AA50: Strategic –> New Global Techs



  • These are the new Techs that either the Axis or Allies can research.  They are added mainly for balance or strategic purposes.

    1. ESCORTS (Minor Tech, 5IPC/researcher)
    -Fighters can participate in strategic bombing raids. Attacking fighters may escort and protect the bombers, and they can originate from any territory, range permitting.

    2. INTERCEPTORS (Moderate Tech, 7IPC/researcher)
    -Any or all defending fighters based in a territory that is strategically bombed can participate in the defense of the industrial complex. The number of fighters that will defend is decided after the attacker’s Combat Movement phase is completed and before the Combat phase begins.

    -After antiaircraft fire is resolved against the attacking air units, if there are any defending fighters an air battle occurs between the attacking and defending air units. This combat is resolved in the same way as a normal combat, with a few exceptions. The fighters have an attack value of 1 (2 if the attacker has the Jet Power research breakthrough) and a defense value of 2, and the bombers have no attack value. In addition, the combat lasts for only one round. After the battle, any surviving bombers proceed to carry out the raid as normal.
    -Fighters participating as either an escort or a defender cannot participate in other battles during that turn. Defending interceptors must return to their original territory. If that territory is captured, the fighters may move one space to land in a friendly territory or on a friendly aircraft carrier. This movement occurs after all of the attacker’s combats have been resolved and before the attacker’s Noncombat Move phase begins. If no such landing space is available, the fighters are lost.

    -Note that these 2 techs are as per the optional rules with the big difference that they must be researched rather than just having them at game start
    -The general purpose of these is to increase the strategy and balance around SBRs

    3. ASW-CRUISERS (Minor Tech, 5IPC/researcher)
    -Your cruisers now have the same capabilites as destroyers do against subs.

    -this tech will be useful for UK and Japan against enemy sub strategies.  UK in particular can purchase cruisers that can be used for amphibs once they’ve dealt with the German sub threat.

    4. AIR TRANSPORT (Moderate Tech, 7IPC/researcher)
    -Your bombers may now transport up to 2 INF in noncombat.  Both the INF and the BMBR must start and end their turn in the same territory.  The BMBR can not be used for combat this turn.

    -This is more useful for the US who have major logistics issues late game.  This helps.  UK and Japan can also benefit.

    5. AIR BASES (Moderate Tech, 7IPC/researcher)
    -Your fighters on islands (one land territory surrounded by one SZ) can now defend the adjacent SZ if attacked

    -Navies are very vulnerable to Heavy Bombers.  This is a way to help defend your navies without having to spend as much on aircraft carriers.

    6. ATOMIC BOMB (Ultimate Tech, 15IPC/researcher)
    -once per game, you may load a single BMBR with an atomic bomb
    -The BMBR can only be loaded from one of your original ICs, and must have started it’s turn there to load it.
    -Once loaded, the BMBR can only be used for strategic bombing, not combat.  Roll any anti-aircraft (or interceptor) fire as normal.  If the BMBR survives, roll 4 dice to determine SBR damage.  For every 2 IPC of damage done, 1 IPC of damage is considered irrepairable on the opponent’s next turn.

    -the strategic use of this weapon is to soften up an enemy stronghold prior to a final assault.  Maximum damage is 24IPC, with average being about 14IPC.  If an 8IPC capital took 14IPC damage, of which only 7 is repairable, that would mean they would only be able to produce one new unit that turn
    -this technology is more high risk than heavy bombers as you only have one chance to succeed.  Plus, there is no military benefit
    -before arguing this may be overpowered, please note that the effects on a country are not immediate and actually take a turn to have an effect.  Plus there is the chance to develop counters before the research is successful.

    OK, so these are the new techs that all countries can research.  Thoughts?  🙂



  • 6. ATOMIC BOMB (Ultimate Tech, 15IPC/researcher)
    -once per game, you may load a single BMBR with an atomic bomb
    -The BMBR can only be loaded from one of your original ICs, and must have started it’s turn there to load it.
    -Once loaded, the BMBR can only be used for strategic bombing, not combat.  Roll any anti-aircraft (or interceptor) fire as normal.  If the BMBR survives, roll 4 dice to determine SBR damage.  For every 2 IPC of damage done, 1 IPC of damage is considered irrepairable on the opponent’s next turn.

    i would see amirica buy that tech 10-100 times a game!!



  • Hi i rock

    Nope, it’s only meant to be used once and cannot be re-researched
    The strategic aspect here is to even up the odds against an enemy that’s stacking it’s capital
    Classically, defenders have always had the edge over attackers
    Players can always go conventional, and maybe go more HB, or regular bombers to use for that final attack, or they can go with something like this

    To be honest, I’m a bit borderline about it’s inclusion in the game (a lot of overlap with HB strategic funtion) and could get rid of it if not very popular.



  • @i:

    6. ATOMIC BOMB (Ultimate Tech, 15IPC/researcher)
    -once per game, you may load a single BMBR with an atomic bomb
    -The BMBR can only be loaded from one of your original ICs, and must have started it’s turn there to load it.
    -Once loaded, the BMBR can only be used for strategic bombing, not combat.  Roll any anti-aircraft (or interceptor) fire as normal.  If the BMBR survives, roll 4 dice to determine SBR damage.  For every 2 IPC of damage done, 1 IPC of damage is considered irrepairable on the opponent’s next turn.

    i would see amirica buy that tech 10-100 times a game!!

    Wouldn’t USA and Japan also require long range as well to use this against other Key capitals/IC’s?



  • Sorry, I should have been more clear
    A loaded BMBR could still move about the map but would be designated as “The” BMBR that carries the atomic bomb
    It would not be allowed to participate in any other combat or NCM other than the SBR on it’s final target

    so for example, let’s say US rolls for the Atomic Bomb on Turn 5
    On turn 5, US misses but they can move a BMBR to WEUS so that as of the 2nd time it rolls, the BMBR will be ready to be loaded and fly off
    On turn 6, US succeeds and so the BMBR in WUS gets loaded with the A-bomb and can flies to Midway
    On turn 7, The BMBR attacks Japan and does 4d6 damage of only which 1/2 can be repaired on Japan’s next turn.  US should also position themselves to attack on turn 8 (as Japan will not be able to add as many new builds)



  • So for the Atomic Bomb tech, are you saying that the irrepaiable damage is permanent for the rest of the game? or just for the next turn only?



  • For the next turn only Bardoly
    Half the damage can be repaired immediately, the rest could be repaired the following turn

    This is why a player researching the Atomic Tech would have to be very careful about when they research it and most likely, should research it in advance just to guarantee it will be available when they need it
    If the dropping of the bomb isn’t properly timed with the attack, the defending nation could recover fairly easily
    (eg. on turn they are hit with the bomb, they could still repair what damage they can, develop Tech, produce units at other ICs, buy new ICs or save their money for a big buy the following turn)


  • Customizer

    Don’t get me wrong, the idea of the A-Bomb in A&A games has grown on me… but many of the rules I’ve read for this option I don’t like because they’re game-enders… but having said that, I think this use of the Atomic Bomb is far too weak.  Not enough devastation. And (I’m wary to say it but) doesn’t effectively capture the use of the Atomic Bomb in comparison to history.  I know, I know, A&A is not historically accurate (would take the fun out of the game IMHO), and one could say that dropping an A-Bomb is a game-ender.  Well, it’s a game - and I’d like it to keep going despite the atom being split (sometimes, at other times it should end a prolonged game).  I’m being picky perhaps, but I have the notion of something like this being (remotely) possible:
    http://althistory.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Morgen_die_ganze_Welt

    I’m not the sort to simply condemn something and not offer solutions… I do have some A-Bomb rules posted as well -
    http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=16998.msg578901#msg578901

    though I’m (and a few others in my gaming groups) not wholly satisfied with it.  Hmm… I’m wanting an A-Bomb rule that can end a game, or swing the advantage to an underdog if that dog is worthy (isn’t to the point that they should’ve already conceded and they just keep playing because they’re stubborn).  You know what I mean?



  • For simplification purposes, I think I’ll probably condense this down to just 4 new Global techs
    -Air Transport and Atomic Bomb will be deleted
    -Air Bases will be reduced to a minor Tech for 5IPC/researcher

    **1. ESCORTS (Minor Tech, 5IPC/researcher)
    -Fighters can participate in strategic bombing raids. Attacking fighters may escort and protect the bombers, and they can originate from any territory, range permitting.

    2. INTERCEPTORS (Moderate Tech, 7IPC/researcher)
    -Any or all defending fighters based in a territory that is strategically bombed can participate in the defense of the industrial complex. The number of fighters that will defend is decided after the attacker’s Combat Movement phase is completed and before the Combat phase begins.

    3. ASW-CRUISERS (Minor Tech, 5IPC/researcher)
    -Your cruisers now have the same capabilites as destroyers do against subs.

    4. AIR BASES (Moderate Tech, 5IPC/researcher)
    -Your fighters on islands (one land territory surrounded by one SZ) can now defend the adjacent SZ if attacked**

    -Escorts and Interceptors are basically necessary vs. SBR strategies
    -ASW Cruisers can be helpful for UK and for Jap/US in the Pacific
    -Air Bases gives something to help Navies against HB


  • 2017 2016 2015 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    These are not techs:

    1. ESCORTS (Minor Tech, 5IPC/researcher)
    -Fighters can participate in strategic bombing raids. Attacking fighters may escort and protect the bombers, and they can originate from any territory, range permitting.

    2. INTERCEPTORS (Moderate Tech, 7IPC/researcher)
    -Any or all defending fighters based in a territory that is strategically bombed can participate in the defense of the industrial complex. The number of fighters that will defend is decided after the attacker’s Combat Movement phase is completed and before the Combat phase begins.

    Its like saying Fighters are a tech or bombers performing SBR is a tech.

    Whats wrong with just keeping the OOB optional rules alone, rather than get players to buy them? People can play with them or not as they are so why do they need to change into a ‘tech’?

    How does this add to the game?



  • @Imperious:

    These are not techs:

    1. ESCORTS (Minor Tech, 5IPC/researcher)
    -Fighters can participate in strategic bombing raids. Attacking fighters may escort and protect the bombers, and they can originate from any territory, range permitting.

    2. INTERCEPTORS (Moderate Tech, 7IPC/researcher)
    -Any or all defending fighters based in a territory that is strategically bombed can participate in the defense of the industrial complex. The number of fighters that will defend is decided after the attacker’s Combat Movement phase is completed and before the Combat phase begins.

    Its like saying Fighters are a tech or bombers performing SBR is a tech.

    Whats wrong with just keeping the OOB optional rules alone, rather than get players to buy them? People can play with them or not as they are so why do they need to change into a ‘tech’?

    How does this add to the game?

    It adds to the game as you have to invest in these abilities to get them, and not just given to all countires


  • Customizer

    WHat  :?  That’s your only attempt to use an Atomic Bomb rule? It fails so you roll-over like a Frenchman? Aw c’mon, a little effort.  😉


  • 2017 2016 2015 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    It adds to the game as you have to invest in these abilities to get them, and not just given to all countries

    of course they do but why do they have to be 'repackaged as technology" It makes no sence. Rather just leave them alone as optional rules.

    House rules can be standard rules, but to arbitrarily now make them ‘technology’ does not make sence. Fighters already do this and its not ‘technology’ related. Its a function that is just more realistic to defend against SBR.



  • @Imperious:

    It adds to the game as you have to invest in these abilities to get them, and not just given to all countries

    of course they do but why do they have to be 'repackaged as technology" It makes no sence. Rather just leave them alone as optional rules.

    House rules can be standard rules, but to arbitrarily now make them ‘technology’ does not make sence. Fighters already do this and its not ‘technology’ related. Its a function that is just more realistic to defend against SBR.

    You state ‘of course’ and then go ahead and contradict your understanding with a statement that confirms you do not understand.

    Optional rules apply to EVERYONE.  That’s not strategic.  Strategy involves moves one country does that another one doesn’t, or doing it better.

    I don’t think you’ll ever get a more strategic game over a realistic/historical one.


  • 2017 2016 2015 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    All i know is they are optional rules and for some reason they got repackaged at “technology”

    So by extrapolation the Dardanelles rules will now become a technology?

    Technology is Technology and NA’s are NA’s and Optional rules are Optional rules. Mixing them is making no sence IMO.

    If you make house rules they should be different for each version 1941 and 42 because technology was different

    for 41 perhaps you get 1 and 42 each nation gets 2? and these can be real technology like radar or something inventive.

    example: radar could be a starting UK tech, where defending fighters can assist in land attacks or air attacks from adjacent areas or sea zones.

    But too me to rehash the problems of the OOB technology too keep it KISS, while inventing such things as a ‘special free uk factory’ makes little sence.

    I am quite sure to just say that the optional rules are standard gives the player the options and is more realistic than repackaging them as “technology” they they have to roll dice to see if they can get a basic function of a unit that already exists.

    I will work on a KISS set of techs to illustrate latter.



  • @Imperious:

    All i know is they are optional rules and for some reason they got repackaged at “technology”

    So by extrapolation the Dardanelles rules will now become a technology?

    Closing a territory is not based on a unit, so how can you ‘develop’ a unit to have that capability?

    I think you are just being flippant.


    please, post your NEW thoughts in a separate thread.

    This thread is ABOUT AA50 Strategic.


  • 2017 2016 2015 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    Closing a territory is not based on a unit, so how can you ‘develop’ a unit to have that capability?

    This is not an answer, War bonds for example are just extra IPC and have nothing to do with units or technology. Its just extra money that could be used to repair factories too.

    And i am not sure why you don’t ever answer the first question which was asked twice already?

    here it is again:

    Why repackage optional rules as new techs, rather than just keep them as they are optional or standard rules, like NO’s and techs.

    if they are on then all players gain more options. to limit them to ‘technology’ also limits them to players because they have to roll dice to get them and may never get them. So if you want more options you make them standard and required and make original house rules to support them right?

    The other question was why and how can you apply the same exact rules for 1941 and 1942 such as the UK free factory , when clearly the value of this is not clear at all as a blanket fix for ALL the balancing issues of all 4 games?

    And also please don’t get personal with me too. ok?



  • Personally axis_roll, I’ve just come to the conclusion that Imperious is obsessed with “Historical Realism” and there’s nothing wrong with that.

    I suppose one can think that I’m more obsessed with “Increasing Strategic Options and Variation in Playout”, and that’s OK too.

    I think that when we see each of us comes to these forums with our own particular biases, then we come to understand each other and there is not always a need for a response.  I just chalk it up to Imperious being Imperious  🙂

    My only hope, is that maybe one day Imperious can see that this vairant is mainly about Strategy and Playout, rather than history, and just chalk it up to cousin_joe being cousin_joe.  That’s when we’ll have progress  😄

    How about it Imperious?  🙂


  • 2017 2016 2015 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    Of course your original premise among other things was being more realistic as well as more options and strategy.

    If realism is of any concern and if options are, then why not make the optional rules standard rather than techs. What is the advantage in this?

    That was my question and too me it does not address either issue as an advantage to either realism or options.

    Nothing i have posted is somehow ‘not relevant’ Just trying to contribute ideas so it can be more ‘out of the box’ thinking or something like that. Thats what i try to represent but AR just wants to think i am devious or something. I am not.

    Also, its really good if you got input from all types of references and not ‘close off’ people. Let anybody and everybody help out and be courteous. I will do the same ok?

    We are all on the same side here. Down the road i will sticky the main thread once its final so you can use it to link.


  • Customizer

    Huh… I agree with this statement:
    “Also, its really good if you got input from all types of references and not ‘close off’ people. Let anybody and everybody help out and be courteous.”
    I’m not part of the close off club, so my Atomic Bomb post was for naught. Damns… how do I get membership?


  • 2017 2016 2015 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    just post what you think is best based on your own ideas.


  • Customizer

    Did so, see above. Was looking for feedback or discussion. Cheers.



  • @Imperious:

    Closing a territory is not based on a unit, so how can you ‘develop’ a unit to have that capability?

    This is not an answer, War bonds for example are just extra IPC and have nothing to do with units or technology. Its just extra money that could be used to repair factories too.

    You pointed out two optional rules that are specific UNIT modifications and question turning them into developing techs (which to me seems logical).  I posted an opposing view based on your poor example of Dardenelles straight optional rule, and I correctly pointed out it’s not a unit mod.  So then you (again) bring up another poor analogy.

    War bonds is not a Cousin_joe added tech, it’s already an OOB rule.
    There are only two optional rules.

    There’s another entire optional concept called Weapons Development.
    That’s a package deal.  And when you can target the development of these, then they become startegic parts of the game.  Also, a 1 in 6 shot is not enough ‘targetting’ in my book.

    @Imperious:

    And i am not sure why you don’t ever answer the first question which was asked twice already?

    here it is again:

    Why repackage optional rules as new techs, rather than just keep them as they are optional or standard rules, like NO’s and techs.

    Because I already answered this question TWICE.

    If you give a weapon to everyone in the game, it’s not STRATEGIC.
    Everyone has it, just not the players who CHOOSE to develop it either to gain an advantage or react to a threat, i.e. to counter the other players advantage.

    In this sense, DEVELOPING an ‘optional rule’ into a tech, then it becomes strategic.
    I don’t think it’s that hard of a concept to follow.

    @Imperious:

    if they are on then all players gain more options.

    no, it gives players more modifications to ALL players.  Where’s the option?
    EVERYONE gets it.  If I were to continue your way of thinking, giving everyone all techs but 2 would give every player ALL THESE OPTIONS….

    No it wouldn’t.  You’d have a game with Alien Laser flying tanks.  Hey, if you love tech, that’s great, give it to everyone, but that doesn’t give players more options (it actually LESSENS them) and it certainly does not make the game more strategic.

    @Imperious:

    to limit them to ‘technology’ also limits them to players because they have to roll dice to get them and may never get them. So if you want more options you make them standard and required and make original house rules to support them right?

    I was always under the impression that less house rules are better, not more.  However, that’s a personal taste that varies by player.

    @Imperious:

    The other question was why and how can you apply the same exact rules for 1941 and 1942 such as the UK free factory , when clearly the value of this is not clear at all as a blanket fix for ALL the balancing issues of all 4 games?

    I believe Cousin_joe targetted his rule changes to 1941 scenario.
    I don’t think he EVER mentioned 1942 scenario, if he did, I missed it.

    @Imperious:

    And also please don’t get personal with me too. ok?

    If you keep your responses from being so glib, I would respect you more.
    Unless you actually thought you could develop a tech that closes the dardenelles straight…


  • 2017 2016 2015 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    If you keep your responses from being so glib, I would respect you more.

    They are not glib to me and please give and others me the benefit of the doubt because thats how we all can get along I extend the same too you. Its just possible i am looking at this entirely differently. And yes i could be wrong in how i look at it or you can be wrong, or we both could be wrong.

    And too me most people do not like optional rules becoming a ‘technology’ because your after maximum ‘options’ and want to add more techs, but not reconfigure the old techs. To me just adding stuff and not modifying some of the OOB rules seems like a letdown, because alot of people don’t even use techs BECAUSE OF WHAT SOME OF THEM ARE WHICH IS BAD.

    If your after options then make some new techs, because some of the OOB techs are simply nothing techs ( war bonds and others) and look like fillers for slots. Even take older techs from AAR or MBAA and use them. Nothing wrong with that right?

    If the tech tree is a ‘best of’ the other games ideas, it may offer more options. I mean you already made optional rules as technology, so taking technology from other games is not a stretch.

    War bonds seems like an American NA anyway

    And Heavy Artillery could be replaced with anything else from AAR and still be better.

    You already invented some techs, so its not a greater stretch to take ones from AAR or even 2nd edition.

    I also like less rules to make it more appealing to anybody.



  • Chill folks! IL, a “tech” can be whatever is needed to improve the strategy of the game; it does not necessarily have to be a technology developed during the war.

    On the other hand, IL has a good point. Maybe instead of making a bunch of new techs, perhaps a system of NA’s would be in order.

    Here are my thoughts on the suggested techs:

    1. Escorts and Interceptors - these seem too specific to be put as a tech. Perhaps tack Interceptors onto radar and Escorts onto jets. This would allow radar to be the general tech to buy to counter SBR.

    2. ASW-cruisers - Interesting, my take would be to make a general cruiser tech that also gave them ASW.
    I don’t really like the idea of minor techs as shown here. They seem to be over-complicating the game without adding much flavor. I think you should remove the minor category from techs and don’t keep any that don’t make the moderate category. (for aesthetics, perhaps rename the moderate, minor; the major, moderate; and the ultimate, major)

    Here are some alternatives:
    a. Advanced cruisers - your cruisers bombard at 4 and can detect subs
    b. Fleet coordination - Your Cruisers may detect subs and your battleships gain an AA gun
    c. Give these abilities to radar
    d. Make it an NA or part of one.

    3. Air transport - seems too close to paratroops - consider combining?

    4. Air bases - One that I like.  😄 Perhaps make it the same as AAP40 by giving air units +1 move off of the islands. This would also improve it making it more more deserving of its position as a moderate tech IMO.

    5. Atomic Bomb  :roll: Really? The atomic bomb was only used once the US had practically won the war. It might have been drawn out, but they would have won. This is already represented by VCs. Once you capture enough VCs, you win. This would happen before and atomic bomb was developed.
    In regards to game play, it seems lame. The cost seems to be too much merely to prevent one turn of production. I honestly think the whole idea should be scrapped.

    Sorry to be a wet blanket, but I am just not too keen on most of these new techs.

    Edit: Yay!! I’m no longer a conscript.  😛

    I really don’t like the errata for heavy bombers and improved factories. I think the HB one is too much of a bandaid fix (and not in lline with the ultimate tech price of HB). I didn’t like the factory one because I thought the whole point of the factory tech was to give more production to secondary factories. Many of these could be on 2 IPC territories. (I am not too against limiting 1 IPC territories to 1+ but I think it is unnecessary)  Consider scrapping these errata for this ruleset?


Log in to reply
 

Suggested Topics

  • 22
  • 3
  • 1
  • 26
  • 5
  • 9
  • 5
  • 9
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

47
Online

13.7k
Users

34.1k
Topics

1.3m
Posts