• Next Global game I play, I’m going to try out this house rule for technology.  I’m interested in getting some feedback from the community.

    During the develop technology phase, a player may buy research dice.  For each die rolled, the player receives research points equal to the number on the die, except for 6’s which yield no points.

    Research point earned are applied to one category of research of the player’s choice.  The categories are as follows:
    Industry: War bonds, improved shipyards, increased factory production
    Ordnance: Heavy bombers, super submarines, radar
    Propulsion: Rockets, Long-ranged aircraft, jet fighters
    Logistics: Advanced artillery, paratroopers, advanced mech infantry

    Players may not apply research points to more than one category per turn.  Once a player has accumulated a sufficient number of research points in a category, he achieves a breakthrough of a random technology in the given category.  The research points required for a breakthrough within a category are:
    1st breakthrough: 10 points
    2nd breakthrough: 12 points
    3rd breakthrough: 15 points

    Once a breakthrough has been achieved, research points in that category, including any overruns, are reset.  A player need not achieve a breakthrough in a category before applying research points to another category, but research points may never be transferred.

    I like this because it strikes a balance between targeting a technology vs. developing a random technology.  It also gives a player, in most cases, progress towards a goal for their money, rather than an all-or-nothing system.  I’m not 100% sure about the number of points required for breakthroughs, nor the breakdown of the categories.  Play-testing will reveal whether some adjustment of these will be needed.

    Thoughts?  If you decide to try these rules, I’d be interested in hearing about the results.  I’ll post mine after I play a game or two.

  • TripleA

    USA could get improved shipyards much more reliably, kind of funny.


  • I like the idea of having a research ‘track’ quite a bit, and appreciate the tech breakdown into four novel and distinct spheres of research.

    However, I have some questions about the nuts and bolts of your proposal:

    • Why cock-block developments on rolls of 6?

    • Why not let ‘overrun’ points count toward the next development on the same track?

    In my opinion, if you want to make weapons development a feasible and interesting strategy, don’t penalize your players for getting good results; reward them.

    Some suggestions:

    If a result of 6 really bothers you for some reason, you could have players add +1 to their progress track on a ‘6’ and then re-roll the die, which gives players the (very remote but enticing) possibility of getting results of 6 or even higher, but having the usual effect of moderating dice rolls to the median of the scale.

    Alternately, if development points overrun on one track of research is seen as being too game-warping, you could force players to apply their overrun points to another research track, thus encouraging them to branch out a little bit. This is in effect still a penalty, but one with so much upside that players will enjoy it rather than resent it.

    Finally, in terms of which tech players get when they succeed in getting past the points threshold, you could let them choose their two favorites from the track, then flip a coin to see which one they receive. That way, research is even more directed, but has the excitement of a bit of randomness thrown in for good measure.

    Just some ideas. I’m curious to hear how things go with your playtest!

    Keep up the good work,

    MIR

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    We had a rule - for Global 1940 Beta - in which your production alloted you free dice, and then you could purchase groups of dice on top of that (before rolling any dice of course!)

    Example:

    Germany has 30 production at the start of the game, so that was like 1 free tech die.  They then bought 4 dice (could only by 4 or 6 dice per round, no other amounts) for 20 IPC giving them a total of 5 dice to throw.

    It was set up so that Russia would always get 1 die, but Italy/France/Australia and  England Pacific might not ever get a die.  America would be a behemoth if left alone, it wouldnt take more than 10-15 rounds for them to have literally every technology, which was fine with me, they did develop a lot of tech during the war! (As did Germany and Japan which coincidentally, they would have had the income for in free dice as well.)

    If I can find the chart, I can post it again.


  • I like your system.  Less money wasted.  To make tech development even more appealing, how about tailoring the groups to reflect the needs of the different powers.  Of course, any power could try to develop any of these groups (eg Germany or Italy might go for the “USA/UK” group because they want heavy bombers, but usually they would stick to the “German” tech group):

    German tech: Advanced mechanized infantry, Jet fighters, Rockets
    Soviet tech: Advanced artillery, Paratroopers, Radar
    Japanese tech: Super submarines, War bonds, Improved shipyards
    USA/UK tech: Heavy bombers, Long-range aircraft, Increased factory production

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    Might have to trade paratroopers for something better - dug in defenders?  Your infantry defend at 3 for the first round of combat?  (INFANTRY, not Mech)


  • I was thinking they might use the paratroopers in a counterattack.  Definitely happier if they got advanced artillery though.  Radar could also be a good one for Russia if they deploy AA guns wisely.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    Problem then becomes the paratroopers can’t go deep.


  • Problem then becomes the paratroopers can’t go deep.

    But they do absorb AA hits. How OP is that  :roll:


  • @Make_It_Round:

    • Why cock-block developments on rolls of 6?

    • Why not let ‘overrun’ points count toward the next development on the same track?

    The short answer to both of these questions is that I wanted to stick somewhat with the original spirit of the technology rules that make it quite risky to develop technology, with no guarantee of success and a substantial risk of wasted money.  This system is far less risky, but still maintains that risk of money wasted.

    There are four basic approaches to technology among the various rule sets of the game.  The original rules were all-or-nothing, with no ability to choose your technology.  Revised allowed exact targeting of a technology, but was still all-or-nothing.  Anniversary, with the researchers and two-track technology scheme, allowed very limited targeting of technology, but chances were very good that your money would pay off for you eventually.  Global used the very limited targeting while re-introducing the all-or-nothing aspect.  This scheme attempts to find a middle ground from all of these regarding the risk/reward balance and ability to target a technology.

    The options you suggest would certainly work, although I’d think you’d probably want to increase the number of research points required for a breakthrough in that case.  If you mess around with it in your own games, I’d be interested to hear what you and your fellow players thought.


  • the numbers are too low, they should be average at 15, not 12.5 (so that you need 6 dice on average to get the techs, and 20 would prolly be better),

    I would prefer a system like this;
    each power get free 1 dice for each 25 IPC rounded up (1-25 = 1 die 26-50 2 die,….)
    if you roll a 4-6, you get 1 point, else you get 0 pts,
    4 pts, and you get a new tech.


  • I like the categories as you’ve laid them out, as they separate kinds of developments in surprising but intuitive ways:

    @TheMarshall:

    Industry: War bonds, improved shipyards, increased factory production
    Ordnance: Heavy bombers, super submarines, radar
    Propulsion: Rockets, Long-ranged aircraft, jet fighters
    Logistics: Advanced artillery, paratroopers, advanced mech infantry

    However, by instituting a logic into these separations, you need to have a story about why a certain development belongs in one category rather than another.

    ‘Ordnance’, for instance, seems like it could comfortably accomodate Heavy Bombers, Super Subs, Advanced Artillery, Rockets, and Advanced Mech Infantry as a category. (Though I’m not sure why Radar ended up there…)

    And so, because your proposal is non-canonical in one sense (the manner in which research ‘points’ accumulate), and the categories that you suggest produce logical inconsistencies and/or power asymmetries, the question then becomes: why not go non-canonical in terms of the kinds of developments with which players are awarded, as well? Then you are free to add new categories, and fill them with novel developments of your own choosing, attempting where possible to ensure that your groupings are relatively well-balanced…

    Where you limit this explosion in tech types and categories is up to you as a crafter of house rules; but you can see by snooping around this forum a bit that the tendency around the non-canonical end of the clubhouse is to go deep in terms of inclusiveness and detail. Such is, apparently, the wont of the rule-tinkerer (myself included, at my worst and most self-indulgent).

    One of the big questions for me, as a lover of tech, is whether or not to allow the proliferation of new A&A sculpts affect the manner in which tech developments are instituted. Now, many units can have their own ‘standard’ and ‘enhanced’ versions of sculpts.

    It always seemed unrealistic to me how – suddenly – all existing subs on the board were now ‘Super Subs’ because somebody rolled a development. Finally, you can say, all NEW subs you build can use the alternate sculpt, and count as having the advantage… the obsolete versions will stay on the field, serving alongside the new models, or return to one of your ICs to receive an upgrade (upon starting the turn at the IC, the old sculpt is removed and a new one put in its place for no extra charge).

    [There is a hidden dilemma inherent in this decision on how to use the new sculpts, because once you assign a sculpt to be an ‘enhanced’ unit, you preclude the option of including it as another standard purchasing option from the beginning of the game… which is also a tantalizing alternative.]

    But I digress. Back to your proposal, and how I might like to organize its categories along slightly different lines:

    1. Industry: Improved Shipyards, Increased Factory Production, Tech Lab
    2. Ordnance: Heavy bombers, Super Submarines, Advanced Artillery
    3. Propulsion: Rockets, Long-Ranged Aircraft, Jet Fighters
    4. Logistics: Tokyo Express, Air Supply, Super Carriers
    5. Propanda: War Bonds, Suicide Missions, Fanatical Resistance
    6. Doctrine: Paratroopers, Suprise Attack, Tank Salvage
    7. Intelligence: Radar, Codebreakers, Resistance Fighters
    8. Armour: Advanced Mech Infantry, Heavy Tanks, Super Battleships

    Glossary of non-canonical (or semi-canonical) developments:

    Tech Lab = You get two free extra tech rolls per turn.

    Tokyo Express = Your destroyers can now transport 1 infantry each.

    Air Supply = During non-combat, your bombers can be used as transports. All transported units must begin the turn in the same territory as the bombers’ take-off, and end the turn in the same territory as the landing.

    Super Carriers = Your new aircraft carriers can accomodate 3 fighters and/or tactical bombers.

    Suicide Missions = Your aircraft do not need to plan return routes during combat movement. Aircraft that do not plan return routes must automatically be chosen as casualties at the end of the first round of combat, if they have not already been.

    Fanatical Resistance = Your infantry defend at 3 or less if they are behind the casualty line.

    Surprise Attack = Once per combat move, you may choose one territory or sea zone and declare a Suprise Attack. Roll 1d6. That number of defending units, selected by the defender, defend at a ‘1’ during the first round of combat.

    Tank Salvage = If you win any land battle, roll a die for each enemy tank and mech inf destroyed there. On the result of a ‘1’, you may swap any land unit you own in that territory for a corresponding tank or mech inf from your units.

    Codebreakers = Before each defence, roll 1d6. On a result of a 3 or less, you may retreat any number of units in this battle to a friendly territory or sea zone 1 space away (if they are not also under attack; and other normal movement rules permitting).

    Resistance Fighters = At the beginning of combat movement, you may take one of your infantry from the mobilization zone and place it directly on the board in any enemy territory containing enemy combat units.

    Heavy Tanks = Your new tanks defend at 4, move 1, and roll 1d6 when selected as casualties. On a result of a ‘1’ or ‘2’, place them back on the battle board. (Any additional hits not applied to any other units will be applied to them.)

    Super Battleships = Your new battleships can take 3 hits instead of 2, but only move 1 space instead of 2.

    Your post has really made me think, obviously. Thanks again for lighting the spark!

    Best regards,

    MIR


  • Kreuzfeld:  I realize that from a purely statistical perspective, the numbers I’ve chosen reduce the cost of technology.  However, I’ve also completely eliminated the possibility of purchasing one die and getting a technology, without eliminating the possibility that you will purchase 6+ dice without getting a technology.  I see this as a fair trade-off.  But time and testing will dictate whether the numbers I’ve selected are appropriate.

    MIR:  Trust me, I can all-to-easily get sucked into creating behemoth house rules.  (In fact, a friend of mine and I modified A&A so severely over time that we eventually made it into a completely different game.)  But in this case, I just wanted to make a few tweaks to the existing rules to make them a little more pallatable for my tastes.  And as far as why I put radar under ordnance:  I honestly couldn’t think of any way to make radar fit within the same category as any of the other technologies, so I just got it as close as I could.

  • '17 '16 '15 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    This stuff needs to be in house rules.

  • Liaison TripleA '11 '10

    Each country should have their own tech items, and control of on the board -tech teams- or -facility- pieces should be the determining factor how many rolls a power gets.

    Tech would then be subject to SBR, capture, displacement, or destruction.

    Tech should also be forbidden -unless at war-.  Each capital can start with 1 facility, or -team-.

    The next thing you know, a simple -SPY- piece could be created to steal or disrupt technology!

  • Sponsor

    This proposal is very interesting, although it’s raw and unrefined, it offers some excellent ideas.

    First, lets forget about the techs available… everyone and their babysitter is gonna have opinions on this, and they will surly differ from game changing A-bombs to 50 types of techs including Mexican conscripts.

    At first glance, I would say all breakthroughs must require 15 points, include 6’s and allow points to carry over, but the kinks will be revealed in playing it.

    I’m assuming that research dice still cost 5$, that could get costly if some poor b��t��d rolls a lot of 1’s and 2’s, it might even cost them the game chasing secret weapons. Would I pay 30$+ for finally getting war bonds late in the game? tough sell.

    The trick is to create a formula that allows one to feel wise and profitable in their research attempts, and to also allow the others to feel hope in the face of such technology.

    True balance for the tech research rules has never been achieved, not even by Larry, as it requires;

    Risk vs. Reward
    Simplicity vs. Complexity
    Insignificance vs. Apocalypse

    Balance one and another tips, but man it’s a ton of fun making tech house rules.

    Good Luck Marshal.       Â


  • Part of the means to control access to weapons development would be to prohibit the purchase of research dice, and to make tech rolls a ‘freebie’, representing the overall strength and stability of your nation. This would be assessed at the end of each players’ turn.

    Any nation that has less than 20 IPCs at the end of their turn will be considered to be too under-developed to pursue a serious research programme, and will get 0 dice. The other nations will follow this schema:

    0-19 IPCs = no dice
    20-39 IPCs = 1 die
    40-59 IPCs = 2 dice
    60-79 IPCs = 3 dice
    80-99 IPCs = 4 dice
    100+ IPCs = Free Development

    12 points to first development
    16 points to second development
    20 points to the final development on any track

    To offset the ‘free’ developments, you could charge players to have these improved units produced, and represent these (as mentioned before) by the new sculpts being made available:

    Super Subs = 3/1; 8 IPCs
    Super Carriers = 0/3; 20 IPCs (carry 3x fighters and/or tac bombers)
    Super Battleships = 4/4; 24 IPCs (take 3x hits to sink; move =1)
    Heavy Tanks = 3/4; 8 IPCs (remove from casualty zone on a saving roll of 1 or 2; move =1)

    To these could be added still more development tracks, featuring other units:

    Swift Destroyers = 2/2; 10 IPCs (move = 3)
    Super Transports = 0/0; 9 IPCs (carry 2x infantry and 1 additional land unit)
    Escort Fighters = 2/3; 10 IPCs (move = 6)
    Light Tank = 2/2; 5 IPCs (blitz; attack +1 with artillery support)

    In case you hadn’t guessed, I’m planning to trick out my new version of Global 40 with the full array of new units and tech rules to accompany them… Also, separate Canadian units and economy… and so on and so forth. I’m excited that Wizards is keeping the brand alive with this recent spate of new games!

  • Sponsor

    The “freebie” dice chart is something I suggested in Delta +1 almost a year ago, nice to see that it’s growing legs again. Another idea I had developing that tech house rule, was to restrict “free research rolls” to only nations that were at war (it slowed the Americans, which made it more fair to the Axis).

  • '17 '16 '15 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    Super Subs = 3/1; 8 IPCs
    Super Carriers = 0/3; 20 IPCs (carry 3x fighters and/or tac bombers)
    Super Battleships = 4/4; 24 IPCs (take 3x hits to sink; move =1)
    Heavy Tanks = 3/4; 8 IPCs (remove from casualty zone on a saving roll of 1 or 2; move =1)

    To these could be added still more development tracks, featuring other units:

    Swift Destroyers = 2/2; 10 IPCs (move = 3)
    Super Transports = 0/0; 9 IPCs (carry 2x infantry and 1 additional land unit)
    Escort Fighters = 2/3; 10 IPCs (move = 6)
    Light Tank = 2/2; 5 IPCs (blitz; attack +1 with artillery support)

    LAND:
    Heavy Artillery: These are a 3-2-1-5 unit and have a special feature. If they roll a one result in combat, the defender must select an air or non-infantry land unit as a combat loss.

    Heavy Tanks: These are a 4-4-2-8 unit and can blitz like other tanks. In all other respects these perform as tanks.

    SEA:
    Battlecruisers:  These are 3-3-2-16 units and like Battleships they take two hits. They also bombard at 3.

    Super Carriers:  These are 2-3-18  units that carry 3 planes. They also take two hits, but the first hit does not affect their ability to launch or land fighters.

    Destroyer Escorts: These are specialized units to protect convoys. They have a movement of 3 spaces or four if leaving a naval base. These are 2-1-3-10 units and have the same abilities as a destroyer, except as long as you have at least one Destroyer escort, all transports in the same sea zone as the destroyer escort defend at 1.

    Heavy Transport: These perform just like Transports, except they carry three Infantry or two armor type units. These are 0-0-2-12 units.

    Advanced Submarine Design:  These are 2-1-2-8 units and have special abilities. They can avoid combat with destroyers or destroyer escorts at a 1:1 basis. If you got for example 2 of these subs and you enter a sea zone with 1 destroyer escort or destroyer, they can avoid combat and  pass thru into the next sea zone. If for example you have 2 of these units and get attacked by at least 3 destroyers, combat is performed in the normal fashion. If at any time the destroyer count is equal to the submarine count, the advanced submarines can submerge immediately.

    AIR:
    Medium Bomber: These are 3-1-6-9 units and have a number of new features. They can  perform SBR like any other Bomber, but are the only units that can  pick up Paratroopers
    Advanced Fighter design:  These are 4-4-4-14 units. The key feature is their ability to be used somewhat differently in SBR. In these actions they get a +1 in combat as escorts or as interceptors.

    lastly, tying IPC production to ability to buy researcher rolls is good, however not sure w/o playtesting that this will work.

    0-19 IPCs = no dice
    20-39 IPCs = 1 die
    40-59 IPCs = 2 dice
    60-79 IPCs = 3 dice
    80-99 IPCs = 4 dice
    100+ IPCs = Free Development


  • The results of my first play-testing of my rules yielded the following observations:

    • It seems to encourage technology development far more than the standard rules.  Japan, USSR and US all developed technology throughout the game.  There were some pretty lucky rolls though (lots of 5s, no 6s), so this might be a little higher than you could normally expect.
    • The original numbers for breakthroughs might be a little low, although again the lucky rolling makes it a little hard to tell.  I’m leaning towards 12-15-20 as the numbers required for respective breakthroughs, but I’ll probably try one more game with the original numbers I came up with.
    • The system can create situations where you’ve already sunk a considerable amount of money into technology that you feel compelled to finish the job.  The flip side of this is that if you’re very close to a breakthrough, you needn’t spend a great deal more money in order for it to pay off for you.  For example, in my game the US was at a point where they had 9 points in a given category.  Given that circumstance, it seemed silly not to spend money on the one die that likely (5/6 chance) would push you over the threshold.
    • Overall I think it strikes the right balance between risk and reward.  I’ll probably push for some variation of this rule in all my future Global games.

  • May I suggest an amendment to your rules.  Any roll under a 3 is treated as a 3.  This way someone is not totally screwed by continually rolling 1s and 2s.  This may have the affect that you will need to raise the tech values a little though.


  • @ancient:

    May I suggest an amendment to your rules.  Any roll under a 3 is treated as a 3.  This way someone is not totally screwed by continually rolling 1s and 2s.  This may have the affect that you will need to raise the tech values a little though.

    So the possibilities would be 0, 3, 4, or 5 points, with a 50% chance of 3 points?  That takes a significant portion of the randomness out of it.  Even with that system, someone could be continually screwed by repeated 6s being rolled.

    The purpose of my system was to acheive a greater balance between risk and reward.  I think your alteration swings too much away from risk.  That’s the nature of the game.  Sometimes your heavy bombers roll a bunch of 5s and 6s.  The dice bite you some times.

Suggested Topics

  • 6
  • 75
  • 153
  • 23
  • 179
  • 7
  • 4
  • 10
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

40
Online

16.3k
Users

38.0k
Topics

1.6m
Posts