Opinions on the Role of Technology?


  • Let’s assume you were designing house rules to tweak the way technology is represented. To what extent do you think the influence of technology should be in the game? You may answer this in regards to historical accuracy, or in terms of what would be the most enjoyable to play with, or in any other way you see fit.

    Do you think rolling for tech should be represented so that it’s only advantageous when either almost all hope is over and you are about to lose, or when winning is inevitable anyway so you might as well go for tech (this is how I personally see tech represented in original Axis and Allies)?

    Alternatively, do you think rolling for tech should be represented so that it’s advantageous for players to do occasionally when they don’t know how else to use their last couple of bucks? (i.e. rolling for tech is advantageous enough to do when the outcome of the game is still up in the air?) This is how I see tech represented in AAR (at least some of the techs for some of the nations).

    Or do you think tech should be represented so that it’s almost impossible to win the war without it? Should tech be a major factor in the game? Made so advantageous that players are usually spending 5-10 IPCs a turn until they get some of the techs they need.

    In terms of realism, what portion of various nations’ economies do you think should be spent each turn to represent the tremendous technological escalation of WWII?

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

    It should follow the historical path, meaning at certain turns you just get the goods. Another path to what was possibly attainable by INVESTMENT could be installed. What should not happen in this everything for everybody thing and everybody having an equal access to all technology. Also Tech should be a long term investment, so you should have to spend a small amount each turn on a TARGETED tech project. I hate spending a huge amount of money on one turn and crap shoot something i didnt want. Each “tech tree” should have different aspects to improve a group of land,sea, or air forces. Other trees should be atomic, rockets,and chemical weapons which are on a seperate tier. I am not sure what the specific structure would be, but again it should follow along the lines of what was in fact possible by each nation.


  • What should not happen in this everything for everybody thing and everybody having an equal access to all technology.

    So you’re suggesting having explicit rules restricting, say for example, Russia from developing atomic technology? What about defining universal rules applying equally to all nations such that Russia is allowed to develop atomic weapons but the same rules also make it disadvantageous for Russia to develop it?

    Classic example: No rules explicitly restrict Russia from purchasing aircraft carriers but you will hardly ever (maybe even never) see Russia purcahse them because the rules don’t make it as advantageous for them do so as they do for USA. Do you think Russia shouldn’t have ‘equal access’ to aircraft carriers by adding the rule “Russia can’t buy aircraft carriers?” Or, do you think that the rules should be defined so Russia can buy carriers but they just don’t want to (this is how I see the box rules)?

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

    OK Example: Japan and UK had no tangible atomic program that would have led to “the atomic bomb” , while USA had it, and German and Soviets bring up the rear. SO in this case, If say germany wants this she would have to spend ungodly amounts of money to obtain the possibility of getting this, while UK and Japan could never get the bomb.

    Another example: Heavy tanks. In this case by a certain turn both soviets and Germans can build them for free after say turn 1, while USA can spend x amount of IPC and have them on a latter turn. The Pershing tank was our “heavy tank” and didnt see action untill 1945. The British would have their “comet” tanks out by late 44 so you would have to define the game by some turn=x time structure. Japan would have very little possibility of making them unless they spend alot of money.

    The same thing would apply to solve all the other “secret weapons” that were developed. Id propose a 4 tier structure for deciding what each nation could obtain them.

    1. Inventions that dont cost very much to develop but are only available on a certain turn.

    2. Inventions that cost a small amount over a long time with the real prospect of development only after a specific turn and with a little luck.

    3. Inventions that cost alot over many turns and the prospect of getting them is “a total crapshoot”

    4. Inventions that have no real chance for that nation. ever. no way in hell!


  • @Imperious:

    It should follow the historical path, meaning at certain turns you just get the goods. Another path to what was possibly attainable by INVESTMENT could be installed. What should not happen in this everything for everybody thing and everybody having an equal access to all technology. Also Tech should be a long term investment, so you should have to spend a small amount each turn on a TARGETED tech project. I hate spending a huge amount of money on one turn and crap shoot something i didnt want. Each “tech tree” should have different aspects to improve a group of land,sea, or air forces. Other trees should be atomic, rockets,and chemical weapons which are on a seperate tier. I am not sure what the specific structure would be, but again it should follow along the lines of what was in fact possible by each nation.

    If you’re going to make a Tech Tree that complex, you might as well put A&A on the shelf and load up Hearts of Iron.  There’s something to be said for simplicity within the board game.  Revised did add a layer of depth to the game, but it’s supposed to have a level of ease of play that separates it from the old Avalon HIll/SPI cardboard counter games.

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

    • sigh *

    Look my good chap what i propose is an easier method to solve the problem using the historical paradigm consider:

    DEVELOP ADVANCED WEAPONS
    Each country may elect to spend a one-time research fee of ten IP for each available advanced weapon. The weapon then becomes available to buy on that players following turn. Weapons that become available on a specific turn can immediately become available to purchase.

    Rail Gun: (Germany only) can conduct a special form of attack on ground units within a range of one territory. They can support friendly units that are attacking and adjacent to the location of the Rail Gun firing twice at eight. Rail Gun attacks are preemptive so the defending units do not get to fire back. IF enemy units attack a Rail Gun it defends at one roll only six. Rail Guns can only move only within connected land territories (not across oceans) by way of non-combat or strategic redeployment (cost 1 SR point).

    Katyusha Rockets: (Russia only)
    Operates more like artillery and has a devastating preemptive attack. All hits from these units during each combat round are removed from play before the defender has a chance to roll for defense. (Note: they do not aid the attack or defense of infantry units).

    Jet Fighters:  (Germany turn 10, U.K. turn 12, USA and Japan on turn 13)
    Jet fighters cost 16 IP each. Jet fighters defend on rolls of 10 or less, and have a movement of 4. They can evade any Air interception. Anti- Air ground attacks from defending artillery have no effect on these units. They cannot carry paratroopers.

    Jet Bombers: (Germany only turn 12)
    Cannot carry paratroopers but can evade any Air interception. Anti- Air ground attacks from defending artillery have no effect on these units.

    Heavy Bombers
    (U.S.A and U.K. only)
    Heavy bombers cost 28  IP each. Heavy bombers attack twice on two rolls of  10 or  less and can
    carry up to two Light or Regular Infantry as paratroopers or air transport. They also move 10 spaces. They defend against air units at 4.

    V-2 Rockets: (Germany turn 10)
    V-2 Rocket launchers cost 8 IP each. They do not provide anti-aircraft defense. Instead, they may launch rocket attacks against enemy Industrial Complexes. They may only move by rail and have a range of four. Each V-2 launcher may launch one rocket attack each turn. Multiple rocket launchers may occupy the same territory and may attack the same target. Hits are scored in the following manner: 1-2= no damage, 3-4 =1 IP, 5-6= 2 IP, 7-8 = 3 IP, 9-10 = 4 IP, 11-12 = 5 IP lost. When you perform Rocket attacks you take of the money from the nations log sheet, so when they count the economic basis for determining how much money they get it is accounted from their IP levels. Captured V-2 sites are removed from play and cannot be used by other players.

    Super U-Boats: (Type XXI class U-Boats)
    (Germany turn 12)
    Super submarines cost 10 IP each. A super submarine attacks and defends on a die roll of 6 or less and moves at 5. Destroyers or Escorts cannot negate their first shot capabilities. No naval or air unit can directly attack a Super Sub and can only defend against attacks from these units. They are not affected by Destroyers or Escorts and always have a surprise first shot.

    Forget about the specifics just notice that on a certain turn “the tech is available by investing IPC by that turn”  How simple do you need it? YOU SPEND X ON TURN Y AND GET Z….  good grief this is not rocket science!


  • No one’s ever bothered with tech roles in all the games I’ve played. Nearly all of them are not very decisive in game play, well except for 1 of them. Heck we’ve even forgotten to apply the national advantages as well most of the time. Point is, its a game and as long as everyone is having fun, then theres no need to go getting all crazy with complicated tech rules and many paged documents of additional game rules. The board game is a vague representation of world war 2. any more realism and you should play or design some other game.


  • Forget about the specifics just notice that on a certain turn “the tech is available by investing IPC by that turn”  How simple do you need it? YOU SPEND X ON TURN Y AND GET Z….  good grief this is not rocket science!

    i thought it was rocket science… katyusha and v-2 rocket science that is 😉

    i, for one, have a problem with having 2 different types of german subs on the board at one time. do we really need that? yes, i concede that having more types of subs is more realistic, but i prefer not to have a ton of different types of units on the board.

    after all, who decides where it ends? maybe imp wants to publish a game with X number of total types of units, but what do you do imp if the very next day someone else publishes a game with 2X or 3X total types of units? do you then have to concede that their game is better than yours? of course not because more types of units don’t necessarily mean a better game. it’s just a matter of personal preference where you want to draw the line of unit types to find a personal balance of realism and simplicity (by simplicity i mean less convoluted, not easier to understand). no one’s right or wrong with their personal preference, hence no one’s likely to convince the other to change that preference. it was beginning to sound like imp was attacking someone for having a different preference than him.

    with that said, imp, more power to you and your edition with an expansive number of unit types.

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

    i, for one, have a problem with having 2 different types of german subs on the board at one time. do we really need that? yes, i concede that having more types of subs is more realistic, but i prefer not to have a ton of different types of units on the board.

    In my case the example for Type XX1 is an exception… This submarine would have totally destroyed the allied shipping and ASW efforts would have to be rethought. That submarine is as important as the Me-262 was to the air for Germany. If they had this 2 years earlier the war was changed into 3-4 more years of destruction.

    after all, who decides where it ends? maybe imp wants to publish a game with X number of total types of units, but what do you do imp if the very next day someone else publishes a game with 2X or 3X total types of units? do you then have to concede that their game is better than yours?

    OMFG…LOL !! i never thought of it that way!  This is a joke right? ok nm…

    of course not because more types of units don’t necessarily mean a better game. it’s just a matter of personal preference where you want to draw the line of unit types to find a personal balance of realism and simplicity (by simplicity i mean less convoluted, not easier to understand). no one’s right or wrong with their personal preference, hence no one’s likely to convince the other to change that preference. it was beginning to sound like imp was attacking someone for having a different preference than him.

    I was only rebutting what that other poster did…namely say its “too difficult to have Imperious Leader’s proposed techs” My system is much easier and follows the historical path, when the tech is availible you just spend 10 bucks and buy the unit… no bif deal… no rolling to do at all… He was turning my idea into something complicated… and its not.

    with that said, imp, more power to you and your edition with an expansive number of unit types.

    I basically make games that i feel would be something that i would say WOW!. They please my tastes and many others who play them. If you need any ruleset just ask!


  • OMFG…LOL !! i never thought of it that way!

    uh oh, i got imp to break out the f. i must have hit a little too close to the mark on that one. too funny! 😄


  • Using the rules as the are printed,

    I pursue it to demonstrate absolute supremecy and force stubborn opponents to yield early.
    This saves me time to pack up the game and grab dinner before the restaurants close.

    The rolls are usually made after I go up a capital.

    My opponents being of about the same mind do the same to me.

    We generally agree that while either side could continue fighting in theory while down a capital, the odds become insurmountable if the winning side gets HB.


  • I agree with IMP we should simply BUY tech and certain countries should have access to certain techs. Let’s say you pay 15 IPC’s and then you get the tech.

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

    Thanks comrade! A historical path removes the uncertainty and allows the “other side” to plan to counter its effects. Allowing somebody to get the heavy bombers on turn 1 basically destroys the game, because it forces everybody to throw away a military strategy and just go for the gusto and make the game into something it should not be … a cold war race to get the same tech to equalize of face your downfall. I think the amount you pay should reflect the tech you get, so the a bomb will cost the most ( e.g. 30 IPC) and LRA will cost say 5 IPC. When we get to tech in house rules i invite you to chime in DasReich with your ideas. take care.


  • i think the uncertainty of not knowing when or if is what is intended by the tech roles.  i have always been a proponent of “low” and “high” techs but if they occur on set turns for set countries all they are is really national advantages in my (limited) sight.

    that being said we generally don’t do techs, they are not balanced.  lhtr do a better job for sure but i like the “investment” approach as well (especially with the poor luck rolling i have :-P)
    i have seen games in classic change instantly and so have most of you i am sure.  maybe that is what was intended but a lucky shot in the dark should not be able to completely change/destroy the direction of another countries military machine.  force adjustment sure but not totally wipe the floor, and then have other techs that are almost a hindrance


  • Yeah , well, I think having HB in R1 is a little drastic… Let’s say that each tech is available from a certain point in the game. example: HB are available to USA in turn 3 for 25 IPC, UK on turn 4. On the other hand, jet power becomes available tu Germany on R2 for 15 IPC and fighters w-jet tech CAN intercept bombing runs according to some future rules we shall discuss…later. I think the rolls should be completely eliminated. It would be more accurate IMO and would reflect the importance of tech in the war. (I never play with tech)

  • Customizer

    @DasReich:

    Yeah , well, I think having HB in R1 is a little drastic… Let’s say that each tech is available from a certain point in the game. example: HB are available to USA in turn 3 for 25 IPC, UK on turn 4. On the other hand, jet power becomes available tu Germany on R2 for 15 IPC and fighters w-jet tech CAN intercept bombing runs according to some future rules we shall discuss…later. I think the rolls should be completely eliminated. It would be more accurate IMO and would reflect the importance of tech in the war. (I never play with tech)

    I belive in general techs like the ones in the boxrules, with a little twist! NA will be there fore more nation specific features, one can call them minor techs! Let all NAs cost, lets say 10 IPCs each than all can spend their money as they like!

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

    yea each nation is assigned a point total except the axis and allies are balanced so on average germany and japan get more. Say the allies get 25 points and the axis get 25 points. The axis pick from an index of goodies they want to facilitate their strategy based on either a naval sub warfare or some major jet power or whatever… each NA has an assigned point value and only on a certain turn you get this “toy” to use on what was historically possible… so if USA spend 10 points for the a bomb they just get it on like turn 12… they dont have to roll for it or spend money on it. That way it does not disrupt the game if you waste money on rockets and dont get them … then you cry and lose the game and tell me the game sucks because somebody got lucky.  Also, the NA you pick should be a secret till it happens… so its like a surprise i got a heavy bomber… thats the only luck id like to see. This is a really good idea BTW. think it through


  • Most techs are useless, except  forcertain players.
    Rokets: If your germany you have three aaguns and three industial complexs near by. As long as your winning in africa and the US/Uk is not ready to open up another front this tech can easly fix a bad Russian front.
    Jets: Well now you have a 3/5  fighter, goooood for you, But you should have  just bought six infantry
    Super Subs: It looks sexy on the outside put most countries don’t have enough somes for this to be usefull
    Long Range Aircraft: Just not enough oppertunites for this to be useful.
    Combined Bombardment: Enough said
    Heavy Bombers: At some point in the game it’s not a bad idea to get heavy bombers. For an average cost of 30 IPC’s you can turn your alomst useless one dice bombers who only will cost the enemy 15 IPCs on average ( The same amount who payed to get the bombers in the first) into two dice bombers which will cost the emeny 30 IPC per bomber.

    PS: If your country has an income under 30 IPCs it means your about to lose your cpaital so don’t woory about techs, buy infantry

Suggested Topics

  • 4
  • 12
  • 10
  • 90
  • 23
  • 7
  • 1
  • 11
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

31
Online

16.2k
Users

37.9k
Topics

1.6m
Posts