Tech and National Advantages

Thanks for your input todate. Here is a collection of my thinking at this point. Please feel free to participate in this on going discussion. Your contributions are appreciated. Tell your A&A friends about this so they have a chance to voice what they want in A-A&A. I'll update the the original posting as changes and new ideas are adopted or contemplated.
User avatar
Imperious leader
Posts: 5207
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:04 am
Location: Moving up to phase line red...

Post by Imperious leader » Mon Jan 17, 2005 6:30 pm

When we allocate IP to buy units WE ARE making some subjective opinion of what the nations military capacity is during a given turn (say 3-6 months of real time). So in order to FIT the cost of these tech developments you have to assign a relative value to how it would relate to the purchase of other units. Im afraid to say but 30 IP is a terrible disproportion % allocation of recources. The German could not buy the A bomb because this capacity to create these bombs is in the minds of brilliant scientists and not Reichsmarks,and consequently the talent was not located in japan or Italy either, USSR was much further down the line.

These inventions per se dont really appear because Hitler orders one less production of Panther tanks, and now "POOF" he gets flying saucers, or Death Stars...

These Historic events should be built into a nations turn track, or drawn at random by cards each turn . This alone solves this problem w/o resorting to spending years and years of nearly 20-50 % of your nations economy and turning out LONG RANGE FIGHTERS . This is a rule thats time has passed into abligatory History. Thank you.
Last edited by Imperious leader on Mon Jan 17, 2005 6:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
We really need an Axis and Allies World War one game so i can play that on August 1st, 2014.

Guerrilla Guy
Posts: 402
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 5:16 pm
Location: Texas Baby!

Post by Guerrilla Guy » Mon Jan 17, 2005 6:45 pm

d6veteran wrote:1) You shouldn't lose your tech completely if you don't wish to pay for a turn.

2) I don't know what the percentages of output were for any of the WW2 tech achievements. It would be interesting to research that. However, I don't think it is important to get a historical percentage in the game. IPC income and expenditure is a gross abstraction of a wartime nations economy and won't hold up to most historical criticism.

But that's that the point. Major technological advancements and superior combat arms came at a high cost. Otherwise Germany would have had more me262s and Russia would have had an atomic bomb.

Achievements weren't just random luck. Just about any development I can think of was the result of a focused effort.

Having said that I don't know what the cost should be per turn. I think the longest development track should take 5 turns.

Honestly, I can see Hvy Bombers being something like 4-4-5-7-10. That's 5 turns and a total of 30 IPCs. Just have those numbers printed right inside each square. What I like about the investment model is it mimics the total economic and strategic commitment required of a world war.

+++

Now here is something that would be really cool. You could abandon the having a unique price per turn advancement for each tech, and intead just have a series of squares at the top of the big tracking chart. Everyone who wants to research tech, puts a counter on the tech advancement bar and pays to move their counter forward each turn. When a nation first starts a counter on the tech chart, they also submit a folded scrap sheet of paper with what they are researching.

The difference between the different techs is how long it takes to research. So when a nation has finished the appropriate turns for a tech, then they reveal the scrap piece of paper to show/prove what they were researching.

The secrecy is very cool imo. Additionally, you could have some mechanic that would allow the opposing team to sneak a peak at something the other team is researching. This could be as simple as paying 1 IPC and trying to roll a 6. Of course I think this system is still cool without the spy thing.

You could research multiple techs on the chart, you'd just need to have nation tech counters with different numerals on them.
you guys have too many good points so the only thing I could come up with is a one development chip loss... how would this be...
"We're airborne. We’re supposed to be surrounded."

Dick Winters to 2nd Lt. George Rice after being told that the 101st Airborne would be surrounded at Bastogne

Games are like my Avatar...

d6veteran
Posts: 75
Joined: Sat Jan 08, 2005 8:08 pm

Post by d6veteran » Mon Jan 17, 2005 11:39 pm

IPCs are an abstraction of a war economy. A Fighter unit isn't 10 IPCs because it takes one quarter of Germany's capacity to turn out a 'unit' of fighters. We don't even know how many planes a fighter model represents. And it doesn't matter really.

Nevermind that you can build nothing but fighter planes for one turn and then build nothing but tanks for the next.

IPCs are a huge abstraction and I don't think you can dimiss paying for tech on that basis.

I think the real issue/division here is a fundamental difference inwhat role we want tech to play in the game.

I think it should be present. I think it should be a strategic *choice* (not random). And I think it should be balanced.

There are three simple ways to balance:
1) Make tech expensive (eg. great tech costs lots of IPCs).
2) Make tech take time to attain (eg. chart it over several turns).
3) Make tech less powerful (eg. High Altitude Hvy Bombers attack at +3 and defend at +2).

So if you don't think it should be expensive, then maybe it could still be balanced other ways (like #2 and #3).

What I don't like about tech is a lucky roll giving someone Hvy Bombers (roll twice) early in the game. I've been on both sides of that scenario and neither was fun. Giving a nation Hvy Bombers at random would be even worse imo.

So I guess the question is, what do players want from tech?

User avatar
Imperious leader
Posts: 5207
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:04 am
Location: Moving up to phase line red...

Post by Imperious leader » Tue Jan 18, 2005 1:13 am

Id like to see a combo of items 2 and 3. I dont want to waste all my money in some crap shoot, then getting very lucky and getting the A-bomb with Italy, and having italy drop bombs on London and Washington DC on turn 3 ( fall 43) . This is soo rediculious i cant even start expressing that frustration in words alone.

We start anew.. Each nation gets its own nation specific tech developments in a logical order that flows from what occured in history. Next each tech in itself will marginally effect battles, they will not decide the war... They add a wrinkle to an allready established movement/ combat system. USA will eventually get the A- Bomb, but will only have 2 such weapons, since that wont really change the game, AND it was what in fact they did have. Conversly, Japan will not be making the "space cruiser Yamato" on its forth turn since it put all its marbles in one basket and got some decent rolls. lastly, i dont want to see britain with V-2 rockets either. Leave the fantasy rules to the Warhammer 40,000 people please...
We really need an Axis and Allies World War one game so i can play that on August 1st, 2014.

User avatar
Krieghund
Posts: 2672
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2004 9:18 am
Location: Virginia, USA

Post by Krieghund » Tue Jan 18, 2005 12:21 pm

Guerrilla Guy wrote:you guys have too many good points so the only thing I could come up with is a one development chip loss... how would this be...
Better.
A&A Developer and Playtester

"War is much more fun when you're winning!" - General Martok

Larry
Posts: 3090
Joined: Thu Mar 04, 2004 9:44 am

Post by Larry » Tue Jan 25, 2005 5:25 pm

I agree with you d6veteran and you bring up good stuff Imp.
Comments noted
/////

Dunckelzahn
Posts: 42
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2005 7:18 am
Location: Denmark

Post by Dunckelzahn » Sun Mar 13, 2005 6:50 am

Imperious leader wrote:Id like to see a combo of items 2 and 3. I dont want to waste all my money in some crap shoot, then getting very lucky and getting the A-bomb with Italy, and having italy drop bombs on London and Washington DC on turn 3 ( fall 43) . This is soo rediculious i cant even start expressing that frustration in words alone.
If we take in to consideration that USA from 1942 to 1945 spend approximately 5 % of their war budget on developing the A-bomb, in A&A the cost would be 40 IC x 5% for 7 turns (developed in spring 1945) = 14 IC.

Let’s say that the cost of developing the A-bomb is 14 IC, the time is 7 turns and that USA spends IC on developing it each turn, then it would cost 2 IC each turn to developed it.

A simple tech system could be this (or I think is simple):

All techs have a unique “development cost” and the cost should be different for each country. (The cost reflects the nation’s capacity to develop the tech)

An example:

The A-bomb
USA 4 dev.
Germany 5 dev.
Japan 8 dev.
Russia 7 dev.
England 6 dev.
Italy 8 dev.

During the players R&D phase he may pay 2 IC to develop on a project. Rolling a d12, with a target number of 4 or less. If successful he places a chip on the tech and he may pay 2 IC more and roll again immediately. He may do this as long as he is successful, if however he fails, he must wait until his next R&D phase to try again.

In this way there will be app. 50% chance to gain a chip each turn, but there will also be the chance to make a miraculous development in a single turn. (there is 0,1% chance that Italy could drop the bomb on England in fall 43).

I think there should be a limit to how many things a country may develop at a time (to avoid US to develop all techs availabel), it could be like this:

USA 3
Germany 3
Japan 1
Russia 2
England 2
Italy 1

User avatar
Krieghund
Posts: 2672
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2004 9:18 am
Location: Virginia, USA

Post by Krieghund » Sun Mar 13, 2005 10:43 am

Interesting approach, Dunckelzahn. I kind of like it.
A&A Developer and Playtester

"War is much more fun when you're winning!" - General Martok

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests