Research & Development Discussion - Delta+1

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    @mantlefan:

    Is that chart for cash on hand or income+ NO income?

    All cash.  Saved, NO Income, Treasury Capture Income, Territory Income.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    Mantle, that’s great and all, but we already had a voted in system with all the viarables etc in it.  We were just discussing if there should be changes to how dice are purchased.

    A final version is posted. (Notice I said “a final version” and not “the final version.”)  I’m sure there will be a few more discussions over the wording here and there, but everything else should now be ironed out.  Price of dice back to the originally established value.  Threshholds for dice back to the originally established values.  Technology can be ignored if the players wish to ignore it.  The technology tree was combined to make them a bit more powerful and negate the “oh hell, I don’t want THAT ONE!” results, as originally agreed.

    The only thing we need feedback on are the actual wordings for each of the technologies.  (The combination of what is there was already agreed on, but maybe we don’t like a certain phrase - we want to replace it with another.)


  • NEUTRAL ARMIES

    If a true neutral is attacked, then the side that did not initiate the attack may purchase extra units in the amount of the territory value times the number of rounds before the territory was attacked in the territory.

  • Sponsor

    You’re not quite getting it, but your getting closer. This tread is for brand new ideas that get voted on, if they win, they go to their own discussion thread where all things are discussed (including weather or not they should be optional). Within that thread ideas are ironed out that eventually become finalized (we achieved this already with the UK government in exile rule). So the research and development rule you just posted came from a seed idea that won a poll and is in the second phase of development, which is what the R&D thread is for. So you see, there is no reason for making multiple polls asking about a rule, because once it wins a poll…… Everything will get discussed. So, even though the R&D suggestion you just posted won’t be included in poll #5, it will get serious consideration in the R&D thread.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    He already did.  It’s been six technologies since we started the poll to include or exclude technologies.  For almost the entire game - barring something really wierd, you’re pretty much stuck at 3 or less dice per counter - there’s very little hope of getting 120 IPC a round, but if you do, then…and hey!  If you can manage to get 225 IPC a round, then you deserve to get 6 free rolls!  You need to finish off that snot nosed little brat so he “won’t surrender and fight to the last man” faster!

    Question:  Per Alpha Rules (and I think OOB, but I don’t have the manual with me, I left it at the school) England shares technology between India and England, they can pool their resources to buy dice.  Should we include this wording (copied directly from the alpha rules posted on Larry’s site) or do we want to force the nation to split. If we force it to split, how do we handle units moving from board to board?  Or should we limit the purchase to London, as London is the official capitol of the British Empire?

  • Sponsor

    @Cmdr:

    Mantle, that’s great and all, but we already had a voted in system with all the viarables etc in it.  We were just discussing if there should be changes to how dice are purchased.

    A final version is posted. (Notice I said “a final version” and not “the final version.”)  I’m sure there will be a few more discussions over the wording here and there, but everything else should now be ironed out.  Price of dice back to the originally established value.  Threshholds for dice back to the originally established values.  Technology can be ignored if the players wish to ignore it.  The technology tree was combined to make them a bit more powerful and negate the “oh hell, I don’t want THAT ONE!” results, as originally agreed.

    The only thing we need feedback on are the actual wordings for each of the technologies.  (The combination of what is there was already agreed on, but maybe we don’t like a certain phrase - we want to replace it with another.)

    I am unaware of anything that has been finalized.

  • Sponsor

    I am on board with this as well, I especially like your free dice scale Jen, good job.

  • Sponsor

    @mantlefan:

    So if we realize that something that was voted in is actually detrimental to the game (basing tech on cash on hand instead of income, which encourages ludicrously asinine saving of IPCs and slows the game down considerably), we are stuck with it forever? It seems that quite a few people other than me also think the rolls based on cash would be a mistake, something that was not pointed out before the voting.

    All rules get discussed at length in the discussion thread where everyone has an opinion. You must understand that by now considering your involvement in R&D.

    My I-phone battery is dead now.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    @mantlefan:

    So if we realize that something that was voted in is actually detrimental to the game (basing tech on cash on hand instead of income, which encourages ludicrously asinine saving of IPCs and slows the game down considerably), we are stuck with it forever? It seems that quite a few people other than me also think the rolls based on cash would be a mistake, something that was not pointed out before the voting.

    The brackets are designed in such a way that it would be crippling for almost any nation throughout the game to try and save up for extra dice.  It may be plausible to see them saving up a few IPC a round for 12 rounds and get up a whole bracket, but even that is not too bad, that’s 12 rounds of a few units not being built, not getting in position and not attacking you.  Keep in mind, Mantlefan, it’s 40 IPC per bracket.  Most of these countries dont even earn 40 IPC, let alone would be willing, able and not punshed for saving that much money in any given turn.

    Moreover, keep in mind you can get a “free” die for 15 IPC, instead of saving 40 IPC to get it.  So it would behoove you to buy a die or two, instead of trying to save up all this money.

    I think the odds of “ludicrous and asinine” levels of saving for a free die are pretty low, and when it occurs, it’ll be so devastating to the fool who tried it that they’ll lose the game - even if they were winning before.

  • Sponsor

    @mantlefan:

    Where’s Jimmy when you need him to explain how dice based on cash rather than income is bad?

    We all ready agreed to go by income and not cash…. FUCK ME!

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    @mantlefan:

    Where’s Jimmy when you need him to explain how dice based on cash rather than income is bad?

    We were discussing income vs cash.

    If you like, we can put a limit of no more than 15 IPC may be saved from round to round.  I think it’s overly limiting and I highly doubt anyone’s going to save anywhere NEAR the levels required to get to another free die, unless we’re talking like 1-5 IPC that they cannot spend anyway.


  • You might think a rule is asinine but if the majority of voters did not see it that way and voted for it then yes you are stuck with it. Everyone who wants to play with the Delta rules will have to play by the rules that received majority support.  It is meant to be a collaborative and democratic process.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    For the record, I vehemently oppose prohibiting people from saving a few IPC from round to round.  They should have the right to save 1 or 2 IPC, especially if it means getting another shot, but primarily because sometimes people don’t WANT to take 8 IPC and make 2 artillery, maybe they WANT 1 armor.  Why are we punishing them for saving a few IPC?


  • If the rule was voted for, then the rule will be in Delta 1.  Rules cannot be changed after the vote!  Once people start playtesting Delta 1, it may well be discovered that the rule needs to be changed.  At that point, someone can propose a change for Delta 2.  If that is discussed and tweaked, and then voted on and accepted, then it will be in Delta 2.  Or, the rule accepted for Delta 1 might prove to be good enough and the majority may vote not to change it.


  • @mantlefan:

    When the R&D got voted for it did not make that specific statement automatically the rule. If it did, there wouldn’t be a thread discussion on tweaking it.

    No.  After a lot of discussion, we come up with several versions of the rule and then people vote a second time for the version that they think is the best.  The initial vote for something like “Government in Exile” was a vote for the concept in principle.  We then came up with a number of more detailed and carefully considered options and had a second vote to select the final version.


  • @mantlefan:

    Why is simply changing the requirements from money in your pocket to income too big a change?

    That should be an option in the secondary vote.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    The issue of cash on hand vs income is a non-starter.  You are making a mountain out of a mole hill.

    Why?

    1. It takes 40 IPC to get from one teir to another.  No nation can afford this without either having already won the game and thus technology is just there to stop some idiot who won’t surrender.  Or two, is going to lose the game, in which case you would WANT them to save all their money, so you can take their nation easier.

    2. You can get 2.67 dice for the cost of moving from one teir to another.  So instead of getting 1 die next round, you can almost get 3 this round.  Your odds are 3 times better spending the money than saving it.

    3. The only realistic scenario of saved cash being used is cash a nation cannot spend or does not need to spend.  This is usually 8 IPC or less - probably less than 4 IPC, just because of the cost of units.

    You need every unit you can get on the board.  Papers have been written to prove the argument that feet on the street trumps ability to get feet on the street later, in real life and in Axis and Allies.  I would bet that there is even a CSub paper on the topic, I would just have to find it.  By not buying units so you can save enough IPCs to get another free die you are giving up the following:

    1. 100% Chance of having units on the board.
    2. 100% Chance of having units that when attacked get to defend.
    3. 100% Chance of giving up units that might be able to attack.
    4. 100% Chance of losing any reinforcements to move forward - as you did not buy any. (Does not count pre-existing units.)
    5. 100% Chance of changing the ratio of your units to your enemy’s units
    6. 100% Chance of making the position of your enemies stronger - if only for that one round, but probably a lot longer.
    7. 17% Chance to get a technology, and a 17% chance that you get the technology you want.

    Basically, you are willing to give up all that for a 3% chance of getting what you want.  I think almost everyone that will play this game would rather spend the money for a 3% chance of getting the technology they want and giving up just a few units instead.  That way they don’t get hit with 1-6 on the chart, they only have to worry about number 7.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    @mantlefan:

    @Vance:

    If the rule was voted for, then the rule will be in Delta 1.  Rules cannot be changed after the vote!  Once people start playtesting Delta 1, it may well be discovered that the rule needs to be changed.  At that point, someone can propose a change for Delta 2.  If that is discussed and tweaked, and then voted on and accepted, then it will be in Delta 2.  Or, the rule accepted for Delta 1 might prove to be good enough and the majority may vote not to change it.

    I’m not understanding which rule you are talking about. Just to be 100% clear, are you saying that when the vote was done, that tech rule as it was written was the final rule to be tested? Or are you saying that all that was voted on was that there would be tech changes?

    After the first vote to include technology as a rule, there was a second vote to determine which of the many versions of technologies people wanted the most.  That version was then taken for discussion in it’s own thread.  It is that version you are attempting to make radical changes too, by switching from a cash on hand system - that passed vote twice, to an income system that has never been voted on.  I am not saying both are valid or invalid, but that is what you are attempting to do, and that’s why we have discussions.  Just keep in mind you are trying to undo two votes that have already closed on technology with a pretty radical change - one people might never have voted for in the first place, let alone twice.

    If the rule is not finalized then why get on me in this post for wanting to tweak it?
    "You might think a rule is asinine but if the majority of voters did not see it that way and voted for it then yes you are stuck with it. Everyone who wants to play with the Delta rules will have to play by the rules that received majority support.  It is meant to be a collaborative and democratic process. "

    Tweaking a rule means changing the price of dice from 15 IPC to 12 IPC.  Not shifting the entire foundation of how dice are determined going from a system that was voted on twice and accepted twice to a system that was not voted for.  That’s a pretty HUGE shift.  It’s like changing when you collect income from after you place your units to just before you purchase units.  You have to agree that would fundamentally change things and achieve the stated aim that Jimmy came up with - to force you to defend everything you take or not get rewarded for taking it at all.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    What changed is my proposed change was voted down, Mantlefan.  I wanted to limit you to buying at least a few dice at a time and in return the cost of dice was lowered so you actually had a better chance of getting a technology.  So I removed it - per the wishes of everyone.

    Let’s be clear, however.  Switching from a Cash on Hand situation (which is what was voted on twice before we got here) to an Income Only situation is akin to changing when you collect income from at the end of your turn to the start of your turn.  It’s huge!  A massive change and one that was never voted for!

    The more I think about it, the more I say “no.  That is not what was voted on and it should not be included unless there is a vote for it at a later time.”  And by later time, I mean after the first round of play testing so we can actually have evidence that the voted on system is broken.  I suspect this is much ado about nothing, that no one will be saving near the levels feared becuase that would cost them the game - even if they managed to get a technology out of it.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    By your very same argument you should demand that you only collect money at the start of your turn - to stop you from trading the same territory 7 times.  This flies in the face of Axis and Allies history!  It’s a complete violation of the established way things have been done since the first time someone opened a box of Axis and Allies.  Why should the income level for tech be different?

    If you are worried about 2 or 3 extra IPC from territories held, then ask to have the price brackets increased by 2 or 3 IPC.  You get the same effect!

Suggested Topics

  • 1
  • 3
  • 19
  • 5
  • 5
  • 6
  • 2
  • 5
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

23

Online

17.4k

Users

39.9k

Topics

1.7m

Posts