Research & Development

[The Hessian]

Hey Folks,
just for pure curiosity: Do you use the optional “Research & Development” rules in your games and why (or why not)?
Greetings,
Lars

[calvinhobbesliker]

No, because it makes the game more complicated…

[Young Grasshopper]

No, because…

1. It’s a very luck driven game mechanic
2. You may lose lots of IPCs trying to develop
3. If you gain a development, it may not be useful to you
4. They all cost the same, but some are stronger than others
5. Some are not technologies at all, but rather military opperations
6. it unbalances the game if you spend and get none, or if you spend and get lots
7. Many obvious historic developments were left off the list weakening the idea

[cyanight]

You make some very good points YG

I believe LRA is by far the most powerful.  It effects every plane you have in the game and greatly changes the strategy of the game.

[teslas]

Young Grasshopper hit the nail on the head.

America’s first turn, let’s say they get cheap boats. The next, super subs. They get to win now, no exceptions. There is no skill in that, no strategy. There’s only blind luck.

Or conversely, they spent money on tech, perhaps a lot, and got nothing. Now Japan gets to go ass wild in the Pacific since the US’s fleet is lessened and the axis’s odds for victory just skyrocketed.

If you’re playing the game for the strategic challenge, technology ruins it. If you’re drinking beer with your friends for a day and none of you really know what you’re doing, then it’s fun.

[Dafyd]

Our group does use the reseach and development chart but we have altered it a bit for ease of development of a specific development rather than random chance.  We are futher looking into implementing the system used in the 1939 Global version.  In that version, each nation develops a technology at a set die count.  Each die role is added to the previous die roll until you reach your nation’s development threshold.  ie…UK develops radar at a die count of 4.  Germany evelops radar at say 8 sisnce they were a bit behind the Brits in this technology.  Germany develops rockets at a die count of 10 and the Uk develops rockets at 14.  These are just examples but this way each die roll count toward the technology your nation wants, not what randomly comes up on the roll of the dice.  This might better be discussed under the HOUSE RULE section but we like the technology aspect of the game but not how it is originally laid out in the game rules.

[Vanerost]

I like the idea of targeted r&d with different values depending on that country and how far along they were in the war the catch is to make it expensive enough not to let people just run a muck with it but cheep enough to make it an option. Also the amount for each dice should depend on what you are going after as to balance it a bit like extending the flight of all planes needs to cost a bit more for dice as it could seriously reck the balance of a nation and how it is played.

[Young Grasshopper]

I have a victory condition house rule that lists different “victory objectives” that gain you victory tokens, and the first side to 3 tokens wins the game. This thread has given me the idea to award a free development roll with each victory token gained… this will give nations more incentive to go after the objectives… awesome.

[NoMercy]

I’ve never used R&D in any of my games but I can see how it could be fun with some friends for a “just for fun” game to change it up a little.
Like give each side a choice of 1 tech out of 2-3 choices that wouldn’t over balance it to much or something.

I think for tournaments or league games it should be kept out to keep things more balanced and so you can compare all the games etc…

[The Hessian]

Hey Folks,

you’re always good for a surprise!  :-) I was sure that many of you play without R&D, but I never thought that so many of you (at least for the ones who participating in the poll) are doing this.
Anyway thanks to the replies!

Btw - Young Grasshoper: Thanks for the idea of granting a free TechRoll to a nation that achieved one of your victory objectives! I think I will use this in our game this afternoon.  :-)

[Narvik]

To spend money on Tech is a good idea every time you want to SBR yourself

[knp7765]

We rarely use R&D in our games because of the cost and random nature of developing a tech.

We have tried out various ideas to get tech in the game. I especially want to use HBG’s tech units in our games (Me262 Jet Fighters, I-400 Super Subs, etc.)

We even use the tech tokens from Anniversary so if you don’t get a breakthrough, you can keep the token and roll again next round. You don’t simply lose that money. Even with that, while playing we find that we just don’t want to spend the money on tech rolls. We always seem to need more combat units and don’t want to leave an area short.

Separating the techs by making certain techs more expensive than others is a good idea to cut down the randomness. For example: Heavy Bombers or Long Range Aircraft should cost more than War Bonds or Paratroopers because they obviously have a greater affect on the game.
Oh yeah, speaking of Heavy Bombers, we use a house rule where Heavy Bombers roll 2 dice and keep the results of both.

We have tried giving free tech rolls but haven’t found a good balance yet. In one game, we made it too easy and EVERYONE ended up with tech items. Kind of defeated the purpose. In another game, we made it a little too hard and we were back to nobody having techs.
Lately, we haven’t been able to play as often as we used to (work, family, etc.) so when we do play, we tend to play a more basic game that we are all familiar with and don’t try entering new things, which in our case includes techs.

[Young Grasshopper]

@The:

Btw - Young Grasshoper: Thanks for the idea of granting a free TechRoll to a nation that achieved one of your victory objectives! I think I will use this in our game this afternoon.  :-)

WARNING: HOUSE RULE COMMENT!

We decided today that the development roll should go to the nation that contributed the most toward getting the victory token, and if it’s still unclear between two nations, a dice roll must break the tie. The only nations eligible to make development rolls are Germany, Italy, Japan, United States, UK Europe, UK Pacific, and Soviet Union. Also, nations must be in control of their own capital in order to make a development roll, therefore, if a token is gained by a nation without their capital, the development roll must passed on to the next nation in line. The opposing side may protest if they feel that the nation chosen to get the development roll, had less participation in gaining the objective than another nation.

[Vanerost]

Sounds good. I think I may do some digging to see how well each nation was doing in the r&d department and when they hit their breakthrough. Then figure a rough timeline to round turn ratio to give bonuses to nations who actually did develop the tech. Have a more targeted approach to the mater to take some of the luck/randomness out of the equation. But it would be nice to find a viable way related to historic events in relation to the games time frame. This may take a while but if and when I get it done I will post a thread. Going to get my a&a group up and running first off. Lol

Big plans right? Time will be needed to ensure the balance though.

[Young Grasshopper]

@ShadowHAwk:

So if anzac takes japan then it still does not get a tech roll. Seems rather unfair to leave them out of your rules. Often UK-pac is smaller then anzac.

What do you use as victory tokens then ( as in what conditions are there to gain 1 ?)

I excluded ANZAC because for them to get one of the victory conditions, they would definitely be riding the back of the Americans, where as the UK pacific could easily gain one of the objectives on their own. Yes ANZAC could liberate Philippines with a sneaky move, but almost all tech rolls would be useless for ANZAC leaving the entire Allied team feeling cheated. Here are the details to my house rules…

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=35941.msg1412310#msg1412310

[Young Grasshopper]

@Vanerost:

Sounds good. I think I may do some digging to see how well each nation was doing in the r&d department and when they hit their breakthrough. Then figure a rough timeline to round turn ratio to give bonuses to nations who actually did develop the tech. Have a more targeted approach to the mater to take some of the luck/randomness out of the equation. But it would be nice to find a viable way related to historic events in relation to the games time frame. This may take a while but if and when I get it done I will post a thread. Going to get my a&a group up and running first off. Lol

Big plans right? Time will be needed to ensure the balance though.

Here’s something I worked on a while ago that might be useful for what you’re trying to do.

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=33997.0

[Dafyd]

I’m still not sure that this aspect of the tech discussion belongs here since it is more about a house rule but I mentioned how we have developed a progressive valued chart  for the techs but I didn’t give the limitations of attaining the tech.  A tech die is three (3) IPC’s every tern a player wants to roll for a tech.  A neutral nation can roll one die only per rounf thatthey are neutral.  That is three IPC’s per round.  If a tech has a R&D value of 25, it may take a nation at least 5 rounds to develop that tech.  That is at least 15 IPC’s in order to develop a tech.  A nation that is war may invest in three dice (9IPC’s) per rounf in order to develop three different tech.'s at a time.  They can not be applied to a single tech but must be spread over the three techs to be develpoed.  It can get expensive but the thought process is this; a country will invest in R&D to develop a specific technology.  It will not just through money at a problem and randomly hope to get a good result….governments maybe but not gamers.  If and when we play with technology, I prefer this R&D chart.  The Anniversary/Global chart and dice costs can definately thow the balance of the game off.  Last game I played of global 1940, theAmerican player shelled out alot of IPC’s on tech.  It put his production behind and the other allied player had to really hold on for the US to catch up but the US player was able to develop long range heavy bombers and cheaper ships.  It was devostating to the the axis player (me) because he then went dark skies on the axis and it became a war of attrition that I could not repulse effectively.  I have to take this moment to say I love Narvik.  Direct and to the point.  Tech is fun sometimes but there is alot to just playing the game.