Tech vs No Tech's: NO's vs. no NO's?

So, what is your thought on Tech's in the new AA50 Game. The same goes with National objectives? what are your thoughts? Good, bad, need changed? How to use them in a tournament format? Should they be used at all? Does it add too much luck...?

Fire away? This is open for discussion!

Peace,

SwampHQ wrote:So, what is your thought on Tech's in the new AA50 Game. The same goes with National objectives? what are your thoughts? Good, bad, need changed? How to use them in a tournament format? Should they be used at all? Does it add too much luck...?

Fire away? This is open for discussion!

Peace,

NO TECH!!!!!

NO's Yes!

Craig

Yoper wrote:
NO TECH!!!!!

NO's Yes!

Craig

Ok, Craig...step away from the Emoticons....slowly....just step away....

Seriously though - as much I like the techs and I think they add some much needed flavor to the game, I cannot endorse using them as is in a tournament setting. If some tweaks were applied, I would reconsider.

As for the NOs - I am all for them. I think they add a lot of new possibilities to the game.

Yoper wrote:

SwampHQ wrote:So, what is your thought on Tech's in the new AA50 Game. The same goes with National objectives? what are your thoughts? Good, bad, need changed? How to use them in a tournament format? Should they be used at all? Does it add too much luck...?

Fire away? This is open for discussion!

Peace,

NO TECH!!!!!

NO's Yes!

Craig

Yoper,

So, let me get this right. You are for NO tech's and you kind of like NO's! I think I got it...Any reason why...or, just like Mikes comment, do you like to input emoticons?

Peace,

SwampHQ wrote:

Yoper wrote:

SwampHQ wrote:So, what is your thought on Tech's in the new AA50 Game. The same goes with National objectives? what are your thoughts? Good, bad, need changed? How to use them in a tournament format? Should they be used at all? Does it add too much luck...?

Fire away? This is open for discussion!

Peace,

NO TECH!!!!!

NO's Yes!

Craig

Yoper,

So, let me get this right. You are for NO tech's and you kind of like NO's! I think I got it...Any reason why...or, just like Mikes comment, do you like to input emoticons?

Peace,

The techs are too unbalancing and some are just too powerful (paratroopers and heavy-bombers).

The NO's pump needed funds into the game and keep things moving along. The NO's are the only Optional Rules I would use.

Craig

Greg,
I would just echo Yope's and Mike's comments, YES to N.O., NO to Tech.

I agree with Yope that the Techs are too unbalancing, although I'm not sure why he esteems paratroopers up there with Heavy Bombers. My gut feeling is that paratroopers is one of the weaker techs. Anyway, in a tournament setting, we're supposed to be testing skills at strategy and tactics--albeit with a good bit of luck thrown in the mix, via dice rolls--but not luck at rolling your Tech success quicker than the other side, or, after succeeding, getting a kick-butt Tech versus a crappy one.

I think N.O.'s are vital for tournament play for two reasons. First because more money for everyone all around means a faster developing game, which is crucial to achieving a "projected win" within the allotted time. Second, to Mike's point, they help drive confrontation, which also speeds up the game. For example, in a typical game, Germany and Russia often trade 1-2 deadzones while they build up a massive army just behind the front lines, waiting for the opportunity to advance. With N.O., Germany is encouraged to push forward to the front three spots to get an extra 5 IPCs, and Russia is encouraged to push forward to 3 out of 5: Finland, Norway, Poland, etc. for an extra 10 IPCs! Similarly, US is encouraged to take Solomons or Wake turn 1 for an extra 5 IPCs. Plus, Allied control of France is worth 5 IPCs for both US and UK.

Greg,

Yes on the NO's for the same reasons mentioned above- couldn't have said it better.

As far as techs- I initially said no, but now I have fallen into the 'undecided' category. There are some very good arguments on the axisandallies.org forum for keeping tech- you should look into them. Read any of CmdrJennifer's posts on this topic, she been playing a lot of AA50 and has some very substancial insights and recorded games to back up her points.

Many of us know the obvious reasons for not having tech but consider the some of the many reasons to keep it:

For example- tech stops any future predictible strategies that may develop for this game, in otherwords you have to be more tactical. Also, 4 out of the 6 powers (US, UK, GER, JAP) can financially and comfortably develop some tech in this game- assuming that you are using the NOs for extra cash. Heavy Bombers is a little strong but consider the fact that the chances of getting it is 1 out of 36!!!- very unlikely- and the timing that you can recieve the tech- it can be early or late in the game.

Keeping it real

Questioneer

Paratrooper is just way overdone as a tech. Dropping the guys and getting to attack?!?!?!??!?

It is like a BB getting to drop buys in an amphib and then getting to continuously fire throughout the battle!

Plus, the tech system is a random crap-shoot.

The tech should be a bit more predictable (i.e. directed), but also not game changing. Because it isn't either things, it shouldn't be used.

Craig

Well,

I am starting to believe NO's are way too powerful as well for the Axis? Playing where Germany has 50+ IPC's in it's bank for the whole game, really doesn't equat to, too much fun for anyone...?

Just MHO,

Peace,

BushidoBlitz wrote:Greg,
I would just echo Yope's and Mike's comments, YES to N.O., NO to Tech.

I think N.O.'s are vital for tournament play for two reasons. First because more money for everyone all around means a faster developing game, which is crucial to achieving a "projected win" within the allotted time. Second, to Mike's point, they help drive confrontation, which also speeds up the game. For example, in a typical game, Germany and Russia often trade 1-2 deadzones while they build up a massive army just behind the front lines, waiting for the opportunity to advance. With N.O., Germany is encouraged to push forward to the front three spots to get an extra 5 IPCs, and Russia is encouraged to push forward to 3 out of 5: Finland, Norway, Poland, etc. for an extra 10 IPCs! Similarly, US is encouraged to take Solomons or Wake turn 1 for an extra 5 IPCs. Plus, Allied control of France is worth 5 IPCs for both US and UK.

Ok, fair enough, but then what also may happen is that while fighting over these territories, armys build towards a massive build up of units that just sit and wait until someone gives in and concedes or makes a stupid attack or purchase out of the sheer idea or thought of, "are we playing classic again?"

I think all of this is why the tournament at Gencon is AAR rather than AAAv.

It needs much testing for the rules.

Personally, I suggest NO tech and NO Objectives. That way we have a "baseline" of how the bidding will go and what our VC will look like. Once we have a balance for a 5-6 hr game, we can add objectives.

I also think the tournament game must start in 1942. Much easier to balance. And we dont waste 2 hrs just getting to the 1942 state.

As for National Objectives, yeah needs some more playtesting, but you might be right on a closer look...My initial thought was that both sides are getting about the same bonuses, so that the net is just a faster game, not a more unbalanced game. But when you do the math, seems like Axis is getting +30 to +20 on Turn 1, and +35 to +20 on Turn 2 (see math/assumptions below). Not sure whether that gap is sustained or whether the Allies turn the tide at some point...

Turn 1
J-10
G-15 (Assuming it takes Karelia)
I-5
Axis bonus turn 1 = 30

Turn 1
R-5
UK-5 (maybe 10 if, like last night, Japan loses too many fighters to hold Burma)
US-10 (assuming US takes Solomons turn 1)
Allied bonus turn 1 = 20, maybe 25

Turn 2
J-10
G-15
I-10
Axis bonus turn 2 = 35

Turn 2
R-5
UK-5 (maybe 10 if it can liberate Egypt after it falls to the Germans)
US-10
Allied bonus turn 2 = 20, maybe 25

BB

SwampHQ wrote:Well,

I am starting to believe NO's are way too powerful as well for the Axis? Playing where Germany has 50+ IPC's in it's bank for the whole game, really doesn't equat to, too much fun for anyone...?

Just MHO,

Peace,

Germany won't have 50 bucks in the bank- after playing the 41 version several times now its more like 44 bucks.

Without NOs it is a definite bid for Allies- they will have the upper hand. With NOs you have an even game or a slight bid one way or the other. Big tourny going on in the forums (no tech, with NOs) score is 5-5, dead even so far with many games to go.

Also, the 41/42 debate on which is better, is another argument that can be expanded. Haven't played enough 42 games to comment yet but will be by forum soon.

Look, if you guys really want to get some answers fast then play PBF. You can play several games at a time and playtest like crazy.

I really think its gonna take a year to figure this thing out. I think for this year at Origins and GenCon it should just be a playtesting year. Let it be a casual play event. Prizes go to top three who have most wins over 2-3 days. Let the players go and play what they want. Let them decide whether:

1. to bid or not (or open bid system)
2. to use 41 or 42 version
3. to use NOs or not
4. to use the Black Sea Option and/or SBR escort option
5. to use tech or not

then next year you can establish a good tourny system for this game. By then you will have a whole bunch of games (data) completed whether they be online or FTF to make a better assessment. Make a form ahead of time for players to fill out the above info + who won, etc to that you can have all the info (data) you want at the end of both tournys.

I'm willing to try any of these options and I think anyone would if they know that the event is more casual + you need the data anyway and that's what the forms will be for.

This way nobody will complain- except for low class whiners. Next year you can have a more serious tournament and prepare for a Masters for this game two years from now.

Complex problems- simple solutions

Questioneer

P.S.- you can pay me later, or just send me some Dutch apple pie- yummy

ADDENDUM: This just in: I did an analysis of a 9-round PBEM 1942 AA50 game, WITH National Objectives, WITHOUT Tech, and with Allies playing a KGF strategy. Axis had an early NO bonus advantage (absolute through Round 3, cumulative through Round 6) that dwindled and swung to a decided Allied advantage in Rounds 5-9:

Japan: 10-10-10-15-10-15-15-15-15
Russia: 5-5-5-15-10-10-15-15-15
Germany: 15-10-10-5-0-0-0-0-0
UK: 5-0-0-0-10-5-5-5-5
Italy: 10-10-5-5-0-0-0-0-0
US: 10-10-10-10-10-10-10-10-10

Axis total: 35-30-25-25-10-15-15-15-15
Allies total: 20-15-15-25-30-25-30-30-30

Cum Axis total: 35-65-90-115-125-140-155-170-185
Cum Allies total: 20-35-50- 75-105-130-160-190-220
So my takeaways:
A) We need WAY more data before making any firm conclusions--I doubt we'll get enough between now and the summer cons.

B) I don't think NO bonuses necessarily skew the game too much; in this ONE data point (N=1!), the Axis lost despite enjoying an early bonus advantage.

C) I think we should take a look at the starting setup (start a TripleA '42 game and check the Stats tab), which seems to favor the Allies:

IPC's: Allies-93, Axis-78
Production: Allies-100, Axis-78
Units: Allies-130, Axis-121
Total Unit Value: Allies-782, Axis-705
Victory Cities: Allies-10, Axis-8

What's needed, of course is an analysis of the meaningfulness of the various units.
"Total Unit Value" and "Units" mean less if they include 3 inf stuck on Australia, for example, or a "dead meat" destroyer off of Egypt.

questioneer wrote:

SwampHQ wrote:Well,

I am starting to believe NO's are way too powerful as well for the Axis? Playing where Germany has 50+ IPC's in it's bank for the whole game, really doesn't equat to, too much fun for anyone...?

Just MHO,

Peace,

Germany won't have 50 bucks in the bank- after playing the 41 version several times now its more like 44 bucks.

Without NOs it is a definite bid for Allies- they will have the upper hand. With NOs you have an even game or a slight bid one way or the other. Big tourny going on in the forums (no tech, with NOs) score is 5-5, dead even so far with many games to go.

Also, the 41/42 debate on which is better, is another argument that can be expanded. Haven't played enough 42 games to comment yet but will be by forum soon.

Look, if you guys really want to get some answers fast then play PBF. You can play several games at a time and playtest like crazy.

I really think its gonna take a year to figure this thing out. I think for this year at Origins and GenCon it should just be a playtesting year. Let it be a casual play event. Prizes go to top three who have most wins over 2-3 days. Let the players go and play what they want. Let them decide whether:

1. to bid or not (or open bid system)
2. to use 41 or 42 version
3. to use NOs or not
4. to use the Black Sea Option and/or SBR escort option
5. to use tech or not

then next year you can establish a good tourny system for this game. By then you will have a whole bunch of games (data) completed whether they be online or FTF to make a better assessment. Make a form ahead of time for players to fill out the above info + who won, etc to that you can have all the info (data) you want at the end of both tournys.

I'm willing to try any of these options and I think anyone would if they know that the event is more casual + you need the data anyway and that's what the forms will be for.

This way nobody will complain- except for low class whiners. Next year you can have a more serious tournament and prepare for a Masters for this game two years from now.

Complex problems- simple solutions

Questioneer

P.S.- you can pay me later, or just send me some Dutch apple pie- yummy

Questioneer,

We are basing these number on the '42 scenario because that will be the one most likely used in FTF play for tournaments.

All the tournaments for this year for AA50 are planned to be casual events that will award prizes. So, in general, your suggestion works fine...

I personally, do NOT like elminating tech's but might have to due to a massive outcry?

I do not think we will be using any Black Sea variants.

I know that many of yinz play online now and I hear that it is a great way to play, and this might sound just down right archaic, but I have hard enough time, checking e-mails and responding to this forum online. To find time to now play AA online in addition to playing FTF, I need to have myself cloned.

And as far as next year, who knows what will happen, we don't even know were we are headed this year...?

More to come...and thanks for the continued comments and support...

Peace,