Weapons Development

[Desert Fox]

Whaddya think? They definetly did the right thing with Heavy Bombers, but I'm not sure I like the Combined Arms, seems pretty weak. And leaving fighters for next week.... :(

[FarsideHobbes]

I agree with both your points. With the Combined Arms all you have is a Destroyer that can do shore bombardment. That extra shot is only given once, at the beginning of the battle, never to be used again. With the heavy bombers you get the added bonus of the extra die roll every round of combat. The new rocket attack development may be decent. I have never used it before as I consider it a waste. Granted, I think that Long Range aircraft and Heavy Bombers are still the best bet.

[Jon Waddington]

I'm very disappointed in the "changes" to WD. There are many elegant and interesting ways to do this (most of which involve "investments" of some sort, which is sensible). If they're going to go simplistic, I think it would be better if they'd switched the order of choice/randomness, so that you'd buy a WD for some high price (30 IPCs?), then roll to see which one you get. At least the randomness would be moderated. But the "new" system will, I suspect, please no one except those who already liked the old system.

Toning down heavy bombers is good (and a no-brainer), but offshore bombardment does little for me (and is fairly silly in a game of this scope). Scope aside, consider the expense breakdown: 30ish IPCs spent to obtain a 3-strength specialized (that is, not universally useful) one-shot attack from a unit that costs 12 IPCs (IIRC). Personally, I don't think any of the techs are likely to be worth their expense, save heavy bombers, which are still best-of-breed (though not ludicrously so, as in the old edition).

[Drax Kramer]

Originally posted by Desert Fox:

Whaddya think? They definetly did the right thing with Heavy Bombers, but I'm not sure I like the Combined Arms, seems pretty weak. The good thing is that weapons development can be targetted rather than received at random.

If it was up to me I'd allow no more than 5 IPCs spent on every turn, but that's just me. I simply can't imagine Hitler ordering factories to stop producing war material and placing all the workers to the labs.

Supersubmarines are useful only for powers that have something to do with them. Historically, it was a "German" development. Yet, in A&A U-boats rarely survived first two turns and were almost never built. I'd rather had some development that would have allowed submarines to survive until they reach the target area. I can't see anyone but Americans trying to develop this.

Destroyers supporting amphibious assaults make battleships less useful. Also, Americans seem to be the only one capable of researching this.

Reduced heavy bombers are good idea, one that has been floating over various forums for years. I think they are still the most valuable thing to research provided that you have the IPCs for bombers and research.

For game that is supposed to have more streamlined rules I certainly don't understand the logic behind the rocket development. Why should I be forced to fire my rockets all over the continent if I want to take down the British economy?

I don't understand the bombing damage reduction either. It is proven mathematically that strategic bombing in A&A simply isn't cost effective. Bombers are far more useful in combat where single bomber is expected to score two hits in three rounds destroying at least six IPCs worth of enemy units while strategic attack on average inflicted only 3.5 IPCs of damage. Now we are told that we can't destroy more than 3 IPCs from the factory in Caucasus.

If the problem was the "poison pill" tactic the solution was to introduce the optional "scorched earth" rule. In fact I never understood the logic behind the taking over the enemy industrial complex. It's not that all those Russians in Leningrad became nazi symphatisers manning panzers produced in Karelia.

And finally (since we are left in the dark about jet fighters) the long range aircraft. The existing game allowed German bombers to attack shipping in US territorial waters. Japanese bombers from Manchuria could either strategically bomb Urals or attack US Pacific Fleet around Hawaii. If anything, aircraft already have too long range. Icreasing bomber range is going to turn B-29s into B-2s and this puts us in the fantasy land that have nothing to do with the topic of the game, WW2.

I wonder whether any thought was given towards upgrading the land combat since the only weapon development that affected it has been removed.

Let's wait and see.

Drax

[zooooma]

Wild!

I agree that Combined Bombardment seems pretty weak. Average cost 30 IPCs! You would need a lot of destroyers to warrent Combined Bombardment as a choice over two transports, two infantry, and two artillery.

Combined Bombardment is instantaneous, wheras purchasing the aforementioned units is not. On a game deciding turn if you are conducting a vital amphibious assault against a victory city, Combined Bombardment might be the best option. For this to be the case you would probably either have Heavy Bombers already, or have lots of destroyers but very few (zero or one) bombers.

Interestingly, Purching a technology will not always have an average cost of 30 IPCs. If you purchase two dice a turn your average cost will be 32.73 IPCs. If you purchase three dice per turn your development will have an average cost of 35.6 IPCs! These costs are higher because sometimes you will pay for more than one success, a misappropriation which can be avoided if you purchase but one die per turn.

Indeed, you only achieve the optimal average price of 30 IPCs via purchasing only one die per turn. The advantage to buying muliple dice in a single turn is that doing so reduces the average number of turns it takes to aquire the desired technology. This will all have interesting repercussions on the current "when to buy tech" philosophies.

All in all I like the updates, although for some of the developments it remains to be seen if they will come into play very much.

Drax:

I think bombing damage has been limitted because bombing all over has become more viable in the new version. Two American Rockets blasting Rome and Berlin from Finland and England. Heavy bombers for sale cheap! They are not as heavy, but still enough to make SBRs very good. There is also the yet to be fully revealed business Stukas bombing London. I expect a significant increase of economic warefare despite the new limitation.

"I wonder whether any thought was given towards upgrading the land combat since the only weapon development that affected it has been removed."

Mike talked about Heavy Artillery in the journal today. There were probably numerous other ideas turfed earlier which may or may not have related to land unit upgrades. Also, don't you consider Heavy Bombers to upgrade land combat? Long rannge aircraft have their impact on land combat as well, and no doubt so will the fighters of which we are left in the dark.

How long till next Friday?
-Luke

[baron]

I don't understand the bombing damage reduction either. It is proven mathematically that strategic bombing in A&A simply isn't cost effective. Bombers are far more useful in combat where single bomber is expected to score two hits in three rounds destroying at least six IPCs worth of enemy units while strategic attack on average inflicted only 3.5 IPCs of damage. Now we are told that we can't destroy more than 3 IPCs from the factory in Caucasus. This is an incomplete and misleading argument. The two hits in three rounds you're talking about do not at all account for your own units (presumably infantry) which have to absorb damage in the battle to allow the bombers to do their damage. Sure, they do damage too, but it's a complicated exchange, one that can't be reduced so simply.

Here's the real math behind strategic bombing. Every sortie does 3.5 IPC of damage to your opponent. It also does 2.5 IPC of damage to you in lost bombers from the AA. In other words, it's a simple economic exchange which slightly favors the attacker. Where this gets much more interesting is when two countries have disparate incomes (e.g. Germany vs Russia or America vs Germany). On average, Germany needs to fly 7 bomber sorties a turn in order to reduce russia's income to zero (assuming they're still at the starting 24). This costs germany 18 IPCs per turn to replace the bombers. Thus, germany at its starting income can keep russia at a standstill and still have 14 IPCs per turn for other units. The biggest downside to this strategy is the long time it takes to build up the 7 bombers you need to execute it.

[ January 09, 2004, 08:15 PM: Message edited by: baron ]

[Udengaard]

The first thing to note about this change is that it changes the game on a fundamental level. Forget that heavy bombers are weakened. The fact that you can now base your strategy or immediate tactic around obtaining specific developments changes everything. Germany can go for rockets, jet power, or not-so-heavy bombers depending on defensive/offensive stance, on long term strategy, or simply on units they already have on the board. US can go for what they need, for example in the rare event of a pacific struggle with Japan they can try to develop super subs at the exact time of the attack with a very high probability of getting them (8 dice purchased for a specific development gives you a nice 77% chance). They never have to worry about getting something useless (for them), which is the key point in measuring the overall effectiveness of a development strategy.

I will not hesitate to say that this is almost a 600% strengthening of the weapons development dimension of the game. Not that it's necessarily a bad change, but people should realize just how big it is.

Secondly I agree that the shore bombarding destroyer seems like a very weak choice indeed, even for UK who is just about the only power I can imagine wanting it in the first place. Why not create a super tank instead, tanks seems to be left behind in this new age of artillery.

[ButchOHare1]

I think Germany's best tech choice would be rockets, assuming a setup similar to Second edition. Germany already has three aa guns in range of Karelia, Caucasus, UK and Russia, so could be doing a lot of damage (Karelia or Caucasus rocket shot limited to doing 3 IPCs damage. That should reduce Allies IPCs by about 10 per round, without the cost of buying bombers that Germany can't afford. I would probably roll 2 tech for rockets.

Heavy bombers are not that much less valuable. Now you can get them so much more cheaply, often for 5 or 10 IPCs. The 50+ IPCs you will save for not rolling subs and jets before HBs will allow you to buy more bombers.

[ January 10, 2004, 10:51 AM: Message edited by: ButchOHare1 ]

[Drax Kramer]

Originally posted by baron:
This is an incomplete and misleading argument. The two hits in three rounds you're talking about do not at all account for your own units (presumably infantry) which have to absorb damage in the battle to allow the bombers to do their damage. Sure, they do damage too, but it's a complicated exchange, one that can't be reduced so simply.Just answer in the simple form, where are the bombers used more effectivelly in strategic bombing or in regular combat?

Where this gets much more interesting is when two countries have disparate incomes (e.g. Germany vs Russia or America vs Germany). On average, Germany needs to fly 7 bomber sorties a turn in order to reduce russia's income to zero (assuming they're still at the starting 24). This costs germany 18 IPCs per turn to replace the bombers. Thus, germany at its starting income can keep russia at a standstill and still have 14 IPCs per turn for other units. The biggest downside to this strategy is the long time it takes to build up the 7 bombers you need to execute it."Unfortunately" this game is not about the Russo-German war and Germany can't afford such strategy. While it is possible for unemployed bomber to conduct a strategic attack occassionally, as long as there is a battle in need of support, it is much more cost effective to use it in combat.

With new, reduced effects of strategic bombing I am confident it is not going to be used in the optimal playout.

Drax

[simply4est]

The Weapons Development is the second major disappointing news about the new AA so far (the first being no Convoy Zones). An improved Weapons Development system would be either or both having graduated investment levels and/or having some power specificity - i.e. only Germany working on Rockets, only US and Germany on some type of atom bomb, etc.

What we have is only a tweaked random system. It is good that the tech can be chosen, but it is still represented as just a lucky roll. The Law of Averages doesn't apply if you're in a game where even the US can't develop technology if it happens to miss a '6' (or whatever number it's going for) for seven or eight turns in a row - could easily happen. That's ridiculous for a game that's supposed to be a new improved one and I'm sure will be selling at it's new improved price!

[tw252]

I don't understand why AH would not consider increasing the number of techs above 6. Then we can see more variations, such as tiger tanks, heavy artillery, etc. And the IPC argument of Mike does not hold--you cannot compare the value of different techs using IPCs!
I would like to see heavy artillery, heavy tanks, but I know that I would not see them.
Perhaps AH should try to incoporate Xeno's tech idea in E@W--every unit type has a chance to get upgraded.

[FarsideHobbes]

I think that with the new A&A, and the updated Weapons Development, AH has had to take a look at how complex they wish the game to become. It has to remain somewhere around the midpoint between Risk and World at War. There are the hardcore gamers you would have had the game move closer to WaW, and there are those who felt that the game was already hard enough.

I'm more in the first category, even though I've never played WaW or any of the Xeno games. Having played A&A for a number of years, there are areas where the games seems to simplistic, but you have to remember that the game, at least to me, isn't meant to mirror real life completely, and so it cannot get overly confusing or difficult for the average player.

I got my dad and my sisters, who are 15 and 12 and have only played Risk before, to play and they enjoyed it. But I think it was around their level of complexity for a board game. And that is what AH, I think, is doing now. They have to market the game to as wide a range of consumers as possible, and so if the game moves closer and closer to how WaW or other games do things, or it just becomes to confusing to manage, it will turn a lot of potential players off. They have to manage the increase in the number of rules and complexity with the possible gain or loss of new players. Bottom line is, if they make so many changes that increase the complexity of the game too much, they are going to loose business. Sure many of the folks who already own A&A, like myself, will buy the new version, but those who don't own it, or those who do but don't realize it's a revised version may not spend their money.

On a different note, I think that the weapons development system is pretty good. I like that there is just one level of development for each technology and that each player is allowed to research it. Again, this doesn't completely mirror the real world, but I don't think that is AH's goal. Granted, I would have liked a few more development choices like tw252 suggested, 6 is a decent number, but they could have added in 2 or 3 more.

Also, even though they left out convoy boxes, and it was apparently tops on there list of things that would have liked to include, they should have bitten the bullet and done so. I think that convoys were a great addition to Pacific and Europe and they would have made the new game all the more interesting. If they felt that the game would become to complex, they could have added another optional rule to the 30 they already have that says they you can play without convoys, and that those sea zones should be treated like normal zones.

There's my 2 cents.

[Jon Waddington]

Originally posted by FarsideHobbes:
I think that with the new A&A, and the updated Weapons Development, AH has had to take a look at how complex they wish the game to become. It has to remain somewhere around the midpoint between Risk and World at War. There are the hardcore gamers you would have had the game move closer to WaW, and there are those who felt that the game was already hard enough.I completely agree with your point, but I disagree that better WD rules must necessarily be more complex. What if they'd introduced 15 tech upgrades, each costing 20 IPCs? There would be significantly more strategic complexity, but the game would actually be simpler (or as simple) in terms of ease of play.

Or, how about a system using triangular numbers (I think that's what they're called). So, you spend 5, 10, 15, etc. and get to roll 1, 3, 6, etc. dice. That's a marginal increase in complexity, but a simple chart would handle it. And it would increase the agony of deciding whether and how much to invest each turn by quite a lot, while also appeasing those of us who would like to reduce variance.

To me, presenting players with new, interesting choices is the most critical aspect of the redesign. And the new system just doesn't cut it. Investment in WD is still the same old thing: usually a waste of IPCs, or you get lucky and destabilize the game. It's undeniably better than the old, but not by much. I think of the old system as adding insult to injury. The new just takes away the insult, but leaves the injury to fester.

It's not a deal-breaker for me, and I like many of the new ideas that will be in the new edition, but I was hoping for much more in terms of WD. C'est la vie.

[baron]

Originally posted by Drax Kramer:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by baron:
This is an incomplete and misleading argument. The two hits in three rounds you're talking about do not at all account for your own units (presumably infantry) which have to absorb damage in the battle to allow the bombers to do their damage. Sure, they do damage too, but it's a complicated exchange, one that can't be reduced so simply.Just answer in the simple form, where are the bombers used more effectivelly in strategic bombing or in regular combat?

OK, Put simply: If you are fighting close battles, then bombers are far more valuable as an aid to the battle. However, if you are fighting lopsided battles then the bomber becomes less effective. If you can't or won't fight land battles (e.g. britain without a navy), then strategic bombing becomes a powerful alternative that lets you bleed both of your incomes at a small advantage to you.

Where this gets much more interesting is when two countries have disparate incomes (e.g. Germany vs Russia or America vs Germany). On average, Germany needs to fly 7 bomber sorties a turn in order to reduce russia's income to zero (assuming they're still at the starting 24). This costs germany 18 IPCs per turn to replace the bombers. Thus, germany at its starting income can keep russia at a standstill and still have 14 IPCs per turn for other units. The biggest downside to this strategy is the long time it takes to build up the 7 bombers you need to execute it."Unfortunately" this game is not about the Russo-German war and Germany can't afford such strategy. While it is possible for unemployed bomber to conduct a strategic attack occassionally, as long as there is a battle in need of support, it is much more cost effective to use it in combat.

With new, reduced effects of strategic bombing I am confident it is not going to be used in the optimal playout.

Drax</font>[/QUOTE]I disagree strongly with this last thought. A reduced strength heavy bomber is still dramatically more effective than a normal one. Every sortie does 7 IPCs of damage for a cost of 2.5 IPCs. That's hard to beat. With two turns of bomber production in the new rules, america can produce 5 bombers. After one turn to fly into range, those bombers will do 35 IPCs of damage to the German (or Japanese) economy for the cost of one bomber a turn. Any time anyone (particularly the Allies) can infilct economic damage at a 2:1 ratio, that's a no-brainer winning strategy in my book.

[Mike Selinker]

Some reasonable questions here. The column focuses mostly on what we did, not what we didn't do. I don't mind addressing some of the choices we didn't make.

Why not 15 techs at a flat fee of 20 IPCs each? Jon Waddington says that would be a less complex system, and he's not wrong. It is not a less complex effect on the game, however. The effect of 15 non-optional techs on the game is a massive amount of unpredictability. Balancing for 6 techs is hard, but knowing the effects of 15 equally available different effects is nearly impossible. Also, this material would appear at the front of the turn sequence, requiring players to wade through a massive chart before getting to purchasing units.

Why not techs that affect land combat forces? Drax asks if we even considered it, and is probably tired of me answering yes to questions like that. ("Considered" should never automatically equal "included.") As I noted, all techs would have to be close to equally attractive under the system I laid out. The IPC cost of the land units is so low that single-digit increases in attack and defense vastly outstrips advances like Super Subs and Jet Fighters in value. Heavy artillery was cut for this reason. So without adding half-points to the game, these techs are unreachable assuming all techs cost the same. Since we wanted the latter, these techs had to go.

Why not power-specific techs? Forest asks if only Germany could do rockets, for example. The country specificity is something we reserved for optional rules. Everything outside of that appendix is allowed to everyone. There was no compelling reason to violate this simple principle.

Why not gradated weapons investments using triangular numbers? (A triangular number sequence is one that lays them out like a triangle, with 1 on top, then 2 and 3, then 4, 5, and 6, and so on. The triangular numbers are the ones at the right sides: 1, 3, 6, 10, etc. If you've ever played Ra, New England, or Taj Mahal, you've used triangular numbers.) Essentially, because a flat investment system works better. 15 IPCs for six dice (a near guarantee) makes the investment more of an automatic choice and less of a gamble. The Milton Bradley rule was too much of a gamble in my opinion, but a triangular system was too little of one. Plus, it would have been much harder to grasp.

Why not ignore IPC equivalencies? tw252 claims that I make a fallacious argument in making the developments each approximately worth 30 IPCs (OK, a little more--good math, zooooma). The prior version's developments had players in near universal agreement that heavy bombers and industrial technology were the best possibilities. The fact that you didn't get to choose doesn't change the fact that this a value-based argument. Value in this game comes down to two variables: board position and IPC cost-to-effect. This weapons development system doesn't handle the first variable, so it is entirely based on the second.

Ultimately, a lot of these arguments come down to the central question of whether the whole development system should be optional. A lot of people argued for that. Eventually we decided we liked it enough to make it non-optional. That meant it should be simple, balanced, and desirable. Our view is that it met those goals. Maybe you'll agree, or maybe you'll continue to hate weapons development. Either way, I think you'll like the end result better.

Mike

[simply4est]

In reference to Mike's "Why not gradated weapons investments using triangular numbers? "

Actually, I was hoping for something more along the lines of a cross between what's used in AH Stellar Conquest and the old AA.

I'll try to make an example make sense here...
Let's say the US wants to dev an atomic bomb. Each turn the US can choose whether to invest say 5 IPCs there (as well as in other tech lines if desired). For the first investment, US can roll and get it on a 6. If the US decides to invest another 5 IPCs on a later turn on the same tech line, the US can roll and possibly get it on a 5 or 6. So the idea is only one investment allowed on any one tech line per turn, but each investment in the same tech research increases your chances of getting it (maybe stopping at 25 - needing to roll 2-6 so there's never a 100 per cent guarantee of it).

I hope that makes sense. It would make the tech race much more interesting as well as much more of a strategic choice, and it is not too complex for anyone who plays these games.

[Drax Kramer]

Originally posted by baron:

[QB]I disagree strongly with this last thought. A reduced strength heavy bomber is still dramatically more effective than a normal one. We misunderstood each other. I wasn't refering on the reduced heavy bombers, but on the reduced effects of the regular strategic bombing (Karelian factory suffering no more than 3 IPCs of damage.)

I still think that strategic bombing was ineffective use of bomber and with this new revision is going to be even more toothless than now.

Drax

[Darksideknight]

If I caught Mike's hint right, jet power should add one to the defensive capabilitys of the fighter and cost one ipc less. Right Mike? :cool:

[Jon Waddington]

Thanks for all the responses, Mike. I'm very glad to see that you/AH are tuned in.

Originally posted by Mike Selinker:
Why not 15 techs at a flat fee of 20 IPCs each? Jon Waddington says that would be a less complex system, and he's not wrong. It is not a less complex effect on the game, however. The effect of 15 non-optional techs on the game is a massive amount of unpredictability. Balancing for 6 techs is hard, but knowing the effects of 15 equally available different effects is nearly impossible. Also, this material would appear at the front of the turn sequence, requiring players to wade through a massive chart before getting to purchasing units.Well, I said it would be less complex rule-wise, but more complex strategically. And yes, it would be difficult to balance, but isn't that what a development team and playtesters are for? But I must concede the main point that it would be a bit overwhelming to new players. I just find the notion of a tech tree, and customizing forces to align with your strategic objective, very appealing. Also, I think even new players would appreciate the staggering variety of options at their disposal.

Why not gradated weapons investments using triangular numbers? [...] Essentially, because a flat investment system works better. 15 IPCs for six dice (a near guarantee) makes the investment more of an automatic choice and less of a gamble.Well, I must disagree here. 6 dice is a 66.5% chance of success. I'm not sure what you consider "near guarantee," but I'd say with a triangular system, that comes at 25 IPCs, with 15 dice (93.5% success). That's a hefty investment, but that's my point: with investment, should come reward. Not with certainty, perhaps, but in the flat system you chose, the 25 IPCs gives you just a 59.8% chance of success. You'd have to spend 75 IPCs (!!!) to get to the 93.5% threshold.

That presents little or no decision point for me; I won't do it. The benefits are simply not worth the risk of getting absolutely nothing. And talk about unpredictability...one player could spend 10 IPCs and get Heavy Bombers and Jet Fighters, while another spends 100 IPCs and gets nothing (about the same odds, BTW, for either scenario).

Ultimately, a lot of these arguments come down to the central question of whether the whole development system should be optional.[...] I don't think it should be optional, I just think it should be less of a crapshoot. I especially think that it's better to err on the side of providing too many difficult choices than not enough. But, if this remains my only real issue with the redesign so far (and it is, so far), I'll be pleased. Thanks again, Mike, for your responsiveness. Very nice to see.

[Desert Fox]

Mike, I would like to know your reasoning on Combined Arms. Why is this worth investing IPC's on more than Heavy Bombers etc? It just seems weaker than all the others, even for England or America, and Japan doesn't have that much money to spend. And as someone brought up,it doesn't seem like a tech advance.

[Mike Selinker]

Mike, I would like to know your reasoning on Combined Arms. Why is this worth investing IPC's on more than Heavy Bombers etc? It just seems weaker than all the others, even for England or America, and Japan doesn't have that much money to spend. And as someone brought up,it doesn't seem like a tech advance. I figured I'd get this question, Desert Fox. Unfortunately, I can't completely answer it till the column on combat launches in two and a half weeks. That's an unsatisfying answer, but I committed to a scheduled release of information and I've got to stick to it. :(

What I can say is this: As a naval power, the more bombardment you can do, the better your war will go. If I said more, it wouldn't make any sense until you read column 9.

Combined Bombardment's advance is longer and more powerful guns on the destroyers that allow them to reach inland. Its name came from Wizards' own US Navy man, Rich Baker, who's seen the effectiveness of this advance in real life.

Mike

[Bone_Roller]

I played my first A&A board game in about 1983. I got the cd version in Dec. 98 and since then have played about 3500 games.

Tech is the last refuge of wussies and losers and the best thing that could happen is for it to be removed from the game completely.

The most important advancement needed to the CD game is for it to work properly. It does not need new rules, new pieces nor board design, it just needs to work without bugs and with a dice generator that is truly random rather than predictable.

[Drewcooter]

I have been an avid opponent of Tech rolling. In the original it was a crap shoot with 2 techs that could make you wonder what game you were playing. I think part of what I disliked was the random nature of it all. I used to think if you were a tech player why don't you just save time and see who rolls a six first.

(1) Good job toning down Heavy Bombers and removing Industrial Tech (two techs that if acheived game over, or almost).

(2) Targeted tech rolling is great, take the randomness out of it. It could now actually make sense for the US player to start the game with a strategy of acheiving Heavy Bombers.

I doubt I will do it very often, but it sounds like you have changed tech from a game changing luckfest, to more a strategic investment.

Fantastic!

I look forward to further explanations on Shore bombardment and Jet Fighters.

I don't agree with everything you guys have changed (room for optional rule adjustments) but it sounds like it will be a much improved game. I can't wait!

[Darken]

Forest: For the first investment, US can roll and get it on a 6. If the US decides to invest another 5 IPCs on a later turn on the same tech line, the US can roll and possibly get it on a 5 or 6. So the idea is only one investment allowed on any one tech line per turn, but each investment in the same tech research increases your chances of getting it (maybe stopping at 25 - needing to roll 2-6 so there's never a 100 per cent guarantee of it).
Very good idea, Forest. The only disadvantage is, that every player has to remember how often he has invested in each technology. So I would change the development rules in the following way.

Every player may try to develop one technology each round. He pays 5 to 25 IPCs and throws one dice. For every 5 IPCs above the first he adds 1 to the die roll. When rolling a 6 the development is successful, otherwise the spent money is lost. So you get the following table:

Spent money Success
5 IPCs -&gt; 6
10 IPCs -&gt; 5+
15 IPCs -&gt; 4+
20 IPCs -&gt; 3+
25 IPCs -&gt; 2+

[simply4est]

Jon Waddington said, "I just find the notion of a tech tree, and customizing forces to align with your strategic objective, very appealing. Also, I think even new players would appreciate the staggering variety of options at their disposal."

That's what I'm thinking although I would prefer including the graduated research approach so as I explained in an earlier post, theres a small element of uncertainty left still in getting the tech.

Mike had said earlier, "Also, this material would appear at the front of the turn sequence, requiring players to wade through a massive chart before getting to purchasing units."

Well this wouldn't be a problem if there were either likely turns of research to go through before having a better chance of getting the tech (so the decision can be a more planned out one beforehand lending further strategy to the game) as in the I idea I posted earlier, or by just making it an end of turn decision - easier than it sounds - a player decides on that IPC allocation for next turn which also makes more balancing sense.

[Y2UAsk]

Originally posted by Forest:
Jon Waddington said, "I just find the notion of a tech tree, and customizing forces to align with your strategic objective, very appealing. Also, I think even new players would appreciate the staggering variety of options at their disposal."When learning a new game, it's not intricacy that gives newcomers headaches, it's being overwhelmed with choices. Learning how the knight moves is far easier than deciding which of those 8 possible landing spaces is the best one to put him in, or whether the knight is even the correct piece to be moving right now. A&A already presents a staggering number of choices to new players. Do I build infantry or tanks? Bombers or transports? Do I attack or defend? Do I attack Russia or England? Asia or Africa? Tossing 30 more alternatives at the player as the very first decision he has to make, before he ever gets to move anything or roll a die, will make many people throw up their hands in surrender.

My own feeling is that tech trees and progressive tracks are great in games that are serious treatments of WW2. A&A is a boardgame that tastes like WW2. It's the Taco Bell of WW2 wargames. That's not disparagement -- A&A is superb at what it does (and I like Taco Bell, too). There's a very real danger, however, when "serious" players get their hands on something like A&A, that it will turn into something it was never intended to be and which will, in the long run, hurt its mass-market appeal.

Steve

[Desert Fox]

Originally posted by Mike Selinker:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Mike, I would like to know your reasoning on Combined Arms. Why is this worth investing IPC's on more than Heavy Bombers etc? It just seems weaker than all the others, even for England or America, and Japan doesn't have that much money to spend. And as someone brought up,it doesn't seem like a tech advance. I figured I'd get this question, Desert Fox. Unfortunately, I can't completely answer it till the column on combat launches in two and a half weeks. That's an unsatisfying answer, but I committed to a scheduled release of information and I've got to stick to it. :(

What I can say is this: As a naval power, the more bombardment you can do, the better your war will go. If I said more, it wouldn't make any sense until you read column 9.

Combined Bombardment's advance is longer and more powerful guns on the destroyers that allow them to reach inland. Its name came from Wizards' own US Navy man, Rich Baker, who's seen the effectiveness of this advance in real life.

Mike</font>[/QUOTE]Ok, thnx for the reply Mike, can't wait for your next article!

[ January 14, 2004, 06:26 PM: Message edited by: Desert Fox ]

[Jon Waddington]

Originally posted by Y2UAsk:
Tossing 30 more alternatives at the player as the very first decision he has to make, before he ever gets to move anything or roll a die, will make many people throw up their hands in surrender.
First off, the gist of my idea was that I'd rather have interesting decisions, rather than die-rolls, be more of a determining factor. Whether it's 6 choices, or 10, or 15, or 30, and whether there's a tech tree with progressions from base tech to advanced tech, pales beside the notion that you can make a substantial investment in something and wind up with nothing to show for it. Doesn't make sense thematically or systemically.

You're quite right that A&A does throw a lot of choices at a player, and that's been true from the beginning. Personally, I think once you get this far, going a little farther isn't much of a big deal. The fundamental choice new players must make is binary: tech or not? In the old system, that was it. In the new, you next have to choose among six options. So we already have an increase in available choices. Adding a second or even third layer under those early choices (airpower -&gt; longer range -&gt; heavy bombers, each with progressive benefits), wouldn't really change much for newbies, IMO. At a basic level, you'd still just be saying, "hey, I want to improve my [air, sea, land, economic] power".

But the fundamental issue I have is not with the choices available, but the genuine lack of rationale in making such a choice at all. The benefits just do not outweigh the risks, and I think that's especially true in light of shorter games with the (IMO much improved) victory conditions. You'll have fewer turns to realize the benefit of the investment, if you're lucky enough to get it, and on the flip side, you're in a deeper hole if you don't.

All that said, LOL on the "Taco Bell" analogy. Nice.... :)

[hicup]

Mike-

I have read this thread a few times now and I pose some thoughts.

The argument over weapons developement is two fold. It revolves around some saying why have it at all? Based on the distinction that it takes away from the core value and is unbalancing. It only serves to reward the *Lucky* or *Desperate* player.

The second argument is based on If we have it then make it fair. Or, I like it because....It's a part of my every game strategy.

Personally I never roll for tech, however I also don't believe it should be taken or optioned out of the game. Here's why. Some people on this board are arguing over the historical aspects of the game. Poppycock!! Yes the game is based on a Historical position at the begining of 1942 but that it! The rest is up to the player.

Mike put it well when he said the game is more about what could have happened than it is about what did happen. SO they went out to change and adjust the balancing issues and made it more historically accurate at the stage of 1942. Great! Lets face it, it needs it. We all know that the Allies (All things being equal) should win the game, so this needed to be made more fair and offer ways for the Axis to compete.

Back on the topic of weapons developement I think both arguements here..(For and against) hold weight. So how do you fix it? Well rather than removing weapons developemnet altogether why not keep it the way you Mike have changed it but instead of keeping the rule in place for being able to immediately use the now gained tech, why not hold the use of said tech to the next turn?

This way you cover both theoretical arguments. You have gone and made the changes to reflect the be all and end all weapons developement now you have included a chance to possibly counter the weapons developement. It appeals to both the tactical core player and the strategical minded player.

Reasoning for the Historical player is in real life a undeveloped new technology would only have a suprise factor for a moment. And in truth the V1, Radar, Enigma, etc...only held a brief impact on the outcome of the war. I know I know the code breakers would argue with that, but the truth is that the Aliies allowed the Germans to Bomb Coventry so as to not tip their hand.

Just some thoughts about evening up or "balancing weapons developement not to the actual tech but to the differeing ways in which the game is played!!

Tim-

[simply4est]

"There's a very real danger, however, when "serious" players get their hands on something like A&A, that it will turn into something it was never intended to be and which will, in the long run, hurt its mass-market appeal. "

That struck me as humorous as I feel my favorite games are most endangered when marketing people get their hands on them... lol.

Seriously though, I can see your and the company's point of view, I guess it just bothers me that instead seeing a more advanced version I was personally hoping for, the new game design is focused on that mass market. Oh well..

Oh incidentally, not to argue with your experience, as it is no doubt from a much larger sample, but mine happens to be the opposite - every player I interact with wants always more and greater options. Again, my sampling would be much smaller.

[Darken]

It also would be nice, if one of the 30 optional rules would be a historic correct weapons development.

One turn in A&A is about 6 months, so the developments could be like this:

Turn 1: Germany starts game with super subs
Turn 3: USA and Britain develop Long Range Aircraft
Turn 4: Germany develops improved fighters
Turn 5: Germany develops rockets
Turn 6: USA develop Heavy Bombers

If a player wants to develop his 'historical' improvement he has to pay 5 IPCs each (no die-roll necessary). He has to pay in the given turn or he does not get the improvement without die roll.

Players can try to develop other weapons / those weapons earlier by using the normal rules.

[Drax Kramer]

Originally posted by Darken:

It also would be nice, if one of the 30 optional rules would be a historic correct weapons development.

One turn in A&A is about 6 months, so the developments could be like this:

Turn 1: Germany starts game with super subs
Turn 3: USA and Britain develop Long Range Aircraft
Turn 4: Germany develops improved fighters
Turn 5: Germany develops rockets
Turn 6: USA develop Heavy BombersGerman submarines in mid 1942 were nothing extraordinary compared to their British or American counterparts. True "supersubmarines" were of Type XXI which were produced in large numbers in 1945. Only one sailed on combat patrol in May 1945.

Without escort rule what is the purpose of long range aircraft anyway? Long range fighters could provide escort for historical strategic bombing of Germany, but that's it. With range of 8, American bombers may take off from US, bomb Germany and land in UK. Do we really need B-2s in WW2 game?

Rockets were operational in June 1944. No jet ever flew over the Normandy bridgehead. Rockets should come first.

Drax

[mac224-2]

Hi,

I have always agreed with the general concensus that weapons development - as it is in tradition A&A - sucks. It is the refuge of the desperate player about to lose the game. As such, it rewards luck and not skill.

That isn't wholly unhistorical btw. Just take note of Hitler's behavior in 1944-45. So I agree with Mike that it belongs in the game in some form.

However, making it so expensive (an entire year's production for many nations just for a decent chance to get one advance) AND highly dependent on luck is a poor compromise.

Relative to traditional A&A, WD should either be less luck-based (as some proposals here, which I like) or less expensive (3 IPCs per roll, for example, which I also like), OR still game-tiltingly insane (3-roll heavy bombers). Pick any 1 of the three. Or maybe parts of all 3.

I would also like Atomic weapons included in the research tree (that was basically what the old Heavy Bombers was). Game over man, game over!

I'm sure it was considered (VBG), but A multi-step system would have been fairly easy using a cardboard chart and country markers. Advances would range in difficulty from 2 to 6 steps. User pays 1 IPC per Dev per turn. Roll 5-6 for no step up, 2-4 for a successful step, and 1 for a double-step. User moves his marker up the chart. He gets the advance when his marker reaches the final step.

I suspect this marginal cost is more in line with actual weapons development costs during the war.

With this kind of system, you might have players really focusing on research. You might have mini arms races if one person started up the Heavy Bomber (3 step) or Atomic Bomb (6 step) tracks.

Ah well, we take it seriously but in the end, it's just a game, right? (G)

mac

[Darken]

I'm sure it was considered (VBG), but a multi-step system would have been fairly easy using a cardboard chart and country markers. Advances would range in difficulty from 2 to 6 steps. User pays 1 IPC per Dev per turn. Roll 5-6 for no step up, 2-4 for a successful step, and 1 for a double-step. User moves his marker up the chart. He gets the advance when his marker reaches the final step.Interesting idea. But 1 IPC per Dev per turn is too cheap. Dev should cost at least 3 IPCs per turn (the price of an infantry). And every development should last min. 3 turns.

Optional the number of necessary steps could be country-specific. So for example USA only needs 6 steps for Heavy Bombers while the other nations need 9. Or Germany needs only 4 turns for rockets while the other nations need 6 turns.

Optional a player should not have to throw for success, instead the counter moves one step further each turn he pays the cost for developing this weapon. So not the luckiest player gets the super weapons but the player willing to pay every turn a specific amount of
IPCs.

[Yoper]

Darken,
It should be a combination of eventually getting the tech because of continuous investment, countries having a head-start in researching certain techs, and still able to get it early on by a good die roll. It would allow for eventually getting the tech you want but would still give you the chance to get it earlier by making a "breakthrough". The continuous investment part would also make the chances of rolling for the tech better each turn. This whole debate is about not making it too complex for an entry-level game. This is nothing an optional/house rule could not fix.
Craig

[ January 20, 2004, 08:38 AM: Message edited by: Craig A. Yope ]

[elbowmaster]

Originally posted by tw252:

[QB]I don't understand why AH would not consider increasing the number of techs above 6. Then we can see more variations, such as tiger tanks, heavy artillery, etc. do we know this to be true? i didnt find anything that said that these are the only techs avail. what about country specific techs / enhancements?

as i recall reading earlier articles, it seemed to state that the developers listened and researched "options" from other resources.

i would think with all the house rules / varients, AH could have easily incorperated many of other peoples ideas that actually may work in this new game. ie. germany gets special unit of panzer grenadiers, japan gets zamis, uk commandos...etc...seems only fair that AH use other ideas as others have used Axis and Allies as "foundation" to their versions.

-cheers

-elbowmaster

[Celeritas]

The new 'focused' research is a nice change, but the disparity between the combat value of the individual advancements is still present.

One positive I do see is that this sort of focused development will encourage a directed purchasing strategy (i.e. I'm buying men and fighters and going for long range aircraft).

Heavy Bombers are still too powerful...and that is an Ally booster for sure, as Japan and Germany can rarely afford to research much (maybe the new board buys them time - it certainly appears to).

Part of me wonder if movement hasn't changed...

[patronium]

the game is brokenYou're claiming a game you have never played before is broken based on information from a single article?

There's been a lot of criticism of what we've been shown up to now, but that has to be the single most paranoid comment I've heard so far.

How do you know what new rules lie ahead anyway? There might be a rule that limits the amount of bombers that can conduct a strategic bombing raid on the same territory. A-A guns might be all powerful, and hit on a three, or maybe there are A-A guns all across Europe. Maybe even the number of territories between Briatin and Germany has been increased. Who knows?

[Darksideknight]

:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :confused:

Posted by Sean
this game is broken! why?
you are forced to develop heavy bombers. This just makes it a tek war and bombing war, all dice, boring. Sean,....well, I must say for someone who has not seen the game, and has no knowlege of the axis set up. You certainly conjour up this notion, like your some damn expert we gamers should all take notice of. I'll bite my lip, or pointer finger in this case to keep my post from being edited.

You probably think i'm wrong right? consider this:USA develops heavy bombers turn 1 (average dice) after that they can easily produce enough bombers to destroy all of germany's income in 2-3 turns. Nice oxymoron, consider this: The game devolopers took this strategy into consideration. If someone takes tech rolls on the first turn, and buys bombers on the next, the wraith of an enemy will be felt ten fold. Defending your capital? Who cares, I've got heavy bombers! Yeah right.... you've convinced me, Sean!!
Thanks for posting this brilliant idea! Now I can beat the game the before it comes out. Enough sarcasim, you get the point?

I was not the first one to figure this out, so now there's no need to accuse me of stealing this idea! I certainly wouldn't accuse you of stealing, jumping on the band wagon of someones poorly concieved strategy that has been untested, unproven, unseen by you, yes.

Now japan can, or should I say, must attempt heavy bombers the first turn, I haven't completely figured it out yet since the game isn't out, but in the end, the optimal strategy involves heavy bombers. This statement of your's says it all, at the end of your post, you contradict yourself with, "since the game isn't out."

I recommend you wait till the game is out before you go spouting off grandiose statements about the game being broken.

Have a nice day smile.gif xxx-Jason

[djfpfsf]

this game is broken!

why?
you are forced to develop heavy bombers. This just makes it a tek war and bombing war, all dice, boring.

You probably think i'm wrong right? consider this:

USA develops heavy bombers turn 1 (average dice) after that they can easily produce enough bombers to destroy all of germany's income in 2-3 turns.

Limited bombing?

Guess again, according to the rules, a single bomber can't take more money than the value of the territory, no problem just bomb germany (which we are told is worth more than 10 ipc's)

Defending fighters?
guess again, they didn't include this.

Of course germany can get heavies turn one too, but so does britain, so germany is quickly outnumbered, and can't bomb the usa. Once the usa/uk get 6 bombers in action, that's 35 ipc's a turn, pay 15 each turn to keep this up it's not even close to even like the regular 17.5/15

Now japan can, or should I say, must attempt heavy bombers the first turn, I haven't completely figured it out yet since the game isn't out, but in the end, the optimal strategy involves heavy bombers.

I was not the first one to figure this out, so now there's no need to accuse me of stealing this idea!

I think we are forced to allow fighters to defend these as the europe rules, or the game is just dice.

[elbowmaster]

I don't understand why AH would not consider increasing the number of techs above 6.
all valid points except one thing, mike has the spoon on what or what not the schedule allows him to add.

consider this. 30 optional tech rules. each country must have 6 optional techs that mike doesnt mention. because...

1. we didnt directly ask the specific question.

2. he doesnt have to answer it if he doesnt want too...muahahuahaha...

look what russia restricted did ((just for example) not much, but it forced an alternative outlook on options to strategy) ie changed bid.

i can only imagine how difficult it must be for mike and his team to "say the right thing" for ALL of us obviously hard core gamers.

hehe...have any skin left AH..? be careful about using bold fonts smile.gif feel the power of the internet !! like online axis and allies...

please join the online gamers at the zone, there are always at least 80+ people from all over the world.

would sure boost a budget for the computer version of the board game, axis and allies / *.*

this show is in the budget, enjoy...

-cheers

-elbowmaster

[ January 31, 2004, 12:55 AM: Message edited by: elbowmaster ]

[djfpfsf]

There's been a lot of criticism of what we've been shown up to now, but that has to be the single most paranoid comment I've heard so far.
yeah ok, it's true i'm a little paranoid since the game isn't out yet, but the only way to prevent this strategy from working is if they drastically change the rules, that would lead to other problems.

Making aa guns hit at 3 would ruin the game in another way.

Germany will still border on the baltic sea, so the uk bombers only have 1 aa gun to deal with. If this isn't true, then the game would just be weird, and I doubt they would do that, but it's possible.

Sean,....well, I must say for someone who has not seen the game, and has no knowlege of the axis set up. You certainly conjour up this notion, like your some damn expert we gamers should all take notice of. I'll bite my lip, or pointer finger in this case to keep my post from being edited. Of course I'm not an expert, I will admit I might be wrong just like you have.

If russia or germany or maybe even uk roll technology, it's true, they endanger themselves. However, if the usa rolls, no one is going to take the usa's capital, same with japan in the first few moves.

If germany isn't threatening the uk island with transports, then the uk can try to get heavy bombers also.

From the other things the developers have come out with, I seriously doubt they have considered this. This new technology tree breaks the game. It's just too easy to get heavy bombers, and even with only 2 dice, they are still too powerful for sbr raids, it costs less than half of what you destroy.

also they say that one bomber cannot take more than the value of the territory. This means that the only places a heavy bomber can be fully effective is eastern usa, or germany. Since eastern usa is out of reach for axis, this basically makes germany the perfect target.

[Darksideknight]

Sean, didn't mean to bite your head off, just a little upset with all this negitivism, whining, crying, and fussing. All this about a game we have yet to fully understand, I'd say the new map and the setup will tell the tale. Anyway this is a unpersonable way to communicate as Moderator John pointed out. No offense. Ok, now I didn't want to discredit you entirely there. There is something to rolling for heavys, I just don't think against a bulked up Axis, it will be rewarding on the first three to four rounds. Ok, I already made that point, but lets not forget, this game is going to be 50-50, says Mike, so in Mike we trust. Unlike the MB edition it's not going to be called as Epicedion put it in one of his posts, "Three friends beat up on two of their lesser friends for Five straight hours." That still cracks me up. Anyway sure with the new tech rolls, going for heavys will be probably a good idea at somepoint. We will need to wait to see the game in it's entirety before stakeing a claim about it being broken. Thats what I got upset about! smile.gif

also they say that one bomber cannot take more than the value of the territory. This means that the only places a heavy bomber can be fully effective is eastern usa, or germany. Since eastern usa is out of reach for axis, this basically makes germany the perfect Germany always makes for a nice juicy target for the allied bombers, no change here. ;)

-Jason

[ January 31, 2004, 07:09 PM: Message edited by: Darksideknight ]

[Hardcore]

maybe if you buy heavy bombers as germany, it will apply to the new Stukas bombers

Germany will gain alot more powers with its jets and that counters the U.S. or U.K. getting heavy bombers

that changes everything :)

[ January 31, 2004, 07:55 PM: Message edited by: Hardcore ]

[djfpfsf]

I admit it's a little crazy to say the game is broken. We will have to wait and see, but according to their weekly reports...

When they say a game is 50/50 they are always wrong. Every axis and allies game so far has been 90%+ biased toward one side or the other.

A lot of people consider axis and allies europe to be a broken game since there is only one main strategy for germany (and it's boring)

I'm arguing that there will only be one strategy in this one too. Sure it can still be perfected, and using bids can still have close games, but in the end it mostly comes down to dice.

For example:
I would say axis and allies europe is a lot of dice. The whole game you work to optimize and increase your odds in the final battle to get your odds above 50%. I've lost a lot of games where the odds were in my favor though, just not fun. It's also not fun to win a huge battle with low odds, as you feel like the game was determined by dice rather than skill.

They need to either:
1. not have technology
2. leave it how it was
3. invent a different system

My idea is:
Make each technology 2-3 steps, and the first step for heavy bombers would do nothing except let you get them the second time. The first step for other technologies (ie supersubs) could increase attack, the second step increase movement and attack again. I haven't given this a great deal o f thought, it may be no better than the system they are about to use, it's just an idea.

Sorry if I sound rude, i'm pretty young.

[solitaire77]

Originally posted by sean:
USA develops heavy bombers turn 1 (average dice) after that they can easily produce enough bombers to destroy all of germany's income in 2-3 turns.If I was the Axis I'd love to see the US blow all their starting money on tech. It makes more sense for the US to spend all their money on bombers first turn, and move them forward on turn 2 while trying to develop heavy bombers.

Since units in the field upgrade automatically, it would almost always be wiser IMHO to produce atleast SOME of the units first and research the upgrade later.

[djfpfsf]

yeah, you are right, they wouldn't be able to use heavy bombers the first turn, so might as well wait at least until turn 2, maybe 3. That's a great point. It's also been pointed out that it's cheaper to roll 1 dice a turn for 6 turns than 6 dice in one turn since you avoid rolling 2 6's. The fact still remains however, heavy bombers are too powerful even with 2 dice if you can choose them.

[Epicedion]

heavy bombers are too powerful even with 2 dice if you can choose them.
The same argument could be made for any of the technologies. It's smart for the US to develop heavy bombers, but it will take a long time to get the tech, buy bombers, and put those bombers to use at the beginning of the game without opening itself to a Japanese invasion. For example:

US wants heavy bombers, so it spends the first turn buying a bomber fleet. And by 'fleet', I mean 2 bombers. Saves 12 IPCs. Turn two, spends 40 IPCs for a -very- good chance of getting Heavy Bombers. Moves its 2 Bombers (3, if it starts with one) to Britain. Saves 14 IPCs. Let's say it gets Heavy Bombers. Turn Three, builds more bombers: 3 more. Saves 11 IPCs. Strategically bombs Germany for about 20 IPCs worth of damage, with the promise of about 20 more the next turn. Germany complains somewhat, but can hold out for a few more turns. Since Japan's first-turn strategy is to blow up the Pacific Fleet and build a bunch of transports for a sustained war in mainland Asia, it can very easily take advantage of America's waste of resources, and invade by turn 4. If the US does nothing other than build bombers and get Heavy Bombers, it will not be able to retake LA before Japan gets to build a dozen new infantry there.

--Epicedion

[westernwarrior]

a good scenerio but.....with the US savin the ipc's each turn it can throw some inf. at the west coast when a invasion appears to be coming.
side note....maybe weather should've be a factor in the new game without complicating things even more. :rolleyes:
even with the new rules heavy bombers is a good bet. in my game play heavy bombers arent to much an option until atleast north afica is safe. the US needs to supply both shores and help england....once england can atleast stay even with germany and the japanese threat of US invasion is curtailed then the US can gamble on weapons development. but of course this all depends on how the axis is played.... :D thats the beauty of this wonderful game

[Hardcore]

how many of you out there have played where the Japanese actually take over the U.S.

not one of my games has the U.S. been taken over

The U.S. has almost no threat...and by the time it gets anywhere near the U.S. stacks up on infantry

[solitaire77]

Originally posted by sean:
The fact still remains however, heavy bombers are too powerful even with 2 dice if you can choose them.Well, yes and no. By buying nothing but heavy bombers on turn 1, you are also telegraphing your strategy to Germany and Japan, which allows them to throw more of their forces against Russia and the UK.

I think we'll only see why it isn't a great idea in the long run. Spending for one roll each turn may end up being a good strategy, but I doubt that paying for 6 rolls early will pay off.

As far as weather being represented in the game, I consider the dice to capture the weather along with terrain, training, intelligence, logistics, and all other micro level issues.

[Epicedion]

how many of you out there have played where the Japanese actually take over the U.S.
Probably the same games where the US blows all its money on tech development and bombers.

--Epicedion

[zooooma]

Hi all.

Originally posted by solitaire77:
By buying nothing but heavy bombers on turn 1, you are also telegraphing your strategy to Germany and Japan, which allows them to throw more of their forces against Russia and the UK.

True enough. I strongly suspect that those early game American support in the Atlantic and in Europe are essential for England to maintain the Royal Navy and For Russia to maintain their existance. I cannot imagine that the developers did not consider the potential for America to go whole hog for Heavy Bombers ASAP.

Originally posted by Hardcore:
how many of you out there have played where the Japanese actually take over the U.S.

hmmm.

From Count Down To Invasion Week 3:

"Plus, we wanted the taking of America -- a rare event, to be sure, but less rare than it used to be -- ..."

It may well stand to logic any decent player should be capable of ensuring that rare becomes never. However, such measures may be inconsistent with the entire early game budget being devoted to setting up massive bombing raids for future turns.

When we see the board, the set up, and get the skinny on subs and destroyers, we will have a much better idea as to the value and the feasability of Weapons Development.

-Luke

[djfpfsf]

japan will invade?

sorry but:
The usa has a fleet too it may just be a small one that isn't destroyed on J1. Even a small fleet along with the heavy bombers will nuke anything japan has if they let it get near enough to the usa. Even without heavy bombers, they can just not build (heavy) bombers that turn and build men. If japan moves enough forces in to threaten LA that early then they aren't putting enough in asia. Threatening western usa early-on is unheard of for experienced play. Even on the odd chance that you take it, You expect to hold western usa against a fleet of heavy bombers and the infantry I got the turn before when I saw this move)

I also heard someone say that this is telegraphing my move. Yes it is, but so what. So you claim that Germany and Japan will attack russia and uk more? Uh oh, looks like you figured it out..
wait, that's what they do anyway, they never directly target the usa.
Unless you mean now Japan doesn't try to attack LA, so I don't need to stop any bomber builds and get a few infantry after all I guess.

Forgive me for my sarcasm.

My main point is, before heavy bombers were 1 in 21 odds (105IPC's) rolling with 3 dice, now they are 1 in 6 (30IPC's) rolling with 2 dice. So it's more than 3x cheaper/easier/faster to get them (3.5x cheaper if rolled one dice per turn) That is enough to buy 5 bombers. That means that it's the same deal more or less if you buy 10 bombers total (maybe 9 because of aa guns). It's a better deal if you buy less than 10, and worse if you buy more than 10. But more importantly, this is achieved early on. This allows one to bomb germany to zero from turn 3 on (one bomber on turn 2 also) for the cost of average of 15 ipc's a turn (to destroy 35), when it only costs 30 to get, it pays for it's self in &lt;2 turns, If germany get's no money after turn 3, it won't have a chance to breath.

The other type of heavy bombing would take a lot longer to get and longer to pay for. It would probably work as a strategy, but your winning percentages would be low. Making heavy bombers argueably more than 3 times easier to get overcomes this.

[djfpfsf]

I am assuming a few things, so nothing is 100% until we see the whole picture

[Darksideknight]

Question 4 Mike Selinker, can you spend more than 30 ipc per turn on tech in this revised game?

Thanks -Jason

[Mike Selinker]

Question 4 Mike Selinker, can you spend more than 30 ipc per turn on tech in this revised game?Yes. You can spend whatever you want, up to the amount of IPCs you have.

[Darksideknight]

Yes. You can spend whatever you want, up to the amount of IPCs you have. Wow that should spice up tech even more!

Thanks Mike

-Jason

[Cruelsader]

Originally posted by Epicedion:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
how many of you out there have played where the Japanese actually take over the U.S.
Probably the same games where the US blows all its money on tech development and bombers.

--Epicedion</font>[/QUOTE]I have not played that much, maybe 70-100 face-to-face games in total. Not in a single game have Japanese overrun US although they have succeeded quite often in taking Alaska and sometimes Mexico. On the other hand, I have seen quite a few US players gambling with all or most of their income for technology.

BTW, I like WD because in most of the games someone has been 'stupid' enough to gamble and this makes the game more durable (ie higher replay value). We have reduced the randomness somewhat, though, by allowing to throw two dice when selecting the development, ie you can roll twice for each 6 and you may choose which development you keep.

[ButchOHare1]

Without Industrial Technology it will be much harder for Japan to take USA. A quick lunge for L.A. to get the final victory city might happen, but not as often as it does now.

Rockets are very attractive now. An AA gun will only cost 5. With limited production of original factories Japan will almost certainly have to place an IC on the mainland. That makes 3 Axis targets to hit for American rockets. Rockets can't be shot down by AA gun fire. USA can move its original 2 AA guns over and buy a third, then start doing 11 or so IPC damage with no replacement costs. HBs roll only 2 dice and cost 15 to replace. With the limit of IPC loss equal to the value of the territory per attacking plane, having an HB sbr a *** factory in FIC is a mistake. Rockets can do the same damage with no risk of loss. Rockets look very attractive to me.

[solitaire77]

Originally posted by sean:
I also heard someone say that this is telegraphing my move. Yes it is, but so what. So you claim that Germany and Japan will attack russia and uk more? Uh oh, looks like you figured it out.. If I knew the USA was going bomber heavy on turn 1?

Germany now knows the invasion clock, or lack thereof. If I was Germany,
1. My purchases would be more precise for what turn I would want to take Moscow on.
2. My Africa strategy would probably be easier.
3. Fewer infantry will need to stand around the channel waiting for D-day.
4. No need to protect Southern Europe either.
5. The UK's strategy choices are also limited, since they can't lend lease the tech.

You are right though. German decisions are only slightly changed. I think Japan is the real change.

If I was Japan,
1. I could reinforce positions within range to bomb Japan (Wake or whatever).
2. India, Austrailia, and maybe Africa, here I come.
3. Japan can easily defend herself by either submarines or a counter bomber attack. We will have to find out how subs are treated by airpower, but Japan might be able to immobilize the Pacific without DD's to spot.
4. I'd be sure to make sure that the bombers didn't have a safe landing in China if I could help it.

Forgive me for my sarcasm.If you are right, and purchasing decisions are unchanged by viewing enemy tactics, then I'll blame AH and forgive your sarcasm. If your wrong, then we'll all enjoy one heck of a game.

If enemy purchases don't change your own purchasing decisions, then the game has a script (like the previous version tended to), and a monkey can play it. Let's hope that isn't the case.

[cpt john]

It has been a long time since I played any of these games until recently, but we started them up in our mobilized reserve unit and are having great fun. I have a couple comments that I would like to share. I think it is really great that Mike is personally responding to many of them.

1. About long-range aircraft. Incidentally, the prototype (original) flying wing bomber was a Nazi German prototype designed to be built for long-range bombing of America and the far-east production facilities in Russia. That Nazi design (never massed produced of course) was much of the inspiration for the B2 today. I don't find it even slightly unrealistic to include that as a technology.

2. I think many of the changes have produced an environment that supports buying the "combined arms team". Cheaper fighters, the standard optimal offense package of 3 tanks/2 arty/4 inf or 3 arty/5 inf also supports the need for combined arms while allowing the old stand by infantry to remain (realistically) the thing to arm to "draft" into service when times are tuogh. However, I would like to see, at least optional, a rule allowing only 1 attempt at each technology each round (allowing multiple tries at multiple techs). All the effort to make people balance their purchases is great. So why allow somebody to run factories dry because every man woman and child is studying nuclear fision.

3. Finally, and I realize this may not be the right "board", I wanted to discuss "stacking". I played just 1 game of Europe, fiddled around a little on my own (*), and on my 2nd game I suggested a house rule limiting any single combat to 15 pieces on each side. We played it, and it really seemed to work out well. It stopped this "stack" stuff. It really made Germany look at high quality offensive pieces like bombers (again combined arms teams were optimal). It really just openned up maneuver again, rather than a "stack" on 1 province that barrels forward. I would sure like to see (optional of course in this case) a rule limiting the max numbers in any given fight. Of course, this may be the type of thing better left to the people at home, but I'd sure like to hear what others have to say. I think land fights limited to 12 ground and 4 air (naval limited to 6 naval and 4 air) are other options. One thing I'm leaving out - anybody over the 15 you brought to the fight in a single province and on the losing side - well they were cut off in the pincer when the front lines were broken through, surrounded, cutoff, and destroyed.

Well, it might be too late for any of this to have a point, but I sure am looking forward to getting the new game. Thanks Mike.

[Mike Selinker]

I would like to see, at least optional, a rule allowing only 1 attempt at each technology each round (allowing multiple tries at multiple techs). All the effort to make people balance their purchases is great. So why allow somebody to run factories dry because every man woman and child is studying nuclear fission."But mommy, I want to study DNA recombination!"
"Practice your N/P ratios, dear, and stop teasing your sister."

Thanks for the comments, Cap. I think your rule on multiple-rolls-but-1-roll-per-tech produces an interesting result. It certainly makes this phase take much longer, and I suspect it would lead to a huge amount of frustration. But it could have some intriguing aftereffects. Give it a try in your games and post the results here.

Mike