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

Page 1 of 2 1, 2  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

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

Post by SwampHQ on Mon 09 Mar 2009, 14:34

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, Question

_________________

Greg Smorey
Axis & Allies EO/GM - ORIGINS/GENCON/SPRING GATHERING
http://www.headlesshorseman2.com/
A good plan today is better than a perfect plan tomorrow. - General George S. Patton
avatar
SwampHQ
Admin

Posts : 190
Join date : 2008-07-02
Location : Batavia, Ohio

View user profile http://aaswampform.forumandco.com

Back to top Go down

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

Post by Yoper on Tue 10 Mar 2009, 09:22

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, Question

NO TECH!!!!! Evil or Very Mad

NO's Yes! What a Face cheers rendeer farao king santa drunken

Craig
avatar
Yoper

Posts : 61
Join date : 2008-07-07
Age : 48
Location : That state up north.

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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

Post by MatildaMike on Tue 10 Mar 2009, 12:33

Yoper wrote:
NO TECH!!!!! Evil or Very Mad

NO's Yes! What a Face cheers rendeer farao king santa drunken

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.
avatar
MatildaMike

Posts : 13
Join date : 2008-07-07
Location : Mason, OH

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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

Post by SwampHQ on Wed 11 Mar 2009, 07:44

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, Question

NO TECH!!!!! Evil or Very Mad

NO's Yes! What a Face cheers rendeer farao king santa drunken

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, affraid

_________________

Greg Smorey
Axis & Allies EO/GM - ORIGINS/GENCON/SPRING GATHERING
http://www.headlesshorseman2.com/
A good plan today is better than a perfect plan tomorrow. - General George S. Patton
avatar
SwampHQ
Admin

Posts : 190
Join date : 2008-07-02
Location : Batavia, Ohio

View user profile http://aaswampform.forumandco.com

Back to top Go down

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

Post by Yoper on Wed 11 Mar 2009, 09:31

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, Question

NO TECH!!!!! Evil or Very Mad

NO's Yes! What a Face cheers rendeer farao king santa drunken

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, affraid

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

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
avatar
Yoper

Posts : 61
Join date : 2008-07-07
Age : 48
Location : That state up north.

View user profile

Back to top Go down

N.O.-yes, Tech-no

Post by BushidoBlitz on Wed 11 Mar 2009, 12:31

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.

BushidoBlitz

Posts : 24
Join date : 2008-07-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

NOs- YES, TECH- UNDECIDED

Post by questioneer on Thu 12 Mar 2009, 17:18

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
avatar
questioneer

Posts : 73
Join date : 2008-07-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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

Post by Yoper on Fri 13 Mar 2009, 09:31

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
avatar
Yoper

Posts : 61
Join date : 2008-07-07
Age : 48
Location : That state up north.

View user profile

Back to top Go down

NO's too, too Powerful as well?

Post by SwampHQ on Sun 15 Mar 2009, 08:55

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, Neutral

_________________

Greg Smorey
Axis & Allies EO/GM - ORIGINS/GENCON/SPRING GATHERING
http://www.headlesshorseman2.com/
A good plan today is better than a perfect plan tomorrow. - General George S. Patton
avatar
SwampHQ
Admin

Posts : 190
Join date : 2008-07-02
Location : Batavia, Ohio

View user profile http://aaswampform.forumandco.com

Back to top Go down

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

Post by SwampHQ on Sun 15 Mar 2009, 09:00

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?" Idea

_________________

Greg Smorey
Axis & Allies EO/GM - ORIGINS/GENCON/SPRING GATHERING
http://www.headlesshorseman2.com/
A good plan today is better than a perfect plan tomorrow. - General George S. Patton
avatar
SwampHQ
Admin

Posts : 190
Join date : 2008-07-02
Location : Batavia, Ohio

View user profile http://aaswampform.forumandco.com

Back to top Go down

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

Post by squirecam on Sun 15 Mar 2009, 15:31

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.

squirecam

Posts : 71
Join date : 2008-07-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

National Objective analysis

Post by BushidoBlitz on Sun 15 Mar 2009, 21:55

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

BushidoBlitz

Posts : 24
Join date : 2008-07-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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

Post by questioneer on Sun 15 Mar 2009, 21:56

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, Neutral

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 Very Happy
avatar
questioneer

Posts : 73
Join date : 2008-07-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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

Post by BushidoBlitz on Sun 15 Mar 2009, 22:00

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.

BushidoBlitz

Posts : 24
Join date : 2008-07-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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

Post by SwampHQ on Mon 16 Mar 2009, 12:00

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, Neutral

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 Very Happy

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? affraid

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, Idea

_________________

Greg Smorey
Axis & Allies EO/GM - ORIGINS/GENCON/SPRING GATHERING
http://www.headlesshorseman2.com/
A good plan today is better than a perfect plan tomorrow. - General George S. Patton
avatar
SwampHQ
Admin

Posts : 190
Join date : 2008-07-02
Location : Batavia, Ohio

View user profile http://aaswampform.forumandco.com

Back to top Go down

Tech's

Post by SwampHQ on Mon 16 Mar 2009, 19:39

What I mean regarding TECH's, is that I believe they should be revised if they are too powerful. They are an intrigal part of the game that should be considered.

Revising HB and the time when techs go into effect would help...

Peace, Sad

_________________

Greg Smorey
Axis & Allies EO/GM - ORIGINS/GENCON/SPRING GATHERING
http://www.headlesshorseman2.com/
A good plan today is better than a perfect plan tomorrow. - General George S. Patton
avatar
SwampHQ
Admin

Posts : 190
Join date : 2008-07-02
Location : Batavia, Ohio

View user profile http://aaswampform.forumandco.com

Back to top Go down

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

Post by Yoper on Tue 17 Mar 2009, 10:26

SwampHQ wrote:
..., I need to have myself cloned.

Peace, Idea

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

One of you is enough! Wink Wink Wink

Craig
avatar
Yoper

Posts : 61
Join date : 2008-07-07
Age : 48
Location : That state up north.

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Cloned

Post by SwampHQ on Tue 17 Mar 2009, 12:07

Yeah, but there is enough for two...and the love that goes around here is just overwhelming! Embarassed

_________________

Greg Smorey
Axis & Allies EO/GM - ORIGINS/GENCON/SPRING GATHERING
http://www.headlesshorseman2.com/
A good plan today is better than a perfect plan tomorrow. - General George S. Patton
avatar
SwampHQ
Admin

Posts : 190
Join date : 2008-07-02
Location : Batavia, Ohio

View user profile http://aaswampform.forumandco.com

Back to top Go down

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

Post by questioneer on Wed 18 Mar 2009, 13:40

Greg, go ahead and clone yourself- just don't clone YOPER!!!!

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
avatar
questioneer

Posts : 73
Join date : 2008-07-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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

Post by Yoper on Thu 19 Mar 2009, 09:15

questioneer wrote:Greg, go ahead and clone yourself- just don't clone YOPER!!!!

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I am one-of-a-kind! Razz Razz Razz

Craig
avatar
Yoper

Posts : 61
Join date : 2008-07-07
Age : 48
Location : That state up north.

View user profile

Back to top Go down

One of a Kind!

Post by SwampHQ on Thu 19 Mar 2009, 16:53

That you are alien

Hey, on a more serious note, and not sure if i should be asking you hear but i will fire away anyhow, do you know what is going on at WotC/AH with the AA games? What is this talk on Larry's site about limited runs, out of print games, etc. Do you know...? or are you just a mere Tellarian like the rest of us. confused

Peace,

_________________

Greg Smorey
Axis & Allies EO/GM - ORIGINS/GENCON/SPRING GATHERING
http://www.headlesshorseman2.com/
A good plan today is better than a perfect plan tomorrow. - General George S. Patton
avatar
SwampHQ
Admin

Posts : 190
Join date : 2008-07-02
Location : Batavia, Ohio

View user profile http://aaswampform.forumandco.com

Back to top Go down

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

Post by Yoper on Fri 20 Mar 2009, 09:16

Sounds like the WotC types only printed a certain amount. Whether that was on purpose or just short-sighted, who knows? They are a bunch of idiots either way.

Ask Krieghund. He talks with Larry much more often than I.

Craig


Last edited by Yoper on Sat 21 Mar 2009, 00:18; edited 1 time in total
avatar
Yoper

Posts : 61
Join date : 2008-07-07
Age : 48
Location : That state up north.

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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

Post by questioneer on Fri 20 Mar 2009, 16:16

SwampHQ wrote:


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

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.

Idea


1. About tech- I agree too. I don't mind playing without it, but in this game (unlike Revised) I think it really keeps the game unpredictable, but in a much smoother way. I was very against it in Revised, but kinda for it now in AA50 because the stats are better- Heavy Bombers can just be reduced back to the LHTR if needed, but at a 3% chance of getting it, I don't really see the need to do that- same with Paratroopers.

2. Black Sea option- looks like in both scenarios you don't really need it. It seems like it hurts the game more than helps it- unless your playing a newbie. Very Happy However, I think the Escort SBR Rule IS needed.

3. I understand about the online thing- I've been playing since January I started with 4 games and now I play 1-2 games over a span of 4-6 weeks. Its nice when you can't get together and spend a whole Saturday and play a couple of games. But if your not playing more than 4 games a month- by forum, then you might as well block the time out to play FTF- it takes just as much quantitative time anyway.

Questioneer
avatar
questioneer

Posts : 73
Join date : 2008-07-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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

Post by questioneer on Thu 09 Apr 2009, 17:43

Hey Greg,

I spent some time playing AA50 again with Capsian sub AA guru Ben Ibach. We were playing the '41 and Ben came up with a great strategic move in rd2-3. I was playing Axis and after several games online and FTF I had my standard Axis moves (which are pretty standard now from the many games I've played and seen for round 1).

Here is the strategy that Ben came up that put a heavy hand on the Axis. I am currently trying to come up with counters for it. This of course is a KGF strategy. Ben and I both strongly agree that a KJF in this game is futile and worthless because of the new map.

1.) Forget building a UK navy- build all bombers. US sends 3 over and buys 2 more bombers.

2.a.) SBR Germany/Italy or
b.) wipe out Germany AND Italian navy

3.) US sends everything east and SBRs Axis in Europe or "cleans up" leftover Axis ships

4.)Create the Atlantic shuck route and continue SBR Axis
5.)Russia grows and holds ground till Allies ship tons of ground troops by Round 4

When I first seen this, I thought Ben was going to SBR Germany round 2 with 4bombers. That was the bait, what he did was take those 4 bombers and sunk the Italian navy in one shot. It was expensive for him but more expensive for me. Now without an Italian navy (or barely any European navy at all), Africa would be lost, the threat of Cauc attack gone and Italian/German expansion shrunk very early. In otherwords, w/o the Italian navy, Italy is no threat at all and a liability to the Axis. (This is really an indirect KGF- could really turn into a KIF)

Now after some observation, there was a counter to stop this in round 2, but nearly impossible to stop by round 3. By that time Britain could have 4 bombers in Cauc (ready to sink the ships) and US will have 5 bombers in UK ready to clean up the ships or SBR like crazy. This opens an expressway of ships to France or NWE or Alg or Italy.

What's worse is that in the '42 version, no matter what the Axis do its even BETTER for the Allies there, just make sure you are very shrewd with Russia so they can survive the first 2 rounds. Even with the Fighter Escort Rule, it seems difficult to deflect. The only thing I could think of was maybe moving some Japanese ships over to the Med to help protect the Italian fleet but even that is futile over time because you can't outproduce the UK/US bomber production.- nasty. Mad

Try this and/or share your thought anyone.

Questioneer
avatar
questioneer

Posts : 73
Join date : 2008-07-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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

Post by Yoper on Fri 10 Apr 2009, 11:08

While I favor the use of the NO's for driving of the game in certain ways, I have seen that the infusion of the extra cash can have serious side affects, like this one stated by Questioneer.

The lowering of the prices of different units by us (playtesters and Larry) was done long before the idea of NO's came about. It may be that there is too much of a swing in the one direction when both are used.

Leave it to Ben to come up with a killer strat. That man is a machine!

Craig
avatar
Yoper

Posts : 61
Join date : 2008-07-07
Age : 48
Location : That state up north.

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 1 of 2 1, 2  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum