Research & Development Discussion - Delta+1

@general-6-stars Yes, I would like to see that.

Research is super fun, but can seriously unbalance the game if a player gets lucky with their first couple rolls. Therefore, we play that the player chooses which tech to research, however better techs have a lower chance of being successfully researched.

The mechanism of researching is the same, you buy research tokens (dice rolls), roll for success, if none hit the tokens are banked for next turn and can roll again at no cost, if successful the tech is gained and the tokens are removed and must be rebought to do more research . The cost of each token (die roll) is increased to 8 IPC (normally is 5). But, tier 1 techs will be successfully researched with a roll of 3 or lower, tier 2 with roll of 2 or lower, and tier 3 with roll of 1:

(3/6 chance) 1. adv artillery, inc factory prod . || mech infantry, war bonds
(2/6 chance) 2. long-range aircraft, radar . . . . || paratroopers, rockets
(1/6 chance) 3. heavy bombers, super subs . . || jet fighters, improved shipyards

To balance out how multiple techs are gained, we separated complimentary tech into opposing groups to prevent them from easily being researched too quickly back-back and becoming OP. To research a tier 2 or 3 tech at least one tech from the tier below must be already obtained from WITHIN the branch. Note, the techs are separated into left and right branches.

So to get heavy bombers (left, tier 3), you could research adv artillery or factory prod (left, tier 1) then radar or long-range air (left, tier 2). Then, to get jet fighters (right, tier 3), you’d have to also research 2 corresponding lower tier techs in the right branch, because adv artillery/radar/etc. don’t count towards the necessary lower tier techs for the right branch.

Thoughts?

What do you think about implementing respectively national adventeges  from 1941 spring (included in Larry Harris tournament rules v 2.0)  to the 1942 2ed?

Especialy together with a initialy proposed by Larry Harris new setup.

I think, especialy the Soviet –Japan non aggression treaty would make the game a lot more historical correct.

If you think it would be accepteble the problem is German Scientists national idea is not implementabe to the 1943 2ed, since in 1942 2ed there is no weapon development, so  I think, it could be replaced by Fortress Europe (included in Larry Harris tournament rules v 1.3) or some national ideas from Mr. Andersson’s House Rules for Axis & Allies Revised v1.1

Personaly I woul prefer using one or two of national ideas per country, if using this national idea would not destroy the game balance  at all.

Also I do not know, wheter the Panzerblitz national idea:

(Panzerblitz THE COLOSSAL PANZERS RUMBLED ACROSS EUROPE AND NORTH AFRICA. THEY WOULD BREACH ENEMY LINES, THEN TURN AND WREAK HAVOC ON THE 38 DEFENDERS. If your attacking forces destroy all defending units in a territory in one cycle of combat; or, if no combat was necessary, any of your surviving tanks in the attacking forces may move 1 territory during the noncombat move phase.)

means, that the tank can move not only to a friendly  territory (due to the standard non combat movement rules), but also to enemy controlled (but not enemy occupied territory).

What is correct understanding of it?

I am also afraid, that the Luftwaffe Dive-Bomber national idea:

(EUROPE WAS BLITZED AND BOMBED. THE JU-87 STUKA DIVE-BOMBER, A SMALL PLANE, PLAYED A BIG ROLE. ITS SCREAMING SIREN GENERATED TERROR ON ALL BATTLE FRONTS. Your fighters may conduct first round tactical bombing runs. They are subject to antiaircraft fire as normal. In the first cycle of combat, if there are no defending fighters present, the fighters hit on a roll of 5 or less in land battles only. Any units hit still fire back normally in that round of combat. In succeeding cycles of combat, the fighters hit normally. If defending fighters are present, this first cycle ability is cancelled.)

can make, that the odds in potential intitial G1 battle in West Russia can get slightly towards Germany, but I did not check it out precisely yet.

Imperious Leader, SS, and myself have been discussing “Call Shots”, or as I (still) think of them: “pick the hit unit on 1”, in my thread about adding Heavy Artillery to Classic A&A. I pasted in the full transcript below. I thought I would break this out to its own conversation.

So far, what is being discussed as a Call Shot is when a player rolls a 1 when attacking with Battleships, Tactical Bombers, or Heavy Artillery, the player who rolls the one picks the unit taken as a loss.

I am very skeptical of Call Shots. I will admit that I haven’t played with such rules so I don’t have any personal experience. And while I wouldn’t call it game-breaking to give certain units special powers when I roll a 1 for your attack, it just doesn’t sit well in my mind.

So I thought I would make this a separate topic so that others could chime in. I’m willing to be convinced and admit that I do need to try it out. But I also doubt that I’m the only one for whom the thought of my opponent picking my losses leaves a bad taste in my mouth…

-Midnight_Reaper

Full transcript:
@SS:

@Midnight_Reaper:

@SS:

@Midnight_Reaper:

@Imperious:

1 on Attack roll you pick the target with no return fire

Try it one of two ways:

what we call a “call shot” pick land unit as loss alternatively if you roll a one, defender chooses loss and that unit cant fire back

you will like one of these options

I would have to try them out before I could give a full opinion of them. My question to you is: why the emphasis on ‘pick the hit unit on 1’ rules? Is this a new addition to the meta of house rules here? Submarines have pretty much also fought this way, but I’ve previously seen proposed house rules for Tac Bombers to ‘pick their hit on 1’. Is this becoming a thing?

Should I start a new thread to ask about the popularity and usefulness of ‘pick your hit on 1’ critical strike rules?

-Midnight_Reaper

I have in my WW2 40 game Tac (Dive) bombers  D12  A7 D4 M4 C10 roll a 2 or less on A and D can pick target with no return shot for ground and naval. The 2 or less roll hit is for more of a accurate shot on a piece. So I use the Tac as a 2 different scenario.

Also in one of my 39 games there are Dive Bombers and Naval Figs that can pick the target on a 4 (Dive) or 1 (Fig) but the defender still gets a return shot while the attacker gets to pick the piece.
Pretty much these pieces are in just the 39 games and anybody that has housed ruled there game (G40 OOB) but just a few if any. From what I’ve seen posted on site anyway.

It must have been your Tac Bomber rules that I read. It just seems like the idea of “He shoots, he scores, he crits, he picks the casualty!” has become something I’ve noticed of late. As I’ve said before, I’m not a big fan of that idea in the abstract, but I will admit to really needing to try it out for real before I can truly say that I don’t like it at all.

-Midnight_Reaper

The main reason for Tac Bombers to have this call shot is for both ground and naval attacks plus it gets the Tac Bomber more involved in the game. There like the Cruiser. Nobody really buys them. Thats also why my Cruiser is (D12)  A7 D7 M2 C9. (but you need to lower your destroyers 1 value in A and D). So Destroyers would be A3 D3.  Its a good boost for Anzac, FEC and Italy. As I stated before you need to play test everything.

You could try with the defender at least gets a return shot if you have your doubts.

@SS:

@Imperious:

My question to you is: why the emphasis on ‘pick the hit unit on 1’ rules?

This again is what we call : Call shot

Having something that breaks up the idea that the loser of the unit can choose whatever he wants as a combat loss is a good thing. The artillery units generally carpet bomb whole areas of the battlefield, and Heavy Artillery doing the most damage. Second having such a unit makes it very valuable in the game, by playing you will find out. Thirdly its really fun and i would further suggest the Battleship have this capability. Reason: because the BB has the guns of the greatest range and can shoot targets before they can fire back as they need to be closer to even have a chance.

Oh great IL. Now I got to add this to my Battleships in games !  :-D

Death Heads plays by me and he wanted the no return shot from Battleships and Cruisers  for 39 game and we played 2 games that way but the rest of guys in group didn’t want it. Go figure. I can at least see the Battleship Bombardment hit gets a no return shot. its like pulling teeth with some people but what it is is what it is.  :wink:

True, but it also represents the other German cruisers on the loose in the Pacific, South Atlantic & and Indian Oceans that cannot be represented. These were a serious concern for the Allies until eliminated.

Some people made them into technology, but i like them just as new pieces. and Table tactics makes mines already.

@Trisdin:

@Imperious:

A factory is france is worse for Germany, while the others listed are clearly in favor to benefit those players.

Perhaps Romania is best actually. Then Germany can build ships for Medd. Yes i like this better

Romania is a good idea, it gives Germany a second sea zone to build ships in and it allows germany to build land units closer to Russia, but is it historicaly accurate or viable.

yeah, it’s viable: didn’t antonescu aide the germans allot?

I like the China mod Idea, would like to give it a try.
However, I think these might be some possible options for the House rule.

1.  China can only purchase Infantry and artillery,  perhaps add a new unit, Cavalry!  at 2,1,2,4?
2.  U.S. is and Russia can fly aircraft to chinese capital, on subsequent turn they become chinese.
3.  Japan should start with a bomber and an extra sub or destroyer in 41 and an extra carrier and f2 fighters in 42 to balance this out.