vveedd Posted February 8, 2004 Share Posted February 8, 2004 Because I hate research concept in Strategic Command (too much depends on luck and because of that it is very suitable for cheating) I am playing with my friend Bill an experimental PBEM game with these settings: All nations have research level at 0 and this is permanent. All allocated and unallocated research points are 100% refunded in starting MPP so starting MPP have looked like this: UK starts with 500 MMP extra, France starts with 250 MMP extra, Germany starts with 750 MMP extra, US starts with 2250 MMP, USSR starts with 1750 MMP, Italy starts with default MPP because didn't have at start research points allocated in tech. He is playing Axis because is a better player and I am Allies. Here are some facts about this game and some of my thoughts so far: 1.)Tanks units are become much more significant which is very good and gives hole new dimension for playing and it is historically correct. 2.)Units experience become much more significant which is good and much more closer to wartime reality, 3.)Barbarossa is much quicker because of using Axis tanks – very good for playing and historically correct 4.)USSR are stronger but still not enough to defend yourself only with his own units but U.S. are much more stronger and Axis player could expect second front much sooner which gives some balance to game. 5.)As for balance in general, unfortunately, game is still far away from it but it is much more balanced then game with research. It seems to me that it is harder to play with Axis which is, actually, one of improvement because I have seen on forum lots of complain that Allies are too weak. Biding system is also because of that isn’t it? 6.)Rockets on level 0 are useless which is bad but historically correct. 7.)In game with research carriers are ineffective on level 0 but with certain higher levels are very good. Here they stay ineffective which is bad. This is what we have noticed in our game so far. Of course we will not see all good and bad side in just one game but we are playing a very interesting one and I recommend that you try it also. P.S. I would like to experiment more so if anyone wants to play against me with these settings let me know on my e-mail. Stay tuned for further information Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill101 Posted February 8, 2004 Share Posted February 8, 2004 I'd like to second the thoughts above. It has turned out to be a very interesting game, and it's quite a bit harder for the Axis than usual. The extra MPPs given to the USA mean that the allies can do a DDay very early, and this is the Axis' greatest concern. In view of this, while attacking Poland, Denmark, and the Low Countries, I also prepared for an invasion of Scandinavia to be launched at the same time as the battle for France began. It meant that I was spread a bit thin for a while, but fortunately things paid off eventually. Carriers can still be useful, but they are not as effective as before. Rockets are obsolete, but I've been reconciled to this with the knowledge that it is historically correct. This concept is well worth trying, and it's a different way of giving the Axis a hard time without resorting to the usual bidding. Not having to worry about the enemy getting better tech does make a nice change, but old habits die hard, and I cannot shake off the tendency to look at the end of every turn to see if I'm getting level 1 jets! My recommendation: give it a try! [ February 08, 2004, 08:44 AM: Message edited by: Bill101 ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pzgndr Posted February 8, 2004 Share Posted February 8, 2004 The old Third Reich game did not have research. The game designer abstractly considered that all sides would be progressing with advances and that unit capabilities would remain relative. Which isn't a bad premise actually. Playing with no research in SC will necessarily shift the game focus to pure strategy and tactics, and that's fine. My only caution would be to consider something other than L0 for everything for everyone. Some L1 or L2 tech advances here and there could represent national advantages for historical accuracy. For example, British and Italian air units were not equal. German tanks and American bombers should have some advantage. That sort of thing. There should be some realistic strengths and weaknesses spread around. Btw, research off should be an option for SC2 so that solo games can experiment with this idea. [ February 08, 2004, 10:26 AM: Message edited by: pzgndr ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill101 Posted February 8, 2004 Share Posted February 8, 2004 Although Italian and British air fleets are of equal quality, their HQs aren't. Yes, I guess some techs could be at level 1 or 2 while a rule on no further research is maintained, and one that springs to mind is IT for the USA. Having rockets set at level 2 does mean that they can at least be used, without them being the war winning weapons they can become. However, I recommend playing it with them all on level 0 first, so that you can see how different the game becomes. As I've experienced some frustration with research in recent games, I have found this game to be more relaxing in that respect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vveedd Posted February 8, 2004 Author Share Posted February 8, 2004 Originally posted by pzgndr: [QB] My only caution would be to consider something other than L0 for everything for everyone. Some L1 or L2 tech advances here and there could represent national advantages for historical accuracy. I have thought that this was a good idea also so I have tried to play SC with no research with default settings – allocated research point remained, unallocated refunded by default (50%) and it didn't work. Game is too unbalanced. When US have come with Level 1 Jets, German fighters didn't have the chance. It has been very frustrated game. Maybe some variants between these and default settings will work. I absolutely agree about no research as option in SC2. And yes, Third Reich is a great game. [ February 08, 2004, 02:03 PM: Message edited by: vveedd ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shaka of Carthage Posted February 8, 2004 Share Posted February 8, 2004 While it may be a fun variant for a game, playing with no tech, I wouldn't go so far as to say it would give you "historically correct" results. Playing with preset options and no tech investment, per pzgndr's suggestion would be a better way to represent that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill101 Posted February 9, 2004 Share Posted February 9, 2004 But Shaka, the references to it being historically correct are just to the use of tanks and rockets, nothing more. Usually tanks are made obsolete by your opponent's anti-tank research, to which there is no counter in the current SC research mechanism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pzgndr Posted February 9, 2004 Share Posted February 9, 2004 I have tried to play SC with no research with default settings – allocated research point remained, unallocated refunded by default (50%) and it didn't work. Game is too unbalanced. When US have come with Level 1 Jets, German fighters didn't have the chance. I wouldn't recommend default settings for that reason. But start German air fleets at L1, then US comes in with comparable fighters. Look at the overall WWII experience and give nations appropriate L1 tech bonuses: Germany - tanks, subs, jets, rockets UK - jets, l/r, sonar, gun laying radar US - jets, l/r, sonar, bombers, IT (L4-L5?) USSR - tanks, rockets, AT (maybe), IT (L3-L4?) Italy - l/r (maybe) France - nothing That's just a swag, but should result in a pretty good no-research game. A few subtle advantages here and there gives each player a chance to think about options. I'd also recommend going with something like this and not bother with cashing in the default techs and chits. Just an idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vveedd Posted February 9, 2004 Author Share Posted February 9, 2004 Originally posted by Bill101: But Shaka, the references to it being historically correct are just to the use of tanks and rockets, nothing more. Usually tanks are made obsolete by your opponent's anti-tank research, to which there is no counter in the current SC research mechanism. Bill is absolutely right. In our game Russians took and lost Sweden, D-day just has been failing. Historically correct??? [ February 09, 2004, 02:24 AM: Message edited by: vveedd ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dutch Army Posted February 11, 2004 Share Posted February 11, 2004 That is a gread plan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts