Frustrated with tech
Moderators: Joel Billings, JanSorensen
RE: Finished with this unrealistic game
Changed the title of the Thread, to be more truthful. I am NOT finished with this game, I was just mad, and wanted to take my ball and go home.
RE: Finished with this unrealistic game
The game is too short for espionage... at least that's what I personally think. If you turn off auto victory and end of war and maybe give japan and germany a bit of a boost in the begining (so they don't get completely creamed by the WA) then it might be more useful... That way when germany and japan have split up russia the usa could use espionage to see what troops are in russia during fog of war, which they otherwise would not know.
Short of that kind of thing, I think it's practically useless... You can almost guess. Most people have all their stuff on the front lines (or really close) and then minimal deeper in... That's logically the best since this is such an agressive game.
Short of that kind of thing, I think it's practically useless... You can almost guess. Most people have all their stuff on the front lines (or really close) and then minimal deeper in... That's logically the best since this is such an agressive game.
-
JanSorensen
- Posts: 2536
- Joined: Sun May 01, 2005 10:18 pm
- Location: Aalborg, Denmark
RE: Finished with this unrealistic game
As the WA you only *need* to cover 3 sea zones againt subs to be at full production though. All 3 within air cover from land based air (no Atlantic gap in this game). Make it 5 zones if you LL to Russia from the north. So, losing alot of transporters without taking out some subs from the air seems unlikely if you focus on that - even given that you will lack behind on tech during some turns.
Subs in port
Due to the high cost of light fleet ASW, I used CAGs precisely for ASW. You don't need to leave them on a carrier group, after all. Leave plenty in the UK, and you can destroy any subs you fancy in Western France (after WA remove the air cover, of course, so fighters need to able to move 2 spaces.) The Med is easy to cover as well, as you have bases there. For the Atlantic if you need you can do stuff like take the Azores for a base. Increase the move range of CAGs to 3, it's even easier. Of course, you can be merrily tac/hevy bombing any ground units in western Europe at the same time you make sure there aren't any subs, leaving Germany a steady trickle of ground casualties as well. CAGs also have the big advantages that subs can't shoot back, and a lower supply drain. The problem is you have to have bases of them ready, unlike light fleets which can tac. move a long way.
Ultimately I think you can pin subs down to operating out of Germany alone. They will then be barely able to trouble your supply lines.
If the Germans wish to counteract this, they'll be tying up one hell of a lot of airforce (as well as all that sub effort) trying to stop the WA, and that's a huge plus for the USSR.
RE: Subs in port
CAG cost 3 less research points to raise and while the US is frozen UK has 2 avaialable without building more. Building more INCREASES how many popints you need to raise them a tech level, so you will find you either DO NOT have enough CAG's to be effective, OR you build some and find it takes JUST as long to raise their asw level. Eiter way you jhave the same problem, and tat STILL levaes you at a 2 level tech disadvantage for AT LEAST 3 turns, thats nearly a year their subs can travel around without worrying about being hurt at all. And yes, they can travel through those 3 territiories with no problem. If Op fire cant HIT them,... it cant hurt them.
Sub Tech Problems
Scott and Big Lou - OK, you've 95% persauded me that there is a problem with this game with German subs able to climb the tech ladder with nothing the WA can do about it even if they want to[&o] Perhaps a tweak or two would not go amiss - just as long as the game does not rule out the possibility of Germany managing to win the Atlantic war as they so nearly did - it's often the exploring of what ifs not just the historical time line that make this game so much fun. I'd prefer a bit of tweaking and leaving FOW on - I'm sure each side in WWII did inflict nasty surprises on each other leaving the other side to scramble desperately to catch up. I also like the possible idea of WA wasting research upgrading ASW convinced that Germany will pump resources into Subs but the Germans doing no such thing! It just heaps on the agonised decision making this game makes you go through and helps ensure every game is different from the last. Tom
RE: Sub Tech Problems
Not quite. I think the following is correct:
Subs have durability 3, so their defence is their evasion times 3 (i.e. at the start, 6.) That means with one attack dice as you start with, you hit them on a 1/6 chance for the first hit and then 1/2 for the second.
If subs go up 1 evasion through research, they are hit (1st shot) on a 9, 6 on the second shot. So even with evasion 3 (anti-sub attack 1) you can hit them with an overall chance of 1/6 from two attacks (first one automatically misses). You should be able to get anti-sub 2 comfortably before subs get evasion 4, which means you've got 10/36 chance of hitting them 1st shot and comfortably over 1/2 on the second for a while. When they get Evasion 4, it's a 1/36 chance hitting first shot, 10/36 the second, which while ultimately requiring lots of resources, is doable. Anti-sub 3 will bring it down to just under 1/2 chance hit for the first shot, lots better for the second and so on ad nauseam.
Germany starts with not many subs, which are pretty insignificant. Germany has exactly the same problem with big hikes in costs for its evasion tech rising, of course, including the numbers problem that WA would have with CAGs. As fast as Germany builds subs, WA can build things to take them out and keep in the tech race. The balance of power will shift back and forth, but ultimately the WA should be favoured more and more as the WA production ramps up. I happen to like CAGs because you can more easily raid the ports, and have no risk of being damaged in return by the subs, which saves resources. And, certainly, it is cheaper to research at least at first.
Subs have durability 3, so their defence is their evasion times 3 (i.e. at the start, 6.) That means with one attack dice as you start with, you hit them on a 1/6 chance for the first hit and then 1/2 for the second.
If subs go up 1 evasion through research, they are hit (1st shot) on a 9, 6 on the second shot. So even with evasion 3 (anti-sub attack 1) you can hit them with an overall chance of 1/6 from two attacks (first one automatically misses). You should be able to get anti-sub 2 comfortably before subs get evasion 4, which means you've got 10/36 chance of hitting them 1st shot and comfortably over 1/2 on the second for a while. When they get Evasion 4, it's a 1/36 chance hitting first shot, 10/36 the second, which while ultimately requiring lots of resources, is doable. Anti-sub 3 will bring it down to just under 1/2 chance hit for the first shot, lots better for the second and so on ad nauseam.
Germany starts with not many subs, which are pretty insignificant. Germany has exactly the same problem with big hikes in costs for its evasion tech rising, of course, including the numbers problem that WA would have with CAGs. As fast as Germany builds subs, WA can build things to take them out and keep in the tech race. The balance of power will shift back and forth, but ultimately the WA should be favoured more and more as the WA production ramps up. I happen to like CAGs because you can more easily raid the ports, and have no risk of being damaged in return by the subs, which saves resources. And, certainly, it is cheaper to research at least at first.
RE: Sub Tech Problems
I think there is some excellent discusion going on here and I'd like to bring up a few more points.
The super sub strategy is often part of the Axis AV strat without Russia ever entering the war. This means that Germany has no need to waste tech/production on tanks or inf. It also means that German air power will never be sent to the east and will always be bearing down on England/the Atlantic. Because of this, potential sub bases in France, Spain, Gibralter will have significant air cover making port attacks quite costly for the WA. It also means that CAGs in range of German fighters will be eaten alive.
The second point concerns the calculations people are making about the first attack lowering a subs evasion and the second attack having a better chance to hit. That is good thinking but hard to put into practice. The German subs will almost always engage in battle on the offensive, so they get to pick the battle and the odds. I typically never take my subs into a battle where there are more defenders than attackers allowing multiple shots at the subs. So if I have 6 or 8 subs (an easy number to attain within a few turns) based in France or Gibralter, I will just look for the Atlantic fleet with less than that number of defenders - there will almost always be a good target.
To those that say they can avoid the above strat by focusing all their defense on protecting the 3 sea squares between Egland and Canada - you are right, those squares can be safely defended. But if you have focused all your efforts on protecting the sea lanes from Canada to England, you may have already lost the war. Without transport chains connecting Gibralter and Suez to England, Germany will quickly secure the Med and be well on the way to an AV.
The super sub strategy is often part of the Axis AV strat without Russia ever entering the war. This means that Germany has no need to waste tech/production on tanks or inf. It also means that German air power will never be sent to the east and will always be bearing down on England/the Atlantic. Because of this, potential sub bases in France, Spain, Gibralter will have significant air cover making port attacks quite costly for the WA. It also means that CAGs in range of German fighters will be eaten alive.
The second point concerns the calculations people are making about the first attack lowering a subs evasion and the second attack having a better chance to hit. That is good thinking but hard to put into practice. The German subs will almost always engage in battle on the offensive, so they get to pick the battle and the odds. I typically never take my subs into a battle where there are more defenders than attackers allowing multiple shots at the subs. So if I have 6 or 8 subs (an easy number to attain within a few turns) based in France or Gibralter, I will just look for the Atlantic fleet with less than that number of defenders - there will almost always be a good target.
To those that say they can avoid the above strat by focusing all their defense on protecting the 3 sea squares between Egland and Canada - you are right, those squares can be safely defended. But if you have focused all your efforts on protecting the sea lanes from Canada to England, you may have already lost the war. Without transport chains connecting Gibralter and Suez to England, Germany will quickly secure the Med and be well on the way to an AV.
Big Lou
RE: Sub Tech Problems
I agree Agema, planes are far faster to get developed AND to build, however, they are fairly worthless at defense in a seazone. If they are on carriers IN the seazone attacked, when attacked by 6 or 7 subs, 2 or 3 CAG's which are 2 points behind in asw/evasion tech, wont make a difference. When that carrier goes down, which it most certainly will, those CAG's are dead, even if they are right next to a territory you own. I guess the pilots arent smart enough to realize that they can land on a regular runway too.
Another problem with air only ASW is range. Carrier based CAG does help, but there is a problem. First, I dont want my carriers away from my main fleets, unprotected, and moving fleets around, chasing subs will eat up my supplies VERY quickly.
No, the ONLY REAL answer to a serious German sub threat is to hunt them with destroyers, but when its possible for germany to KEEP a 2 tech advantage for over half of the war at a mimum.......... well the problem is easily apparent.
In the OVERALL scheme of the game tech makes it a little too much of a match game. If I know what my enemy is researching, I just research and counter it, except in cases like the german subs, where there is definately a problem of imbalance.
Add to this if I dont know what my enemy is researching I can guess. Then, if you are the allies, the problem of WHEN russa is going to enter. If Germany attacks early, and teched up tanks, and only tanks, then I may get overun quickly if I was going for a more balanced tech agenda. Too much emphasis is placed on tech. Thats all there is to it.
I cant really think of any more obvious ways to put it than I already have. There was a problem with bombers..... it was tech.
There was a problem with tanks..... it too was tech. There is a problem with subs.... one more time it is tech.
How many times does tech have to be the root of a problem before it is realized that tech itself being SO overpowering IS the problem?
Another problem with air only ASW is range. Carrier based CAG does help, but there is a problem. First, I dont want my carriers away from my main fleets, unprotected, and moving fleets around, chasing subs will eat up my supplies VERY quickly.
No, the ONLY REAL answer to a serious German sub threat is to hunt them with destroyers, but when its possible for germany to KEEP a 2 tech advantage for over half of the war at a mimum.......... well the problem is easily apparent.
In the OVERALL scheme of the game tech makes it a little too much of a match game. If I know what my enemy is researching, I just research and counter it, except in cases like the german subs, where there is definately a problem of imbalance.
Add to this if I dont know what my enemy is researching I can guess. Then, if you are the allies, the problem of WHEN russa is going to enter. If Germany attacks early, and teched up tanks, and only tanks, then I may get overun quickly if I was going for a more balanced tech agenda. Too much emphasis is placed on tech. Thats all there is to it.
I cant really think of any more obvious ways to put it than I already have. There was a problem with bombers..... it was tech.
There was a problem with tanks..... it too was tech. There is a problem with subs.... one more time it is tech.
How many times does tech have to be the root of a problem before it is realized that tech itself being SO overpowering IS the problem?
RE: Sub Tech Problems
WA asw is not that difficult. Yes it takes an investment, you must focus your assets. Think about it. The cheapest, fastest, most flexible unit for WA asw, that later on will be needed all over the map is Fighters.
You must first get them parity(ev) with Axis Fighters, but work on asw, speed(range) and AA. You need them to deter Sealion anyway. Sure you will be behind for a couple of turns, so what, be defensive. Isn't that how it was in the historical sense?
Station those fighters in the sea zones of the Axis ports the subs are operating out of, makes the Axis fighters have to provide superiority mission, subs get op-fired if they are unsuccessful. Concentrate your assets, get help for your fighters, ie. another unit with 2 asw. A little planning and execution goes a long way, but you must prioritize.
You must first get them parity(ev) with Axis Fighters, but work on asw, speed(range) and AA. You need them to deter Sealion anyway. Sure you will be behind for a couple of turns, so what, be defensive. Isn't that how it was in the historical sense?
Station those fighters in the sea zones of the Axis ports the subs are operating out of, makes the Axis fighters have to provide superiority mission, subs get op-fired if they are unsuccessful. Concentrate your assets, get help for your fighters, ie. another unit with 2 asw. A little planning and execution goes a long way, but you must prioritize.
RE: Sub Tech Problems
Prioritze I can understand and agree with. Lets list those priorites, NOT in any certain order.
ASW- at the very least one unit for WA and Japan.
Fighters- Air attack, evasion, range
Bombers- Evasion, possibly ground attack, possibly even air attack
Tac bombers- irrelevant, no need to bother with them when bombers are better at everything.
tanks- evasion, ground attac
infantry- evasion, ground attack-- optional since you can opt for tanks only
artillery- evasion, ground attack.-- opitonal but very handy.
These are generally MUST research areas here. Some can be left out IF another is increased extra.
Of course logic dictates that to begin with the WA will just try to keep up with whatever the axis researches. Later the axis will struggle to try and keep up with what the allies are taking the lead in.
As I have said, its ALL about tech. That should not be the case.
As for fighters being the focus of ASW, you seem to forget that if the only thing that can hurt my subs are stationed right next to a port I usually put my subs in, then I can leave them floating in the atlantic, where the planes cant reach them, and nothing else can hurt them. I dont HAVE to go to port there. When I need to resupply, I can plan ahead and land a few fighters there along with some flak, and hope you attack.
ASW- at the very least one unit for WA and Japan.
Fighters- Air attack, evasion, range
Bombers- Evasion, possibly ground attack, possibly even air attack
Tac bombers- irrelevant, no need to bother with them when bombers are better at everything.
tanks- evasion, ground attac
infantry- evasion, ground attack-- optional since you can opt for tanks only
artillery- evasion, ground attack.-- opitonal but very handy.
These are generally MUST research areas here. Some can be left out IF another is increased extra.
Of course logic dictates that to begin with the WA will just try to keep up with whatever the axis researches. Later the axis will struggle to try and keep up with what the allies are taking the lead in.
As I have said, its ALL about tech. That should not be the case.
As for fighters being the focus of ASW, you seem to forget that if the only thing that can hurt my subs are stationed right next to a port I usually put my subs in, then I can leave them floating in the atlantic, where the planes cant reach them, and nothing else can hurt them. I dont HAVE to go to port there. When I need to resupply, I can plan ahead and land a few fighters there along with some flak, and hope you attack.
RE: Frustrated with tech
FWIW, the old Rock-Paper-Scissors game is all about winning or losing based on whatever advantage or disadvantage you have. And that's based on YOUR decision combined with your opponent's decision. Sometimes you win and sometimes you don't. Some of the frustration expressed here is probably due to making poor decisions rather than inherent problems with tech itself. So the game may be just fine, as a game.
On the other hand, some other comments about some of the unrealistically high tech levels that could be achieved warrant some thought. In an absolute sense, WWII technology only went so far and there were some limits. It might be worth considering some limitations on max level for some techs. Maybe that would help some, especially in the late war during 1945-46. Just an idea.
On the other hand, some other comments about some of the unrealistically high tech levels that could be achieved warrant some thought. In an absolute sense, WWII technology only went so far and there were some limits. It might be worth considering some limitations on max level for some techs. Maybe that would help some, especially in the late war during 1945-46. Just an idea.
Bill Macon
Empires in Arms Developer
Strategic Command Developer
Empires in Arms Developer
Strategic Command Developer
RE: Frustrated with tech
I think Big Lou nailed the problem on the head...the only way Germany realistically has the resources to crank subs that much, provide them with adequate air cover in the bases, and still be able to create enough to be a threat is to be pretty much ignoring the Russian front altogether and shooting for the early AV.
So, once again, that (what I consider 'gamey') strategy rears its head to potentially throw things off balance. I knew it was going to be problematic when I started reading threads about Germany cranking out CAGs...Whereas I dont mind alternate strategies, this one just takes too much of the game balance and throws it out the window IMO.
If this strategy is nipped in the bud, then I think you'll see the Battle of the Atlantic shift back to a more reasonable level. If Germany wants to do a full court press in the Atlantic, she should probably have to suffer greatly at the hands of Russia in '43.
FWIW, I'm hoping they decide to make some changes to the victory conditions in relatively short order. I know TCP/IP play is highest on the order of priorities now, but IMO this AV thing is really starting to detract from the game.
So, once again, that (what I consider 'gamey') strategy rears its head to potentially throw things off balance. I knew it was going to be problematic when I started reading threads about Germany cranking out CAGs...Whereas I dont mind alternate strategies, this one just takes too much of the game balance and throws it out the window IMO.
If this strategy is nipped in the bud, then I think you'll see the Battle of the Atlantic shift back to a more reasonable level. If Germany wants to do a full court press in the Atlantic, she should probably have to suffer greatly at the hands of Russia in '43.
FWIW, I'm hoping they decide to make some changes to the victory conditions in relatively short order. I know TCP/IP play is highest on the order of priorities now, but IMO this AV thing is really starting to detract from the game.
RE: Frustrated with tech
Let me ask this. How much of your PP are going to research each round on average. Close to half? Now please tell me what nation in world war 2 put so much into research. None, thats how many, becasue in reality tech was not as overpowering as it is in this game.
If you want to see the game start to play out like a REAL world war 2 game, based on the REALITIES of world war 2, then tech has to be scaled down some. Right now its a tech war and pretty much nothing else, something that couldnt be farther from what really happened in world war 2. In fact many of the technological breakthroughs made during world war 2 were not useful until well after the war.
If you want to see the game start to play out like a REAL world war 2 game, based on the REALITIES of world war 2, then tech has to be scaled down some. Right now its a tech war and pretty much nothing else, something that couldnt be farther from what really happened in world war 2. In fact many of the technological breakthroughs made during world war 2 were not useful until well after the war.
RE: Finished with this unrealistic game
ORIGINAL: Joel Billings
We've talked about adding an optional rule that would give units a chance of hitting other units even when the tech difficiency would normally prevent it.
Joel, dont you see the problem with this statement. Units are completely unable to hit other units because of tech. Thats is preposterous. No matter how technologically advanced a unit is it is NEVER 100% safe. Look at how easily our armored vehicles in iraq are going down to HOMEMADE BOMBS,... as low tech as it gets.
-
Bradley7735
- Posts: 2073
- Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2004 8:51 pm
RE: Finished with this unrealistic game
ORIGINAL: Scott_WAR
ORIGINAL: Joel Billings
We've talked about adding an optional rule that would give units a chance of hitting other units even when the tech difficiency would normally prevent it.
Joel, dont you see the problem with this statement. Units are completely unable to hit other units because of tech. Thats is preposterous. No matter how technologically advanced a unit is it is NEVER 100% safe. Look at how easily our armored vehicles in iraq are going down to HOMEMADE BOMBS,... as low tech as it gets.
It's not so black and white when you talk about land forces. But, do you really think that 1945 US ASW could sink even 1 LA class nuclear attack sub? What about 1939 allied ASW vs deep diving schnorkel boats with homing torpedoes? Super tech subs (and CAG and fleets) can get pretty much immune to low tech opponents. What about this scenario: Japan doesn't tech up it's CAGs and fleets. Allies tech up enough to get jets. Do you think Japan could possibly damage or sink any allied ships that contain jets?
I guess what I'm saying is that I agree with the game in that if you get too far from your opponent tech wise, you'll lose. Although, I will agree with you in that 50 Milita vs 1 armor would probably be able to at least damage it. But, I could see quite a few of them being destroyed before they could damage or destroy the super tank.
The older I get, the better I was.
RE: Finished with this unrealistic game
Ok, Bradley, I will give you that. A MODERN unit would be relatively safe from a ww2 era unit. However, isnt that a problem where you can actually have tech that advanced in the 40's?
As for the jets thing. Yes they could, with numbers. For some reason people think the jets developed during ww2 were something like our jets today. They werent. In fact, the jets used at the end of world war 2 were not NEARLY as effective as people believe. Remember, Germany had jets at the end of the war. The allies did not. Yet the allies were able to deal with those jets, becasue they had the numbers. Thats what i have been saying all along is missing from this game. Thats because tech is way too strong.
As for the jets thing. Yes they could, with numbers. For some reason people think the jets developed during ww2 were something like our jets today. They werent. In fact, the jets used at the end of world war 2 were not NEARLY as effective as people believe. Remember, Germany had jets at the end of the war. The allies did not. Yet the allies were able to deal with those jets, becasue they had the numbers. Thats what i have been saying all along is missing from this game. Thats because tech is way too strong.
-
Svend Karlson
- Posts: 194
- Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2005 8:11 pm
RE: Finished with this unrealistic game
ORIGINAL: Scott_WAR
Remember, Germany had jets at the end of the war. The allies did not. Yet the allies were able to deal with those jets, becasue they had the numbers.
What do you mean by that Scott? My understanding is that in terms of being able to defend against, or indeed shoot down, jet fighters, the Allies were completely unable.
The only saving grace was that there were too few Jet fighters to make a significant difference.
However this is pretty much modelled in game. A handful of 10/10 fighters (for instance) is still little more than an irritation against the kind of air armada that the Allies can raise by end-game.
RE: Finished with this unrealistic game
The reason jets were ineffective is very simple. Speed and guns. It was extremely hard for the allies to shoot them down, conversely it was rather difficult for the jets pilot to hit anything with his guns. Computers to help aim, and the use of missle is what makes jets the killing machine they are now. Things that were not available when jets first made the scene in world war 2.
However it WAS possible for the allies to shoot them down, it just took enough of a numerical advantage that the jet was unable to escape enemy fire no matter where it went. Remember the standard tactic for shooting down an enemy plane during world war 2...... follow it and shoot the crap out of it. When a jet would slow down enough to tail an non-jet, it was at that point vulnerable to other non -jets fire.
Flak was also much more lethal to jets than to standard planes. Flak works off of the principle of throwing small metal debris in front of a plane. The faster that plane is traveling, the more devastating the damage to the plane.
Actually Svend a handful of 10/10 fighters will devastate a "normal" group of fighters. The "normal" fighters wont get any hits at all, while the 10/10 ones will eat through them. So, if you have NO way of slowing down those fighters, within a few turns your air force will be destroyed by them unless you move them completely out of range, and then what good are they?
The only answer is to match tech. Its not a gameplay issue, except in a few rare cases, but it is very unrealistic. A tech advantage was no where near as overpowering in the actual war as it is in this game. Seeing as that this a world war 2 game, I would rather see it a little more reflective of the realities of the war.
However it WAS possible for the allies to shoot them down, it just took enough of a numerical advantage that the jet was unable to escape enemy fire no matter where it went. Remember the standard tactic for shooting down an enemy plane during world war 2...... follow it and shoot the crap out of it. When a jet would slow down enough to tail an non-jet, it was at that point vulnerable to other non -jets fire.
Flak was also much more lethal to jets than to standard planes. Flak works off of the principle of throwing small metal debris in front of a plane. The faster that plane is traveling, the more devastating the damage to the plane.
Actually Svend a handful of 10/10 fighters will devastate a "normal" group of fighters. The "normal" fighters wont get any hits at all, while the 10/10 ones will eat through them. So, if you have NO way of slowing down those fighters, within a few turns your air force will be destroyed by them unless you move them completely out of range, and then what good are they?
The only answer is to match tech. Its not a gameplay issue, except in a few rare cases, but it is very unrealistic. A tech advantage was no where near as overpowering in the actual war as it is in this game. Seeing as that this a world war 2 game, I would rather see it a little more reflective of the realities of the war.
RE: Finished with this unrealistic game
The vast majority of the German jets were shot down while slowing for landings...
As far as 10-10 Planes go...8-8 Fighters escorting bombers will fare just fine vs them. The bombers will usually shoot first lowering the total defense from 30 to 27. A Fighter with an 8 attack will hit over 60% of the time! Sure, your own planes are going to get smacked too, but who cares? Germany doesnt begin to have the Population to replace losses at that stage of the game...the WAllies do.
And just for comparison, even without having bombers to soften up the defense, 8 attack Fighters STILL hit those 10-10 planes almost 40% of the time. I just dont see where you are thinking that they are unkillable?
The only units that arrived at that state (nearly unkillable) pre-patch were the ones that had an Armor factor or a 4 Durability (or both). Without those, the higher the techs go, the farther it swings to the attack over the defense. The patch reduced the ability to crank units with the 4 Durability and/or Armor, so its really not that possible to get anything into the 'unkillable' range unless your opponent has fallen asleep at the switch...
So yes, tech advantage is powerful, but its not anywhere near the monster that you are making it out to be.
As far as 10-10 Planes go...8-8 Fighters escorting bombers will fare just fine vs them. The bombers will usually shoot first lowering the total defense from 30 to 27. A Fighter with an 8 attack will hit over 60% of the time! Sure, your own planes are going to get smacked too, but who cares? Germany doesnt begin to have the Population to replace losses at that stage of the game...the WAllies do.
And just for comparison, even without having bombers to soften up the defense, 8 attack Fighters STILL hit those 10-10 planes almost 40% of the time. I just dont see where you are thinking that they are unkillable?
The only units that arrived at that state (nearly unkillable) pre-patch were the ones that had an Armor factor or a 4 Durability (or both). Without those, the higher the techs go, the farther it swings to the attack over the defense. The patch reduced the ability to crank units with the 4 Durability and/or Armor, so its really not that possible to get anything into the 'unkillable' range unless your opponent has fallen asleep at the switch...
So yes, tech advantage is powerful, but its not anywhere near the monster that you are making it out to be.