Moffett_R&D_v3_Ext.pdf

Here is a draft for a potential R&D Tech Chart for G40. The IPC/Costs and a few other things need some fixing updating. Will likely adopt some Bloodbath rules for rolling. Open to ideas/suggestions. This has not really been play tested, just a concept at this point.

Possible adjustment:
Turn 1: Build a research center for XX IPC (likely around 10 IPC)
Turn 2: Research a technology, like Ballistics and Amor or Advanced Propulsion (around 4 or 5 IPC)
Turn 3: Research technology if applicable or move to next stage of Deployment and roll 1 D6 and pay that amount
Turn 4: Deploy technology - Roll 1 D6 and pay that amount

It is possible to research more than one technology in parallel but it will cost.

Some technology allows upgrading units on the board for a cost (like Adv. Mech Inf.). Other techs apply to future units to be deployed.

Let me know your thoughts/input.

Just picked these up. I think they are a new release. The box is huge compared to the pieces…lol.

There is a lot of flash to clean up but they should look good when painted.!

@mrgoatcheese Thank you!..I though I was the only one that thought it is crazy not to have a proper Index. I have created one and will be posting when I get all the entries I want/need. It drives me nuts when rule books do not have indices.

Yes, making it more certain. Still want some chance involved so might follow the BBRs in terms of 1D6 on Phase III = get instant tech and next turn/phase buy dice if didn’t happen.

Since the game only has 6-sided dice the % of chance is pretty limited. Adding the possibility of two hits, the second hit less likely, makes the tech worth doing. If used 8, 10 or 12 sided could adjust the %.

V1/V2 Rockets were more a terror weapon vs being able to target specific battles so I think hitting their bank of IPCs makes more sense, thus the “aerial convoy raid” concept. More like a cheap, one-time use submarine convoy raid.

Trying to make it more like Sid Meir’s Civilization Tech Tree and have multiple techs per game. Also want the ability of the enemy to disrupt your tech by bombing a research facility.

Anyway, this is not play tested that much, just one or two games. Needs some further refinement.

Welcome any more comments/suggestions/etc.

@Field-marshall
I feel like they lost a bit of detail once painted. They turned out ok. Did some a paratroopers.

@turndown4rip Wow…this needs an example in the rule book. So easy to overlook and go with instinct from A&A.

Coverage straight from the front! …Massive battle in Bryansk underway. The Soviets were able to head off the Germans but who will win this critical battle?

YouTube Link:

https://youtu.be/ySts23PsO7A

@Field-marshall Cool, I will give it a try. TY

San Jose, CA

We have found, beginning of the game bid for 1st for initiative, end game bid last to react to enemy moves and/or avoid mis-steps.

@trig This is why we have adapted the BBR VP conditions and made other changes. Attacking a neutral in Europe by the Axis only results in one dice before 1939. We found the penalties for attacking Neutrals limits the Axis and causes the same scenario over and over again. Anyway…trying to adapt for 2-player as best we can.

@hbg-gw-enthusiast Allowing the Japanese control of CCP until Japan attacks kind of accomplishes what you have described. There is incentive for the CCP to attack and become a Major Power. Then the CCP can attack Britain, France, etc. The Americans playing the KMT want to prevent the CCP from becoming Major. It works pretty well so far. We kept that the CCP cannot attack Russia, but that could be changed. Similar results as you have described. The Japanese player can also use the CCP to set up an eventual invasion of China but as we play, the CCP would then revert to Russian control…a deterrent. So far, it works okay.

@caesar-seriona Yes, some Russia rules present 2-player issues as well. We have adopted the Global 1940 Bloodbath victory points and it works pretty well. Japan controls the C.C.P. until they go to war with China.

@noneshallpass We house ruled that Italy starts with a sea transport. Kinda strange they do not with an “empire”.

@sjelso The rules for Italy state that there are 2 militia in N. Italy but the set up only has one. Guess it is misprint and means the Tobruk.

The rules state that a captured land zone can be returned to the country to whom it originally belonged. Ok, what if Japan gets the territory of Annam Tonkin in the Vichy rolls, it gets captured then liberated by a not-at-war with the Japanese power. The French no longer exist in their original form so could it be returned to the Japanese?

@jon-b The jury is still out but have deployed safer spaces, Gold Coast, Sierra Leon, off Canada, etc. can help keep subs on the run.

@trig The Army of Africa was critical to Franco’s win yet they are underpowered. The expansion went too far in correcting an imbalance and is now skewed the other direction. The fleets are more or less useless after Turn 1 so the BB is not much advantage. Also, 4 IPP for the Italians?..that is 40% of their income. It just is not worth the investment for the Axis.

We are going to house rule this expansion. The Germans and the Italians have to pony up 4 IPP each while the Soviets get 1 IPP (which yes, represents the Spanish Gold sent to them).

The Italians get to send militia they already have on the map and the Germans/Nationalists get 1) an transport (big deal, useless) 2) the Espana BB (pretty useless). The Germans also get the Army Africa which is 3/3, kinda worse than the artillery that was in N. Africa before. The Army of Africa were highly experienced why would they defend 1 less than normal infantry?

The expansion sure seems skewed towards the Republicans/Soviets. Needs further refining. If it trying to be more historical, it sure misses on the Army of Africa, what the Italians sent over (light tanks and real infantry, not militia, planes).

The Soviets can send a tank, what about the Italians and the Panzer 1s? Where are the BF109s, etc.?

@hbg-gw-enthusiast So in the end, same as A&A?