Thank you for the feedback, let me try and go through this point by point.
@SuperbattleshipYamato said in [Global 1940] Research System Total Overhaul:
Something makes me uncomfortable though about reducing the capabilities of submarines and destroyers. They’re certainly more historically accurate and it’s definitely sound on paper. Maybe I just don’t like weakening units.
Messing around with the core units that everyone is already familiar with is not to be undertaken lightly, but in this case I feel justified because the Destroyer and the Submarine are each other’s primary opponents, and both are affected. One change I didn’t go out of my way to note is that I switched the cost of the Transport and the Submarine (Transport is now 6 and Submarine is 7) to reflect the greater difficulty in conducting ASW warfare with these changes. While both units start off weaker than out of the box, if you choose to focus your research on them you can actually make them better than they are in the standard game.
Do you think the reductions in capabilities of destroyers and strategic bombers without reducing their cost unbalances them and will make them less likely to be purchased? Or did you think they were overpowered in the out of box rules?
I think the Strategic Bomber is often bought for ahistorical purposes - it gets used a lot for attacking ships and supporting ground units in battle when heavy bombers generally weren’t all that efficient in either of those roles historically. So lowering their roll to a 3 in regular battles should discourage that a bit.
I think they will probably be less attractive to buy if you’re not aiming to complete the Tier 3 researches for them - but if you do unlock those, they become very powerful. Heavy Bombers is once again a hard-hitting tech that allows for double dice damage against factories, and Flying Fortresses will allow them to negate the Anti-Aircraft Radar if the enemy has it (and punish those who don’t invest in Improved Interceptors).
Historically, strategic bombing took a long time to reach its full potential. A lot of improvement was needed in equipment, tactics, and doctrine before the bombing campaigns began to do truly meaningful economic damage. I think the Strategic Bomber should have a fairly easy time of it in the opening moves, struggle in the middle game as counter technologies are researched, and then become very powerful in the late game when its own improvements are finally introduced.
Not a fan of the milita limits, but I understand why they have to be like that. I’ll think of a solution.
The hard cap was a carry over from how it was implemented in TripleA House Rules. I’m not really a fan of hard caps either (it feels like when you run into the one of those invisible walls when you’re playing a video game).
Perhaps there might be a limit instead on how many can be placed per turn, but not how many you can have in total. It would have to be figured out through play testing. The important thing to me is that Militia should be a situational unit that you deploy in emergencies; it should never displace the Infantry from its role as the workhorse of your army.
I feel like “Improved Interceptors” and “Escort Fighters” technology should be combined, considering a new fighter that excels at one probably excels at both. Moving it up a tier will work.
I actually placed these on Tier 2 deliberately because of the reasoning I outlined above on the strategic bombing meta. The strategic bombing counters (Anti-Air Radar, Improved Interceptors, and Night Fighters) are all at Tier 2, while the bomber upgrades are Tier 3 and harder to get. If you’re specializing in bombers, Escort Fighters is the one option you have available to unlock sooner in Tier 2 to help deal with these threats.
You’re right in that making a fighter better at one thing often makes it better at the other, but interception and escort are missions that have some distinct requirements. A fighter designed around interception needs high performance and heavy firepower and often cuts corners with other other things, like fuel capacity, while the bomber escort mission demands long range and high reliability. So I feel comfortable keeping these separate (and I like how it makes the player specialize).
The kamikazes shouldn’t be a technology. To be accurate have them activated either later in the game or when Japan is “losing” (that would be defined, of course, but my idea isn’t fully formed yet). They also seem too weak for tier 3.
I think it should be. Right now, it’s sort of just a tacked on gimmick - this integrates it as a part of the overall game system. Many of the “techs” in this system actually represent the development of new doctrines and tactics, and this is one of them. Placing it at Tier 3 will introduce it at the correct time in the game.
You may be right though that it is underpowered and not something the Japanese player will actually be inclined to choose compared to other Tier 3 researches. One way to strengthen it could be to allow the player to purchase additional kamikaze tokens - you get the 6 tokens you do in the base game for free when you complete the research, and you can buy additional ones at a low price (I’m thinking 4 or 5 IPCs but I’m not set on a number yet).
To keep cheap kamikaze spam from then becoming too powerful, perhaps kamikazes should be vulnerable to the AA fire you get if you research Shipborne Radar, and defending Fighters get one round to fire at them (on a 2) if you’ve researched Improved Interceptors.
Night Fighters isn’t really historically accurate.
Many bomber airframes were developed into night fighters; the Mosquito, the Ju 88, the Do 217, the Pe-3, and the P-70 are several examples.
A better idea would be to have a whole other system called “night bombing” where strategic bombers don’t have to fear interception and maybe not even anti-aircraft fire, but bombing damage is decreased by half (this is all tentative), and then the Night Fighters technology will allow fighters to intercept.
It’s an interesting idea, but one thing I consciously avoided (apart from the Atomic Bomb) was adding entirely new and untested systems to the game.
I don’t want to sound confrontational, but:
“Destroyers in the base game have the ability to suppress an unlimited number of enemy Submarines, which is widely regarded as being a bad design choice.”
Where’s the evidence for that? I’m just curious.
The designers of the TripleA House Rules variant went to great lengths to introduce a whole new system to replace this, revolving around the idea of depth charge shots. I found their idea interesting in theory but too difficult to get used to. My preferred solution is thus to to modify the original system rather than replace it entirely.
In the traditional rules, if you’re playing Britain, you never really need to have more than one or two destroyers on the board at a time - you just send it around with your stack of planes and you can wipe out more or less endless numbers of submarines. I don’t like this, and no one I’ve played with bothers investing in submarines much because of it. I’m hoping this will change that and make the Battle of the Atlantic a lot more interesting, with more cat-and-mouse gameplay.
I agree some tactical bombers should be allowed to intercept though, so perhaps a better title is “Dual-Use Aircraft”, to better represent the bombing and intercepting aircraft like the Ju-88 and Mosquito.
Night Fighters sounds cooler :sunglasses:
In the end, some of the names are just chosen for flavor and distinctiveness. I think this one has some justification though, like I said before.
Maybe Heavy Bombers and Flying Fortresses can be combined and increased to Tier 4, but I don’t think their seperation is as bad as that for the above mentioned fighter upgrades.
I believe on principle that the Atomic Bomb should stand alone in a tier above all others.
The national advantages are great, I was always a fan of those. It also really solves my gripe with some of the technologies already existing for certain nations at the start of the war by allowing them at the start. Definitely makes it more historically accurate. It also makes the huge selection of technologies less overwhelming by proving incentives for certain technologies.
They were definitely one aspect I missed from the earlier editions of A&A. In hindsight, many of the old advantages were somewhat gimmicky and poorly balanced, so I think shifting them to the tech system like this is the right answer.
My goals with these were just as you said - add some historical accuracy and encouragement for the players to follow their nation’s historic specialties, without railroading them into it - you can still ignore your advantages and go after Heavy Tanks as Japan if you want.
I think the limits on bunkers can be historically accurate, but I’m drawing a blank. I feel like there is an explanation. I would appreciate if you could give me one. Thank you!
The bunker unit represents heavy networks of fortifications (think the Maginot Line, the Gothic Line, the Atlantic Wall). These massive constructions can’t be built overnight. One in a territory per turn represents a limit on how quickly these defenses can be built up.
Can you use air transports to move units in the non-combat move?
Yes, you can use it to shuttle guys around during non-combat.
So Armoured Trains take an entire turn to repair, and are not repaired at the beginning of a turn like carriers or battleships?
The carrier and the battleship must be in a zone next to a Naval Base in order to repair, likewise the Armored Train must be in a territory with a factory. If your train is in Moscow, and damaged in a failed German attack, it could actually repair at the start of your turn. If it’s out at the front and gets damaged, then yes, it does need to spend a turn going back to a factory to return to full strength. This is in deliberate contrast to the Heavy Tank, which can repair at the start of your turn no matter where it is. I think it balances out because the Train also plays an important role as a land transport, while the Heavy Tank is used only for fighting.
Can Bunkers be placed in another power’s (that is friendly) territory? Does it have to have an in infantry unit of your own power?
That idea hadn’t occurred to me. My thought would be yes, you could build one in an ally’s territory, but you must have one of your infantry units present there.
If a Bunker is damaged in a strategic bombing raid, does that have any effect on the amount of hits it can take in non-strategic bombing raid combat?
In the TripleA House Rules version, it didn’t. I’m not sure whether that was a deliberate choice or just an engine limitation they couldn’t find a way to work around. I think ideally that 1 or 2 points of strategic bombing damage would have no effect, but 3 or 4 points would reduce it to one hit point until it was repaired all the way down to 0.
For Torpedo Bombers, considering it’s written that it’s like submarine surprise strikes, does that mean when the bombers hit, the enemy unit that were hit still fire back like how they are in submarine surprise strikes?
My understanding of submarine surprise strikes is that the surprised unit gets killed immediately and does not fire back (otherwise what’s the difference from a normal attack?)
Is there a “tech tree”? Do you have to get a certain tier 1 tech to get tier 2 or 3 techs? Or if you wanted to, can you go straight for the Atomic Bomb? Hypothetically, could you get Flying Boxcars before Airborne Transport (not saying that’s a good idea)?
I didn’t write any write any rules for having to unlock certain techs in order to get access to others. There’s a couple cases like that where one requires an earlier one to be useful, but I think they’re obvious enough that no one should make that mistake by accident.
Rushing for the Bomb and ignoring everything else is an option, but consider the opportunity cost - if you spend 5 rounds rolling for the Bomb and failing, your enemy might use those same turns to pick up 3 or 4 different techs and get quite an advantage over you.
If you have two dice and they both hit (and you were focusing on a tier 1 technology), could you get two tier 1 technologies? And can you split your dice between different technologies?
I chose not to allow this, both to control the pace that techs arrive at (no more than 1 per country per turn) and to remove overly complicated decision making. The advantage of rolling two dice for a tier 1 is that you succeed 75% of the time instead of just 50% - you will unlock more techs over time than a player who stays at level 1 and doesn’t spend anything.
I assume changing Anti Aircraft Artillery to hit up to 2 aircraft, not 3, was intentional?
Yes. The price of the AA Gun has also been reduced from 6 to 5.
Do jet fighters defend at 5 when scrambling from a friendly air base?
I’d say no, historically the first generation jet fighters were very fuel thirsty and short ranged, so I’d say the advantage only applies when they are in that territory, not when scrambling to a neighboring one. I introduced that because I wanted Jets to have more of an impact than just the attack boost. In the older editions, it made the fighter’s defense go up to a 5. That’s too powerful to give to them all the time - but when it’s just that one special circumstance, I think it will work well.
So aircraft carriers and battleships now have to wait a full turn to be repaired? So they’re repaired during the place units phase, not the purchase units phase?
Battle damage is a more serious consequence now. Like I said with the Train, you can still be repaired at the start of your turn if your enemy attacked you at one of your own bases and you survive with damage, but otherwise yes, you’ll have to bring them back to base first.
One possible strategy to deal with this is to make use of the cheap Escort unit (5 IPCs, 4 if you get Shipyard Improvements) as a screen and lose those before having your BBs take a hit. It might also encourage additional Naval Base builds in the Pacific to have more forward repair sites.
How do you think low luck would impact this system? Your system is still superior, but I have found that low luck makes the out of box research system less frustrating.
The one thing I would say low luck is probably not going to play nice with is the Atomic Bomb.
Overall, besides what I outlined above, my only remaining complaint is that it adds too many possibilities in the game that I’ll go crazy. That’s one of those “complaints that are compliments” in case I wasn’t clear. :+1:
Thank you, this idea started out small and then became a bit of a monster as I fleshed it out.
One final thought that occurred to me, the Atomic Bomb option seems like a great way to encourage players to keep the game going instead of resigning around turn 8-10 when one side is at a clear advantage.