Hubert -- Minimum-Maximum Tech Progress.

[JerseyJohn]

Hubert,

I've read innumerable threads on this subject and I'm sure you've read twice as many. Assuming you've read this far, I'm sure you're reading these words under silent protest, but please continue through to the end as I think I've got a worthwhile idea to propose.

As it stands now, technical progress seems to be totally random with research chits only affecting the chance that an advance will occur.

In addition to assigned research chits, I suggest automatic slow advances in basic areas pre-selected for each major country according to their historical interests and where research would normally have been applied.

Even if they put nothing in those areas they'll have an advance once every year upon activation in the war.

This would prevent the truly game killing nonsense of, say, Germany going two years into the war and still having L=0 tanks despite having 3 research chits in the area! --

That was only an example, the same thing happens every game to at least one country and in at least one key area of research. Very often this random factor alone determines the outcome of the game. Which is ridiculous and very disheartening to the people who have committed their time in playing. While nobody can guarantee quick advances, it's safe to say that each country knew for sure they'd make at least some progress during the coming year.

Research chits would still be applied as always and would serve to speed things up in the basic areas as well as allowing research in the areas that country wouldn't normally research or put emphasis on.

Major Country Areas of Emphasis:

Anti-Tank

--- Germany, USA & USSR

Heavy Tank

--- Germany, USSR & France

Anti-Aircraft Radar

--- Germany, UK and USA

Long Range

--- UK, USA & Italy

Jet Aircraft

--- Germany, UK & USA

Heavy Bombers

--- UK & USA

Sonar

--- UK & USA

Advanced Submarines

--- Germany

Gun Laying Radar

--- Germany, UK & USA.

Rockets

--- Germany

Industrial Technology

--- Everyone needs to add chits in this field.---

[ September 14, 2003, 09:50 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[kurt88]

This would indeed help to get some frustration out of the game.Once every year sounds a bit fast to me.Certainly in some areas advances were made fast,in others it took more time.

Some advances could go once a year,others should take longer like a year a half maybe even two years.I'm sure you'll have better knowledge on which advance went faster or slower for each major.

Also USSR should get a 'free' advance in rockets,stalin-organs?katsjouka's or whatever they called them.

I'd love to see this 'free' advances tied to an event engine,through semi-historical events.

[JerseyJohn]

Kurt

We're thinking along similar lines -- I was coming back here to suggest the rate be weighted toward the low end.

Let's say, specialty areas would be set as follows:

When Tech Level Starts at: L=0; first jump in eight months max; second jump from first in twelve months max; third jump from second in eighteen months max, fourth and Fifth levels can be attained through direct Research investment ONLY!

This would guarantee that each major country becomes competitive in it's own area of specialty but cannot become overpoweringly effective in it without dedicating extra research.

If the Starting tech Level is Higher than L=0 the acceleration would pick up at that stage, skipping the earlier and quicker phases.

Stalin Organs and similar multiple rocket launching weapons are really artillery and not long range rocketry , such as the V-1 and V-2. For one thing, they don't require a guidance system and for another the propellant is gunpowder rather than liquid fuel.

[ September 14, 2003, 05:53 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[kurt88]

Stalin Organs and similar multiple rocket launching weapons are really artillery and not long range rocketry , such as the V-1 and V-2. For one thing, they don't require a guidance system and for another the propellant is gunpowder rather than liquid fuel

Yep,you're right,I was too fast on the ball.

As you put it now,I agree with the tech advancement proposition.It would really get the frustration out of the game without unbalancing it.

Also consider it linked to an event engine,just like Edwin's Decision Tree Event Idea.

(The more I think about it,the more I'm getting convinced that an event engine could link all ideas together,from diplomacy to tech and everything else.)

If only Hubert would let us know along what lines he is thinking

[JerseyJohn]

An event engine tying all these things together would be a good refinement, but I don't think we'll see it in SC; I hope it's at least made a part of SC2.

Hopefully this idea wouldn't require much alteration from the present system and if Hubert chooses to he'd be able to implement the idea.

Very glad we agree on this concept, a number of posting members, especially Edwin and several others as well as ourselves, have been discussing similar ideas for a long time, this is just an extension of all those discussions.

I believe it would make basic SC much more playable and can think of no reason not to adapt it, if feasible within the game engine.

[Panzer39]

Why not just rewrite it so that the randomness results in earlier tech advances not the tech advances them selves. Make each tech level a "project" with a percent completion. A nice pie chart could be added next to them The number of chits you place in a certain tech would determine how quick the "project" gets completed. Each chit would add a random percentage increase every turn. So if you have 1 chit invested you might get anywhere between say 3 and 6 points closer to 100% completion and your new tech level. You could gain between 0 and 4 percent points per turn by default.

Example:

I put 1 chit into rockets. This means that next turn I will get anywhere between 3 and 6 points added towards my rocket tech level. I need 100 points to reach level 1. Say I roll a 5. Next turn I add another chit to rockets. Now I can gain anywhere between 4 and 7 points. Say I roll a 7. After two turns I have 12 percent of my rocket research completed. Next turn I add another chit so now I can get between 5 and 8 points, I roll a 8. My total is now up to 20%. Once again I add another chit no I can gain between 6 and 9 points per turn. Say I roll a 7. I am up to 27. Finally in the next turn I add my 5th chit to rockets. I now can gain between 7 and 10 points per turn. say I roll a 9. My level one rockets are now at 36%completion. It will not take me more than 9 more turns to get them but it could only take me 7 with some lucky rolls.

This example might make it to easy to get late techs, but solutions could be found. Maybe add a 20 point increase after each tech level is gained. That would mean level 5 rockets would cost 200 research points. With 5 research chits invested into rockets it would take at least 20 turns to go from level 4 to level 5. Of course the percent gained each turn would also be open to debate.

I think this method would allow us to keep some randomness to the game while also keeping it fair and balanced.

Thoughts?

[Edwin P.]

JerseyJohn, Kurt88 and Panzer39

Most interesting ideas, its something I will have to ponder for a day or two.

In the meantime.

JerseyJohn, I see that Germany would get advances in 7 areas automatically. If I were Germany I would not have to invest any MPPs in research and could use the savings to purchase another 1750 MPPs worth of Units - 7 Infantry, 14 Corps, 6 Air Fleets, etc. Am I correct? Russia would get automatic advances in Anti-Tank and Armor but would this be enough to offset the German advances in these other areas and the extra 1750 MPPs that Germany would have available from not investing in research?

Personally, I would require that a nation invest something in a research ares before the automatic clock starts ticking.

You might even want to give players a choice of where to place their best scientists and engineers. For example - My best engineers go to Anti-Tank so the maximum amount of time for an advance here is 8 months for Tech Level 1. I put my second best engineers to work on Armor so the maximum amount of time here for an advance is 16 months, and with my 3rd best engineers working on Jets the maxiumum amount of time for an advance here is 24 months. This forces players to choose their priorities carefully.

Another option to make things more historical might be to allow certain countries to conduct research in one area while they are at peace. Example: If the US had a research chit in bombers they might start the game with Bombers Tech Level 1 or 2 or 3.

Panzer39 your idea is also interesting and the outcome is more random that JerseyJohn's but not as open ended as the current system. What your idea really does is to eliminate the chance that someone might get an advance in 1 to 10 turns - so no more Einstein's making a discovery that changes the course of the war. Thus most discovery's will occur in a narrower band of time - ie 20 to 30 turns not 1 to 30 turns.

More comments to follow.

[ September 14, 2003, 10:56 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[JerseyJohn]

Panzer

Interesting, I'd like to find a way of cutting some of the randomness out altogether in selected areas for each major, I like your idea except it doesn't guarantee an advance after a maximum dry spell.

Edwin

A good refinement, the way I'd envision that idea is each major country would have their special field or fields shaded. They'd then need to place one chit in each of those areas to have the guaranteed result after a maximum dry spell; the second through fifth chits in those areas would work as normal chits, possibly triggereing a random advance. Areas where the particular nation doesn't have special interest would not be shaded and would appear as they do now.

[jon_j_rambo]

Interesting comments, thanks for all the posts. Yes, there are multiple to endless ways to play tech. A new editor would be cool to allow more personalized scenarios. I'm always open to play new scenarios, long as there is a bid system or I can pick sides.

[Logan Hartke]

Originally posted by JerseyJohn:

Major Country Areas of Emphasis:

Anti-Tank

--- Germany, USA & USSR

Heavy Tank

--- Germany, USSR & France

Anti-Aircraft Radar

--- Germany, UK and USA

Long Range

--- UK, USA & Italy

Jet Aircraft

--- Germany, UK & USA

Heavy Bombers

--- UK & USA

Sonar

--- UK & USA

Advanced Submarines

--- Germany

Gun Laying Radar

--- Germany, UK & USA.

Rockets

--- Germany

Industrial Technology

--- Everyone needs to add chits in this field.---

America deserves tech in Advanced Submarines and Heavy Tanks. America during WWII had the world's most successful, damaging, influential, and survivable submarines. It had the most daring and innovative sub commanders. Due to the flood of British WWII books, all we seem to hear about is German sub warfare, but until the Type XXI U-boats came out, American subs were basically better in every category. American subs also benefitted from a more effective radar and were, BY FAR more lethal than anything that the Germans ever sent down the slipway until the Type XXIs started being built (and they were never the majority of the U-boat force).

Also, in Heavy Tank technology, tanks have many things that contribute to their effectiveness. Short-sighted authors love to compare gun calibers and armor thicknesses, but when it comes to the overall tank design, American Shermans had all other countries beat hands down every time. Like I said, historians love the "mine is bigger" argument of armor and caliber, but in actual warfare, these things mean, relatively, very little. 2/3s of the "great" German Panthers broke down before they saw combat in the Ardennes offensives whereas the American Sherman lead "Spearhead" in something no other tank could have done.

One of the 3d Armored division's most spectacular World War II feats was a fighting advance of 101 miles in one day - the longest one-day advance in military history.

If equipped with Panthers or Tigers, they'd have broken down long before they'd hit the 75 mile mark. Also, it is a fallacy to think that Panthers, Tigers, and King Tigers ever made the majority of German tank forces. PzKpfw IVs and StuG IIIs formed the majority of tanks when the Tigers and Panthers were entering service and theat balance never shifted for the rest of the war. It is unfair to act like Panthers and Tigers were the mainstay; PzKpfw IVs and StuG IIIs were the mainstay and the Sherman was better that either of those vehicles, so, to be fair, the US deserves an equal or higher Heavy Tank rating than any other country in the game (including the USSR). I'm writing an essay about the Sherman's unfair reputation for school and I'll be sure to put it on the website when it is finished (sometime in December, when it is due). Here is a rough outline I already have done to prove to you that I've researched it well and am not just blowing hot air (like most authors I see anymore). You might not understand all of it since some of it is just note that I understand. Also, the words in italics are book titles. I plan to use MAJOR references there.

Thesis: The Sherman tank was a far better tank than most historians claim it was.

I.Firepower

A.Rate of Fire

B.Gyroscope

C.Types of rounds

D.Barrel longevity

E.“Ma Deuce”

II.Mobility

A.Official speed vs. actual speed

B.Gas mileage

C.Powerpacks

D.Power-to-weight ratio (M26 vs. M4 in Korea)

III.Protection

A.Stock Shermans vs. actual Shermans

B.Issued appliqué armor

C.“Scrounged” armor

D.Concrete/sandbag/log/etc. Armor

IV.Operability/Practicality

A.Turret basket

B.Barrel length

C.Weight

D.Width

E.Field telephone

F.Vision

V.Producibility

A.Simplicity

B.Proven technology

C.Size

D.Different hulls (cast, welded, composite)

VI.Reliability

A.Rubber tracks

B.Quality of manufacture

C.Intelligent, proven design

D.All theatres of operations/every continent

VII.Serviceability

A.Common technology

B.Built with mechanics in mind

C.Accessibility

VIII.Retrievability

A.Weight

B.Built with retrieval vehicles in mind

C.M32-series

IX.Repairability

A.Gas vs. diesel/mixed gas

B.VVSS/HVSS units vs. interweaving roadwheels

C.Interchangeability

D.Size/weight

E.Commonality

X.Adaptability

A.Track width

B.Powerpack

C.Turret ring

D.Size

XI.Longevity

A.Reliability

B.Adaptability

C.Serviceability

D.Russia

E.Israel

F.Chile

XII.Crew Survivability

A.1:5 death rate

B. Another River, Another Town

XIII.Historical Performance

A.Lend-Lease

B.Zaloga

C. Against the Panzers

D. Patton's Third Army

Also, I think that all American corps, tank corps, and armies should have increased effectiveness (AT and Heavy Tank ratings) due to their INCREDIBLY more advanced and more effective artillery.

http://etloh.8m.com/strategy/artil.html

Beyoond the above "standard" organizational doctrine, apparently Americans were quite capable of concentrating fire support on as large a scale as needed. I'll offer an example from the German counter-attack at Mortain in August of 1944 (from Saving the Breakout, Alwyn Fetherstone, 1993). Three American infantry companies were trapped by the Germans on top of a hill overlooking the valley that Mortain lies within (this was a bottle neck that a major part of the German attack had to pass through, if it was going to cut off Patton's breakout). The American infantry held out for something like two days against the better part of a panzer/panzer grenadier division that desperately wanted the lousy Yanks off of the hill. The only problem seems to have been that some twelve and a half battalions of Uncle Sam's artillery could be called on in the instant by the infantry, anywhere on the highly visible countryside for miles around. This not only prevented all daylight movement by the German attack, but completely thwarted any attack on the infantry itself, even at night. To imagine the effect of being a German attacking up that hill, think of being on a football field with some fifty to one hundred 20-odd pound TNT explosions going off around you EVERY second (some two hundred guns each firing every 3 to say 8 seconds). Another way to think of it is to say that, in some sense, you might expect to have a shell land within touching distance of you every 15 seconds or so. Yep, I don't think the US needs to bow to anybody when it comes to an ability to deliver impromptu concentrated fires. :-< :-< [dead Jerry's]

How this Affects Wargames

You can see from the above, that in a tactical-level wargame one would expect each nation's artillery to be governed by rather varied rules. The Germans get accurate artillery, but it's somewhat slow to come. The British get the fire very promptly. Their fire is less likely to seriously damage the intended target, but the effect of the barrage is going to be spread over a much wider area than a similar German or American fire mission. Furthermore for the most part, for the British and Germans, only specially trained Forward Observers can call in artillery fires.

The Americans of course get it all: Fast, deadly accurate (i.e., little or no drift), they get extra when they care (and even if they don't care), and they get the additional potent weapon of Time on Target. I should also mention that proximity fuses were introduced (sometime during the Bulge, I believe) so that Americans then can start getting the benefit of the far more deadly airburst fires (deadly to infantry and especially to open-topped vehicles).

Logan Hartke

[Shaka of Carthage]

Also, I think that all American corps, tank corps, and armies should have increased effectiveness (AT and Heavy Tank ratings) due to their INCREDIBLY more advanced and more effective artillery.

Actually, its the soft factors that should be modified to reflect the American artillery advantage.

The problem is, what effect do you give it? Especially since this is a strategical level game and we have generic units. Under the existing system, about the only thing you can do is reduce the number of combat divisions required to produce a US Corps or Army unit. If we had a different system, then it would be better to have a unique US unit with soft factors stronger than the other nations.

[Shaka of Carthage]

I believe I fully understand the reasoning behind wanting certain nations to have bonuses to reflect the historical advantages they had in certain areas. As was pointed out, its certainly not historical for the Germans to lag in heavy tank development, even after investing chits in heavy tanks.

The problem is, that when you start to recreate the historical tech advances, along with a random system, you get into conflicts, since by definition, the two(2) don't agree.

I'd like to retain the current method (ie "random"), but would also like there to be a "historical" option for tech development. That would give certain bonuses to specific nations, if they invested in that tech, as was outlined above. No different than the "historical or random" option for nation readiness.

[JerseyJohn]

Well, we've done our usual routine of turning a simple idea into a major project and it will get nowhere, of course.

Logan

The United States, like the Russians built tanks for quantity and reliablity; the Germans didn't.

The Sherman was a great tank for running and not breaking down, for being versatile and easily repaired, rebuilt etc & etc. It was in the same class as the Panzer IV and not comparable to either the Panther or the Tiger. Okay, it was fast and didn't break down ofen. It was also a lot easier to knock out and had a lot less punch than either the Pz V or VI.

The historians you cited as though they'd missed the whole point, weren't shortsighted, they were just silly enough to talk to the old guys, like my uncles, who actually fought in those battles.

I've known three members of tank crews and they all said they were scared stiff of fighting Panther or Tigers in a Sherman. One of my uncles, thirty years after the war made a very convincing imitation of an 88 mm gun firing. I said it was amazing considering how many years it had been since he'd heard one. His answer sounds like a joke, but it was dead serious. He said, "No, I hear them almost every night in my sleep, that's how it was; if you were hit you were dead!" And the guy wasn't a coward, unless they award medals for being one.

The tank category should take a lot of factors into consideration, not just some details technical details that are bloated completly out of proportion. As for Tiger Tanks, they weren't really used the way they're usually depicted. Generally they were at the center of a battle and the flanks goal was to have the rest of the battle be funnelled in their direction. In other words, the Germans used their tanks and other weapons in tactical combination and were very good at it. Tigers, despite all the breakdowns, always had a disproportionate importance to their comparatively low numbers.

Did the Germans make a mistake in not going for much larger numbers of lesser tanks? Probably, but the results they got with the ones they built were outstanding.

The Americans didn't have a true heavy tank.

Part of the reason for the high break down rate of German tanks might also have been a combination of spare parts shortage and petro product shortage; many veterans of the European theater noted the noise German tanks always made because they were never properly greased or lubricated. Neither the United States nor Russia had problems of that sort.

Subs -- untill late in the War the Japanese didn't even bother defending their merchant men, nor did they usually bother putting them into convoys. They didn't have any form of sonar either. At the Battle of Leyte Gulf, two American subs sighted the main Japanese fleet leaving the East Indies and sank a pair of cruisers without being destroyed themselves! One of the two was indeed lost because it ran aground on a coral reef!

Taking things like that into account it's impossible to compare German submarine effectiveness with U. S. sub effectiveness.

American sub-mariners after the war testified on behalf of German Admiral Carl Doenitz, saying they learned from his wolfpack tactics and didn't pick up seamen either. Actually, the Germans originally did stop to lend assistance and even radioed the sinking coordinates but they soon discovered that their reward was to be attacked either by aircraft, or sometimes by the rescuers! So, out of necessity they afterwards made the assumption that the sinking vessel had radioed it's own position before going under.

As I've said fairly often in past threads, German subs hadn't changed much from the end of the First World War. What had mainly evolved was tactics and communications. Which would be part of submarine tech along with ship specs.

A remark in an earlier posting mentioned that I had the Germans listed in seven areas. Yes. So what? Those happen to be the categories where they had noteworthy interests; such as rockets and submarine warfare; also gunnery radar, tanks, anti-tank weapons, and jet planes. They didn't research sonar and they didn't research heavy bombers and they didn't research long range aircraft till they were into the war.

Along those lines I didn't bother to tally which countries were mentioned more or less often than any other country. It isn't a contest, it's an attempt to get the technology straightened out.

I recommended that nobody get industrial research for obvious reasons; in scenarios the US and USSR always start out with a jump in this area, which is reflects the historical situation, for totally different reasons that are interesting but meaningless to this discussion.

Some of the categories are probably mislabelled. Heavy Tank should really read Tank Effectiveness, Jet should read Advanced Aircraft Design, and so on. All should also be assumed to include the specific nation's tactical doctrine instead of only it's hardware.

Anyway, this has become the usual muddle of random minutae leading to nothing. At this point I can't make any sense of it myself.

I'd just as soon forget the idea, it's like watching a dog chase it's own tail.

[ September 15, 2003, 03:53 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Blashy]

That's all pretty cool stuff.

Myself I would just keep it simple or have the option to do so, which is always good to give the players variety.

1- Current troops get not auto upgrade when you go up a TECH level.

2- To go up a level you need to have equal number of TECH invested in it.

[Edwin P.]

Shaka of Carthage

I'd like to retain the current method (ie "random"), but would also like there to be a "historical" option for tech development. That would give certain bonuses to specific nations, if they invested in that tech, as was outlined above. No different than the "historical or random" option for nation readiness.

I like your refinement of Jersey John's proposal.

1. Its simple

2. It gives you the option of playing with random or historical tech development.

JerseyJohn

Well, we've done our usual routine of turning a simple idea into a major project and it will get nowhere, of course.

Have faith, your post came up with a relatively simple variant to the game that Hubert just might consider;

1. Random vs Historical Variant for Technology

2. Each major country would have their special field or fields shaded. They'd then need to place one chit in each of those areas to have the guaranteed result after a maximum dry spell; the second through fifth chits in those areas would work as normal chits, possibly triggereing a random advance.

Kurt88

Is this what you mean by a decision tree event?

When: If no technological development after 26 turns when at least 1 tech chit has been invested in that area.

Pop-up Example 1:

Prime Minister, our scientists report that they need additional financial support to complete the development of the new [Anti-Tank] system.

Do we:

1> Tell them we can not spare them any more resources, we are fighting a war.

2> Shift resources from production to support their research. Our war effort needs the [Anti-Tank] advance they are working on.

Effect: If (2) then Country loses 125MPP and has 80%% to gain a tech level in that area.

Example 2:

When: Country is pursuing research in two areas.

Prime Minister, our scientists in [Area 2- Air Defense] tell us that with the assistance of our top engineers working on [Area 1- Jets] they would advance much faster.

Do we:

1) Tell the scientists that [Jets] are more important.

2) Transfer the engineers as soon as possible.

Effect:

If (Option 1) then 50% engineers assigned to area (Air-Defense) are discouraged and research in area (Air-Defense) suffers a 1% penalty to research.

If (Option 2) then [Jets] suffers a 2% penalty to research and [Air-Defense] gains a 4% bonus to research.

My Comments

I like the current implementation of random tech development.

I also like the concept of being able to select to which area they would assign their best engineers and scientists.

Perhaps, in a non-historical game, each player would have the option to select a single primary research area at the start of the game. Research in this area would receive a 1% or 2% bonus.

Anti-Tank and Armor would receive a 2% bonus.

Jets and Rockets would receive a 0.5% or 1.0% bonus as development in this area is more leading edge (Developement of a new gun requires less resources than the development of a new type of aircraft)

Russia might select Anti-Tank and would receive a 2% bonus to research in this area. Germany might select Jets and receive a 1% bonus in this area.

[ September 15, 2003, 02:05 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[xwormwood]

Originally posted by Panzer39:

. Make each tech level a "project" with a percent completion. A nice pie chart could be added next to them The number of chits you place in a certain tech would determine how quick the "project" gets completed. Each chit would add a random percentage increase every turn. So if you have 1 chit invested you might get anywhere between say 3 and 6 points closer to 100% completion and your new tech level.

Thoughts?

My thoughts are that you probably played "Liftoff!" or "Buzz Aldrins Race into Space", am i right? It is exactly the way how research worked there. Just replace "chit" with "dice". Each dice could improve your system from 1 - 6 %.

I like this way. Major Breakthroughs are still possible with this system (like 7 times 6-eyes in a row).

What about the possibility to improve each tech level ("i have a lvl 3 tank with 96%, let's call it "Sherman Firefly" and my adversary has a lvl 3 tank with 11%, let us call it "Kampfpanzer III E" while lvl 3 with 27% would be a "KpfPz III G".

Anyway, very good idea, Panzer39!

[ September 15, 2003, 11:39 AM: Message edited by: xwormwood ]

[Panzer39]

We could combine my idea with Jersey Johns to form the super research system

If we wanted to add more national flavor to my view on research, units could be given half the perk of the upgrade when 50% of the required research is reached. Like mentioned above, a unit name could be assigned depending on the nation. This way it would not be an all or nothing approach and the player would defiantly receive some pay off for their research chits. It would still be very easy to understand, involve some randomness but not nearly the same amount that the current system does.

[ September 15, 2003, 02:57 PM: Message edited by: Panzer39 ]

[JerseyJohn]

"Did somebody say they're bringing back the Uber research system? It's been years -- decades!"

[ September 15, 2003, 05:04 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Jim Boggs]

Just promise me one thing, puh-lease????

Do not turn this into a 20th Century Galactic Civ or Age of Empires. Then the only way to win is to get the Interstellar Death Ray by turn 10 or game over...

Just thought I'd mention that

[ September 15, 2003, 10:09 PM: Message edited by: Jim Boggs ]

[Panzer39]

John-

Interesting, I'd like to find a way of cutting some of the randomness out altogether in selected areas for each major, I like your idea except it doesn't guarantee an advance after a maximum dry spell Interesting, I'd like to find a way of cutting some of the randomness out altogether in selected areas for each major, I like your idea except it doesn't guarantee an advance after a maximum dry spell.

I do not follow. The player automatically would gain percentage points towards research project completion every turn (even if they do not have any chits invested in a tech) The randomness comes from the range of percentage points gained each turn. See my example for an Idea of the ranges. This way if you pour all your chits into jet tech you WILL get there faster but competing players with the same number of chits invested could make a research gain slightly ahead or behind each other depending on luck.

To develop my idea a bit further, a positive modifier could be added to a players tech advance roll if an allied country already has the tech being researched.

[JerseyJohn]

Panzer

A simple way of working it would be to forget about areas of specialization altogether and say if you put a chit in any area you're guaranteed to have the next advance in a maximum amount of time.

Let's say it runs this way.

1 Chit in any L0 area -> L1 max 6 months; -> L2 max 10 mos; -> L3 max 16 Months.

second through fifth chit increases chance of immediate advance, but does not reduce maximum time before next stage is achieved.

Level IV and V has no maximum time before next stage; in other words, the plaer might never achieve L=4 or L=5 in any tech area.

Also, I think the starting levels in the basic 1939 are seriously flawed. Germany and UK should start with Jet=L1, both should have AA L=1 and Gunnery Radar L=1. Germany should also have HT L=1 and AT L=1. The USA should also start with HT & AT L=1, which won't mean as much because it's entering two years later, but it does help represent Grant and Sherman Tanks and armor piercing shell tech.

As it is now, German units are no stronger than those of minor countries, which is absurd. UK ships are no better than French and Italian ships, which is equally absurd. Beyond that it's too aggravating to have to go a year or two, or even three into the game with two or three chits in a tech area and not have any results there and you're stuck with L=0 !!! . What's more, you lose the game because of it and that's really ridiculous. Why bother playing?

[Edwin P.]

JerseyJohn

The comparison you posted between the UK Navy and the Italian and French navies is excellent.

I never thought of it that way.

Yet another reason for the Random vs Historical Variant option that Shaka Carthage suggested.

[ September 15, 2003, 09:33 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[JerseyJohn]

Edwin,

Appreciated, it didn't occur to me either till a game where I had the Axis and the Italian fleet became the rampaging terror. Afterwards I was wondering why that hadn't happened in real life and realized that the British used the same tactics the United States used against the Japanese; fight them at night since you have radar and they don't! In daylight they'd use carrier strikes, and for the same reason. If the Italians had even rudimentary radar the Brits would never have pulled off their carrier strikes against Taranto and Genoa.

Interestingly the Italians had long range aircraft designs that would have helped the Germans while the Germans had radar, which would have been invaluable to the Italian Navy, and the two country's didn't share any of that with one another!

I understand Shaka's reasoning that historical and random don't mix, and he's probably right. What I'm suggesting is a default setting along the lines of, if you don't reach it by x time you recieve it. Originally I felt it would be good to have it weighted toward areas particular countries historically relied upon, but at this point I'd go for anything that prevents these rediculously extended non-productive periods. They're game killers pure and simple; I'd rather have purely historical results than this L=0 nonsense in 1943.

I don't quite see how the decision tree and random events generator would combine here as the basic idea is to guarantee results. Also, though I think they're both fine ideas, I don't think there's any chance we'll be seeing them in this version; assuming we see any further developments at all.

Panzer, your propossed system sounds like putting coins in an old clay piggy bank till it's full and you break it! Then you start putting coins in the next bank. It's a good idea, but the main drawback I see is the player's got to keep putting coins into it whereas the current system involves permanent chits which are 50% redeemable either in desperation or when no longer needed. It's also possible I don't properly understand the idea.

Logan A fine block of information. The problem, as I see it, is it puts the United States at the forefront in practically everything, which was not the case and doesn't help in game terms.

The U. S., for example, while taking prop tecnhology to it's limit didn't have a clue as to jet aviation. Early U. S. research along those lines combined borrowed British jet engine technology being adapted to existing aircraft. The U. S. didn't have a functional jet fighter till after the war.

It was even further behind in rocket technology. German scientists in 1945 were amazed to learn that the very Americans who were seeking their services had never heard of the American Rocket pioneer, Robert Goddard!

In most other areas, such as electronics, ship building, gunnery technology, industrial output, radar and sonar, the United States was either equal to, or far ahead of, the other major nations. But little of that is really relevant to this game, or this particular topic.

What I was hoping to do was have something practical that could be applied to this version of the game. I still think something along the original lines is feasable, but I don't see it getting through now because the Thread has meandered off into too many different directions with too much technical info to be taken into account, smothering the original idea before it could be properly developed.

[ September 15, 2003, 10:19 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Panzer39]

I think you do not understand it completely. The system would work like the current one, you would invest up to 10 chits and be able to redeem them at half price. Instead of getting a random percent of getting an advance (like you do now)you would gain a random percentage amount each turn based on the number of chits you have invested in a single tech branch. Each chit invested into the system would generate a higher percentage amount each turn. For example 1 chit could earn you 3-6 points per turn. 5 chits would earn you 7-11 points per turn. No chits would still earn you something. Your points would build to completion like the current countires build up going to war. When you reach 100 points (100% complete) you have gained 1 level in tech. This way even if you only buy 1 chit of research you know that somewhere down the line you will get an advance.

The chits would still be permanent. A cool feature would be able to stop the project mid way through if you need the cash back and have the option of starting it again at that level when you can afford it.

[ September 15, 2003, 10:58 PM: Message edited by: Panzer39 ]

[JerseyJohn]

Thanks for the clariffication, it makes a lot more sense now. Sounds good and definitely less random than the present system.