• First, let me acknowledge Bugoo as it was his post that introduced me to this concept/idea.
    Others have helped like Emperor_Taiki (initial points) and Subotai with their comments
    And not to forget Germanman01 who started my initial interest in this with his Tech Poll.


    The best way to try out ANY Rule change is via game play testing.  So if you have tried this house rule in a game, please post the game rules used (1941, NO’s, no bid, etc)  and then your thoughts / feedback so we can improve this.

    Good Gaming all!


    TECH via a POINT SYSTEM

    Each tech has a point value.  Purchased researchers have the same cost, but are targeted for only one tech.  Roll as normal for research, but add up the total rolls and apply them toward the selected tech.  Once point value is reached, tech is gained (said researchers are lost/not needed)

    Example:
    US wants heavy bombers eventually, they are worth 30 research, so on turn 1 I purchase one heavy bomber researcher.  I roll and get a 3.  Now I need 27 more research to get heavy bombers.  On turn 2 I decide I want super subs, and since that tech isn’t as powerful I only need 15 research to get them.  I purchase 2 researchers, both for the subs as I want to sink japan’s navy now.  I roll a 2 for my heavy bomber researcher, leaving 25 left, and then roll a 4 and a 5 for my subs, leaving 6 left and with any luck on turn 3 i’ll get my super subs.

    NOTE:  Unsure about multiple tech per turn, BUT AA50 games are much shorter (less than 10 rounds) so multiple techs achieved a turn could work in game play testing.

    This will allow you to slowly work at a tech, rush for it, and choose to go for the good but expensive techs, or take an easier, faster, tech, or all of the above.

    Initial tech points assignments:

    Tech               Value

    War bonds:             10
    Advanced Artillery:    10
    Paratrooper:           20
    IC:                    20
    Mech Inf:              25
    Rockets:               20

    Shipyards:             15
    Long Range:            25
    Heavy Bombers:         30
    Radar:                 20
    Jet Fighters:          15
    Supersubs:             15

    Along the lines of combined techs becoming too powerful (i.e. Long Range, Heavy Paratroopers), you could add that if one tech is attained (like HBs), the new target for Long Range for that country is increased by “6” or something like that.

    Is radar properly priced at 20?  Perhaps Radar could include a BB gets an AAA shot (1@1) to reduce the HB’s overwhelming power in naval warfare.  If we did that, radar would cost 25.  Also, in games with Escorts optional rule, you could adjust this … even higher to 30 (since escorts already diminish HBs)?


    Modified Dec 2010 with new points (highlighted below and new number of tech researcher restriction)


    TECH via a POINT SYSTEM v2.2                             revised Dec 2010

    Each tech has a point value.  Purchased researchers have the same cost, but are targeted for only one tech.  Roll as normal for research, but add up the total rolls and apply them toward the selected tech.  Once point value is reached, tech is gained (said researchers are lost/not needed).  Techs achieved on the first try come into play at the end of non-combat moves (yes, war bonds are ‘instant’).  This may result in achieving multiple tech per turn.  This is legal under these tech rules.

    Number of Researchers restriction:  Only 2 tech researchers are allowed per tech.  Both can be bought in one round.

    Tech points assignments:

    Tech              Value

    Chart 1:
    Advanced Artillery:    12
    Rockets:              20
    Paratrooper:          30
    IFP:                  20
    War bonds:            10
    Mech Inf:              25

    Chart 2:
    Supersubs:            15
    Jet Fighters:          18
    Shipyards:            15
    Radar:                15
    Long Range:            38
    Heavy Bombers:        25
    TECH via a POINT SYSTEM v2.2-97.doc

  • '10

    I like this idea alot. You get what you want but pay dearly for it and the opponent sees it coming. The pricing may be a litlle too high and may need to be tweaked but the concept is excellent.

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

    I would like to see some nations already have some development points assigned. IN this way each nation would develop to its strengths and the Techs would flow historically.

    The question is balance, so perhaps the bid would reflect a preassigned disposition of points for some of these techs rather than adding new pieces on the map that tend to imbalance the set up.

    I have seen this system before a number of times, and its plausible. The problem is i don’t like the other side knowing how close you are to getting the tech. I prefer a similar system but still random and not one that you can just BUY by spending X number of IPC tech rolls. This system does not solve that problem because you can see what is happening and prepare for it. IN the war some of these developments came as a shock and the enemy paid for it. The other problem is the techs in the OOB are terrible and do not reflect REAL TECHNOLOGY OF WW2 THAT MADE A DIFFERENCE.

    I can list half of these that are bogus and have no place on a tech tree and another half that do but are not on the list.


  • @Imperious:

    The other problem is the techs in the OOB are terrible and do not reflect REAL TECHNOLOGY OF WW2 THAT MADE A DIFFERENCE.

    I can list half of these that are bogus and have no place on a tech tree and another half that do but are not on the list.

    I agree with that, what exactly are you proposing?

    What if the tech a player was rolling for was just kept secert, perhaps other players can see how much reseachers a player has but not how far they have progressed or what tech they are researching?

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

    perhaps other players can see how much reseachers a player has but not how far they have progressed or what tech they are researching?

    a player that does not buy units and spends x amount of tech give away the fact that this is going on and the techs in the oob have a tendency to have a desirability for some nations more than others as they apply to favor specific types of units where that nation is stronger.

    I prefer the AARHE system adopted for a new tech tree suited for AA50.

    you get a number of free tech rolls (results kept secret and number of these different by nation)

    you get a number of possible purchasable tech rolls (results kept secret and number of these different by nation)

    Technology is by levels, each level is attained by a roll and when you reach the last level you gain the tech.

    Each nation starts with some levels of tech and get a natural inclination based on technology assumed to be researched prior to the war.

    check out the 4.0 file for AARHE and look under technology.

    Example: Heavy tanks. Germany starts with one box and you need as i remember 3 more researched before the technology is possible, each level of progress is kept hidden ( you can make chips for this purpose to prove you spent the money on this just like buying anything else)

    the free tech rolls simulate the idea that research is always happening and poor nations can still get it. Technology is not a ON or OFF system. The nations employed many research projects and the game is only modeling the big splurges of money. The problem is if one side gets technology the other side will immediately pile into the system alot of money to try to overcome this. AARHE limits this with maximum techs purchasable. If nobody does anything the free rolls may still allow for technology to happen, so nobody can complain about “hey you won because you just spend all your money on the heavy bombers and just got lucky”  Under this system it is likely that some players would be at least close in the tech race due to the larger number of tech rolls required to get technology. This is not a one and done system.


  • As has been pointed out before, there is no tech system that will appeal to everyone.


    Part of that liking of ‘house’ rules is that some will like them to be more ‘historically’ accurate while others are more comcerned about better strategic game play.

    I am a proponent of the latter first, and if it happens to also meet the former, that’s a bonus.

    @Imperious:

    I would like to see some nations already have some development points assigned. IN this way each nation would develop to its strengths and the Techs would flow historically.

    The question is balance, so perhaps the bid would reflect a preassigned disposition of points for some of these techs rather than adding new pieces on the map that tend to imbalance the set up.

    That can be done with this system by altering Tech points by country.  For example, if you wanted Russia to have a better chance for ‘advanced art’, have the Russia points equal 5, not 10

    @Imperious:

    I have seen this system before a number of times, and its plausible.

    Glad to see that the concept has some merit.

    @Imperious:

    The problem is i don’t like the other side knowing how close you are to getting the tech. I prefer a similar system but still random and not one that you can just BUY by spending X number of IPC tech rolls. This system does not solve that problem because you can see what is happening and prepare for it. IN the war some of these developments came as a shock and the enemy paid for it.

    Personally, one of the goals was to REDUCE the randomness (that includes the ‘SURPISE’ we have HB’s aspect)

    If you still like the randomness and surprise aspect, use the OOB tech rules… those meet your criteria perfectly.
    The goal is to REDUCE those aspects of TECH with a point system.

    I could argue realism when I see that USA is close to developing HBs because I have spies who report back to my HQ about your progress.

    whose arguement about the enemy knowing about a tech is more realistic/more correct?

    @Imperious:

    The other problem is the techs in the OOB are terrible and do not reflect REAL TECHNOLOGY OF WW2 THAT MADE A DIFFERENCE.

    I can list half of these that are bogus and have no place on a tech tree and another half that do but are not on the list.

    You are probably correct about this, but the goal of the point system in my eyes is for minimal, simple changes to the existing tech system to make them more strategic aspects of the game, and therefor a more playable part.


  • @Imperious:

    The problem is if one side gets technology the other side will immediately pile into the system alot of money to try to overcome this.

    I guess I don’t see this as a problem.  A strategic game enables counters to the opponents strategies.

    think about this in terms of units, not techs.  If Russia see Germany buying all tanks, they put all their money into Infantry.  Why would tech purchases to counter tech purchases be any different than my tank and infantry example?

    @Imperious:

    If nobody does anything the free rolls may still allow for technology to happen, so nobody can complain about “hey you won because you just spend all your money on the heavy bombers and just got lucky”  Under this system it is likely that some players would be at least close in the tech race due to the larger number of tech rolls required to get technology. This is not a one and done system.

    Hmm.  Free tech that represents different tech abilities.  Yes, again, if your goal is to duplicate the WWII outcome, then this might work for your games.  I would rather have all options open to all players.


  • And as far as randomness goes, just because someone has 2 researchers on heavy bombers if they still have 9 more points to acquire it will still be a surprise on if they get it or not that turn.  Less of a surprise than ‘hey he has 4 researchers and has 3 techs already on list 2 so he probably will get HB’, but its not like you have a promised turn to get it.  Your researcher could roll a 1, or a 6, and if you have more than one researcher than the spread gets even larger.  And some, like the ones that cost 10 or 15, could easily be acquired within 1 round depending.

    I think it would be neat to watch  US/Japan slowly creep up HBs and LRA with a researcher added a turn, while Germany just grabs 3 researchers turn 1 for paratroopers or something.


  • The trouble I see with a point system and targeted tech is if there are agreed upon game winning techs, who would bother researching the others? Perhaps more charts?
    production (air, land, sea)
    improvement (air, land, sea)
    That is six possible area to research where each chart could have techs that help different strategies or even ones that counter powerful techs more effectively


  • @critmonster:

    The trouble I see with a point system and targeted tech is if there are agreed upon game winning techs, who would bother researching the others?

    I guess the thought was the difference in cost (and therefor how early in the game they could be developed) would help to even out the ‘game winning’ techs with the less ‘desirable’ ones.

    I am not saying other techs are a bad thing.  You could develop a huge list of cool and more realistic techs, and it would probably be fun too.


    I was trying to utilize the techs that are in the OOB game.  The difference in this tech system is ONLY how they are acquired.  Less changes to the OOB rules (your house rules) usually translates to more acceptance of a house rule.  I like the KISS principal too (Keep It Simple).


  • One idea that you could add to this is to increase the cost of more researchers.  For example, the first researcher costs 5 for a tech, a second for the same tech would cost 6, and so on.  Not sure if this would help, just an idea.


  • @Vareel:

    One idea that you could add to this is to increase the cost of more researchers.  For example, the first researcher costs 5 for a tech, a second for the same tech would cost 6, and so on.  Not sure if this would help, just an idea.

    Could you further explain what you are trying to accomplish by making more researchers more expensive?
    Is it to increase the cost of ‘rushing’ a tech (buying several targetted researchers for each tech)?


  • Yes, pretty much.  Take heavy bombers, it would take on average 8 or 9 rolls to get.  But if japan spends turn 1 all fifteen to get 3 researchers on heavy bombers they should have it turn 3.  But I guess that really isn’t that big of a deal though.

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

    If you still like the randomness and surprise aspect, use the OOB tech rules… those meet your criteria perfectly.
    The goal is to REDUCE those aspects of TECH with a point system.

    The problem is their are no limits on tech rolls allowing for players who got a big game breaking technology ( and i am saying at least one of these must be such a technology- Atomic Weaponry) that the oob allows the other side to pile on the money for some catch up. In reality this is impossible, all Technology is advancement over time with small incremental steps.

    AARHE is the only system or first one that installs a limit on what you can do, but the technology step system and free tech rolls allow these small steps.

    It is actually just as KISS as this system, but instead of one roll for success, you need a number of successful rolls.

    The system also allows for technology transfer and my further system allows for spy’s and Counterespionage. For example the Americans and Soviets did not share technology, but Soviets bought spys to get the A-bomb secret. So the proliferation of techs to other nations and not just the cash rich ones is also possible.

    I view house rules to reflect reality because this is a game based on something that actually happened, It is not parker brothers Risk and their are many ways to balance a game and achieve realistic outcomes and one does not subtract from the other.

    here was another idea…

    Tech Tree:

    Procedure: Same as AA50 except you assign your researcher to one of the following three categories: Land, Sea or Air. Further, you can only assign up to one researcher per category at a time. Germany and USA can assign up to two researchers per category. All other OOB rules are in effect.

    Land Technology:
    1)  Radar- AA guns fire at planes at 2.
    2)  War Bonds- add one die to IPC total each turn
    3)  IC Repair- ( one IPC removes two points of damage)
    4)  Underground factories- SBR hits count at ½ value rounded down
    5)  Self-Propelled Artillery-You can form anti-tank forces by building one from scratch for 6 IPC attack and defend at 3, move 2. These units hits go first against other Artillery, Mechanized, or Armor unit before an infantry unit can be selected. Only one per turn can be built.

    Sea Technology:
    1)  ASW- your fighters, bombers can now negate the submarines first strike capability and attack these units.
    2)  Shipyards- subs, transports, destroyers cost one less IPC, all other ships cost two less IPC.
    3)  Super subs- same as revised OOB
    4)  Improved Carriers- if you pay 4 IPC per carrier they now take 2 hits, plus have a 3 fighter capacity. New Carriers of this type can also be created and they costing 4 IPC extra.
    5)  Super Battleships- your existing battleships attack and defend at 5 and they always fire preemptively in combat each turn (loses removed before they fire back) for either attack or defense.
    6)  AA cruisers, your cruisers get an AA roll if any planes attack hitting at 1 prior to the first round of combat. Each plane is rolled and if hit is removed before shooting back.

    Air Technology:
    1)  Radar- any fighters you have defending and not under attack can assist adjacent territories prior to the start of combat rolls.
    2)  Long Rang Air- same as OOB
    3)  Rockets- Same as OOB
    4)  Jet Fighters- same as OOB, except they don’t get rolled at by defending AA guns.
    5)  Heavy Bombers- Roll one die= lost IPC, roll second die= damage to factories capacity to place new units.
    6)  Atomic Bomb- one bomber per turn can perform one SBR run where the damage is permanent reduction in capacity to place units. The first turn this can be developed is turn 7.

    Spies: These cost 10 IPC each and can be assigned in secret to any specific enemy player’s technology. If that player decides to develop the technology and it succeeds, the spy may be revealed and the spy gets to roll obtaining technology on a roll of 4-6. Note: the Soviet player is the only player that can send spies to his own allies and they cost 5 IPC.

    Counter Spy: Each player may buy a super spy which can be used to eliminate the enemy spy but this is not assigned globally to all technologies that can be developed, but must instead be assigned to a land, sea, or air technology category.


  • @Imperious:

    If you still like the randomness and surprise aspect, use the OOB tech rules… those meet your criteria perfectly.
    The goal is to REDUCE those aspects of TECH with a point system.

    The problem is their are no limits on tech rolls allowing for players who got a big game breaking technology ( and i am saying at least one of these must be such a technology- Atomic Weaponry) that the oob allows the other side to pile on the money for some catch up. In reality this is impossible, all Technology is advancement over time with small incremental steps.

    I think you are missing the point about tech countering tech.  What you think is a flaw I think is a strength.

    You are trying to apply some rules you think apply in reality to a game simulation.  This game is all about “what if”, it’s a fantasy world.  It’s not about duplicating that it took 4 years to develop the atomic bomb.  I am trying to help a game that works best when a strategy CAN BE countered by another strategy.  Sure, it’s a ‘tech catch up’ strategy, but again an example will point to other aspects of the game where game play involves this sort of thinking:

    I am the axis and I am way behind in the game.  If Germany takes a crazy battle to clear a way to give Japan a shot to take moscow (both being low odds battles), why would I take those battles if I were winning the game?  I wouldn’t.  But because I am losing, I am less risk averse and will do so.  Those odds that I win are not high, just like ‘catch up’ tech spending may not be enough to stem the tide of the opponents tech.  It’s a risky move, but at least it is a STRATEGIC OPTION that I have.  If you limit tech rolls, you diminish these options.

    So why is it ok to be more risky on units in battles then in tech rolls?

    If you consider tech in a strategic fashion (just another piece/possible move), then the two (units and tech) are they same.


    I think we are viewing tech in two seperate and very different ways.  Neither is more correct.  I prefer tech to be less random, more strategic choices that can be as counterable as buying destroyers to offset super subs.

    Your preference is more realistic weapons of the war developed along historical accuracy lines of thinking.

    Again, neither is more correct.  And thank you for being part of our discussion thread.

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

    I am the axis and I am way behind in the game.  If Germany takes a crazy battle to clear a way to give Japan a shot to take moscow (both being low odds battles), why would I take those battles if I were winning the game?  I wouldn’t.  But because I am losing, I am less risk averse and will do so.  Those odds that I win are not high, just like ‘catch up’ tech spending may not be enough to stem the tide of the opponents tech.  It’s a risky move, but at least it is a STRATEGIC OPTION that I have.  If you limit tech rolls, you diminish these options.

    This is a good argument against Low Luck which i think is ridiculous. Some battles will result in much better outcomes, but i feel technology should not be doing this rather good strategy should only do what it can and the results may sometimes go the other way. To me this is a strength, but a technology system based on points does not give that aspect, while the OOB may do this.

    So if you really like this concept that if one player on turn one gets the atomic bomb and the opponent wants to do the same and just blow the game open, i would pick the OOB system everytime. The point idea does not arrive at this dynamic as well as the OOB.

    I do not think that these cheapos like Germany going for Rockets on turn one by spending all its cash like an old women in Vegas help give the game MORE STRATEGY, But i do hope you find a new solution.

    to make more strategy ( if thats what you want) i suggest:

    1)At a minimum get the players some kind of free technology roll, get them all involved even without spending because for the most part if the enemy does not do any tech, the opponent is likely to do less.

    2)Allow for spy’s ( and trading of techs from allies)

    both of these does make for more decisions, hence strategy.


  • @Imperious:

    I am the axis and I am way behind in the game.  If Germany takes a crazy battle to clear a way to give Japan a shot to take moscow (both being low odds battles), why would I take those battles if I were winning the game?  I wouldn’t.  But because I am losing, I am less risk averse and will do so.  Those odds that I win are not high, just like ‘catch up’ tech spending may not be enough to stem the tide of the opponents tech.  It’s a risky move, but at least it is a STRATEGIC OPTION that I have.  If you limit tech rolls, you diminish these options.

    This is a good argument against Low Luck which i think is ridiculous. Some battles will result in much better outcomes, but i feel technology should not be doing this rather good strategy should only do what it can and the results may sometimes go the other way. To me this is a strength, but a technology system based on points does not give that aspect, while the OOB may do this.

    So if you really like this concept that if one player on turn one gets the atomic bomb and the opponent wants to do the same and just blow the game open, i would pick the OOB system everytime. The point idea does not arrive at this dynamic as well as the OOB.

    The OOB falls short here, exactly, and this is the point.  I want an option to catch-up and the point system gives me a better chance at such an one but it is not a guarenteed one because the points are so high for the more game breaking tech.  In the OOB system, you are really at the mercy of the dice, so you MIGHT be able to blow the game open and then again, you might NOT just because the dice say so.  Reduce the randomness.

    @Imperious:

    I do not think that these cheapos like Germany going for Rockets on turn one by spending all its cash like an old women in Vegas help give the game MORE STRATEGY, But i do hope you find a new solution.

    The strategy here is the decision to counter someone else’s move.  Your example is a single action.  In other words, the old woman hasn’t decided it was best to go to Las Vegas instead of a local gambling joint because her friend won all kinds of money (one action based on the outcome of another, in our case, the other is the opponent).

    @Imperious:

    to make more strategy ( if thats what you want) i suggest:

    1)At a minimum get the players some kind of free technology roll, get them all involved even without spending because for the most part if the enemy does not do any tech, the opponent is likely to do less.

    2)Allow for spy’s ( and trading of techs from allies)

    both of these does make for more decisions, hence strategy.

    Interesting options, but again, these are MORE changes from the base rules, which might be fun as options, but not the minimalist approach I would like to see employeed.


  • The points tech system is at least much better than the OOB tech system. But it is a problem in setting the right prices for each tech, b/c some powers will profit more on the same techs than other countries.

    Only 3 powers will profit on sea techs, and Russia will not profit much on air techs compared to Germany, if we chose AA50 as an example.

    Another problem with the techs (in AA50) is that several techs are almost worthless compared to the “middle-strength-techs”, and the game-breaking techs, it will still be a tech race in many games, even if the points tech system is less random than the OOB tech system.

    Another option are (i.e.) with or w/o the point system, low-strength-techs being available before rnd 5, middle-strength-techs available after rnd 5, and the game-winning-techs only being available after rnd 10.


  • @Subotai:

    The points tech system is at least much better than the OOB tech system. But it is a problem in setting the right prices for each tech, b/c some powers will profit more on the same techs than other countries.

    Agreed 100%.  This is why I solicited others to try these rules and report the results.  Only through actual game play testing can a rule ever be best measured.  Also, tweaking by country might then take shape as well.  For example, since HB’s are so strong, and more likely to be developed by US or Japan, perhaps their cost should be an additional 5 points or conversely, Russia’s might be 5 points less.

    @Subotai:

    Only 3 powers will profit on sea techs, and Russia will not profit much on air techs compared to Germany, if we chose AA50 as an example.

    yes, not every tech is good for every country, that’s for sure.  That is not necessarily a fault of the tech system, but more a characteristic of the game itself.  Plus by targetting your researchers, Russia won’t be trying for super subs too often now will they :)… so that ‘problem’ takes care of itself.

    @Subotai:

    Another problem with the techs (in AA50) is that several techs are almost worthless compared to the “middle-strength-techs”, and the game-breaking techs, it will still be a tech race in many games, even if the points tech system is less random than the OOB tech system.

    Pricing the ‘worthless’ techs at a much cheaper level may get them to be used in a game, at least that’s the goal of the request to play test and find a proper point value for each tech (by country, if needed)

    RE:  Tech races.

    Aren’t all games that involve tech really tech races (when players actually attempt tech more than the haphazard $5 here and there)??

    @Subotai:

    Another option are (i.e.) with or w/o the point system, low-strength-techs being available before rnd 5, middle-strength-techs available after rnd 5, and the game-winning-techs only being available after rnd 10.

    Well the pricing kinda enforces this where the cheaper techs can be had earlier.  However, if game play testing proves that to not be true, then an ‘earliest round attainable’ may need to be assigned to each tech.


    I am certainly not saying this system is the best nor is even close to be finalized, but if we can get some players to buy into the goals / reasons WHY you would play using this tech system, then we can fine tune it to achieve that goal.  This is partly the reason why I have been answering peoples feed back with my own comments to  better describe the purpose of the “tech via a points system”.

    I appreciate all the feed back and any game play testing results that are reported here.  Might I add it was this sort of community effort that created an excellent house rule set for Revised called AARe (Enhanced).

    Good gaming!


  • mediocre tech would have to be amazingly cheaper to warrant any $ spent on them. Why would I research war bonds over HB? Even at half the price it simply would not make sense. that is the inherrent problem with targeted tech. Now the post about round number available might have some potential because I might want war bonds round 2-3 to help fund my round 5+ big research. As far as round ten, are many of your games gong that long? things tend to be fairly well decided around 4 in our group with perhaps two more rounds to try and stem the tide but either the axis are rolling over russia/asia or the allies have stopped nazi momentum and begun to push back.


  • Hi guys,

    I’ve only managed to play a handful of games of the Anniversary Edition but axis_roll asked my opinion on Tech via a point system

    First of all, I completely agree the OOTB Tech system is completely FLAWED and lacks ANY Strategic Value
    A Strategic Tech system should allow players to choose the Tech they go for, rather than just acquiring it randomly

    So with that said, I do agree with Directed Tech, but I do think there’s an easier way to implement it than with the point system…

    Basically, keep Tech exactly the way it is, except that when buying researchers, a player must state which Tech they are going for.
    Techs are divided into 3 categories:

    Minor Tech:
    -War Bonds
    -Advanced Artillery
    -Super Subs

    Moderate Tech:
    -Paratrooper
    -Industrial Capacity
    -Shipyards
    -Radar
    -Jet Fighters

    Major Tech:
    -Mechanized Infantry
    -Rockets
    -Long Range Aicraft
    -Heavy Bombers

    Now here’s the kicker…
    Minor Techs succeed on a single hit (ie. 1 roll of ‘6’, just like normal)
    Moderate Techs require two hits (ie. 2 rolls of ‘6’, in total, before they become active)
    Major Techs require three hits (ie. 3 rolls of ‘6’, in total, before they become active)

    So for example, Player A wants to go for Heavy Bombers
    He buys 2 researchers to start (10IPC), realizing that it is impossible though to get HB right away
    On Turn 1, he rolls 2,4 - no good.  He plans to add 1 researcher for next round (5IPC)
    On Turn 2, he rolls 1,2,6* - that counts as 1 hit, he still doesn’t get HB though
    On Turn 3, he rolls 3,4,5
    On Turn 4, he rolls 1,4,6* - that’s a 2nd hit, still no HB yet.  He really wants HB next turn though and plans to buy 2 more researchers (10IPC)
    On Turn 5, he rolls 2,4,4,5,6* - SUCCESS!  He now gets HB for 25IPC Round 5 (later, and more expensive than OOTB rules)

    Advantages:
    -This would be a very simple system to implement (rather than counting points)
    -The stronger Techs would generally take longer to get (because they require multiple Tech hits)
    -The stronger Techs would be more expensive to get (assuming the player is willing to buy more than 1 researcher to get the Tech in decent time)
    -Tech is Directed, making the Tech component of the game much more strategic
    -Counter-Tech is also Directed again increasing the Strategy of the game (ie. IC to counter HB)
    -Furthermore, if players know someone is going for a specific Tech, they can employ countermeasures in terms of purchases as well

    I think Tech can be taken further strategically, but if you’re looking for a real simple solution, this would be a start.


  • Just to expand on this idea a bit further…

    One can look at allowing Shared Tech…
    If an Ally achieves a Tech, you could allow alliance members to research the Tech for 4IPC/researcher rather than 5 IPC

    Also, one can look at adding some other Techs to the game
    Basically you would just need to classify it as Minor, Moderate or Major
    I think an Interceptor Tech would be nice, maybe also something to make Subs less vulnerable, and also Navies less vulnerable late game (to HBs)

    Finally, there’s room to have Country Specializations (ie. a country can research a Tech for 4IPC/researcher right off the bat).  This could be to direct the flow of the game in a certain way (historically or strategically) or make up for inherent in-game deficincies.  I would suggest the following…

    Germany - Industrial Capacity (game shorts them on production to begin with, natural HB protection, still pay full price for Mech Inf)
    Italy - Paratroopers (I know they have no BMBR but some historic/strategic implications for this)
    Japan - Super Subs (historic/strategic implications)
    Russia - Advanced Artillery (historic/strategic implications)
    UK - Shipyards (historic/strategic implications)
    USA - War Bonds (economic edge, make them still pay full for HB,LRA)

    Thoughts?


  • Paratroopers is a strong tech, and within Cousin_Joes system it should be a major tech.


  • @cousin_joe:

    Hi guys,

    I’ve only managed to play a handful of games of the Anniversary Edition but axis_roll asked my opinion on Tech via a point system

    First of all, I completely agree the OOTB Tech system is completely FLAWED and lacks ANY Strategic Value
    A Strategic Tech system should allow players to choose the Tech they go for, rather than just acquiring it randomly

    Appreciate your input

    @cousin_joe:

    So with that said, I do agree with Directed Tech, but I do think there’s an easier way to implement it than with the point system…

    Basically, keep Tech exactly the way it is, except that when buying researchers, a player must state which Tech they are going for.
    Techs are divided into 3 categories:

    Minor Tech:
    -War Bonds
    -Advanced Artillery
    -Super Subs

    Moderate Tech:
    -Paratrooper
    -Industrial Capacity
    -Shipyards
    -Radar
    -Jet Fighters

    Major Tech:
    -Mechanized Infantry
    -Rockets
    -Long Range Aicraft
    -Heavy Bombers

    Now here’s the kicker…
    Minor Techs succeed on a single hit (ie. 1 roll of ‘6’, just like normal)
    Moderate Techs require two hits (ie. 2 rolls of ‘6’, in total, before they become active)
    Major Techs require three hits (ie. 3 rolls of ‘6’, in total, before they become active)

    So for example, Player A wants to go for Heavy Bombers
    He buys 2 researchers to start (10IPC), realizing that it is impossible though to get HB right away
    On Turn 1, he rolls 2,4 - no good.  He plans to add 1 researcher for next round (5IPC)
    On Turn 2, he rolls 1,2,6* - that counts as 1 hit, he still doesn’t get HB though
    On Turn 3, he rolls 3,4,5
    On Turn 4, he rolls 1,4,6* - that’s a 2nd hit, still no HB yet.  He really wants HB next turn though and plans to buy 2 more researchers (10IPC)
    On Turn 5, he rolls 2,4,4,5,6* - SUCCESS!  He now gets HB for 25IPC Round 5 (later, and more expensive than OOTB rules)

    So if I fail to roll 6’s, I never achieve a tech?  that adds that randomness factor BACK to the system.

    Example:  3 tech rolls CAN roll three 6’s so I COULD achieve a MAJOR tech with a $15 investment.
    Conversely, let’s say I spend $15 for a minor (I really want super subs).
    I could go three rounds and never roll a 6 (no sixes in nine rolls certainly can happen).

    The goal is to diminish this randomness as compared to the OOB, and it sounds like this system has not done that too much.

    I like the idea of accumulating your tech efforts (Akin to the 4:2 in Enhanced)
    In other words, your tech rolls are never totally wasted.  If you roll three ones on my Super Subs example,
    then you would be 20% of the way to getting super subs (3 of 15).  In this proposal, I would have nothing to show for my tech rolls.

    @cousin_joe:

    Advantages:
    -This would be a very simple system to implement (rather than counting points)

    You’d still have to counts number of hits by category for each tech.
    That is basically the same exact thing as counting points by tech.

    I played with tech by points over the weekend and it was not hard at all to track the tech rolls.

    @cousin_joe:

    -The stronger Techs would generally take longer to get (because they require multiple Tech hits)
    -The stronger Techs would be more expensive to get (assuming the player is willing to buy more than 1 researcher to get the Tech in decent time)
    -Tech is Directed, making the Tech component of the game much more strategic
    -Counter-Tech is also Directed again increasing the Strategy of the game (ie. IC to counter HB)
    -Furthermore, if players know someone is going for a specific Tech, they can employ countermeasures in terms of purchases as well

    All of these are also achieved by the point system.  The higher points seperate the techs into minor/moderate/major tech levels.
    Recall that the point values are initial thoughts and can be tweaked/adjusted as needed as indicated by game play testing.

    @cousin_joe:

    I think Tech can be taken further strategically, but if you’re looking for a real simple solution, this would be a start.

    I don’t know if this system is any more simple than the tech point system.  It certainly is not more work to track the tech rolls,
    and is less flexible if you wanted to tweak by country.


  • @critmonster:

    mediocre tech would have to be amazingly cheaper to warrant any $ spent on them. Why would I research war bonds over HB? Even at half the price it simply would not make sense.

    After playing once with the system, I can agree with you
    So what would you propose for the mediocre tech?
    6?  so that one researcher COULD achieve that tech?

    Please feel free to offer another set of points or just indicate modifications to specific techs.

    @critmonster:

    that is the inherrent problem with targeted tech.

    I do not think ‘that’ problem with directed tech can not be countered by pricing the techs correctly.
    In other words, if HB’s are still ALWAYS being developed, then they need to be priced higher with more points.
    And you can even do this by country because I can see the USA being the most likely to try and develop this tech.
    Perhaps their HB roll would be 10 points higher.

    Again, this system is a work in progress.  If we game play test it, we can iron out the wrinkles.

    @critmonster:

    Now the post about round number available might have some potential because I might want war bonds round 2-3 to help fund my round 5+ big research. As far as round ten, are many of your games gong that long? things tend to be fairly well decided around 4 in our group with perhaps two more rounds to try and stem the tide but either the axis are rolling over russia/asia or the allies have stopped nazi momentum and begun to push back.

    Agreed this may need to be incorporated, but it is somewhat implemented by the costs.  For example, at 30, HBs are costly and may not come into play until round 4, round 3 at the earliest, but it could be costly to the developer.

    Any proposals on rounds for tech?

Suggested Topics

  • 7
  • 1
  • 16
  • 40
  • 7
  • 4
  • 3
  • 1
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

39
Online

16.0k
Users

37.6k
Topics

1.6m
Posts