• @gamerman01:

    I really don’t give a damn why you don’t like tech, or why you don’t like regular dice, or any of that.

    funny coming from you, who:

    • Encouraged people to post their own modified tech (some reasoning / basis would most likely be included in one’s house rule post)

    • Defended Tech as superior to LL and/or No tech

    • Sent me a PM saying Thanks for Posting our Tech House rules!

    and NOW, NOW you say you don’t want to hear peoples thoughts about Tech?


    Germanman01, your posts remind me of split personality poster.  Open to discussions and thought exchange on day, then very closed minded and defensive to others with differing views another.

  • '17 '16 '15 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    Ok everybody had their say. Please stay on topic.

    If you got house rules for Tech , post them in the proper section.


  • It is a GAME it is supposed to be FUN! If the variability that tech provides does not appeal to you then don’t use tech but please do not pretend that those who actually enjoy that factor are backwards and poor strategic players. Same with LL. No one can deny that LL and reg dice are totally different games, just as tech/no tech are as well. I do wish that tech was more balanced, but this version is superior (IMHO) than others so things are movin g in the right direction! maybe AA40 Global will nail it evne better!


  • @Subotai:

    Almost all TripleA players plays/played w/o tech in Revised

    I think that’s the most important thing to taking into account: in Revised, tech haters negated totally to use tech. Since tech in Revised was crappy anyway and only good in some rare cases, we tech fanboys didn’t cared much and prefered spent energy in playing rather in trying to save a crappy weapon. But now in AA50 tech is a very good weapon many games, so we tech fanboys will fight for tech!  8-)

    Save the tech!  :mrgreen:

  • '16 '15 '10

    I’m going to venture to make a prediction, which is quite likely to be wrong, since at present most AA50 players on TripleA or elsewhere prefer tech.  In one year, if AA50 is still popular, tech will be significantly less popular, because people will be more skilled at the game, and will want to test their skills against other players without the random variability of tech determining game outcomes……

    But I could well be wrong about this.  I would wonder…when Revised first came out, was it popular to play with tech, or was tech immediately unpopular?

    Good post above by Critmonster…what people enjoy playing is a totally subjective thing.

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

    @Zhukov44:

    I’m going to venture to make a prediction, which is quite likely to be wrong, since at present most AA50 players on TripleA or elsewhere prefer tech.  In one year, if AA50 is still popular……

    I’m going to venture to make a prediction, which is quite likely to be wrong, that AA50 will still be very popular a year from now.  I certainly don’t think AAP40 will replace it, because it’s so different, and is not world-wide in scale.  I’m guessing the combined 1940 game will also not replace it, because it will be quite a bit different.  Revised and AA50 aren’t that much different, really, not like the 1940 game will be.  I mean, it’s even a different time frame (Revised and AA50 both have 1942).  From perusing AAP40 a little bit, and looking at the ABattlemap (which is NOT attractive at all) it seems the 1940 games are more complicated (more rules - I mean, convoys, air bases, naval bases, tac bombers - it’s actually a little intimidating even to an A&A fan like me) and it remains to be seen how all the political conditions and rules will work together when you have Europe and Pacific put together……

    Good post above by Critmonster…what people enjoy playing is a totally subjective thing.

    Yes, a great post.  I had PM’d him thanking him for it, before this post.


  • The single biggest problem with tech, is the 3-4 extremely powerful gamebreaker techs, much more than the tech system itself.

    It is practically the same as, if you’re a boxer or wrestler etc, and participate in a tournament, but instead of the way it is now, you could meet any opponent from any weight class…! Decided by a dice roll.
    So even if you’re the world champion in boxing, weighting 65 kg, you will lose big time against an average boxer weighting 95 kg.
    That is the effect of the 3-4 power techs in AA50, for the 5 biggest powers, UK, US, Russia, Germany and Japan.

    Even with the current system, sometimes, a boxer is K.O’ed in the first rnd, and then we might ask if he was ready to face a relative strong opponent, but there is a reason we got weight classes, and that’s b/c we don’t want to have built-in asymmetric fighting and competitive abilities.
    The power techs in AA50 is exactly that, a built in mismatch if any side gets one or more power techs than the opponent.

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

    @gamerman01:

    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?

    This was my opening post.  From many of the things you and others have written, I think you never read this, or you forgot about it.  I’m not really a fierce proponent of OOB tech anyway.

    It’s not like you have to choose between playing tech out of the box, or no tech at all.  Other ideas that have come forward include Bombers costing +1 for each tech obtained (that applies to bombers) or each bomber can only use 1 tech ability each turn (not all 3 together, or even 2)  Come up with your own ideas.  You’re right, 4 of them are much more powerful than the rest, generally.  So tweak them already.


  • One idea could be to get rid of paras, mech inf, HBs, and LRA. Then if one side gets a tech, the opponent can decide to by the same tech directly for twice the price, and get the tech immediately, or wait one rnd and buy the same tech at the same price. Then the tech system would not be as flawed as it is now.

    Even a “fair” system where you could buy a tech achieved by the opponent at once at the same price, but with the powertechs, all tech games would always be influenced by techs and not the standard abilities for the units in A&A.

    Some TripleA mods have elite units which costs more (i.e. heavy tanks attack/defend @4), although I don’t play the custom mods, this is a much better system for changing the unit abilities than any tech system.


  • @Subotai:

    One idea could be to get rid of paras, mech inf, HBs, and LRA.

    It’s possible, or maybe better doing them delayed techs. However, I think is a more pressing issue solving the unbalanced setups annyversary has: of course, if Germany or Japan get some of those tech early is game over, but more due the default advantage they have than effect of tech. Allies have enough to struggle defending trannies and such to spend money in tech; specially for UK, every IPC must be spent in units or boats, and the same goes for USSR. USA can afford at least one tech but without doubt Japan and Germany have much more money to spend on tech teams and that means tech usually favors axis

    The most important problem of the game is that you cannot hold India and China at the same time even in a non tech game: one of them will fall in 42 scenario early, and both of them in 41 scenario. If it were round 5-6 I’d have no problem (Japan needs a decent chance of taking them), the problem is they fall usually round 1-3, and axis achieves economic advantage too early. USA has not enough money to support the two front war allies must fight, and in 1942 scenario Germany gets a free IC at Karelia from round 2-3. I find this more important than techs being random or not, and for resolve this, we should do at least two of these: delete Karelia IC in 1942, making China playable (both scenarios) and changing order of turns so Japan plays after UK (both scenarios)

    Later we can make some techs delayed if really really needed. Anyway I don’t see techs being more unpopular in a couple of years: modified slighty, maybe, but not fully deleted


  • Hopefully I can post some thoughts here without being called a jerk by the OP.    😮 😢

    Free idea exchanges get hampered when things turn personal.


    I was looking at some previous tech modification thoughts and found this idea from bugoo:

    @bugoo:

    As far as tech goes I would propose a point system.  Assign a point value to each tech.  Purchase researchers as normal.  Roll as normal for research, but add up the total rolls and apply them toward the selected tech.  You could assign different researches to different techs, but cannot change the tech they work on once purchased.  Once point value is reached, tech is gained said researchers are lost.  For example.

    As US I want heavy bombers eventually, they are worth 30 research, so on turn 1 I purchase one heavy bomber researcher.  I roll and get a 3.  Now I need 27 more research to get heavy bombers.  On turn 2 I decide I want super subs, and since that tech isn’t as powerful I only need 15 research to get them.  I purchase 2 researchers, both for the subs as I want to sink japan’s navy now.  I roll a 2 for my heavy bomber researcher, leaving 25 left, and then roll a 4 and a 5 for my subs, leaving 6 left and with any luck on turn 3 i’ll get my super subs.

    This will allow you to slowly work at a tech, rush for it, and choose to go for the good but expensive techs, or take an easier, faster, tech, or all of the above.  Now all nations may buy a heavy bomber researcher turn 1, but hey there is nothing wrong with that!

    The neat thing about this is that it can be easily tweaked with out re-writing the whole process.

    Can someone help create a list of point targets for each tech?  I am not a big tech user, so my insights into tech has little knowledge base.

    Along the lines of combined techs becoming too powerful (i.e. Long Range, Heavy Paratroopers), you could add that if one tech is attained (like HBs), the new target for Long Range for that country is increased by “6” or something like that.


  • @axis_roll:

    Can someone help create a list of point targets for each tech?  I am not a big tech user, so my insights into tech has little knowledge base.

    Tech               Value

    War bonds:          10
    Advanced Artillery:10
    Paratrooper:         20
    IC:                      20
    Mech Inf:             25
    Rockets:              20

    Shipyards:           15
    Long Range:         20
    Heavy Bombers:    30
    Radar:                 20
    Jet Fighters:         15
    Supersubs:           15

    The rules for tech are going to have to be modifeid alot, for if you can pick your tech the Eastern Front might end up being decided by who ever gets mech inf first as both Germany and the USSR will rush for that one. Every tech should have a counter of some sort. The counter for heavy bombers is radar.For mech inf, advanced artillery could be changed to be its counter and instead of provding its almost useless benefit it could provide some extra defence against tanks.

    Also I think tech should also be adjusted for historical accuarcy, right now it dosnt really make sence that mech in and paratroopers are cost more or just as much as Jet fighters and Rockets

  • 2007 AAR League

    I like where this appears to be going. But, we should probably discuss it in the house rules section before we get in trouble.


  • @U-505:

    I like where this appears to be going. But, we should probably discuss it in the house rules section before we get in trouble.

    Getting in trouble is part of the fun 🙂

    IL just loves us……!

  • 2007 AAR League

    Well, as far as I’m concerned, tech has always needed a serious overhaul in just about every way. And I have a ton of ideas so, when I get back from running errands, I’ll start a thread in “house rules” if someone doesn’t beat me to it.

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

    @Emperor_Taiki:

    Also I think tech should also be adjusted for historical accuarcy, right now it dosnt really make sence that mech in and paratroopers are cost more or just as much as Jet fighters and Rockets

    I’ve liked this idea, but haven’t done much with it.

    Something like (again, a house rule thread thing) USA gets war bonds, heavy bombers at turn X, radar at turn X, UK gets radar, Gerry gets Super subs, etc. etc.
    No new tech allowed, but certain countries get certain techs at pre-determined times.
    Just brainstorming, you know.


  • delayed tech neuters tech, no suprise factor. one type of tech per unit per turn fixes the uber bomber trouble. roll two and pick best takes care of HB. any others?
    assigning techs by country/turn is really revised NA reincarnated not R&D. giving each country one free token every so often (even rounds, every fifth, whatever) lets Italy and Russia in on the fun. China first has an amazing impact on Japan’s expansion BTW. I am treading on house rules here I know but these are just some thoughts on the subject.

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

    @critmonster:

    delayed tech neuters tech, no suprise factor. one type of tech per unit per turn fixes the uber bomber trouble. roll two and pick best takes care of HB. any others?
    assigning techs by country/turn is really revised NA reincarnated not R&D. giving each country one free token every so often (even rounds, every fifth, whatever) lets Italy and Russia in on the fun. China first has an amazing impact on Japan’s expansion BTW. I am treading on house rules here I know but these are just some thoughts on the subject.

    Hehe, it is not uncommon in my games to have all 6 powers buy a token in round 1, so yes, they’re all in on the fun without any charity, thank you very much.

    Good, thoughtful post, Crit.  I just finished a game with neutered tech, and I didn’t like it.  We didn’t get much (probably because we didn’t invest as much, because there wasn’t any awesome tech) and it wasn’t a factor until I got paras with Germany (was not neutered) and took over the UK.

    The surprise factor is half of what tech is about.  Delaying LRA alone makes it feel like you’re playing a no tech game, because you know for certain that your vulnerable targets that are just out of range of enemy air are invincible, and that kinda sucks, for us tech lovers.  We delayed LRA and mech infantry, and made HB best of 2 dice.  Guess what, I didn’t feel like investing much in tech, and rolling for it wasn’t nearly as exciting.  Neuter is a good word, that you chose.


  • I don’t think we’re ever gonna agree with new a tech system. Some players think it’s fun with game breaker techs, and others disagree.

    In another thread a guy said the reason why he didn’t use tech was b/c of the small/large numbers factor, so even if there is a lot of randomness in reg.dice, reg.dice is a game of big numbers, means bigger probability that luck will even out during a game. Not so with the current tech systems.

    As Larry Harris said, “it has become the tail that wags the dog”.

    Imo, with several power techs, any game with tech will be tech races, and the tech race will overshadow the current strategic elements in A&A. For realism to the real WW2 it is highly relevant, for competitive game, it reduces or destroys the game.

    When I started playing online, it was (Revised) reg.dice and no-tech, but I was a newb so I had big problems winning games in the beginning, I had to play a lot of games before I won some games, firstly 2vs2 and then 1vs1 games.
    So the randomness in reg.dice didn’t help me that much since I was playing against better opponents.
    But with the current tech system in AA50, it is much easier to win a single game against a better opponent, than in a no-tech game.

    I feel that is wrong, but other players feels fine when winning b/c of dice rolls and not players decisions.

    Some players are OK with playing A&A as a game of luck and not a game of strategy. I beg to differ.


  • To imply that A&A is either a game of luck (w/tech) or a game of stategy (w/o tech) is ridiculous. A&A is a game with both elements and there is also a strategy when playing tech, just different. I (almost) never use chart 2 w/ Germany, more useful techs in chart one, conversly USA is a chart two power usually, you can call this simplistic and non-strategic if you like, but it is a quick and basic example non the less


  • @ critmonster, I don’t think you know what impact the power-techs have in A&A.

    A no-tech game, you still have to buy the right units, make the right combat moves, and make the right non combat moves. Decisions on techs is not strategic at all, compared to all the other factors in A&A, which decides who wins and who loses.

    The only decisions with regards to tech is how much money to spend, and what chart to chose, and this is very simple, but most of all it is purely luck based.

    As long as there are power-techs, any tech game will always be focused on who gets the power-techs first, and which country gets whatever power-tech.
    A tech race is completely different from buying, combat moves and NC moves, b/c they will have much less effect once a power achieves a power-tech. And the result and impact of power-tech(s) is not based on decisions, b/c both players will spend money on tech, then all you hope for is to get the strongest techs as early as possible.

    And the side that gets one or several powertechs before the opponent, will win the game (unless both sides gets the same amount of power-techs), not b/c of decisions, b/c both players made the same tech-decisions, and so the tech-game was won b/c of luck and not strategic skills. Which is the opposite of no-tech games, b/c in every game, reg.dice or LL, players decisions and moves are always different in different games.


  • I agree that no matter what the game is a mix of strats and luck.  There is no arguing though, that introducing more random elements, increases the amount of luck involved.  It does not directly reduce the amount of strategy involved, other than by percent.  By that I mean if the game is typically with dice and no tech 75% strategy and 25% luck, then with tech that changes to 50% strategy 50% luck. Please note these are random numbers but illustrates my point.  If side A gets heavy bombers and long range aircraft, and side B gets super subs and improved artillery, side A is at an advantage due purely to luck.  And that is assuming both sides get the same amount of tech, I have seen games where UK buys 1 tech die and japan buys 3 on the first turn, UK gets turn 1 heavy bombers and japan gets super subs on round 3, it was actually pretty funny.


  • But a good tech system doesn’t (have to) reduce the ‘strategy’ aspect of the randomness in a game.  In other words, tech becomes part of the strategic decisions made by countries and not by the roll outcome of a die.

    That is what I seek when looking for some house rules for Tech (more strategic, less random)

    How to achieve this?

    1).  Directed tech is a key.  No more getting a tech you didn’t really want/invest in with researcher purchases.
    2).  Set a maximum cost level for a tech.  In other words, at some point, your tech researcher investment will result
          in a tech, guarenteed.
    3).  Enable techs to be countered by some other strategic option.
        It could be an existing unit or another tech. 
        Key here is a way to counter tech means there can be strategy involved.
    4).  Try to make the techs as even as possible.
        You could do this by increasing the cost of the ‘better’ tech, or
          by modifying the weaker techs to make them ‘better’, etc.
    5).  Remove/diminsh the 'nothing up my sleeve except…surprise!  LONG RANGE"  aspect.
        By having a set cost, the cheaper techs could be achieved in one turn,
        but the more expensive ones, you would have a bette idea of when the
        opponent might get it.

    The initial idea presented by Bugoo achieves 1, 2 and 4 (somewhat if properly priced) and 5 (again if properly priced).  If we can achieve 3, then I think the point system for tech is optimal for a house rule.

    So we have HBs as a killer weapon.  We already have a counter:  radar.  Is radar properly priced at 20?  sounds pretty solid to me.  Perhaps Radar could include a BB gets an AAA shot (1@1) to reduce the HB’s overwhelming power in naval warfare.  If we did that, radar would cost 25.  Also, in games with Escorts optional rule, you could adjust this … even higher to 30 (since escorts already diminish HBs)?

    I think Long range might need to be priced higher, like 25.

    How to counter Mech inf?  Should it be priced at 30?  I’d rather not alter the tech unless we absolutely have to.  One way to detune the mech inf is that the carried inf do not roll on the attack (they’re being carried, not in attack formation)… just a quick straw man/idea.

    What other techs need to be countered?


  • @axis_roll:

    So we have HBs as a killer weapon.  We already have a counter:  radar.

    (snip)

    first, these are good ideas to build on, hopefully L.H. will listen to us in future games.

    But you are wrong that radar is a good counter for HBs. HBs are a killer tech not only for SBR attacks, but also for attacks against land units, and attacks against enemy fleets.
    Actually, the best counter for HB tech, is… HB tech…! 🙂

    The way to go in making tech non-broken, is (as you said) less randomness and more “fairness”, a system in which players must pay an amount which is somewhat close to the advantage of a specific tech. And instant tech is more powerful than delayed tech, so this must be taken into account when designing a new tech system.

    The power techs in AA50 is, imo, HBs, LRA, mech inf, and paratroopers.

    But not all powers will have an equal advantage getting these techs, especially Italy, which hardly can afford to buy a lot of stuff, unless they got all of Africa.

    Another option is also a rule which, i.e., if you pay 5 ipc, you will get LRA the fifth turn, or you can choose to pay 25 ipc and get it on the same turn, either instantly, or delayed.

    As it is now, at least in AA50, tech rolls are practically the same as Yahtzee.


  • @gamerman01:

    Good, thoughtful post, Crit.  I just finished a game with neutered tech, and I didn’t like it.  We didn’t get much (probably because we didn’t invest as much, because there wasn’t any awesome tech) and it wasn’t a factor until I got paras with Germany (was not neutered) and took over the UK.

    I must add in that game I has no other choice than letting UK poorly defended against paras or I would lose naval race! You also spent 3 dices on tech so I have no complains being paratrooped. I risked and I lost, nothing to complain

Suggested Topics

  • 7
  • 1
  • 14
  • 96
  • 2
  • 10
  • 5
  • 10
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

35
Online

16.0k
Users

37.6k
Topics

1.6m
Posts