A&ARe (Enhanced) tech rules in AA50

[Jennifer]

So far we have 3 stated problems:

1)  Two people complain about the new units. (Remember, Destroyers were new once too.  So are Cruisers.  So I don’t know what the real problem is other than resistance to change.)

Solution:  Optional Advance Rule.  (I’m sure these will become default playing pieces on the game once people realize how good at least the Escort Carrier is and how nice the half Battleship is as an escort unit.)

a)  Problem here is we are buffing the utter crap out of submarines making them unrealistically powerful under the rules of AA50.  But without the new units, there’s no real balance.  I can see games of 50 submarines on either side and no surface ships again because why bother?

b)  If we at least include the rule that submarines cannot attack other submarines, life gets better.

c)  If we allow for cheap carriers and battleships (1 hit) then life at least starts to balance out.  Sure, your submarines can go sink an ac/bb/dd/trn but now you are not destroying 2 rounds worth of income!  Now you are only taking out 1 round of income, give or take.

2)  One person is complaining about National Advantages (funny thing is he is claiming I invented it and am making radical changes by adding it in.)

a)  I did not invent it.  It was already there.
b)  All I did was remove those NAs that overlapped technologies and make adjustments
c)  We still need a list for Italy and replace the ones lost from Germany so they have a full list now.

Solution:  These can also be made optional advance rules. (Like Magic 84 was an optional rule in Classic that is now standard.)

3)  Technology, this is not a “problem” per se, it’s a matter of trying to make the 4:2 system from AARe work in AA50e.  My solution was to leave the rule alone and just change the AA50 rules for technology to work like AAR rules for technology.  I think that’s the best solution.  Since no one else has proffered a solution (leaving it as it is in AA50 is not a solution, it’s ignoring the problem) I don’t know what else we can do.

Solution 1: Leave it as written in the AA50e manual. (Jennifer’s Solution - the standard 4:2 rule)
Solution 2: Once you achieve 6 dice, over as many rounds as you want, you can roll for a random technology on the chart you want. (Axis_Roll’s solution.)

a) What I like about solution 2 is that you can get the technology with 6 dice. 
b) What I don’t like is that it removes all strategy from the technology.  In enhanced (revised) it is currently a strategy, you get the technology you want to get for your grand scheme.
c) What I don’t like is that it is now impossible to use the Shared Technology rules.

AFAICT (As Far As I Can Tell) Axis Roll’s solution makes for huge, unwarranted, and unneeded changes to a system that was functioning just fine.  His solution completely kills an entire aspect of the rules (shared technologies) and removes them as a strategic solution.  (The latter is not as bad, since AA50 already did that, but the former is a HUGE fundamental shift!)

---

---

Not trying to be a pain, but honestly, I need specific feedback to perceived problems.  Telling me “I don’t like all the changes” does not tell me anything other than you did not read what I posted (since if you had, you would notice there are not all that many changes.)

[axis_roll]

@Cmdr:

So far we have 3 stated problems:

1)  Two people complain about the new units. (Remember, Destroyers were new once too.  So are Cruisers.  So I don’t know what the real problem is other than resistance to change.)

Solution:  Optional Advance Rule.  (I’m sure these will become default playing pieces on the game once people realize how good at least the Escort Carrier is and how nice the half Battleship is as an escort unit.)

a)  Problem here is we are buffing the utter crap out of submarines making them unrealistically powerful under the rules of AA50.  But without the new units, there’s no real balance.  I can see games of 50 submarines on either side and no surface ships again because why bother?

b)  If we at least include the rule that submarines cannot attack other submarines, life gets better.

c)  If we allow for cheap carriers and battleships (1 hit) then life at least starts to balance out.  Sure, your submarines can go sink an ac/bb/dd/trn but now you are not destroying 2 rounds worth of income!  Now you are only taking out 1 round of income, give or take.

You’re making GRAND changes to the rules.  We want changes to be as minimal as possible.
New pieces?  you say they’re needed… I think you need to back off your rule changes that make them so necessary.  You created a problem with a rule, so your solution is another rule (piece)?

Where do you stop?

@Cmdr:

3)  Technology, this is not a “problem” per se, it’s a matter of trying to make the 4:2 system from AARe work in AA50e.  My solution was to leave the rule alone and just change the AA50 rules for technology to work like AAR rules for technology.  I think that’s the best solution.  Since no one else has proffered a solution (leaving it as it is in AA50 is not a solution, it’s ignoring the problem) I don’t know what else we can do.

Solution 1: Leave it as written in the AA50e manual. (Jennifer’s Solution - the standard 4:2 rule)
Solution 2: Once you achieve 6 dice, over as many rounds as you want, you can roll for a random technology on the chart you want. (Axis_Roll’s solution.)

The reason we didn’t just jump to the AARe version of tech was to leave SOME semblance of the new tech rules (besides additional tech).

@Cmdr:

AFAICT (As Far As I Can Tell) Axis Roll’s solution makes for huge, unwarranted, and unneeded changes to a system that was functioning just fine.  His solution completely kills an entire aspect of the rules (shared technologies) and removes them as a strategic solution.  (The latter is not as bad, since AA50 already did that, but the former is a HUGE fundamental shift!)

Woah, I think your exaggerator modifier is working overtime.  Your suggestion uses NONE of the new tech development process from AA50.  You just incorporated the new techs into AARe.

If anyones changes to the AA50 tech system is Huge, that would be your proposal.
You basically are using NONE of the new system.

And a $-1 savings per roll (shared tech) is _**a huge fundamental shift?**_
Techs are more powerful since Bombers are so much cheaper.  There's no need for reduced costs in the new AA50 tech construct.

[Jennifer]

Axis:

You either have to scrap all shared tech rules or go with the AARe system for tech.  I don’t see how you can have random technologies AND shared tech.  It doesn’t pass the logic test.

And I am not making “grand” changes.  Perhaps you need to open the rules again.  It’s almost word for word with very “minor” changes.

As for the new units, if we make them optional rules, I don’t see how you have a problem anymore.  They are needed, IMHO, because they make the game more dynamic and fun for all players.  They’ve been play tested, they do fill a need and they are not over powered.  Though, none of “my” rule changes (like the 4 changes I put in) “require” them.  Technically speaking, we could get rid of Cruisers too, they are completely unneeded and hey, they’re new units too!  After all, there were no cruisers in AARe either!

Also, you will note that I did not change the price of bombers from AARe to my proposed AA50e.  So the price would be restored to 14 IPC.  Dunno if you can call that a change, YOU probably would, I would not, since I did not change it, I left it as it was. (I think this is where you find all your massive changes you accuse me of making, rules that already existed that I did not delete or alter to be like the ones in either the AAR or AA50 boxes because they were not broke, so they did not have to be fixed.)

---

To be honest, the changes are very minimalist with the minor exception of submarines which the only change I made there was that subs cannot engage subs because it’s completely unrealistic from a game play stance.  It never made sense, but with the rule that submarines cannot even defend themselves anymore (and don’t tell me at 1 is a defense ability, if I urinate on you it’s an attack at 1!) it makes even more sense to protect them from the enemy.

That and they’re cheaper than sheet now too.  With Improved Shipyards (I did not invent it, therefore you cannot blame me for making this a “change”) you can get them for the price of a tank!  So you don’t NEED to have them attacking each other.  Buy a frazzin destroyer!

[axis_roll]

@Cmdr:

Axis:

You either have to scrap all shared tech rules or go with the AARe system for tech.  I don’t see how you can have random technologies AND shared tech.  It doesn’t pass the logic test.

Why not?  We’ve played it out, it works.  Game play testing is the only test that should be applied.  There’s a penalty for directed tech.  There’s no penalty for the new random tech.

@Cmdr:

And I am not making “grand” changes.  Perhaps you need to open the rules again.  It’s almost word for word with very “minor” changes.

My rule book doesn’t have National Advantages
My rule book doesn’t have new units

@Cmdr:

As for the new units, if we make them optional rules, I don’t see how you have a problem anymore.  They are needed, IMHO, because they make the game more dynamic and fun for all players.

How hard was it to get people to play Enhanced after playing Revised?
Many people looked at all the new rules and due to the sheer volume, didn’t want to try them out.

You’re combining Revised and AA50 rules in conjunction with new units.

Too much.  Do you understand what minimal changes mean?

@Cmdr:

Also, you will note that I did not change the price of bombers from AARe to my proposed AA50e.  So the price would be restored to 14 IPC.

I didn’t read your post closely after I saw it was so long over 4 posts….
But yes, I agree that $14 is indeed another change.  The Base rules set is AA50 for this game.

@Cmdr:

Dunno if you can call that a change, YOU probably would, I would not, since I did not change it, I left it as it was. (I think this is where you find all your massive changes you accuse me of making, rules that already existed that I did not delete or alter to be like the ones in either the AAR or AA50 boxes because they were not broke, so they did not have to be fixed.)

This is not Revised.  This is a new game.  Did YOU read the rule book?
It doesn’t say buy revised and then buy this game because we’re going to use some of the rules from that game AND this one….

@Cmdr:

To be honest, the changes are very minimalist with the minor exception of ….

Yes, sure, all of your changes (the entire lot of them)…… are minor.

And I have a bridge to sell you too.

[jsp4563]

My thoughts are bring in the NA’s, CRD, D-Day, and Russio-Jap Non agression.  See how it goes from there.  Keeping the subs current values while giving them the CRD will give subs an actual role without making them overly powerful.

I don’t think directed tech should be added at this time.

Let’s try a few games with just these enhancements and see what it’s like.

To be honest, I’m not really sure we should even be thinking about an AA50e right now.  AA50 just came out, and really wasn’t AARe designed to add spice to a version that had been out for years?

[cousin_joe]

Hi Emperor,

I agree, this is a whole new game and we can’t simply port over everything from AARe to AA50e

When we created Enhanced for Revised, there were 3 primary objectives (each with several sub-objectives)

1. Increase Historical Accuracy
-recreate Battle of Atlantic
-keep US/UK in WEur rather than Kar
-keep Japan in Asia/Pacific rather than driving to Russia
-keep US/UK in Asia/Pacific rather than full KGF

2. Increase Strategic Gameplay
-making all units viable
-making Tech directed, balanced, and more strategic
-increase player decisions (through the use of NAs)
-increase number of fronts, and difficult decisions for resource distribution among those fronts

3. Increase Variation in Playout
-give multiple ways to win rather than just Moscow capture (adjusted VCs)
-multiple NA decisions resulted in very different games every time

Based on these goals, this is how I see things playing out…

1. I truly believe Ottawa VC has to move to Cairo.  Right now Hawaii is nearly impossible to take and hold for a 13VC win without Moscow.  Therefore, Japan is forced to go after Russia at some point.  To counter the easier Cairo VC take for Axis, India must be able to sustain an IC.  This can be done with the special rule I mentioned in another thread (UK1 IC can produce units immediately)

2. Improved Sub Rules so Battle of Atlantic is possible for Germany to slow down the UK.  This would include Convoy Raids.  Also, SUBs need to be much less vulnerable to attack.  We also need a way for Germany to get at UK TRNs without having to fight against fleets.

3. The nonagression treaty can be restored with a simple NO.  -5IPC for Japan if they control or occupy any original Russian territory and Vice versa.  I think this is a very clean way to do it, and should be a good disincentive for either side.

4. The Tech system will need to be repaired to make it more strategic.  I would suggest something as close to AA50 OOTB rules as possible, but would allow for Directed Tech, not this random garbage which has no business being in a strategy game.  :roll:

5. NAs are the last issue and I do think we will need to introduce these.  They increase strategic gameplay and variation in playout significantly.  For AA50 though, I would look at a very simple, streamlined version of NAs.  Right now, I have it down to only 3 NA options per nation, with the idea of only 1NA selection/nation in the game (ie. 3 total for Axis, 3 total for Allies).  The NAs themselves are very basic, yet strategically diverse.  They should fit in very nicely with AA50’s style of play.

[axis_roll]

I think these discussions are fine, but I agree with Emperor Mollari and think it still a little early yet for a full blown AA50e.

Work on tech and subs (something in the atlantic, I think the pacific is fine)

Let’s get some experience first before we try to ‘fix’ things.

[Jennifer]

The biggest problem with AA50 is that people are still trying to use submarines as combat units.

Right now, Hawaii is conquerable with Japan, I’ve done it in almost every game I’ve played.  So it’s not impossible.

I would like to see the Toronto Victory City moved to South Africa to give the Axis a better shot at getting a VC.  Egypt is too easy to take and it would shift the balance of power. (We want to avoid that, since right now the game is static, you don’t need a bid for either side.  Let’s not make changes that would necessitate a bid!)

Super Submarines is an archaic technology, why it was not destroyed before now is a mystery that will haunt us all to the day we die.  Conversion to Super Destroyers would be far more appropriate, especially if we are buffing submarines so they do CRD.  Basically, submarines are made more powerful because they can do CRD, but now Destroyers can also be made more powerful to eliminate these submarines and stop the CRD.

Also, since the battles should be between destroyers and submarines primarily, and since you even admit that you base decisions off history, it is historically and logically and from a game playablity stand point, insane to have submarines attacking other submarines.  You can’t find them, you can’t aim at them, you wouldn’t have time to hit them, they could dive out of range of your torpedoes, and as far as game play, what’s to stop America or Japan from dropping 8 submarines a round in the water to attack your CRD submarines w/o a destroyer thus eliminating the destroyer as a unit at all?

You don’t want to add new units (dunno why since they make the game more fun) and now you want to eliminate units already in the game?  If we’re doing that, let’s get rid of fighters and make bombers an attack 4 (5 with jet power) defend 2 (3 with jet power) and sell them for 12 IPC.  See, we don’t even need fighters!

argh!

[axis_roll]

@Cmdr:

what’s to stop America or Japan from dropping 8 submarines a round in the water to attack your CRD submarines w/o a destroyer thus eliminating the destroyer as a unit at all?

You don’t want to add new units (dunno why since they make the game more fun) and now you want to eliminate units already in the game?

I said that subs can’t sink other subs now, so that makes them even more powerful.  It takes a DD to sink subs (good change) but only 1 DD can sink an unlimited number of subs if they have enough other units also attacking.  That is bad.

How do you conjure up these thoughts/words you keep putting in other peoples mouths?
I never said to get rid of units from the game.

Your chick logic came to that conclusion mistakenly on your own.

Subs work fine in the pacific, especially for USA.  The AA50 subs in the atlantic are worthless, however.  This is what Cousin_Joe is trying to fix.

[Jennifer]

I don’t think having 1 destroyer be able to locate all submarines is making the submarine too weak or the destroyer too powerful.  For one, you still have to survive!  For another, you have to find the submarines before you can kill them.

Also, keep in mind that destroyers are drastically more expensive than submarines.  Where you can purchase a submarine for as little as 5 IPC, you probably have to pay 8 IPC for the destroyer.  (Assumes tech for the defender and no tech for the attacker, in other words, worst case scenario.)  That means a destroyer is 160% as expensive as a submarine.  Given how much more expensive they are, and the fact that submarines are diving for cover, not sticking around to play cat and mouse with the battleships those destroyers are running point for, and it’s quite realistic (and playable) for a solitary destroyer to be able to locate submarines for attack.

However, because I know the tear fest is about to start by some who are reading this and not responding, I will conceded that perhaps those submarines should have to be located each round and if not located, be given the ability to retreat to an adjacent, FRIENDLY sea zone or stand and fight.  (If there are no adjacent sea zones, they cannot retreat.)  This rule is in compliance with AA Classic where submarines could retreat from air units if a valid sea zone was presented.

Meanwhile, I’ll get the satisfaction of knowing there will be boats in the water that are not submarines!  The way you and Joe were going, it was soon going to be:

Submarines do CRD Damage
Submarines Attack at 3
Submarines can transport 1 infantry (there was a rule that did this for AAR, I believe LHTR or LHTR 2.0)
Submarines can never be attacked
Submarines are god

It was driving me utterly mad.  Submarines are the cowards of the sea.  They sneak up on undefended targets, line up a shot, fire it, and before confirming if it was hit, RUN AWAY!  They do not fight!  That’s exactly why Mr. Harris nerfed them.  Destroyers are the mainline unit, the fodder unit if you will.  Destroyers are supposed to do everything people are used to using submarines for.  They block movement, they transport stall the enemy, they block shore bombardments and they can picket the water to protect your fleet.

[jsp4563]

Ok, maybe i’m just dense, but it seems to me that subs right now are completely useless. They either have to dive if no DD is present, or battle it out, not even a shot before they can dive, they defend at 1, and they can’t block seazones.  What is their purpose?

VC’s…this one baffles me, the Axis can’t get to 15 without taking UK or one of the North American VC’s.  Seem’s counter intuitive, if the axis control all of Africa, Eurasia and the Pacific, you’d think it’s over.

[axis_roll]

@Emperor:

Ok, maybe i’m just dense, but it seems to me that subs right now are completely useless. They either have to dive if no DD is present, or battle it out, not even a shot before they can dive, they defend at 1, and they can’t block seazones.  What is their purpose?

En Masse, especially in the pacific where there’s room to spread them out, a USA sub strategy can be quite deadly.  It certainly makes he Japanese fleet consolidate for protection.  Use this in conjunction with a small carrier fleet and a bomber or two and Japan really has to be cautious about venturing out in small fleets.

Limiting the IJN’s movement can really limit their expansion.  Thing is, US needs to do this early.  LAter on it might be too late as then Japan can plop down ICs in India / East Indies and move the fleet home.  Now it’s a must tougher going for USA to put pressure on Japan.

[cousin_joe]

@axis_roll:

En Masse, especially in the pacific where there’s room to spread them out, a USA sub strategy can be quite deadly.  It certainly makes he Japanese fleet consolidate for protection.  Use this in conjunction with a small carrier fleet and a bomber or two and Japan really has to be cautious about venturing out in small fleets.

Limiting the IJN’s movement can really limit their expansion.  Thing is, US needs to do this early.  LAter on it might be too late as then Japan can plop down ICs in India / East Indies and move the fleet home.  Now it’s a must tougher going for USA to put pressure on Japan.

Couldn’t agree with you more roll

Subs are OVERPOWERED in the Pacific (for the US)
Subs are UNDERPOWERED in the Atlantic (for Germany)

I’ve seen US buy mostly SUBs and FTRs and basically keep Japan from getting anywhere near Hawaii
Then these aircraft fly to Australia and it makes things even worse for Japan
Japan is basically just forced to consolidate it’s fleet
The combination of SUBs and Aircraft can totally dominate the Pacific
In terms of “bang for the buck”, Subs and Air totally outclass Capital Ships - it’s not even close

Throw in possible upgrades to Heavy Bombers, Jet Fighters, Super Subs, and Naval Shipyards (Subs at 5IPC) and the balance gets even worse

Personally, what I would like to see is SUBs getting nerfed in the military department, but boosted in the economic department
Some eg. would be…

Naval Shipyards do not apply to SUBs
Super Subs does not boost military attack, only economic attack
More Economic attacks for SUBs (CRs, Strategic Sinking Raids as per SUB thread)

SUBs should only be there to complement you navy, not be the backbone of your navy
However, due to their cost efficiency, esp. for the US, this is what I’m seeing in the Pacific

[Jennifer]

I disagree.  Submarines are hopelessly underpowered for America in the Pacific.  In the Atlantic no one needs submarines anyway, since the Axis don’t even have a prayer at having a fleet after round 5 anyway.

BTW, I did find a tactic that works for submarines.  5 Stacks of 10 Submarines.  That way the enemy can’t just go obliterate them with bombers.

It’s mightly expensive however.

Also, submarines are a good tool to use when you are losing.  Huddle around your complex and dump a bunch of submarines to encourage the enemy to stay away.

[Jennifer]

Updated rules.  Changes are in red.  Anything in black is copy/pasted from original rules so don’t accuse me of making those different.

It’s in doc format, the site does not support PDF uploads.

Most of the changes were making name changes from W. Europe to France/NW Europe or S. Europe into Italy/Balkans etc.  Some minor content changes.

NAs are added as optional additional rules so those of you who were complaining about “vast sweeping radical changes” can be appeased, while those of us who want NAs can keep them as per their original intent.

Two naval units one or two of you were complaining about are also listed as optional additional rules (for the dozen or so of us who want them.)

Document is saved to work with old versions of Word.  I’ll pretty it up in Ultimate Edition later when we get the typos and conflicts resolved. (The conflicts are what interest me, if I copied one thing over that says you can do this and the rule book in the box says you cannot, then we have to determine if it can or cannot be done.)

AA50e.doc

[axis_roll]

@Cmdr:

Updated rules.  Changes are in red.  Anything in black is copy/pasted from original rules so don’t accuse me of making those different.

It’s in doc format, the site does not support PDF uploads.

Most of the changes were making name changes from W. Europe to France/NW Europe or S. Europe into Italy/Balkans etc.  Some minor content changes.

NAs are added as optional additional rules so those of you who were complaining about “vast sweeping radical changes” can be appeased, while those of us who want NAs can keep them as per their original intent.

Two naval units one or two of you were complaining about are also listed as optional additional rules (for the dozen or so of us who want them.)

Document is saved to work with old versions of Word.  I’ll pretty it up in Ultimate Edition later when we get the typos and conflicts resolved. (The conflicts are what interest me, if I copied one thing over that says you can do this and the rule book in the box says you cannot, then we have to determine if it can or cannot be done.)

For the record, this is NOT an ENDORSED version of AA50e.

Jennifer, please stop posting your assemblage of rules as The Enhanced Rules for AA50..  Your rules were not created via a consortium of A&A players to fix agreed upon game playout issues nor have they been play tested.  You have even incorporated rules from other game editions for no reason!

Make up your own name for your Rules Set, do NOT used AA50e.

How about AA50HP  (HodgePodge)?

[bugoo]

I have some thoughts on subs/destroyers and there interaction.

Right now the problem is 1 DD completely counters an unlimited number of subs, esp with the dreaded DD+Plane raid.  But detection roles and the like are a pain.  I have two ideas that may work.

1 plane per 1 DD can attack subs.

1 DD may prevent 1 sub from submerging.

Either one of these I feel will allow subs to be more useful.  The absolute most important thing, however, is that DDs should not be allowed to block sub movement.  Take that single thing away and subs become much, much stronger in the Atlantic.

As far as tech goes I would propose a point system.  Assign a point value to each tech.  Purchase researchers as normal.  Roll as normal for research, but add up the total rolls and apply them toward the selected tech.  You could assign different researches to different techs, but cannot change the tech they work on once purchased.  Once point value is reached, tech is gained said researchers are lost.  For example.

As US I want 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.

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.  Now all nations may buy a heavy bomber researcher turn 1, but hey there is nothing wrong with that!

[Bardoly]

@bugoo:

I have some thoughts on subs/destroyers and there interaction.

Right now the problem is 1 DD completely counters an unlimited number of subs, esp with the dreaded DD+Plane raid.  But detection roles and the like are a pain.  I have two ideas that may work.

1 plane per 1 DD can attack subs.

1 DD may prevent 1 sub from submerging.

Either one of these I feel will allow subs to be more useful.  The absolute most important thing, however, is that DDs should not be allowed to block sub movement.  Take that single thing away and subs become much, much stronger in the Atlantic.

As far as tech goes I would propose a point system.  Assign a point value to each tech.  Purchase researchers as normal.  Roll as normal for research, but add up the total rolls and apply them toward the selected tech.  You could assign different researches to different techs, but cannot change the tech they work on once purchased.  Once point value is reached, tech is gained said researchers are lost.  For example.

As US I want 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.

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.  Now all nations may buy a heavy bomber researcher turn 1, but hey there is nothing wrong with that!

I like this idea.

[axis_roll]

@bugoo:

As far as tech goes I would propose a point system.  Assign a point value to each tech.  Purchase researchers as normal.  Roll as normal for research, but add up the total rolls and apply them toward the selected tech.  You could assign different researches to different techs, but cannot change the tech they work on once purchased.  Once point value is reached, tech is gained said researchers are lost.  For example.

As US I want 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.

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.  Now all nations may buy a heavy bomber researcher turn 1, but hey there is nothing wrong with that!

Hello.  I am digging up this as the tech lovers/haters discussions have started to heat up.

I re-read your thoughts and am wondering if you ever did anything more with this idea of a tech pointing system.  Did you ever come up with point targets for each tech?

The neat thing about this is that it can be easily tweaked with out re-writing the whole process.

Or you could go one step further and adjust the targets by country too.  For example, make super subs very low (read affordable) for Russian super subs or something like that, or even harder for the wealthy countries (like extra points for USA for Long Range)