No thank you, I don’t have the time. So you’re reducing the IPC value of Japan whilst giving fixed bonuses? Hmm, that does limit Japan’s options and would definitely be a slight nerf.
[Global 1940] Research System Total Overhaul
-
RACE TO THE BOMB
Much of my thought about the pacing and the pricing of the research system has gone into the question of how long it will take for players to unlock the Atomic Bomb. Recalling the math from earlier, the minimum Research Level at which it is even possible to roll for the Atomic Bomb tech is level 4 - which only offers a 6% chance of success. For a better than remote chance, you need to get to level 5, which raises the odds to a measly 19%. You need to reach level 6 in order to have a decent chance of 34%.
Reaching research level 4 requires a cumulative spending of 30 IPCs, level 5 takes 50 IPCs, and level 6 takes 75 IPCs - all of which could have been spent on units instead. Each turn attempting to research the Bomb and failing is also a turn you missed out on developing a lower tier tech with a much greater chance of success, making it a poor strategy to try to develop the Bomb on a shoestring by only spending to level 4 and hoping to throw a Hail Mary.
The United States is the nation financially best situated to invest in Atomic Bomb research - but paradoxically, will start behind in the race because it is not allowed to raise its research level beyond 1 until it has entered the war. This adds a crucial strategic consideration for the Axis when considering an early declaration of war by Japan - attacking early becomes a dangerous gamble, allowing the US to begin advancing toward the Bomb sooner.
The Axis players can actually get a head start on raising their research levels, and in theory, reach the Bomb before the US can - but their smaller budgets and more pressing need for military units makes it a riskier and more difficult proposition for them.
Fastest possible route to the Bomb, if every single thing goes right? Germany advances to research level 2 on its first turn, on its second turn advances to 3, on its third turn it moves to 4. On turn 4, the German player throws four dice and rolls a miracle, all four hit. The German player buys their first bomb. Atomic Bombs take two turns to complete, so the German player waits till the end of turn 5 before placing their first Bomb. On turn 6, the weapon gets loaded into a bomber and dropped on a target. Is this actually likely to happen? Not at all, the German player is unlikely to succeed at that roll at all without advancing further to level 5 or 6, and may find himself in a bad position with all that early spending on research levels instead of units.
There is in fact a strong possibility of being the first nation to unlock the Atomic Bomb, and yet losing the war anyway. The Bomb is very powerful, but it is not a game-winning weapon on its own. If your opponents took advantage of the turns you spent advancing your research level and buying fewer units to strengthen their own forces and position on the board, you may find yourself pushed into a corner that you can’t fight your way out of, even with the help of the Bomb - and your enemies might be only a couple of turns behind you in fielding it themselves.
Together with the rules for capturing or destroying it, and its awesome effects if you actually manage to drop it on the enemy, the Atomic Bomb should become a centerpiece of tension, drama, and excitement, without actually deciding the final outcome of the game in and of itself. I think it will be a very fun addition to play with.
NATIONAL ADVANTAGES
One final element that this new and improved research system lends itself to is the old concept of national advantages - special bonuses unique to each country. This could be implemented by certain countries being given easier access to particular technologies, whether by having them available at an earlier tier, rolling for them at an advantage, or just being granted access to them for free. I would consider this section an optional variant of my proposal, to be adopted or left out as the players wish, though I personally would recommend its inclusion.
AUSTRALIA
Australia begins the game with Destroyer Escorts already unlocked. Australia rolls for Amphibious Operations, Destroyer Bombardment, Destroyer Transports, Fast Transports, and Sonar at an advantage (dice succeed on 3-6). Special Forces is available at Tier 1.BRITAIN
The UK begins the game with Destroyer Escorts, Fleet Operations, and Torpedo Bombers already unlocked. The British roll for Airborne Operations, Amphibious Operations, Escort Carriers, Fast Transports, Improved Interceptors, Jet Fighters, Shipborne Radar, Sonar, and War Bonds at an advantage (dice succeed on a 3-6). Anti-Aircraft Radar, Armored Flight Decks, and Shipyard Improvements are available at Tier 1. Heavy Bombers is available at Tier 2.CANADA (Optional)
Canada begins the game with Destroyer Escorts already unlocked. Canada rolls for Amphibious Operations, Fast Transports, Self-Propelled Artillery, Shipyard Improvements, and Sonar at an advantage (dice succeed on 3-6). War Bonds is available at Tier 1.CHINA
China does not take part in the research system at all, but it begins the game with Deep Conscription unlocked, granting access to the Militia unit.FRANCE
France begins the game with Modern Fortifications unlocked, allowing it to place a Bunker as part of its 12 IPC bonus units when liberated. France also begins the game with War Bonds, which defies the normal rules and provides income even when the French capital is occupied. France may spend its War Bonds income to purchase units at any US, UK Europe, or (if playable in the scenario) Canadian factory as if that facility were one of its own. France rolls for Destroyer Bombardment, Destroyer Transports, Fast Transports, and Fleet Operations at an advantage (dice succeed on a 3-6).GERMANY
Germany begins the game with Close Air Support, Combined Arms Tactics, and Submarine Wolfpacks unlocked. Germany rolls for Advanced Artillery, Airborne Operations, Fast Submarines, Improved Interceptors, Jet Fighters, Prime Movers, Special Forces, Self-Propelled Artillery, Strategic Rockets, and Super Submarines at an advantage (dice succeed on a 3-6). Night Fighters is available at Tier 1. Dual Purpose Guns and Heavy Tanks are available at Tier 2.ITALY
Italy begins the game with Torpedo Bombers unlocked. Italy rolls for Airborne Operations, Destroyer Escorts, Fleet Operations, and Self-Propelled Artillery at an advantage (dice succeed on a 3-6). Shipyard Improvements is available at Tier 1. Long Range Aircraft is available at Tier 2.JAPAN
Japan begins the game with Amphibious Operations, Fleet Operations, and Torpedo Bombers already unlocked. Japan rolls for Destroyer Transport, Fast Submarines, Fast Transports, Special Forces, Super Carriers, and Super Submarines at an advantage (dice succeed on a 3-6). Shipyard Improvements is available at Tier 1. Long Range Aircraft is available at Tier 2. Japan is the only nation that can research Kamikaze Strikes.SOVIET UNION
The USSR begins the game with Armored Trains and Close Air Support already unlocked. The Soviet Union rolls for Airborne Operations, Deep Conscription, Dual Purpose Guns, Heavy Tanks, Prime Movers, Self-Propelled Artillery, and Special Forces at an advantage (dice succeed on a 3-6). Total War Economy is available at Tier 2.UNITED STATES
The United States begins the game with Airborne Operations and Amphibious Operations already unlocked. The US rolls for Armored Flight Decks, Destroyer Escorts, Escort Carriers, Escort Fighters, Fast Transports, Fleet Operations, Flying Boxcars, Heavy Bombers, Heavy Transports, Self-Propelled Artillery, Shipborne Radar, Shipyard Improvements, Sonar, Submarine Wolfpacks, Super Carriers, and War Bonds at an advantage (dice succeed on a 3-6). Industrial Advancements is available at Tier 1. Flying Fortresses and Long Range Aircraft are available at Tier 2.CONCLUDING THOUGHTS
The research system in Axis & Allies is fundamentally flawed, and has seen little improvement over the various editions of the game. It functions as a lottery, is poorly balanced, adds little strategy to the game apart from how many IPCs to throw away gambling on it, and most of the time serves only to frustrate the player, whether seeing their money to go to waste on miss after miss, or raging as their opponent gets lucky and wins a game-altering advantage over them.
My aims in redesigning this system from the ground up were to make research and technology add a deep layer of strategic choices to the game, and to make the competition fun and exciting for everyone at the table. What is fun and exciting? Unlocking new things. What is frustrating and boring? Spending your money and getting nothing in return. So you’ll be unlocking things a lot more often in this system, almost every turn in fact if you’ve spent a little on upping your research level and aim for for the more conservative lower tier techs. There is still an element of luck and uncertainty here - your rolls can fail - but because the rolling itself is free, you’re not losing any of your money on it. When you do spend money on research, the return on your investment is lasting and meaningful.
The new system is also incredibly flexible and modular, where the original was rigid and tied down to only a small number of techs. You have as much freedom as you like to add techs to the list, take them off, move them up or down in the ratings, and several ways to give different countries favored techs that they can acquire more easily.
The new system does add a good deal of complexity to the gameplay, in terms of adding in many new units or unlockable bonuses, and even making some changes to the base stats of long established units (most of which can be overcome by research). Yet the way the system itself works is simple, straightforward, and fast. You choose which tech you want to go for, you roll for it, and then you decide whether you want to buy another research level to have an extra dice to roll with next turn.
The strategic choices offered by the new system are deep and meaningful. You will unlock many technologies, easily a dozen or more in a long enough game - but there will be two or three dozen that you don’t get to unlock. You have tough choices to make, not only between which techs you’re going to aim for and which ones you’ll go without, but also what order to unlock the techs you do choose. With each nation’s unique situation and advantages favoring different choices from one another, and the need to factor what moves your enemies are making into your own research decisions, my hope is that this new system will inject a lot of fresh thinking and debate into a game meta that has grown overly stale, were optimal strategies for everything have been figured out and there’s little adventure or experimentation.
There’s a bit of a conundrum for me in how to get this idea off the drawing board and actually begin testing it out. Overhauling a core system of the game like this is easier to do when you just play it out on the table, but adding so many new unit types is difficult (and expensive, if you want something nicer than paper counters). On the other hand, adding new units is easy in TripleA, but rewriting the rules on this scale is a daunting task, one that I myself certainly don’t have the skill for. So I’d like to put this whole idea out here as a gift to the community - hopefully some of you out there might be interested enough to trying playing a game with it, or see what can be done within the bounds of the TripleA engine.
-
@Panther said in Research System Total Overhaul:
Welcome to the forum :slightly_smiling_face:
I suppose these are House Rules for A&A Global 1940? Please confirm or indicate which edition you address. Thank you.(I’ll remove this comment once the target edition is visible.)
Thank you, this is for Global 1940. I can no longer edit the OP, would you be able to add [Global 1940] to the title and remove the note in the parentheses from the OP?
-
@General-6-Stars said in Research System Total Overhaul:
So how do you get 2 dice for Tier 1 Tech ? Or is that just showing odds for 1 dice etc. etc ?
If I want 2 dice for Tier 1 Tech, do I pay 5 icps for the 2nd dice ?
Where’s your revised values for the pieces ?
Since you have defaults now.Have you tested this out yet ?
This will take many games to see how it plays out.I really can’t comment more on this topic based on this game is mostly for play abilities and some costs for pieces is not correct.
I lean more towards historic ways in my games. IMO.
Good Luck. I do like a lot of your techs though.
The number of dice you roll is equal to your country’s research level. By default, everyone starts at Level 1. At Level 1, you roll one dice each turn. Rolling costs nothing.
The only time you spend money is when you are upgrading to a higher research level. You spend 5 IPCs to advance to Level 2.
At Level 2, you roll 2 dice each turn. You only have to buy Level 2 once - once you’re on it, you stay there, and you will roll 2 dice each turn for the rest of the game, no extra charge. You will roll 2 dice whether you’re researching Tier 1 or Tier 2.
So leveling up not only gives you a shot at researching higher tier techs, it also raises the odds you’ll succeed at researching the lower levels.
When you buy Level 3, you roll 3 dice each turn. And so on. The catch is that leveling up gets more expensive each time. Only 5 IPCs to buy Level 2, but 10 for Level 3, 15 for Level 4, 20 for Level 5, etc.
If you enjoy games with a more historical feel I think you’ll like the National Advantages section I added.
-
@Vendetta said in Research System Total Overhaul:
@General-6-Stars said in Research System Total Overhaul:
So how do you get 2 dice for Tier 1 Tech ? Or is that just showing odds for 1 dice etc. etc ?
If I want 2 dice for Tier 1 Tech, do I pay 5 icps for the 2nd dice ?
Where’s your revised values for the pieces ?
Since you have defaults now.Have you tested this out yet ?
This will take many games to see how it plays out.I really can’t comment more on this topic based on this game is mostly for play abilities and some costs for pieces is not correct.
I lean more towards historic ways in my games. IMO.
Good Luck. I do like a lot of your techs though.
The number of dice you roll is equal to your country’s research level. By default, everyone starts at Level 1. At Level 1, you roll one dice each turn. Rolling costs nothing.
The only time you spend money is when you are upgrading to a higher research level. You spend 5 IPCs to advance to Level 2.
At Level 2, you roll 2 dice each turn. You only have to buy Level 2 once - once you’re on it, you stay there, and you will roll 2 dice each turn for the rest of the game, no extra charge. You will roll 2 dice whether you’re researching Tier 1 or Tier 2.
So leveling up not only gives you a shot at researching higher tier techs, it also raises the odds you’ll succeed at researching the lower levels.
When you buy Level 3, you roll 3 dice each turn. And so on. The catch is that leveling up gets more expensive each time. Only 5 IPCs to buy Level 2, but 10 for Level 3, 15 for Level 4, 20 for Level 5, etc.
If you enjoy games with a more historical feel I think you’ll like the National Advantages section I added.
Already have those in my global game. Thanks
OK buy 2 tech tokens at 10. Can roll for tier 1, 2, and 3 1 dice each. Or 3 at 1 tech or 2 and 1 at 2 techs. OK got it. Ill keep this in mind. Thank you
-
Tech Tiers Shortlist
I realized it would be helpful to have a quick reference list of which techs are available at which tier without all the explanatory text.
TIER 1
Airborne Operations
Amphibious Operations
Close Air Support
Combined Arms Tactics
Destroyer Bombardment
Destroyer Escorts
Destroyer Transports
Escort Carriers
Fast Submarines
Fast Transports
Fleet Operations
Prime Movers
Self-Propelled Artillery
Submarine Wolfpacks
Sonar
Torpedo BombersTIER 2
Advanced Artillery
Anti-Aircraft Radar
Armored Flight Decks
Armored Trains
Deep Conscription
Escort Fighters
Flying Boxcars
Heavy Transports
Improved Interceptors
Industrial Advancements
Modern Fortifications
Night Fighters
Shipborne Radar
Shipyard Improvements
Special Forces
War BondsTIER 3
Dual Purpose Guns
Flying Fortresses
Heavy Bombers
Heavy Tanks
Jet Fighters
Kamikaze Tactics
Long Range Aircraft
Strategic Rockets
Super Carriers
Super Submarines
Total War EconomyTIER 4
Atomic Bomb -
Amazing rules!!!
I hate using new pieces physically, but that doesn’t matter on TripleA, so hopefully this is made. Plus, I will not be able to remember all those rules.
Something makes me uncomfortable though about reducing the capabilities of submarines and destroyers. They’re certainly more historically accurate and it’s definitely sound on paper. Maybe I just don’t like weakening units.
Do you think the reductions in capabilities of destroyers and strategic bombers without reducing their cost unbalances them and will make them less likely to be purchased? Or did you think they were overpowered in the out of box rules?
Not a fan of the milita limits, but I understand why they have to be like that. I’ll think of a solution.
I feel like “Improved Interceptors” and “Escort Fighters” technology should be combined, considering a new fighter that excels at one probably excels at both. Moving it up a tier will work.
The kamikazes shouldn’t be a technology. To be accurate have them activated either later in the game or when Japan is “losing” (that would be defined, of course, but my idea isn’t fully formed yet). They also seem too weak for tier 3.
Night Fighters isn’t really historically accurate.
A better idea would be to have a whole other system called “night bombing” where strategic bombers don’t have to fear interception and maybe not even anti-aircraft fire, but bombing damage is decreased by half (this is all tentative), and then the Night Fighters technology will allow fighters to intercept.
I don’t want to sound confrontational, but:
“Destroyers in the base game have the ability to suppress an unlimited number of enemy Submarines, which is widely regarded as being a bad design choice.”
Where’s the evidence for that? I’m just curious.
I agree some tactical bombers should be allowed to intercept though, so perhaps a better title is “Dual-Use Aircraft”, to better represent the bombing and intercepting aircraft like the Ju-88 and Mosquito.
Maybe Heavy Bombers and Flying Fortresses can be combined and increased to Tier 4, but I don’t think their seperation is as bad as that for the above mentioned fighter upgrades.
The atomic bomb seems great as a house rule by itself as well. Might be better than mine actually (https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/37409/nuclear-bomb-addition-for-axis-and-allies-global-1940)
The national advantages are great, I was always a fan of those. It also really solves my gripe with some of the technologies already existing for certain nations at the start of the war by allowing them at the start. Definitely makes it more historically accurate. It also makes the huge selection of technologies less overwhelming by proving incentives for certain technologies.
I think the limits on bunkers can be historically accurate, but I’m drawing a blank. I feel like there is an explanation. I would appreciate if you could give me one. Thank you!
A couple clarifications:
Can you use air transports to move units in the non-combat move?
So Armoured Trains take an entire turn to repair, and are not repaired at the beginning of a turn like carriers or battleships?
Can Bunkers be placed in another power’s (that is friendly) territory? Does it have to have an in infantry unit of your own power?
If a Bunker is damaged in a strategic bombing raid, does that have any effect on the amount of hits it can take in non-strategic bombing raid combat?
For Torpedo Bombers, considering it’s written that it’s like submarine surprise strikes, does that mean when the bombers hit, the enemy unit that were hit still fire back like how they are in submarine surprise strikes?
Is there a “tech tree”? Do you have to get a certain tier 1 tech to get tier 2 or 3 techs? Or if you wanted to, can you go straight for the Atomic Bomb? Hypothetically, could you get Flying Boxcars before Airborne Transport (not saying that’s a good idea)?
If you have two dice and they both hit (and you were focusing on a tier 1 technology), could you get two tier 1 technologies? And can you split your dice between different technologies?
I assume changing Anti Aircraft Artillery to hit up to 2 aircraft, not 3, was intentional?
Do jet fighters defend at 5 when scrambling from a friendly air base?
So aircraft carriers and battleships now have to wait a full turn to be repaired? So they’re repaired during the place units phase, not the purchase units phase?
Final thoughts:
I’ve been typing this comment as I’ve been reading this, and I’m finally at the end.
How do you think low luck would impact this system? Your system is still superior, but I have found that low luck makes the out of box research system less frustrating.
I also came up with my own system (https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/37461/an-idea-to-make-axis-and-allies-1940-research-and-development-rules-more-accesible) to make research more accessible. I never really thought the being unable to choose a technology was an issue. The fact that there are two groups helps massively, not least because one is more land and industry based and the other is more air and naval based.
At least for Heavy Tanks you can use the pieces from 1941.
@barnee Think you can do this after The Captain’s house rules?
Overall, besides what I outlined above, my only remaining complaint is that it adds too many possibilities in the game that I’ll go crazy. That’s one of those “complaints that are compliments” in case I wasn’t clear. :+1:
-
Thank you for the feedback, let me try and go through this point by point.
@SuperbattleshipYamato said in [Global 1940] Research System Total Overhaul:
Something makes me uncomfortable though about reducing the capabilities of submarines and destroyers. They’re certainly more historically accurate and it’s definitely sound on paper. Maybe I just don’t like weakening units.
Messing around with the core units that everyone is already familiar with is not to be undertaken lightly, but in this case I feel justified because the Destroyer and the Submarine are each other’s primary opponents, and both are affected. One change I didn’t go out of my way to note is that I switched the cost of the Transport and the Submarine (Transport is now 6 and Submarine is 7) to reflect the greater difficulty in conducting ASW warfare with these changes. While both units start off weaker than out of the box, if you choose to focus your research on them you can actually make them better than they are in the standard game.
Do you think the reductions in capabilities of destroyers and strategic bombers without reducing their cost unbalances them and will make them less likely to be purchased? Or did you think they were overpowered in the out of box rules?
I think the Strategic Bomber is often bought for ahistorical purposes - it gets used a lot for attacking ships and supporting ground units in battle when heavy bombers generally weren’t all that efficient in either of those roles historically. So lowering their roll to a 3 in regular battles should discourage that a bit.
I think they will probably be less attractive to buy if you’re not aiming to complete the Tier 3 researches for them - but if you do unlock those, they become very powerful. Heavy Bombers is once again a hard-hitting tech that allows for double dice damage against factories, and Flying Fortresses will allow them to negate the Anti-Aircraft Radar if the enemy has it (and punish those who don’t invest in Improved Interceptors).
Historically, strategic bombing took a long time to reach its full potential. A lot of improvement was needed in equipment, tactics, and doctrine before the bombing campaigns began to do truly meaningful economic damage. I think the Strategic Bomber should have a fairly easy time of it in the opening moves, struggle in the middle game as counter technologies are researched, and then become very powerful in the late game when its own improvements are finally introduced.
Not a fan of the milita limits, but I understand why they have to be like that. I’ll think of a solution.
The hard cap was a carry over from how it was implemented in TripleA House Rules. I’m not really a fan of hard caps either (it feels like when you run into the one of those invisible walls when you’re playing a video game).
Perhaps there might be a limit instead on how many can be placed per turn, but not how many you can have in total. It would have to be figured out through play testing. The important thing to me is that Militia should be a situational unit that you deploy in emergencies; it should never displace the Infantry from its role as the workhorse of your army.
I feel like “Improved Interceptors” and “Escort Fighters” technology should be combined, considering a new fighter that excels at one probably excels at both. Moving it up a tier will work.
I actually placed these on Tier 2 deliberately because of the reasoning I outlined above on the strategic bombing meta. The strategic bombing counters (Anti-Air Radar, Improved Interceptors, and Night Fighters) are all at Tier 2, while the bomber upgrades are Tier 3 and harder to get. If you’re specializing in bombers, Escort Fighters is the one option you have available to unlock sooner in Tier 2 to help deal with these threats.
You’re right in that making a fighter better at one thing often makes it better at the other, but interception and escort are missions that have some distinct requirements. A fighter designed around interception needs high performance and heavy firepower and often cuts corners with other other things, like fuel capacity, while the bomber escort mission demands long range and high reliability. So I feel comfortable keeping these separate (and I like how it makes the player specialize).
The kamikazes shouldn’t be a technology. To be accurate have them activated either later in the game or when Japan is “losing” (that would be defined, of course, but my idea isn’t fully formed yet). They also seem too weak for tier 3.
I think it should be. Right now, it’s sort of just a tacked on gimmick - this integrates it as a part of the overall game system. Many of the “techs” in this system actually represent the development of new doctrines and tactics, and this is one of them. Placing it at Tier 3 will introduce it at the correct time in the game.
You may be right though that it is underpowered and not something the Japanese player will actually be inclined to choose compared to other Tier 3 researches. One way to strengthen it could be to allow the player to purchase additional kamikaze tokens - you get the 6 tokens you do in the base game for free when you complete the research, and you can buy additional ones at a low price (I’m thinking 4 or 5 IPCs but I’m not set on a number yet).
To keep cheap kamikaze spam from then becoming too powerful, perhaps kamikazes should be vulnerable to the AA fire you get if you research Shipborne Radar, and defending Fighters get one round to fire at them (on a 2) if you’ve researched Improved Interceptors.
Night Fighters isn’t really historically accurate.
Many bomber airframes were developed into night fighters; the Mosquito, the Ju 88, the Do 217, the Pe-3, and the P-70 are several examples.
A better idea would be to have a whole other system called “night bombing” where strategic bombers don’t have to fear interception and maybe not even anti-aircraft fire, but bombing damage is decreased by half (this is all tentative), and then the Night Fighters technology will allow fighters to intercept.
It’s an interesting idea, but one thing I consciously avoided (apart from the Atomic Bomb) was adding entirely new and untested systems to the game.
I don’t want to sound confrontational, but:
“Destroyers in the base game have the ability to suppress an unlimited number of enemy Submarines, which is widely regarded as being a bad design choice.”
Where’s the evidence for that? I’m just curious.
The designers of the TripleA House Rules variant went to great lengths to introduce a whole new system to replace this, revolving around the idea of depth charge shots. I found their idea interesting in theory but too difficult to get used to. My preferred solution is thus to to modify the original system rather than replace it entirely.
In the traditional rules, if you’re playing Britain, you never really need to have more than one or two destroyers on the board at a time - you just send it around with your stack of planes and you can wipe out more or less endless numbers of submarines. I don’t like this, and no one I’ve played with bothers investing in submarines much because of it. I’m hoping this will change that and make the Battle of the Atlantic a lot more interesting, with more cat-and-mouse gameplay.
I agree some tactical bombers should be allowed to intercept though, so perhaps a better title is “Dual-Use Aircraft”, to better represent the bombing and intercepting aircraft like the Ju-88 and Mosquito.
Night Fighters sounds cooler :sunglasses:
In the end, some of the names are just chosen for flavor and distinctiveness. I think this one has some justification though, like I said before.
Maybe Heavy Bombers and Flying Fortresses can be combined and increased to Tier 4, but I don’t think their seperation is as bad as that for the above mentioned fighter upgrades.
I believe on principle that the Atomic Bomb should stand alone in a tier above all others.
The national advantages are great, I was always a fan of those. It also really solves my gripe with some of the technologies already existing for certain nations at the start of the war by allowing them at the start. Definitely makes it more historically accurate. It also makes the huge selection of technologies less overwhelming by proving incentives for certain technologies.
They were definitely one aspect I missed from the earlier editions of A&A. In hindsight, many of the old advantages were somewhat gimmicky and poorly balanced, so I think shifting them to the tech system like this is the right answer.
My goals with these were just as you said - add some historical accuracy and encouragement for the players to follow their nation’s historic specialties, without railroading them into it - you can still ignore your advantages and go after Heavy Tanks as Japan if you want.
I think the limits on bunkers can be historically accurate, but I’m drawing a blank. I feel like there is an explanation. I would appreciate if you could give me one. Thank you!
The bunker unit represents heavy networks of fortifications (think the Maginot Line, the Gothic Line, the Atlantic Wall). These massive constructions can’t be built overnight. One in a territory per turn represents a limit on how quickly these defenses can be built up.
Can you use air transports to move units in the non-combat move?
Yes, you can use it to shuttle guys around during non-combat.
So Armoured Trains take an entire turn to repair, and are not repaired at the beginning of a turn like carriers or battleships?
The carrier and the battleship must be in a zone next to a Naval Base in order to repair, likewise the Armored Train must be in a territory with a factory. If your train is in Moscow, and damaged in a failed German attack, it could actually repair at the start of your turn. If it’s out at the front and gets damaged, then yes, it does need to spend a turn going back to a factory to return to full strength. This is in deliberate contrast to the Heavy Tank, which can repair at the start of your turn no matter where it is. I think it balances out because the Train also plays an important role as a land transport, while the Heavy Tank is used only for fighting.
Can Bunkers be placed in another power’s (that is friendly) territory? Does it have to have an in infantry unit of your own power?
That idea hadn’t occurred to me. My thought would be yes, you could build one in an ally’s territory, but you must have one of your infantry units present there.
If a Bunker is damaged in a strategic bombing raid, does that have any effect on the amount of hits it can take in non-strategic bombing raid combat?
In the TripleA House Rules version, it didn’t. I’m not sure whether that was a deliberate choice or just an engine limitation they couldn’t find a way to work around. I think ideally that 1 or 2 points of strategic bombing damage would have no effect, but 3 or 4 points would reduce it to one hit point until it was repaired all the way down to 0.
For Torpedo Bombers, considering it’s written that it’s like submarine surprise strikes, does that mean when the bombers hit, the enemy unit that were hit still fire back like how they are in submarine surprise strikes?
My understanding of submarine surprise strikes is that the surprised unit gets killed immediately and does not fire back (otherwise what’s the difference from a normal attack?)
Is there a “tech tree”? Do you have to get a certain tier 1 tech to get tier 2 or 3 techs? Or if you wanted to, can you go straight for the Atomic Bomb? Hypothetically, could you get Flying Boxcars before Airborne Transport (not saying that’s a good idea)?
I didn’t write any write any rules for having to unlock certain techs in order to get access to others. There’s a couple cases like that where one requires an earlier one to be useful, but I think they’re obvious enough that no one should make that mistake by accident.
Rushing for the Bomb and ignoring everything else is an option, but consider the opportunity cost - if you spend 5 rounds rolling for the Bomb and failing, your enemy might use those same turns to pick up 3 or 4 different techs and get quite an advantage over you.
If you have two dice and they both hit (and you were focusing on a tier 1 technology), could you get two tier 1 technologies? And can you split your dice between different technologies?
I chose not to allow this, both to control the pace that techs arrive at (no more than 1 per country per turn) and to remove overly complicated decision making. The advantage of rolling two dice for a tier 1 is that you succeed 75% of the time instead of just 50% - you will unlock more techs over time than a player who stays at level 1 and doesn’t spend anything.
I assume changing Anti Aircraft Artillery to hit up to 2 aircraft, not 3, was intentional?
Yes. The price of the AA Gun has also been reduced from 6 to 5.
Do jet fighters defend at 5 when scrambling from a friendly air base?
I’d say no, historically the first generation jet fighters were very fuel thirsty and short ranged, so I’d say the advantage only applies when they are in that territory, not when scrambling to a neighboring one. I introduced that because I wanted Jets to have more of an impact than just the attack boost. In the older editions, it made the fighter’s defense go up to a 5. That’s too powerful to give to them all the time - but when it’s just that one special circumstance, I think it will work well.
So aircraft carriers and battleships now have to wait a full turn to be repaired? So they’re repaired during the place units phase, not the purchase units phase?
Battle damage is a more serious consequence now. Like I said with the Train, you can still be repaired at the start of your turn if your enemy attacked you at one of your own bases and you survive with damage, but otherwise yes, you’ll have to bring them back to base first.
One possible strategy to deal with this is to make use of the cheap Escort unit (5 IPCs, 4 if you get Shipyard Improvements) as a screen and lose those before having your BBs take a hit. It might also encourage additional Naval Base builds in the Pacific to have more forward repair sites.
How do you think low luck would impact this system? Your system is still superior, but I have found that low luck makes the out of box research system less frustrating.
The one thing I would say low luck is probably not going to play nice with is the Atomic Bomb.
Overall, besides what I outlined above, my only remaining complaint is that it adds too many possibilities in the game that I’ll go crazy. That’s one of those “complaints that are compliments” in case I wasn’t clear. :+1:
Thank you, this idea started out small and then became a bit of a monster as I fleshed it out.
One final thought that occurred to me, the Atomic Bomb option seems like a great way to encourage players to keep the game going instead of resigning around turn 8-10 when one side is at a clear advantage.
-
Thank you for responding!
Thank you for the feedback, let me try and go through this point by point.
Messing around with the core units that everyone is already familiar with is not to be undertaken lightly, but in this case I feel justified because the Destroyer and the Submarine are each other’s primary opponents, and both are affected. One change I didn’t go out of my way to note is that I switched the cost of the Transport and the Submarine (Transport is now 6 and Submarine is 7) to reflect the greater difficulty in conducting ASW warfare with these changes. While both units start off weaker than out of the box, if you choose to focus your research on them you can actually make them better than they are in the standard game.
I did notice the cost changes, which is why further down (I guess I should’ve edited this top comment as well), instead of “several ships” that I originally put when I was reading your first comment, I made it focus only on destroyers.
I think the Strategic Bomber is often bought for ahistorical purposes - it gets used a lot for attacking ships and supporting ground units in battle when heavy bombers generally weren’t all that efficient in either of those roles historically. So lowering their roll to a 3 in regular battles should discourage that a bit.
I think they will probably be less attractive to buy if you’re not aiming to complete the Tier 3 researches for them - but if you do unlock those, they become very powerful. Heavy Bombers is once again a hard-hitting tech that allows for double dice damage against factories, and Flying Fortresses will allow them to negate the Anti-Aircraft Radar if the enemy has it (and punish those who don’t invest in Improved Interceptors).
Historically, strategic bombing took a long time to reach its full potential. A lot of improvement was needed in equipment, tactics, and doctrine before the bombing campaigns began to do truly meaningful economic damage. I think the Strategic Bomber should have a fairly easy time of it in the opening moves, struggle in the middle game as counter technologies are researched, and then become very powerful in the late game when its own improvements are finally introduced.
I definitely didn’t think of that. You successfully convinced me and I agree that it make sense and is historical (you’ll hear me say this a lot, not sure how best to say this, always feels a little tacky). :+1:
The hard cap was a carry over from how it was implemented in TripleA House Rules. I’m not really a fan of hard caps either (it feels like when you run into the one of those invisible walls when you’re playing a video game).
Perhaps there might be a limit instead on how many can be placed per turn, but not how many you can have in total. It would have to be figured out through play testing. The important thing to me is that Militia should be a situational unit that you deploy in emergencies; it should never displace the Infantry from its role as the workhorse of your army.
That makes more sense. There probably was a reason why nations didn’t form armies of militia, so their more informal and weaker nature would justify a turn-purchase cap more than a total amount cap.
I actually placed these on Tier 2 deliberately because of the reasoning I outlined above on the strategic bombing meta. The strategic bombing counters (Anti-Air Radar, Improved Interceptors, and Night Fighters) are all at Tier 2, while the bomber upgrades are Tier 3 and harder to get. If you’re specializing in bombers, Escort Fighters is the one option you have available to unlock sooner in Tier 2 to help deal with these threats.
You’re right in that making a fighter better at one thing often makes it better at the other, but interception and escort are missions that have some distinct requirements. A fighter designed around interception needs high performance and heavy firepower and often cuts corners with other other things, like fuel capacity, while the bomber escort mission demands long range and high reliability. So I feel comfortable keeping these separate (and I like how it makes the player specialize).
Agreed. You have convinced me on this point as well, and I think it’s a good idea to structure the technology this way to have that strategic bombing dynamic you described.
I think it should be. Right now, it’s sort of just a tacked on gimmick - this integrates it as a part of the overall game system. Many of the “techs” in this system actually represent the development of new doctrines and tactics, and this is one of them. Placing it at Tier 3 will introduce it at the correct time in the game.
You may be right though that it is underpowered and not something the Japanese player will actually be inclined to choose compared to other Tier 3 researches. One way to strengthen it could be to allow the player to purchase additional kamikaze tokens - you get the 6 tokens you do in the base game for free when you complete the research, and you can buy additional ones at a low price (I’m thinking 4 or 5 IPCs but I’m not set on a number yet).
To keep cheap kamikaze spam from then becoming too powerful, perhaps kamikazes should be vulnerable to the AA fire you get if you research Shipborne Radar, and defending Fighters get one round to fire at them (on a 2) if you’ve researched Improved Interceptors.
You have me convinced here as well. It’s probably much more historically accurate to give Japan the option of unlimited kamikazes and allow the Allies to defend against it. Putting it in tier 3 to have it come out on the right turn also works (after all, those dedicated kamikaze weapons took some time to develop).
Many bomber airframes were developed into night fighters; the Mosquito, the Ju 88, the Do 217, the Pe-3, and the P-70 are several examples.
Yes, but night fighters weren’t exclusively tactical bombers.
It’s an interesting idea, but one thing I consciously avoided (apart from the Atomic Bomb) was adding entirely new and untested systems to the game.
I understand. Even though I’m sure it’s probably superior I’m still a little hesitant on using The Captain’s strategic bombing house rules (they totally revamped the system).
The designers of the TripleA House Rules variant went to great lengths to introduce a whole new system to replace this, revolving around the idea of depth charge shots. I found their idea interesting in theory but too difficult to get used to. My preferred solution is thus to to modify the original system rather than replace it entirely.
In the traditional rules, if you’re playing Britain, you never really need to have more than one or two destroyers on the board at a time - you just send it around with your stack of planes and you can wipe out more or less endless numbers of submarines. I don’t like this, and no one I’ve played with bothers investing in submarines much because of it. I’m hoping this will change that and make the Battle of the Atlantic a lot more interesting, with more cat-and-mouse gameplay.
Hopefully you’re correct. I appreciate the clarification.
Night Fighters sounds cooler :sunglasses:
In the end, some of the names are just chosen for flavor and distinctiveness. I think this one has some justification though, like I said before.
Agreed (to an extent, see above). Crap, I meant to put that with my comment on night fighters. Looks like I didn’t check my order of comments enough.
I believe on principle that the Atomic Bomb should stand alone in a tier above all others.
Makes sense.
They were definitely one aspect I missed from the earlier editions of A&A. In hindsight, many of the old advantages were somewhat gimmicky and poorly balanced, so I think shifting them to the tech system like this is the right answer.
My goals with these were just as you said - add some historical accuracy and encouragement for the players to follow their nation’s historic specialties, without railroading them into it - you can still ignore your advantages and go after Heavy Tanks as Japan if you want.
Agreed. :+1:
The bunker unit represents heavy networks of fortifications (think the Maginot Line, the Gothic Line, the Atlantic Wall). These massive constructions can’t be built overnight. One in a territory per turn represents a limit on how quickly these defenses can be built up.
Exactly the explanation I was looking for. Thank you, I appreciate it. :+1:
Yes, you can use it to shuttle guys around during non-combat.
Glad to hear that, it wouldn’t make much sense if you couldn’t.
The carrier and the battleship must be in a zone next to a Naval Base in order to repair, likewise the Armored Train must be in a territory with a factory. If your train is in Moscow, and damaged in a failed German attack, it could actually repair at the start of your turn. If it’s out at the front and gets damaged, then yes, it does need to spend a turn going back to a factory to return to full strength. This is in deliberate contrast to the Heavy Tank, which can repair at the start of your turn no matter where it is. I think it balances out because the Train also plays an important role as a land transport, while the Heavy Tank is used only for fighting.
Thank you clarifying! :+1:
That idea hadn’t occurred to me. My thought would be yes, you could build one in an ally’s territory, but you must have one of your infantry units present there.
I think that can work. :+1:
In the TripleA House Rules version, it didn’t. I’m not sure whether that was a deliberate choice or just an engine limitation they couldn’t find a way to work around. I think ideally that 1 or 2 points of strategic bombing damage would have no effect, but 3 or 4 points would reduce it to one hit point until it was repaired all the way down to 0.
Agreed.
My understanding of submarine surprise strikes is that the surprised unit gets killed immediately and does not fire back (otherwise what’s the difference from a normal attack?)
Huh. That’s what I was always confused about regarding attacking submarine surprise strikes, they’re no different from regular attacks. I was always under the assumption that what you said only applies to defending submarines and their surprise strikes. @Panther @Krieghund Who’s right?
I didn’t write any write any rules for having to unlock certain techs in order to get access to others. There’s a couple cases like that where one requires an earlier one to be useful, but I think they’re obvious enough that no one should make that mistake by accident.
Rushing for the Bomb and ignoring everything else is an option, but consider the opportunity cost - if you spend 5 rounds rolling for the Bomb and failing, your enemy might use those same turns to pick up 3 or 4 different techs and get quite an advantage over you.
I agree that it’s obvious on which techs are required for others. I agree that this doesn’t need a tech tree, and that lower techs will still be picked up for the reasons you described (the Atomic Bomb example applies in the first few turns for tier 3 technologies as well).
I chose not to allow this, both to control the pace that techs arrive at (no more than 1 per country per turn) and to remove overly complicated decision making. The advantage of rolling two dice for a tier 1 is that you succeed 75% of the time instead of just 50% - you will unlock more techs over time than a player who stays at level 1 and doesn’t spend anything.
That seems logical. Thanks for clarifying.
Yes. The price of the AA Gun has also been reduced from 6 to 5.
Forgive me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t AAA in Global 1940 Second Edition always 5 IPCs?
I’d say no, historically the first generation jet fighters were very fuel thirsty and short ranged, so I’d say the advantage only applies when they are in that territory, not when scrambling to a neighboring one. I introduced that because I wanted Jets to have more of an impact than just the attack boost. In the older editions, it made the fighter’s defense go up to a 5. That’s too powerful to give to them all the time - but when it’s just that one special circumstance, I think it will work well.
Agreed. That makes sense then.
Battle damage is a more serious consequence now. Like I said with the Train, you can still be repaired at the start of your turn if your enemy attacked you at one of your own bases and you survive with damage, but otherwise yes, you’ll have to bring them back to base first.
Isn’t that how it already is in Global 1940? That you have to be at a naval base to be repaired? You can only repair capital ships at open sea in the less complicated editions (1941 comes to mind).
One possible strategy to deal with this is to make use of the cheap Escort unit (5 IPCs, 4 if you get Shipyard Improvements) as a screen and lose those before having your BBs take a hit. It might also encourage additional Naval Base builds in the Pacific to have more forward repair sites.
I think that would work.
The one thing I would say low luck is probably not going to play nice with is the Atomic Bomb.
Calculating it, you’re totally right.
Thank you, this idea started out small and then became a bit of a monster as I fleshed it out.
No worries. That happened to me once as well. :grin:
One final thought that occurred to me, the Atomic Bomb option seems like a great way to encourage players to keep the game going instead of resigning around turn 8-10 when one side is at a clear advantage.
While I don’t like resigning, I know a lot of players do, so it definitely is a good incentive.
-
@SuperbattleshipYamato said in [Global 1940] Research System Total Overhaul:
My understanding of submarine surprise strikes is that the surprised unit gets killed immediately and does not fire back (otherwise what’s the difference from a normal attack?)
Huh. That’s what I was always confused about regarding attacking submarine surprise strikes, they’re no different from regular attacks. I was always under the assumption that what you said only applies to defending submarines and their surprise strikes. @Panther @Krieghund Who’s right?
Attacking submarines make a Surprise Strike, then defending submarines make a Surprise Strike, then you remove casualties from both, then you move on to all other units (including submarines not making a Surprise Strike). As a result, most units that are hit by a Surprise Strike don’t get to return fire. The only ones that do get to fire back are defending submarines that are also making a Surprise Strike and two-hit units that are not destroyed by it.
-
Oh…
I’ve been playing wrong this entire time???
:disappointed:
Thanks for clarifying though. I’ll take that into my next physical game.
Suggested Topics
