Kuniworth Posted May 10, 2004 Share Posted May 10, 2004 Once again tech are killing the game I have against Liam. What can you do against 10 german luftwaffe jet 4(soon 5) long range 5????? I held France until october 1940 for **** sake, Russia got over 5000 extra MMP and Ive invested heavily in tech for both allies and UUSR, but no luck. Reading the latest from DH vs Rambo one can only conclude that tech is too powerful. THis is the last tech game I ever play. It sucks so ****in bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kuniworth Posted May 10, 2004 Author Share Posted May 10, 2004 It is not worth playing 10-15 hours and then find out that tech-rolls may decide the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dragonheart Posted May 10, 2004 Share Posted May 10, 2004 And it sucks when i read in the SC 2 Forum that some ppl have the opionin that they want increase the luck factor!!!!!!!! Rambo was so fed up with the tech thing that he said the same like you Kuni..."This is my last game " I had the same problem in my first game ag rambo...could do nothing ag LR4 and AA4.......he killed my AF´s with one shot.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Posted May 10, 2004 Share Posted May 10, 2004 jets 3 Brits Jets 4 German not such a big deal Kuniworth.. fact is there is 1 tech advance in that aspect. Luck in the LR department is definitely a bonus but the luck I had with France and Russian Readiness was 'pure crap' or this game would be over already.. sorry to say but you can't blame tech.. not in this game Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Curry Posted May 10, 2004 Share Posted May 10, 2004 Do we know what Tech will look like in SC2? ??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Curry Posted May 10, 2004 Share Posted May 10, 2004 My observations on Tech. I am not as good as Rambo, Dragon or Kuni but I do play a lot. Just look at the pbem league to see the many games I have there. 1. Tech is luck. It's all statistics and dice rolls. Therefore this will bring into a game the luck factor, sometimes it will be small, but sometimes it will mean the luck factor will be very large. Against two even players it can easily decide a game. This is a big negative. However, it also levels the playing field for the lesser player if they get "lucky" with tech. I am in a couple of games now and I am in 1943 and my axis still has no advance in Jets, what a bummer, its keeping my enemy in the game. 2. In my mind the simply solution would be for Mr. C. (Hubert) to keep tech in the game but first, make it more expensive to invest in it and second cap it at a lower level like level-3 or even level-2. Have in the game editor a cap function where you can cap the level of increase at what you would like. Keep the "Superweapons" out of the game. They really are not realistic anyway. Also increase the "catch up" bonus dramatically so the other player will have a great great chance to catch up in tech. What I think this would do is if a player got say Level 3 jets, he would only have that tech advatage for a few turns if the other player was willing to invest also in that tech. Just some thoughts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon_j_rambo Posted May 10, 2004 Share Posted May 10, 2004 Yes, luck is so key in SC. The game has reached maturity level far as things to do. You feel like an idiot playing 18 hours in a day, concentrating every move, being patient, etc...then watch 3-carriers (w/ 3-star experience), 3-RAF, & 2-US Air get worked over by 4-LF all because I can't technology. I understand there's going to be luck, but this air crap is out of control. Why do you think I build at least 3-German carriers EVERY game? Because, if I get LR+3/JET+3 or higher, throw a 1-chit at AA...it will be a real bitch beating me. Actually, anytime I get that much power, I win. R.A.C.K. puts to bed that UK crap. Overtime, those carriers can take over the entire board singlehandedly. I need a Squad Leader game I can play 4 hour games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon_j_rambo Posted May 10, 2004 Share Posted May 10, 2004 What else sucks? 1) Sick of seeing the landing bonus thing? Troops jumping off/on transports gets me dizzy, lame. 2) Africa is an absolute joke for the Allies...gee, you get great supply down there. 3) Suez Canal, no return trips? DUMB, you get a oneway ticket to death & hell. 4) Spain supply connection is bogus. Spain is a joke for that matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Les the Sarge 9-1 Posted May 10, 2004 Share Posted May 10, 2004 I remind everyone, it was HCs first game, and look how good he did on his first game. He could have sold us something broken busted buggy flawed idoitic like HoI. Ok so the game's Tech can get out of hand. That's the reality of open ended games. Get over it move past it. If you were playing SC the board game, the German would have a finite number of counters period, and this would not be an issue. But it's a computer game. Unfortunately things like this are impossible to predict, because it is only possible to find them after spastic levels of hours worth of game play. So the logical solution, gentlemens agreements on force pool limits. Gentlemens agreements on dollar limits on tech. For our A3R veterans, recall how you can only spend a specified portion of budget on Strategic Warfare. All we need is a spending cap on tech (total tech spending) per specified span of time. This would actually be a great writing project for our SC Strategy guide author (hint hint). The unathourised (yet universally accepted) gentlemens SC guidlines manual of accepted and not accepted play styles and options limitations. Heck if we all had a universally accepted guidebook we could download and adhere to, everyone would know the game's more vexing wide open opportunities were tamed. Because "tech" isn't a bug, it's just an unruly beast. HC might be able to design some limiters into SC2, but don't you think for one second the more aggressive (read they will play it day and night because they don't have a wife or kids to fuss over) won't find oversights or examples of play balance imbalances. I only want SC to be stable software. I don't require it to be fair in all things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Les the Sarge 9-1 Posted May 10, 2004 Share Posted May 10, 2004 Of course, every would also have to realise, a gentlemens agreement is only good when playing one. None of this would in any way prevent a swine from cheating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pzgndr Posted May 10, 2004 Share Posted May 10, 2004 Do we know what Tech will look like in SC2? I've posted several comments on the SC2 forum. Please take SC2 discussions there. In summary: - Ability to edit tech research costs - Ability to set max number of chits per tech area - Ability to edit max research MPP total - Ability to set maximum level for each tech - Tech level increases will result in new cost increases for new builds and reinforcements - Ability to upgrade individual units and customize units based on new techs - New techs and new combat types (eg, sub and carrier attack/defense values will be different than generic naval values) - And more All things considered, SC2 should smooth out all the rough edges we have all been wrestling with over the past couple of years. There will still be the random element, but this can be moderated by strictly limiting research to 1 chit max per area. THAT slows things down a lot. And with increased costs to consider plus more research choices to make, games should become a bit more balanced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zappsweden Posted May 10, 2004 Share Posted May 10, 2004 Maybe the problem is not that tech is too hazardous but that JETS are too important. We have discussed it before surely but as I reminder, if interceptions were not forces and if air units were not able to kill off ground units then lucky jet tech would not be as deceisive. Have anyone noticed any other tech areas where bad lucks destroys the game? I mean, Getting lucky on rockets, bombers, subs or navy is not game winner but JET is. So, I think that a higher catchup or flattening out research is bad for the game in general. Who would then invest in sub, bomber or Gun Laying Radar? Simply put, reduce the Jets capcity of killing of being "finish em off" units in ground battles. Reduce the jets capacity of sniping HQ's Reduce the Jets capability of forcing interceptions. [ May 10, 2004, 02:53 PM: Message edited by: zappsweden ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted May 10, 2004 Share Posted May 10, 2004 Kuni Sorry to see you so aggravated -- I know you posted like this a long time back, you have a much more intense feeling for SC than I have but I've gotten equally emotional over chess and baseball when I played them way back and know how rough it is when you suddenly wonder why the hell you're even bothering with it! I agree on the points you mention and also on the ones later brought up by Rambo. To me SC as it is very badly needs yet another patch to fix some of these problems but I guess we won't see it. At the SC2 Forum I get the impression that, despite all the improvements, some of the same basic problems are going to be carried over to SC2. I hope not and if so I also hope they aren't as serious as they are here. To me having those limiting options in the new editor will help keep many of these things under control. It's bad enough falling behind in tech -- even when you've got the chips maxed out! -- but to fall behind in air tech and have a large number of air fleets opposing you is really fatal and frustrating and not overly realistic. Things we've all said innumerable times in the past but I thought I'd say them again, and I'm sure not for the last time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeaMonkey Posted May 11, 2004 Share Posted May 11, 2004 Believe me I have been on the receiving end as have you guys, but its still a fun game even when I lose, but again I don't capitulate, I fight to the end. The single thing, if there is one, to fix SC air game is to allow the ground units the AA research tech advance and disallow its bonus to resource based airfleets when defending unless they are attacked directly. But unfortunately its not going to happen, so be cool Kuni, it'll be fixed in SC2, enjoy the game for what it is and think "good thoughts" and receive good karma. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arngrim Posted May 11, 2004 Share Posted May 11, 2004 Well, as somone said. It¨s just the jets. I've lost SURE WIN, WIRH 11 AF against 5, just because tgeir jets killed ab AF a turn. and witgh 5 chits, 3 underin jet I got n o tech for two yeaqrss. I surren dered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Posted May 11, 2004 Share Posted May 11, 2004 Since ages ago I've been writing on the Power of the F-16s in SC Well, now maybe people will listen... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Posted May 11, 2004 Share Posted May 11, 2004 Since ages ago I've been writing on the Power of the F-16s in SC Well, now maybe people will listen... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Posted May 16, 2004 Share Posted May 16, 2004 A further comment on this game, Kuni got Jet4 for both US and UK. Also UK has Gun Radar 2 US has Anti Tank 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blashy Posted May 16, 2004 Share Posted May 16, 2004 Bottom line is luck based tech is crap. Make it you pay you get it and make it EXPENSIVE. When it comes to SC, play the game with no tech and no FoW, that is when this game trully shines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Curry Posted May 18, 2004 Share Posted May 18, 2004 I would like a historical option, where you could leave the tech to what it was historically. Would be interesting to play with and there would be no luck at all. I also, would not like it all the time but would just like the option to have it that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blashy Posted May 18, 2004 Share Posted May 18, 2004 Historical, no FoW, leave tech as is. Sounds like a good fight IMHO, pretty much based on talent only. SC:Chess I like it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Posted May 18, 2004 Share Posted May 18, 2004 Curry Blashy Well, there is Dice with Rolls in Combat, but they don't decide the Combat 100% So why not make the 'chance' less in Technology and more SureFire. That way it's not luck but rather planning and strategy that acquires it? You can edit this SC2 so a moot point. You will have the ability to do all what you guys want Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blashy Posted May 18, 2004 Share Posted May 18, 2004 I don't consider SC as having "dice rolls". HC did a great job of this game not being luck based (apart from TECH). I've found that you pretty much get what the board states up top when you do battle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon_j_rambo Posted May 18, 2004 Share Posted May 18, 2004 Hubert should have made a couple more patches. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zappsweden Posted May 18, 2004 Share Posted May 18, 2004 Originally posted by Blashy: I don't consider SC as having "dice rolls". HC did a great job of this game not being luck based (apart from TECH). I've found that you pretty much get what the board states up top when you do battle. LOL. "Pretty much". A roll does not have to be a six-sided dize made out of wood used for board games thrown from a players hand onto a table. simply put, in SC you could call the random factor Rolls, beans or lotts but it is still a random factor. A coin toss would be a roll too and similar to a 2-sided dice. In SC you get either of 3 cases: 1) calculatedDamage+1 2) calculatedDamage 3) calculatedDamage-1 You could aswell have written it Roll a six sided dize and use this table: 1-2 : calcDam+1 3-4 : calcDam 5-6 : calcDam-1 Simply put, we probably mean random factor even though we say roll. [ May 18, 2004, 09:12 AM: Message edited by: zappsweden ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts