Technology

I agree that techs should be free, maybe based on a random roll. I think if you make them cost IPC’s, you’ll have to add in income to balance the game. Everyone was doing research during this period, and copying from the enemy as they rolled out new techs. Definitely agree with making a tech common after a turn or so. Maybe put a national marker on a tech that is unique to that nation, then flip the marker when it becomes common.

@oztea:

Perhaps mine detectors could be changed to “in a naval battle half of your ships are immune to mines” and perhaps advanced mines can be wrapped in with this tech.

There are mine detectors that detect land mines, and there are minesweeper vessels which clear naval mines by various techniques (dragging cables, etc.), but I’ve never heard about naval mine detectors.  Modern minesweepers can probably do a certain amount of mine detection using underwater drones equiped with TV cameras, but I’m not aware of any naval mine detection technology existing during WWI.  If it did exist, I’d be interested in hearing about the details.

Regarding the concept of “mine immunity”, I think the closest one can realistically come to it is “enhanced mine resistance” via the use of anti-torpedo bulges.

Navies tried clearing paths through suspected minefields with depth charges.
Special mine clearing units did exist and worked around the clock in 1918 to reopen shipping lanes that the UK had closed. I think like 80% of all naval mines were laid by the UK.

On the subject of gas masks, in the gas attack tech, the fact that it kills a random number (or none) of the enemy reflects the opponent having masks.

Perhaps the tech should be:
Roll a die and apply the following
1-2 remove that many enemy infantry
3-4 remove that many enemy infantry (no effect if the enemy also has the Chemical Warfare Tech)
5-6 no effect

That way masks are rolled into chemical warfare.
We could get this down to 6 techs if some techs do something slightly different that the CP needs or allies need.

But I still think 12 is better.

Maybe Gas would immobilize x number of enemy units the next round vice killing them. ?

@oztea:

Navies tried clearing paths through suspected minefields with depth charges. Special mine clearing units did exist and worked around the clock in 1918 to reopen shipping lanes that the UK had closed. I think like 80% of all naval mines were laid by the UK.

Yes, and as I recall the British and the Americans worked into 1919 to clear the North Sea mine barrage.  But what I meant to say is that naval minesweeping and naval mine detection aren’t the same thing.  The traditional way to sweep tethered naval mines, as I recall, is for two shallow-draft vessels to drag a steel cable between them and sail through a suspected minefield, in the hope that the cable will cut through the tethers and cause the mines to float to the surface, where they can be spotted visually and detonated by rifle fire.  Vessels using this technique essentially work blind, without any detection gear.  Using depth charges to clear mines likewise involves no detection process.

Chemical warfare could wrap together both the attack.and the masks.
But frankly, I don’t even think gas masks warrant being a tech.

No the whole point is to have separate techs where one harms you (gas) and you need to research the remedy ( masks)

If you had both at the same time, their would be no scramble to defeat the gas attacks. Thats the whole point.

I think the effect and procedure could be improved, but rolling dice and killing the result is way too powerful IMO.

Yes I agree.  Gas outright killing Infantry is powerful.  I think they should affect the units, not kill them.  Either immobilize them for a turn or they attack/defend at a lower die roll for a round.

I personally think you should strike gas off the list all together…it’s a very ‘local’ weapon, and simulating at the theater level is a bit silly…just think of it as being incorporated into a standard ‘attack.’

@ossel:

I personally think you should strike gas off the list all together…it’s a very ‘local’ weapon, and simulating at the theater level is a bit silly…just think of it as being incorporated into a standard ‘attack.’

Perhaps go with the suggestion, mentioned before but I can’t remember by whom, of making it like the artillery boost. Something like:

Gas: x number of infantry attack at 3 or less, or perhaps even 4 or less if you’re really into making gas potent.

A blinded soldier is as “combat ineffective” as a dead one.
The element of fate has to enter gas attacks. We aren’t going to calculate windage, or distance from trench to trench, or if they have French piss masks or UK full face mask.
A die roll simulates how fate effects the gas.

Wrapping up the two (masks and gas) makes sense because
A) whoever invents gas first is going to have gear designed to handle it and prevent friendly fire
B) The enemy when developing masks is going to develop gassed of their own.
C) A tech that does nothing but neuter another tech is a worthless tech

Imagine if in AA1940 if there was a tech called “Anti-Rockets”: your anti rockets reduce the damage done by enemy rockets to half.
Thats dumb. If I get that tech and no enemy power has rockets I’d flip the damn board over.
Techs that are techs against techs is not “Larry Style”
Then again, neither is a tech that does two things….but anti-tech techs just clogs up the charts with useless things.
Who is going to target gas if the enemy can just target gas masks next turn?
Who would target Heavy Bombers if 1940 had an “anti-heavy bombers” tech?

Either use a die to simulate variable levels of carnage for the gas. And limit the carnage against enemy powers who also have the gas tech.
And remember! I did stipulate that only ONE gas attack can be made per turn. So killing 4 infantry maximum isn’t outrageous.

The IL proposal of “one extra artillery shot” is practically nothing.

For simplicity’s sake the gas tech could be reduced to:
3. Chemical Warfare - Choose one territory this turn and roll a die. “1-3 Remove that many infantry”, “4-6 no effect”. A defending power who also has the Chemical Warfare breakthrough may have the die rerolled.

So this way, the most that could be killed is 3, in one territory. And if you target someone who also has the gas tech, they can change a 3 to another number, no effect or less.
It would be risky to ask for a 1 or 2 to be rerolled.

@BJCard:

Gas outright killing Infantry is powerful.  I think they should affect the units, not kill them.Â

Yes, especially since some of the gasses used in WWI were disabling agents (like tear gas) rather than lethal ones, and since even the supposedly lethal ones had variable degrees of effectiveness (depending on a range of factors).

Did Gas kill off entire divisions in WWI? or did it affect their ‘combat effectiveness’?  I still think a set number of enemy troops (maybe by rolling a die) can only defend at a 1 or 2 if they are gassed.  Or they are unable to make a combat movement on their turn… something like that.

I know my techs aren’t set in stone, or wholeheartedly accepted by the community as of yet, but “Observation Balloons” is already an artillery boost.

Observation Balloons - In battles where no aircraft are present, one of your artillery counts as having air support.

Gas has to be….nasty. Because it was. It can only kill in territories you are attacking, so realistically what its doing is weakening the enemy so much that in all the fighting its as if you got 1-3 more hits than you really did.
I guess a decision could be made that gassed units are merely “hit” already and get to shoot back to make the effect more mild.
But if a techs impact becomes too mild, then whats the point?

Would gas be better if it was?:
V (this is something I could wholeheartedly accept) V

Chemical Warfare - Choose one territory and roll a die: “1-4 that many enemy units may not roll defensively”; “5-6: no effect”. A power who also has the chemical warfare breakthrough may ask that the die be rerolled.

There has to be a reason to only use it in big battles, so that it isn’t just an automatic hit you can use in Africa. I don’t want to see the 4 germans down their gas their way across the continent.

@oztea:

The IL proposal of “one extra artillery shot” is practically nothing.

Don’t see the problem with this, actually. It was basically an artillery effectiveness booster. If you’re going to remove 4 infantry from a single front, you’re basically simulating a nuke, not an artillery-delivered gas attack. Yes, gas was nasty, but so were machine guns, artillery, barbed wire, and all the other ‘nasty’ things that killed people in WW1.

Let’s take a step back and look at historical impact: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_weapons_in_World_War_I

The killing capacity of gas, however, was limited – only four percent of combat deaths were caused by gas.

Keeping with this statistic, I don’t think we should be seeing more than one or two deaths per round, per front, as a result of gas.

@oztea:

Would gas be better if it was:

Choose one territory and roll a die
1-4: that many enemy units may not roll defensively during this combat.
5-6: no effect

Or a variation:

1-4: that many enemy units may not roll defensively during this combat.
5: no effect
6: wind shift; the gas affects your troops instead of the enemy

Well Ossel, under a gas rule that generates casualties the effect would be 1-3 dead or 50% of the time none dead

However, I am being convinced that the gas shouldn’t generate casualties, but instead make X units just not able to shoot back.
Wrap gas masks in by allowing other powers with the same tech to have the random die be rerolled (to simulate their masks working well or not)
1-4 infantry unable to shoot back is a big deal actually, because they are the kings of defense in this game at ‘3’

As an artillery boost, some other tech can do that.
Gas is our chance to make something special and unique. Observation balloons could logically boost artillery, and fills out another slot on the tech chart.
The chart cant just be:

Gas
Gas masks
Better planes
Better boats

Thats boring. we need the whole tech tree fleshed out. 3 each of land, air, sea and economic advances (for a total of 12) is how Larry likes to do it.

I’m glad that SOMEONE is finally agreeing with my suggestion that Infantry have lower effectiveness in some way vice outright death.  I like the not being able to defend, but able to soak up a hit on defense.

Yeah, if you’re going to simulate it all, making the defenders unable to fire back is probably the most palatable. It’s also the most practical: just remove defender dice from the battle board.