AA50-41 Tech Tourney sign-up (sign-ups CLOSED)

@Variable: @TwistedAries: I will be creating some for each side as well so there will be only 2 towers.  There will be multiple designs as well.  I will try to get some done shortly and post pictures. Yes! These are the pictures I have been waiting for. I’m very interested in your stuff. Will they be wood or cardboard? Thanks!  They will be MDF.  Not really into the cardboard.

So Italy really wasn’t a large factor? Did they conquer all of Africa? What were their builds? Italy built 1 trs and 1 CV and then mostly land units, adding 1 DD later on. Africa wasn’t important, Germany sent a tank down there which manoeuvred to avoid 2 UK infs (landings in West Africa were not done but probably would have been a good idea). Italy was a factor in that it distracted from attacking the Germans and I think a balanced approach by the US and the UK is probably more effective, i.e. landing in both Norway and Algeria, having fleets both in North/baltic sea and West Med, SBR against both Germany and Italy, and this necessitates a lot of US involvement. For such things as India IC, this is a detail which o/c we just have to try and fail to see if it can be held, more than 4-5 rnds? In this game there was no India IC, India survived because Japan focused on China and Australia. In an other game an IC was built and defended with the help of some Russian troops but the jury is out on if this really is viable if the Japs really go all-out vs. India. I hope there’s more UK ships to start with since that would make defending a built IC so much easier! We’ll see very shortly when we get the UK set-up.

lol!

Panther, you’re +46/-0 now because that calculator is nice!  It’s already helped me a lot!

Perry, Wow that was very interesting. Thanks, LT

Not sure exactly what you mean by ‘historically accurate’. For instance, Germany built rockets because Germany wanted rockets. Britain researched Radar becuase the UK recognized the advantage in it. Goering is famous for eschewing Radar early in the war, thinking it not that important. So, if by ‘historically accurate’ you mean: recreating the way history played out as closely as possible, then I don’t really see the advantage in your system. However, if you mean: recreate the circumstances so as to allow any power to research any technology, but some having a leg up on others because of certain advantages (like excellent german rocket scientists) then we might have something. As for the exact figures - game balance is always a bigger consideration than historical accuracy, and i have no idea what the figures should be.

@Driel310: Start with playing with both. If you never play with tech you won’t know what it does to the game and I don’t believe you have a right to give an opinion on tech. However when you played a few games and don’t like it, then throw tech away. NO’s are must IMHO since the axis won’t stand a chance without them.  Totally agreed. You can mod HB if it’s too powerful anyway

I have not yet played a single game of AA50 with tech. I choosed the 6-10 games option, but I think almost as many games I played have ended rnd 5 or sooner. So for me it’s about 50%-50% split between up to 6 rnds, and more than 6 rnds. My record for “long game” I think is 9 rnds, maybe 10. With NOs I would be suprised if games takes longer than 10 rnds. NOs are a mechanism for shortening games, b/c one side will get substansially more money than in a game w/o NOs, as soon as they start getting the upperhand.