Which is best?

[Doctor Strategy]

Please read these threads detailing development points obtained from Industrial Complexes to get a full picture of the idea.

http://boards.avalonhill.com/showthread.php?t=3344

and http://boards.avalonhill.com/showpost.php?p=34269&postcount=7

On the lines of obtaining tech, I had another idea that maybe tech points should be gained on the ratio of 1/10 of the nations current IPC total. All fractional remainders are discarded. (Tech points are the same as development points and can be used interchangeably. It is just used to keep them differentiated for the debate to limit confusion.)


Territory capture tech points Vs. The development points obtained from ICs .

1) This benefits Germany and Russia and the US the most as they would get 2 pts. to start UK gets 1 (2 with a colonial garrison) and Japan gets 1.
2) These figures seem to represent more historical figures as far as money spent on developed technology except for maybe Russia being too high and UK low without a garrison.
3) It is easy to obtain more points as all that is required is building an additional IC. Or capturing an enemies IC and holding it until you begin your next turn.
4) Points accumulate at a pretty even pace and tech may enter the game earlier. As long as you keep your ICs, you can still develop techs and stay in the game longer if losing.
5) Obtaining developmment points can be disrupted by SBRs.
6) A cap on points can easily be imposed to allow for a more balanced and historical scale.


1) Territory capture tech points would benefit Germany and US with 4 points obtained from start, 3 for Japan, 3 for the UK and 2 for Russia.
2) These are pretty close historically also except for Japan being too high.
3) These aren't as easy to obtain as you must capture and hold territories to get additional points.
4) It rewards capture but may allow points too accumulate too rapidly, hence it will be hard calculating tech worth or set the bar higher to get tech. Harder to get tech in the game initially but if you're rolling it may help end the game quicker as the techs will go to the winning side at a higher pace.
5) Obtaining tech points is disrupted by conquering enough of your enemies territories. It can be as high as 9 IPCs of territories or as little as 1 IPC to lose them 1 tech point.
6) A cap is not realistically possible since it is based on how many territories you capture.

Anyway, post opinions as to what is better and some suggestions would be helpful. Your thoughts are important no matter what you think of my idea or me for that matter.

[pagan]

Truthfully I am partial to the IC points for tech with regards to an AAR Historical version. Russia should just start out as a negative in tech points. Caps seem the best for each country to keep the techs under control. Perhaps even a cap on the number of techs available to each specific country as well.

Just my opinion.

[Blasherke]

I don't like the ideas. I often use techs as a surprise, or sometimes as a last resort. This would no longer be possible, when these ideas are implemented. So, I do prefer the enhanced variation.

Greetz,
Blasherke

[Doctor Strategy]

Blasherke,

How does one surprise someone with a tech in enhanced? You pay your 20 IPCs and roll to obtain it. You must have techs confused with national advantages. I probably wouldn't blow 20 IPCs on tech as a last resort because it could mean 5 INF and a tank that would be better spent for defense instead of a risk on tech that may put you further in the hole.

You would be obtaining techs basically for free with these ideas instead of paying hard earned IPCs to get them. Historically, tech was a big part of the war and tech in A+A is disappointing in this regard. Tech often is unused because no one wants to risk many IPCs to get it or they feel it is unbalanced. If they do obtain tech, it is almost always heavy bombers or long range aircraft. This allows all powers to get some type of tech into play.
Of course more techs have to be devised as six OOTB techs doesn't really allow for diversity.

[Doctor Strategy]

Truthfully I am partial to the IC points for tech with regards to an AAR Historical version. Russia should just start out as a negative in tech points. Caps seem the best for each country to keep the techs under control. Perhaps even a cap on the number of techs available to each specific country as well.

Just my opinion.
Thanks for posting your opinion, Pagan. I am probably leaning toward the IC development points too as it may be more balanced than the other method. Also if you try you can disrupt the production which may lead to more bomber purchases as well. I also feel some sort of cap would be beneficial to game balance.

[pagan]

Your comments on Tech is correct for AAR.

However, they are not correct for AARe (enhanced)

[DaimlerBenz]

Well, I don't like the idea. BUT, I think it is a good start in the right direction. Here is what I agree with:

1. Techs were a big part in the historical war, and they don't play a role in A&A.
2. Having techs in A&A would increase the diversity of the game.
3. Now that we no longer roll a 6-sided die to determine what tech we get, THERE IS NO REASON TO HAVE ONLY 6 TECHS. Indeed, imagine how much variety could enter the game by having a lot of techs. That doesn't mean a lot of techs in each game, just every game has a different mix and is therefore a different game.
4. A better way to get techs into the game is therefore necessary.
~*~
So, we have a lot of agreement to start with, and I think this is what everyone can agree with so far.

I disagree with the system above as it will throw the balance out too much for certain countries, making it just a much too different game. That will also turn too many players away from this revision which means it won't be a reality. But here is how we can build a consensus...

Next is what I put forward as some ideas to move closer to some consensus on a new revision that would get a large following. Instead of detailed ideas that people would nitpick and argue about, I'm trying to keep it general enough to at least start the basis of an agreement. Details of how we pull it off will come later.

1. We shouldn't take luck completely out of techs. But it shouldn't be so damn chancy that it reduces the whole game to the luck of the die roll.
2. There should be more techs. This adds variety. This doesn't mean everyone is playing with LOTS of techs, only that there are many many more to choose from. This diversifies the strategy of the game. Instead of the same 2 or 3 strategies over and over, now there are little variants all over the place. HOWEVER...
3. SMALL TECHS that give tiny advantages are better than HUGE TECHS that throw the game way out of balance.
4. Techs that aren't as good shouldn't cost as much as techs that are way better. This is why everyone goes for heavy bombers right now, and no one cares about some of the others. This also goes along with #3, since a great tech for the same price as the rest is what everyone will go for, every damn time.
4b. When a "lame" tech has a cheap price, now we start to see its spicy variety start showing up in games. Why? Because at a lower price, it is not only worth it... but since it costs so little, even the cheapo players shell out a tiny bit for this or that small tech...
5. The farther along in the game, the more likely to get a tech. We should agree on this. However, luck is also a factor. The key is balancing luck with how long you are in the game, and how much you are committed to a certain tech.
6. Secrecy and surprise definitely should be a part of it. That's why they're called SECRET weapons!

~*~

OK, that is my proposal for something a lot of people can agree on. From here a community needs to start filling in details. The hardest detail is the one everyone is discussing, namely, how to do it besides just die rolls. Complex systems based on capitals and total production are a headache, and they favor some players over others.

Here, then, is not a final answer, but the beginning of showing how there are many possible ways to balance luck with other factors. THIS IS JUST ONE WAY WE COULD DO IT:

Every turn that goes by, a player gets 1 point to commit to techs. So on turn one, let's say I commit 1 point to super-subs. Now I can roll for super-subs but since I only have 1 point, I need to roll a 1. If I am patient, next turn I commit another point, now I have 2 points committed. Now if I roll a 2 or below, I get it. And so on. In this way, everyone is guaranteed a tech by turn 6, but maybe earlier. You can strive for getting it earlier by buying a tech point for a certain amount of IPC's. Not always 5 IPC, because small techs will be cheaper than awesome techs. This means that if you buy 6 points into a tech you are guaranteed to get it, instead of being left high and dry, which is lame. You do NOT have to reveal where you have committed your tech points. In board play you could have a card face down and stack a chip on it for each point. For computer play other arrangements can easily be made.

~*~

Finally there is the very fragile question of game balance. Everyone loves to tinker with rules to make variety, but it has taken the designers hours of wrangling to create a fragile game balance. Techs can easily throw the game out of balance and make it stupid. It is so awful to lose a game for NO OTHER REASON than someone got lucky with a wild-ass tech. What am I getting at here... the techs we come up with (I am thinking there should be about 15 of them) should all be subtle. The less subtle ones MUST be made to cost more. Here are some ideas on those:

1. Super transports: can carry 5 INF on 2 transports. Also, 1 TRN can carry 1 RTL + 1 of anything else. (INF, RTL, or ARM)
2. Cargo planes: a bomber can carry 1 INF to a friendly territory.
3. LEND-LEASE: You can transfer 3 IPC to one other country in your alliance, every turn.
4. Super battleships. Just like heavy bombers, they get 2 rolls.
5. Docked subs. A sub can dock off a territory with an IPC underwater and not be attacked as long as it stays there. It cannot do this if it just attacked in its last turn.
6. Mechanized Units. Each Armor can carry along 1 INF for its movement of 2 turns, simulating jeeps/trucks and what-not.
7. Advanced Sonar. Destroyers get a pre-battle role at the same time as subs, but this role can only be aimed at an enemy sub if one is present.
8. Aerial Interception. Any fighter on a territory may engage a bomber once during an IPC bombing raid. The bomber defends against this with 1 roll at 1. Unaccompanied bombers are, just like in history, greatly discouraged from trying this!
9. High altitude bombers. Immune to aerial interception.
10. Fighter support. Fighters may accompany bombers on a raid for protection. AA roles will hit the fighter instead. If the enemy has Aerial interception, any hits he gets may be chosen to go toward the accompanying fighters FIRST.
11. Island Defense. An island completely surrounded by one sea zone may have INF dig in. After one full turn has passed with no attack, the INF gets a free roll against attackers before combat starts.
12. Precision Artillery. Defending artillery gets a free roll on attackers before they enter the territory.

and so on, and so on... many of these would add that extra historical element to the game as well. I am the first to admit not all of these are necessarily good. But the idea is they are mostly SMALL changes, and the price of the tech is balanced against what you get for it. But if a tech is only worth what you pay, then why not avoid it and just buy more infantry and armor? That is where the plan far above comes into play, the plan of getting 1 free point to commit every turn. Though that is just the beginning of an idea which still needs some work.

Let's see where we take it from here. Let's start with what we agree on and build the details AFTERWARD.

[pagan]

i like the 1 point per round concept. Nice and easy. And 'chancey' as well.

miss the tech roll and lose the points fruitlessly.

pretty cool idea.

[Blasherke]

Blasherke,

How does one surprise someone with a tech in enhanced?
First of all, you have to spend AT LEAST 20 IPC's, if you want to spent more, you can. Well then, for instance.
- with long range airplanes you can surprise the British player, who believes his fleet is safe in SZ2.
- with the same advantage, suddenly those bombers in W-USA can fly to Japan and land in China. I've seen Japan fall as a consequence of that.
- in any major battle (russia, india,...), when the defending player thinks he has made balancing reinforcements, heavy bombers can seriously disrupt this balance.
- those heavy bombers can be used as a last resort, especially US-bombers stalled in the UK, when Germany is about to land in the UK, tot take out some transports.
- ...

All these situations have occured during the games I played. Especially the taking over of Japan, was a serious anti-climax, because the Axis (I played Germany) were winning at that time. And I will always want to keep a certain element of surprise in the game, which is like in a real war.

[TomJag3]

How about playing Advanced Third Reich? It has a cool tech system. There's a version out there for the entire world using the John Prados version.

[Doctor Strategy]

Your comments on Tech is correct for AAR.

However, they are not correct for AARe (enhanced)
How many techs are there in Enhanced? I see only six total techs available just like Revised. Heavy bombers, rockets, and jet power as major techs at 5 IPCs per roll and super subs, long range aircraft, combined arms as minor techs at 4 IPCs per roll. Okay, my mistake is that you could spend 16 IPCs to obtain a minor tech instead of 20 IPCs for a major tech.

Pagan, do many people spend the 16 or 20 IPCs to obtain tech in a questionable game? I am guessing probably not. The only time I see it happening in Enhanced in a game is if you're:A) Japan with Naval advantage or B) winning the game and have extra IPCs to spare to get the game over quicker or C) the USA and can afford to spend the 16 or 20 IPCs at almost anytime since they're relatively safe to do so.

There is not much difference in Enhanced from OOTB Revised as there are still 6 techs(the same ones) and not still worth going for being as you have to pony up at least 16 IPCs. The only thing that changed basically was lowering the cost for minor techs and shared tech and the way they are acquired 4:2 Rule.

Anyway that's how I see it.

[DocD]

Germany can usually afford tech early in a AARe game. As a matter of fact, I highly recommend they do.

I've purchased UK tech later in the game to bring it to a quick end.

[Doctor Strategy]

I disagree with the system above as it will throw the balance out too much for certain countries, making it just a much too different game. That will also turn too many players away from this revision which means it won't be a reality. But here is how we can build a consensus...
How would it throw things out of balance? Historically only the US and Germany sunk a lot of time and effort into developing techs. Both these rules allow historical results to occur. Which may be bad for Japan and Russia and to a lesser degree the UK but the game should have some sort of historical reality. I don't dispute country IPC values in Revised for the sake of gameplay but to give too many other advantages to especially Japan isn't right.


1. We shouldn't take luck completely out of techs. But it shouldn't be so damn chancy that it reduces the whole game to the luck of the die roll.

Why? Anything can be developed over time or stolen from someone else. Do you think scientists rely on luck. No, if something isn't realistically possible then it wouldn't be attempted. Upgrades of existing technology isn't as hard or as costly as developing something completely new. I don't think many techs developed in WWII (other than the A-bomb) were really new. they mostly modified existing technology.


2. There should be more techs. This adds variety. This doesn't mean everyone is playing with LOTS of techs, only that there are many many more to choose from. This diversifies the strategy of the game. Instead of the same 2 or 3 strategies over and over, now there are little variants all over the place. HOWEVER...

This I agree with and developed lots of generic techs in Improved Axis and Allies.

3. SMALL TECHS that give tiny advantages are better than HUGE TECHS that throw the game way out of balance.

This, I don't agree with totally. Just because something may throw a game out of balance it shouldn't be allowed. Things like this were developed in the war. This is the "whoever has the best weapons wins" mentality. You want to water down techs because it may be hard to balance. I won't support having atomic bombs in the game eventhough they were historically developed because it would probably be a race to see who would get atomic power first.

4. Techs that aren't as good shouldn't cost as much as techs that are way better. This is why everyone goes for heavy bombers right now, and no one cares about some of the others. This also goes along with #3, since a great tech for the same price as the rest is what everyone will go for, every damn time.

Can't argue with your logic here.

4b. When a "lame" tech has a cheap price, now we start to see its spicy variety start showing up in games. Why? Because at a lower price, it is not only worth it... but since it costs so little, even the cheapo players shell out a tiny bit for this or that small tech...

I agree here as minor techs can be brought in sooner and hence their benefit is enjoyed longer than a major tech brought in later.

5. The farther along in the game, the more likely to get a tech. We should agree on this. However, luck is also a factor. The key is balancing luck with how long you are in the game, and how much you are committed to a certain tech.

I agree that the further a game goes on and when one side has more of an advantage, they will try to obtain tech.

6. Secrecy and surprise definitely should be a part of it. That's why they're called SECRET weapons!

What do you propose? That you opponents not know what tech you got until they actually encounter the new unit in the game.

Every turn that goes by, a player gets 1 point to commit to techs. So on turn one, let's say I commit 1 point to super-subs. Now I can roll for super-subs but since I only have 1 point, I need to roll a 1. If I am patient, next turn I commit another point, now I have 2 points committed. Now if I roll a 2 or below, I get it. And so on. In this way, everyone is guaranteed a tech by turn 6, but maybe earlier. You can strive for getting it earlier by buying a tech point for a certain amount of IPC's. Not always 5 IPC, because small techs will be cheaper than awesome techs. This means that if you buy 6 points into a tech you are guaranteed to get it, instead of being left high and dry, which is lame. You do NOT have to reveal where you have committed your tech points. In board play you could have a card face down and stack a chip on it for each point. For computer play other arrangements can easily be made.

This idea is not bad but to give all five powers equal access to techs is not too good. It may be balanced for gameplay but it isn't to realistic as far as what really happened. Unless you have nation specific techs. This may be too hard to develop and may be even more unbalanced than national advantages and some sides would have literal gamebreakers rather than generic techs.


1. Super transports: can carry 5 INF on 2 transports. Also, 1 TRN can carry 1 RTL + 1 of anything else. (INF, RTL, or ARM)

Five INF on two transports isn't bad. But why not just bump it up to two INF plus one other ground unit for simpicity's sake. And to allow 1 transport to carry two artillery doesn't make much sense. You can use two transports to take 1 INF and 1 ART each under existing rules. This would be the same if you had one transport carrying two ART and the other two INF. To allow one ART and a tank together would be to disbalancing for amphibious assaults.

2. Cargo planes: a bomber can carry 1 INF to a friendly territory.
[QUOTE=DaimlerBenz]
Why use a bomber? They wouldn't have the room to drop a whole division of troops. It would be better to make up a token to represent them so if they overfly an AA gun they may be shot down. 8 IPCs would not be a bad cost based upon a transports cost and function and increased range of planes.
[QUOTE=DaimlerBenz]
3. LEND-LEASE: You can transfer 3 IPC to one other country in your alliance, every turn.

This is more of a perk or advantage and not a tech.

4. Super battleships. Just like heavy bombers, they get 2 rolls.

This is OK. BBs still won't get bought much at their cost.

5. Docked subs. A sub can dock off a territory with an IPC underwater and not be attacked as long as it stays there. It cannot do this if it just attacked in its last turn.

Not much of an advantage unless the subs can do economic damage. Then it is downright unfair. Next.

6. Mechanized Units. Each Armor can carry along 1 INF for its movement of 2 turns, simulating jeeps/trucks and what-not.

It's OK. But may be a game breaker if for Germany if they get ahold of this. Moscow is sure to fall quick.

7. Advanced Sonar. Destroyers get a pre-battle role at the same time as subs, but this role can only be aimed at an enemy sub if one is present.

I kind of like this as it adds more power to the anemic 12 IPC destroyers.

8. Aerial Interception. Any fighter on a territory may engage a bomber once during an IPC bombing raid. The bomber defends against this with 1 roll at 1. Unaccompanied bombers are, just like in history, greatly discouraged from trying this!

This needs to be clarified more. What do the Fighters intercept at?

9. High altitude bombers. Immune to aerial interception.

It's OK. But may not be necessary.

10. Fighter support. Fighters may accompany bombers on a raid for protection. AA roles will hit the fighter instead. If the enemy has Aerial interception, any hits he gets may be chosen to go toward the accompanying fighters FIRST.

Also needs to be clarified.

11. Island Defense. An island completely surrounded by one sea zone may have INF dig in. After one full turn has passed with no attack, the INF gets a free roll against attackers before combat starts.

This can be absurd and further discourage a Pacific campaign as battleships would be necessary to clear the islands.

12. Precision Artillery. Defending artillery gets a free roll on attackers before they enter the territory.

This is pretty good.

[Doctor Strategy]

Germany can usually afford tech early in a AARe game. As a matter of fact, I highly recommend they do.

I've purchased UK tech later in the game to bring it to a quick end.
You are correct. I forgot about Germany. If they get the tech on the first 4 rolls it's good. But if they don't get it it may be crippling as they don't have 16 or 20 IPCs worth of units on the board. Then you have to invest another 8 or 10 IPCs to get it.

[pagan]

Pagan, do many people spend the 16 or 20 IPCs to obtain tech in a questionable game?
questionable....?

How many games of AARe have you played?

I have only played a few rounds total.

How about you and I play on MapView. I will buy techs, and you don't. Let's see how it goes.

[Doctor Strategy]

Pagan,

The term questionable was used to refer to a game that is up for grabs as to the winner. It's too close to call. I wasn't slamming Enhanced. That is not my style. To answer your question I haven't played Enhanced and have never played online either. I prefer FTF games. With a 1 yr old daughter running around, I can't often sit at the computer for any length of time. Perhaps when I get some time I will take you up on your offer.

PS: I haven't forgot about DocD's and Cousin Joe's challenges either.

[Lt M Cotten]

With a 1 yr old daughter running around, I can't often sit at the computer for any length of time.

As the father of a 10 year old, and twin 6 year olds, I can tell you that you don't gain any free time as they get older. They add school, homework, soccer, baseball, gymnatics, cheerleading.....

It is still a lot of fun though. Wouldn't trade anything for it. :D

Maybe when they go off to college.....

[pagan]

free time is not the issue.

Mapview allows youto play by email. So you could spend a week per turn if you need to.

Its a way to play a&a with players that might be better than you, and that's the rub which puts off many players.