The REAL problem with research

[Les the Sarge 9-1]

I have read a great wealth of reasoned and well stated arguments about why this or that research unhinges the game.

The trouble is this though. in the REAL world, scientists don't always get the choice to just decide "hey lets make an incredible breakthrough in X technology".

I would rather like to see a little more random result in research.

Or put another way, let research be just that, just research. In other words, stop allowing players to specifically and intentionally isolate one aspect of research and ignore all others.

Methodology to make this work would be perhaps like this. Let it cost the same increment to conduct research, and let the research be given at best a slight emphasis towards a goal seen as more favourable.

In this way, you could spend the usual 250 MPP for a research chit, and decide, that say 25% is devoted to the popular favourite being Jets.

In this way, you have the same chances of a break through, but only a secondary 25% chance of that success being the hoped for ideal.

In this way, a person could devote interest in research, and not be able to just ignore actual real world research realities and just decide, I am building Jets because that's all I want.

And no, I am not succumbing to any arguments that would insist, you can just devote energy to Jets and force them to happen.

Science does not occur faster just from throwing money at it. The real world is ample evidence this is true.

[Edwin P.]

Les I agree with your points but would suggest suggest that research in one area should have the chance of giving an advance in a "related area" noit any field

For example - Researching Jets might give you an advance in Long Range or Rockets instead of Jets. You could not get an advance in Sonar by researching Jets.

Research in Armor might give you an advance in Anti-Tank but not Jets or Long Range Bombers.

Researching Advanced Sonar might give you an advance in Air Defense or Radar Guided Guns but not Armor or Anti-Tank.

[ March 30, 2004, 04:22 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[Les the Sarge 9-1]

It's Les Edwin

[Edwin P.]

Les, sorry about that

[Edwin P.]

I would like to see Les's idea expanded to include randomly Tech Developments becoming available "ONLY" if a player decides to commercialize the idea.

For example - While researching Advanced Subs the player discovers (say 1% per turn) a new Tech that would increase the readiness of Subs by 10% if an addtional 75MPP were invested in this area. Now the player has a choice - invest the 75MPP and immediately get the 10% readiness bonus to all subs or forgoe the extra investment.

[Kelly's Heroes]

I agree with you Les.

Research was was/is never a sure thing. In Atomic research both the Germans and Japanese often went down the wrong roads.

Heck, even Axis and Allies has a random chance that research won't lead to a discovery. For example, it takes the rolling of two six's in order to achieve the Long Range Bomber tech.

If the player doesn't roll two six's, then it's good-bye to the MPPs that were spent on it.

[Les the Sarge 9-1]

Not so much to contribute to Edwins "commercial" notion, but we should be able to "sell" and or "trade" tech between allies.

If the US developes Jets level 1, why should the game assume the US would not offer it to Britain?

I think the game should allow the allies of a nation the ability to purchase the needed ability to acquire friendly known tech levels.

If the US knows Jets level 1, it should be a simple matter for an ally to simply invest in a purchase to upgrade to that tech level.

It wouldn't be free of course, but you would not have to "wonder if it will happen" any more.

[jon_j_rambo]

I don't think the USA would give technology to the Russians, & they were a so called Ally. Give tanks & bullets is one thing, but not new technology.

[Les the Sarge 9-1]

I might have commented on Russia, but didn't want to steal an otherwise obvious remark hehe.

But yeah, I think Russia might be uninclined to share as well.

Clearly, the notion of shared tech might really only realistically apply between the US and Britain, as the other nations were not reknown for "playing nice" with their supposed friends.

Frankly, this tech sharing option, even if only logically made possible for the Allies ie US and Britain, might at least make them a bit more capable againstt the oft mentioned to powerful Axis opponent.

[Edwin P.]

Les, I like the concept of the UK and the US being able to share technology for a price.

I also think that while Germany would not share its tech advances with Italy that it might simply take any advances that Italy developed, however, I do not recommend this for obvious Game balance reasons.

As for what price should integrating this shared technology cost? About 250MPP per tech level gained? Thus for the US to increase its Jets Level 1 to match UK Jets Tech Level Three would cost the US 500MPP. Is this balanced or not?

[Blashy]

The fact that is a luck thing is the problem.

Make a "buy it, get it" thing, but buying it is MUCH more expensive than the current state.

And they need to balance themselves out, this we all know.

[Les the Sarge 9-1]

Blashy I would never advocate "buying research" and would like immediately dump any game if it was implemented.

The Germans would simply buy Jets and the Allies lose yet again.

There would not even be a point to designing the other options in SC for instance.

Edwin, on the matter of US - UK cooperative research, I think making a transferred tech equal cost is not entirely accurate. Most of research expenditure is just getting to the "oh ya, that's how it works" point.

Actually implementing a discovery as applied tech is not nearly so expensive as all the time and effort to get to that "Eureka!!" moment.

But I would not want it to be next to free either.

As the average advance will not always be a spend 250 and get a result next turn response, it is also my thoughts, that research costs might be reduced, and the chance of success lowered.

I would rather spend maybe 100 per turn, but need more actual luck in success. Thus requiring me to maybe spend three turns at 100 each before the light goes on.

But I would also like to see research chits lost after each success, or at least have some of them expended. As a way of reflecting that the next level will not be as easy as the previous.

Buying 3 chits, and never having to replace them, makes research waaaaaaaay to powerful, and too easy.

[Kelly's Heroes]

I think it would be interesting to have some randomness in research. And there should be ways to improve the possibility of getting that research completed.

For example:

If SC uses dice to predict outcome of research, then:

You have the possibility of buying 5 dice, which increases the chances of getting the discovery:

1 Dice - cost 100 MPP = 10% chance of discovery

2 Dice - cost 200 MPP = 25% chance of discovery

3 Dice - cost 300 MPP = 40% chance of discovery

4 Dice - cost 400 MPP = 50% chance of discovery

5 Dice - cost 500 MPP = 60% chance of discovery

As to the Allies sharing tech. I'm wondering if it might be easier if America shared its MPPs (production) with Britain. In this way Britain could pursue its own specific research.

[ April 01, 2004, 10:49 AM: Message edited by: Kelly's Heroes ]

[Blashy]

Buying research does not kill a game.

You just make it extremely expensive and pricier depending on the military value of said research.

Planes would be something like 5x more expensive than anti-tank research and things like so.

You make it so it is a serious choice, invest heavily (ex: SC 1000mpp) to buy level 1 and one extra 1000 for each level after (2000 for level 2, 3000 for level 3). These are just figurative numbers. But you see how research becomes a strategical move, it has to be a calculated risk.

Luck research is always not so expensive and you just go at it and see if you get lucky.

I don't much care for luck to be such a big a factor in a war game, which it is in SC at this time. Just read some AAR and you'll see what I mean.

[Edwin P.]

As Les said research is unpredictable and in the real world not all research projects have the same priority or the same caliber of staff assigned to them.

Perhaps each major country should receive a research bonus in specific areas based on the fields where they were strong.

For example:

Germany has a gains a +2% Research Bonus if Germany decides to fund Rocket Research or Subs.

The US gains a +2% Bonus to researching Bombers and Industrial Tech

The United Kingdom has a +2% Bonus to Anti-Air Defense and Gun Laying-Radar.

Russian engineers give Russia a +2% Bonus to Industrial Tech and Rockets.

Thus a 1 Chit German investment in Jets has a 5% of discovery whereas a 1 Chit German investment in Subs has a 7% chance to gain a tech level.

As long as this bonus is not given for Jets, Long Range, AntiTank, or Armor I believe that it could go a long way towards making for a more balanced game with a wider use of available technology research paths. One could even have the bonus assigned randomly each game to 2 tech areas for each nation, so long as it excluded the four key tech areas (Jets, LR, Anti-Tank and Armor).

Another option is to have a chance for a random Tech related event, say 1% per turn (ie 1 per game) that would give a player an advance in a random area (excluding Jets or LongRange) where they have not invested any research funding.

[ April 01, 2004, 04:19 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[Les the Sarge 9-1]

I dunno Blashy, I have waaaaaaaaay to many years worth of independent research (mine) backing up the reality, that most military history is almost ALL luck

No matter what price you apply to research, the truth of the matter will always remain, the Axis start with all the cash options, will always have the cash advantage forst, and in the end, it will always be the Axis that get there first, and as a result will always have a designed in defacto bias in their favour.

If you make research to expensive, you will merely design it out of the game. As it currently stands, I rarely use it at all. Thus most of my games are usually purely military actions with base normal formations.

Not always the best course, but still a possible one.

But lady luck is real. And I have no interest in playing a game, where she is told to get lost

[Skanvak]

I like the research formula of SC because it is less costly to get a technology for nation less advance (represent imitation and spying) and more costly (though not really enough) for nation most advanced.

Though I really feel that research is a mix of, luck (or good scientists), continuous effort and investment. But if you put 2 pt in research and another nation only 1 pt then you should not really be able to have more than one level of thech advantage in this field. Ie if you want 2 you will have to put 3 pt if it stay at 1.

I would advocate too for a turn base cost (continuous effort). Actually all field were research in WWII, there was only a few field that was not. But the investment level was different.

For the cash prb. As already said elsewhere, the USA is under-rated. Beside US have the same technology whatever is entry date is (same for the USSR). It all appear that both the USA and the USSR were not doing any research before the entry in the war.

[Ron]

I agree to a limited extent with Les's arguments, however "necessity is the Mother of invention". Pick up a copy of "Blood, Tears and Folly" by Len Deighton to see how true that really is.

As usual Edwin P. has some excellent and well thought out suggestions, here's hoping some (most) of them make it into SC2!

Ron

[Brian (the semi-wise)]

The whole research issue is a difficult crutch. You have to have it, and Hubert balance it well over some editions, but still, luck one way or the other, can truly unbalance the game. If you invest in it.

Once upon a time, industrial research improvements reduced unit costs 10%. And that was an absolute number. 10%. Now it is 5%. And that is good.

If you invest in Jets, and get a research breakthrough, you get a plus ten percent effectiveness (roughly - I really don't know the mechanics, but something like that). Same with most everything else.

We are in the age of the computer, people, and the design can support increments smaller than 5% or 10%.

It would not complicate the game or the calculations to simply shrink the percentage improvements down to something more realistic.

Think pfII, to pfIII to pfiv, a, b c, d e, to panther, and tiger.

Baby steps, with a window set up just for research that informs you:

We improved our armor - bigger fuel tanks: 1%

We improved our infantry - better canteens: 1%

We improved our fighters - 0% no research.

We improved our bombers - radar breakthrough: 5%

etc.

You could make it half percents if you want, or even less. The point is that if you are researching something, in the scope of this game, you get something, generally. You could also get:

We didn't improve our tanks at all, despite all the research funds you gave us, because we are lazy.

Further, a research chit shouldn't have absolute cost, or an absolute return on investment. A little here, a little there. And the Germans should get more ROI than say, the Italians (no offense) in certain fields.

Further, more areas of research - this has been mentioned in another post and I agree with it.

Logistics (movement allowance and prep), Counterintellingenc (visibility), and so on.

The fact of the matter is that Hubert translated a brand new version of 3rd Reich and Clash of Steel on his first try, honed it, and has made a classic. There are many opportunities for SC2.

I would love to help in any way I can.

I love this game.

Brian