Nice work!
How to improve the Weapons Development?
-
Develop Weapons
Each technology requires a certain number of research points (RP) to achieve. Roll one die for each 5 IPCs invested in research, but one can only invest in one technology at the time. The number rolled corresponds to the research points one get for a certain technology. These research points are cumulative and saved until the next turn one want to continue do research. One can only do research for one technology at the time, until the required research points of the technology of interest is achieved. One can choose to invest in another technology, but then all research points for the initial technology will be lost. Use a note to keep track on each players research points and technology.
Weapons Development
1. Heavy Artillery (replace Combined Bombardment)*
Your artillery are now heavy artillery. For each artillery hit you score your opponent must pick two infantry units as casualties, or one other unit as a casualty.- All destroyers may now make a support shot on amphibious assaults on a 2.
2. Jet Fighters (revised)
Your fighters are now jet fighters. They are immune to AA fire and may intercept bombers (including superfortresses) in a SBR.Bomber Interception: This battle last for one cycle of combat only. The defender declares intercepting fighters before any defending AA guns fire. The intercepting fighters attack on a 3 were as the bomber defend on a 1 (2 if superfortresses). The surviving bombers are on the second cycle of combat subjected to any AA fire. Any fighters used in a interceptor role may not also defend in a regular land attack against that same territory on the same turn.
3. Super Submarines (revised)
Your submarines are now super submarines. They attack on a 3 and may not be attacked by enemy aircraft when alone or in company with other submarines, unless an enemy ship (not just desroyers) is present.4. Long-Range Aircraft
Your fighters are now long-range fighters, and your bombers are now long-range bombers. Your fighters´ range increases to 6. Your bombers´ range increases to 8.5. Rockets (revised)
Your antiaircraft guns are now rocket launchers. In addition to their normal combat function, they can reduce enemy industrial production. From each territory, one antiaircraft gun may attack an industrial complex within 3 spaces. Roll one die for the rocket. The result of that roll is the number of IPC’s destroyed by that rocket. The maximum combined damage inflicted in one turn by all rocket attacks and strategic bombing raids on the same industrial complex is the territory’s income value. The opponent must surrender that many IPC’s to the bank (or as many as the player has, whichever is the lesser amount).6. Heavy Bombers
Your bombers are now heavy bombers. They roll two dice each in an attack or strategic bombing raid (see Special Combats in Phase 4: Conduct Combat), but still only a single die on defense. -
This is a text from the game designers of A&AR at http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=ah/article/ah20040109a
“To replace Industrial Technology, we played around with several contenders, including one so good it became a central game rule. Eventually the choice for Industrial Technology’s replacement came down to two choices, Heavy Artillery and Combined Bombardment.”
The heavy artillery on a 3 attack was too good!
“Heavy Artillery gave your artillery a 3 attack. Playtesters loved this but it was too good. Super Submarines gave the same attack to a piece costing twice as much. Heavy Artillery lost the fight with Combined Bombardment, which allowed destroyers to bombard in an amphibious assault. As I mentioned in column 2, the destroyer bombardment from Axis & Allies Pacific didn’t make the jump to Axis & Allies. Because people liked that rule, we put it in as a weapons development (but at an attack of 3, not the 2 attack from Pacific). It costs an average of 30 IPCs, still a good bargain for those who want to blow up Western Europe before they land.”
It is all about thinking outside of the “box” with just adding the values; movement, attack and defense! My variant of Heavy Artillery would make it a much better balanced ideá than the 3 attack artillery variant! By making an artillery technology that is more effective against infantry, one will make the artillery unit as the best cannon fodder (if the opponent have heavy artillery)! the effect is that the opponent will rather pick an artillery unit as a cassualty than two infantry units. However I agree it is powerful, but I don’t think it is too powerful, it is simply a technology. What do you think, is it too powerful?
In my opinion the Combined Bombardment Technology is not more than an universal advantage, for all nations. A destroyer cost 12 IPCs attack and defend on a 3 were as a fighter cost 10 IPCs and attack and defend on a 3 and a 4 respectively. So by giving destroyers this special ability of shore bombardment (on a 2 not a 3) is just ok. Hence it is fair if one want buy a pile of destroyers to blow up Western Europe before they (US & UK)land. Further more it reflects the history, were destroyers actually did shore bombardment. Don’t you think it is fair to let all destroyers make a shore bombarment shot on a 2?
-
Why does it seem that lately everyone is posting their house rule ideas everywhere other than the house rules forum?
IMHO, I don’t like your reasearch points idea. All it’s effectively doing is just reducing the variance in the cost of each tech. You could make an argument that reducing the variance a little might improve the realism, but this is reducing it way too much.
Now the probability of getting any tech on 1 roll is 0 and only 1/36 on 2 rolls for a ‘cheap’ tech (too low). For the cheap techs, you’re looking at >95% that you get the tech for either 15 or 20 IPCs. That is rediculous IMHO. If you’re going to do that, just make the tech cost 15 or 20 IPCs and save everyone the time of rolling dice (for the record I don’t like this idea either). With your research points idea, every player who wanted a 12-point tech, for example, should just spend 15 IPCs for 3 rolls. If they don’t get it then, then they are pretty much guaranteed to get it for 5 IPCs on their next turn.
IMHO, I also don’t like your heavy rtl idea either. The implications are that rtl are now better than inf defensively and better than arm offensively. Since the latter units used to be tops in their respective category it seems that once a player achieves this tech they should only build rtl for ground units. (Maybe they’d buy a very few couple infantry for fodder and transporting purposes). I think the backbone of any army should be the infantry and under your rules it is going to be heavy rtl.
I’m just curious B, is ‘Game Master’ just a self-professed moniker or what?
-
Why does it seem that lately everyone is posting their house rule ideas everywhere other than the house rules forum?
IMHO, I don’t like your reasearch points idea. All it’s effectively doing is just reducing the variance in the cost of each tech. You could make an argument that reducing the variance a little might improve the realism, but this is reducing it way too much.
Now the probability of getting any tech on 1 roll is 0 and only 1/36 on 2 rolls for a ‘cheap’ tech (too low). For the cheap techs, you’re looking at >95% that you get the tech for either 15 or 20 IPCs. That is rediculous IMHO. If you’re going to do that, just make the tech cost 15 or 20 IPCs and save everyone the time of rolling dice (for the record I don’t like this idea either). With your research points idea, every player who wanted a 12-point tech, for example, should just spend 15 IPCs for 3 rolls. If they don’t get it then, then they are pretty much guaranteed to get it for 5 IPCs on their next turn.
IMHO, I also don’t like your heavy rtl idea either. The implications are that rtl are now better than inf defensively and better than arm offensively. Since the latter units used to be tops in their respective category it seems that once a player achieves this tech they should only build rtl for ground units. (Maybe they’d buy a very few couple infantry for fodder and transporting purposes). I think the backbone of any army should be the infantry and under your rules it is going to be heavy rtl.
I’m just curious B, is ‘Game Master’ just a self-professed moniker or what?
Hi Duke,
I have noted your comments and you are right. I will never post a house rule here again. One explaination to that people like me post them here is that the forum for house rules is not divided into A&A Classic and A&AE and so on!
Now to your comments, the levels of how many research points (RP) it takes to develop each technology were actually the forum to discuss. I agree that some of them are most likely too low! But your statement “For the cheap techs, you’re looking at >95% that you get the tech for either 15 or 20 IPCs.” is interesting! Please let me know how you calculate it! For 15 IPCs you need to roll three 4s at least and that is a chance just around 40%, not >95%!
You also right about reducing the variance is the purpose for this variant of Weapons Development method of play! Is it better to have a higher degree of luck? That is what you think (I disagree), but why?
And about my heavy artillery variant. You wrote that the implications of such an artilley are a unit that will become better than inf defensively and better than arm offensively. I would say better than inf defensively right, but cost more. But is a heavy artillery better than a tank! What I mean is that a 3 in attack is not better than a 2 (that in practice will take out an artillery or tank). That means one will inflict at least 1 extra damage (IPCs lost in cassualties) compared to a regular artillery. But how much is one extra IPC damage translated into an attack value, that is the question.
To answer that qestion one has to get another point of view. What does an attack value of 2 (rtl) compared to a 3 (tank) means: A 3 cause a 1/6 more in damage of unit worth at least 3 IPCs, which is at least 1/2 IPC more! So the bottom line is that by spending an amount of IPCs on research will make your artillery cause your opponent at least 1 extra IPC per attack roll, which is like 2 extra in attack value. Jepp, you are right! It is even stronger than the 3 attack variant! So what would be a better rule for artillery is if one would like to stick to the idea of heavy artillery?
One variant would be: Your artillery does no longer support infantry, but for each hit you score in an attackyour opponent must pick two infantry units as casualties, or one other unit as a casualty. Another variant of heavy artillery would be if the artillery attacked during the opening fire step of combat. That would be more balanced, don’t you think duke?By the way I am a lot of things, one of them being a game master another a coffein addict ;-) !
-
Like it B… But I don’t know about the Techie system till I get a game underway with comrades…
-
The artillery conquers, the infantry occupies.
The artillery with a 3 attack was too strong since Super Submarines (subs attack at 3 and cost 8 IPCs) became the baseline in the new weapons development for the game designers. I would say they most likely worked out the Techs before the National Advantages, the Fortress Europe advantage mean artillery defend on a 3. I dont find it rational at all! And secondly the Super Submarine did not change the fact that subs were sitting ducks, so that is why I changed the Super Submarine tech to include that no aircraft can attack subs unless a ship (not just destroyers) is present (See next post). And since playtesters loved the artillery to attack on a 3 I think the designers made a big misstake! A 3 attack artillery it is!!!
P.S. About what playtester did like and not one can reed about on the following link http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=ah/article/ah20040109a D.S.
-
Super Submarines
The reason why aircraft cannot attack alone submarines – It was the aircraft that proved the greatest nuisance to surfaced submarines. Night-running on the surface even to charge batteries, became prohibitively dangerous and the submarines developed the snort. The snort made the submarines slow since the submarine needed to stay submerged and on station high surface speeds could not be used. Efficiency fell off rapidly. Desperately some submarines carried enhanced AA armament, electing to fight it out on the surface. This suited the aircraft very well, which discourage the practice.Ultimately the type XXI and XXIII submarine was introduced by Germany. These types of submarines travelled faster underwater than surfaced. The former had a 16-kt submerged speed, underwater fire control and acoustic torpedoes, tuned to home on the fast running propellers. A combination of active and passive sonar enabled them to attack without raising a tell-tale periscope. Fortunately for the Allies the war ended before the type became fully operational.
The sitting duck sub
A submarine is a sitting duck no matter where it goes, unless its in the company of a other naval units. A sub can’t operate autonomously. What good are Super Submarines, Wolf Packs and U-boat Interdiction if any fighter can sink them 50% of the time, or a bomber 66% of the time, without taking a risk. There is no incentive in the game to have submarines.How to counterbalance?
A technology approach is the easiest and most balanced approach, which would make the Super Submarine development desirable.Super Submarines
Your submarines are now super submarines. They attack on a 3 and may not be attacked by enemy aircraft when alone or in company with other submarines, unless an enemy ship is present. -
Me and a couple of friends were playing and we used rules like this, but just to shake things up a little we remembered the industrial technology tech from original aa and made it worth like 45 or something, nobody went for it but at least the tech was still there…
Suggested Topics
