DK_Faramir

I appreciate that Denmark was 'liberated', but I see it as a natural consequence of defeating Germany and its allies. Denmark actually cooperated (though reluctantly) with Germany, because our military strength was laughable. So I doubt my future would have been forced labor, seeing as how I fit in pretty well with the, at the time, german concept of a pure species. But looking back now, I'm pretty grateful for Hitler's demise. You can be damn sure, though, that I don't feel any obligation to your person, just because you happen to live in the same country as those brave soldiers who fought for their cause. - Faramir [ September 17, 2002, 07:43 AM: Message edited by: DK_Faramir ]

sogard You started the personal attacks by calling Edwin a complete idiot, so it might not be the wisest choice to point out how childish it is. Anyway, you're the one to claim you have the facts about Michael Wittmann, which leads you to conclude that he deserved death and that he was basically evil. Instead of suggesting books for us to read, which is another childish tactic, why don't you just explain to us what he did that was so bad. To claim you've read a book which says all members of the SS were evil, is great, but to be unable to point out how or why is pretty unimpressive. Explain to us, exactly why Michael Wittmann deserved death. - Faramir [ September 17, 2002, 07:11 AM: Message edited by: DK_Faramir ]

sogard Why don't you tell us what this guy did ? No one here is making light of the crimes committed during WW2, but we must recognise the distinction between soldiery and purposely harming innocents. To be a member of the SS meant that you were an elite soldier, considered a great honor by most german soldiers. That horrible things were done by members of the SS, were mostly the result of orders and policies practised in Germany at the time. You can't fault a soldier for following orders, when the alternative is getting shot. Yes, I understand that there were genuinely terrible people in the SS (Himmler was their Reichsführer), but to claim they all were like that is ignorant. If you really think that everyone in the SS were evil and deserved death, then you're being extremely harsh and shortsighted. There is no way to divide the world into black & white, however convenient it seems to you. Come up with some facts about this individual, before you attack people for honoring his bravery as a soldier, which is apparently all we know of him. - Faramir [ September 17, 2002, 06:20 AM: Message edited by: DK_Faramir ]

I just figured out a simpler way of doing much the same thing. Every major country starts out with 2 research points (1939). They will receive 2 extra points each year, ending with a total of 10 points in 1943. (to match the maximum investment of 2500 MPP in the current system.) To actually apply a research point, costs 150 MPP. (So that the Allies have a chance of competing technologically in the beginning stages.) It's impossible to apply more research points than is available. (There must be a limit to prevent the random mega-research in the current system.) Maximum points in a category should be limited to 3. (The limit again.) Each point will give a 5% chance of level increase, like with the current system. (No need to change what works.) When a category has 3 points assigned, it will automatically (free of charge) gain an extra 5% chance of increase per turn, for each passing year (starting a year after the first 3 points are assigned). This extra chance will only apply if the tech didn't increase by itself. (This is done to make sure that research will succeed at one point or another, so that MPP aren't wasted in the end, and also to ensure that dedication is rewarded.) Once a tech has increased in level, investment in that category will automatically drop 1 point, representing loss of investment, as well as increased costs for advanced research. (It makes sense to me that funding is not a one-time thing.) If a tech increases due to the free of charge bonus, investment points will drop to 10 % (15 % minus the standard loss of 1 point. (Just a natural consequence.) No buyback is possible. (It makes no sense that you can simply get back investments already made.) - Faramir [ September 16, 2002, 04:02 PM: Message edited by: DK_Faramir ]

Greetings to all fellow SC players. I too love this game, much more so than I expected. However, it has flaws, as do all games I know. Primarily, I have a problem with the tech model. I also find it much too dependent on luck, and it can (in my experience) most definitely ruin game balance. I suggest reducing the random factor, and instead increasing the chance of success in relation to not just resource investment, but more importantly time investment. I've had a couple of games where I've reached level 5 in multiple categories by 1941, and that seems a little excessive to me. I'd like to see a system where a player gets rewarded in accordance with his dedication to a research field. Naturally, any game without a certain factor of luck would be boring and have a foregone conclusion. I believe three things should be taken into consideration when determining research advances. Presented in priority order: 1. Resource investment 2. Time investment 3. Luck One could argue that the current model does indeed follow the above steps, but I don't think so. First of all, the Axis side has an economic advantage at the beginning, and for a long while. The way tech works now makes this a big problem, because Germany is free to invest hugely in tech and almost certainly be at an advantage for too long and by the time the Allies even out this advantage, the war is more or less over. How can this be solved ? Well, naturally the Axis side SHOULD have an economic advantage, so that can't be changed. Instead, I suggest investment in research be abstracted as a percentage of total MPP income. This might seem a little unfair, because it would be much more expensive for the Axis (initially) to invest in research than the Allies. To rectify this injustice, a minimum total MPP investment should exist for each step of research investment. Also, remember that research is very much a result of human brilliance, and not how many cities you've conquered. To avoid mega-researching, I suggest a limit of 20-25 % of total MPP. A model could look like this: Increases exist in steps of 5 %. For each step, there is a cost of 50 MPP + (5 % of total MPP each turn). So, it would cost 150 + 15 % of total MPP income, to have a combined research of 15 %. Those 15 points could then be assigned by steps of 5 in each of the categories (3 steps in case of 15 %). For each increase in tech level, the total points would reduce by five (1 step), to represent lost investment. So, to maintain a certain total, you would have to pay 50 MPP for each level increase (because of the lost investment). This somewhat takes care of the Axis advantage, and allows the Allies to stay competitive. However, it does not take into account the time investment. I realise this is already sounding very complex, but bear with me. To represent the dedication to a certain field, I suggest the following: Each year, there is a turn in which the total research in a field doubles its chances of increase. Let's say I play Axis, and I've invested 10 % in Jets, and 10 % in Ind. Tech. Every year, there will be a randomly assigned turn with a double chance for each of those to increase (20 % in this case). If said increase does not cause the tech to level up, then the following year will incur a a triple chance. This will continue (x4, x5 etc.) each year until an increase is made. Then it will drop back to normal. This will represent the investment of time, and reward dedication to a field. It will also offset the luck factor somewhat. Buyback of research investments will be limited to the 50 MPP, not the percentage of MPP. This will further represent lost investments, and discourage heavy reassignments. As I write this, I realise I may have created a monster of complexity, but it works in my mind. By keeping the total research down to 25 % (equalling 5 total points in the current system), it reduces the chance of those ridiculous 1941 level 5 jets and tanks. Also, it should reward players for staying dedicated to a certain field. But most of all, it heavily reduces the major Axis research advantage at the beginning stages of the war. Anyway, they're just ideas for thought, and I hope they can inspire a solution in some form or another. - Faramir [ September 16, 2002, 04:22 PM: Message edited by: DK_Faramir ]