Welcome! If you're a returning member of the forums, please reset your password. If you don't receive an email within minutes, it means your account is listed under another, likely older, email address. Contact webmaster@axisandallies.org for help.

AARHE: Phase 2: Technology


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

    This is rules under phase two covering a new Technology rules



  • To start with the biggest thing would be the much discussed heavy bombers in all many rules/varients.

    Why are heavy bombers of WWII? Carried more bombs? Thicker plating?

    I think it shouldn’t have stronger defence than normal bombers.
    Sounds like heavy bombers would have increased size and reduced speed.


  • Moderator

    I think that their should be 2 separate systems when referring to technology… one is “upgrading” equipment (Better tanks, Jet Fighters, Bigger Naval Guns, etc.) and “cool new toys” (Radar, Atomic Bomb, etc.)… One is a gradual system that if you stick money into it it will eventually give you something back… whereas “cool new toys” is more like the Roll-it-and-let-see-… system in the games…

    GG



  • I think there should be at least 2 different methods to represent technology and before the game starts all the players decide which method they should use. So now players would ask along with ‘do you want to play with RR?’ they’d ask ‘do you want to play with simple tech system (STS) or complex tech system (CTS)?’. The reason why you need more than just 1 technology option is because so many people want mutually exclusive aspects to their representation of technology… I don’t think it’s possible to make everybody happy with just 1 way to model technology.

    1 method can be simple, like what it is in the box rules:
    only 6 techs, same as the number of sides on a die.
    no restrictions on when certain techs are available
    you either have the tech or not (no stepwise system of gradually getting more and more tech bonuses in a certain field like jet fighters)
    techs should have the same strength, no more super-weak techs like combined bombardment

    IMO I think there should be no more individual tech just for long-range… make jet fighters also have long-range fighter movement. make heavy bombers also have long-range bomber movement. In the new void where long-range aircraft used to go, have industrial tech (see previous posts in other topics for IT) Substitute combined bombardment for radar (see previous posts in other topics for radar).

    The 2nd method to techs can be more involved and more realistic. Involving more than 6 techs and including atomic weapons, etc…



  • But Duke, long-range fighters were completely different from jet fighters. In fact, the first jet fighter to enter service (Me 262 etc) had very short ranges by late-war standards (650 miles for the 262, compared to 2,125 miles for the F4U Corsair for example).

    The early Zero had a range of 2000 miles, the early ME110 had a range of 1500, even the 1940 Spitfire (notoriously short-ranged) had a range of about 600 I think.

    If the idea is to improve the realism, we shouldn’t be actually reducing realism.



  • IMO I think there should be no more individual tech just for long-range… make jet fighters also have long-range fighter movement.

    I’m not saying that long-range aircraft is the same as jet fighters. I don’t think anyone would say that. I’m saying that I think they should be grouped together. This is for a couple reasons: 1) so that we can introduce another important technology breakthrough and still keep the total number of techs at 6 and 2) to even out the worth of the techs. Jet fighters are one of the weaker techs IMO. If we have jet fighters and long-range fighters as a a single tech, then I think that would match up nicely in value against all of the other techs I proposed.

    Let’s just call that tech “fighter technology” and that would be more accurate to what the tech is.

    After giving this a little more thought I’m starting to wonder if we even need long-range movement in the 6 tech system. Long-range movement was important with escorts, but since escorts aren’t represented in the game what’s the point? How about we have 2 tech systems that players can choose from…. 1 with 6 total techs, no long-range movement, and no escort units. In a latter phase we can introduce complex techs, more than just 6, and include long-range and escorts units. Thoughts?



  • Yeah that would be better. I don’t actually like Radar behing UK only.
    I recall at least Germany had radar too.


  • Customizer

    @Imperious:

    This is rules under phase two covering a new Technology rules

    What about having Mechanized Army or Railroads as a tech?

    Mechanized Army
    Your infantry and artillery have a move of 2, but may not blitz as tanks do.

    Railroads
    Your and all friendly land units may move 3 territories per turn only among territories in your powers color (no conquered territories).



  • Yep we have mechanized infantry on the table.

    As for railroads thats like infrastructure not technology. I think everyone had railroads.

    Maybe have it as a special figure of certain territories.



  • Yes, I also think that each nation should have Railroad options from the beginning. Not even only on their starting countries but also on conquered countries, that are connected. (Your side must controll them for at least 1 round) But the railroad system in the U.S. Russia and Europe should be better then that of Asia. I don’t think Africa should have railroad at all.

    Countries that should be able to use railroads together;

    Russia
    Germany and Italy
    Japan
    UK and USA


  • Moderator

    I think that if you are going to add Rail you should also “coal” and “oil” to represent country energy availability… if you don’t want to add those then don’t make Railroads IMO…

    GG



  • @Guerrilla:

    I think that if you are going to add Rail you should also “coal” and “oil” to represent country energy availability… if you don’t want to add those then don’t make Railroads IMO…

    GG

    I think those should also be inserted in phase 2 or 3.


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

    I am not sure about changing the map to the extent where we add these “rail lines” I can easily do this, but it may be a big departure from the idea of keeping the variant aesthetics within the realm of what players are used too. I like very much the idea of “strategic redeployment” along established historical rail centers AND the possibility of air interdiction.


  • Moderator

    I don’t think rail lines should be added… What I mean is either add “oil” and “coal”, and have units be able to “rail-move” inside your “home” spaces, or have players build “Rail Depots” which they pay an upfront price for, and then can transport units up to x spaces away as long as they are going in between “friendly” rails depots…

    GG


  • Customizer

    @Guerrilla:

    I don’t think rail lines should be added… What I mean is either add “oil” and “coal”, and have units be able to “rail-move” inside your “home” spaces, or have players build “Rail Depots” which they pay an upfront price for, and then can transport units up to x spaces away as long as they are going in between “friendly” rails depots…

    GG

    What about Mechanized Army?



  • Yep we’ve talked about that too.
    We haven’t considered for artillery though.

    So artillery carried by trucks?


  • Customizer

    @tekkyy:

    Yep we’ve talked about that too.
    We haven’t considered for artillery though.

    So artillery carried by trucks?

    Runiing on gas, no matter if self proppeled or by truck!



  • Actually, the little piece looks like a smallish anti-tank artillery.

    Should it represent self-propelled tank looking artilleries too?


  • Moderator

    @B.:

    @Guerrilla:

    I don’t think rail lines should be added… What I mean is either add “oil” and “coal”, and have units be able to “rail-move” inside your “home” spaces, or have players build “Rail Depots” which they pay an upfront price for, and then can transport units up to x spaces away as long as they are going in between “friendly” rails depots…

    GG

    What about Mechanized Army?

    that kind of runs under my “developed technology” idea since it isn’t a “true” technology just a “development”… Rail on the other hand was just expanded, it wasn’t per say a tech…

    GG



  • So do we need to separate “Developments” from “Techologies”?


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

    Raillines are easy to accomodate…. all units move double in non combat? or option two: each nation moves x number of units double each turn in non combat.



  • Not “double” but rail speed. Say 3.
    (Tanks on rail do not move faster than infantry. Mech infantry on rail do not move faster than infantry.)

    Must travel within the rail-ed territories for the bonus.
    (A bit like the OOB Russian Rail NA.)



  • ***reearch is progressive
          X hitting rolls to succeed, cumulative?

    ***certain research resources can’t easily be diverted elsewhere
          X free rolls per turn?


    Imperious Leader: Land or Carrier based planes cannot alone be involved in attacking submarines except USA and UK starting on turn 12. Up until that time they can only be made available to search for them and also receive two search rolls per plane.

    tekkyy: I prefer this moved to Technology. A little more simulation and a little less historic replay.

    Imperious Leader: yes right i tried to leave out the “turn 12” thing and change to turn ?? because we have not installed a time frame for turns.

    tekkyy: no this is not about time frame
    I am saying the ASW technology should be under technology
    I mean if Germany or Japan don’t buid must submarines wouldn’t US/UK redirect their research resource?

    Imperious Leader: Not clear im not even sure the “tech” should be something that must be researched for a price. I feel it should just happen because of all the research done before the war. It was only a matter of time. The allies could choose to basically stop research in some areas, but its not likely.

    tekkyy: first reduce the chance factor (still good to have some of it)
    secondly give free research rolls
    this models research happening eventually, but the power can speeds thing up if wanted to
    also models certain research resources can’t be deverted elsewhere anyway…


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

    “Not “double” but rail speed. Say 3.”

    turns are 4-6 months why only 3?



  • I think there is a probably with a turn representing 4-6 months
    I “think” it was 3 months

    anyway I’ve seen 1 month
    which is even better, but really bad with construction schedule

    I mean with 4-6 months
    land units can go anywhere really in non-combat, with or without rail


Log in to reply
 

Welcome to the new forums! For security and technical reasons, we did not migrate your password. Therefore to get started, please reset your password. You may use your email address or username. Please note that your username is not your display name.

If you're having problems, please send an email to webmaster@axisandallies.org

T-shirts, Hats, and More

Suggested Topics

  • 1
  • 20
  • 17
  • 9
  • 5
  • 5
  • 21
  • 1
I Will Never Grow Up Games

42
Online

13.3k
Users

33.6k
Topics

1.3m
Posts