Cold war Tech Tree

@armedace
Those are some pretty cool ideas, I’ve thought about incorporating marines and how to do so-your ideas seem good. I also like the idea of interceptors at 2, more realistic and makes you think about SBR more. Although I’m not so sure about reducing air bases costs and increasing their ability to scramble to nearby land-seems OP.

Greetings,

I’m looking for a wider range of researchable technology for my next G40-game.
I’ve already used the “Search”-option but couldn’t find any good results.

Are there any good house-rule versions of the tech-charts with more options?

Thank you :-)
Greetings from Munich.

U.S.A income schedule                                            Turn                        IPCs                          Balance                    #1                          30                              22                        #2                          30                              44                        #3                          40                              56        + NOs        #4                          50                              58        + NOs        #5                          60                              50        + NOs        #6                          70                              32        + NOs        #7                          84                              00        + NOs        #8                          52                              00        + NOs

As a huge fan of Imp Games’ East & West, these kinds of games always intrigue me. It’s set in 1948, so there are some similarities to the '46 scenario.

IMHO, 1948 is sort of the high-water mark for NATO (i.e. the European empires) however, East & West is a bit non-historical in this sense.

• NATO was not formed until 1949
• Turkey and Greece did not join NATO until 1952, but are part of the Alliance in-game
• Pakistan, India, and Burma were all independent of Britain in 1948; in E&W they are still part of the empire, and a huge thorn in the side of the USSR
• The breakdown of Indonesia between Dutch-controlled areas and independent(ish) ones is not in line with history

The other high-water mark of the Cold War (based on my research) is around 1975-76. Off the top of my head:

• The Vietnam War was over; Cuba, Afghanistan, Angola, Mozambique, and Ethiopia were all ruled by communist regimes. The USSR (or Warsaw Pact) was at the height of its influence
• The Arab League had expanded across all of north Africa; the Islamic Conference also greatly increased its membership around this time
• The Central Treaty Organization (CENTO) including Turkey, Iran, and Pakistan, as well as the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO) including Thailand, Philippines, Australia and New Zealand were still in existence, supported by the major NATO powers of the US, UK, and France
• China had annexed Tibet and fought a small war with India

I’ve done work on 1975-76 scenarios for both the Original A&A as well as E&W and have done a fair bit of study on the cold war era “map” so to speak. If anyone wants to discuss the subject/games here or in a PM, I’d be very happy to respond. :-)

@Bardoly:

My main point though, is that giving techs for free is definitely a house rule, while allowing one’s opponent to pay 5 IPCs and you assume that the tech die that he rolls is automatically a “6” and then his Chart 1/2 die is automatically forseen, is more of a gentleman’s agreement rather than a house rule, and as such, could possibly be allowed in League play.

Whether it’s a light beer or a wheat beer or a pilsner beer, it’s still a BEER.

In other words, I am pretty sure any gentlemens agreement is still a house rule, and would technically be against any league play rules.  Sorry  :cry:

you have to build bombers to carry paratroopers and you only carry one of them and that can only be dropped 2 spaces away from friendly forces. The bomber commitment alone precludes the issue of “flying shock armies from buck rogers”.  Unfortunately some feel that you should be able to build and use them w/o bombers and i know 100% that this is a broken game, however, the OOB is somewhat balanced.

but if you feel its not balanced you can impose a “training cost” of 1 or more IPC every time you drop airborne, paid to model training of these elite specialists. Also, limit the build of one airborne per turn ( example: if you build 3 bombers in a turn you only can use 1 additional airborne drop the turn following placement and 1 each following turn for the next 3 turns)

This would preclude the really stupid and impossible idea of Germany building lots of bombers and thinking they will have an immediate Sealion because they didn’t buy anything for 5 turns and all of a sudden spurged on bombers as some kind of trick.

Also, damaged battleships shouldn’t be repaired until the start of the owner’s next turn.  It’s stupid that Brition can damage it, America can damage it and Russia can damage it all in the same round and it doesn’t sink when normally 2 hits kills it.

O.k. sounds good :D :D :D .