• 2022 '15 '11 '10 Official Q&A Moderator

    Thanks for voting  🙂

  • 2022 '15 '11 '10 Official Q&A Moderator

    OK, I voted modified tech, but usually I have only been making one tweak.  Increased production for 1 and 2 value territory is +1 instead of +0 or +2.  I haven’t modified any others, but I’ve been thinking a lot about it.

    Here’s what I’m leaning toward these days -
    Delay LRA, HB, Paras, and mech infantry 1 turn (still not sure about this - always being at least somewhat prepared for these is a fun part of the game IMO)
    OR
    LRA - +1 instead of +2 OR cost of bombers increases +1 for each bomber tech acquired, so would cost 15 if you have heavies, LRA, and Paras (I’m leaning the most towards this one - I see it already has a lot of votes)
    OR
    Paratroopers - replace with something else, or get rid of it.  It’s not a land tech anyway, it’s an air tech on the land tree (what the heck?).  ALL countries start with paras, but bombers can’t attack when dropping them.  However, paras can be dropped behind enemy lines and can be transported in NCM.

    Advanced art - supports THREE infantry each (two is a joke - almost never benefits the owner)

    Bonds - automatic 4 or 5 a turn, or else d6+1 or 2

    Jets - Fighters attack at 4 and defend at 5 (Yeah!  Like Classic, only better!) and fighters cost 11
    Man, I didn’t know I had this many ideas…
    Mechanized infantry - it takes TWO armor to carry one infantry, but round up fractions (1 armor can carry 1 infantry, 2 armor can carry 1 infantry, 3 armor can carry 2 infantry, etc.

    Hey, I think these are some great ideas.  What do you think?


  • The whole tech system is still too random for my likeness.

    You asked for a listing of the modifications we play with (when we use tech) and here they are.  These are a part of our house rules: “1941 Chicago Rules”.  It’s based on the tech rules from AARe (Enhanced):


    Enhanced version of Tech in AA50

    Enhanced utilized a 4:2 system of tech in Revised.
    4 dice were the minimum number of tech dice you could buy. 
    You then rolled to see if you achieved the targeted tech.
    If you failed, you had to invest in only 2 more dice the next turn and
    you would be guarenteed of having the targeted tech.
    This maintained an element of luck as well as strategy as you could buy 6 dice and guarentee the tech on one turn of you wanted.

    How to incorporate in AA50 both the element of luck and the ‘strategy’ of tech that was achieved in AARe?

    Two modifications to the tech system:

    Keeping with the ‘6 dice give you a tech concept’:

    whenever you have achieved at least 6 researcher rolls (cumulatively), you get a tech.

    This could be over 6 rounds if you only invested in 1 researcher.
    or could be as short as one round if you purchase 6 researchers in one round.
    Another example is to spend $10 on two researchers.  Roll the dice. 
    If you fail to get a 6, wait until the next round and roll 2 more dice.
    If you again fail, the next round, you will have accumulated 6 researcher rolls, thus guarenteeing a tech development.

    Keeping with the ‘directed’ aspect, thereby allowing more strategy in tech other than a one in six chance (random)

    A player can buy off up to two tech outcomes if they so desire. 
    Eliminating an unwanted tech costs $3 for each one (up to $6).  You must allocate these dollars as part of your tech development costs, but if you fail to achieve a tech, you do not forfeit this money.  These dollars that were to buy off a tech outcome are then saved until next turn.  You do pay a penalty for ‘directed’ tech.  The tech you end up achieving is not affective until the end of your turn.
    You may opt to not buy off any sides, using the existing AA50 tech rules (we call it risking the super subs) and get an instantaneous tech.

    Additional (11/2009)

    1. Need to accumulate at least 2 researchers to get a tech… no cheapy $5 tech
    2. Whenever a country achieves a tech break thru, they set the cost for others to achieve that same weapon, with some limits:
      -  tech cost additional $1 for each turn it took original country to achieve tech
      -  tech is delayed- active end of turn (not instant)
      -  tech can not be acquired by others for one full round.

    Example:
      Round 2 Japan spends $10 on two researchers.  No break thru (no 6 for two dice)
      Round 3 researchers again fail (no 6 for two dice)
      Round 4 Japan buys two more researchers and get a break thru (at least 1 six for 4 dice)
              Japan rolls chart 2 and gets long range.
      Round 4 USA can NOT ‘buy’ the LR tech as it has not been a full turn yet
      Round 5 Russia can NOT buy the LR tech as it has not been a full round yet
      Round 5 USA can opt to buy the LR tech for a cost of $23
    ($20 + 3 rounds for Japan to achieve)

    If USA already had 2 researchers purchased, that $10 expenditure could be used as part of this $23 cost.


  • I like having the opition to do tech although I’ve lost several games beacause I would through so much money into reasearching. (sorry bad speller)


  • The main reason I don’t like tech, and almost never play with tech is b/c of the increased randomness.

    If the tech system was totally different, like i.e. we buy techs, then I might consider playing with tech. But from Classic, Revised and to AA50 there are to many game breaker techs.

    Larry Harris said that he hated tech. “It has become the tail that wags the dog”. I couldn’t agree more.

    Tech is like playing the lottery instead of doing business!


  • @Subotai:

    The main reason I don’t like tech, and almost never play with tech is b/c of the increased randomness.

    That’s why we use our modified tech system.

    Once you get 6 researchers accumulated, you get a tech.  You can get it earlier, but you won’t get it later.

  • 2022 '15 '11 '10 Official Q&A Moderator

    Well, that’s great, but so far you are in the minority (see the poll). (Response to Subotai)

    If LH doesn’t like tech, why did he create it?

    For many of us, unpredictability and variety in games is what we want.
    It adds another dimension to the game.

    I’m guessing you play with normal AA gun rules.  Talk about game-breaking, and lottery playing.  I’ve lost 4 out of 5 aircraft recently on 1 attack in the second round of a game.  (It wasn’t radar-equipped, either)  If you don’t like tech because of the randomness and “game-breaking” characteristics, why haven’t you tweaked the rules for AA guns?  They can easily ruin a game at any point - early or late.

    I take it the “game-breaking” and “lottery” you are speaking of is the really good techs - LRA, paratroopers, mechanized infantry, and Heavy bombers.  The rest are often marginal in their benefits, at best.  House rules can easily tone down the more powerful techs.  Example - HB, take best of 2 dice.  LRA, make it +1 range instead of 2.  Mech infantry - takes 2 armor to transport 1 infantry, round fractions up.  Paratroopers - can’t bomb at the same time.

    One of the most fun things about playing Axis and Allies for me, is having units that are superior to my opponents.  It’s also very fun to get those breakthroughs, and sometimes they turn the tide of the war.

    And yes, sometimes your opponent is the one who gets the tech before you do.  Then it tests your resourcefulness, and adaptability!  And sometimes, you might even lose because of it!  Boo hoo!  😢

    I think it’s hilarious when players say they don’t like tech because it adds more randomness to the game.  :lol:  You’re already resolving every single battle with multiple dice rolls!  And when you fly 5 aircraft over AA, you may lose anywhere from zero to five planes.  There are several rolls in each game that can swing from 20-80 or so IPC’s either way, depending on the dice.  Sometimes tech actually serves to even out the game!  It gives a player who got hosed on a conventional attack dice roll a chance to maybe catch up!  So that point about “adding extra randomness” to the game just doesn’t really mean anything to me.

    Tech is not a total crap shoot.  There is strategy and shrewdness that goes into deciding if and how many researchers to buy.

    I’m not writing to persuade anyone to change their mind.  It doesn’t matter to me - I’ll just play people who enjoy tech, like me.  It’s just enjoyable to outline the reasons I like tech in A&A.

    And yes, sometimes I play no tech - when a prospective opponent insists, and I am desperate for a game.  I enjoy the variety, so I enjoy going no tech once in awhile, too.

  • TripleA '12

    Well said, gamerman01. I couldn’t agree more. I personally love Tech although I appreciate that it certainly changes the game sometimes drastically. It’s not for everybody and that’s fair enough. Me and my friend play with Tech and soon the chart is just covered with Nat Control markers!

  • 2022 '15 '11 '10 Official Q&A Moderator

    @Lozmoid:

    Me and my friend play with Tech and soon the chart is just covered with Nat Control markers!

    Yeah, it seems like every other game I get all 6 of chart 2 with America.
    Sure is fun to be tech’d up!


  • @gamerman01:

    If LH doesn’t like tech, why did he create it?

    I’m guessing you play with normal AA gun rules.  Talk about game-breaking, and lottery playing.

    LH said he was told to keep the techs. I guess some marketing dude from WOTC thinks tech increases sales, and now when tech is an optional rule it doesn’t hurt the game design.

    I’m a LL player, although I sometimes play reg.dice, but in LL if you attack with several aircraft, the AA gun will roll @3 if you attack with 3 air units. If you attack with 6 or less you will only lose one aircraft.

    In TripleA there is no LL standard for SBR attacks, so the bombers who survive AA fire rolls like reg.dice, but if you use many bombers, the odds is that the damage will be close to 3.5 ipc pr. bomber.

    But there is some randomness if you do a SBR attack with only 1-3 bombers. 17%-50% one bomber is shot down, and then regular dice rolls for damage, in this case it could be 1-6 ipc or 3-18 ipc(!), but I can live with this, as long as the game settings are LL and no-tech, it reduces the randomness enough for my part.

  • 2022 '15 '11 '10 Official Q&A Moderator

    Ah, interesting.  Thanks for explaining the LL AA rules a bit.  I have never played LL.


  • I’ve said it before in another thread, if a game is pretty even, and no side has an obvious advantage, it may be rnd 1-3, or even later in a game. The only way to deal with the situation that the opponent gets a very powerful tech is to get an equal powerful tech! Plain and simple. And that has nothing to do with strats or tactics, even if you have to know what tech chart to choose when rolling for tech.

    Tech has very very little to do with strats and tactics, and even if there is much randomness in a reg.dice - no-tech game, it is as much about strats and tactics as a LL (no-tech) game. Reg.dice or LL doesn’t alter the fact that A&A is mainly about strategy. But tech…. you just roll a dice… tech is not related to buying smart, making clever combat moves, making good non combat moves etc. thats why I dislike tech even more than reg.dice.

    So it is not only the increased randomness when using tech, it is also the lack of strategic elements in the A&A tech system.


  • Now tech is not a problem in AA50, b/c it is optional, but if it wasn’t I would be using the same house rules that ca. 90% of the TripleA players used in Revised: no tech, and that is included the reg.dice players not only the LL players.


  • @Subotai:

    I’ve said it before in another thread, if a game is pretty even, and no side has an obvious advantage, it may be rnd 1-3, or even later in a game. The only way to deal with the situation that the opponent gets a very powerful tech is to get an equal powerful tech! Plain and simple. And that has nothing to do with strats or tactics, even if you have to know what tech chart to choose when rolling for tech.

    Tech has very very little to do with strats and tactics, and even if there is much randomness in a reg.dice - no-tech game, it is as much about strats and tactics as a LL (no-tech) game. Reg.dice or LL doesn’t alter the fact that A&A is mainly about strategy. But tech…. you just roll a dice… tech is not related to buying smart, making clever combat moves, making good non combat moves etc. thats why I dislike tech even more than reg.dice.

    So it is not only the increased randomness when using tech, it is also the lack of strategic elements in the A&A tech system.

    Don’t forget that choosing to roll for tech means that one’s opponent will have more units as opposed to the tech roller’s potientially better units, so if I’m rolling tech, and you’re not, then that means that you should have more IPCs worth of units on the board to offset my possible techs.  This already gives you an advantage, so my getting a tech would not necessarily force you to also roll for tech.  I would agree though, that if I always paid 5-10 IPCs per tech and always got the techs on the first turn in which I rolled for them (which has happened in one of my many AA50 games - Germany had 5 techs by turn 7 and 8 techs by turn 13, and the first 4 techs were gotten with either 5 or 10 IPCs.), then yes, I would have to say that this is overpoweringly good for me, but on the other hand, if I were playing against you in a LL game, and you always hit on the 1 die roll per battle round, and I always missed, then I would have to say those 2 situations are equally unlikely to occur, and when/if they ever do happen, then that’s just tough luck and a nearly automatic win or loss as the case may be.


  • @Bardoly, you’re not entirely wrong, but you’re entirely correct either.

    One issue is if a power or a side gets a tech at a price of $5 or $10 in one rnd, that’s a cheap and lucky tech even if the tech is not powerful. If you spend $10 and get a tech after 3 rnds, or $15 and get a tech after 2 rnds, or if you pay $30 and get a tech instantly, this is not luck, it is average dice when rolling for tech. In this cases tech won’t matter much for deciding the outcome of the game if no powerful techs are gained.

    What I’m talking about is the 3-4 very powerful techs, regardless if you spend $5 or $30 to get this techs.

    If you get one of the 3-4 most powerful techs, the only way not losing is to get and equal powerful tech. This is much more important than if you get a practically useless tech for $5 or $10. And this is if the game is pretty even at the time one side gets a powerful tech, not if i.e. I got 14 VCs and I need only one additional VC to win the game, b/c in this instance, you already lost.

    But it is not the situations where you pay less than $30 for a tech, it is 3-4 most powerful techs that are gamebreaking that causes the tech system to be (imo) useless in a strategy game where players decisions should decide the outcome of the game and not a lucky dice roll.

    There is no decisions you can make to stop a player from winning when he got more powerful techs than you, if the game is not already decided, b/c you are not guaranteed to get an equal powerful tech, as opposed to most reg.dice games the dice rolls will even out through the several rnds of a game. There is a problem with reg.dice in the very first rnd of AA50, b/c there so much at stake, but generally most reg.dice games are won by the best player.

    Playing with reg.dice and tech is the same as making a dice roll system with even more randomness than A&A, like i.e. Risk, even if there are no techs in Risk, there is more randomness than in a reg.dice no-tech game of A&A.

    If 2 players are equally experienced, in a reg.dice no-tech game there is a lot of randomness, but you wouldn’t win a Revised game as axis with no bids even with reg.dice. Well maybe 1 of 20…
    There is more than enough randomness in reg.dice already, there is no point in making A&A like yhatzee, a game where there is 99% luck and 1% skills and experience.

  • 2022 '15 '11 '10 Official Q&A Moderator

    @Subotai:

    a strategy game where players decisions should decide the outcome of the game and not a lucky dice roll.

    Doesn’t this happen even in LL?  Sounds like you should be sticking to chess, if you can’t handle getting beat by dice.

    There is no decisions you can make to stop a player from winning when he got more powerful techs than you, if the game is not already decided, b/c you are not guaranteed to get an equal powerful tech, as opposed to most reg.dice games the dice rolls will even out through the several rnds of a game.

    I’m sure most players who play with tech will totally disagree with you here.

    There is more than enough randomness in reg.dice already, there is no point in making A&A like yhatzee, a game where there is 99% luck and 1% skills and experience.

    Even yahtzee is not 99% luck and 1% skill and experience.
    And saying a regular game of A&A (because regular dice and tech is a regular game of A&A - out of the box) is 99% luck and 1% skill is ludicrous.

    Wow.  Your passion against tech makes me think you’ve been beat by them a few times, and you can’t handle it!  Is this not true?


  • In LL it happens not so often that one side lose b/c of dice compared to reg.dice and/or tech games.
    I’m sticking to LL and no-tech in A&A b/c it is more fun than chess.
    LL is a system in which both sides gets close to equal number of hits.

    OOB rules state that tech is an optional rule, so no-tech is as official OOB as tech is.

    I can’t recall to be beaten by tech, seriously, it’s probably b/c I have only played very very few games with tech.
    I can only recall one tech game I lost b/c I was rolling for tech but didn’t get any useful techs, while the opponent didn’t roll for tech and won b/c he got more units on the board.

    What I can’t handle is losing b/c the opponent was lucky. What is hard to handle is that in a reg.dice and tech games the opponent can make a winning dice roll every rnd, as opposed to a clever winning move.

    I can handle very well to lose against better opponents. That’s why losing a LL no-tech game doesn’t make me sad, the best player won. It is ofc much better to win than lose, but if I win a reg.dice and tech game, it doesn’t feel like a real victory b/c I didn’t win b/c of better skills&experience, the win would be caused mostly by luck.

    I’m not waging a crusade against tech and/or randomness in reg.dice games, I’m only stating the fact that randomness = luck. If players want to play with high randomness it’s not my problem. But I have a hard time understanding why so many A&A players prefers increased randomness in a strategy game.

    For me, it’s a waste of time spending 2-8 hours playing a game in which the players decisions have little impact due to random dice rolls.

    Even Krieghund said that his playgroup used a system with reduced randomness, not LL, but reduced randomness nonetheless.


  • I see LL as an easy mode: if I don’t want think much, I play LL (usually never). The same goes for non-tech: easy mode. Both cases you have less possible results (LL and no tech), so it’s more easy see the right approach

    That you cannot see is that both non tech and LL alters the whole game in a dramatic way: no tech cancels many possible strats that need some specific techs. LL is even worst because trading territories changes totally: I’d never, never risk tanks in a unclear strafe because they can get stuck if roll too good, however in LL I have done that because you can know the exact amount of units needed for a desired result. Naval battles and SBRs are also altered in dramatic ways: you can send 6 bombers and ensure you only lose one, so buy one each round to replace: lame

    If you didn’t saw many tech games in Revised was because tech in Revised was crap and usually never rolled even in tech games, so there was no point for us tech supporters trying convince tech haters to play with tech. In AA50, techs are a viable tactic and so there is a great point of convincing others play with tech

    LL no tech is sudoku, making numbers and favoring gamey scripted strats as ignore Japan

  • '16 '15 '10

    In the end the problem with tech is the same problem as in previous versions.  Some techs unbalance the game so much that getting them makes the gaming experience less fun.  I was in a multi the other day, where Germany spent 5$ on tech G1 and then hit Mech Inf G2.  Russia’s position was so desperate by the end of G3 that Russia resigned, and the game was over.  Without tech it might have been a decent game for everyone.  In hindsight, we should have restarted on G2 as soon as the 6 was rolled.

    There are always those occasions where tech plays a role in balancing the game in that the side that is losing or getting unlucky with dice gets the lucky tech.  And there are occasions where both sides will get a decent tech which maintains a rough equality.  But these are exceptions to the majority rule…which is that when playing with tech the likeliest outcome is one side will get luckier with tech than the other, and this will frequently determine the game outcome.  In such cases one can only hope that the dice favor the other side, otherwise the game is not really fair, and thus (for me) not nearly as fun.

    In Revised, both heavies and rockets were unbalanced.  In AA50, I’d say heavies, mech inf, paras, rockets…and LRA at the right time…all convey too deadly an advantage to whoever gets them, as long as the relevant power is in position to use these techs.


  • @Funcioneta:

    I see LL as an easy mode: if I don’t want think much, I play LL (usually never). The same goes for non-tech: easy mode. Both cases you have less possible results (LL and no tech), so it’s more easy see the right approach

    You’re objectively wrong! It is not easier to play LL and no-tech, unless you’re playing against a rookie. A few weeks ago I played against a player who once bought an IC with Russia and placed it in Novo….go figure. Even if he didn’t do it in our game, these players will lose almost all games until they learn the basics of A&A.

    It’s not easier to play with whatever setting or house rule is being used, b/c the one and only factor is how good is the opponent!!!
    Except that for a single game, not leagues or ladders, it is easier to win a single game against a better opponent if the game settings used does involve a high level of randomness. And that is a formal mathematical truth!

    Also, LL is less forgiving on mistakes than reg.dice, so how can LL be easier when it is easier in LL to lose b/c of mistakes???

    I can win a single deal/hand of poker against the best pokers players in the world, even if I hardly plays poker, b/c it would be only a single deal. But if we played many deals, an experienced player will win against a newbie in the long run. Same goes for A&A.

    You cannot use number crunching in real wars, or in the real world the same way as in A&A, b/c A&A is not a real war, it is not reality. It is a game of numbers, which can be calculated mathematically.

    What is subjective is how fun or boring it is to play with different settings, what is scientific is the factors of numbers and dice rolls, and these elements are according to mathematics, not human feelings.

    Fact: chess is less about luck and randomness than A&A, it is more about skills and experience. If this sentence is true, then it must also be true that LL+no-tech (which means less randomness) is more about skills and experience than reg.dice+tech.

    Try to read some philosophy, and focus on the logic issues.


  • Comparing the randomness to tech option and dice/LL option are so far apart it is insane.

    Yes, UK getting a lucky roll with there bb has a large effect on the game after G1, but no where near the effect that UK getting HBs does on turn 1.  Same with G getting a lucky roll in egypt and clearing it without looses, compared to them getting LRA turn 1.

    Luck is one thing that doesn’t bother me, and LL does not mean no luck, it means low luck.  Tech though, that can dramatically change the course of a game.  The problem is the game breaking tech, heavys, LRA, paras.  If tech just had fun things like improved art, rockets, radar, etc, then it wouldn’t be that big of a deal.


  • @Subotai:

    Also, LL is less forgiving on mistakes than reg.dice, so how can LL be easier when it is easier in LL to lose b/c of mistakes???

    Because LL no tech has less possible results than can happen. And that is a mathematical fact. Less possible results, less possible positions you have to take into account, so is more easy to play. And you cannot have a 100% certain result with official rules: in LL house rule, you know what is the exact amount needed to a desired effect, you have to send that units and no more, no less. It favors scripted strats and I find lame that you can strafe with tanks with 0% risk of being stucked because a too good roll  😛


  • @Funcioneta:

    @Subotai:

    Also, LL is less forgiving on mistakes than reg.dice, so how can LL be easier when it is easier in LL to lose b/c of mistakes???

    Because LL no tech has less possible results than can happen. And that is a mathematical fact. Less possible results, less possible positions you have to take into account, so is more easy to play. And you cannot have a 100% certain result with official rules: in LL house rule, you know what is the exact amount needed to a desired effect, you have to send that units and no more, no less. It favors scripted strats and I find lame that you can strafe with tanks with 0% risk of being stucked because a too good roll  😛

    There is no doubt that LL does reduce the possible results, which has a few interesting effects.  I makes axis turn 1 much more devistating, it makes planes a bit more powerful, makes it easier to defend transports, and makes trading predictable.  But, the difference in results between LL to dice is much lower than tech or no tech.


  • @Funcioneta:

    Because LL no tech has less possible results than can happen. And that is a mathematical fact. Less possible results, less possible positions you have to take into account, so is more easy to play.

    Your statement is wrong, b/c it is not easy to play against good players, unless you’re planning to lose.

    If your statement was true, it would also be true that in chess it is easy to play and win against grandmasters and world champions. There is currently about 565 chess grandmasters in world.

    Good luck in beating them in an easy game with no randomness  :roll:

  • '16 '15 '10

    I can agree the idea that in dice there are more variables so it’s tougher to plan ahead with precision.  In that sense it is “harder”.  But I wouldn’t say adding more variables is an argument for tech bettering the game…dice variables are one thing, tech variables are another.  Dice already adds enough variation that the best player won’t always win.  But dice also swings back and forth.

    Tech means that in a typical game, one side or another will gain a built-in advantage.  If one can use a big tech properly, it’s frequently a decisive advantage.

    Again, it’s a matter of taste.  I enjoy both dice and low luck.  I guess I feel that reacting to abnormal dice outcomes is part of the skill in Axis and Allies.  But tech is different…the skill involved is knowing how to use the tech properly.  For the reasons outlined previously, I don’t think the variation introduced by tech is worth the risk of an unbalanced, lopsided contest.

Suggested Topics

  • 6
  • 11
  • 22
  • 10
  • 7
  • 12
  • 10
  • 1
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

43
Online

16.3k
Users

38.0k
Topics

1.6m
Posts