82ndReady Posted November 13, 2002 Share Posted November 13, 2002 I have been in many games recently as the Allies and have seen the Germans stepping all over Neutral contries and pludering there MPP's they then build up there TECH to an ungodly rapid pace and Level in many fields in a very short period of time which then makes the Germans unstoppable! This game is already Pro-German and it takes a very good allied player to beat a good German player. Who here on this Forum agrees with me that this needs to be changed in some way? I suggest slowing down Tech and adding gearing limits! A country has only so much resource and manpower, once another country has been conqured there manpower and resource could be added to the victors! :confused: - Heith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I/O Error Posted November 13, 2002 Share Posted November 13, 2002 I don't know about necessarily slowing down tech. I've seen a LOT of cases where tech advances won't come for blood, sweat, tears or curses. What I'd really like is to see luck take a smaller hand in the whole business, I think that's what we need most. Gearing limits... God yes, if there's anything we need it's THAT, lol. "There goes an army, time to make a brand new one all in one week! What's the current young males population? Who cares!" [ November 12, 2002, 11:31 PM: Message edited by: I/O Error ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flash Gordon Posted November 13, 2002 Share Posted November 13, 2002 How about this. At the beginning of the game, the computer randomly selects two of your technologies. This two will NEVER increase no matter HOW much chips you put in them. Muahahaha!!!! That'll slow down technological growth alright...plus, it'll make for some interesting situations where a person has stuff invested in a technology, it isn't increasing, and he's starting to wonder whether it's because he's just been unlucky or whether that technology is one of the random two that will never increase... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I/O Error Posted November 13, 2002 Share Posted November 13, 2002 OH GOD! HAHA, that would just be terrible! Industrial Tech and Heavy Tanks, say goodbye! (Or plane tech, whatever) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dolphin Posted November 13, 2002 Share Posted November 13, 2002 I feel the other way around. The technology advances depend heavily on luck. Occasionaly, I got nothing in return after investing 5 pts in Anti Tank Weapons. I do not like the research system in Strategic Commander. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
japinard Posted November 13, 2002 Share Posted November 13, 2002 I dont think it advances too fast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dolphin Posted November 13, 2002 Share Posted November 13, 2002 err, I would like to correct my statement Occasionaly, I got nothing in return after investing 5 pts in Anti Tank Weapons. should be read as "Occasionaly, I got nothing in return after investing 5 pts in Anti Tank Weapon field for one year" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yohan Posted November 13, 2002 Share Posted November 13, 2002 I think you will find 1.06 balances out some of the variables in tech between both sides. This will move the game forward in terms of making research still important but not as unbalancing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ev Posted November 13, 2002 Share Posted November 13, 2002 Playing either Axis or Allies I find myself concentratig all tech in two areas: IT and Jets. Because I concentrate all my IT in two areas I advance very quickly in those two areas. If I were to spread my chips evenly amongst all 10 areas, I would probably feel tech advances are too slow. I don't think the problem is in the speed at which tech advances. The question we should ask is why are we so tempted to concentrate all our research in only one or two areas. Many areas of research just don't pay off. Is this the way we want the game to work? Or is this something we want to change? If it paid off to invest in all ten areas, and we were spreading our tech chips all around, many of us would be looking at 1945 with only tech levels 3 and 4 and wondering when are we getting that level 5. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Notelrac Posted November 15, 2002 Share Posted November 15, 2002 I think the disparity between tech 1 and tech 5 is historical. Compare a PzkwII and a King Tiger. (Well, there is no comparison, but...) I think your issue could be resolved by: 1. Increasing the ability of the Allies to generate tech increases 2. Slowing down the generation of tech advances I think that if #2 is done, that the randomness needs to be reduced or eliminated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts