Check the range of V weapons. Four spaces is too long of a distance. Also, the new tech units it needs to be clear: When you get say King Tigers do all your tanks go “Poof” and become Tigers , or from that point on are any tanks you build…Tigers. The later idea is much more realistic.
Technology
-
Aircraft are bordering on overpowered when they atttack as it is.
Well I think the problem is that the effectiveness of AC cannot be set to one fixed simple value and then applied equally to its myriad tactical applications: strafing dug-in ground units, battling other AC for air supremacy in the airspace over a land-battle, or engaging surface vessels on open water.
-
@i:
well if you straf people they will shot you via rifles smgs lmgs heavy mechineguns and sturgervare44{assultrifle44}
Thinking it’s not going to happen on a scale sufficient to “destroy” an air unit.
And I’d think the credit of infantry kills would better go to an infantry unit’s specialized AD formation assets. A troop of Wirbelwinds or something….
But we’re talking about the lethality of AC and not their susceptibility to ground fire… that’s another can of worms!
-
I like the idea of paratroopers. It might end the strategy of “clumping” or at least disrupt it.
I do not like how it is a tech. I wish you could just buy a paratrooper regiment and use it any time. I just personally like the game better without the tech rules.
-
I like the idea of paratroopers. It might end the strategy of “clumping” or at least disrupt it.
I do not like how it is a tech. I wish you could just buy a paratrooper regiment and use it any time. I just personally like the game better without the tech rules.
Agreed. Paratroopers should not be a tech. And I also do not like tech in the game. It’s kind of like gambling.
-
@Brain:
I like the idea of paratroopers. It might end the strategy of “clumping” or at least disrupt it.
I do not like how it is a tech. I wish you could just buy a paratrooper regiment and use it any time. I just personally like the game better without the tech rules.
Agreed. Paratroopers should not be a tech. And I also do not like tech in the game. It’s kind of like gambling.
I have no problems with paratroopers as a tech, reflecting the innovation etc. required to deliver an entire formation with supporting assets by air…. but, having said that, really the techs should come in two varieties: R&D intensive “gambles” and time intensive “sure things”.
I put together a House Rule thread that sounded extremely complicated about this. Too complex to repeat.
-
@i:
i like the idea of buy techs so on but the system to get them is dumb!
oyu dont invest money on somwhting and then when it fails you dont generly give up you kep tryingPresuming the 1940 Tech rules are similar to AA50, you won’t give up or lose any IPCs attempting to develop techs. They carry over until something is developed.
-
I would invest in technology if that system were to be used for the global game.
-
I would invest in technology if that system were to be used for the global game.
the AA50 system?
-
@i:
i like the idea of buy techs so on but the system to get them is dumb!
oyu dont invest money on somwhting and then when it fails you dont generly give up you kep tryingPresuming the 1940 Tech rules are similar to AA50, you won’t give up or lose any IPCs attempting to develop techs. They carry over until something is developed.
ya this one
-
that’s more sensible than just losing the IPC and the chance to develop something!
-
Technology should be eliminated from the game.
-
How about:
Every turn you can purchase one research chit.
Every turn when you have two or more chits, you roll one die per chit.
If you roll a pair, congrats! You get a tech.
Discard one chit for every die that matches.
Keep one chit for every die that did not match the paired result, you’ll get to roll those in subsequent turn’s tech attempts.So Turn 1, buy a chit. No roll.
Turn 2, buy a chit. Roll two dice (something like 17% chance of matching, isn’t it?)
Turn 3, buy another chit. Roll three dice.
Let’s say you roll a 2, 2 and 4. You get a tech and keep one chit for next time. -
I am in favor of eliminating tech.
-
Tech is a very significant part of the rules set I’ve developed. I’ve eliminated the luck element entirely: you choose a tech, you pay its fixed price, and then you get the tech. Some techs have other techs as prerequisites. Some techs cost more than others.
You could argue that from a realism standpoint, there was a luck factor involved with developing tech. But let’s be real here: 1) there’s enough luck-based stuff in the game already. 2) If you throw enough resources at, say, developing a better tank, odds are you’ll come away with something for your efforts. And that something will consist of a tank that’s been improved in some way, as opposed to, say, war bonds or a super submarine or long range aircraft.
Technological advances were a critical factor in WWII. A unit that was considered top-of-the-line in 1940 or 1941 would likely be seen as an obsolete piece of junk by '43 or '44. This was especially true of aircraft, but was also true of tanks.
-
All I am saying is that it should not be a luck thing. It should be automatic.
-
@Brain:
All I am saying is that it should not be a luck thing. It should be automatic.
naw, I can’t get behind that.
I think there should be a random element with respect to when you make the big break-thru especially for whiz kid stuff like jet fighters.
And naturally, with increasing certainty the greater you invest in it to the point it’s almost a statistical sure thing.Having said that, there should be very little randomness about what you end up with.
“hey sir, you know that rocket engine we’re working on? Well it’s still flaming out but now it’s churning out war bonds! who’d a thunk it eh?”And some of the techs are just simple doctrinal advancements or new applications of existing tech. If it doesn’t require guys in lab coats - like war bonds - then it shouldn’t be random at all.
But hey that’s just me.
-
I respect your opinion, I just happen to disagree with it, but hey Larry is in your corner on this one.
-
@Brain:
I respect your opinion, I just happen to disagree with it….
Ditto. 8-)
@Brain:
….but hey Larry is in your corner on this one.
Well, we’ll see what the Global game brings.
-
I am sure we can all agree that we want a good game with or without NO’s
-
@Brain:
I am sure we can all agree that we want a good game with or without NO’s
Agreed.
Personally I like the NOs as an attempt to capture advantages and strategic perspectives that the game cannot nuance. (Like leading the Japanese away from Moscow)
But they shouldn’t be sooo vital that players are handcuffed to history.
Suggested Topics
