Enhanced Weapons Development Chart

Hello Zaibach,

Sorry for the late response.  Yes, the UK takes a major Turn 1 hit in the Med from this system.  It also prevents the UK from launching a “Taranto Raid” against Italy in Turn 1.

However, this is later counterbalanced by the Allies ability to attack together simultaneously.  It is a lot easier for the US and UK forces to unite and launch an attack into N. Africa and the Med in Turn 3 or Turn 4.

We’ve played about 10 games now with the 3-Turn system and have had wins on both Axis and Allied sides.

Also, it looks like you’ve made submarines 1 IPC cheaper and given them a convoy raiding ability, without any real compensating disadvantages. You’ve changed the submerge ability, but on balance I think the submerge ability is still equally powerful. I think submarines are already a pretty good buy OOB at 6 IPCs, in part because they are the cheapest ship and therefore often the best available fodder.

One thing to know about Subs A2first strike A1 C5 is that loosing them on defense as fodder, is a pretty good news to the attacker. Because, if they submerge, they will gets a much better attack factor than DDs, and for 5 IPCs, pretty cheap to buy. Also, you cannot use them as fodder against other sub.
So, on offence, it is better to lose DDs because A2 first strike should be preserved.
On defense, it is better to use your Sub later, hence Submerging eventually.
And Subs cannot hit subs so you must pick DD as fodder instead.

@CWO:

Cruiser sculpts are actually fairly easy to distinguish from destroyer sculpts because the destoyer sculpts nearly all have transom sterns, which means that the back part of the ship is square or, in a couple of cases, rounded.  The cruisers have cruiser sterns, which are pointed.  (The first version of the German Hipper-class cruiser had a transom stern, but it was changed to a cruiser stern later.)

This is a good point.  The ‘flat’ stern of the Destroyers is a distinguishing feature except in the case of Russia, whose Cruiser also has a transom stern.  You’re right, I mean – to the discerning eye, the pieces are certainly distinguishable.  Our play style, however, is usually more on the ‘pushing plastic’ side.  We want to keep it fast and fun and the Crusiers have been by far the biggest source of confusion all the times that we’ve played.

Well some are very similar. Ill try and write up a comparison of the two rule sets later.
Though I do prefer the tech token system in this rule set, tokens being 3 IPCs rather than 5, Success on 5-6, failure on 1-2, token awarded on 3-4

I am gonna post a new version of mine using KISS. I think it is too complicated.

but i will do that in a new thread :-D

@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)

There are a few discrepancies between the 1939 map with set ups and player set up charts in the 1939 rules.

1.  France listed w 6 infantry set up charts:  4 on map
2.  UK shows only Factory in Canada and Australia on 1939 set up charts:  map adds factory in UK and India.

There may be more, this is the most obvious.  I assume the map is correct.  are there updated set ups?  The one I’m refering to is on the download dated 3-08. http://home.exetel.com.au/cometo/aarhe/

Also, on the 1939 map, the UK starts with a factory in India.  This gives UK 4 factories.  Should the UK have a factory in India, particularly in 1939?  Did India have such capability in producting ships, planes, armor etc that early?  I’d rather see UK required to build one.

looking into this now…

O.k. sounds good :D :D :D .