Thoughts on Research

[Panzer Joe]

One thing I don't like about the current model for research is how random it is. You put one point into heavy tanks and you could get it next turn .. or maybe never.

Why not have a development track? Each turn the research points you have alocated generate a random number of points. Take 1-20 as an example.

You add the points from turn to turn until you make a break through. You can see how close you are to the big break through but you aren't sure when they will finaly pay off.

Level - Points

0 - 0

1 - 100

2 - 250

3 - 350

4 - 600

5 - 900

That first level of tech could happen in 5 turns or it could take you 100 turns. With the high number of random numbers it will probably be about 9 turns unless you are impossibly lucky or unlucky.

We might also want to reduce the value of additional points. In research 2 scientists don't nessisarily think up stuff twice as fast.

Research Maxpoints

1 - 20

2 - 35

3 - 45

4 - 50

5 - 55

You might get that first level in 2 turns .. but it may still take 100 turns.

[Panzer Joe]

Another thing I forgot to take into acount is exsisting research.

In ever tech field that an enemy or friendly contry has better tech level than yours. Add 5 extra points per turn.

This is to show the effect of spying on friends and enemies and reverse engineering captured equipment.

So the Germans get level 1 fighters. Twenty turns after they have depoyed it everyone else will get it for free. Because the higher levels of tech are harder to achive these points might be enough to give you a few free tech levels but they will never be enough to catchup without investing your own research.

[Shaka of Carthage]

I'm not sure how your suggested random system is an improvement over the existing system.

Under your proposal, it could still take me four (4) years worth of turns to achieve a breakthru. How does that differ from what we have now? It seems that by using the "development track", you know that eventually you will achieve a breakthru, even if its four years later. But both methods will can give you a breakthru in two turns or four years later.

While its a true statement, that adding additional personnel to a project, at a certain point, doesn't give you a relative increase, those additional chits could represent pararrel development projects as well as compeition.

SC does award a slight increase if someone has discovered a higher level tech. That accounts for the spying and reverse engineering.

[JerseyJohn]

You Panzers must all think along very similar lines, Panzer39 suggested something like this perhaps a week or two ago!

Yes, now I see it, the memory grows stronger, it was in a Thread started by yours truly -- -- If you read down a bit you'll see Panzer39's entries. There's a lot of duplication of ideas in these things. For a long time I was posting original ideas that were originally posted by J. P. Wagner a year ahead of me!

Anyway, there are probably some specific differences between your two systems. They both sound good.

< Click Here to see other ideas and Panzer39s suggestion along the same lines. >

Shaka's got a point here; that was also my impression but I figured I was missing something.

[ September 22, 2003, 08:14 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Panzer Joe]

Glad to see I am in good company. This suggestion can achieve Panzer39's ideas on min and max time for research in a very strait forward and direct way.

I was just using those numbers as an example. Adjust the final values to get the result you want. By adjusting the research rates and final point totals you can decide how fast or slow you want your tech to show up.

I would set a target of level 5 should be reached some time in 1945 with 2 points invested from day one.

[ September 22, 2003, 08:29 PM: Message edited by: Panzer Joe ]

[JerseyJohn]

The only things I can think of adding are they lower Techs should come more quickly in any system, which you've probably taken care of in any case, and it would be good if this would fit easily into an expanded scenario editor, in case we ever actually got one.

I'd imagine either Edwin P. or Kurt88 will also suggest it be part of the Event Generator ideas they've been discussing.

To me most military research has never been a great mystery. A country wants bigger, faster, more powereful weapons and invests the time, treasure and effort and they know they'll get them. More often than not within a predictable time period.

Nor does it spring up out of nowhere. Military applications for aircraft were discussed as soon as the Wright Brothers made a successful flight.

Build a lighter than air derigible and it immediately gives birth to the Bomber.

Build a tractor and it's one step away from having a tank.

[ September 22, 2003, 08:41 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Panzer Joe]

Originally posted by JerseyJohn:

To me most military research has never been a great mystery. A country wants bigger, faster, more powereful weapons and invests the time, treasure and effort and they know they'll get them. More often than not within a predictable time period.

Actualy I have some experiance in research. If you are putting a serious effort into gaining a new Tech you hire the best mind in the field to head up an engineering team.

If you want to expand your program and give them more people and money who are you going to get to head up the second team? You hire the second best mind in his field.

Even if you gave your scientists unlimited funds they are not going to go from the ME-109 to ME-262 in an afternoon.

[JerseyJohn]

Can't argue with you on that, but the Manhattan Project was conducted in comparative chaos, five separate approaches toward the same goal, all staffed with the greatest scientists to be found. They had unlimited funds and resources at their dispossal but had to cut corners at every turn as well as follow unproven ideas as though they were already demonstrated to work. After a few years the field was narrowed down to two programs, uranium and plutonium, and it proceeded with the understanding than one or both would work and it was only a matter of finding out how!

One of Germany's failures is that the key men, at least in 1939 and 1940, weren't very good in evaluating new weapons systems. The Jet, already flying in Germany in 1939, was practically scrapped because neither Goering nor Udet understood it's potential. They made remarks like, "It's too fast to either dogfight or bomb with accuracy!" The next man in line, Earhard Milch, nodded and put everything into propellar aircraft.

It's true that progress is never immediate, unless a country conducts research in the Soviet manner, the time tested Master Spy approach. But all the fighter aircraft of WW II can be seen to have evolved from either civilian or military aircraft in use during the 1920s and 30s. The JU87 Stuka dive bomber, for example, had it's root in American dive bombers proudly displayed to Udet many years before the war during a tour of the United States. He was so impressed that he returned to Germany and immediately instituted the idea that all bombers had to have a diving capability -- effectively ending Germanys Strategic Bombing Program.

In armor, once the Germans saw the T34 and other Russian tanks in action they were quick to revise their own tank designs, improving those that were already in existence, and hurriedly designing the Tiger and then the Panther, both of which utilized a different doctrine than the 1939 and 1940 idea of speed and mobility over armor and armament. As the old adage states, Necessity is the Mother of Invention!

[Panzer Joe]

The Manhattan Project was a great example of a maximum effort research project.

If you had given General groves 1/5 the budget and told Robert Oppenheimer to hand pick a core research team would they have taken five times as long to finish?

One of the big delays in the Manhattan Project was the shortage of criticle materials couldn't be produced fast enough. If they had been given ten times the men and materials they could not have finished in a tenth the time.

[Night]

I like this new system very much, simply because I don't think someone should be able to invest in a tech, and have it the next turn. While others, can take years. It needs to be in a more controled boundry.

[Edwin P.]

Jersey John

Here's an event idea for techs that are a long time in coming;

Event: Tech Resources Allocation

When: A research has had no discoveries for 36 turns

Mr Minister

Our scientist need more resources to achieve a breakthrough in [Jets]. Should we

A. Tell them to make do with what they have

B. Assign our best scientists to this project

C. Give them all the money they want, we need that technology.

If B then 25% lose 2 random tech chits and gain a level in [Jets], 50% lose 1 random tech chit and gain a level in [Jets] or 25% lose 1 random tech chit and gain nothing.

If C then lose 200MPPs and 75% gain 1 level in [Jets].

[ September 23, 2003, 12:21 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[JerseyJohn]

Edwin,

I like that idea, it gives more control to the player.