1 question about the tech ¨Super Carriers¨
Can they hold only 1 strategic bomber, or more?
My super carriers can hold 1 bomber, or 3 fighters/tacs
If you also have the heavy carriers tech, your carriers defend on 3 and can hold one plane while damaged (any plane they are capable of holding)
AND if you have the Nuclear propulsion tech your carriers are: 0/3/3 “can hold 3 planes, or one bomber, and can hold one plane while damaged, and can repair itself it it doesn’t move this turn”
So combining techs can make for some really unique units.
all i have to say is: :evil:
Here is a spin I took at tech tiers.
Great stuff. I especially like adding National Objectives as a tech development; very innovative! Also liked the anti-tank, tank destroyer, and heavy tanks developments. Nice, clean rules that capture complex concepts with concision.
Is there any way that you could post it as a word document instead of a PDF? If you wouldn’t mind, I’d like to use it as a template for sharing some techs of my own…
@Young:
For the research phase, I’ve decided to use a variation of the “research center” house rule, however, if anyone has any good modifications to it…. I’m open.
RESEARCH FACILITIES:
Any nation who is at war, who holds their own capital, and has an eligible territory, may purchase “research facilities” for $15 each during the “purchase new units phase”. During the “place new units phase” new research facilities must be placed on originally owned territories (only one per territory) with an IPC value of 3 or more.
During the “research and development phase”, each operational research facility may roll 1d6 for an opportunity to roll a 6 (only operational research facilities that are on the board during the “research and development phase” may make research rolls). If a facility rolls a 6 during research, they have made a technological breakthrough (regardless of how may 6s are rolled, a nation may only make 1 breakthrough per round).
During a strategic bombing raid, research facilities follow all the same rules as air and naval bases, including built in AA guns, interceptor protection, and damage. However, research facilities are vulnerable to strategic bombers only.
This sounds good, and only a wealthy power will afford $15 so it makes sense. Not sure about the capturing facilities part. Maybe they should be destroyed just like when China lerates a territory with a japanese IC?
Vance,
I will take that advice because I want to make it more simple, but the invading nation will still roll 1 research die for a chance to find some unshreded documents, before destroying the facility.
*rule has been edited.
Yeah that sounds pretty cool. makes taking the lab extra juicy
If you guys are interested.
You could take a look at the “Total World War: December 1941” a game for Triple A.
There are research facilities (producing 3 tech. tokens per turn), which are eligible Strat. Bombing targets.
And there are 60-ish Techs available to all teams broken up into 4 categories: Land warfare, Air warfare, Naval warfare and production.
Also lots of other unique game features.
http://tripleadev.1671093.n2.nabble.com/Total-World-War-tp5993258.html
And while its not a board game yet… it may be developed into one sooner or later.
I looked at the neutral negotiation thread and I liked it a lot, but felt that it needed to be simpler. How about this?
During the purchase new units phase, you may spend $5 to negotiate with a strict neutral by rolling 2d6. Add the territory value + the standing army value -1 per adjacent territory controlled = the # to roll over in order to turn the neutral.
That’s it, thoughts?
Hey Grasshopper,
That neutral negotiation idea seems pretty cool. Let me see if I have this right. Let’s use Sweeden as an example:
Territory value = 3
Standing army = 6
TOTAL = 9.
Germany controls Norway and Finland so that would be -2.
So Germany would have to roll a “7” or higher to turn Sweeden into a Pro-Axis neutral, right?
If successful, can they move into Sweeden in the NCM of that same turn?
If they fail, is there any penalty, like Sweeden turning Pro-Allied? Or do they simply stay strict neutral and Germany can try again next round?
Hey Grasshopper,
That neutral negotiation idea seems pretty cool. Let me see if I have this right. Let’s use Sweeden as an example:
Territory value = 3
Standing army = 6
TOTAL = 9.
Germany controls Norway and Finland so that would be -2.
So Germany would have to roll a “7” or higher to turn Sweeden into a Pro-Axis neutral, right?
If successful, can they move into Sweeden in the NCM of that same turn?
If they fail, is there any penalty, like Sweeden turning Pro-Allied? Or do they simply stay strict neutral and Germany can try again next round?
You are correct, however, I don’t think a non-combat move into Sweden is nessasary in the same turn, it simply turns pro axis. If it fails, they pay $5 to try again, but get a -1 modifier for each continued negotiation attempt afterwards on the same neutral only.
The proposed equation allows a quick conversion of neutrals.
Pay $5, modifiers for adjacent, use a fixed base success value ( say IPC value plus 8, minus -1 for each adjacent you control)
@Imperious:
The proposed equation allows a quick conversion of neutrals.
Pay $5, modifiers for adjacent, use a fixed base success value ( say IPC value plus 8, minus -1 for each adjacent you control)
So instead of adding the standing army value, your suggesting to make it +8 for all neutrals?
8+ for neutrals, plus IPC. Standing army thing not good IMO>
@Imperious:
8+ for neutrals, plus IPC. Standing army thing not good IMO>
What if we keep my suggested formula, and create a minimum floor value of 6?
Well take Sweden worth 2 now add base of 6, occupy Norway and Finland -2.
Sweden gets pro axis on 6 or greater. No way. It will ruin the game.
Base might be 9-10, so in the example 2+9-2…9 or better.
OK best thing is use base of 9 Plus IPC= success roll. Drop the adjacent area modifier because it messes up the results and makes it too easy.
I don’t have a word document of my Techs, only a Powerpoint.
I know, Im from another planet….
Sorry, I will make myself more clear because that’s not what I ment by a min floor value of 6.
I suggest the following and will use Sweden as an example:
Germany Pays $5 to negotiate and make a roll to turn Sweden. Sweden has a territory value of 3 and a standing army of 6, Sweden is also surrounded by 2 German territories (3+6-2=7). Germany would have to roll a 7 or higher to turn Sweeden. However, if Germany began negotiations with ___________ which has a territory value of 2, a standing army of 2 and is not surrounded by German territories (2+2-0=4) they would need to roll a 6 or higher (minimum floor value of 6). Also, sweden is not that valuable if you consider the loss of a German NO of $5 for taking it.
If you want to make it harder to get neutrals, how about a + modifier for each enemy territory that surrounds the neutral you’re negotiating with?
Rolling a 7 is an easy thing to do ( craps). It would be gangbusters turning all the strict neutrals over, benefiting the first player to do so.
The score cannot be lower than 10, and something like 10-12. Perhaps this new idea:
IPC of strict is 0-1, 10-12 is required
IPC of strict is 2, 11-12 is required
IPC of strict is 3, 12 is required
no modifiers
die roll can be applied to different neutrals each turn.
IL,
I understand not wanting it to be too easy, but I think you are making it too hard. Roll of 12? You have to get 2 6s. Ever roll for tech? I think it needs to be somewhere in the middle, not real easy but not impossibly hard either.
Grasshopper,
If Germany took Sweeden, they would still get their NO. It says that Germany has to control Norway and Denmark while Sweeden is NOT Pro-Allied or Allied controlled. If Germany actually occupied Sweeden, either by this negotiation or even by invasion, Germany would still get that $5 Sweedish Iron Ore NO as long as they still controlled Norway and Denmark.
