Technology needs to be adjusted...

[squirecam]

In the articles, Mike wrote:

Of course, there is one drawback to giving players this choice: Since all options are equally available, one can't be clearly better than the others. We needed to balance all the developments against each other. With each development costing an average of 30 IPCs per acquisition (6 dice at 5 IPCs each), they had to be tempting ... but not too tempting.

Super Submarines (subs attack at 3) became the baseline. If it was always clear that you wanted a development more or less than Super Submarines, that development was in for a rough time.
It is clear that HB and LRA are better than the baseline tech. They have always been so, but even since the "adjustment", they are still unbalancing. These two techs are usually rolled for. I have yet to see someone roll for super subs.

I think further fixes MUST be made. Whether that be increasing AA fire to 2 or allowing escorts and interceptors. But these 2 techs are clear favorites when the "point" was to make all 6 techs equally good. Obviously, they are not.

Squirecam

[Sinister]

I agree with you that the techs aren't balanced. Heavy bombers existed for 20 years as "the choice" and clearly they still are. You certainly don't want to make techs balanced with heavy bombers. I forsee something along those lines as making the game a "tech fest". And as much as I agree that they are unbalancing, I'd hate to see heavy bombers dropped because they are the most famous of rules in the tradition of the game.

Perhaps the easiest solution is to rank how powerful each one is and then assign it a research cost. For instance heavy bombers could be 6 dollars a die to invest in research and subs (the baseline as mike said) could be 3 dollars a die. I think you will get alot of people to agree which ones are more powerful techs but the debates will be endless on "balance". By the way I do think some techs should be better than others (techs weren't balanced in the war) but there should be some IPC way of making the lessor techs worth investing in.

[ April 14, 2004, 05:10 PM: Message edited by: Sinister ]

[AllWeNeedIsLove.]

There is an easy fix. Each dice rolled for each tech has a different cost. for example each heavy bomber dice may cost 6 or 7 ipc, while the lowly super sub cost 3 or 4 ipc per dice. this makes for better game play but im not sure if it can hold up to historical arguments(however if someone can make a case for combined bombardment being a tech im sure someone can come up with a sketchy reason why some techs would be more expensive).

[squirecam]

Heavy Bombers at 7 per roll or 20IPC are still unbalanced.

The US can afford any amount needed to build them.

The must be adjusted somehow, either by allowing aa rolls at 2 or less, or interceptors, or something to limit them.

the US has 42 IPC to spend. Making the tech 7 per roll still gives the US 6 shots and usually guarantees they get HB on round 1.

We must change their abilities, not their cost.

[holywolfman]

Well- Squirecam, there are NO Guarantees! BUT, you are right- USA has nothing really to lose by trying every turn (As you saw-lol)

See my 'new' proposed fighter escorts/interceptor "option-rules":

http://boards.avalonhill.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=10;t=000766
(post # 21!)

Might be worth a shot!

-Nick- smile.gif

[ April 14, 2004, 06:39 PM: Message edited by: holywolfman ]

[squirecam]

Originally posted by holywolfman:
Well- Squirecam, there are NO Guarantees! BUT, you are right- USA has nothing really to lose by trying every turn (As you saw-lol)

See my 'new' proposed fighter escorts/interceptor "option-rules":

http://boards.avalonhill.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=10;t=000766
(post # 21!)

Might be worth a shot!

-Nick- smile.gif The fan option rules are a great idea of course. But, this is not what I would like to see. I'd like an official change. I think its quite clear that the purpose of the tech changes was not served.

People clearly go for HB or LRA and not subs. The whole purpose of changing the techs was to not make one a clear favorite. It is.

Without changes, we should go back to the old rule, i.e. random techs. Otherwise, the point of the changes (choosing among EQUALLY GOOD techs) is lost.

Squirecam

[holywolfman]

(You are so RIGHT!)- maybe we should go back to " Random" rolls! (would be a shame though to spend 30+ IPC's as a player to get Super Subs!)-especially when they DO NOT have a need for subs!

-Nick- smile.gif

[ April 14, 2004, 07:48 PM: Message edited by: holywolfman ]

[squirecam]

Originally posted by holywolfman:
(You are so RIGHT!)- maybe we should go back to " Random" rolls! (would be a shame though to spend 30+ IPC's as a player to get Super Subs!)-especially when they DO NOT have a need for subs!

-Nick- smile.gif Randomness WAS the limit. Usually, you wouldn't waste 30 IPC every turn until you got heavys. Maybe some IPC, not 30. Or 40.

Now, you can use 40 and "almost guarantee" HB.

Clearly there are 2 options.

Make HB weaker (hmm) or increase defense (AA and/or interceptors)

OR

Random techs (a limit itself)

Squirecam

[holywolfman]

JUST A THOUGHT:

How about lessening the 'blow' from HB's (even further!)

Instead of making the change from 3d6 (original MB version) to 2d6 (AH/Hasbro version)

How about this?

Instead of rolling 2d6 (HB's)...just roll 1d6+3
(then the lowest a player can lose is 4IPC's and the GREATEST a player can lose is 9 IPC's per Bomber!)-should satisfy both 'realms': THEN- It wouldn't be TOO WEAK or even TOO STRONG!

What do you think? (I KNOW AH/Hasbro/Mike will NOT make any changes OFFICIALLY !!!- Any rule changes would be strictly-Optional!)


-Nick- smile.gif

[ April 14, 2004, 07:58 PM: Message edited by: holywolfman ]

[DocD]

I'm sorry squire, I have to disagree with you that HB is wrong at any price. True the USA does have the 'fort knox' to invest in HB's, but every IPC invested is one less being used to immediately stop Japan's or Germany's gains.
The idea of increasing the amount for HBs is a good one. Jet power as is is only worth 3 ipc dice rolls.
Hey Sinister, are you going to add this stuff to the Rogue book....I think it will be neat.

[Sinister]

Originally posted by squirecam:
Heavy Bombers at 7 per roll or 20IPC are still unbalanced.

The US can afford any amount needed to build them.

The must be adjusted somehow, either by allowing aa rolls at 2 or less, or interceptors, or something to limit them.

the US has 42 IPC to spend. Making the tech 7 per roll still gives the US 6 shots and usually guarantees they get HB on round 1.

We must change their abilities, not their cost.Squirecam let me preface this by saying I'm not trying to fight this idea, I just want to know what your justification is for "balancing" the techs. Was there alot of complaint in the second edition about balance? I know I used to get upset when someone got HBs in the old game but the answer was always to invest in it yourself so its not an advantage.

I want to see lower end techs invested in just the same as high end techs but I'm not sure we can get a balance because each rule doesn't work remotely like the other its like comparing apples to oranges.

Another radicial idea is perhaps putting an actual monetary amount on research, like heavy bombers cost $42 dollars to research, you can spend a little at a time or all at once. I'm throwing that out as an arbitrary figure btw.

If you did something like that even if the us spends all its money researching it would be turn 4 before HBs can be in a position of attack. You would have to buy the research (turn 1), buy the bombers (turn 2), fly the bombers to england (turn 3), and attack turn 4. I'm not sure this is the greatest idea I'm just throwing it out there...

Let me also say that I a big fan and have a house rule against buying techs the first turn. Also I'd be ok with it going back to random tech rolls.

[ April 14, 2004, 09:39 PM: Message edited by: Sinister ]

[squirecam]

Originally posted by Sinister:
[QUOTE]Squirecam let me preface this by saying I'm not trying to fight this idea, I just want to know what your justification is for "balancing" the techs. Was there alot of complaint in the second edition about balance? I know I used to get upset when someone got HBs in the old game but the answer was always to invest in it yourself so its not an advantage.
First of all, my "justification" was in the first quote on this thread, made by Mike himself. He said that with people being able to choose which tech to go for, then no one tech must be clearly better than the others.

I ask you, Isnt HB clearly the best tech?????

So, either the tech must change, or the randomness must be put back in.

All I'm asking for is exactly what Mike said was the purpose: to balance the techs. No one tech must be clearly superior to any of the others. But HB is.

And Germany has no opportunity to roll for HB and then buy a fleet of them. Its not enough to counter buy.

Squirecam

[ April 14, 2004, 10:07 PM: Message edited by: squirecam ]

[Sinister]

Ok now I'm on board thanks Squirecam,

I was a little slow on the uptake. I'm kinda shocked that mike said that, cause you are right there's zero balance there. I'll have to think more on it. Randomness seems to be a choice at this point but maybe we can think of some other stuff.

I'll put it to a vote if someone proposes it for RC. I don't like suggesting too much stuff I come up with cause it needs to input from everyone.

[ April 14, 2004, 10:17 PM: Message edited by: Sinister ]

[holywolfman]

How about this:

Just limit the 'amount' of dice allowed for research rolls to: (2..or EVEN 1 per turn!)

This way:

* Keep cost for research the same (by changing the 'cost' factor- it would hurt more 'less rich' Nations than the ones who can afford it!)

* Keep odds lower: (rolling less dice per turn)

* Players will not resort to "All-or-Nothing" tactics (keep games more strategic)

* More fun (no one likes to be on receiving end of HB's with LongRange..etc.)-especially early on!

I (personally) like to CHOOSE what techs I am researching! I think it is more realistic! I just think that it shouldn't be a 'Tech'-race especially between players who have nothing really to lose!

I think- there can be other means by 'balancing' the techs!
__________________________________________________

OK- I just thought of something else:

How about- instead of limiting techs by amount of die rolls 'allowed'...try this:

Each tech has different "ODD" chart when rolling for tech development: (WOULD Now need to roll a "1"(player still CHOOSES tech desired) for tech but just INCREASE the odds obtaining it!):

1) Jet Fighters:......Roll 1d6 (17%)
2) Rockets:...........Roll 1d8 (12.5%)
3) Super Subs:........Roll 1d6 (17%)
4) Long Range Air:....Roll 1d12 (8.3%)
5) Combined Bombard:..Roll 1d6 (17%)
6) Heavy Bombers:.....Roll 1d12 8.3%)

* Treat Tech Development as that: A 'Scientific- Break-though'...(some are more easier obtained than others!)

* This way, keep amount of techs allowed to develop per turn to 1! (as written)

* Increase odds for getting Long Range and HVY Bombers! (more fair)

* Reward less 'powerful' techs with easier odds!

* Keep Everyone HAPPY! :D

Hmm.... just might work!...Maybe combine BOTH aspects: The different 'Odds' along with restrictions for 2 dice per turn!

[Note]: 8 and 12 sided dice are fairly cheap and many players own 'em anyways- shouldn't be too much of a hassle!

"Isn't knowing the chances for that player trying for Long-Range or HB's is 8.3%: more comforting then having them trying it at a 17% chance- I know I would sleep better at night!!!"

Just some more thoughts here!!! :eek:

-Nick- smile.gif

[ April 14, 2004, 10:36 PM: Message edited by: holywolfman ]

[Fenian]

Heavy bombers aren't always the best tech...depends what you have on the board and where you are positioned, for many nations I would say rockets > H.bombers

[cousin_joe]

Here's what I suggest to fix Tech
Will also Fix Sealion as well

http://boards.avalonhill.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=10;t=000747

[onslaught]

What about these two rules: 1. All weapon developement rolls for technologies that have already been discovered by another power cost 3 IPCs per research die rather than 5 IPCs. 2. Once a research is successful, from now on (including this turn) any newly built units will benefit from the newly acquired developement. Denote these units by placing a control marker beneath them. Effect of rule #1: It'll be cheaper to acquire developements after another power developes them first. It always costs more to develop a new weapon than it is to copy, reverse engineer, or acquire through espionage. Effect of rule #2: If you acquire a new developement you'll need to produce the new units with that technology and deploy them on the field. No longer will all of your units,nor will your opponents, automaticly become endowed with this new technology. These rules would remove the Sealion gambit on turn one and make it cheaper for other countries to develope the same technologies. Plus it would delay the effects of a newly developed technolgy on the game turn it is developed, since the player would first have to build and then deploy the new units utilizing the new technology. :D

[Krieghund]

Does that mean you need to buy new AA guns before you can use rockets? What about a way to upgrade existing units to the new tech?

[Drewcooter]

The best adjustment you can make with Tech is to make an agreement before the game not to use them.

By playing without tech you are more likely to develop interesting strategies and come up with optimal moves and strategy.

IMHO, teching entails too much luck. If you get your tech your opponent will be bitter, if you don't you will be bitter about bombing yourself for however much you spent on the chance.

Obviously we will all play the way we prefer, but I would suggest playing without tech. For those of you who use Tech try it for a few games I think you will find your gaming experience much more rewarding.

I would much rather say "I won or lost a hard fought battle based on my strategy" than say " It was so cool how I won when I got LRA in the first round", or " Man it was cool how I was outplayed but then pulled out a lucky tech roll and bombed them into oblivion".

Too much teching and you reduce A&A to a game of craps.

[squirecam]

Originally posted by onslaught:
What about these two rules: 1. All weapon developement rolls for technologies that have already been discovered by another power cost 3 IPCs per research die rather than 5 IPCs. 2. Once a research is successful, from now on (including this turn) any newly built units will benefit from the newly acquired developement. Denote these units by placing a control marker beneath them. Effect of rule #1: It'll be cheaper to acquire developements after another power developes them first. It always costs more to develop a new weapon than it is to copy, reverse engineer, or acquire through espionage. Effect of rule #2: If you acquire a new developement you'll need to produce the new units with that technology and deploy them on the field. No longer will all of your units,nor will your opponents, automaticly become endowed with this new technology. These rules would remove the Sealion gambit on turn one and make it cheaper for other countries to develope the same technologies. Plus it would delay the effects of a newly developed technolgy on the game turn it is developed, since the player would first have to build and then deploy the new units utilizing the new technology. :D Germany getting HB doesnt help. Germany cant reach America to bomb it. the US can use the UK, and USSR and Japan can be reached, but not the US. Without taking the islands, the US is pretty safe from bombing. Which means that to fix HB it cant just be a cheaper tech for the axis. There must be changes to AA/interceptors or random techs.

[Rommell12]

I disagree,

If germany gets HB then have them bomb britain in either an SBR or bomb the us bombers sitting in britain. Why does the us need to be bombed to win?

[ April 15, 2004, 02:11 PM: Message edited by: Rommel12 ]

[squirecam]

Originally posted by Rommel12:
I disagree,

If germany gets HB then have them bomb britain in either an SBR or bomb the us bombers sitting in britain. Why does the us need to be bombed to win?Give each country 3 HB. Which country cannot be bombed at the start of the game?

The US.

The distance to the US makes it unfair even if Germany has HB. Reduce Germany, UK, USSR, and Japan to 0 income. The US still gets its 42.

[Rommell12]

I see your point, but even with randomization people could still all invest in HBs and you would still have this problem.

Someone on this site posted a rule to the effect of not bombing and IC past its territory value or taking your income and dividing that by the number of ICs to determine the max damage in one turn to an IC. It's possible these methods would prevent "over bombing" from HBs.

[squirecam]

Originally posted by Rommel12:
I see your point, but even with randomization people could still all invest in HBs and you would still have this problem. I would also see the groan when the US spends 30 IPC and gets "subs".

The randomness is not the best limit (I would prefer better AA and interceptors), but at least its a limit, It would take 3 rounds of 30 IPC buying before you had a 25% chance of HB. 4 rounds before a 50% chance.

This is alot better than now, which is round one, US gets HB if it wants to.

[Sinister]

I think xeno games world at war had a rule that you could only have 2 HBs in play at a time. I think they also put a cost on re-arming them after each use.

I think both is a little underpowering but maybe one or the other might work.

[ April 15, 2004, 04:02 PM: Message edited by: Sinister ]

[LasVegasAirField]

Althugh I thought Holywolfman had an interresting proposal to solve the apparant unbalanced tech weapons utilizing d6, d8, and d12, I think I would have to say that I support Sniper's proposal of playing without the tech weapons outright.

I think the game is just as fun and rewarding without the tech weapons - some of which still need to be hammered out by Avalon Hill (i.e. Rocket rules).

[Sinister]

Originally posted by LasVegasAirField:
Althugh I thought Holywolfman had an interresting proposal to solve the apparant unbalanced tech weapons utilizing d6, d8, and d12, I think I would have to say that I support Sniper's proposal of playing without the tech weapons outright.

I think the game is just as fun and rewarding without the tech weapons - some of which still need to be hammered out by Avalon Hill (i.e. Rocket rules).I certainly see the merit in at least playing a few turns with out them. I always hated the team mate that spent all his money in the first turn of the old game and got super subs and I always hated the guy on the other side of the table that spend all his money the first turn and got heavy bombers. I didn't waste an hour setting up the game for my teammate to screw us and for my opposition to get lucky. I hated that crap.

[squirecam]

Originally posted by Sinister:
I think xeno games world at war had a rule that you could only have 2 HBs in play at a time. I think they also put a cost on re-arming them after each use.

I think both is a little underpowering but maybe one or the other might work.Xeno also had the rule where you could purchase the same tech after some one got it, for 5 or 10 IPC. I didnt like that rule either.

[Zombie]

The best solution is usually the easiest. Any solution using D8, D10 or D12 is a no go unless they can include those dice in the box. You can't sell an incomplete game.

The suggestion of costing techs differently has the same effect and is easy to include in the official game. The trick is just making sure that the prices are right. I think HB needs to cost at least 10 IPCs per die.

If HB cost 10 per die and jet power cost 2 or 3, you'd see jet power a lot more often!

[Krieghund]

What ever happened to Einstein43's suggestion of spending 5 IPCs per die to get a random tech or 10 IPCs per die to get a specific tech? Or was that on another forum?

[Battleaxe3]

I think it would be best to have 'Super Subs' increase the attacks of subs as well as the defense to 3! Subs are 4 less than destroyers and alot less helpful. Investing for 'Super Subs' would increase the punch of subs but yet they can not attack air, so destroyers would still be purchased. You could then see more subs on the board and this would help equalize the technologies! smile.gif

[squirecam]

Originally posted by Battleaxe3:
I think it would be best to have 'Super Subs' increase the attacks of subs as well as the defense to 3! Subs are 4 less than destroyers and alot less helpful. Investing for 'Super Subs' would increase the punch of subs but yet they can not attack air, so destroyers would still be purchased. You could then see more subs on the board and this would help equalize the technologies! smile.gif To make subs "equal" to HB, you'd have to give subs 2 shots at 2. Or what if jet fighters made 2 rolls at 4 on defense rather than one 5?

The HB tech, as is, with it being chosen rather than random, is just too powerful.

[holywolfman]

Originally posted by Zombie:
The best solution is usually the easiest. Any solution using D8, D10 or D12 is a no go unless they can include those dice in the box. You can't sell an incomplete game.

True!- but what 'hard core' gamer DOES NOT have extra d6, d8, d12 dice laying around!?!?! (Use the ones from Shogun or Risk:2210/ GREAT games BTW...or other games!) Even if you DON'T, they are dirt cheap now! (I mean pennies!)...If you can afford a $50.00 game, clearly you can afford to scrounge up some dice!
If not- stop by and you can 'BORROW' some of mine!

My point is: I think raising the odds for the techs and even limiting the "allowed" dice bought for techs (to 2/per turn- I propose)...there would be far less of a chance to get certain techs really quick of-the-bat! I really wouldn't like a game with NO TECHS (where's the fun in that?)...I can't see putting a higher 'Price-tag' on the techs (would hurt some other players!)...by raising the 'ODDS' and putting a limit allowed...then it should be FAIRLY EVEN among ALL players for researching techs- Heck, even Russia can afford it now- :D (LOL)

With this proposed 'OPTION RULE', I know there still can be those "Lucky" rolls the first time around- (that's Lady Luck for ya!)...there will be far more games where it will sustain the major players from "Spending ALL their money" on tech rolls for thier first 2 turns....Now that would really 'tick' off Squirecam...and you guys really don't want to see him "angry" (he turns all green and starts ripping his shirt off....and...and..Oh- my bad- I was thinking of someone else!) :D

-Nick- smile.gif

[ April 15, 2004, 07:09 PM: Message edited by: holywolfman ]

[holywolfman]

Originally posted by squirecam:

The HB tech, as is, with it being chosen rather than random, is just too powerful....Or you can (instead of 2d6)...just roll (1) six-sider and add 3! : (1d6+3)

Basically saying:

1)Regular (as opposed to 'High Octane'-lol) Bombers on Bomb Runs= roll 1d6 damage [damage would be between 1-6 IPC's!]

2)HVY Bombers= roll 1 die still but add 3 to it! (HVY Bombers will just add 3/ Guaranteed more damage to it! [damage would be between 4-9* IPC's for each HVY Bomber!]

*(this will assure a player with HVY Bombers- a MIN can be rolled will be 4 and a MAX would be 9! This would make it NOT TOO Strong but also still keep it's potency! ;)

-Nick- smile.gif

[ April 15, 2004, 07:20 PM: Message edited by: holywolfman ]

[squirecam]

Nick,

If the US gets HB on round 1, even with a min of 4 and a max of 9 IPC...

Round 2 (1 bomber) Ipc loss is 4-9
Round 3 (3) IPC loss 12-27
Round 4 (5) IPC loss 20-45.

Germany is economically kaput by round 4. Simply limiting damage is not enough.

Every other peice has an effective counter. HB dont. AA is far too weak.

To fix HB, you need increased defense or interceptors.

[squirecam]

Originally posted by holywolfman:
]I really wouldn't like a game with NO TECHS (where's the fun in that?)No tech games are the essence of fun and strategy. Instead of buying "2-3" bombers", a player must actually use the other pieces out of his tray.

There is so much more to A&A than tech. Furthermore, if you dont play w/o tech, how do you know if the game is balanced? Or if you are "better" than you opponent as opposed to "luckier".

You should give no tech a try before you assume you wont like it.

[holywolfman]

At one point- I have: Remember, Squirecam, I have been playing about 20 yrs now! We tried all combos! We even "made" up some different techs!

PLaying with Techs is just "Cooler!" It is VERY challenging to devise a strategic plan against them (No Doubt!)

Maybe we can try some of my proposals (from above) and even adding Fighter/Intersepts ALONG with Bombers firing back too! (That would be awesome!)

I think there are many possibilites to overcome the fraustrations of "Player Techs"...by elliminating Techs is certainly one way but I think there are other aspects in the game that can be "added" to satisfy both the "HB monger" and the "HB monger recipients"- lol

(*hint *hint): maybe we can try that this weekend!
[I am dying to test this out-at least ONCE!]

-Nick- smile.gif

[Samurai]

I'm going to offer up several possibilities... One or both of them should work to balance things out.

1) While HB allows you to roll 2 dice for each bomber, you may only keep the best single die. So if you roll a 3 and a 6 for a Strategic bombing run, you'd keep only the better die, the 6. This goes for combat as well... If 1 or both dice hit, you keep the successful die and it inflicts 1 casualty. If both dice miss, the bomber misses on the attack.

Analysis: This significantly weakens the HB tech directly, and no longer can they inflict 2 casualties in combat and 2-12 IPC loss each. Rolling 2 dice and keeping the better one is a simple change, and easy to use and understand. However, it means that each bomber must be rolled for seperately... if you have 3 bombers, you'll need to roll 2d6 3 times, instead of 6d6 at once. Since you already had to do that in strategic bombing (because of the IPC limit), that isn't a big deal, IMHO.

2) Limit the IPC loss. The rule on pg 28 says you may not lose more IPCs per bomber than the value of the space. Simply change that rule to "You may not lose more IPC per round than the value of the spaces being bombed. So, no matter how many rockets or bombers fly over Germany, that space can only lose 10 IPCs per round. Targetting Southern Europe can cause the loss of 6 more IPCs per round. Assuming these are the only 2 Industrial Complexes the German player owns, he can never lose more than 16 IPCs per round to economic attacks.

Analysis: Although it doesn't affect HB tech directly, this rule would greatly limit their influence (as well as that of rockets) on the game as far as economic attacks. It does nothing about the HB combat abilities, however, so you may wish to implement the 1st rule above as well. I much prefer fighting it out, not strategic bombing a player to death, so this idea really appeals to me.

What do you think? I will be using both rules when I try out the new version for the 1st time.

(By the way, I'm a new member to these forums, but I've been playing A&A for well over 15 years. I just bought the new edition yesterday, and I love it, though I'm planning to houserule many of the National Advantages... I'll post my ideas on them in another thread.)

[ April 15, 2004, 10:34 PM: Message edited by: Samurai ]

[holywolfman]

Nice 'touches' as well! (It also occured to me a while ago with rolling 2d6-and taking the best of the 2...I thought it was too limiting for HB's! The other idea about MAX PER REGION (instead PER BOMBER)-was also considered! Both ideas are good- non-the-less! (Please share with us how they work out!)

-Nick- smile.gif

[Samurai]

Thanks Holy, I will.

I don't think it's too limiting... 2d6 (keep best) will mean that a bomber only misses it's attack about 11% of the time (if I did the math right). That is better than if its attack were simply increased to 5 (which would be a miss about 17% of the time). The Strategic Bombing increase is only a couple IPCs on average, but it does make them more reliable and consistent. If this is too weak, we could easily say that Heavy Bombers roll 2 dice (keep best) on Defense as well as Offense. Does that seem like a fairer deal?

[squirecam]

Originally posted by Samurai:
I'm going to offer up several possibilities... One or both of them should work to balance things out.

1) While HB allows you to roll 2 dice for each bomber, you may only keep the best single die. So if you roll a 3 and a 6 for a Strategic bombing run, you'd keep only the better die, the 6. This goes for combat as well... If 1 or both dice hit, you keep the successful die and it inflicts 1 casualty. If both dice miss, the bomber misses on the attack.

Analysis: This significantly weakens the HB tech directly, and no longer can they inflict 2 casualties in combat and 2-12 IPC loss each. Rolling 2 dice and keeping the better one is a simple change, and easy to use and understand. However, it means that each bomber must be rolled for seperately... if you have 3 bombers, you'll need to roll 2d6 3 times, instead of 6d6 at once. Since you already had to do that in strategic bombing (because of the IPC limit), that isn't a big deal, IMHO.

2) Limit the IPC loss. The rule on pg 28 says you may not lose more IPCs per bomber than the value of the space. Simply change that rule to "You may not lose more IPC per round than the value of the spaces being bombed. So, no matter how many rockets or bombers fly over Germany, that space can only lose 10 IPCs per round. Targetting Southern Europe can cause the loss of 6 more IPCs per round. Assuming these are the only 2 Industrial Complexes the German player owns, he can never lose more than 16 IPCs per round to economic attacks.

Analysis: Although it doesn't affect HB tech directly, this rule would greatly limit their influence (as well as that of rockets) on the game as far as economic attacks. It does nothing about the HB combat abilities, however, so you may wish to implement the 1st rule above as well. I much prefer fighting it out, not strategic bombing a player to death, so this idea really appeals to me.

What do you think? I will be using both rules when I try out the new version for the 1st time.

(By the way, I'm a new member to these forums, but I've been playing A&A for well over 15 years. I just bought the new edition yesterday, and I love it, though I'm planning to houserule many of the National Advantages... I'll post my ideas on them in another thread.)Actually, I have no problem with HB inflicting 2 casualties. For combat, I dont think they are so overpowered. Its during SBR that they become that way.

[Krieghund]

The obvious solution is to let heavies roll twice in combat as they do now, but use the best of two dice in SBRs.

[AllWeNeedIsLove.]

Most agree that technology needs to be adjusted for gameplay reasons. Many posts are advocating the reduction of power for heavy bombers. This would be wrong.

Historically the British pounded German cities like Berlin, Liepzig, Wurzburg, and Dresden to ashes. This was a major strategy that retarded the German war effort(while at the same time killing horrific amounts of innocent German civilians).

Reducing heavy bombers game capabilities would not help historic or gameplay strategies.

I would propose to keep heavy bombers powerful like they historically were. But increase the ipc cost per dice to acquire them. The allies spent lots of time, money, and expertise in developing these wicked bombers and it should show in the game.

Make each dice roll 7ipc to acquire heavy bomber technology, and keep heavy bombers with two dice rolls. Simple, historic, and enhanced gameplay

[cpt john]

So, here's some draft rules I think I'm going to use for techs. Before I list them, though, I agree with the post a little bit back that SBR/rockets should be limited to taking the value of the province the complex is on during each countries combat phase. The US could not take more than 10 IPCs in their turn - SBR, rockets, HB, whatever. Of course, the UK could then do the same on their turn.

1. Jet Fighters. Fighters defend at a 5, are immune to AA fire and can intercept bombers on SBR attacking for one round at 2 or less. Bombers get to fight back and hit with a 1. This combat is all part of the Opening Fires and lasts only one round.

2. Rockets. 1 AA gun in each territory may fire on 1 industrial complex each. Multiple AA guns (from multiple provinces) may attack the same complex limited to the total IPC loss.

3. Super Submarines. Subs attack and defend at 3 and negate all destroyer abilities to limit subs.

4. Long-Range Aircraft. As is.

5. Super Destroyers. Destroyers are able to negate the abilities of even Super Subs and can bombard.

6. Heavy Bombers. Attack with 2-dice on first round of combat.
(Or, one bomber rolls 3-dice on the first round of combat during that nations turn (or SBR)).

[ April 16, 2004, 04:09 PM: Message edited by: cpt john ]

[LasVegasAirField]

I'll be honest: I like a lot of the ideas floating around here, and as a player, I would welcome any of them as a house rule. Before moving to some of the newer proposals, I would like to revisit one that I liked dealing with polyhedral dice (for you D&D'rs, Im talkin d8, d10, d12, d20). The major difficulty I see in assigning the appropriate dice to their respective technology is that the apparrant value must be universally agreed upon by players at the table. Is Heavy Bombers the most sought after tech? If so, it gets the d12. But where do the others fit in? Thats where things get dicey.

On to the new ideas. I'd have to say that I liked every one of Shogun's brilliant ideas. taking the better of the two d6 is used in the game "Battleball" - to great effectiveness I might add.