AARHE: Phase 2: Technology


  • ok finish off the details of atomic bomb

    bomb cost - no special cost
    build - 2 turns each bomb
    IPC damage - permanently reduce by roll of 2d6… this represents the value of destroying the motivation behind fighting knowing somebody is gonna get it.
    military unit damage - remember one bomb destroys one city only… yes it can target military units as well. This may not be that realistic but its fun to play it. So the dropper of the bomb can allocate to land units or reduce economy. If land units each unit in a territory makes a “saving roll” the unit is dead on a roll of 2-3 or less… all units roll even air planes. Also, you need heavy bomber tech to be able to carry it


  • no special costs? free?
    also need a limit to how many you can build
    but it needs to scale to some extent rather than a fixed limit

    More IPC means more control/fortification/assembly points. Atomic bomb affects a limited region.
    But does both economic and military damage. After a nuclear attack units can’t fortify there anymore.

    Economic damage: Attacker rolls 1d6 for permanent reduction of IPC income.
    Military damage: Defender divides units into a number of groups equal to the territory’s IPC income divided by 3. Attacker selects 1 group. Each unit in the group rolls for survival, surviving on a 1.

    (First bomb would kill 1/3 of units in Japan and reduce income. Second bomb would kill 1/2 of units in Japan and reduce income. Third bomb would kill all units in Japan and reduce income to zero.)


  • The cost of such a weapon was not something that effected the production of say fighters… it was a cost but not something that could take away from a military budget

    More IPC means more control/fortification/assembly points. Atomic bomb affects a limited region.
    But does both economic and military damage. After a nuclear attack units can’t fortify there anymore.

    Economic damage: Attacker rolls 1d6 for permanent reduction of IPC income.
    Military damage: Defender divides units into a number of groups equal to the territory’s IPC income divided by 3. Attacker selects 1 group. Each unit in the group rolls for survival, surviving on a 1.

    +++++ this is kinda arbitrary… why do the thing where you divide into 3 groups based on this and that…why cant each unit just make one saving roll? So germany is at 20 IPC (with Italy) and you have to make 20 different groups and basically one unit dies? Can a more systematic idea work better.

    (First bomb would kill 1/3 of units in Japan and reduce income. Second bomb would kill 1/2 of units in Japan and reduce income. Third bomb would kill all units in Japan and reduce income to zero.)

    ++++ this is probably good… better.


  • The cost of such a weapon was not something that effected the production of say fighters… it was a cost but not something that could take away from a military budget

    Oh I see. Ok.

    (First bomb would kill 1/3 of units in Japan and reduce income. Second bomb would kill 1/2 of units in Japan and reduce income. Third bomb would kill all units in Japan and reduce income to zero.)
    ++++ this is probably good… better.

    Its the same. Its describing the probable result of my proposed rule.
    My long post confused you.

    Its “divide by 3”. So Japan has 8 IPC, sort into 8/3=3 group. Germany has 20 IPC, sort into 20/3=7 groups.
    This rule works alright for Japan (kill 1/3, 1/2, and then remain military). But for Germany it woud take longer.

    Could tune it to IPC divide by 4. But that kills Japan’s units in two bombs. A bit too powerful.


  • I am about to draft the rule.

    1. How long does it take to build a bomb? 2 turns like BB/CV/CA?

    2. How many bombs can be built per turn? (what were sources of WWII uranium and plutonium?)


  • 2 turns, 1 bomb per build period

  • Moderator

    OK what is next? I really want to try and get involved in Teching… Do you guys need box #?

    GG


  • yeah give us comments!

    download the latest draft for the details
    http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=7188.0

    currently its…

    Air:
    4 Jet Planes
    3 Long Range Aircraft
    3 Heavy Bombers

    Land:
    3 Rockets
    3 Heavy Artillery
    4 Heavy Tanks

    Sea:
    3 Super Submarines
    3 Advanced ASW

    Other:
    10 Atomic Bomb
    3 Advanced Radar

    Economic:
    3 Underground Factories
    4 Advanced Production


  • That file is looking better. I dont favor the double column thing however. I used to do it on older rulesets but i hate how the topic headings are allways in the middle of the page. You gain more control with one column and everything is more together. It doesnt matter too much anyway.

  • Moderator

    It would be interesting to build an actual chart, to “tick” off with a  pencil, printable, instead of having a placement chart per player, with chits to mark it with…

    GG


  • Thats what is being done. I am making player aids for this. that was the original concept.

  • Moderator

    Alright, sorry for being behind the times a little :-D…  The only question that comes up with what we have is that both Sea Techs deal with Subs, why? Are we limited to 12 techs or could we add more?

    GG


  • OK what other would you like? perhaps 3 more?

  • Moderator

    The reason I mention it is because we have diversified the Air and Land Advantages but the Sea units are definitely one sided… 1 more is my idea, to give land, sea, and air each 3 to achieve… I am asking more in the sense of do you feel that we would go overboard to add more and did we limit the current ones to what they are for historical reasons… one idea sticks out:

    Extended Flight Deck:

    Carriers can carry 3 Fighters.

    Not sure if it has been addressed…

    GG


  • probably “super carriers” akin to super submarines

    any others?

  • Moderator

    None others… I think the other 2 are ok, I just think it would be better to “streamline” it with an equal amount of Techs, that didn’t all address the same style of combat… Since ASW and SW were the principal developments in Nav at the time I think they should get what they have (ASW tech addressses several units fighting Subs anyways) but I felt that focusing merely on that for techs was a little out of historical context, for the amount of naval development that did take place… I think 13 techs is good for play chart availablility and limited complexity…

    GG


  • yep headings sticking out in the middle in a problem of 2 columns format
    though we save a few pages

    for the extended flight deck or super carriers tech…
    what about one that lets +1 capacity to both carrier and submarine?
    so CV carry 3, SS carry 1
    were submarine carriers significantly used in WWII?

  • Moderator

    Only by the Japanese, and they didn’t pursue it to the degree they did the flat tops… For one it wasn’t worth it (a couple hundred lb. bombs, dropped by a vintage WW1 float plane)… They did work on extending the amount of planes they could put on there AC’s as well as the US and to some degree the British… I would rather make the Sub AC’s an NA for possible use…

    GG


  • Naw the japs cant have those “carriers”

    1. those were only on the larger I-400 class subs.
    2. they only had 2-3 planes
    3. they were recon… they didnt attack and sink enemy warships

    we cant model such an small scale thing in this game.

    Perhaps Japan can have those AVBB hybrib carrier/ battleships with a one plane capacity but they only had 2 of them.

    I know its cool but its not historical in this varient.

    super carriers carry 3 planes


  • yeah I wasn’t sure to begin with
    thats I asked whether submarine carriers were used much

Suggested Topics

  • 12
  • 11
  • 5
  • 42
  • 72
  • 1
  • 2
  • 24
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

34

Online

17.0k

Users

39.3k

Topics

1.7m

Posts