Jump to content

Research in Hvh ???


Recommended Posts

Okay, what's the deal with research in HvH ?

I am playing my first game against ahuman, bought 5 chits in IW as soon as possible... We're now in november 1940 and I didn't get ONE SINGLE success...

Before you say "well, bad luck", let me tell you the odds of this happening...

Assuming he hasn't got level 2 IW, I got a 20% chance of getting level 2 every turn (5 * 4%). The chance of failing this 14 times in a row is exactly 4,398047%.

Now, I may be called paranoid before in my life, but it's next to impossible to have so much bad luck.

I had games against the AI where I attacked France with level 3 infantry !

Are the odds in HvH different then against the AI ???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There should be a 'FAIL-SAFE!'...built into the game to help prevent such glaring research deficiencie's.

So!,...instead of waiting till 1944 to get 'Level 2 IW', the 'FAIL-SAFE!'-SYSTEM...could be monitoring your research situation, and say...allow you to conclude that particular research within for-example,...a 6-month time frame,...from inception or instigation of implementing that particular 'Research!'.

This-Way!, depending on how the 'FAIL-SAFE' is set up, you will then have a 6-Month, or 9-Month, or 12-Month window from the inception of that Research...with which to be able to make progress in making 'Head-Way' or 'Progress' in achieving success concerning that sanctioned 'Research,.

[ January 03, 2007, 12:17 AM: Message edited by: Retributar ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Research is pure luck, sadly smile.gif

Sometimes, you have no hits at all and suddenly, you have multiple hits in 3 turnes...

During a game (as ally), my opponent had IW3/AT2/motor2 while russia were IW1/AT0/motor0. And suddenly, i hit IW3/AT2 and HT up to 4 in few months...

/shrug

I really like the random idea in tech, but it should be mix with some kind of "fixed research" to smooth the process. No way you can produce IS3 tanks 3 months after BT-5 tongue.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Generally it works fine, there have been several games for me where luck played a factor for it. In fact my first game ever I didn't realize even the full power of Heavy Tanks and IW so I lost it but I had the superior tactics.

I played poker, and the Chit investments in technology for SC isn't that bad. Thoug hit can be sometimes odd. You can flip a coin and it will land on Heads 5,000 times, there is no explanation for this... And the next 5,000 times says Tails, odds & probilities ;) It's gory in a wargame where you feel you've done everything right but it's quite juicy when you've done everything wrong and get rewarded tongue.gif

Unlike A coin, in 1 game we don't neccessarily have 5000 more chances to win ;) so no, My Vote is Tech should be more hardwired and I always thought so. If you invest you should recieve based on Historical momentum. Strategies and Tactics shouldn't be based on Luck. As in Combats modifiers there should be a certian amount of luck to certian TECHS smile.gif Like ABombs or mystery techs like Rockets. You research Heavier Tanks, you'll get them. It's not Rocket Science ;)

and SC2 isn't Poker, but God do I feel the DiceGods in it... Do not toy with the Odds system, invest your Chits early or you'll reget it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with Liam/Edwin too - wish some other aspects of the game (eg diplomacy as Edwin mentioned, which I think is more variable than technology as its more likely to be affected by a single friendship or personality clash) or minor set up was more unpredictable.

I note that Terif has never lost despite large fluctuations in tech/diplomacy luck so there seems to be an option in any situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pfffft, I don't know. Even if I was the beter player (and I am not saying that I am), I would loose this game due to bad luck.

Surely, in a series of 10 games it evens out, but that does me no good now, does it ?

What's the fun in playing a game, to carefully proceed, to think about the different options, to make strategic choises if you loose it anyway ?

Or even the opposite, what's the fun of winning a game because you had IW 3 and AT 3 at the start of Barbarossa and the other person hasn't got one tech hit ?

I'd like an option to have a linear tech advance : for instance it would take 20 chits for any level 1 tech, 30 for level 2... so that luck isn't a factor.

And yes, a player that is -say- 20% better then the rest will always win, regardless bad luck. But games between players that aren't that far apart are apperently determined by pure luck.

They might as well throw a dice in the beginning of the game and determine the winner then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Terif may have been close to losing due to luck, usually high rollers play quick games and often you do not have the chance to finish those games!

Rambo or HR are HighRollers... However both very good too... I have lost games to Rambo due to tech, and Terif. Though only because I didn't adjust my strategy to compensate for the lack of something on the frontline. It's inflexability that destroys you, not your tech 99 outta 100

Now if I get Subs 5 with Terif in June 1940, plus IW3, AT3... and he gets 0 with Russia, I will promise you if all else is pretty much on my Usual Par he will lose. Why? Because I will conquor UK, Egypt and Russia before the USA can do anything about it! Though the chances of this all happening in one game, probably worse than 1 in 100... You still have to know how to employ your exploit

Originally posted by TaoJah:

Pfffft, I don't know. Even if I was the beter player (and I am not saying that I am), I would loose this game due to bad luck.

Surely, in a series of 10 games it evens out, but that does me no good now, does it ?

What's the fun in playing a game, to carefully proceed, to think about the different options, to make strategic choises if you loose it anyway ?

Or even the opposite, what's the fun of winning a game because you had IW 3 and AT 3 at the start of Barbarossa and the other person hasn't got one tech hit ?

I'd like an option to have a linear tech advance : for instance it would take 20 chits for any level 1 tech, 30 for level 2... so that luck isn't a factor.

And yes, a player that is -say- 20% better then the rest will always win, regardless bad luck. But games between players that aren't that far apart are apperently determined by pure luck.

They might as well throw a dice in the beginning of the game and determine the winner then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by TaoJah:

Okay, what's the deal with research in HvH ?

I am playing my first game against ahuman, bought 5 chits in IW as soon as possible... We're now in november 1940 and I didn't get ONE SINGLE success...

Before you say "well, bad luck", let me tell you the odds of this happening...

Assuming he hasn't got level 2 IW, I got a 20% chance of getting level 2 every turn (5 * 4%). The chance of failing this 14 times in a row is exactly 4,398047%.

Now, I may be called paranoid before in my life, but it's next to impossible to have so much bad luck.

I had games against the AI where I attacked France with level 3 infantry !

Are the odds in HvH different then against the AI ???

Umm, you're first mistake is you didn't have a 20% chance.

IIRC, it's 5% + 4% + 3% + 2% + 1% for a total of 15%.

There's a bit of diminishing returns there. You would have been wiser to spread your bets, as that last chit was very expensive, it only gave you a 1% chance (although eventually rising to 5%). Whereas, if you had put it into, say, Heavy Tanks, you would have gotten a 4% "bonus" for the same money right away.

[ January 03, 2007, 08:51 AM: Message edited by: Lars ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Euh, say that again ? That's not how I understood it.

From the manual : "Two chits in a particular category will result in a 10% chance per turn for getting from Level 0 to Level 1, an 8% chance for getting from Level 1 to Level 2, a 6% chance for getting from Level 2 to Level 3, and so on."

So, the percentage per chit is determined by the level of the tech that you research, not by the number of chits, no ?

Since I had 5 chits invested to go from level 1 to 2, I should have 5 * 4% chance to get it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John, I remember that post. Why don't you post a link to it here?

At the least the tech screen should show the base percentage chance (excluding the effect of Intel and the research bonus) of advancing in each research areas, not just how many chits you have invested in each area.

Then players can see the effect of purchasing just one more chit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by TaoJah:

Euh, say that again ? That's not how I understood it.

From the manual : "Two chits in a particular category will result in a 10% chance per turn for getting from Level 0 to Level 1, an 8% chance for getting from Level 1 to Level 2, a 6% chance for getting from Level 2 to Level 3, and so on."

So, the percentage per chit is determined by the level of the tech that you research, not by the number of chits, no ?

Since I had 5 chits invested to go from level 1 to 2, I should have 5 * 4% chance to get it.

Whoops, you are correct. I misread the formula above that. May have confused it with the old system to boot.

Still, I'm luckier than you. tongue.gif;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Always been the best formula for research I've see yet. Seemed like your first introduction was a long time ago, hang in there John........reasonable presentations have a way of cultivating a fan base.

[ January 04, 2007, 06:47 AM: Message edited by: SeaMonkey ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You want SOME variability,

Game to game? Don't ya? :confused:

Why on God's X-tremely!

Fast-beserking Earth?

Would you want ho-hum!

PREDICTABLE events?

Whether that be,

In... research.

Or... diplomacy.

Or... dice-rolls.

Or... in yer OWN fast!! dis-appearing

Life?

LOL!

Crimeney,

One of the truly GREAT features

Of Hubert's innovative Game,

IS the un-predict-ability.

What is this worrisome hand-wringing

RE: a few games,

A VERY few games,

Where you don't get EXACTLY what you want?

I'd advise... listen to the Rolling Stones

A little more,

And a LOT less to... Barry Manilow

Singin' out them Elevator Tunes, eh? ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Desert Dave:

You want SOME variability,

Game to game? Don't ya?

What I want is a game where I don't feel like quitting my first HvH game before even Barbarossa because of bad luck, that's what I want...

Variability in HvH should come from the players, not from bad luck.

But that's my last post about it, lol, I don't want to sound like a whiner (probably too late, hehe).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I want is a game where I don't feel like quitting my first HvH game before even Barbarossa because of bad luck, that's what I want...
LOLOL!

Why would you QUIT?

Be like... the "head-hunters,"

Who memorize each and every

Script and Event %... line.

Look,

You gotta take the good w/the BAD,

Yes?

It's how it IS.

Make the BEST of what you got.

Besides,

HvsH is NOT the ONLY way to go, oh, LOL!

Not hardly.

Where are all these WW-2 "Experts?"

When it comes to... making

SOMETHING

Out of... NOTHING,

As Hubert has done?

Where are all their AI enhancements?

It's not so hard,

Just READ the detailed instructions

In EACH and every AI or Event script.

As if... you are... now!

THE innovator.

Too MANY seem, to be... BIG on "hero-worship"

LOLOLOL! :eek:

But,

woefully short on making something

New!

And... different!

And... unique!

The REAL challenge is... active creation.

ANYBODY can... "game the system."

Yawn. ;)

[ January 03, 2007, 09:41 PM: Message edited by: Desert Dave ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unpredictable events are great.

But there's clearly a flaw when my Russian army had BT-5 in january 1941 and IS3 in april 41 :D

In another game as Axis, i had HT0 in 1943. Won anyway but i had chits in HT since late 1939... almost 3 years without any kind of improvments? :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by TaoJah:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Desert Dave:

You want SOME variability,

Game to game? Don't ya?

What I want is a game where I don't feel like quitting my first HvH game before even Barbarossa because of bad luck, that's what I want...

Variability in HvH should come from the players, not from bad luck.

But that's my last post about it, lol, I don't want to sound like a whiner (probably too late, hehe). </font>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I certainly don't want to eliminate, or even greatly

reduce, variability. Anybody who is arguing that is

boxing with a scarecrow. My system's main strength

is that it eliminates the wacky extremes. It would

be a piece of cake to made my standard deviation

larger while still cutting down the "Instant Tech/

Never Tech" syndrome. I still say that the major

powers in the war pretty much got what they paid

for in tech, both in terms of time and the actual

war toy, with just a few "happy accidents" here

and there.

Plus as I said in that old thread tech should NOT be

the only area where variability comes into play:

1. Those various coups and other assorted diplomatic

events should have more variable dates on them.

Now you've got the Perfect Plan guys like Terif

carefully counting the numbers and balancing their

scales, which is one reason I haven't played in a

few months...

2. HQs could have BLIND variability: after all you

probably don't know how well the general will handle

the job until he is doing it, right? So you buy

them, see how well they do, and sack them if need

be. Monty and Rommel didn't come into the world

with big fat "9"'s tattooed on their butts, right?

3. Ideally I'd like to see a pre-war game module

like Days of Decision, which would add some much-

needed variability.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really like the idea of your blind variability for HQ units.

Perhaps an option to purchase an unranked HQ unit at a fixed cost of 250MPP. Its rating is only revealed during its first combat.

Now the choice is which do I purchase? A HQ unit with a known rank (8); for example, or an HQ unit with a (?) for a rating. The HQ with a (?) for its rating may have a rank anywhere in the range of 3 to 9 but I won't know it until it supports a unit engaged in combat.

The rating for the blind HQ purchased would be; for example,

5% - 3, 15% - 4, 30% - 5, 20% - 6, 10% - 7, 10% - 8, and 10% 9.

-------------------------------------------

As for disbanding HQ units you purchased, I would like to see each major country have a chance for disbanding HQ units that varies according to their experience and country.

Why? Stalin shot Generals that lost battles, Churchill and Roosevelt had to deal with politicians that supported specific generals.

Example of HQ Disbandment for UK

1. At the start of a turn a HQ unit is selected for disbandment.

UK - 60% less 15% per experience medal.

--- UK player has a 60% to disband a HQ unit with no medals

--- UK player has a 45% to disband a HQ unit with 1 medal

--- UK player has a 30% to disband a HQ unit with 2 medals

2. If disbandment attempt fails then that HQ unit provides no support that turn.

Example of HQ Disbandment for USSR

1. At the start of a turn a HQ unit is selected for disbandment.

USSR - 100% less 15% per experience medal.

--- USSR player has a 100% to disband a HQ unit with no medals

--- USSR player has a 85% to disband a HQ unit with 1 medal

--- USSR player has a 70% to disband a HQ unit with 2 medals

Example of HQ Disbandment for USA

1. At the start of a turn a HQ unit is selected for disbandment.

USA - 75% less 15% per experience medal.

--- USA player has a 75% to disband a HQ unit with no medals

--- USA player has a 60% to disband a HQ unit with 1 medal

--- USA player has a 45% to disband a HQ unit with 2 medals

-----------------------------------------

I would also like to see each HQ unit have a description (based on history or randomly generated using a set of boiler plate paragraphs) about its commander's pre-war experience, instead of a rating.

Example:

Source - Wikipedia:

During World War I, von Manstein served on both the German Western Front and the Eastern Front. In Poland, he was wounded in November 1914. He returned to duty in 1915, was promoted to captain and remained as a staff officer until the end of the war.

On July 1, 1935, von Manstein was made the Head of Operations Branch of the Army General Staff. During his tenure, he proposed the development of Sturmgeschütz, self-propelled assault guns that would provide heavy direct-fire support to infantry, relieving the mobile tank forces of this responsibility.

In October 1, 1936 he was promoted to Deputy Chief of Staff to the Chief of the Army General Staff, General Beck.

In February 1938, von Manstein was appointed commander of the 18th Infantry Division in Liegnitz, Silesia.

[ January 04, 2007, 06:22 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...