I like the ideas of the trucks, the game does need some help moving troops
The general fix for the 2 movement for tourney rules to me is not good.
Could even limit the amounts of trucks, for countries like they do I. Battle of the bulge
Research & Development Discussion - Delta+1
-
We cannot have ‘free dice’ techs that are weaker than ‘pay dice’. ANZAC/Italy and other minors cannot afford dice, so they could never get the ‘cool’ techs.
Jenn this is 5+ player game!
-
I vote similar to Special forces. I don’t like the 5 ipc limit or the min/max of purchased dice. 10 ipcs sounds about right.
-
We cannot have ‘free dice’ techs that are weaker than ‘pay dice’. ANZAC/Italy and other minors cannot afford dice, so they could never get the ‘cool’ techs.
Jenn this is 5+ player game!
I haven’t seen anything that suggests a separate chart for free dice and one for purchased dice. I would vote against that, but lets not talk about charts yet.
-
So thats 2 for #4, and 2 for #5…. I wonder how Jen will swing the vote :roll:
-
Wait, I disagree with YGs threshholds for free dice. Vance and I agreed on 50 IPC per rung so we’d actually have:
0-9 IPC no dice
10-49 IPC 1 die
50-99 IPC 2 dice
100-149 IPC 3 dice
150-199 IPC 4 dice
200-249 IPC 5 dice
250+ 6 dice
I agree to qualifications - they are so written in the second draft on Page 10 (or 11).
Research and Development should be rolled prior to collecting income - but dice should be determined before you start your turn based on whatever qualifying cash you have.
Qualifying cash should include: Money you collected on the previous turn for both NOs and Territories. I say at least 5 IPC or all IPC you saved from your purchase last round as well.
Development Chart:
A) Was this not voted on already? I know we voted on dropping it to 6 different technologies and that the pairings are as shown. We did not vote on what - specifically, each of the technologies now do - but which one is now combined with the other we did.
B) I don’t mind discussing each technology later, what Rockets mean, what LRA means, what War Bonds mean.
C) We can also determine, at that time, which half or if the whole technology can be attained by free dice and which requires purchased dice.
-
We cannot have ‘free dice’ techs that are weaker than ‘pay dice’. ANZAC/Italy and other minors cannot afford dice, so they could never get the ‘cool’ techs.
Jenn this is 5+ player game!
I agree, but if we are to split the dice into lesser and stronger technologies, then I feel the weaker ones should be free the stronger ones should be the weaker AND stronger ones combined.
Example 1: Let’s pretend Rockets and War Bonds are one technology and we agreed that Rockets were weaker. (Just an example, not saying this happened!) Italy gets this technology with 1 free die, so they only get Rockets not warbonds. America gets this technology with purchased dice and gets both Rockets AND warbonds.
Example 2: Same scenario, except both Italy and America get both War Bond and Rockets
I would prefer #2, but I am okay with #1.
-
@Cmdr:
Wait, I disagree with YGs threshholds for free dice. Vance and I agreed on 50 IPC per rung so we’d actually have:
0-9 IPC no dice
10-49 IPC 1 die
50-99 IPC 2 dice
100-149 IPC 3 dice
150-199 IPC 4 dice
200-249 IPC 5 dice
250+ 6 diceI’m ready to agree with this scale for two reason….
1. I’m frustrated with your lack of compromise.
2. It is very rare that any power will see over $150 with just income +NOs
I agree to qualifications - they are so written in the second draft on Page 10 (or 11).
OK… so be it for the qualifications
Research and Development should be rolled prior to collecting income - but dice should be determined before you start your turn based on whatever qualifying cash you have.
To complicated, not one of the options presented, no more time for thoughts in the wind, and…… R&D dice should be based on the NOs and income gained in the same round you’re rolling, in order to promote and reward aggressive game play.
Qualifying cash should include: Money you collected on the previous turn for both NOs and Territories. I say at least 5 IPC or all IPC you saved from your purchase last round as well.
So based on the options that everyone has voted for (2 for #4, and 2 for #5) I guess you will be voting for option #5, which allows a $5 carry over to be included in the total after income+ NOs
The option that offed the choice of using cash on hand from previous turns didn’t receive any votes.
Development Chart:
A) Was this not voted on already? I know we voted on dropping it to 6 different technologies and that the pairings are as shown. We did not vote on what - specifically, each of the technologies now do - but which one is now combined with the other we did.
B) I don’t mind discussing each technology later, what Rockets mean, what LRA means, what War Bonds mean.
C) We can also determine, at that time, which half or if the whole technology can be attained by free dice and which requires purchased dice.
A. if somewhere in this thread I agreed to some chart, I wish to open the discussion again (you get what you want with my scale, I’m getting my hands in your chart)
B. OK…. we will discuss individual technologies later, agreed.
C. This is the first time I have heard of this, and I Absolutely disagree with it. I must have been playing A&A when this got cooked up. Free dice rolling @6, is just as valuable as a purchased dice rolling @6 and may roll for tech on the same chart.
-
@Vance:
I was thinking you could get to choose which of the two you want. If I was UK I might want the radar; if I was Germany I might want the rockets.
-
@Vance:
@Vance:
I was thinking you could get to choose which of the two you want. If I was UK I might want the radar; if I was Germany I might want the rockets.
I will be making a proposal to amend the chart. It will consist of 10 individual technologies, and at the point of developing one tech from the chart of 10 (only 1 allowed per round), the power developing will choose 6, and than roll a 6 sided die to develop one. However, we are not discussing the chart until we resolve the issues at hand, but I will say this…. I’m not agreeing to any situation that allows a power to choose their tech without a roll of the dice.
-
I’m not happy with 10 technologies. It’s far easier to keep it as 6 technologies as we all have six sided dice. You’re lucky enough getting a breakthrough, I don’t think you should completely eliminate the chance it’s useless for you at the current time.
-
@Cmdr:
I’m not happy with 10 technologies. It’s far easier to keep it as 6 technologies as we all have six sided dice. You’re lucky enough getting a breakthrough, I don’t think you should completely eliminate the chance it’s useless for you at the current time.
I didn’t say we would be rolling 10 sided dice, I said there is a chart of 10, you pick 6 of them than you roll a 6 sided dice. you would of course be picking the 6 that are most useful to you, so there is an element of getting what you want, but not choosing exactly what you want, Mantlefan called it “brilliant” before he was booted.
-
@Cmdr:
Half tech
If a player wins a tech, they can choose ONE of the options (e.g. radar or rockets if they get a 6). If they win that same tech again, they automatically get the remaining option (e.g. if they chose rockets the first time, they get radar the second time). If they already have both of them, they get nothing.Sorry but this got taken way out of context and misinterpreted. What I meant was you would roll however many research dice you have and if you get a 6 you roll again. you would look at the chart to see which pair of techs go with that number. Then you pick one. You do not get two.
-
Wait a minute, what if each country had its own tech chart? That way Russia wouldn’t get super subs but something they could use.
We could have 6 techs for 6 powers, that 36 different options! Lots for people to get creative in. Just an idea that might also allow us to balance weaker countries to stronger ones. ANZAC could get a really cool tech while US has 6 mediocre ones.
-
Wait a minute, what if each country had its own tech chart? That way Russia wouldn’t get super subs but something they could use.
We could have 6 techs for 6 powers, that 36 different options! Lots for people to get creative in. Just an idea that might also allow us to balance weaker countries to stronger ones. ANZAC could get a really cool tech while US has 6 mediocre ones.
Considering the popularity of National Advantages in the recent poll, I predict that there will be plenty of “national special abilities” for each power in the future…. no need to burn down the current progress in order to start building the Titanic.
-
Jimmy,
That would be AWESOME! Except, it’s not KISS, right? :-P
Grasshopper,
I dont like choose at all. I think it should really be 1 chart of 6, which is the reason we got rid of two charts, or maybe we follow Jimmy’s suggestion and come up with 9 or 10 different technologies and then decide which nations qualify so that all have 6 to choose from. The other part of this that might be good is that we could say they get 2 each as “advantages” and choose them at the start of the game, as an optional rule - and you could CHOOSE to do that instead of having technology at all - or you could choose to do neither advantages or technologies (or objectives. If things are going optional, objectives should be optional too.)
-
@Young:
Wait a minute, what if each country had its own tech chart? That way Russia wouldn’t get super subs but something they could use.
We could have 6 techs for 6 powers, that 36 different options! Lots for people to get creative in. Just an idea that might also allow us to balance weaker countries to stronger ones. ANZAC could get a really cool tech while US has 6 mediocre ones.
Considering the popularity of National Advantages in the recent poll, I predict that there will be plenty of “national special abilities” for each power in the future…. no need to burn down the current progress in order to start building the Titanic.
Yes, but think of all the problems that would be solved if we created a list of 6 “advantages” for each nation to choose from and just dropped Research all together? Jimmy wouldnt complain that Technology breaks the game, we wouldn’t have to bicker about 10 vs 6, there would no longer be a concern over saving money to qualify for free dice, even smaller nations (which maybe only get 3 choices to choose from?) would get at least one “technology” or “advantage.”
Example:
- Russia, Japan, Germany and America choose 2 technologies or advantages
- Italy, Australia and England choose 1 technology - or advantage
(That, by design, gives the allies 1 more advantage than the axis and is even in all other respects.)
We could then tailor a list of advantages so they:
A) make historical sense.
B) are different between countries.By removing R&D and just going NAs we can elect to use some “technologies” as NAs.
-
Haven’t really foillowed this topic, but if you use 2 x D6, and exclude double 1’s, then you have 10 different numbers you can throw (3 to 12)
(with some numbers that will happen more often then others)
-
@special:
Haven’t really foillowed this topic, but if you use 2 x D6, and exclude double 1’s, then you have 10 different numbers you can throw (3 to 12)
(with some numbers that will happen more often then others)
Fails to follow KISS. Right?
Here’s my KISS test: I ask my 9 year old son if he understands. If he cannot understand it, a lot of people on the internet won’t either (there are some really stupid people. As Carlin said: “Think of house stupid the average person is, then realize half of them are stupider than that!”)
-
@Cmdr:
@special:
Haven’t really foillowed this topic, but if you use 2 x D6, and exclude double 1’s, then you have 10 different numbers you can throw (3 to 12)
(with some numbers that will happen more often then others)
Fails to follow KISS. Right?
Here’s my KISS test: I ask my 9 year old son if he understands. If he cannot understand it, a lot of people on the internet won’t either (there are some really stupid people. As Carlin said: “Think of house stupid the average person is, then realize half of them are stupider than that!”)
Are the 10 desired techs seperable in 2 categories of 5? (like originally 6 air-naval, and 6 land) ?
If so, its’ simple: 1 = throw again.
-
No. If we got rid of the 4 lamo technologies for each nation we’d still have 12+ technologies. I think the only one no one would want is the current incarnation of War Bonds and if we change it to best of 2d6 +2 that would change too.
Suggested Topics
