Tech via a Point System

First, let me acknowledge Bugoo as it was his post that introduced me to this concept/idea.
Others have helped like Emperor_Taiki (initial points) and Subotai with their comments
And not to forget Germanman01 who started my initial interest in this with his Tech Poll.

The best way to try out ANY Rule change is via game play testing.  So if you have tried this house rule in a game, please post the game rules used (1941, NO’s, no bid, etc)  and then your thoughts / feedback so we can improve this.

Good Gaming all!

TECH via a POINT SYSTEM

Each tech has a point value.  Purchased researchers have the same cost, but are targeted for only one tech.  Roll as normal for research, but add up the total rolls and apply them toward the selected tech.  Once point value is reached, tech is gained (said researchers are lost/not needed)

Example:
US wants 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.

NOTE:  Unsure about multiple tech per turn, BUT AA50 games are much shorter (less than 10 rounds) so multiple techs achieved a turn could work in game play testing.

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.

Initial tech points assignments:

Tech               Value

War bonds:             10
Advanced Artillery:    10
Paratrooper:           20
IC:                    20
Mech Inf:              25
Rockets:               20

Shipyards:             15
Long Range:            25
Heavy Bombers:         30
Radar:                 20
Jet Fighters:          15
Supersubs:             15

Along the lines of combined techs becoming too powerful (i.e. Long Range, Heavy Paratroopers), you could add that if one tech is attained (like HBs), the new target for Long Range for that country is increased by “6” or something like that.

Is radar properly priced at 20?  Perhaps Radar could include a BB gets an AAA shot (1@1) to reduce the HB’s overwhelming power in naval warfare.  If we did that, radar would cost 25.  Also, in games with Escorts optional rule, you could adjust this … even higher to 30 (since escorts already diminish HBs)?

Modified Dec 2010 with new points (highlighted below and new number of tech researcher restriction)

TECH via a POINT SYSTEM v2.2                             revised Dec 2010

Each tech has a point value.  Purchased researchers have the same cost, but are targeted for only one tech.  Roll as normal for research, but add up the total rolls and apply them toward the selected tech.  Once point value is reached, tech is gained (said researchers are lost/not needed).  Techs achieved on the first try come into play at the end of non-combat moves (yes, war bonds are ‘instant’).  This may result in achieving multiple tech per turn.  This is legal under these tech rules.

Number of Researchers restriction:  Only 2 tech researchers are allowed per tech.  Both can be bought in one round.

Tech points assignments:

Tech              Value

Chart 1:
Advanced Artillery:    12
Rockets:              20
Paratrooper:          30
IFP:                  20
War bonds:            10
Mech Inf:              25

Chart 2:
Supersubs:            15
Jet Fighters:          18
Shipyards:            15
Radar:                15
Long Range:            38
Heavy Bombers:        25
TECH via a POINT SYSTEM v2.2-97.doc

As has been pointed out before, there is no tech system that will appeal to everyone.

Part of that liking of ‘house’ rules is that some will like them to be more ‘historically’ accurate while others are more comcerned about better strategic game play.

I am a proponent of the latter first, and if it happens to also meet the former, that’s a bonus.

@Imperious:

I would like to see some nations already have some development points assigned. IN this way each nation would develop to its strengths and the Techs would flow historically.

The question is balance, so perhaps the bid would reflect a preassigned disposition of points for some of these techs rather than adding new pieces on the map that tend to imbalance the set up.

That can be done with this system by altering Tech points by country.  For example, if you wanted Russia to have a better chance for ‘advanced art’, have the Russia points equal 5, not 10

@Imperious:

I have seen this system before a number of times, and its plausible.

Glad to see that the concept has some merit.

@Imperious:

The problem is i don’t like the other side knowing how close you are to getting the tech. I prefer a similar system but still random and not one that you can just BUY by spending X number of IPC tech rolls. This system does not solve that problem because you can see what is happening and prepare for it. IN the war some of these developments came as a shock and the enemy paid for it.

Personally, one of the goals was to REDUCE the randomness (that includes the ‘SURPISE’ we have HB’s aspect)

If you still like the randomness and surprise aspect, use the OOB tech rules… those meet your criteria perfectly.
The goal is to REDUCE those aspects of TECH with a point system.

I could argue realism when I see that USA is close to developing HBs because I have spies who report back to my HQ about your progress.

whose arguement about the enemy knowing about a tech is more realistic/more correct?

@Imperious:

The other problem is the techs in the OOB are terrible and do not reflect REAL TECHNOLOGY OF WW2 THAT MADE A DIFFERENCE.

I can list half of these that are bogus and have no place on a tech tree and another half that do but are not on the list.

You are probably correct about this, but the goal of the point system in my eyes is for minimal, simple changes to the existing tech system to make them more strategic aspects of the game, and therefor a more playable part.

@Imperious:

The problem is if one side gets technology the other side will immediately pile into the system alot of money to try to overcome this.

I guess I don’t see this as a problem.  A strategic game enables counters to the opponents strategies.

think about this in terms of units, not techs.  If Russia see Germany buying all tanks, they put all their money into Infantry.  Why would tech purchases to counter tech purchases be any different than my tank and infantry example?

@Imperious:

If nobody does anything the free rolls may still allow for technology to happen, so nobody can complain about “hey you won because you just spend all your money on the heavy bombers and just got lucky”  Under this system it is likely that some players would be at least close in the tech race due to the larger number of tech rolls required to get technology. This is not a one and done system.

Hmm.  Free tech that represents different tech abilities.  Yes, again, if your goal is to duplicate the WWII outcome, then this might work for your games.  I would rather have all options open to all players.

@critmonster:

The trouble I see with a point system and targeted tech is if there are agreed upon game winning techs, who would bother researching the others?

I guess the thought was the difference in cost (and therefor how early in the game they could be developed) would help to even out the ‘game winning’ techs with the less ‘desirable’ ones.

I am not saying other techs are a bad thing.  You could develop a huge list of cool and more realistic techs, and it would probably be fun too.

I was trying to utilize the techs that are in the OOB game.  The difference in this tech system is ONLY how they are acquired.  Less changes to the OOB rules (your house rules) usually translates to more acceptance of a house rule.  I like the KISS principal too (Keep It Simple).

@Vareel:

One idea that you could add to this is to increase the cost of more researchers.  For example, the first researcher costs 5 for a tech, a second for the same tech would cost 6, and so on.  Not sure if this would help, just an idea.

Could you further explain what you are trying to accomplish by making more researchers more expensive?
Is it to increase the cost of ‘rushing’ a tech (buying several targetted researchers for each tech)?

@Imperious:

If you still like the randomness and surprise aspect, use the OOB tech rules… those meet your criteria perfectly.
The goal is to REDUCE those aspects of TECH with a point system.

The problem is their are no limits on tech rolls allowing for players who got a big game breaking technology ( and i am saying at least one of these must be such a technology- Atomic Weaponry) that the oob allows the other side to pile on the money for some catch up. In reality this is impossible, all Technology is advancement over time with small incremental steps.

I think you are missing the point about tech countering tech.  What you think is a flaw I think is a strength.

You are trying to apply some rules you think apply in reality to a game simulation.  This game is all about “what if”, it’s a fantasy world.  It’s not about duplicating that it took 4 years to develop the atomic bomb.  I am trying to help a game that works best when a strategy CAN BE countered by another strategy.  Sure, it’s a ‘tech catch up’ strategy, but again an example will point to other aspects of the game where game play involves this sort of thinking:

I am the axis and I am way behind in the game.  If Germany takes a crazy battle to clear a way to give Japan a shot to take moscow (both being low odds battles), why would I take those battles if I were winning the game?  I wouldn’t.  But because I am losing, I am less risk averse and will do so.  Those odds that I win are not high, just like ‘catch up’ tech spending may not be enough to stem the tide of the opponents tech.  It’s a risky move, but at least it is a STRATEGIC OPTION that I have.  If you limit tech rolls, you diminish these options.

So why is it ok to be more risky on units in battles then in tech rolls?

If you consider tech in a strategic fashion (just another piece/possible move), then the two (units and tech) are they same.

I think we are viewing tech in two seperate and very different ways.  Neither is more correct.  I prefer tech to be less random, more strategic choices that can be as counterable as buying destroyers to offset super subs.

Your preference is more realistic weapons of the war developed along historical accuracy lines of thinking.

Again, neither is more correct.  And thank you for being part of our discussion thread.

@Imperious:

I am the axis and I am way behind in the game.  If Germany takes a crazy battle to clear a way to give Japan a shot to take moscow (both being low odds battles), why would I take those battles if I were winning the game?  I wouldn’t.  But because I am losing, I am less risk averse and will do so.  Those odds that I win are not high, just like ‘catch up’ tech spending may not be enough to stem the tide of the opponents tech.  It’s a risky move, but at least it is a STRATEGIC OPTION that I have.  If you limit tech rolls, you diminish these options.

This is a good argument against Low Luck which i think is ridiculous. Some battles will result in much better outcomes, but i feel technology should not be doing this rather good strategy should only do what it can and the results may sometimes go the other way. To me this is a strength, but a technology system based on points does not give that aspect, while the OOB may do this.

So if you really like this concept that if one player on turn one gets the atomic bomb and the opponent wants to do the same and just blow the game open, i would pick the OOB system everytime. The point idea does not arrive at this dynamic as well as the OOB.

The OOB falls short here, exactly, and this is the point.  I want an option to catch-up and the point system gives me a better chance at such an one but it is not a guarenteed one because the points are so high for the more game breaking tech.  In the OOB system, you are really at the mercy of the dice, so you MIGHT be able to blow the game open and then again, you might NOT just because the dice say so.  Reduce the randomness.

@Imperious:

I do not think that these cheapos like Germany going for Rockets on turn one by spending all its cash like an old women in Vegas help give the game MORE STRATEGY, But i do hope you find a new solution.

The strategy here is the decision to counter someone else’s move.  Your example is a single action.  In other words, the old woman hasn’t decided it was best to go to Las Vegas instead of a local gambling joint because her friend won all kinds of money (one action based on the outcome of another, in our case, the other is the opponent).

@Imperious:

to make more strategy ( if thats what you want) i suggest:

1)At a minimum get the players some kind of free technology roll, get them all involved even without spending because for the most part if the enemy does not do any tech, the opponent is likely to do less.

2)Allow for spy’s ( and trading of techs from allies)

both of these does make for more decisions, hence strategy.

Interesting options, but again, these are MORE changes from the base rules, which might be fun as options, but not the minimalist approach I would like to see employeed.

@Subotai:

The points tech system is at least much better than the OOB tech system. But it is a problem in setting the right prices for each tech, b/c some powers will profit more on the same techs than other countries.

Agreed 100%.  This is why I solicited others to try these rules and report the results.  Only through actual game play testing can a rule ever be best measured.  Also, tweaking by country might then take shape as well.  For example, since HB’s are so strong, and more likely to be developed by US or Japan, perhaps their cost should be an additional 5 points or conversely, Russia’s might be 5 points less.

@Subotai:

Only 3 powers will profit on sea techs, and Russia will not profit much on air techs compared to Germany, if we chose AA50 as an example.

yes, not every tech is good for every country, that’s for sure.  That is not necessarily a fault of the tech system, but more a characteristic of the game itself.  Plus by targetting your researchers, Russia won’t be trying for super subs too often now will they :)… so that ‘problem’ takes care of itself.

@Subotai:

Another problem with the techs (in AA50) is that several techs are almost worthless compared to the “middle-strength-techs”, and the game-breaking techs, it will still be a tech race in many games, even if the points tech system is less random than the OOB tech system.

Pricing the ‘worthless’ techs at a much cheaper level may get them to be used in a game, at least that’s the goal of the request to play test and find a proper point value for each tech (by country, if needed)

RE:  Tech races.

Aren’t all games that involve tech really tech races (when players actually attempt tech more than the haphazard $5 here and there)??

@Subotai:

Another option are (i.e.) with or w/o the point system, low-strength-techs being available before rnd 5, middle-strength-techs available after rnd 5, and the game-winning-techs only being available after rnd 10.

Well the pricing kinda enforces this where the cheaper techs can be had earlier.  However, if game play testing proves that to not be true, then an ‘earliest round attainable’ may need to be assigned to each tech.

I am certainly not saying this system is the best nor is even close to be finalized, but if we can get some players to buy into the goals / reasons WHY you would play using this tech system, then we can fine tune it to achieve that goal.  This is partly the reason why I have been answering peoples feed back with my own comments to  better describe the purpose of the “tech via a points system”.

I appreciate all the feed back and any game play testing results that are reported here.  Might I add it was this sort of community effort that created an excellent house rule set for Revised called AARe (Enhanced).

Good gaming!