or 2 are rolled / roll again

    attack at 2 / dice roll / - 3 / if a 1,2 or 3 are rolled / roll again

    move 6

    heavy bomber / roll 2 dice

    long range bomber / move 8

  • Sorry, but I don’t really like this change at all. Not only does it needlessly complicate the rules, it makes a very powerful (some would argue broken) unit even stronger.

    What is the logic behind implementing this rule?

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    Actually, I kind of like it, but with the following modifications:

    1)  You have to have Heavy Bombers
    2)  The Bomber would be allowed to attack and do an SBR run in the same territory (1 die each battle)
    3)  The Bomber can roll two dice against enemy combatants
    4)  The Bomber can roll two dice for SBR damage

    Attacker’s choice.

    It’s not really attacking two territories, which was d142’s premise, but it does allow the bomber to attack twice.  It only seems to make sense if you have heavy bombers though, since you can imagine a heavy bomber carrying double the payload of a normal bomber, so technically, the bombardier could drop half on one target and half on another.

  • Well, your idea is quite a bit different than what was proposed in the OP.

    I do like your’s better, it seems cleaner and less overpowering. But still… how is making bombers more powerful an improvement to the game? If anything, they should be nerfed slightly.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    I don’t think they need to be nerfed at all, really.  I think people are more shell-shocked at the notion of heavy bombers than they are really powerful.

    I mean, in Classic (Second Edition) you had heavy bombers rolling three dice each.  That was over powered.  Now it’s only two dice, so it has been nerfed significantly already. (33% reduction in power!)

  • @Cmdr:

    I don’t think they need to be nerfed at all, really.  I think people are more shell-shocked at the notion of heavy bombers than they are really powerful.

    I mean, in Classic (Second Edition) you had heavy bombers rolling three dice each.  That was over powered.  Now it’s only two dice, so it has been nerfed significantly already. (33% reduction in power!)

    I like to play with tech, and I like Heavy Bombers, but I have to say after getting fleet after fleet toasted by Heavy Bombers, that I feel that they are the absolute BEST tech in the game, and something needs to be done about them.

    There have been many suggestions, but perhaps the simplest would be to increase their cost.  I mean, come on, if you’re dropping more bombs, then you had to produce the bombs, right?  Even something as simple as saying that if you have the Heavy Bomber technology, then during your combat Phase, pay 2 IPCs per bomber to allow them to roll 2 die in combat for the rest of this turn.

    Either the above, or simply disallow bombers from attacking naval units, or create a new air unit.

  • the idea is based on the premise that a bomber could make two significant attack’s,

    the attack value is reduced for each attack,

    i would use the rule for bomber’s or heavy bomber’s,

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    Honestly, there are other techs I think are better than heavy bombers.

    Improved Factories can be a godsend if you are America and own Algeria/Libya or if you are Germany/Italy and are being bombed into submission.

    Radar can be really helpful too, if your opponent went heavy air power.

    Paratroopers completely negate the need for a fleet and can actually win the game for you. (I’ve used them with Russia to get that big National Objective every round and thus, build up an army that defeated the Germans.  I’ve used them with America to island hop around and spit in the face of Japan with their Heavy Bombers and no valid targets to hit with them.  I’ve used them with Germany to pick up NOs and liberate territories when it was impossible and not cost efficient to build a navy.)

    Honestly, I’d have to say the best tech in the game is Paratroopers, if you know what you’re doing with them.

    That is followed by:

    Mechanized Infantry (if you are Germany, America or Russia)
    Improved Factories
    Jet Fighters
    Heavy Bombers
    Super Submarines (if you are in a large naval battle)
    Heavy Artillery

    Just my opinion on them though.  But heavy bombers is way over rated.  It’s relatively easy to dismantle a heavy bomber strategy with most nations.  It’s like taking out an armor only push, you just need patience and the right builds. (think AA Guns.  I’ll trade you Inf/Arm for 2 Inf/Hvy Bmb all day long since you’ll eventually get destroyed by those AA Guns.  Or, if you have the finances for it, you can easily dump ships in the water and take out a Hvy Bmb fleet by attrition that way.  Odds are, if your opponent was heavy into tech for Hvy Bmbs, they lost a lot of territories giving you the financial edge.)

  • paratroopers can be helpful, although i would think that tech would be useful as a hit and run type sneak attack, used to reinforce a heavy attack, or to catch a player offguard, i think that the paratrooper tech it is too much of a hit and hope, with the cost of running the bomber, that can not attack, and that can carry 1 infantry unit,

    i think that the paratrooper tech would not be a useless tech,

    if i had paratrooper’s during a game, i would use my bomber’s to move the infantry to reinforce a line at the non combat move, where the infantry are most effective defending at the next round, if i had not used the bomber to attack,

    i think that paratrooper’s would be a more sought after tech if it had 1 of 2 improvement’s,

    carry 3 infantry, or carry 1 infantry and that the bomber could attack

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    Paratroopers can serve multiple roles.

    1)  You can add extra infantry to large battles, always helpful, IMHO.
    2)  You can use infantry just build this round for battles occurring over sea zones or multiple territories away where they otherwise would have to walk or be transported too before getting a chance to attack (aka faster deployment to the front)
    3)  You can use infantry to “snipe” unprotected territories, for instance, Gibraltar (giving Italy a NO and taking a NO from England) or Norway/Finland which could take a NO from Russia or you can use them to take out islands in the Pacific if you can’t get a fleet out there or don’t want to divert your fleet away.
    4)  You can use them as a threat forcing your enemy to leave units behind defending territories that normally wouldn’t need to be defended or buffing up their defensive stacks in armies you might attack with the assistance of paratroopers.

    Don’t discount the long range threat that Paratroopers impose.  Also, don’t discount the added benefit extra infantry can give you.  Yea, if it is only one bomber, it might be a nuissance, but who’s to say it’s only going to be one bomber?

    My Russian Paratroopers had 3 bombers going.  With Germany it is not uncommon to see 6 or 7 bombers going with paratroopers.  America’s had 27 bombers going once, but that was a weird game where America had everything except heavy bombers and Japan had a large bomber fleet with heavy bombers and long range.

    I think you get the gist.

    If Paratroopers are not the best technology in the game, then it is by far the most under-rated technology in the game.  It just gives you the flexibility to do ever so much more to your opponent than any other technology does.

    Sure, heavy bombers can double the strength of your bombers.  Whoopie.  You have 2 shots at 4 or less at the cost of 12 IPC. (For 12 IPC I can have 3 shots at 2 or less and you don’t lose all your attacks if your enemy scores a hit, I could have 2 shots at 2 or less and one shot at 3 or less as well.  I don’t think it’s super huge to have one unit that can take one hit that does 2 shots at 4 or less.  Nice to have, but not really too powerful in the grand scheme of things.)

    Super Artillery, good run for the money, increases double the infantry for the same cost of a normal artillery, but it doesn’t have the ability to rapidly deploy units to the front or to drop them behind enemy lines.

    Mechanized Infantry, god run for the money, it rapidly deploys units to the front, but can’t drop them behind enemy lines and does not move them as rapidly as paratroopers or over sea zones like paratroopers.

    There is no other technology in the game that gives you the opportunity to invade an island nation and take it over without a navy than paratroopers.  Odds of doing it?  Slim.  But the odds still exist.  No other technology allows you to conquer an enemy capitol, over water, like paratroopers do.

    Now, I might go with Mechanized Infantry or Heavy Artillery as a superior technology to Paratroopers, since they do have incredibly good uses, so I could see the argument.  But IMHO, so far, the best technology I’ve seen is the paratrooper technology.

    Heavy bombers are kinda wussie, IMHO.  Radar will absolutely murder them.  Improved Factories will negate their effects.  Fleets can knock them out through attrition.  Paratroopers can outright avoid them.  War Bonds will reduce their impact.  Advanced Artillery gives you +4 instead of +3 punch.  Mechanized Infantry will race units to the front lines.  Improved Shipyards will reduce the impact of Heavy Bombers.  Jets are cheaper and can defend at sea.  Rockets will return the favor of heavy bombers without risking bombers to aa fire.

    The only technology that does not reduce the benefit of H. Bombers in some way is Long Range Aircraft.  Everything else reduces or negates the Heavy Bomber as far as I can see.

  • when using a bomber to move a unit, the attack advantage for that bomber is lost for that round,

    there are 2 advantages that paratrooper tech has over transport, and the advantages are that a bomber can move 6 or 8,
    and can move a unit over land without stopping at a hostile territory,

    compared to mechanized infantry, i would go with mechanized infantry, because there is no cost to the attack, and no unit to buy,

    i would see paratroopers used more if the tech was more balanced,

    i would send the bomber to the battle / attack 4, rather than a infantry / attack 1, or 2 with artillery,

    the paratrooper tech would be useful if there was no target for the bomber, otherwise i would send the bomber, and with heavy bomber’s, 2 dice / attack 4, paratrooper tech would have to be significantly improved for me to want such a minor tech

    i do not like to see outrageous tech modification, although with the cost of rolling for tech, and the frustration of not rolling a 6, i stay away from rolling for tech for the most part, unless i have a clear i.p.c. advantage, and can afford to roll for the tech, otherwise rolling for tech can be foolhardy

    i think that the modified account of the tech rule’s from enhanced work’s well,

    after 30 i.p.c. worth of dice roll’s, tech is achieved, after that many dice roll’s with no success, i would be wary of purchasing more research token’s,

    when purchasing research token’s, the most that a player could spend at a round would be 15 > 20 i.p.c.

    with no success, and a failure at the next round, that can break the game far too much to the other, player’s advantage,

    if one of any of the player’s lean’s too heavily toward tech, it could cost the game

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator


    when using a bomber to move a unit, the attack advantage for that bomber is lost for that round,

    You are referring to house rules only, right?  Because the regular rules say the bomber gets to engage as normal (heavy bomber with 2 dice, regular bomber with 1 die) and the paratrooper gets to engage.  This is what bumps it up to superior to heavy bombers and other techs.

    Nutshell:  If your technology can be improved by another technology, your technology is superior to the other technology.  IE:  Heavy Bombers can be upgraded by Long Range Aircraft.  Jet Fighters can be upgraded by Long Range Aircraft.  Everything can be upgraded by Improved Shipyards/Factories (everything that can be produced by those techs anyway).  Paratroopers can be upgraded by Long Range Aircraft AND Heavy Bombers (double upgrade, only one I know of in the game.)

  • i thought that the bomber could not attack when dropping off paratroopers,
    with that information it does make the prospect of getting paratroopers seem more worthwhile and useful,
    it is still a very lightweight tech, and one that i would be disappointed with, because of the 1 infantry capability,
    with the rule that bomber’s can attack, relieve’s the handicap of having to choose whether to do a drop off or a bombing run,
    i think that with a 2 infantry capability the paratrooper tech would be worthy of more than a sigh of disappointment if a 3 is rolled for tech chart 1,

    however, with this new information, paratroopers would climb above above increased factory production and rocket’s for tech chart 1 favorite tech

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    The rules state that a bomber carrying paratroopers cannot perform a strategic bombing run.  It can, and has too, attack the same territory that it is dropping the paratroopers into.

    I think it’s a HUGE technology.  Less powerful for Russia or Italy, but still it’s one of the better ones for both of them.  I’ve used to to change a game I was losing to one I won. (Specifically, after 16 rounds after the fall of England, the Russians owned Europe, the Americans owned the Pacific and Africa.)

    I don’t think you are thinking creatively enough.  Really sit down and imagine the havoc that paratroopers can cause on the board, how much your opponents now have to leave behind to defend territories that would otherwise have been safe, how you can sidestep enemy fleets and heavy bombers, how you can pick up NOs you would have otherwise been able to get.

  • yeah, i can understand how paratroopers could cause havoc,

    getting behind enemy lines, and blocking off reinforcement routes,

    there attack value would be secondary or less,

    therefore using paratroopers for attack would take a lot of planning, or a last resort, when there are no other option’s for a bomber that round, or an opportunistic attack,

    the cost of building a fleet of bomber’s, when the paratrooper tech has been achieved, would be astronomical, based around the idea of a paratrooper inspired major offensive,

    if the paratrooper tech has been achieved, it is not useless,

    if there is a need to get infantry to the front line to spearhead an attack where infantry can become scarce due to the fact that most player’s lose infantry as the first order of a casualty count, that is a great advantage, although the cost of purchasing the bomber can be too great to sustain a prolonged effort in running infantry to the front line,

    with the cost of bomber’s at 13, i could get 2 artillery, 1 armor /2/2/3/, or 2 armor, 1 infantry, /3/3/1/

    rather than a fleet of 5 bomber’s at /4/4/4/4/4/ and 5 infantry at /1/1/1/1/1/

    10 armor, 5 infantry /3/3/3/3/3/3/3/3/3/3//1/1/1/1/1/

    10 artillery, 5 armor /2/2/2/2/2/2/2/2/2/2//3/3/3/3/3/

    if those number’s were run, the ground attack win’s each time, if a player want’s to take a territory, they have to relinquish valuable bomber’s, with a few infantry left i do not see the worthiness of a full scale paratrooper attack,

    a wary player would easily be able to counter a non reinforced paratrooper attack of 3 - 5 infantry and check the attacker’s paratrooper plan out of the game,

    mech infantry would be the best tech, if germany get’s mech infantry, it would be light’s out for russia, double quick,

    or vice-versa

    i am involved in a game at the moment where germany has paratroopers, and 4 -5 bomber’s, i have not seen a single prolific move used with the paratrooper tech, i am playing the u.s. and i am stranded at gibraltar with 3 infantry, 3 artillery,
    if germany unleashes it’s mighty paratroopers, with a transport of 1 infantry, 1 armor / or artillery,

    that would be 4 at 1, 1 at 3, and 3 at 4, i would think 6 at 2, would go 3 round’s, and no takeover,

    a good player would alway’s get the best from the tech that they have,

    if i rolled paratroopers, i would have a lot of strategy to use by that tech, it is not a dominant tech that overwhelming strategies could be built around, it is more of an expensive outreach, that could end with disaster, and a huge dent to a player’s i.p.c. count,

    could paratroopers be used to break major ground and sustain the offensive, without losing that ground and having to rebuild again for the next offensive, or would the cost of supplying bomber’s, cut the strenght of a support ground offensive, thereby creating a major weakness and understrenght with the offensive

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    I’m not talking about having 10 bombers and 10 infantry.

    Here’s what I am saying:

    1)  Bomber/Paratrooper can attack up to 5 spaces away, that’s a bloody awful amount of ground to cover for an infantryman that normally can only go one territory a round.  And an Inf/Bmb vs Inf is a good bet.  Even if you lose, odds are, you’ll take out the defender too.  And if there is no defender, you just got some free land!

    2)  Bomber/Paratrooper can be used to augment an attack made by other forces.  It’s a good way to dump extra units into an attack REALLY fast, especially if you were going to use the bomber in the attack anyway.

    3)  Bomber/Paratrooper can be used to snipe enemy NOs or get some friendly NOs with minimal risk. (You fly out, drop the unit off, take the land, and land in a safe place.  Can’t do that with a transport!)

    4)  Bomber/Paratrooper can side step enemy fleets.  I have to imagine they wave as they fly over them.  That means you don’t need a fleet so it doesn’t matter if your enemy has Heavy Bombers, they are impotent since they have no valid targets to attack.

    5)  Bomber/Paratrooper can make surprise attacks on unwary opponents.  I’ve taken London with German paratroopers before.  Just a couple of fighters, a few bombers and a few infantry.

    It’s really amazing the multiple options you get when you get paratroopers.  You really only need three bombers to cause all sorts of havoc with your opponent.  (3 Inf, 3 Bmb allows you quite a lot of firepower if you want it.)

    What’s even better is if you get Long Range Aircraft (giving your infantry an attack range of up to 7 territories) and/or heavy bombers on top of it.

    I’d have to say, as far as great techs go, Paratroopers defeat Heavy Bombers mighty handily.  I’d even give my opponents heavy bombers for free if I got paratroopers for free and the technologies started in Round 2.

  • i could see paratroopers being useful at the pacific theatre,

    the u.s. can build a lot of bomber’s, and with the paratrooper tech could cause a lot of damage to poorly defended axis held island’s, although with the large japanese navy, the bomber’s would be more useful at sinking the japanese navy,

    i think that there are a lot of advantages to paratrooper tech,

    sneak attack’s being the the most annoying, they would keep opponent’s edgy and fearful and the prospect of a surprise attack, could be too much to handle for a weak opponent,


    i still see paratrooper tech as a poor substitute for the real backbone of a fleetfooted infantry,
    or advanced artillery,

    what about war bond’s, when i use war bond’s, i would save them all up and buy a huge navy, full of battleships and a monster attack force, that would crush a weak-willed paratrooper based attack,

    sniping a territory is possible, if there was no one there, otherwise there would be a need for a way too expensive paratrooper attack,

    the way that i see the bomber is that they are useful for S.B.R. against a low I.P.C. earning player,
    against a high earning I.P.C. player the S.B.R. and paratrooper attack is negated, and also there is the problem of spending all the I.P.C. on a less than worthwhile attack,

    to plough into paratrooper tech would be arrogant against a well drilled opponent, especially with the opponent in command of their capital, spending all that I.P.C. to hope to snipe a few territories, it could take 12 -15 turn’s before there was real progress, and at that the opponent would probably have sniped a capital, and counting the I.P.C. while the paratrooper builder had a mighty airforce with no ground support,

    paratrooper tech may be under-rated, it is because it is the weakest of all the tech, if my only tech was paratroopers, and faced opponent’s, with mech infantry, super-submarines, advanced artillery, and war bond’s, i would most likely run for cover, concede, or to finish the game play the paratrooper tech, and see it demolished,

    if you have paratrooper tech, it is useful, something like a lucky penny, however if the penny is rubbed the wrong way, a player could fall flat and end up with no capital, or worse, no I.C.

    it is no match for the soundness of the mighty jet fighter, or rolling thunder of mech infantry, supported by heavy long range bomber’s

    if i do have the unfortuity to end up with paratrooper tech, i am sure that i can find a use in the pacific for it  🙂

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    You’ll never amass enough wealth from war bonds in a quick enough time to build up a fleet of any real power.

    Anyway, paratroopers are good for the battle in Asia, Africa, Europe and the Pacific.  They’re not too helpful for taking out America but just about everything else it can attack well.

    Not saying that Heavy Bombers are worthless, they are near the top of my listing of great techs.  I’m just saying that Paratroopers are more valuable.  With paratroopers I can be relatively sure of having all my NOs every round with whatever nation I want except America (if I’m too far away to liberate Philippines.)

    With paratroopers I can massively increase my ability to invade enemy nations because I can add infantry and bombers to the stack, that’s two units that have to be destroyed for the defender to win, instead of only a bomber.

    With paratroopers I can make large threats to enemy income that I normally couldn’t.  Things like Invading/Liberating Madagascar become a possibility.  Things like dropping an infantry into Brazil becomes a possibility.  Etc.

  • the possibility of taking obscure and remote territories, such as madagascar and brazil is a possibility, holding those territories is another matter entirely, not impossible, although with only paratroopers the rescue or liberation of remote places would be easily achievable with a heavy bomber and a transport,

    i have liberated brazil from weak invasions, and reclaimed the 3 I.P.C.

    i do not see the value of a ridiculous 1 infantry attack that has no real influence at the battle,
    1 infantry to a battle per bomber,
    i would not entertain or endure such a tech, and also it could lure a player into a sense of false security,
    with the player supported by paratroopers building bombers like there is no tomorrow they could be caught by a radar inspired AA gun attack, or forced to move the bombers which have a weak defence away from the front line,
    and with a player’s hopes centred totally on paratrooper tech and the false dawn that they entail,
    a squad of the same cost of fighter’s for the opponent would easily counter the overstreched arm of the paratrooper player, 4 bomber’s, 4 infantry, at a cost of 67
    against a squad of fighter’s for the same cost, 6 fighter’s and change for artillery and infantry, i would move my fighter’s around the board and negate a paratrooper attack at every turn,

    with war bond’s rolling at average, 3 / 4, after 5 -6 round’s i would have 15 > 20 i.p.c, and when playing germany and collecting N.O. a build of 70 I.P.C. or more would cause a collapse of a wily russia player’s strategy,

    with the cost of those paratrooper bomber’s, a heavy stack of ground infantry and armor is unlikely, more likely non existant, i could predict a situation where the offensive would be ground to a halt at round 7 > 9, with enough infantry and armor and a not too light scattering of fighter’s at defence 4, i would heartily laugh and at the advancing army of paratroopers with no ground support,

    to build a strategy based entirely around paratroopers, based on the premise that paratroopers can cause a influential swing toward victory for the attacker would be similar to a fool’s gold rush against a player that can easily negate and nullify such attack’s,

    i would go with long range heavy bomber’s, improved factories and war bond’s, improved shipyard’s could be useful

  • here is an idea for paratrooper tech, build 5 - 10 bomber’s, and build at the border’s, then when the attack is primed,

    unleash the bomber’s with the paratrooper’s, something like a brass ball and chain to reinforce the front and drive toward the enemy capital,

    there would be a need for a great ground attack, with a lot of armor and artillery, including infantry,

    with that there could be a chance that paratrooper tech could be used as a great resource,

    in the instance of a patient build up of ground forces,

    although in the face of mech infantry, war bond’s, and increased factory production, a more subtle approach could reap greater reward’s, such as S.B.R.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    If I have paratroopers I routinely have 3-6 bombers anyway.  So you’re really looking at something like this:

    Germany attacks Norway with Infantry/Bomber - +3 IPC
    Germany attacks Finland with Infantry/Bomber - +2 IPC
    Germany attacks Gibraltar with Infantry/Bomber - -5 IPC from England (NO lost)
    Germany attacks Brazil with Infantry/Bomber - +3 IPC
    Germany attacks Madagascar with Infantry/Bomber - +1 IPC
    Germany attacks Ukraine with Infantry/Bomber + Armor from somewhere else - +7 IPC (+5 for the NO, +2 for Ukraine.)

    Net: +3+2+3+1+7 = +16 IPC for Germany that round
    Potential -16 for the allies (if they cannot reconquer all that land.)  At the very least, the allies are now scattering units and resources all over the map attempting to reclaim everything they just lost.

    Second Scenario:

    Here, for instance:

    Germany attacks Russia with 16 Infantry, 2 Artillery, 16 Armor, 6 Fighters, 6 Bombers and Russia defends with 26 Infantry, Artillery, 15 Armor, 4 Fighters (all realistic numbers.)

    Germany has a 55.3% chance to win but that win does not include ground forces, only bombers left most likely.  Russia has a 43.9% chance to win with most likely nothing but the Fighters left.

    If Germany had Paratroopers, they would have +6 Infantry and their odds would change too  92.3% chance to win with 7 Armor and Bombers left (assuming you took fighters as casualties before Armor) and reducing Russia’s odds too 7.4% odds of winning.

    It’s a massive change in the odds, roughly 37% swing just because you had Paratroopers and could drop those extra few infantry off for the major battle.

    Sure, you could have spent the next 3 turns out building the Allies defending Russia and then attack, but that’s three extra rounds where you could have been snafu’ed by the dice somewhere.

    Scenario 3:

    Germany has Paratroopers and the threat of those 6 infantry, 6 bombers causes England to keep extra manpower in England.  This slows down England’s progression and allows Germany time to build up a stronger defense.  Without the threat of an aerial invasion of England, England would have been able to move more units into France faster and been able to do a joint amphibious and ground invasion of Germany before Germany could recover and build up their defenses after a battle went sour.

    That’s just three minor scenarios.  Each of the three cannot be done by Heavy Bombers or War Bonds or any other tech.  Don’t get me wrong, the other technologies are great!  I’m just not convinced, PERSONALLY (and this is a personal opinion, I’m not trying to tell anyone they are wrong to think other technologies are better, maybe they are for their style of play), that paratroopers are by far the best technology in Anniversary so far.

  • for a player that build’s a lot of bomber’s, paratroopers would be a great advantage, the problem is how to get the tech with a lucky roll of 3, it is possible to use the tech for 30 i.p.c. from enhanced, with the option of the 6 i.p.c. buy out,

    i think that it was axis_roll that made that rule,

    that would reduce a paratrooper fanatics odd’s of getting paratroopers, when i use the same tech rules i buy out of the
    paratrooper tech each time, and go for advanced artillery, war bond’s, mech infantry and increased factory production,

    if a player build’s a lot of bomber’s, why not try tech chart 2 and go for heavy bomber’s,

    i would not like to be on the recieving end of an organised paratrooper attack,
    although with the chance to roll for radar, i would back the AA gun to hit 25% > 30% of the time

    i would not determine the effectivness of a tech until i had played at least ten games with the same tech,
    against different opponent’s,

    it is obvious that mech infantry is a far superior way to get infantry from territory > territory, than the standard infantry move 1 space, long range aircraft and jet fighter’s, that is the best combo

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    I am assuming the technology is achieved somewhere in midgame and was not originally planned for.  So the person who gets the technology probably has 1 bomber already (Japan has zero, America has 2, so coupled with England having 1 and Germany having 1, most nations who can afford technology rolls average out to having 1 bomber in AA50:1941.)

    From there, it’s a matter of building up bombers over a few rounds.  Obviously, I don’t think it wise to buy 5 bombers the round after getting Paratroopers.  But you could buy 1 or 2 bombers a round depending on your income and your troop supply needs arriving at 3-6 bombers in short order.  Especially if you are sniping NOs and territories boosting your income so you can afford the bombers.

    I agree, Radar can pose an issue for Paratroopers.  For that matter, a plain old AA Gun poses and issue for them as well.  But most of the time, you’ll find yourself in Scenarios 1 and 3.  If you are in scenario 2, you would expect only a portion of your forces to be lost to the AA Gun, not all of them and so you’d probably plan accordingly.

    Notice, I am stating that it’s generally better to get the technology before building the bombers.  Honestly, 6 bombers without paratroopers is kind of wasteful to me.  Two bombers is understandable, three bombers tolerable, but six of them without having a technology to make them more deadly doesn’t seem like the wisest course of action for anyone.

    Now, heavy bombers are good.  They have some flaws (such as two attacks being lost with every bomber shot down.)  But they are also on tech chart 2 as you mentioned.  Germany is probably not focusing heavily on Tech Chart 2 since Tech Chart 1 has 6 technologies it can use. For instance:

    Germany and Japan can definitely use advanced artillery, rockets, paratroopers and mechanized infantry for taking out Russia faster.  Improved Factories increase production and make SBR campaigns virtually useless.  War Bonds at least increase your income each round.

    Chart 2 isn’t so useful.  Yes, LRA, JP, Radar and H. Bombers are helpful, but Improved Shipyards and Super Submarines are virtually useless to nations like Russia and Germany.  IF America is not going KJF, they are useless to Japan too.

    I know I looked at it from the perspective of the Axis, it’s usually the axis I see with the cash to blow on techs more often than not.  But some of that holds true for the allies too.

  • when i play, i most likely end up with 1 tech, the cost of rolling for multiple techs is way too much,

    it is difficult enough to get the I.P.C. together and roll for 1 tech when playing germany, unless a capital was taken i would not roll for another tech,

    now that tech can not be directly targeted, it is somewhat of a lottery as to the value of rolling for tech, the randomness is fair, although when a player of a very high standard play’s a player of a lower standard, it could be offputting to roll for a tech, which may or may not be needed or even useful,

    take improved shipyards for example, if the cost of rolling for a tech is 25 > 30 I.P.C. if i am playing as russia that tech is completely useless,

    when playing revised i always rolled jet fighter’s, they are great for defending against a german attack, defense 5 and with 10 infantry to hold the line, the german attack would be ducking and diving, and switching to get a foot in door,

    improved shipyards could be useful to the u.s. player, early in the game when they can build a force to challenge japan,
    with the 55 > 60 i.p.c. that the u.s. player has, there is a oppurtunity for the u.s. player to back up their industry, and build ships for 1 > 3 i.p.c. less, that can make a big difference when building large scale fleet’s

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    It’s hard to make a good judgment for what’s best if you only get one tech.

    For one thing, it’s only one tech.

    For another, you don’t know what the board looks like!

    For instance, if Japan has 20 submarines and is trying to get a numerical edge on America for a great naval engagement, Super Submarines might be just the thing.

    Or let’s say Germany has no threat from the sea or the air, so maybe for them Mechanized Infantry is just the answer.

    Maybe the Axis got pounded but the allies have no meat behind their attacks, so paratroopers will be more than a nuisance, they can cost the allies the game.

    What I can say is this:

    Paratroopers can be upgraded by two other technologies.  No other technology in the game can.
    Since Paratroopers can also have Heavy Bombers, Heavy Bombers are not the superior technology.
    Since Paratroopers can also have Long Range, Long range is not the superior technology.
    Heavy Bombers only have two functions:  Bomb Units or Bomb Factories
    Paratroopers have three functions: Attack Units, Conquer Territories, Complete National Objectives
    3>2 so Paratroopers have the Edge there.

    I think it safe to say, though, that you and I would agree that Long Range Aircraft + Heavy Bombers + Paratroopers is probably the most powerful combination of technologies in the game.

Suggested Topics

  • 3
  • 14
  • 1
  • 18
  • 6
  • 2
  • 6
  • 36
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys