Tech question

I like tech gaming  :-D

My group feels it dilutes the strategic value of the game and makes it more based on luck

You can prevent this (based more on Luck) with house rules I think,
like the SienceToken from AAA50 (I love them) for example.
But in the end all comes down to luck while rolling the dice,
it dosen´t matter how perfect your strategy or tactic is,
if you loose a fight you never thought could happen.
For example 1 defending infantry stops 3-4 attacking infantry (supported by aircraft).
Happens rarely but it happens, in my games at least once an evening  :-o

And since most of the techs have been reduced effectiveness
like heavy bombers , Long range aircraft or have been totaly dropped out
like Insturdial Tech (Inf only cost 2 IPC) there is no supreme tech anymore that wins the game. At least thats what I believe…

My group was thinking of a house rules

• add 5 ipcs per roll to target your technology as in AA Revised 2004
• use the token system from AA50 but have to be at war to research
• can only spend upto the amount of victory city each nation controls.  i.e. ANZAC has Sydney can only buy one researcher. Can also be used in conjunction with the research tokens.  The nation can never have more tokens than the amount of VC’s We are also talking about making capital VC’s counting as two but not sure

Personally, I’m not a real big fan of tech in the way that it’s been implemented.  There’s enough luck in the game already.

The reason that it was made an optional rule is partially because there are so many players who don’t like it.  Larry wanted to give them a choice other than house-ruling it out.

Krieg, how would you have preferred to see Tech implemented in the game? In a more steady/progressive style?

Yes.

I am not sure the best way to make tech manageable and playable but I find that it is terrible as is right now. I think progressive might have been better but then you start to fall into a game that is dictated to you and your just going through the motions.

As I said I am not sure the best to have implemented tech but the current way could not have been the best way in my opinion.

One research token for 5IPC after you capture a victory city. This biases towards the axis, but I’m thinking that that can be a good thing in this game. One roll each turn. When you hit a six, you roll again to pick which branch (odds = 1, evens = 2). Then you roll for the tech. Variations on this might work.

Maybe, to make it fairer, there is just one tech per power, but it can’t be placed in their capital unless they only have one victory city. China has no tech, but ANZAC do, because we invented the photocopier and the multiple beer tap. For example, Japan might get a tech token if it takes Hong Kong, but not India. Italy gets one if it takes Cairo. Germany gets one if it take one of the  Russian cities that the Russian player declared includes a tech token. Russia gets one if it takes Warsaw and the US get one if it takes Rome. That sort of thing. US would probably need to put one in Hawaii which could prompt Japan to attack earlier, to their detriment… but they will eventually get a tech (probably -maybe not).

The nations were constantly collecting foreign scientists for their own efforts.

I’m currently playing a game which we borrowed some house rules from the previous poster in this thread. We are using tech tokens for 5 IPC’s each, but you can only purchase as many tech tokens as you have Victory Cities. You can purchase tech tokens, but may not take the rolls unless you are at war. So to start out the game Germany could buy 2 tech tokens. If they fail that first roll, then the next turn they could buy 1 more if they had taken out Paris. If not then they could only keep using the 2 they had left over from the previous turn. This version has taken away a lot of the luck aspect of tech which is nice. It also limits the amount of tech you can roll a turn so no power has an excessive amount. Small powers also have a harder time getting them.