Posts made by rockrobinoff

@gamerman01:

I agree with Johnmk.  Why don’t you just put different price tags on each tech and any country can buy them at any time?

Well, you could have a game like that. There lots of plausible ways of adjusting A&A. The way I have suggested maintains the ‘unknown’ element with all the risk assessment/ cost benefit analysis type reasoning (a huge part of A&A type thinking - for those who think LL is silly anyway).

My way is not necessarily better than your suggestion or an improvement on the original system, though I have provided reason why it might be, and i think it an original enough suggestion as well.

okey doke. another AA gun question.

what happens to captured and then liberated AA guns? lets say italy moves their aa gun to france, and then france is captured by america, and then france is retaken by germany, does the AA gun revert back to italian control, or does it now belong to germany?

@Krieghund:

Either one may fire.  It’s up to the owners to decide.

is that explicitly or implicitly stated anywhere in the rules?

if two AA guns belonging to different powers are in a territory, which of them fires? this would be important if one power had radar…

@johnmk:

If the rule is set up as suggested in the first post, then I think I’d hesitate to buy tech. I’ll wait for somebody else to make all the sacrifice.

There is the advantage in getting to use it straight away. Also, some techs are more useful to some powers.

@Funcioneta:

Automatic things are bad in A&A…

Well, this isn’t really automatic. It is just as random as the old tech, but when the tech is researched it applies to all powers and not just one.

@axis_roll:

This is a pretty cool idea.  It definitely reduces the randomness, and is fairly easy to understand and implement.

I have a question, what if it takes Germany 3 turns to get radar after only spending $10.  Is that ‘delay’ passed on to everyone else?  I mean, why should Russia be able to get rockets right away at the same cost as Germany who had to wait three turns for the weapon?  How about an additional 1 IPC for each extra turn it took for the original researcher to get the tech.  So in my example, Russia could get rockets for $12.

I also think the tech acquired by the ‘enemy’ (Russia in your example) should only be active at the end of their turn BECAUSE it is guarenteed.  Russia could ROLL for a tech in a normal fashion if they wanted the tech to be instant (active on their turn).

Sure, there are probably lots of little wrinkles to apply - a couple of extra ipcs here, an extra turn to wait there. Probably all dependent on what version you are playing. The important thing is the basic concept.

IMHO, such a concept would be best applied to a Revised style of tech research i.e. being able to roll for specific techs.

@Lozmoid:

Hey, that’s a nice idea. So if you spend, say, 15 IPCs on research over three turns and then succeed, all remaining powers would gain the said technology for 15 IPCs each, yes?

yes

Or how about this: Research & Development is no longer random but incremental. All techs for each power in the game will be based somewhere on a scale from 1-10, with 10 representing that power having reached the tech listed. You can spend 5 IPCs per turn to increase as many techs as you wish by One level each. For example, Germany may begin the game with the Rockets tech at level 8. She could spend 10 IPCs over her first two turns to gain the tech. United Kingdom would perhaps be closer to gaining Radar than the other powers. Japan and Germany may have higher levels of Super Submarines. UK and US may be closer to getting Heavy Bombers. What about that?

I will see if I can come up with rough stats to begin with…

Sounds plausible enough - though it is getting a bit subjective when we start deciding how close a power should be to certain techs. Also, while it would be perfectly normal to have a game the way you described it, what would be the advantage in it, over say, the way tech works now?

I have an idea for a tech system that could be applied to Axis and Allies in some variant in the future, or perhaps applied to games today.

A power invests in tech as per normal, gets to use the tech straight away as in non tournament rules, and the techs have the same effects as described in whatever version you are playing.

However, when you have researched the tech, it becomes available to all powers in play for the price the originating power paid for it.

For instance, Germany buys two tech tokens and hits Radar on some turn. Russia goes next, and is allowed to just buy radar for 10 bucks and no die roll required. The same would apply to all other powers.

Such a system would allow for tech, but reduce the roll it plays because of the danger of the tech falling into enemy hands. An interesting element to weigh in a decision making process. Perhaps a superior game as a result.

@Funcioneta:

Tech and non tech changes the game dinamics. You don’t make the same decisions in a tech game than in a non-tech (same applies to LL). Why trying a non-tech game if we both like more playing with tech? If we want test our teories and we both use tech as default, the logic decision is using tech. I’m not interested in non-tech games so that format is irrelevant for testing my strats

I agree completely. I have some reservation about the role tech plays in some games (for instance, there is no way to counter a G1 successful tech roll as the allies in some cases (like 5 dollar G1 super subs/jet fighters/heavy bombers/long range aircraft has a profound influence on the effectiveness of G1, and before allies have a chance to do anything about it). However, on the whole, we can counter tech by investing in our own tech, or punishing the tech player for their fewer units. Also, there are many times when people should be rolling for tech but don’t, and vice versa (or spending way too much). Hence, tech is a difficult problem to be addressed, not some game changing flukey thing that just happens.

i play on triplea. be happy to take on all commers.

@gamerman01:

I agree, was nice to choose your tech, but I don’t miss it, myself.

I don’t miss it either. In fact, I like the new rules better. That said, i think it more of gamble in some senses.

Buying tech on G1 for Germany has to have immediate effects to be worth it. The argument “even if i dont get the right tech its still worth it cause it gives me a greater chance of hitting the tech i want later” doesn’t hold much water. Germany has 31 bucks, and if G is playing in such a way as to pressure Russia for as long as possible, has now lost valuable time with only 21 bucks in units and no tech 69.5% of the time. Speed!

Now, heavy bombers, jet power, super subs, and long range aircraft, all go toward an even deadlier G1, and radar isn’t a disaster either. Shipyards is only useful if you are going to build a navy - and only barely useful since it cost $10 to get it.

If I could start with $21 as Germany and also have my choice between Heavy Bombers, Jet Power, or Super Subs, I would do it every time. However, you (as in you, gamerman) can’t say “ill take heavy bomers” as a retort to my guarunteed 3 units in karellia or poland. You are saying “i’ll take my low probability shot at getting heavy bombers over three units in poland”.

@gamerman01:

You have now lost a lot of credibility with me.  It is a terrible idea to gamble with 40 IPC’s on US1 in revised for heavy bombers.

Dude, i said round 6 in a theoretical game where it results in a lock on a capital take. You’ve lost a bit of credibility with me in your ability to read. kidding

@gamerman01:

My opinion is 10 IPC’s is a modest investment that has a good chance of bearing tremendous benefits.

The same argument is being made by Funcionetta about the chances of Egypt failing… and that works out 75% the time, and not 33% (plus the times you dont get the right tech). If you are planning on investing even more money later if you miss the right tech, it also isnt 10 bucks any more.

I’ll take the two extra inf + art in east poland or karellia guarunteed at turn 3.

@gamerman01:

You know, you could miss with that 40 bucks and have absolutely nothing.  It sounds like YOU’RE the gambler  :lol:  What do you do if it misses, quit?

Well, i don’t think rolling 8 dice for a tech a very high probability of missing, and I would certainly take that risk if the payoff was a lock on a capital falling. Note failed invasions that were a low probability of failing often result in the other side winning - no different then rolling for lots of tech at critical moments in my opinion.

@gamerman01:

Yes, I’m a tech fiend.  Now that it’s not near the gamble it used to be (get to re-roll every turn)

In my opinion, it is more of a gamble than when compared to revised. You can get techs you dont want, unlike in revised where you roll for specific techs. Nothing like spending 40 bucks on Rd 6 with America to get Heavy Bombers to wipe out Germany.

for the record, i am all for tech. i just think 10 IPCs on G1 an extravagance almost certainly sub optimal.

@gamerman01:

Heh heh, I’m sure we’ll have a great game.
Just so everyone knows, I got heavy bombers in G1 with 10 IPC’s, so the joke’s on me.  I really want to attack Egypt now, but not going to, since that’s kind of the point of this game  :lol:

if you spent 10 bucks on tech and got a the right tech, you have to attack egypt. i think spending 10 bucks on tech on G1 an outrageous move by the way - considerably more suspect than Egypt G1

@Bardoly:

I know that you quoted an only 20% chance of mutual destruction, but I believe that I’ve seen higher numbers.

Well, i did just run the simulation again as i was triple checking my figures. You can confirm the numbers for yourself.

@Zhukov44:

If there is no bid to Egypt, I can’t pass up the opportunity to break Africa wide open.  I’m willing to sacrifice the bomber to kill the fighter…if killing the fighter is my measure of success, is there still a 25% chance of failure?

A 20 % chance of failure if you are happy with mutual destruction.

If those units don’t die, then Italy should be hard pressed to get the Suez NO more than once, given that I’m pulling India units back to contest Jordan on UK2.

There is Gibraltar as well.

Actually, if Germany doesn’t attack Egypt I’m tempted to buy 3 bombers on UK1

Yeah, it probably does spell doom for the Italian fleet if UK purchases that way. Should live with two bombers even with a destroyer purchase. Not sure if Axis would welcome such an approach or not though…specially given that UK isnt getting into the pressuring Germany action till turn 3 now (given that SZ 2 and SZ 12 are gone and UK still needs to build its fleet and is getting poor).