Tech via a Point System

[Imperious Leader]

I am the axis and I am way behind in the game.  If Germany takes a crazy battle to clear a way to give Japan a shot to take moscow (both being low odds battles), why would I take those battles if I were winning the game?  I wouldn’t.  But because I am losing, I am less risk averse and will do so.  Those odds that I win are not high, just like ‘catch up’ tech spending may not be enough to stem the tide of the opponents tech.  It’s a risky move, but at least it is a STRATEGIC OPTION that I have.  If you limit tech rolls, you diminish these options.

This is a good argument against Low Luck which i think is ridiculous. Some battles will result in much better outcomes, but i feel technology should not be doing this rather good strategy should only do what it can and the results may sometimes go the other way. To me this is a strength, but a technology system based on points does not give that aspect, while the OOB may do this.

So if you really like this concept that if one player on turn one gets the atomic bomb and the opponent wants to do the same and just blow the game open, i would pick the OOB system everytime. The point idea does not arrive at this dynamic as well as the OOB.

I do not think that these cheapos like Germany going for Rockets on turn one by spending all its cash like an old women in Vegas help give the game MORE STRATEGY, But i do hope you find a new solution.

to make more strategy ( if thats what you want) i suggest:

1)At a minimum get the players some kind of free technology roll, get them all involved even without spending because for the most part if the enemy does not do any tech, the opponent is likely to do less.

2)Allow for spy’s ( and trading of techs from allies)

both of these does make for more decisions, hence strategy.

[axis_roll]

@Imperious:

I am the axis and I am way behind in the game.  If Germany takes a crazy battle to clear a way to give Japan a shot to take moscow (both being low odds battles), why would I take those battles if I were winning the game?  I wouldn’t.  But because I am losing, I am less risk averse and will do so.  Those odds that I win are not high, just like ‘catch up’ tech spending may not be enough to stem the tide of the opponents tech.  It’s a risky move, but at least it is a STRATEGIC OPTION that I have.  If you limit tech rolls, you diminish these options.

This is a good argument against Low Luck which i think is ridiculous. Some battles will result in much better outcomes, but i feel technology should not be doing this rather good strategy should only do what it can and the results may sometimes go the other way. To me this is a strength, but a technology system based on points does not give that aspect, while the OOB may do this.

So if you really like this concept that if one player on turn one gets the atomic bomb and the opponent wants to do the same and just blow the game open, i would pick the OOB system everytime. The point idea does not arrive at this dynamic as well as the OOB.

The OOB falls short here, exactly, and this is the point.  I want an option to catch-up and the point system gives me a better chance at such an one but it is not a guarenteed one because the points are so high for the more game breaking tech.  In the OOB system, you are really at the mercy of the dice, so you MIGHT be able to blow the game open and then again, you might NOT just because the dice say so.  Reduce the randomness.

@Imperious:

I do not think that these cheapos like Germany going for Rockets on turn one by spending all its cash like an old women in Vegas help give the game MORE STRATEGY, But i do hope you find a new solution.

The strategy here is the decision to counter someone else’s move.  Your example is a single action.  In other words, the old woman hasn’t decided it was best to go to Las Vegas instead of a local gambling joint because her friend won all kinds of money (one action based on the outcome of another, in our case, the other is the opponent).

@Imperious:

to make more strategy ( if thats what you want) i suggest:

1)At a minimum get the players some kind of free technology roll, get them all involved even without spending because for the most part if the enemy does not do any tech, the opponent is likely to do less.

2)Allow for spy’s ( and trading of techs from allies)

both of these does make for more decisions, hence strategy.

Interesting options, but again, these are MORE changes from the base rules, which might be fun as options, but not the minimalist approach I would like to see employeed.

[Lucifer]

The points tech system is at least much better than the OOB tech system. But it is a problem in setting the right prices for each tech, b/c some powers will profit more on the same techs than other countries.

Only 3 powers will profit on sea techs, and Russia will not profit much on air techs compared to Germany, if we chose AA50 as an example.

Another problem with the techs (in AA50) is that several techs are almost worthless compared to the “middle-strength-techs”, and the game-breaking techs, it will still be a tech race in many games, even if the points tech system is less random than the OOB tech system.

Another option are (i.e.) with or w/o the point system, low-strength-techs being available before rnd 5, middle-strength-techs available after rnd 5, and the game-winning-techs only being available after rnd 10.

[axis_roll]

@Subotai:

The points tech system is at least much better than the OOB tech system. But it is a problem in setting the right prices for each tech, b/c some powers will profit more on the same techs than other countries.

Agreed 100%.  This is why I solicited others to try these rules and report the results.  Only through actual game play testing can a rule ever be best measured.  Also, tweaking by country might then take shape as well.  For example, since HB’s are so strong, and more likely to be developed by US or Japan, perhaps their cost should be an additional 5 points or conversely, Russia’s might be 5 points less.

@Subotai:

Only 3 powers will profit on sea techs, and Russia will not profit much on air techs compared to Germany, if we chose AA50 as an example.

yes, not every tech is good for every country, that’s for sure.  That is not necessarily a fault of the tech system, but more a characteristic of the game itself.  Plus by targetting your researchers, Russia won’t be trying for super subs too often now will they :)… so that ‘problem’ takes care of itself.

@Subotai:

Another problem with the techs (in AA50) is that several techs are almost worthless compared to the “middle-strength-techs”, and the game-breaking techs, it will still be a tech race in many games, even if the points tech system is less random than the OOB tech system.

Pricing the ‘worthless’ techs at a much cheaper level may get them to be used in a game, at least that’s the goal of the request to play test and find a proper point value for each tech (by country, if needed)

RE:  Tech races.

Aren’t all games that involve tech really tech races (when players actually attempt tech more than the haphazard $5 here and there)??

@Subotai:

Another option are (i.e.) with or w/o the point system, low-strength-techs being available before rnd 5, middle-strength-techs available after rnd 5, and the game-winning-techs only being available after rnd 10.

Well the pricing kinda enforces this where the cheaper techs can be had earlier.  However, if game play testing proves that to not be true, then an ‘earliest round attainable’ may need to be assigned to each tech.

---

I am certainly not saying this system is the best nor is even close to be finalized, but if we can get some players to buy into the goals / reasons WHY you would play using this tech system, then we can fine tune it to achieve that goal.  This is partly the reason why I have been answering peoples feed back with my own comments to  better describe the purpose of the “tech via a points system”.

I appreciate all the feed back and any game play testing results that are reported here.  Might I add it was this sort of community effort that created an excellent house rule set for Revised called AARe (Enhanced).

Good gaming!

[critmonster]

mediocre tech would have to be amazingly cheaper to warrant any $ spent on them. Why would I research war bonds over HB? Even at half the price it simply would not make sense. that is the inherrent problem with targeted tech. Now the post about round number available might have some potential because I might want war bonds round 2-3 to help fund my round 5+ big research. As far as round ten, are many of your games gong that long? things tend to be fairly well decided around 4 in our group with perhaps two more rounds to try and stem the tide but either the axis are rolling over russia/asia or the allies have stopped nazi momentum and begun to push back.

[cousin_joe]

Hi guys,

I’ve only managed to play a handful of games of the Anniversary Edition but axis_roll asked my opinion on Tech via a point system

First of all, I completely agree the OOTB Tech system is completely FLAWED and lacks ANY Strategic Value
A Strategic Tech system should allow players to choose the Tech they go for, rather than just acquiring it randomly

So with that said, I do agree with Directed Tech, but I do think there’s an easier way to implement it than with the point system…

Basically, keep Tech exactly the way it is, except that when buying researchers, a player must state which Tech they are going for.
Techs are divided into 3 categories:

Minor Tech:
-War Bonds
-Advanced Artillery
-Super Subs

Moderate Tech:
-Paratrooper
-Industrial Capacity
-Shipyards
-Radar
-Jet Fighters

Major Tech:
-Mechanized Infantry
-Rockets
-Long Range Aicraft
-Heavy Bombers

Now here’s the kicker…
Minor Techs succeed on a single hit (ie. 1 roll of ‘6’, just like normal)
Moderate Techs require two hits (ie. 2 rolls of ‘6’, in total, before they become active)
Major Techs require three hits (ie. 3 rolls of ‘6’, in total, before they become active)

So for example, Player A wants to go for Heavy Bombers
He buys 2 researchers to start (10IPC), realizing that it is impossible though to get HB right away
On Turn 1, he rolls 2,4 - no good.  He plans to add 1 researcher for next round (5IPC)
On Turn 2, he rolls 1,2,6* - that counts as 1 hit, he still doesn’t get HB though
On Turn 3, he rolls 3,4,5
On Turn 4, he rolls 1,4,6* - that’s a 2nd hit, still no HB yet.  He really wants HB next turn though and plans to buy 2 more researchers (10IPC)
On Turn 5, he rolls 2,4,4,5,6* - SUCCESS!  He now gets HB for 25IPC Round 5 (later, and more expensive than OOTB rules)

Advantages:
-This would be a very simple system to implement (rather than counting points)
-The stronger Techs would generally take longer to get (because they require multiple Tech hits)
-The stronger Techs would be more expensive to get (assuming the player is willing to buy more than 1 researcher to get the Tech in decent time)
-Tech is Directed, making the Tech component of the game much more strategic
-Counter-Tech is also Directed again increasing the Strategy of the game (ie. IC to counter HB)
-Furthermore, if players know someone is going for a specific Tech, they can employ countermeasures in terms of purchases as well

I think Tech can be taken further strategically, but if you’re looking for a real simple solution, this would be a start.

[cousin_joe]

Just to expand on this idea a bit further…

One can look at allowing Shared Tech…
If an Ally achieves a Tech, you could allow alliance members to research the Tech for 4IPC/researcher rather than 5 IPC

Also, one can look at adding some other Techs to the game
Basically you would just need to classify it as Minor, Moderate or Major
I think an Interceptor Tech would be nice, maybe also something to make Subs less vulnerable, and also Navies less vulnerable late game (to HBs)

Finally, there’s room to have Country Specializations (ie. a country can research a Tech for 4IPC/researcher right off the bat).  This could be to direct the flow of the game in a certain way (historically or strategically) or make up for inherent in-game deficincies.  I would suggest the following…

Germany - Industrial Capacity (game shorts them on production to begin with, natural HB protection, still pay full price for Mech Inf)
Italy - Paratroopers (I know they have no BMBR but some historic/strategic implications for this)
Japan - Super Subs (historic/strategic implications)
Russia - Advanced Artillery (historic/strategic implications)
UK - Shipyards (historic/strategic implications)
USA - War Bonds (economic edge, make them still pay full for HB,LRA)

Thoughts?

[Lucifer]

Paratroopers is a strong tech, and within Cousin_Joes system it should be a major tech.

[axis_roll]

@cousin_joe:

Hi guys,

I’ve only managed to play a handful of games of the Anniversary Edition but axis_roll asked my opinion on Tech via a point system

First of all, I completely agree the OOTB Tech system is completely FLAWED and lacks ANY Strategic Value
A Strategic Tech system should allow players to choose the Tech they go for, rather than just acquiring it randomly

Appreciate your input

@cousin_joe:

So with that said, I do agree with Directed Tech, but I do think there’s an easier way to implement it than with the point system…

Basically, keep Tech exactly the way it is, except that when buying researchers, a player must state which Tech they are going for.
Techs are divided into 3 categories:

Minor Tech:
-War Bonds
-Advanced Artillery
-Super Subs

Moderate Tech:
-Paratrooper
-Industrial Capacity
-Shipyards
-Radar
-Jet Fighters

Major Tech:
-Mechanized Infantry
-Rockets
-Long Range Aicraft
-Heavy Bombers

Now here’s the kicker…
Minor Techs succeed on a single hit (ie. 1 roll of ‘6’, just like normal)
Moderate Techs require two hits (ie. 2 rolls of ‘6’, in total, before they become active)
Major Techs require three hits (ie. 3 rolls of ‘6’, in total, before they become active)

So for example, Player A wants to go for Heavy Bombers
He buys 2 researchers to start (10IPC), realizing that it is impossible though to get HB right away
On Turn 1, he rolls 2,4 - no good.  He plans to add 1 researcher for next round (5IPC)
On Turn 2, he rolls 1,2,6* - that counts as 1 hit, he still doesn’t get HB though
On Turn 3, he rolls 3,4,5
On Turn 4, he rolls 1,4,6* - that’s a 2nd hit, still no HB yet.  He really wants HB next turn though and plans to buy 2 more researchers (10IPC)
On Turn 5, he rolls 2,4,4,5,6* - SUCCESS!  He now gets HB for 25IPC Round 5 (later, and more expensive than OOTB rules)

So if I fail to roll 6’s, I never achieve a tech?  that adds that randomness factor BACK to the system.

Example:  3 tech rolls CAN roll three 6’s so I COULD achieve a MAJOR tech with a $15 investment.
Conversely, let’s say I spend $15 for a minor (I really want super subs).
I could go three rounds and never roll a 6 (no sixes in nine rolls certainly can happen).

The goal is to diminish this randomness as compared to the OOB, and it sounds like this system has not done that too much.

I like the idea of accumulating your tech efforts (Akin to the 4:2 in Enhanced)
In other words, your tech rolls are never totally wasted.  If you roll three ones on my Super Subs example,
then you would be 20% of the way to getting super subs (3 of 15).  In this proposal, I would have nothing to show for my tech rolls.

@cousin_joe:

Advantages:
-This would be a very simple system to implement (rather than counting points)

You’d still have to counts number of hits by category for each tech.
That is basically the same exact thing as counting points by tech.

I played with tech by points over the weekend and it was not hard at all to track the tech rolls.

@cousin_joe:

-The stronger Techs would generally take longer to get (because they require multiple Tech hits)
-The stronger Techs would be more expensive to get (assuming the player is willing to buy more than 1 researcher to get the Tech in decent time)
-Tech is Directed, making the Tech component of the game much more strategic
-Counter-Tech is also Directed again increasing the Strategy of the game (ie. IC to counter HB)
-Furthermore, if players know someone is going for a specific Tech, they can employ countermeasures in terms of purchases as well

All of these are also achieved by the point system.  The higher points seperate the techs into minor/moderate/major tech levels.
Recall that the point values are initial thoughts and can be tweaked/adjusted as needed as indicated by game play testing.

@cousin_joe:

I think Tech can be taken further strategically, but if you’re looking for a real simple solution, this would be a start.

I don’t know if this system is any more simple than the tech point system.  It certainly is not more work to track the tech rolls,
and is less flexible if you wanted to tweak by country.

[axis_roll]

@critmonster:

mediocre tech would have to be amazingly cheaper to warrant any $ spent on them. Why would I research war bonds over HB? Even at half the price it simply would not make sense.

After playing once with the system, I can agree with you
So what would you propose for the mediocre tech?
6?  so that one researcher COULD achieve that tech?

Please feel free to offer another set of points or just indicate modifications to specific techs.

@critmonster:

that is the inherrent problem with targeted tech.

I do not think ‘that’ problem with directed tech can not be countered by pricing the techs correctly.
In other words, if HB’s are still ALWAYS being developed, then they need to be priced higher with more points.
And you can even do this by country because I can see the USA being the most likely to try and develop this tech.
Perhaps their HB roll would be 10 points higher.

Again, this system is a work in progress.  If we game play test it, we can iron out the wrinkles.

@critmonster:

Now the post about round number available might have some potential because I might want war bonds round 2-3 to help fund my round 5+ big research. As far as round ten, are many of your games gong that long? things tend to be fairly well decided around 4 in our group with perhaps two more rounds to try and stem the tide but either the axis are rolling over russia/asia or the allies have stopped nazi momentum and begun to push back.

Agreed this may need to be incorporated, but it is somewhat implemented by the costs.  For example, at 30, HBs are costly and may not come into play until round 4, round 3 at the earliest, but it could be costly to the developer.

Any proposals on rounds for tech?

[Vareel]

The other thing I like about this is you have a choice between fast and slow.

Lets take HBs for example.  Say i’m germany and I see the US go for HBs on turn 1 with 3 researchers.  He will get it pretty quickly, so I put one researcher on Radar and one on Improved Industry.  Now he will get HBs before I get my ‘counter techs’, but within 2 turns of him getting them, I should have one or both of my counter techs.

The only tech that fails in this system is war bonds.  If it is too cheap everyone will want it for the money boost, too expensive and no one will want it.

[axis_roll]

@Vareel:

The other thing I like about this is you have a choice between fast and slow.

Lets take HBs for example.  Say i’m germany and I see the US go for HBs on turn 1 with 3 researchers.  He will get it pretty quickly, so I put one researcher on Radar and one on Improved Industry.  Now he will get HBs before I get my ‘counter techs’, but within 2 turns of him getting them, I should have one or both of my counter techs.

Yes, strategic decisions…
not random tosses of a die hoping for a 6 and then hoping for the right counter tech

@Vareel:

The only tech that fails in this system is war bonds.  If it is too cheap everyone will want it for the money boost, too expensive and no one will want it.

I don’t think I would label ‘War Bonds’ as a failure in this system, but rather
one that is hard to pin point the exact point value in relation to the other tech points.

However, I believe that point value can be indentified through game play testing.

[cousin_joe]

Hi axis_roll,

My initial proposal was geared more towards simplicity
Basically you’re allowing directed tech but requiring multiple tech hits for the more powerful techs
Progress could be simply tracked with markers rather than keeping track of numbers on the side or memorizing charts with numbers needed for success

With that said, I have no problem with the Tech by Points system
The only Tweaks I would suggest would be subdivide into Minor, Moderate, and Major
Paratroopers could be moved to Major as per subotai’s post
Then use the following point scheme…

Minor - 10 points
Moderate - 20 points
Major - 30 Points

I would also suggest limiting research to one Tech at a time as per OOTB rules
This would make more incentive for players to buy more researchers (ie. to get techs faster so they can move on to another tech)

[cousin_joe]

The only other thing to consider if allowing Directed Tech is the “Tech coming into effect instantly” aspect.  I don’t think Directed Tech and Instant Tech could co-exist in the same game.  You would have to change it so that Tech comes into effect the next turn.

I’ve always disliked Instant Tech because not only does a player get lucky on you by getting HB on some miraculous roll for a ridiculously low price, but he adds insult to injury by totally skewing battle odds on various fronts (particularly Naval) before you have a chance to react.  It just throws strategy further out the window.

This effect was somewhat minimized though by Tech being Random.  A player couldn’t necessarily buy a whole bunch of HBs knowing he was getting HBs. With Directed Tech that changes, and a player’s whole gameplan could revolve around getting HBs and building up to this.  Therefore, to cancel this possibility, if allowing Directed tech, Tech should come into effect the following turn.

[Imperious Leader]

OK try this:

1. assign a value for each technology

2. spend 5 IPC roll one die, roll of 5-6 means no advancement to be made.

3. results of 1-4= value marked down from total

example: we assign mechanized infantry at 12 IPC.

Germany spends 5 IPC for researcher, rolls once gets 3, now the score is 9 to obtain mech infantry

next turn the same researcher ( using the OOB rules) rolls again and rolls a 4, now Germany needs 5 more points

next turn they roll 6, nothing happens

next turn they roll a 2, need 3

next turn they roll 4, so they get the tech on that turn.

thats it.

you don’t need this small medium large thing, their is no need to categorize them like this anyway.

The numbers mean nothing and need to be based solely on balance, so i would forget this 5,10,15 crap and just find the accurate number that makes it seem equal to its value. Their is no way that they can be grouped into this format anyway because they are all different rules and have different effects, but at some point a number value can be assigned… discover that and you got a good house rule.

Now you can also assign some “advance points” for some powers as part of a bid, or a +1 or whatever based on total IPC.

I would suspect that if your economy is 40+ you have a better grasp of getting tech, than say a nation getting 10+ IPC a turn, based om the infrastructure.

You might even do something based on VC or total IPC can yield a +1 to die results, or even +2

another idea is for each researcher you got more than 1, you get a +1 on the results ( a 2 becomes a 3 if you got two researchers)

The results:

now technology has more determined characteristics, and it would get realized too quickly because the results are 1-4 and not 1-6.

[axis_roll]

@cousin_joe:

The only Tweaks I would suggest would be subdivide into Minor, Moderate, and Major
Paratroopers could be moved to Major as per subotai’s post
Then use the following point scheme…

Minor - 10 points
Moderate - 20 points
Major - 30 Points

I guess that would be easier to track, but it then lacks flexibility to tweak techs individually.
For example, I think war bonds are too high priced at 10.

An 8 might be better.

@cousin_joe:

I would also suggest limiting research to one Tech at a time as per OOTB rules
This would make more incentive for players to buy more researchers (ie. to get techs faster so they can move on to another tech)

I see your point, but I am seeing most games being determined MUCH faster in AA50, especially if you use NOs.
By round 6, the winner has usually been determined.  Closer games have gone into round 8, round 10 is an extreme.

So along these lines, a country may only get to develop 3-4 weapons a game (depends on alot of things like income and willingness to spend more on tech)

I think if you want to water down your tech investment into many techs, then the odds are those break thrus will be much slower/later than rushing for one or two techs.  Why limit a countries options when the IPCs and need for units does that already?

[axis_roll]

@cousin_joe:

The only other thing to consider if allowing Directed Tech is the “Tech coming into effect instantly” aspect.  I don’t think Directed Tech and Instant Tech could co-exist in the same game.  You would have to change it so that Tech comes into effect the next turn.

I’ve always disliked Instant Tech because not only does a player get lucky on you by getting HB on some miraculous roll for a ridiculously low price, but he adds insult to injury by totally skewing battle odds on various fronts (particularly Naval) before you have a chance to react.  It just throws strategy further out the window.

This effect was somewhat minimized though by Tech being Random.  A player couldn’t necessarily buy a whole bunch of HBs knowing he was getting HBs. With Directed Tech that changes, and a player’s whole gameplan could revolve around getting HBs and building up to this.  Therefore, to cancel this possibility, if allowing Directed tech, Tech should come into effect the following turn.

if directed tech on a game breaking weapon was attainable with one round of IPC, then I can agree.
However, the ‘game breakers’ are ranked very costly  LR=25, HB=30, Mech Inf=25.

If you look at an average outcome on a die being 3.5, you would need to roll 7 dice (or $35 in IPCs) to have an average chance to get 25.
It goes to 9 dice for the HB’s.

This is no miraculous roll for a ridiculously low price.  Also, you could see USA researcher HBs and prepare for it as they get closer.
At this time, because of their cost and the shortness of the game, I suggest we try to keep the instantaneousness of the tech that is AA50 tech rules.

---

Recall one of the goals is to try to miminize the house rules with respect to the AA50 tech.  All this system alters is how you obtain the tech, not their capability nor when they come into play.

Game play testing may prove my thoughts to be misguided, and then we can tweak the rules.

[cts17]

@axis_roll:

Initial tech points assignments:

Tech               Value

War bonds:             10
Advanced Artillery:    10
Paratrooper:           20
IC:                    20
Mech Inf:              25
Rockets:               20

Shipyards:             15
Long Range:            25
Heavy Bombers:         30
Radar:                 20
Jet Fighters:          15
Supersubs:             15

Okay, I’ve playtested this (somewhat) with axis_roll, and while we didn’t get too far, before I had to call it quits due to time issues, I think that a serious reduction in cost is in order. Here are my suggested prices.

War bonds:             8
Advanced Artillery:    8
Paratrooper:           12
IC:                    12
Mech Inf:              15
Rockets:               15

Shipyards:             10
Long Range:            17
Heavy Bombers:         20
Radar:                 12
Jet Fighters:          10
Supersubs:             10

[axis_roll]

I don’t think a reduction in costs is too bad since it seems AA50 games are shorter than revised (at least at this point in the games life cycle)

I am ok too with HB’s being much cheaper in light of the recent FAQ’s change to their power (best of two dice, ala LHTR).  I am not so sure that your demotion of mech inf should be to 15.  I think 17 is better.

Also, if we’re splitting hairs, I would like to see jet power be 12, not 10, just because ftrs are so versatile and prevelant in the game already.

[oztea]

Id rather see higher numbers for the techs, and have nation specific tech advantages

The US would start with War Bonds, Mech Infantry, and Paratroopers already near completion

The UK would start with Paratroopers, and Radar within a die roll of completion (about 5 points from completion)

The Soviets would start with Increased Production about half complete, and perhaps war bonds too

Germany would start the game with Rockets and Advanced Artillery almost complete, and some points in Jet Fighters

Japan would start with a little bit in Shipyards, Long-Range, and Supersubs

Italy would start with some in Paratroopers and Shipyards