A new Tech available MOAB

@armedace
Those are some pretty cool ideas, I’ve thought about incorporating marines and how to do so-your ideas seem good. I also like the idea of interceptors at 2, more realistic and makes you think about SBR more. Although I’m not so sure about reducing air bases costs and increasing their ability to scramble to nearby land-seems OP.

You have some thoughts about new rules and new units for the Milton Bradley-era A&A? I am right there with you. I posted some thoughts late last year / early this year. I will link them below so that you can find them. If you want to discuss these rules, I recommend commenting on the relevant post rather than right here. But you do you.

One thing I will mention. I like paratroopers and paratrooper rules. But using bombers to cart around paratroopers is both silly and not historically accurate. So, I wrote rules for another new unit, the Air Transport or Cargo Plane unit. Think of them as Transports in the sky - with less cargo capacity and more movement points. See, when you fold in both the Paratrooper and their trusty steeds, the cargo plane / air transport, then I think you’ve got something…

Midnight_Reaper’s New A&A Classic Rules:
1(Classic) Simple Cruiser Rules for Classic: https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=41100.0
1a(Classic) Cruisers or Destroyers for Classic?: https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=41552.0
2(Classic) Paratrooper and Air Transport Rules for Classic: https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=41101.0
3(Classic) Armored Cavalry and Troopers - Rules for two ground units for Classic: https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=41157.0
4(Classic) Heavy Artillery - Rules for a new ground unit for Classic: https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=41158.0
5(Classic) New Research Rules - Outsmart your Enemies: https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=41479.0
6(Classic) New Research Tech for Classic: https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=41480.0
6a(Classic) New Research Tech for Classic, at a Lower Dose: https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=41481.0
7(Classic) National Advantages - A new way to help balance Classic: https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=41482.0
8(Classic) New Unit Surcharge - New Economics for Classic : https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=41483.0
9(Classic) Special Forces - New Optional Unit for Classic: https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=41484.0
9a(Classic) More Special Forces Options for Classic: https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=41485.0
10(Classic) Incendiary Thoughts - Strategic Bombing and Classic: https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=41486.0
11(Classic) Unit Prices & Balance - New Economics for Classic: https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=41487.0
12(Classic) New Initial Setup - New Setup for Classic: https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=41551.0

Like I said, I have some thoughts on the subject…  And I’m not even done with this series, just mostly done…  :-D

-Midnight_Reaper

@Pjor:

The second unit is Heavy Tank. A:3 D:3 M:2 cost: 9.
This unit will represent the heavy late-war tanks. Examples are the Soviet Josef Stalin tanks, British Churchill and German Tiger tank. Aside that it function as a normal tank it will rise it’s attack value to 4 if it’s combined with a mechanized infantry OR tactical bomber.

Tanks already Attack @3, Defend @3 and Move 2 for a cost of 6 IPCs. “Heavy” tanks should attack and defend @ 4 if they will cost 9 IPCs.
Also, there has been discussion in other threads that “Heavy” tanks should only move 1, or at least can not Blitz. This is due to the fact that they are so big and heavy. For example: The King Tiger tank was a very tough tank but was also kind of big and cumbersome. Part of that problem was that the engine was underpowered so they just couldn’t go very fast at all. However, if the movement is cut down to 1, perhaps the cost should also drop to 8.

One member came up with a pretty good formula to figure out the cost for land units: Attack + Defense + Movement - 1 = Cost.
For an example, say Heavy Tanks at 4-4-2-9. This works out perfectly. Attack 4(4) + Defense 4 (8) + Movement 2 (10) - 1 = Cost 9.
Now try Artillery: Attack 2 (2) + Defense 2 (4) + Movement 1 (5) -1 = Cost 4.
It actually doesn’t work for tanks since they changed the values to 3-3-2-6. By the formula, tanks should cost 7. Some have argued that OOB tanks should be considered “Medium” and should only defend at 2, which would fit the formula 3+2+2-1=6. Unfortunately, others say if you lower the defense to 2, then cost should go down to 5, which screws up the formula again.
Personally, I would be fine with Medium tanks at 3-2-2-6 because it also allowes for Tank Destroyer units (currently being put out by HBG) that would switch Attack/Defense values (2-3-2-6).

By the way, this formula does NOT work for aircraft or naval vessels. I don’t know if anyone has figured out a formula for them yet.

Most times simple is better.  Production and economics with AA although simple, provide enough richness to allow for economics to be part of a war game without putting us to sleep.

So an IC built in Egypt can build two units for an infrastructure investment of 15 IPC.  But that same 15 IPC when spent in Western Europe allows the owner to build six units.  The same 15 IPC provides for two different results.   Why?  Is this fair?  I’ll use the map for '42 for examples.

Fair enough.

The argument that because the host territory has a value of six versus two provides for the basis of my defense of this.  The sizx income represents a pre-existing level of infrastructure versus that of Egypt’s two.  The 15 IPC investment leverages the pre-existing level of infrastructure.

But…

There is a big difference between an IC in Egypt pumping out two battleships per round for the current owner Japan compared to an IC in Western Europe owned by Germany pumping out 6 infantry per round.

What about factoring in the value of what is being produced at the IC?   Allow a base multiplier to be spent say (3-5 IPC) * (Max # of units that can be built at the IC in this location).  This value would represent what could be spent at that IC with no production penalties.   A couple of brackets larger than this value would be created to allow for more money to be spent at this IC with a financial penalty increasing per bracket.  This penalty would represent the loss in productivity per IPC spent to ‘over-drive’ production levels ie over-time etc.  A top end cap could be established.  Japan can spend 20 IPC in Egypt for example but not 40.  Yes, you can build one battleship or two fighters per turn in Egypt, but the infrastructure there would never support two battleships per turn in production.

It would make it a bit more expensive to save up your money then drop several turns worth of savings down in one build of 12 bombers in Western USA, indeed, you could build 12 fighters but only 10 bombers, your IPC cap there might be 120 IPC of production costing you 125% of 120 with the 25% production overdrive penalty.   You could still spend 60 IPC per turn with no penalty.

It would make SBRs a bit more effective.  It would cost the victim of SBRs a bit more to just save money for 2-3 rounds then max repair the IC and build a stack of tanks and fighters.  Indeed, the repair costs to the IC could be included in the  totals and caps.

I would be interested in what others think about this.

My suggestion to the downtime while another player is doing their turn is beer.  In the group I play with, the players who are not involved chill out with a couple of brewskies and some light-hearted conversation.  Just don’t let the alcohol sway your tactical decisions too much.

I used to prefer this idea but this new idea not only does that, it has other advantages as well.

@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!

Hello.  I am digging up this as the tech lovers/haters discussions have started to heat up.

I re-read your thoughts and am wondering if you ever did anything more with this idea of a tech pointing system.  Did you ever come up with point targets for each tech?

The neat thing about this is that it can be easily tweaked with out re-writing the whole process.

Or you could go one step further and adjust the targets by country too.  For example, make super subs very low (read affordable) for Russian super subs or something like that, or even harder for the wealthy countries (like extra points for USA for Long Range)