Technology

I am in favor of eliminating tech.

Tech is a very significant part of the rules set I’ve developed. I’ve eliminated the luck element entirely: you choose a tech, you pay its fixed price, and then you get the tech. Some techs have other techs as prerequisites. Some techs cost more than others.

You could argue that from a realism standpoint, there was a luck factor involved with developing tech. But let’s be real here: 1) there’s enough luck-based stuff in the game already. 2) If you throw enough resources at, say, developing a better tank, odds are you’ll come away with something for your efforts. And that something will consist of a tank that’s been improved in some way, as opposed to, say, war bonds or a super submarine or long range aircraft.

Technological advances were a critical factor in WWII. A unit that was considered top-of-the-line in 1940 or 1941 would likely be seen as an obsolete piece of junk by '43 or '44. This was especially true of aircraft, but was also true of tanks.

All I am saying is that it should not be a luck thing. It should be automatic.

@Brain:

All I am saying is that it should not be a luck thing. It should be automatic.

naw, I can’t get behind that.
I think there should be a random element with respect to when you make the big break-thru especially for whiz kid stuff like jet fighters.
And naturally, with increasing certainty the greater you invest in it to the point it’s almost a statistical sure thing.

Having said that, there should be very little randomness about what you end up with.
“hey sir, you know that rocket engine we’re working on? Well it’s still flaming out but now it’s churning out war bonds!  who’d a thunk it eh?”

And some of the techs are just simple doctrinal advancements or new applications of existing tech. If it doesn’t require guys in lab coats - like war bonds - then it shouldn’t be random at all.

But hey that’s just me.

I respect your opinion, I just happen to disagree with it, but hey Larry is in your corner on this one.

@Brain:

I respect your opinion, I just happen to disagree with it….

Ditto.  8-)

@Brain:

….but hey Larry is in your corner on this one.

Well, we’ll see what the Global game brings.

I am sure we can all agree that we want a good game with or without NO’s

@Brain:

I am sure we can all agree that we want a good game with or without NO’s

Agreed.

Personally I like the NOs as an attempt to capture advantages and strategic perspectives that the game cannot nuance. (Like leading the Japanese away from Moscow)
But they shouldn’t be sooo vital that players are handcuffed to history.

I like both NO’s and Tech. NO’s give you a direction to go, and tech gives you a means to get there. I like the way AA50 brought tech into the game, giving us more tech. I would have liked two things though.
**First is a 3rd tech branch, land, sea, and air. That way you could narrow it down even more (powers like Russia should be able to improve their air w/o worrying about getting shipyards).
**Second I think if you roll box cars when trying to get a break through, you should be able to roll both dice and choose the tech you want. (or maybe even get to choose the tech you want with out rolling any more dice)

@allboxcars:

@Brain:

I am sure we can all agree that we want a good game with or without NO’s

Agreed.

Personally I like the NOs as an attempt to capture advantages and strategic perspectives that the game cannot nuance. (Like leading the Japanese away from Moscow)
But they shouldn’t be sooo vital that players are handcuffed to history.

I totally agree with that too, it should be a help to you but if you don’t want to do it you won’t automatically lose the game if you don’t try to complete your NO’s.

My friends and I use a slightly revised tech. A LL, of sorts. Instead of buying additional dice, one simply buys sides on a die. This eliminates diminishing returns, so one could theoretically buy a tech for 30 IPC (this has only happened once, by Americans). That way getting tech is a fairly reliable investment, you will almost definitely get something, but what you get is still random. We also allow the elimination of one technology, which is invariably super-subs.

@allboxcars:

@Brain:

All I am saying is that it should not be a luck thing. It should be automatic.

naw, I can’t get behind that.
I think there should be a random element with respect to when you make the big break-thru especially for whiz kid stuff like jet fighters.
And naturally, with increasing certainty the greater you invest in it to the point it’s almost a statistical sure thing.

Having said that, there should be very little randomness about what you end up with.
“hey sir, you know that rocket engine we’re working on? Well it’s still flaming out but now it’s churning out war bonds!  who’d a thunk it eh?”

And some of the techs are just simple doctrinal advancements or new applications of existing tech. If it doesn’t require guys in lab coats - like war bonds - then it shouldn’t be random at all.

But hey that’s just me.

I agree that jet fighters are whiz kid stuff. To address that issue, I’ve limited each nation’s available techs to a list roughly corresponding with the techs it had managed to develop in the real war. Germany can research jets, because by the end of the war it had managed to develop very effective jet aircraft. The Americans can research long-range aircraft, because later in the war American aircraft had significant longer ranges than anyone else’s. The Americans can also develop heavier/better strategic bombers (the Superfortress). The Germans and the Soviets can develop better tanks and better infantry. Each nation tends to have its own niche: Germany and the U.S. are the best in the air, and Germany and the Soviet Union are the best on land. Japan’s ability to wage an impressive land war has been weakened through a lack of manpower points, unimpressive land technology, economic factors, the inclusion of a lot of space between the Pacific and Moscow, and a strengthened Chinese resistance effort.

Historically, Germany and its European allies represented the threat to the Soviet Union, and I feel the game should reflect this. An Axis strategy of Germany turtles/Japan takes Moscow would be historically inaccurate: Japan didn’t have nearly enough land war strength to pull that off. During WWII, the Soviet Union produced 105,000 tanks to Japan’s 2,500. The Soviets produced 520,000 artillery pieces to Japan’s 13,000. Those numbers don’t exactly paint a picture of the Rising Sun being raised over the Kremlin, especially when the Japanese Army was bogged down in China and elsewhere.

I don’t like tech because it is like an all or nothing gamble.

“advanced anti-submarine warfare/sonar tech( i dont know what the rules would be for this)”

How about destroyers can attack subs from 1 sea zone away from the sub? And subs can attack ships from 1 sea zone away if an enemy destroyer is not present? A hit would be on a 2 or less for the destroyer or the sub that is attacking.

Is this your own tech idea as in house rule?

@skinny1:

“advanced anti-submarine warfare/sonar tech( i dont know what the rules would be for this)”

How about destroyers can attack subs from 1 sea zone away from the sub? And subs can attack ships from 1 sea zone away if an enemy destroyer is not present? A hit would be on a 2 or less for the destroyer or the sub that is attacking.

@Brain:

Is this your own tech idea as in house rule?

No. The idea just crossed my mind. I know it is not typical since a battle only happens in the same sea zone or territory but thought it might make people a little more cautious about the open seas.

I kinda miss the national advantages from Revised…some of them were pretty cool, like Russian Winter.

That is one that SHOULD be in the global game.

that was pretty sweet what would italy and france have? please no lame jokes about surrendering im being serious here

@idk_iam_swiss:

that was pretty sweet what would italy and france have? please no lame jokes about surrendering im being serious here

Italy and France should have a surrender rule.