It is a SBR attack and you get one such attack per turn with bombers.

These rules are a marked improvement over OOB. Since OOB technology is not designed to be balanced respective to the other technology, it stands to reason that it should be more difficult to obtain. Secondly, players are somewhat rewarded for past results since the success roll can be achieved over a somewhat modified success roll after a number of attempts. I modified my original tiered tech concept that was originally presented during the release of AA50 to simplify the cost structure since some techs require either one, two , or three researcher investment. Lastly, the design of this system precludes cash rich players from spending lots of income to win technology almost immediately and still allows cash poor nations some entry level techs. Most techs since they require multiple rolls of six, now offer a way for other players to see how far they have progressed in development.

Note: Only active players/ nations can research technology. Until you are at war no technology research is possible. Remember also in this system you are buying 1,2 or as much as 3 researchers each rolling specific dice each turn ( 1,2,or 3) and once you achieved success in at least one technology, all other progress and investments for other categories are reset to zero. This last provision prevents the deliberate glitching of technology by cash rich nations.

I just reworded the Categories 1,2,3 as early, mid and late war techs to clarify better the Historical progression of these developments and attempt to tie them together with some prerequisites to further prevent glitching only for the best techs. Realistically you must develop lower ranked items in order to have the foundation to research more effective techs. This is the basis of a proper tech tree.


Imperious Leaders Revised Technology rules:

Revised Tech Tree:
Procedure: Same as Global except you assign your researcher to one of THREE categories. You can never research more than one attempt in each category and once you achieve even one required roll(s) all investments (even in other categories) are considered expended. The first category requires one researcher, the second requires two researchers, and the last category costs three researchers.

Research & Development Sequence:
1. Buy researcher tokens (1, 2, or 3 as required)
2. Roll research dice (Again 1, 2 or 3)
3. Roll breakthrough dice (does not need to be at once, but over more than one turn)
4. Mark development

Step 1: Buy Researcher Tokens
Each researcher token costs 5 IPC’s.

Step 2: Roll Research Dice
For each researcher you have, roll one die. When any achievement is made remove all researchers from all categories and additional Tech research must be reinvested. Discard all your researcher tokens and continue to step 3.

Category 1: Early War Techs
-Success: If you roll at least one "6", you have successfully made a technological breakthrough.
-Failure: If you do not roll a "6", your research has failed. Keep your researcher token and continue to the Purchase Units phase of the turn.

Category 2: Mid War Techs
Prerequisite: One Tech of each tier early war category ( 2 total)
-Success: If you roll at least two sixes at one time you have successfully made a technological breakthrough.

-Failure: If you do not roll the correct values, your research has failed. Keep your researcher token and continue to the Purchase Units phase of the turn. The next turn the needed roll to score success is reduced to 11 and capped at 10.

Category 3: Late War Techs
Prerequisite: One Tech of each tier early war category and mid war category ( 4 total)
-Success: If you roll at least three sixes at one time, you have successfully made a technological breakthrough.

-Failure: If you do not roll the correct values, your research has failed. Keep your researcher token and continue to the Purchase Units phase of the turn. The next turn the needed roll to score success is reduced to 17, 16 and capped at 15.

Step 3: Roll Breakthrough Die
If you succeed on any research die, you choose any technology within the 1st tier. Additional technology research applied to the same tech category can go to a higher technology as long as you got at least one tech. For example: If you want a technology that is 2nd tier technology, you must have at least one 1st tier tech in that same category.

Step 4: Mark Development
If your research was successful, place one of your national control markers inside the appropriate advancement box on the research & development chart. Your development becomes effective immediately. Any number of powers may develop the same technology, but powers cannot share their technology.


Category 1: Requires a score of ONE SIX at one time and maximum one researcher

Tier 1:
Mobile Warfare Doctrine: Mechanized infantry can now blitz two spaces; Tanks now can boost the attack value of these units to 2 at a 1:1 basis

Radar/ Sonar: Fighters defending in areas with AA gun now defend at 5, Cruisers now have ASW capabilities (perform as destroyers do in terms of submarine interactions). Planes may now attack submarines with either Destroyer or Cruisers.

Tier 2: (requires one development success in tier one)

Lend Lease: You may loan up to two D6 worth of income to your allies

Super Subs: OOB

Category 2: Requires a score of TWO SIX’s at one time or less* and maximum two researchers

Tier 1:

Code breakers: Defending Fighters or Tactical Bombers roll first in any naval attack and their hits are removed first before any attacker gets to roll

Advanced Warship Design: Carriers can carry 3 planes; Battleships attack at 5 and take 3 hits to sink.

Tier 2: (requires one development success in tier one)

Jet Fighters: OOB, also AA guns have no effect on these units.

Underground Factories: All sustained SBR damage is cut in half rounded down.

Category 3: Requires a score of THREE SIX’s at one time or less* and maximum three researchers

Tier 1:

Rockets: OOB

Long Range Aircraft: OOB

Tier 2: (requires one development success in tier one)

Heavy Bombers: Bombers immune to AA fire, Take best result of two rolls

Atomic Weaponry: One roll of permanent IPC damage for rest of game, two additional rolls of standard damage

* die roll for success is modified -1 each turn after the first roll and called at 10 or 15 depending on category.

American Tech set:

Tank: Pershing
Fighter : Lockheed P-80 Shooting Star
Bomber: B-29
SPA: T-92 240mm SP Howitzer  (http://www.battletanks.com/t92_sp_240mm.htm)
Submarine:Tench class
Carrier: Essex

But keep in mind that FMG is doing 2 tanks, so it still doesn't strike me as a bad idea to have 2 units with significantly different capabilities.

The second tank would be SPA/ Tank Destroyer, which offers a unique new sculpt that is easily different than a tank, or Korean War tank.

I am wanting to do a White Neutral set that doubles as a Dutch/Polish Neutral set.
One set of White and one set of Orange.

It will have a combination of pieces from Poland, Netherlands, etc

It would be too expensive to do just a Polish set or a Dutch set, so combining pieces to make a neutral set from neutral Nations makes sense.

What are your thoughts?

Yes thats perfect. The Dutch might have a destroyer or cruiser ( representing De Ruyter and other ships, but based on De Ruyter design)

http://www.netherlandsnavy.nl/


All you need is: Infantry, Artillery, Biplane fighter ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PZL_P.11) of which they made 140 of these alone, and perhaps some cavalry unit.

1. Axis minors/ pro-Axis neutrals by your first set

Infantry, Mech, Artillery, Tank, Fighter in two colors ( 5 sculpts total in 2 colors)

2. Pro-Allied neutrals (perhaps it could have one infantry with a British Brodie helmet and one with a French Adrian helmet, since those were the most commonly used internationally... or would a field cap and GI helmet be better?  ...I'm not sure.)

Infantry, Mech, Artillery, Tank, Fighter in two colors ( 5 sculpts total in 2 colors)

3. Pro-Communist neutrals with the Red Chinese set

Infantry, Artillery

4. True neutrals, Dutch and Poles with this set...

Infantry, Mech, art, tank, fighter, destroyer, transport

IL, it seems to me that sometimes you are missing the point of this game.  It IS a fantasy war/game.  Did Sealion ever actually happen?  Did the Germans take Moscow?  Did the Japanese actually invade Hawaii, or Australia, or India?  Did the Italians ever wipe out the British and conquer all of Africa?  No, of course not.  Now how many times do you think that has happened in playing this game?
I understand your wanting historically accurate pieces and maybe you have a point in wanting the earlier equipment since this game starts in 1940, with many people enjoying the 1939 variants.  However, when you make your arguments that "No late war pieces should be made", it sounds like you only play your game the way WW2 historically happened;  Germany blitzkriegs Europe, Pearl Harbor brings US in war, Allies invade Africa, then Italy, then Normandy and drive into Germany while the Russians take Berlin.  Meanwhile, the Allies island hop through the Pacific, destroy the Japanese fleet around the Philippines and finally end the war by nuking Japan.  But wait, we don't have atom bomb pieces yet.  Well maybe you can get FMG to make one with the US set so you can truly end every game with historical accuracy.

Having heavy tanks, bigger bombers, longer range fighters or even jet fighters is not a bad thing.  It could actually add an extra edge to the game.  What's more is it doesn't really matter what units of any type are made, be them early war, mid war or late war, because unless you have special house rules for dealing with these units, they will all still have the same values in the game.  A battleship will still attack and defend at 4, move 2 and take 2 hits to sink whether it is the USS Arizona or the USS Missouri.  A tank will still attack and defend at 3, move 2 and cost 6 IPCs whether it be a Sherman or a Pershing.

The funny thing is that FMG is in many cases making ONE UNIT OF EACH TYPE> So you don't have the luxury of making Hortons or Pershing for the STANDARD UNIT. The official set for normal play should be made up of the models of units that saw the most combat, as iconic symbols of what you see as pictures in books and movies/documentaries.  I dont play the game as it happened and insisting on a logical foundation to select pieces has no bearing on how the game plays out.

Atomic bomb pieces are not needed, a tech that allows for atomic weaponry and rolling for permanent damage is easy to model.

A battleship will still attack and defend at 4, move 2 and take 2 hits to sink whether it is the USS Arizona or the USS Missouri.  A tank will still attack and defend at 3, move 2 and cost 6 IPCs whether it be a Sherman or a Pershing

This has been my own argument actually, and it stands to reason that since this is not a fantasy game to project the symbolic nature of the units that fought the ONLY conclusion is one that is of similar to the OOB from WOTC, namely taking only iconic units as representation of the game pieces.

Otherwise according to you we don't need pieces since they are not relevant. Just use civil war pieces and left over pieces from other games?

Clearly the sculpts do have an important function that is to realistically project the idea that this is a WW2 game and being that the types of pieces represented by nation must conform to the utility of what was doing most of the fighting on the battlefield and the typical units that were employed in this duty.

This means among other things that ideas about B-29, or Pershing's, Maus tanks, etc have less relevance to the decision on which units that can be selected. These were not the most used units and were not even available in Europe in some cases. Clearly the choices must only be the most seen units in the war.

Having heavy tanks, bigger bombers, longer range fighters or even jet fighters is not a bad thing.

Not a bad thing but for Coach. Let him deal with them. The standard pieces must apply a universal standard, the tech pieces are like add ons... the realm of what coach is doing.

yea Scharnhorst

In fact make one battlecruiser for each player. Battlecruisers can be 3-3-2 units that take 2 hits, cost 15

No WHERE IS THE ACTUAL LINK TO THE THREAD THAT ORIGINALLY PRODUCED THIS MAP? I have been looking for hours.

In any case, the game should be about what "could have" been rather than what was, because if it wasn't, it wouldn't be a game... at least it wouldn't be a very interesting game because it would always unfold in exactly the same way!  Would such a thing even BE a game?  It's a philosophical question, I suppose. 

it that influenced the decision process all the units for Germany would look like a reprint of The War Game: World War Two, since all they did was use 1944-45 models for all candidates for units. Needless to say it looks ridiculous.

The choices for sculpts has no bearing on the outcome of games. The "could have been" argument should also have no issue in a game about the war. The only units that should be represented are the ones that actually did most of the fighting, for better or for worse. IN some cases like Japan and Italy you should only see light and medium tanks, while Germany might have a late war tank, since they are USSR are the only real players that used these types of tanks. This is why the consistency approach is also faulty since not all nations employed various types of units to the same degree and to pull out drawing board inventions that never were built is not representing this war, but a fantasy war.

A tank is a tank and if FMG just makes say one tank, you best select the one that was used the most and was built the most and saw the most action on the most fronts. This is the only aspect of consistency that should be applied.

Let coach make the Hortons, walter u-boats, etc

Just need Gomer. Man with rifle advancing up beach. No Sgt. carter

The decision on making a late war versus early war should be based on the use of the unit in the actual war.

First consider the number of units made during war. Volume rates higher.

Next consider when it was in use

If the late war unit arrives in late 1944, forget it.

If the early war unit is not used past 1940, forget it

If the early war unit was used from 1939-42 and the late war unit was a 43-45, so with early war

If the unit was used from 1940-45 , go with that

The truth will be that some units depending on nation will be early mid or late, with no preference for any except for the number produced, time they were in use, and combat experience.

This means no Me-264, Comets, Pershings, He 162, Hortons, lazers, Shinano battleships, Godzilla, etc..

where is that link

[one set]

What about the French?

FMG is not even making them and these are OOB pieces in need of replacement.

How many of these Dutch pieces can you sell to make a profit?

Instead of Dutch pieces, if you made a civil war set ( infantry, artillery, cavalry, ironclad, frigate, fortification, generals) for both north and south, you would make more money faster since you are catering to a larger population of people who would buy Civil War if given a choice between that and "The Dutch"

You should concentrate on only the best ideas first that will make the most money.

Order of profit:

1) make one set of minor axis allies
2) make one set of pure neutrals
3) make set of units of various types not being picked up by FMG ( tech pieces)
4) civil war
5) Napoleonic
6) etc.

But note that it was no longer being produced in 1944.

Thats like saying the Yamato was no longer being produced by 1944. The point is they made four times the number of this model and it saw action on every front. M36 saw action in the last months of the war, not unlike the Pershing which is in the same category. What is important is to have units that can work for games based on 1939-42 and not look ridiculous with post war tanks just because they were better. Rather look at the units that fought for the most part and use them. Its laughable to see a M36 in a 1940 game, its like time machine capabilities like that movie about the carrier that comes back in time to re fight with modern aircraft ( final countdown)

M36:

It was not until September 1944 that the vehicle first began to appear in the European Theater of Operations.

Iconic? sure but not for ww2 for these wars: Korean War, First Indochina War, Indo-Pakistani War of 1965, Croatian War of Independence, Bosnian War

About 1,400 M36s were produced during the war.

M10:

By far the most common US design was the 3in Gun Motor Carriage M10 (Wolverine)

Produced    1942-1943
Number built    M10 approx 5,000
M10A1 approx 1,700

So you see, they made 4 times more M10's than M36, the tank was in use since 1942 and saw combat for a much longer period. Only choice is M10. no doubt.