Technology



  • Basicly

    They convert to german units….Thre is no need to have a new power with a capital in Vichy (~2IPC) and Morocco (1IPC) and Algeria (1IPC)

    A random ammount turn German. Boats either scuttle or turn German…that is what happend.
    It should be represented somehow, and this way is really simple



  • @Brain:

    What I meant was US and UK defended France, not the french.

    Well my point was that I really don’t know if you can say the US were on hand to defend France… little late for that.

    Now as an offensive boost?  
    Definitely!!

    In fact, maybe there should be one of those 1:1 matching rules: for every US, UK, Cdn or Polish land unit present the French player can prevent one of his French units from surrendering / imitating an AA50 auto-killed transport?
    LOL

    #463



  • Okay, now you are getting all technical on me.



  • @allboxcars:

    @Brain:

    What I meant was US and UK defended France, not the french.

    Well my point was that I really don’t know if you can say the US were on hand to defend France… little late for that.

    Now as an offensive boost?  
    Definitely!!

    In fact, maybe there should be one of those 1:1 matching rules: for every US, UK, Cdn or Polish land unit present the French player can prevent one of his French units from surrendering / imitating an AA50 auto-killed transport?
    LOL

    #463

    thenshot them then all the french will be mine :evil:



  • @Brain:

    Technology should be eliminated from the game.

    I’ll agree with you up to a point. I have never really liked the way technology was implemented. Too luck-based! Even in the Anniversary Edition rules set, there’s the luck element of the time delay; plus the luck element of whether you ultimately end up with a tech you wanted.

    Chief Technical Officer: How is that research coming on that new tank?
    Researcher: It’s coming! It should be ready any minute now.
    Chief Technical Officer: Good. We need those improved tanks yesterday.

    Later . . .

    Chief Technical Officer: How about those new tanks?
    Researcher: You’re going to be excited. Just not in the way you might think.
    Chief Technical Officer: What do you mean?
    Researcher: Think of this like Christmas. You never know what you’re going to get until you unwrap the present.
    Chief Technical Officer: I don’t think I like where this is going.
    Researcher: It turns out that when you sent us off to develop improved tanks, some of us got a little distracted, one thing led to another, and before you knew it, we’d developed super submarines! Our submarines will be the best in the world, hands down, no holds barred.
    Chief Technical Officer: We don’t even have a sub fleet. We have no plans to build a sub fleet, because we’re locked into a land war. The very existence of our nation requires us to at least hold our own in that land war! Why would you develop an improved submarine instead?
    Researcher: These things happen.
    Chief Technical Officer: What do you mean, “These things happen?” Who on Earth sets about trying to develop an improved tank, only to develop an improved submarine instead? When someone proposed an improved tank turret, did someone else respond with, “Tank turret. Submarine conning tower. Same difference.”?
    Researcher: You know how these things go.
    Chief Technical Officer: No, I don’t know how these things go. I want that improved tank, and I want it yesterday!
    Researcher: That brings me to my other news. The funding for this research project was pretty much used up by that improved sub we just designed. If you want us to improve your tanks, we’re going to need some more cash.
    Chief Technical Officer: What guarantee do I have that, this time, I’ll get the improved tank?
    Researcher: Some of the guys were tossing around ideas for improved tanks. Maybe those will go somewhere. Then again, there are other schools of thought out there. Some feel that since we now have the world’s best subs, it’s time to improve our naval shipyards. So you never know where your research effort is going to go! 🙂
    Chief Technical Officer: What?!?!

    Fortunately, the above problem is solved in my rules set. There is no luck element to technology research, and you always know in advance exactly which tech you’ll be getting.



  • @KurtGodel7:

    @Brain:

    Technology should be eliminated from the game.

    I’ll agree with you up to a point. I have never really liked the way technology was implemented. Too luck-based! Even in the Anniversary Edition rules set, there’s the luck element of the time delay; plus the luck element of whether you ultimately end up with a tech you wanted.

    Chief Technical Officer: How is that research coming on that new tank?
    Researcher: It’s coming! It should be ready any minute now.
    Chief Technical Officer: Good. We need those improved tanks yesterday.

    Later . . .

    Chief Technical Officer: How about those new tanks?
    Researcher: You’re going to be excited. Just not in the way you might think.
    Chief Technical Officer: What do you mean?
    Researcher: Think of this like Christmas. You never know what you’re going to get until you unwrap the present.
    Chief Technical Officer: I don’t think I like where this is going.
    Researcher: It turns out that when you sent us off to develop improved tanks, some of us got a little distracted, one thing led to another, and before you knew it, we’d developed super submarines! Our submarines will be the best in the world, hands down, no holds barred.
    Chief Technical Officer: We don’t even have a sub fleet. We have no plans to build a sub fleet, because we’re locked into a land war. The very existence of our nation requires us to at least hold our own in that land war! Why would you develop an improved submarine instead?
    Researcher: These things happen.
    Chief Technical Officer: What do you mean, “These things happen?” Who on Earth sets about trying to develop an improved tank, only to develop an improved submarine instead? When someone proposed an improved tank turret, did someone else respond with, “Tank turret. Submarine conning tower. Same difference.”?
    Researcher: You know how these things go.
    Chief Technical Officer: No, I don’t know how these things go. I want that improved tank, and I want it yesterday!
    Researcher: That brings me to my other news. The funding for this research project was pretty much used up by that improved sub we just designed. If you want us to improve your tanks, we’re going to need some more cash.
    Chief Technical Officer: What guarantee do I have that, this time, I’ll get the improved tank?
    Researcher: Some of the guys were tossing around ideas for improved tanks. Maybe those will go somewhere. Then again, there are other schools of thought out there. Some feel that since we now have the world’s best subs, it’s time to improve our naval shipyards. So you never know where your research effort is going to go! 🙂
    Chief Technical Officer: What?!?!

    Fortunately, the above problem is solved in my rules set. There is no luck element to technology research, and you always know in advance exactly which tech you’ll be getting.

    LOL.  Yeah, this pretty much sums up Axis and Allies tech.  What’s even worse is that you can’t really PLAN on any particular tech, you just have to roll for them all and expect the best.  Bombers are always a good bet since 3 of the techs will help them out, but a lot of the time you can’t plan on building many of them.  What’s worse is that the Allies usually have an unfair advantage in developing tech since two of their powers aren’t usually in dire threat of invasion; and the Axis powers are forced to economize every IPC for land forces in holding Europe or invading Asia/Russia.

    Also, a LOT of the tech in A and A is pretty useless for many of the powers anyway… Like the US getting radar, or Italy getting mechanized infantry.  War bonds???  Jeez I could of just not rolled for tech in the first place.  Where is the German supertank technology, anyway?



  • I generally ignore Tech development.  I prefer NAs.  As has been said by others, I find Techs to be a gamble and overweighted in their influence of the game. I totally agree with the KurtGodel7 and his scenario.  In my European hex game I make techs into NAs that are timed.  For example, I have Light, Medium, Veteran and Heavy Tanks.  I use the original AA tanks as lights, and I mark or paint the individual sculpts for the other three types.  Veteran tanks are mediums such as the T-34 and the Panther.  Lights are the Grant, Pz ii.  Mediums are the Sherman and Pz iii & iv. Heavies are the Churchill, Tigers and Soviet KV-1 & IS-2.  For dice rolls, I use D-12s: Attack and Defense: Lt 5-3; Md 6-4; Vt 7-5; Hy 8-8.  Heavies are 2 hit, but move at one.  Light have a movement of 3. In my view tanks were designed to attack; defence goes to the infantry.  How does this fit into my NA/Techs?  All countries in 1939 have Light tanks.  Only UK, Germany and USSR have a limited build of medium tanks.  France and USSR also have a limited build of Heavies.  In 1941 USSR gets to build Veterans (T-34).  In 1942 the US gets Mediums and the Germans get Veterans.  The US and UK never get Veterans, while the Germans get Heavies in 43 and the US in 1945 ( the US heavies get to move at 2 - the T26 Pershing).



  • Also, lol, just thought of this.

    General:  Well, well, looks like we finally have a break through in our tank research development…  Mechanized Infantry, you called it?
    Researcher:  Yes, sir!  We have our tanks, and…  we let infantry ride on the backs of them to their destination!!!  It will be revolutionary!
    General:  MY GOD. 
    Researcher:  Yes, as long as our war machine keeps producing enough IPCs for maximum production, and we can still afford to produce tanks, we’re good!
    General:  This could mean… dear god, it won’t take two turns to move infantry two spaces anymore!  As long as they’re paired up with a tank!
    Researcher:  This is just what we need!  This will win the war for sure!..

    Later that turn, the US rolled Heavy Bombers, and promptly nuked Berlin into the Stone Age.  Axis promptly surrendered.

    Yeah, pretty bad synopsis of Axis and Allies tech.



  • Mike, Is that you in the MSU uniform?



  • Leave it to IL to move a thread about theoretical technologies ON A GAME THAT HASN’T EVEN BEEN RELEASED YET.

    Sheesh.  Let us have a little fun with it at least.



  • @SgtBlitz:

    Where is the German supertank technology, anyway?

    A good question! I did a lot of thinking about tanks in my rules set. In the real war, the two best tank designs were the Soviets’ T-34 and the Germans’ Panther tanks. Early in the game, the Soviets have the best tanks (3 hitpoints compared to 2 for most other nations, and 1 for Japan’s light tanks). Later in the game, the Soviets can upgrade their T-34s to T-34-85s. This means they’re increasing their combat dice from 2 (which is what standard tanks have) to 3. Another technology–simplify the T-34–reduces the cost of Soviet tanks from 5 PUs down to 4.

    Germany can research the Panther tank tech, which makes its tanks have ten hitpoints, roll ten combat dice, and cost 8 PUs each. By the time both nations are done upgrading their tanks, 8 PUs will buy the Soviet player 6 combat dice and 6 hitpoints worth of tanks, compared to 10 and 10 for Germany. I realize that’s an advantage for the Axis, but–trust me on this one–the Axis needs it!

    I didn’t include the Tiger tank design in this rules set, because in the real war, a Tiger cost four times as much as a Panther, but was less than four times as useful on the battlefield.



  • But the Tiger was almost impregnable from enemy fire. There were accounts of some that took 50+ shells from Shermans and the only thing that was damaged were the treads.



  • @maverick_76:

    But the Tiger was almost impregnable from enemy fire. There were accounts of some that took 50+ shells from Shermans and the only thing that was damaged were the treads.

    A very good point. The Tiger I had much better armor than a Sherman, and a better weapon as well. It could destroy enemy tanks from long distances, and many kinds of enemy tanks–including the Sherman–could not penetrate the front armor of a Tiger I from any distance.

    But the Panther was like that too. Its front armor was actually better than that of a Tiger I. Its main gun–though a lower caliber than that of the Tiger I’s–actually could penetrate thicker armor than the Tiger I’s could. The Panther’s main gun used a very long barrel and a powerful explosive charge to achieve this. The Panther was also lighter and more nimble than the Tiger I. Part of the reason for the Panther’s lighter weight was because its armor was thinner on the sides and on top than was the Tiger I’s. This made the Panther more vulnerable to flanking attacks and aerial attacks than the Tiger I. The combat value of the two tank designs was roughly comparable, with the Tiger I costing a lot more than the Panther.

    Later in the war, Germany ceased manufacturing Tiger I tanks in favor of the Tiger II. The Tiger II (also known as the King Tiger) had the sloping armor of a Panther, and not the relatively vertical armor of the Tiger I. It was better-armored, better armed, and heavier than a Tiger I. Despite its large size and underpowered engine, its mobility was comparable to that of most Allied tanks. Its large treads allowed its weight to be spread out over a large surface area; thereby improving performance. This was a truly formidable tank but, unlike the Panther, was never intended to be Germany’s main battle tank. While I have been unable to locate an exact production cost for the Tiger II, I encountered a statement that the Tiger II was significantly more expensive to manufacture than a Tiger I. The Tiger I, in turn, was between twice and four times as expensive to build as a Panther.

    Ultimately, Germany planned to cease manufacturing its existing tank designs; replacing them with the Entwicklung Series (E-series) tanks. The E-50 Standardpanzer was to replace the Panther and Tiger I; and the E-75 was to replace the Tiger II. The main intended benefit of the E-series was the simplification of tank design and reduction of production cost. It was also hoped the program would help solve some of the mechanical problems which had plagued the Panther and Tiger tank designs. (Though parenthetically, significant progress had been made on those problems in any case.)



  • @trackmagic:

    Mike, Is that you in the MSU uniform?

    No, unfortunately not. I wish I had played pro-football.  It’s Chris Szarka, Canadian born fullback in the uniform of the Saskatchewan Roughriders of the Canadian Football League.  The Roughriders will be celebrating their 100th anniversary in this 2010 year.  Training camp starts soon, as league play begins in June and the 98th Grey Cup Game, the CFL Championship, occurs in November.  It is professional football.  I had considered using Szarka’s nick name, the Cannuck Truck, as my handle or whatever one’s identity on the forum is called, but decided to go with my first name and year I was born.  I love the Canadian version of the football game and I referee amateur ball in my area in Northern Alberta. I was raised in the province of Saskatchewan and became a devoted fan of the Riders.  I’m afraid I don’t follow American football, college or professional, so I don’t know what MSU is.  [Dare I mention that I am more devoted to my Riders than I am to A&A, and I’m an A&A fanatic having played it since the first MB version.]



  • I know what you mean. College football in the US is one of my top 3 hobbies (varies between A&A, F1 racing and College football). MSU =Michigan State University Spartans. They have VERY similar uniforms to the one in your picture. My uncle actually went there.

    Spartans!
    http://blog.mlive.com/spartans_impact/2008/10/large_101808-msu-osu-gamer.jpg



  • Good to hear you don’t follow college football, saves a lot of time and arguing about certain ranking systems, but that is another can of worms.



  • The Ultimate Breakthrough Chart

    All of these technologies represents scientific breakthroughs that had or could have had a major impact on the course of the war. Using this single breakthrough chart, one can choose any technology you wish to research. To develop improved military technology, you buy researchers that give you a chance for a scientific breakthrough. Each researcher token costs 8 IPCs and will grant you one die that provides a chance for a breakthrough. For each researcher you have, roll one die. You can only receive one technological advance each turn.

    Success: If you roll at least one “6,” you have successfully made a technological breakthrough for the chosen development. Discard all your researcher tokens. Your development becomes effective during Phase 6: Mobilize New Units of your turn.

    Failure: If you do not roll a “6,” your research has failed. Keep all your researcher tokens and continue to the Purchase Units phase of the turn.


    1. Super Submarines
    Your submarines are now super submarines. They attack and defend on a 3 and may not be attacked by enemy aircraft when alone or in company with other submarines, unless an enemy destroyer is present.

    2. Rockets
    Your antiaircraft guns are now rocket launchers. In addition to its normal combat function, during the strategic bombing raid step of your Conduct Combat phase, each of your antiaircraft guns can make a rocket strike against an enemy industrial complex within 3 spaces of it, to attack enemy production. In each turn, only one antiaircraft gun per territory may launch rockets, and each industrial complex can be attacked by only one rocket launcher. On a rocket strike, roll two dice, take the better result to determine the damage done to the industrial complex, i.e. the number of IPCs destroyed by that rocket. There is no defense against this attack.

    3. Radar
    You now have radar technology that facilitate offensive fighter control. Your fighters on any territory of your control containing an antiaircraft gun, may now defend adjacent territories or sea zones. They can join other defending units or be alone and act immediately in these battles. Any fighthers that you choose to defend in an adjacent territory or sea zone cannot participate in another battle and move back to the territory of origin after the attacker completes the combat phase and before the attacker starts the non-combat phase. If the territory of origin has been captured then the fighter may move up to one space or else be lost.

    4. Jet Power
    Your fighters (not bombers) do now have jet power. Their attack value increases to 4.

    5. Long-Range Aircraft
    Your fighters are now long-range fighters, and your bombers are now long-range bombers. Your fighters’ and bombers’ range increases to 6 and 8 respectively.

    6. Heavy Bombers
    Your bombers are now heavy bombers. You roll two dice for each bomber when you attack or make a strategic bombing raid. On defense, your bombers still roll only a single die.



  • @Game:

    The Ultimate Breakthrough Chart

    1. Super Submarines
    Your submarines are now super submarines. They attack and defend on a 3 and may not be attacked by enemy aircraft when alone or in company with other submarines, unless an enemy destroyer is present.

    Subs by default can not be hit by planes unless the planes attack with a destroyer.  so the only change is there attack and defense value.



  • Anyway, these are just the techs from Revised, replacing combined bombardment(which has already been done by adding Cruisers) with Radar, an NA



  • the tech from the Anniversary edition is a better list and works with the new rules like transports, cruisers and the overall monetary value of the game



  • Man I am giddy for some news about all of this.


Log in to reply
 

Suggested Topics

  • 19
  • 12
  • 22
  • 4
  • 7
  • 6
  • 179
  • 11
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

77
Online

13.9k
Users

34.2k
Topics

1.3m
Posts