Research!

[Welshwill]

Sorry to drag up this topic AGAIN! But. I'm currently involved in a PBEM where I had an excellent start. I have invested the full five points into industrial tech and in 35 turns have had just two advancements! In the mean time the Brits have had at least three, as I'm fighting L3 jets and the Russians, who are notouriously slow starters have had at least one in jets. How am I supposed to compete? Again the plea, THAT SOMETHING NEEDS TO BE DONE! It is getting to the point where the game will become boring as thier is a distinct inbalance and I for one enjoy the challenge of a well balanced game. It doesn't matter how well you perform and what strategy your using, if you are going up against greater numbers with higher tech development then at best you have static warfare. Where is the fun in that?

[ October 05, 2002, 05:51 AM: Message edited by: Welshwill ]

[Carl G. E. von Mannerheim]

Actually, i have come across many ways of advancning against a technically superior foe, its called "Go for broke" create one small hole in their line, then send everything through that can balst that pesky airfleet on the ground. Then their forces will fall back and then you can begin your advance. I use this all the time when playing as the russians against germany in mid 1943-44

[Welshwill]

Originally posted by Carl Von Mannerheim:

Actually, i have come across many ways of advancning against a technically superior foe, its called "Go for broke" create one small hole in their line, then send everything through that can balst that pesky airfleet on the ground. Then their forces will fall back and then you can begin your advance. I use this all the time when playing as the russians against germany in mid 1943-44

That is a fair point, but. I am now ten moves on and have only had one more advancement. I know that it is supposed to be random, with improved odds if you max out your points in that catergory, but what is happening in one of my current games is bordering on the ridiculous. I have to say, if this is how it is going to play out then I'm not going to bother with SC and I'm going to find a more well balanced game.

If the memebers who usually resort to insults don't like what I'm saying, tough. If it needs to be said then I'm going to say it. If you want to keep your collective heads in the sand, and in the past I might add, then so be it. You will only succeed in stiffling the development of this game. So to all those who wish to critisize, and their are many, my oppinion. UP YOU PIPE as they say in the UK. This is a democracy and if you don't like well.......I don't care.

[Bruce70]

The situation you describe does not sound desperate or unreasonable. The Brits have admittedly been lucky and have had 3 advances in Jets. Assuming they haven't had advances in IT as well then they are going to have a hard time reinforcing those and will almost certainly not be building more.

OTOH you have invested in IT and have had 3 advances. Had you invested in Jets instead you would be in a very strong position as far as the air war goes.

[Jollyguy]

I am in one game where I have ten chits invested, and have gotten 0, zero, nada, advancements for over twenty turns! ! I sit with no advancements, period.

I don't mind an element of luck on research, but the way it is now, research can be like the tail wagging the dog in some games. This type of bad luck doesn't add an element of challenge and variety to the game, it adds a level of frustration! And when the tables turned it's not fair for the oppoenent, who gets swamped and pummeled with high level advancements.

Research simply has to be smoothed out and consistently rewarded. You can spend hours and hours in a game, and leave with a very bad taste in your mouth sometimes. Research shouldn't be like playing craps, a roll of the dice. In large part it should reward the player willing to make the sacrafice in MPPs.

As Thomas Edison said, discovery is 99% perspiration, 1% inspiration. As the system is now, some games it's 99% luck, 1% reward. 2500 MPPs is a big sacrifice.

Arghhhhh!!!!

[Bruce70]

I agree with the assertion that research shouldn't be resolved completely by luck. Luck should play a large part, but if you just remove the possibility of extreme events happening (like Jollyguy's that is, Welshwill's was quite reasonable IMO) then there would be no "ruined" games while the vast majority of games would be unchanged.

[dougmangin]

Originally posted by Bruce70:

I agree with the assertion that research shouldn't be resolved completely by luck. Luck should play a large part, but if you just remove the possibility of extreme events happening (like Jollyguy's that is, Welshwill's was quite reasonable IMO) then there would be no "ruined" games while the vast majority of games would be unchanged.

I have read the dozens of comments about technology and I would like to add my two cents worth. Whatever your belief or opinion on the matter there are others who feel differently. Some think the randomness of the current system makes the game more interesting, some think it can be too random.

How about we have an OPTION added to the game? Just like other options we now have to increase the random play of the game, such as free french, fow, etc... things that you can turn on or off as you wish.

It seems to me there has to be some way to have one system as it is, completely random and perhaps slightly modified as some have suggested (decreasing chances for advancement per level, etc..) and a second toggle that is totally incremental. You invest X number of MPPs for X number of turns you get this level. Perhaps limitations on when and how much can be developed.

This way if you want total randomness you can have it - if you want a more predictable scheme you can have that too. And I would so so so dearly like and beg hubert to consider this option too - Hubert, I like your game, but please please please create a toggle or option to intercept or not intercept air attacks. I ask so very little!

Ok now you can tear my comments to pieces - enjoy.

[arby]

I agree fully that the random nature of research can screw up games. You can talk all you want about how to fight at a technological advantage; while that may work against the AI, it's not going to work against even a semi-skilled human player. Especially if you're the German, and have to be on the offensive. Going into Barbarossa with no more advances than L1 tanks, while the British have L3 jets, is pretty much a done deal.

On the other hand, eliminating the random nature of research is going to have a severe impact on playability, because it's perhaps the only real variable in the game. There's no real diplomatic option; you can take certain steps to avoid certain things happening, but after you've played the game a few times, there's not much variation there. The number of strategic options are rather limited. Committing resources to sub warfare is a waste of time, and the Med has limited value as a theatre of operations. So the same strategy tends to be employed in every game, with the only real variation being whether the German research will be ramped up enough by the time of Barbarossa, or whether the UK and USA will get the advancements they need to establish air superiority over France, and whether the Russians can get Industrial Tech up sufficiently to build up enough corps to make a double line before the Germans get to Rostov.

I'm not sure that research "ruins" the game. I think there will be some where the research imbalance is quite noticeable early on, which is fine; then you bag that, and go on. The ones that are worse are where the research dries up, and you realize that you're sitting there just short of Moscow and you haven't had anything of worth in over a year and meanwhile your corps on the Western Front are getting blown to smithereens every turn by British and American jets.

So I agree that it can be unsettling, but until some other things like subs and the Med are fixed, taking the random nature of research away could serious reduce the replayability aspect of this game.

[Bruce70]

Perhaps there could be a system built in where if you haven't received any advances after a certain time period (varying with the amount invested) you automatically get one advance of any type (whether you have invested in that or not). There are a whole bunch of reasons why I don't like this idea but it would make some games more interesting.