Here’s what I’m thinking…
Germany- Super Subs, Improved Mech (maybe Adv Artillery, Rockets, Paratroopers, or Jets)
USSR- (maybe Increased Factory Production)
Japan- (maybe Improved Shipyards or Long Range Air)
UK- (maybe Radar)
ANZAC- (maybe Increased Factory Production)
Italy- (maybe Increased Factory Production)
USA- War Bonds (maybe Paratroopers, Increased Factory Production, Improved Shipyards, Radar, Long Range Air, or Heavy Bombers)
I’d probably give each country one tech that won’t unbalence the game maybe advanced artillery for USSR, Improved mech for germany and improved shipyards for Italy because they were working on modernizing their old battleships and on an aircraft carrier.
There’s plenty of tech ideas and modifications.
The goals of each set of tech rules can vary greatly.
My current FTF playgroup dislike the current AA50 tech rules for three main reasons (in order):
1). Randomness of tech investment to target outcome
2). Instantaneous usage of tech (surprise! Got long range on 1 $5 tech dice on US1, your Japanese fleet is now sunk)
3). Techs are not equal, some are more desirable than others and should equalized somehow
So I wandered onto an idea proposed by others (tech via a point system) and discussed in this thread:
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=16240.0
Solutions to problems listed above:
1). You can target a specific tech
2). Due to the mechanics of how techs are achieved, other players are aware that game breaking techs are being developed by another nation, and can estimate how soon they might be achieved.
3). By varying the points, better techs take longer to achieve, so that are an additional cost in time. This also could enable some offsetting techs to be developed (more strategic)
Only through game play testing can an idea truly be measured as a good one or a bad one. We have at least 15+ games with these tech rules. Tweaking point levels and number of tech rolls along the way.
Feedback is appreciated
The attached Word document is much nicer format, but wanted to show the point values and rules without requiring people to d/l the document.
TECH via a POINT SYSTEM v2.2 revised Dec 2010
Each tech has a point value. Purchased researchers have the same cost, but are targeted for only one tech. Roll as normal for research, but add up the total rolls and apply them toward the selected tech. Once point value is reached, tech is gained (said researchers are lost/not needed). Techs achieved on the first try come into play at the end of non-combat moves (yes, war bonds are ‘instant’). This may result in achieving multiple tech per turn. This is legal under these tech rules.
Example:
US wants heavy bombers eventually, they are worth 25 research, so on turn one I purchase one heavy bomber researcher. I roll and get a 3. Now I need 22 more research to get heavy bombers. On turn two I decide I want super subs, and since that tech isn’t as powerful I only need 15 research to get them. I purchase 2 researchers, both for the subs as I want to sink japan’s navy now. I roll a 2 for my heavy bomber researcher, leaving 20 left, and then roll a 4 and a 5 for my subs, leaving 6 left and with any luck on turn 3 I’ll get my super subs.
Number of Researchers restriction: Only 2 tech researchers are allowed per tech. Both can be bought in one round.
Tech points assignments:
Technology Val Technology description
Chart 1
Advanced
Artillery 12 Each of your artillery units can now provide greater support. One artillery unit can support two infantry per attack. Two infantry when coupled with one artillery unit each have an attack value of 2.
Rockets 20 Your antiaircraft guns are now rocket launchers. In addition to its normal combat function, during the strategic bombing raid step of yourConduct Combat phase each turn, each of your antiaircraft guns can make a single rocket attack against an enemy industrial complex within 3 spaces of it.
Paratroopers 30 Each of your bombers can act as a transport for one infantry, but it must stop in the first hostile territory it enters, ending its combat movement. Both units must begin their movement in the same territory. The infantry is dropped after any antiaircraft fire is resolved, so if the bomber is hit, the infantry it carries is also destroyed. The infantry unit may retreat normally to a friendly adjacent space during combat.
Increased
Factory
Production 20 Each of your industrial complexes can now produce two additional units beyond its listed IPC value. For example, Germany with 10 IPCs can now produce 12 units. Also, when repairing a damaged industrial complex (removing damage markers), you can remove two damage markers at a time for the cost of 1 IPC (half price).
War bonds: 10 During your Collect Income phase,roll 1d6 and collect that many additional IPCs.
Mechanized
Infantry: 25 Each infantry that is matched up with a tank can move two spaces along with the tank.
Chart 2
Supersubs 15 The attack value of your submarines is now 3 instead of 2. The defense value of your submarines remains at 1.
Jet Fighters 18 The attack value of your fighters is now 4 instead of 3.
Shipyards 15 Cheaper sea unit costs: Battleship (17) A/C (11) Cruiser (10) Destroyer (7) Transport (6) Submarine (5)
Radar 15 Your antiaircraft gun fire now hits on 1 or 2 instead of just a 1.
Long Range 38 Your fighters’ range increases from 4 to 6. Your bombers’ range increases from 6 to 8
Heavy Bombers 25 You roll two dice for each bomber and select the best result when you attack or make a strategic bombing raid. On defense, your bombers still roll only a single die
Any changes to the tech system should involve and reevaluation of the techs and changes respective to encouraging more dynamic play. The OOB choices are very poor and a number of them are very weak modifications.
Real technology that actually existed in the war should be modeled and rules presented that make the game a bit more interesting
Examples: radar, sonar, fast battleships, atomic bomb, mobile warfare doctrine, etc…
Not “advanced artillery” which didn’t exist to any extent that it modifies units
Not “warbonds” which are 8.5 x 11 pieces of paper printed by the government
Not “improved shipyards” which didn’t exist to any extent that ships magically were made for 25% cheaper for the rest of the war
Not “paratroopers” which existed before the war and are not technology. You might as well have as airplanes as technology and remove all of them.
Radar should not apply to AA guns, but also for air units defending in some respect. Thats how it effected the outcome over England in 1940.
@Imperious:
Any changes to the tech system should involve and reevaluation of the techs and changes respective to encouraging more dynamic play. The OOB choices are very poor and a number of them are very weak modifications.
Real technology that actually existed in the war should be modeled and rules presented that make the game a bit more interesting
As pointed out many times before, ANY house rules are subjective. That means one system is no more ‘better’ than another. It’s best to point out the objectives of any house rule being introduced as to understand the context of why it is being used.
One major principal we try to follow when we make a house rule is the minimalist approach, something I know other great gaming groups embraced like the (late) Caspian Sub Yahoo group. This also enables more players to adopt a house rule if it’s a simple one to implement.
Too many changes and you are no longer ‘tweaking’ A&A anniversary edition, you would be playing A&A50IL or AARH.
Please don’t get me wrong, this is not necessarily a bad thing.
The subbing out of 4 suspect technologies for a set of replacement ones that offer alot more interesting ideas for players to pursue and at the same time seem at least a bit more realistic IMO should trump the OOB. IN fact to me changing 4 techs out for new ones is just as KISS is changing the system of obtaining technology.
Its like playing AAP40 out of the box, which is impossible. The minimalist thing does not always trump everything. I just don’t view the OOB as some god or ultimate authority that dictates what everything should be especially considering the latest issues regarding playtesting of the games. The luster of OOB has not much currency with me anymore, because it too changes like the wind and even changes after the game is produced :roll:
I used to be more in favor of keeping the OOB intact especially with MB edition. To me that was a very complete game if the bid was right.
iperious leader I hear where your coming from about advanced artillery not being a tech , I don’t consider my tech tree to acually be just techs, but also traing and politics. In any war certain amounts of scrap metal will be bought by the government smoldered down and use for machines of war, so if scrap prices drop technicly so does the price of what ever it is being used to build. And advanced artillery and paratroopers is more of a traing program to make your troops better at what they do , practice makes perfect. And warbonds were there and did suplement a good amount of government money. That’s why I use the system I use because take Airborne Rangers for example you don’t hand a grunt a parachute and expect him to know how to use it which is my reson for not using OOB tech, the more times you jump the better you get. I’m not sure if you were even talking about my system but I just want to say there not just techs but techs, training, political advances and production of machinery by the lowest bidder.
thank you for the feed back and were playing a game europe40 now, were at turn four and a total of 35 tech,s have been learnedbetween the 6 nations.
Paratroopers , War Bonds, etc can be standard rules and not techs.
Paratroopers can be just infantry where you pay 1 IPC and for that turn its converted, sort of a pay to play use permit. The Paratrooper can attack at +1 or not.
War bonds can be activated any time say USA enters the war, by that time all players are considered mobilized for the war effort, so just say on turn 4 everyone gets this.
Improved magic “poof” your naval cost -2 for no reason technology… well just scrap that dumb rule. Many of these OOB techs are like filler ideas and not at all developed or thought out. I imagine these were created while watching cartoons with no thought at all made to any relevance to reality.
It the technology tree contains these types of ideas, just leave out that word technology and use the words… “player upgrades and assorted ideas thought on a whim”
@Imperious:
Improved magic “poof” your naval cost -2 for no reason technology… well just scrap that dumb rule. Many of these OOB techs are like filler ideas and not at all developed or thought out. I imagine these were created while watching cartoons with no thought at all made to any relevance to reality.
I can not agree that improved ship yards has no basis in reality.
Ever hear of ‘economies of scale’?
Yes that would be modeled by USA growing in income as per OOB and her wartime mobilization efforts. Its not a thing where you pay a scientist to ‘research’ how to be magicians like David Copperfield and transform a nations economy into a 20% cost reductions.
If Germany had the income like USA in the war, it too could have built more naval among other things. The more raw materials you got the more you can buy, the cost of a bomber is X, and if you got alot more income it can be Y, but this is only a function of having more resources…. not technology. At this stage assembly line production was invented long ago, their are no shortcuts for a cheaper made tank or bomber, unless you substitute cheaper materials. Quality goes down if you take shortcuts.
The only way it could get cheaper due largely to technology would be if you had an army of robots making ships… they were not in use in 1940. It was still Rosie the riveter and other women and even slave labor toiling in factories. If anything factory costs may have increased because the pool of talent working on large warships was used to fight the war leaving lesser qualified types with novice skill to finish working in naval shipyards. The best talent always is used in more effective positions especially in wartime.
Also, the economics are already modeled in the game, albeit not very well. Income is raw materials expended for building wartime materials. The higher value you have the larger “economy of scale” you got.
So its already covered.
This entire game is an abstraction. I don’t quite understand what makes the IL cut and what does not.
I guess I am more concerned how you diminish other’s idea’s concepts as wrong or of lesser quality than your thoughts.
just because USA has more capacity, doesn’t mean it can produce units cheaper.
Reduction in cost per unit resulting from increased production, realized through operational efficiencies.
THAT is what ‘economies of scale’ mean. Operational efficiencies can be view in terms of {technological} improvements in manufacturing procedures. Procedures do not necessarily require robots. Better Rivets (materials) or better training (labor) or better materials delivery systems (just in time) are all realized without robots.
I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree.
Ok I see were your coming from ill change the name because your right this tree really doesn’t have much to do with technology, but i really couldn’t think of a new tital that people seeing the forum would understand. ( A breakdown of a euro game going on right now 5 turns in.
Germany- Lv1 paratroopers, Lv1-2and3 Advanced Artillery training, Lv1 Recruit, Lv1 Cargo Craft, Lv1and2 Divebombers, Lv1and2 Adv Submarines, Lv1 False Intellegence, And Lv1and2 Warbonds.
Soviet Union- Lv1and2 Advanced Artillery Training, Lv1 Recruit, Lv1 Fighter Training, Lv1 DiveBombers, Lv1 Increased Factory Production, Lv1-2and3 Warbonds.
United Kingdom- Lv1 Paratroopers, Lv1 Advanced Artillery Training, Lv1 Cargo Craft, Lv1 Shipyards, Lv1 Radar, Lv1 Warbonds.
Italy- Lv1 Marines, Lv1 Recruit, Lv1and2 Advanced Transports, Lv12and3 warbonds
USA- Lv1 Paratroopers, Lv1 Recruit, Lv1 Cargo Craft, Lv1 Divebombers, Lv1 Advanced Bombers, Lv1 Battle Cruisers, Lv1 Adv Transports, Lv1 Increased Factory Production, Lv1 Warbonds, Lv1 Diplomacy
Im thinking of removing the + 1 movement from air and naval bases and just having them for scramble and ship repair.
Thanks again for the input im going to think on this some more and change a few titles.
just because USA has more capacity, doesn’t mean it can produce units cheaper.
Quote
Reduction in cost per unit resulting from increased production, realized through operational efficiencies.THAT is what ‘economies of scale’ mean. Operational efficiencies can be view in terms of {technological} improvements in manufacturing procedures. Procedures do not necessarily require robots. Better Rivets (materials) or better training (labor) or better materials delivery systems (just in time) are all realized without robots.
These efficiencies come at a higher economic cost. They are not born out of low income economies. Just look at how many small economies can produce battleships at a lower cost than a larger economy. They don’t exist if you compare quality. If you can show me an example thats fine. The largest economies can do this mush more effectively than a smaller economy, so “economies of scale” also has the meaning that the greater investment of money will necessarily lead to a greater efficiency of effort.
“refers to the cost advantages that a business obtains due to expansion. There are factors that cause a producer’s average cost per unit to fall as the scale of output is increased.”
I look at this as the more income you got for investment, the greater the potential for economies of scale. So to me these are built in factories assumed by the larger, burgeoning economies in the game.
“…since some economies of scale may require a larger market than is possible within a particular country — for example, it would not be efficient for Liechtenstein to have its own car maker, if they would only sell to their local market.”
Another indication. Italy in the game would be less capable of this compared to USA or Germany.
Perhaps rather than a tech for every 20 IPC lead the combined axis or allies have over the other side receives a -1 cost benefit for naval. that would model “economies of scale” a bit better IMO rather than paying some dude in a white lab coat 5 IPC to “invent” a cash poor nations way of getting cheaper battleships, when another nation much larger is somehow paying a 20% markup for the same battleship but has 3 times to economy to do it.
We have to agree to disagree.
