I’m still not sure that this aspect of the tech discussion belongs here since it is more about a house rule but I mentioned how we have developed a progressive valued chart for the techs but I didn’t give the limitations of attaining the tech. A tech die is three (3) IPC’s every tern a player wants to roll for a tech. A neutral nation can roll one die only per rounf thatthey are neutral. That is three IPC’s per round. If a tech has a R&D value of 25, it may take a nation at least 5 rounds to develop that tech. That is at least 15 IPC’s in order to develop a tech. A nation that is war may invest in three dice (9IPC’s) per rounf in order to develop three different tech.'s at a time. They can not be applied to a single tech but must be spread over the three techs to be develpoed. It can get expensive but the thought process is this; a country will invest in R&D to develop a specific technology. It will not just through money at a problem and randomly hope to get a good result….governments maybe but not gamers. If and when we play with technology, I prefer this R&D chart. The Anniversary/Global chart and dice costs can definately thow the balance of the game off. Last game I played of global 1940, theAmerican player shelled out alot of IPC’s on tech. It put his production behind and the other allied player had to really hold on for the US to catch up but the US player was able to develop long range heavy bombers and cheaper ships. It was devostating to the the axis player (me) because he then went dark skies on the axis and it became a war of attrition that I could not repulse effectively. I have to take this moment to say I love Narvik. Direct and to the point. Tech is fun sometimes but there is alot to just playing the game.
A&A Units equivalent
-
i have a question…whats everyone’s opinion on what size army unit each A&A piece represents?
Examples: 1 Infantry = 1 Infantry Division? or Corps? or Army?
1 Battleship = 1 BatDiv?
1 Fighter = 1 Fighter wing?Just wondering what u guys think how big an Armed Forces unit each A&A piece is equivalent to
-
Battalion for inf
Squadron for fighters
A battleship is a battleship.
-
Officially, there are no direct equivalents between A&A pieces and numbers of individual real-life components they represent. This is kept intentionally vague to allow the designer some leeway in setup to allow for game balance and play. For example, an “infantry” unit represents not only an indeterminate (though large) number of individual soldiers, but also the components that support those soldiers, including logistic, vehicle, and anti-aircraft support. The difference between an “infantry” unit and a “tank” unit is basically how the individual components are concentrated in the unit. As far as size goes, the only thing for certain is that each A&A piece represents many, many individual components, and no piece is a literal representation of exactly one of anything.
-
Well said Krieghund. another example is the number of battleships in the game. Japan had more than the Yamato and Nagato. Same goes for carriers.
-
-
thanks all…as always great insight from everyone





