Is industrial technology too strong?

[Tellu]

Compared to other techs what do you think?

Getting heavy tanks to 5 gets you some great units which cost A LOT!

Same with Jet Fighters.

Those units everyone use.

Then there are techs which effect not so used units like navys and bombers which still are rather good for them.

And then there is rocker tech which IMO is total waste of money...

But there is a real killer too!

Industrial Technology!

This game turns around MPPs. Indus tech lowers the need of MPPs so it effectively boosts your MPP value. This affects everything, buying, upgrading nad moving units. Its also help in strategic warfare since units lost in those activities will be easier to replace and thus keep in full power. It also gives more range options since you can afford diffrent kinds of troops in the same time and you are not limited to single path of action.

So now what is your opinion?

If you played the full game would you research any other tech before industrial tech?

[Lars]

In the full game, no, that would be the first thing I'd go for.

But remember, the other side probably will be doing the same.

[Marc Hameleers]

Problem is, then the game would depend too much on teh randoms of getting that tech or not.

What about if the Industrial tech advance could only be one higher then your highest OTHER advance. Then you would have to spread it around a little, getting more normal results

Marc

[Jeff Heidman]

Without stacking, I think youa re going to need to get your combat power up in order to effectively fight.

So I see industrial tech as something that will allow people to actually afford those heavy tanks and jet fighters. This should increase combat power density, allowing those with the tech edge to get local superiority without the need for just piling on more troops.

Even in the Demo, it is easy to get enough units to form a solid front between the USSR and Germany. Without combat pwoer density increases, it becomes a stalemate almost immediately.

Jeff

[Tellu]

That is a good idea Marc. Other might be to lessen the effect of industrial tech. Now it gives 10% discount on everything. How about lower percentage?

[pzgndr]

I've got to reserve comment on research in general until I see the full game and documentation. Obviously some areas are going to be more or less important to you depending on which side you play.

I do have a nagging concern at how quickly some things can change, like level 5 industrial technology or level 3 jets within the year of the demo. This borders on fantasy. You would probably want to balance your research in a full game, which would lead to more realistic progress, but obviously you can overload in SC and obtain fantastical results.

Something to consider is a baseload of free research points per country and then an opportunity to buy a comparable amount of extra points, like 2 for Italy and France, 3 for Russia and Britain, and 4 for Germany and US. And limit the max per area to 2 or 3 to limit progress somewhat. This would provide for some research surprises (like Italy and France getting lucky with free research) while moderating some of the bizarre results of overloading.

If you do manage to buy 5 points now and get a 25% chance in a single research area, you'll average a level increase every 4 turns. You can easily max out within a year, and then shift to something else. This really should not happen. I'm all for maintaining a what-if game, but let's keep things reasonable.

[Jeff Heidman]

Good ideas Bill. I like the cocnept of "free" points.

Rather than limiting it to 2 or 3 though, I would suggest a geometric cost structure.

So the cost to research each level could be:

1: 1

2: 3

3: 5

4: 7

5: 9

So you could over-weight areas, but it would cost a lot to do so.

Jef

[pzgndr]

Jeff, putting any price tag on research and diplomacy can give them a life of their own, which I've seen in A3R, even if you raise the costs. I prefer subtler changes to the historical record, and limiting research to 2-3 per area (10-15%) would have a better moderating effect. You would still see some rapid advances and what-ifs, but not as quickly. Or perhaps change the percentage for each successive research point per area to 5-4-3-2-1, which would give percentages of 5-9-12-14-15% and represent diminishing returns. 20-25% per turn is just too much, regardless of cost.

I also like the idea of free baseload research the more I think about it. It can represent lucky breaks as well as abstractions like Britain and US researching the same stuff and sharing results. Both sides shouldn't have to "pay" for each sonar/radar advance for instance. So some free points would help here.

[Mexicano]

I think the random factor is too great, the chance should be reduced when getting to a new tech level. For every point you spend you should still get a 5% chance, but for every level you make in that tech it should also get x% less to make it more difficult to get it. Hopes it makes sense

Mexicano

[Lars]

How about if once you get the first research level a point disappears and you have to buy another point to get to the next research level?

The way it is now one point can take you to the top, conceivably in every research area in a long game.

[Desert Dave]

As originally posted by Bill Macon:

I prefer subtler changes to the historical record, and limiting research to 2-3 per area (10-15%) would have a better moderating effect. You would still see some rapid advances and what-ifs, but not as quickly. Or perhaps change the percentage for each successive research point per area to 5-4-3-2-1, which would give percentages of 5-9-12-14-15% and represent diminishing returns. 20-25% per turn is just too much, regardless of cost.

I like this idea, or a variation of it, the best so far.

I would agree that there is too rapid an advance at times.

In a recent game, I got the Industrial level to 3 by January '41. This is way too fast, and likely will skew the game a little too much in my favor? (... assuming the opponent has not done as well).

Also, a humble request to Hubert -- I would prefer NOT to see the Jet icon (nor the aerodynamic SWOOSH) until level 3 or so. Somehow it bothered my historical sensibility to have this in 1941. :eek:

[SpazManOught]

If you invest in research you should get some kind of return from it. I mean 3 research points cost what 750mpps. You have got to save up for ages to get this many points and thus the rest of your army will suffer, if you only get a small return from this investment then you are well and truely screwed.

I think its fine the way it is, you invest money in the hope that you will get a large bonus at some point in the near future. If you only get a small return or have to wait 10 years for it then no one will bother with research as it will be far to risky. If people don't use it then its just a waste of code even if it is more realistic.

Edited because I should have done more research.

[ June 03, 2002, 07:46 PM: Message edited by: SpazManOught ]

[pzgndr]

If people don't use it then its just a waste of code even if it is more realistic.

If we could get some free points as part of the mix, everyone would use it. It's not unreasonable to assume a baseload research capability exists, since players do start with the basic technological weapon systems of the period and they had to come from somewhere other than a Sears catalog. Invest more and see more returns.

There seems to be some agreement that reducing the max per area may be appropriate, or some other way to slow down some of the advances we're seeing. This is something for Hubert to consider.

[Ancient One]

I fully agree with the 5-9-12-14-15% idea. It would encourage players to spread the research around at least a little bit.

[Guanoman]

I also like the 5-9-12-14-15% idea.

And as I recall, in Clash of Steel you had to double the investment for each additional chance, so it took one research point for one level of research intensity, three for level two intensity (one plus two), seven for level three (one plus two plus four), etc.

[USGrant]

I think the diminishing success percentage is the best way to go. There is no good way under the current model to vary the actual price of research as it is applied to each area because research "points" are purchased independently of their allocation. A generally increasing cost of research points might be implemented relatively easily, however, by making the first research point purchased cost 250, the second 300, the third 350, etc. I would also like to see the first research point for each country be free - maybe an Italian or French scientist will develop something that way.

I think that the suggested 5-4-3-2-1% model might be too severe. I'm afraid it would make level 5 technology disappear from the game, even in 1945. Also, it would lead to homogenization of the research levels across countries because there is little return in specializing. In my mind a model of 5-5-4-3-2% or 5-5-4-4-3% might accomplish the goal without making level 5 technology disappear completely.

This would dampen the extremes of research, while still allowing players to choose to specialize in various technologies, and thereby increase replayablity.

Lastly, I would also vote for a maximum of 4 points per area instead of 5.

EDIT

Having just reread the whole thread, I realized that I misunderstood Bill Macon's suggested scheme. He is suggesting that the successive research points have different chances of success. I was thinking that each higher level of research should be more difficult. In my scheme, each level would have a certain percentage per point. For example:

Level 1 = 5%/point - 4 points applied = 20%/turn

Level 5 = 2%/point - 4 points applied = 8%/turn

Finally, is each reseach point applied to an area independent? In other words, do two reseach points generate two "die rolls" at 5% each, or one at 10%? If they are independent, it should be possible to gain more than one level per turn. Inquiring minds want to know!

[ June 07, 2002, 11:43 PM: Message edited by: USGrant ]

[DevilDog]

I think it's a little hard to judge tech upgrades in the one year demo. You really only have enough time and resources to research a few techs. In one game, as Germany, I researched tech level 5 in industrial technology. You can really kick out a buttload of level one units with that kind of industry let me tell you!

However.....does anyone know how much a level 5 army or tank group cost with level one industrial tech? My guess is they would be impossible to buy. So you have to have the industrial tech in order to be able to build many of the upgraded units. I'm sure Hubert has tested and balanced the tech levels as much as possible.

I'm willing to bet if you go for only industrial upgrades, although you will produce a lot of units, they won't do very well against the numerically fewer but stronger units produced by an opponent who researched unit upgrades.

[ June 07, 2002, 11:59 PM: Message edited by: DevilDog ]

[Desert Dave]

As originally posted by DevilDog:

However.....does anyone know how much a level 5 army or tank group cost with level one industrial tech? My guess is they would be impossible to buy. So you have to have the industrial tech in order to be able to build many of the upgraded units. I'm sure Hubert has tested and balanced the tech levels as much as possible.

I'm willing to bet if you go for only industrial upgrades, although you will produce a lot of units, they won't do very well against the numerically fewer but stronger units produced by an opponent who researched unit upgrades.

Interesting point. You would have to have that rare game where the two initiatives would converge perfectly.

Having thought it over, I think this is my favorite aspect of SC-ET, because it will make each game unique. It may very well provide the tiny difference between two equally matched opponents (... and provide rationale for defeat ).

Which is better -- cheaper units that are not reinforced, or fewer stronger units? Like much else, it will take the full game to help determine this.

[gorski]

Before throwing my 2 cents in, I would just like to say SC is a great game and I would buy the full version as it is today.

I don't like the randomness of acquiring tech. It feels too much like Axis and Allies, where you are gambling on tech. I invested 2500 mpp on tech and got level 5 anti tank in 9 turns and level 1 industrial by the end of the demo. I would like to be able to buy tech over a period of time somehow.

Example: You need to spend 500 mpp to acquire level 1 in a given tech. The restriction being that you can only spend 50 mpp per turn without penalties. Just use a square root or log function to give diminishing returns on mpp spent beyond 50 a turn. (This is an example, not a suggestion of how I think it should be done.)

Sure, there are problems with a 'buying tech' system, but it might work ok if done properly.

Gorski

[Straha]

Originally posted by gorski:

Before throwing my 2 cents in, I would just like to say SC is a great game and I would buy the full version as it is today.

I don't like the randomness of acquiring tech. It feels too much like Axis and Allies, where you are gambling on tech. I invested 2500 mpp on tech and got level 5 anti tank in 9 turns and level 1 industrial by the end of the demo. I would like to be able to buy tech over a period of time somehow.

Example: You need to spend 500 mpp to acquire level 1 in a given tech. The restriction being that you can only spend 50 mpp per turn without penalties. Just use a square root or log function to give diminishing returns on mpp spent beyond 50 a turn. (This is an example, not a suggestion of how I think it should be done.)

Sure, there are problems with a 'buying tech' system, but it might work ok if done properly.

Gorski

Indeed, the "gambling approach" to tech development is something which routinely makes me curse in many games ("Storm across Europe" is another example) ... but that's just me, I'm simply jinxed in these things.

Straha

[Desert Dave]

As originally posted by Straha:

Indeed, the "gambling approach" to tech development is something which routinely makes me curse in many games ("Storm across Europe" is another example) ... but that's just me, I'm simply jinxed in these things.

The thing is, you may choose NOT to invest at all, other than say, a small amount in Industry.

If I spend the full allotment -- 2500 MPPs, and you don't spend any, then you have 10 more Armies, or 7 more tank detachments, etc.

Will my few advanced units be able to successfully parry your advantage in sheer numbers? It would depend on your immediate and long-term goals, and so -- it would depend on your unique philosophy of gaming. To me, this makes the game much more variable and exciting. :cool:

You could think of random success in tech as just another of those LUCK factors that influence any battle.

And over a 10-game series, the luck would tend to even out.

[gorski]

The thing is, you may choose NOT to invest at all, other than say, a small amount in Industry.

I will probably choose not to invest in tech and try to kill England or Russia instead. Again, we are seeing similarities to Axis and Allies where investing in tech makes it impossible to win conventionally and you must rely on getting a good return on your tech investments.

Gorski

[ June 10, 2002, 04:54 PM: Message edited by: gorski ]

[VeerG]

To begin with, I haven’t played the game, since I lack a connection speed fast enough to download the demo in a reasonable amount of time (what ever happened to the good o'll days of 8-9 MB Demos ??), but I have been following the threads here with some interest and also the AAR's, so am familiar with the game.

I do however have no idea when the game is due to be released and thus don't know if it's too late to incorporate any suggestions, but here are my few bits:

1) Researching Industrial Tech does seem too strong, and since it cheapens every unit, it is likely to be the first thing everyone will research. In fact those who don't research it first will invariably lose in the full version of the game in the long run. A decreasing returns system is also unlikely to work effectively as already mentioned in previous posts.

So how about instead of giving you a discount on very unit, Industrial tech simply gives an increase in MP's?? This would be representative of an expanding industrial base, or more of the industrial base of nation geared towards war. Level 5 would give you be representative of 'A Total War Economy' - such a Russia achieved historically and Germany failed to.

There probably should be some detrimental effect modeled in also - maybe overall morale will suffer, decrease in Movement points, or maybe political repercussions.

2) I don't like the idea of being able to research Jet fighters or even Rocket by 1940 (full version of game). IMO, the benefits of researching certain technologies such a Jet fighters, rockets should be attainable only after other 'base' technologies have been researched first. A sort of a Technology Tree.

For example, Jet Aircraft Level 1 can only be achieved after Long Range Aircraft and Anti-Aircraft Radar Level One have been researched.

After all in an economy everything is linked and it is every odd for a country to Level 5 jets, and no radar. And those countries which historically did well in the war saw tech increases across their whole economy and not just one or two areas.

3) I don't like the idea of being able to 'plunder' MP's from conquered countries. If I am right MP represent Man Power and Industrial Capacity. If we take Germany for example, the increases it saw in conquering France, major parts of Russia were small. The only country whose entire industry was effectively used by Germany was Czechoslovakia. If a country is conquered, there should be a small/reasonable increase in MP's as way of indemnity, but certainly not the 500-700 Mp's you can get now. 100 should be MAX.

The problem with getting too many MP's is that it allows the conquering country to recover too fast. I saw this in the France-Sea lion AAR.

4) If London in captured, America should enter the War immediately, regardless of what other 'appeasing moves' Germany had made. Americans had severe business exposure in London, if nothing else, it is unlikely that it would just sit still.

5) Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria were more of a liability to the Axis, esp. later on it the war. If they do join the Axis, they should add only a negligible amount of MP's. And they should be very sensitive to losing their troops - if their armies are destroyed they might leave the Axis or join the Allies, thus forcing Germany to spend some of her scarce MP's on her 'allies'.

-That is all- I think. If this thread was on it's way out, sorry for resurrecting it. And I don't know who else if producing this game other than Hubert, but congrats to him everyone else for producing something so great.

[Hawk]

I don't know how many games I've played during beta. In all of these games, industrial technology has only had a heavy impact in a couple of those games, so I wouldn't wory too much about it.

[Ancient One]

Originally posted by VeerG:

A decreasing returns system is also unlikely to work effectively as already mentioned in previous posts.

Nobody has mentioned why a diminishing returns system is unlikely to work effectively, why do you think it won't work?