Research & Development Discussion - Delta+1

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.

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!

Okay, I took out all the “tech discussion” posts from the base Delta 1 thread - that I could find, and moved them to the appropriate discussion thread.  I apologize if I got one too many or I missed one.  I’m still working out the system.

Mantlefan:

The established and agreed upon rule is that free dice are based on cash on hand.  End of story.  It’s what we voted on twice for.  Your proposed change is a HUGE funadmental shift from what was agreed on to what is being proposed and frankly, I don’t see any evidence to support your claim that the originally proposed rule would break the game.  I see what you want to have happen, but we cannot over ride a majority vote twice because you want to see a change.

Before we can change the system from cash on hand to income only, you need to tell us WHY it’s broken.  Just saying it does not really mean anything, one could say the sky is pink and might be right when he said it, but not correct all the time - so try to keep your illustration broad brush.

I am listening.  If you can make a coherent argument that clearly demonstrates that for at least a majority of the time the cash on hand system is an abuse of saving some money, then we can have a discussion about it from that point on.

In your argument you might want to address the following counter-arguments:
A)  You have to save 40 IPC to get another free die.
B)  That money saved is going to cost you the game, at least most of the game, or make it very hard to recover from saving all that money.
C)  Most nations won’t be able to save that much money in one round, it will take multiple rounds to save that kind of money, which will either cost them the game or make it very hard to recover.
D.  You can buy almost three times as many dice with that money, and have a much better chance of getting a technology in your life time, than you can if you save this kind of money.
E)  The amount saved for one round to the next will almost certianly be less than or equal to 8 IPC, with the very off chance of more than that.  Certainly the instances of saving 12 IPC or more are going to be so small as to be statistically insignificant to our discussion.
F)  That saved money can be captured before your next turn, so you may not even get any free dice if you save that much money!
G)  Even if you save that money, there is only a 3% chance you will get a return on that investment.  There is a 100% chance that you will lose out on attackers, defenders, position of units and bodies to soak damage from the money you saved.

@mantlefan:

I am talking about things that are superior about the cash-on-hand system.

You don’t know that it is superior; you feel that it is superior.  After playtesting Delta 1 with the rules that have been voted for, you or anyone else may propose changes to be voted on and possibly implemented in Delta 2.  Please remember that just because you think something is true does not necessarily mean that it is true.  Each of us is entitled to our opinions, but we must also respect others’ right to theirs.

@mantlefan:

If you need a conceptual reason, we could use the fluff excuse that it takes longer to organize the scientists of a country than it does to plunder the resources. The point is that the benefits outweight the fluff.

Well that’s patently untrue!  Have you ever tried to mobilize a brigade of soldiers, their support staff, their combat support staff, the logistics required to even get them where they are going, let alone get them to do what you want them to do?

It’s far easier to get a dozen scientists together for the Manhatten Project than it ever was to get the 3rd Army from the United States to N. Africa, then to France.

This discussion should be saved for Delta 2 after playtesting Delta 1.

The point is, if you want to make a really big change to the rule that was voted on twice, you need to give me something to go back to the people with, and “I think it should be this” is not a valid enough argument.  Please respond with an indepth reason why you feel things should be changed as you are proposing.  I gave you a list of counter arguments, generally speaking, this is a godsend as it allows you to see what your opposition is going to say before they say it.  If you can counter all those arguments, you have a much better chance convincing us that we were all wrong and we all need to change our minds and do it your way.

Delta 1 is a majority rule set of rules.  We may disagree with one or two here or there, but then, we do not have to play the rule set either, and we are all free to ask our opponents to accept our house rule change to the ruleset whenever we like.  I have no idea how many games of Classic and/or Revised where we had a bid.  It was not part of the ruleset!  But we did it, because that’s how we wanted to do it.

@mantlefan:

@Cmdr:

@mantlefan:

If you need a conceptual reason, we could use the fluff excuse that it takes longer to organize the scientists of a country than it does to plunder the resources. The point is that the benefits outweight the fluff.

Well that’s patently untrue!  Have you ever tried to mobilize a brigade of soldiers, their support staff, their combat support staff, the logistics required to even get them where they are going, let alone get them to do what you want them to do?

It’s far easier to get a dozen scientists together for the Manhatten Project than it ever was to get the 3rd Army from the United States to N. Africa, then to France.

It’s a plausible explanation, that’s all that matters. You’re missing the point.

Yes, there was some clarifying text added.  Otherwise, there was only the change to threshhold amounts on what qualified you for a free die roll or not.

Mantle, thing is, you are arguing for a big shift, a completely different way to handle how technology is rolled, not changing a threshhold of what qualifies a die, not changing the price of a die, you want the entire turn order changed to:  Roll for Technology, Collect Income, Purchase New Units, Combat Movement, Conduct Combat, Non-Combat Movement, Place New Units."  In order to swallow this, you need to give us some really good justification.  None of us see the problem you do, and you won’t tell us what this huge problem is that absolutely demands this change or the game will forever be destroyed.  Maybe it exists and you can tell us what it is, but I don’t see it and without it, I cannot justify overriding two votes because you want to do it differently.

@Cmdr:

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!

I don’t follow you Jenn, but perhaps that is because I don’t usually play with tech.  Like near never.  R&D happens at the beginning of the turn, that would be when you would logically count the income +NOs.  It would require keeping track of a number to do it from the end of your last turn.  That is what CoH is doing, it is rewarding the ‘paper thin tiger’ as you put it for land grabs.

@mantlefan:

YG clearly didn’t think that changing techs from 6 to 10 and having a player pick 6 for which to roll (a brilliant idea, IMO) was too big a change for the purpose of this thread, or he wouldn’t have posted it. My point is that since there is no fair way to say which ideas are too big and which are small enough, why try to do so?

Yes, but you were the only one to show support for it.  Not to mention, I don’t want to go through the effort of trying to work out 10 technologies that are all balanced, when I already had 6.  Stop lumping more work on me!  I already have to run a tournament, play the game for fun, deal with the holidays coming up and help out here!  Sheesh, give me a break man!  Leave my pet project alone!!!

Seriously, if you think it’s broken to have cash on hand and the only way to fix it is to change to collect income only, then please give us WHY it is broken the way we have it now, but not broken your way.  You seem to be stalling, hoping for someone to give you the answer.  Common man!  Tell us WHY, don’t just demand it be changed without reason!

I gave you 7 reasons it is not broken to keep it as is.  You have given us 0 reasons that it is broken.

Keep in mind, if you successfully argue that it’s broken, I have an argument that it should exclude ALL income that is not from control of territories.  So don’t shoot yourself in the foot by trying to win an argument that probably does not need to be won!

@Cmdr:

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.  
right.  No extra tech dice for minor powers, we get it.  They’re lucky if they can get 1 free die.  And remember this is a 6 player game. :roll:

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.
I disagree, people will save ipcs if its just a few to make it to the next free die.  They won’t save alot…of course I’m talking about the major powers here, cause the little guys get the shaft.

I don’t like it, you’re shutting out the little guys and then pouring on the options for the agressors who take capitals and get paid plus free tech!

No one has bothered to try and argue why the new system is better, or counter the arguments made before.  We have changed the basis of the argument of income instead of cash on hand from “they’re going to save all this money!” to “well we don’t want to reward people for trading territories.”  Which really is not income based since you collect for the income at the end of your round, so you would have already earned that reward.

Argument:

1. Cash on Hand after you collect your income, before you roll dice.
2. Income collected at the end of your turn, before you roll dice.

@JimmyHat:

@Cmdr:

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!

I don’t follow you Jenn, but perhaps that is because I don’t usually play with tech.  Like near never.  R&D happens at the beginning of the turn, that would be when you would logically count the income +NOs.  It would require keeping track of a number to do it from the end of your last turn.  That is what CoH is doing, it is rewarding the ‘paper thin tiger’ as you put it for land grabs.

@JimmyHat:

I don’t like it, you’re shutting out the little guys and then pouring on the options for the agressors who take capitals and get paid plus free tech!

Go back and read the rule.  It’s been fixed already.  Little guys can get 1 die free unless they have been crushed.  Some might even get 2 dice like the big boys.

However, money from capitols was already included - just because I was the only person to think of it and bring it up does not mean it was not always there!  It’s like the first guy who thought of the can-opener.

@Young:

Let’s do this in two parts, the free dice scale with all rolling rules and the tech chart.

I like Jens free dice scale and mantlefans rolling rules, now I would like to discuss the possibility of my 10 tech chart idea.

Wait.  You don’t get it, Young.  If we go to Mantlefan’s way then we have eliminated the only reason we made these changes in the first place - the whole premise was so that smaller nations had a chance at all of getting any technologies.  If it’s only what you earn and only what you had at the start of your round, it will be very simple to plain shut down nations like Russia, Italy, Australia.  We did not want that!  We wanted everyone to have a chance!

I am more in favor of no purchased dice at all than I am in locking nations out of being able to get a technology!

Example:  Italy has 9 IPC at the start of it’s turn.  It liberates Albania and collects 10 IPC at the end of it’s turn.  Why should it not get a free roll?  It’s the allies’ fault for letting them liberate it in the first place!  Put the onus on the defender, not the attacker!

Example:  India has 11 IPC, buys 3 infantry.  It now has 2 IPC saved.  It then collects 8 IPC next round.  Why should they be banned from rolling a technology die?  They earned that die with the blood of their people just like anyone else!

If you need a “fluff” reason:  “They stole the research materials when plundering the territory!”  It’s common practice for the American soldier to search for intelligence and valuables when taking a new piece of land, bunker or clearing the bodies of traps.

@Cmdr:

@mantlefan:

YG clearly didn’t think that changing techs from 6 to 10 and having a player pick 6 for which to roll (a brilliant idea, IMO) was too big a change for the purpose of this thread, or he wouldn’t have posted it. My point is that since there is no fair way to say which ideas are too big and which are small enough, why try to do so?

Yes, but you were the only one to show support for it.  Not to mention, I don’t want to go through the effort of trying to work out 10 technologies that are all balanced, when I already had 6.  Stop lumping more work on me!  I already have to run a tournament, play the game for fun, deal with the holidays coming up and help out here!  Sheesh, give me a break man!  Leave my pet project alone!!!

Seriously, if you think it’s broken to have cash on hand and the only way to fix it is to change to collect income only, then please give us WHY it is broken the way we have it now, but not broken your way.  You seem to be stalling, hoping for someone to give you the answer.  Common man!  Tell us WHY, don’t just demand it be changed without reason!

I gave you 7 reasons it is not broken to keep it as is.  You have given us 0 reasons that it is broken.

Keep in mind, if you successfully argue that it’s broken, I have an argument that it should exclude ALL income that is not from control of territories.  So don’t shoot yourself in the foot by trying to win an argument that probably does not need to be won!

Hold on a sec YG, lets get through this first.  I got some reasons why CoH is inferior to Income.

1. CoH can be adjusted by the player, by saving ipcs.  This cannot be disrupted by your opponents.
2. CoH adds another reward to the nation that captures a captial besides the large ipc infusion.
3. CoH rewards sloppy play and foolish land grabs.
4. CoH doesn’t provide an incentive for all nations to defend the front over defense in depth.  Look especially at France here, but really everywhere.

My proposal for tech

I would like to see tech take effect at the end of the turn as opposed to the beginning right after the role.  Call it ‘reequipping time’ or something.  To be clear, you still R&D at the beginning, and then get the tech at the end.

@Cmdr:

@JimmyHat:

I don’t like it, you’re shutting out the little guys and then pouring on the options for the agressors who take capitals and get paid plus free tech!

Go back and read the rule.  It’s been fixed already.  Little guys can get 1 die free unless they have been crushed.  Some might even get 2 dice like the big boys.

However, money from capitols was already included - just because I was the only person to think of it and bring it up does not mean it was not always there!  It’s like the first guy who thought of the can-opener.

What?

I understand the ‘little guy’ gets 1 free die.  He doesn’t get anymore and he’s extremely lucky to get that one if he does.

I’ll try and see what the second part is about….Money from captials, right.  I don’t get it.  Money from capitals is included in CoH…

EDIT:  really I’m not following you Jenn, I don’t understand what this post of yours is even about.

Jim:

No, the little guy gets NOTHING if you stop them from saving IPC to qualify for their one die.  That’s my biggest beef with the INCOME only rule.

If we go income only, then it should be based on what territories you control at the end of your round, use that to figure out what amount of free dice you get.  National Objectives, Saved Money and Captured Money are all “extra” income that should either all be counted, or none of it counted.

I guess after a turn or 10 everyone will have every tech in the game  :|

Let me try to explain this:

1. As it stands now, the little guy can use that one or two IPC they saved because they had nothing realistic to purchase to qualify for a single die roll for technology.  This is literally the only level where saving money makes sense as after the first die, it’s prohibitively expensive to save money.  If it is not prohibitive enough, then we can increase the charts until you are happy no one is saving money, unless it is to qualify for the level 1 die (or you are within like 3-5 IPC of the next rung.)

2. Under the new system proposed by mantlefan, you have to look at what territories you have at the start of your next round to determine what dice you get.  This is going to abuse things like Germany racing a transport down to deny England a second die.  Or Russia suiciding a tank to prevent a German second die.  Small nations are going to get CREAMED just to prevent them from getting a die, EVER.  I’d dedicate 3 transports a loaded carrier, a destroyer and a battleship to making sure India and Australia are permanently prevented from getting a free die for technology - EVER.  It’s too easy to do, keep it under 10 IPC and it gets no die.

If we go with the second system, then we should eliminate ALL income that is not territory related.  That way the little guy can get some payback taking a territory the big guys need for their second or third dice too!