This is an interesting way of getting more tech rolls as well
Technology
-
Hopefully I can post some thoughts here without being called a jerk by the OP. :-o :cry:
Free idea exchanges get hampered when things turn personal.
I was looking at some previous tech modification thoughts and found this idea from 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!
The neat thing about this is that it can be easily tweaked with out re-writing the whole process.
Can someone help create a list of point targets for each tech? I am not a big tech user, so my insights into tech has little knowledge base.
Along the lines of combined techs becoming too powerful (i.e. Long Range, Heavy Paratroopers), you could add that if one tech is attained (like HBs), the new target for Long Range for that country is increased by “6” or something like that.
-
Can someone help create a list of point targets for each tech? I am not a big tech user, so my insights into tech has little knowledge base.
Tech Value
War bonds: 10
Advanced Artillery:10
Paratrooper: 20
IC: 20
Mech Inf: 25
Rockets: 20Shipyards: 15
Long Range: 20
Heavy Bombers: 30
Radar: 20
Jet Fighters: 15
Supersubs: 15The rules for tech are going to have to be modifeid alot, for if you can pick your tech the Eastern Front might end up being decided by who ever gets mech inf first as both Germany and the USSR will rush for that one. Every tech should have a counter of some sort. The counter for heavy bombers is radar.For mech inf, advanced artillery could be changed to be its counter and instead of provding its almost useless benefit it could provide some extra defence against tanks.
Also I think tech should also be adjusted for historical accuarcy, right now it dosnt really make sence that mech in and paratroopers are cost more or just as much as Jet fighters and Rockets
-
I like where this appears to be going. But, we should probably discuss it in the house rules section before we get in trouble.
-
I like where this appears to be going. But, we should probably discuss it in the house rules section before we get in trouble.
Getting in trouble is part of the fun :)
IL just loves us……!
-
Well, as far as I’m concerned, tech has always needed a serious overhaul in just about every way. And I have a ton of ideas so, when I get back from running errands, I’ll start a thread in “house rules” if someone doesn’t beat me to it.
-
Also I think tech should also be adjusted for historical accuarcy, right now it dosnt really make sence that mech in and paratroopers are cost more or just as much as Jet fighters and Rockets
I’ve liked this idea, but haven’t done much with it.
Something like (again, a house rule thread thing) USA gets war bonds, heavy bombers at turn X, radar at turn X, UK gets radar, Gerry gets Super subs, etc. etc.
No new tech allowed, but certain countries get certain techs at pre-determined times.
Just brainstorming, you know. -
delayed tech neuters tech, no suprise factor. one type of tech per unit per turn fixes the uber bomber trouble. roll two and pick best takes care of HB. any others?
assigning techs by country/turn is really revised NA reincarnated not R&D. giving each country one free token every so often (even rounds, every fifth, whatever) lets Italy and Russia in on the fun. China first has an amazing impact on Japan’s expansion BTW. I am treading on house rules here I know but these are just some thoughts on the subject. -
delayed tech neuters tech, no suprise factor. one type of tech per unit per turn fixes the uber bomber trouble. roll two and pick best takes care of HB. any others?
assigning techs by country/turn is really revised NA reincarnated not R&D. giving each country one free token every so often (even rounds, every fifth, whatever) lets Italy and Russia in on the fun. China first has an amazing impact on Japan’s expansion BTW. I am treading on house rules here I know but these are just some thoughts on the subject.Hehe, it is not uncommon in my games to have all 6 powers buy a token in round 1, so yes, they’re all in on the fun without any charity, thank you very much.
Good, thoughtful post, Crit. I just finished a game with neutered tech, and I didn’t like it. We didn’t get much (probably because we didn’t invest as much, because there wasn’t any awesome tech) and it wasn’t a factor until I got paras with Germany (was not neutered) and took over the UK.
The surprise factor is half of what tech is about. Delaying LRA alone makes it feel like you’re playing a no tech game, because you know for certain that your vulnerable targets that are just out of range of enemy air are invincible, and that kinda sucks, for us tech lovers. We delayed LRA and mech infantry, and made HB best of 2 dice. Guess what, I didn’t feel like investing much in tech, and rolling for it wasn’t nearly as exciting. Neuter is a good word, that you chose.
-
I don’t think we’re ever gonna agree with new a tech system. Some players think it’s fun with game breaker techs, and others disagree.
In another thread a guy said the reason why he didn’t use tech was b/c of the small/large numbers factor, so even if there is a lot of randomness in reg.dice, reg.dice is a game of big numbers, means bigger probability that luck will even out during a game. Not so with the current tech systems.
As Larry Harris said, “it has become the tail that wags the dog”.
Imo, with several power techs, any game with tech will be tech races, and the tech race will overshadow the current strategic elements in A&A. For realism to the real WW2 it is highly relevant, for competitive game, it reduces or destroys the game.
When I started playing online, it was (Revised) reg.dice and no-tech, but I was a newb so I had big problems winning games in the beginning, I had to play a lot of games before I won some games, firstly 2vs2 and then 1vs1 games.
So the randomness in reg.dice didn’t help me that much since I was playing against better opponents.
But with the current tech system in AA50, it is much easier to win a single game against a better opponent, than in a no-tech game.I feel that is wrong, but other players feels fine when winning b/c of dice rolls and not players decisions.
Some players are OK with playing A&A as a game of luck and not a game of strategy. I beg to differ.
-
To imply that A&A is either a game of luck (w/tech) or a game of stategy (w/o tech) is ridiculous. A&A is a game with both elements and there is also a strategy when playing tech, just different. I (almost) never use chart 2 w/ Germany, more useful techs in chart one, conversly USA is a chart two power usually, you can call this simplistic and non-strategic if you like, but it is a quick and basic example non the less
-
@ critmonster, I don’t think you know what impact the power-techs have in A&A.
A no-tech game, you still have to buy the right units, make the right combat moves, and make the right non combat moves. Decisions on techs is not strategic at all, compared to all the other factors in A&A, which decides who wins and who loses.
The only decisions with regards to tech is how much money to spend, and what chart to chose, and this is very simple, but most of all it is purely luck based.
As long as there are power-techs, any tech game will always be focused on who gets the power-techs first, and which country gets whatever power-tech.
A tech race is completely different from buying, combat moves and NC moves, b/c they will have much less effect once a power achieves a power-tech. And the result and impact of power-tech(s) is not based on decisions, b/c both players will spend money on tech, then all you hope for is to get the strongest techs as early as possible.And the side that gets one or several powertechs before the opponent, will win the game (unless both sides gets the same amount of power-techs), not b/c of decisions, b/c both players made the same tech-decisions, and so the tech-game was won b/c of luck and not strategic skills. Which is the opposite of no-tech games, b/c in every game, reg.dice or LL, players decisions and moves are always different in different games.
-
I agree that no matter what the game is a mix of strats and luck. There is no arguing though, that introducing more random elements, increases the amount of luck involved. It does not directly reduce the amount of strategy involved, other than by percent. By that I mean if the game is typically with dice and no tech 75% strategy and 25% luck, then with tech that changes to 50% strategy 50% luck. Please note these are random numbers but illustrates my point. If side A gets heavy bombers and long range aircraft, and side B gets super subs and improved artillery, side A is at an advantage due purely to luck. And that is assuming both sides get the same amount of tech, I have seen games where UK buys 1 tech die and japan buys 3 on the first turn, UK gets turn 1 heavy bombers and japan gets super subs on round 3, it was actually pretty funny.
-
But a good tech system doesn’t (have to) reduce the ‘strategy’ aspect of the randomness in a game. In other words, tech becomes part of the strategic decisions made by countries and not by the roll outcome of a die.
That is what I seek when looking for some house rules for Tech (more strategic, less random)
How to achieve this?
1). Directed tech is a key. No more getting a tech you didn’t really want/invest in with researcher purchases.
2). Set a maximum cost level for a tech. In other words, at some point, your tech researcher investment will result
in a tech, guarenteed.
3). Enable techs to be countered by some other strategic option.
It could be an existing unit or another tech.
Key here is a way to counter tech means there can be strategy involved.
4). Try to make the techs as even as possible.
You could do this by increasing the cost of the ‘better’ tech, or
by modifying the weaker techs to make them ‘better’, etc.
5). Remove/diminsh the 'nothing up my sleeve except…surprise! LONG RANGE" aspect.
By having a set cost, the cheaper techs could be achieved in one turn,
but the more expensive ones, you would have a bette idea of when the
opponent might get it.The initial idea presented by Bugoo achieves 1, 2 and 4 (somewhat if properly priced) and 5 (again if properly priced). If we can achieve 3, then I think the point system for tech is optimal for a house rule.
So we have HBs as a killer weapon. We already have a counter: radar. Is radar properly priced at 20? sounds pretty solid to me. Perhaps Radar could include a BB gets an AAA shot (1@1) to reduce the HB’s overwhelming power in naval warfare. If we did that, radar would cost 25. Also, in games with Escorts optional rule, you could adjust this … even higher to 30 (since escorts already diminish HBs)?
I think Long range might need to be priced higher, like 25.
How to counter Mech inf? Should it be priced at 30? I’d rather not alter the tech unless we absolutely have to. One way to detune the mech inf is that the carried inf do not roll on the attack (they’re being carried, not in attack formation)… just a quick straw man/idea.
What other techs need to be countered?
-
So we have HBs as a killer weapon. We already have a counter: radar.
(snip)
first, these are good ideas to build on, hopefully L.H. will listen to us in future games.
But you are wrong that radar is a good counter for HBs. HBs are a killer tech not only for SBR attacks, but also for attacks against land units, and attacks against enemy fleets.
Actually, the best counter for HB tech, is… HB tech…! :-)The way to go in making tech non-broken, is (as you said) less randomness and more “fairness”, a system in which players must pay an amount which is somewhat close to the advantage of a specific tech. And instant tech is more powerful than delayed tech, so this must be taken into account when designing a new tech system.
The power techs in AA50 is, imo, HBs, LRA, mech inf, and paratroopers.
But not all powers will have an equal advantage getting these techs, especially Italy, which hardly can afford to buy a lot of stuff, unless they got all of Africa.
Another option is also a rule which, i.e., if you pay 5 ipc, you will get LRA the fifth turn, or you can choose to pay 25 ipc and get it on the same turn, either instantly, or delayed.
As it is now, at least in AA50, tech rolls are practically the same as Yahtzee.
-
Good, thoughtful post, Crit. I just finished a game with neutered tech, and I didn’t like it. We didn’t get much (probably because we didn’t invest as much, because there wasn’t any awesome tech) and it wasn’t a factor until I got paras with Germany (was not neutered) and took over the UK.
I must add in that game I has no other choice than letting UK poorly defended against paras or I would lose naval race! You also spent 3 dices on tech so I have no complains being paratrooped. I risked and I lost, nothing to complain
Suggested Topics
