Does anyone happen to know how the old Nuke Tech upgrade worked? I hear that it was a part of the game in the original version (the one before MB got it)
http://www.kw.igs.net/~tacit/aanda/origins.htm#Original
Atomic Bomb - One Strategic Bombing attack per turn destroys everything in enemy province.
I would say that the effect of an atomic bomb would be that the income value of that territory get reduced to 0 IPCs, hence it becomes worthless! How ever that tech should be a hard / special tech! Lets say may make one roll per turn and you must get 40 points (each die added) that will take some 11-12 turns to get. One simply need to spend 5 IPCs each turn, a total of 55-60 IPCs on average! the A-bomd must be dropped by a bomber in a SBR! Jets (my variant) will be very important! One might also consider to make a combo of A-bomb and Rockets to get around the possibility of defense!
For nukes, if you are using the enhanced realism rule book, its small and white, you roll 3 dice for each nuke and they hit on 5 or less and you get to choose on 2 or less instead of on just ones. :-D
for nukes, if you are using the enhanced realism rules book. It’s a white, smaller book than the original. you roll 3 dice for each nuke. The dice hit on 5’s or less. You get to choose your kills as the attacker on 2’s or less.
since a nuke can only be used on a sbr, can you only nuke a territroy with a IC?
Apparently. In terms of all the things that are wrong with that rule, that’s probably 1 of the less important wrong things.
what else do you think is wrong with that rule. Besides it being too powerful.
Too powerful was #1 on my list. If I had a list it would be:
too powerful so everyone should go for it
not realistic… when bombs dropped on Japan how many infantry units died? how many tanks and fighters destroyed? …exactly
makes techs even more unbalanced among each other
not dependent on heavy bombers. can medium bombers carry that much weight?
why is it dependent on an IC being down below if it kills all units?
Remeber that the reason that no Jap military units were distroyed in history was that we hit civilian targets. Gotta love american terrorism.
Remeber that the reason that no Jap military units were distroyed in history was that we hit civilian targets. Gotta love american terrorism.
Then you like my variant! ;-)
Once you get Heavy Bombers one can develop that tech to e second level. I think that this would be nice for all techs. This would represent a better system for minor and major techs!
1st level Heavy Bombers: Your bombers get one extra die per attack
2nd level Atomic Bomb: Your bombers reduce the income value (IPC level) of the territory containing the IC to 1 IPC permanently In a SBR.
1st Jet Power Your FTRs defend on a 5 and are immune to AAGun fire.
2nd Rockets
1st Heavy Bombers
2nd Atomic Bomb
1st Heavy Artillery
2nd Mechanized Infantry Your ARM give one matching INF one additional movement allowance and an increased attack capability of 2 or less. Even if supported by RTL, their attack remains 2. The ARM and the INF unit must leave from the same territory.
1st Long Range Aircraft
2nd ???
1st Radar Technology Your AAGun defends on a 2 and your FTRs gain the ability to “intercept” incoming BMBRs on SBR missions.
2nd ???
1st Super Submarines
2nd Super Dreadnoughts Your BBs rolls 2 dice in attack and defense.
historically rockets weren’t that good. too many of them missed their target for one reason or another. this is why rockets should be just a minor advantage and therefore a ‘cheap’ tech. IMO it should be 1) rockets 2) nuclear missile (not actually made during wwii, but possible)
remember that playtesting for revised came back with the conclusion that heavy rtl was ‘too good’ (meaning too powerful). why have a powerful tech as a ‘cheap’ stage 1 tech? mech inf might be weak enough to just switch them.
super dreads are too weak to be a stage 2 tech. rolling 2 dice is real good, but no one will ever have more than 3 of them on the board at 1 time, let alone using all 3 in battle every time.
IMO these techs need some work. :-D
historically rockets weren’t that good. too many of them missed their target for one reason or another. this is why rockets should be just a minor advantage and therefore a ‘cheap’ tech. IMO it should be 1) rockets 2) nuclear missile (not actually made during wwii, but possible)
remember that playtesting for revised came back with the conclusion that heavy rtl was ‘too good’ (meaning too powerful). why have a powerful tech as a ‘cheap’ stage 1 tech? mech inf might be weak enough to just switch them.
super dreads are too weak to be a stage 2 tech. rolling 2 dice is real good, but no one will ever have more than 3 of them on the board at 1 time, let alone using all 3 in battle every time.
IMO these techs need some work. :-D
They surely do need some work! What about the tech system? By the way the reasons for not having the Heavy RTL are so bad that they stinks!
The main reason is that one can not have a piece that give a better attack ratio than a INFs defense ratio - a Heavy RTL attack on 3 (+1 per matching INF) and cost 4IPCs were as an INF defends on a 2 and cost 3 IPCs!
Attack ratio for Heavy RTL is 3/4 IPCs > defense ratio INF is 2/3 IPCs
However one need to spend some 30 IPCs to get it! consider that and the ratio looks much different! In how many games do one buy more than 10 RTL? Noone! So If we consider one to buy 10 RTL and then develop Heavy RTL to the “risky” cost of 30 IPCs, then these RTL cost 5 IPCs each! The game designers missed these basics! An attack ratio of 3/5 is not as good as the defense ratio for an INF of 2/3. So it is a brilliant tech that all the playtesters to A&A:R did like, but got spoiled for wrong reasons. And the best of all it is a balanced tech, much more than many other of the techs in A&A:R!
Ok I am back from my exile at elba… It will take me some time to sort thru these posts… but i have one prelininary question to Andersson… how are those NA’s coming? are you finished yet?
BTW … master… why all those exclamation points? !!!
@Imperious:
Ok I am back from my exile at elba… It will take me some time to sort thru these posts… but i have one prelininary question to Andersson… how are those NA’s coming? are you finished yet?
NAs!? Yes and No, for Itally I have no time for the moment, need to do some research first! Your Nas for Itally sucs and definitely need a make-up! Go for the ones posted at www.axisandallies.org and stick to them. I mean if one go for all of the NAs I have been playing with to fish out the best, you most likely will end up with the same list. Its better to use the newest list and look for any NAs that need to be replaced or revised!
OK then if we go with those you have to add your tank destroyer NA and NA’s for Japan, China, Italy… plus we need about 10 each… no hurry take your time… but we need the finished product yesterday!
@Imperious:
OK then if we go with those you have to add your tank destroyer NA and NA’s for Japan, China, Italy… plus we need about 10 each… no hurry take your time… but we need the finished product yesterday!
Why 10 per nation?
Because we need variety… each nation gets to choose about 4-5 and we need a good inventory of choices.
