Here's an interesting thought.

[Ancient One]

Maybe the game would be more balanced if research, experience, and pillaging were taken out. Am I wrong? Anyway, it would be nice to have some options along these lines.

[ October 07, 2002, 04:24 AM: Message edited by: Ancient One ]

[Kuniworth]

Experience, not a chance.

[iolo]

Experience is so important. Nothing like having that 4 stripe panzer division ready for special missions.

Research, in some form or another, is similary crucial, I think.

But yeah, those pillaging values do seem a little strange, and certainly contribute to the Axis play-imbalance.

[Ancient One]

Originally posted by iolo:

Experience is so important. Nothing like having that 4 stripe panzer division ready for special missions.

Yes, but doesn't it hurt the balance of the game? I think it does.

[ArmenianBoy]

umm, to be blunt and harsh, you obviously have no idea what actual effects play balance issues. You really think play balance will be solved if the concepts of experience, research, and pillage were simply removed? This post deserves no more replies. So to answer your question, yes your wrong! Unit costs per nation, mpp resources, and starting levels of research are the more pressing issues that deal with play balance.

[iolo]

Experience and Research clearly do have some effect on play balance, but removing them just isn't an option.

You could remove the U-boots and that might help play balance. You could remove Germany's armored divisions and that would definitely help play balance. But I'm sure you see what I'm saying. Experience makes the game a lot more fun (and realistic), as can research (not neccessarily this model).

I do think that the pillaging rewards are worthy of closer investigation however. As when you play a higher level AI, the values could be reduced.

[Ancient One]

Originally posted by ArmenianBoy:

umm, to be blunt and harsh, you obviously have no idea what actual effects play balance issues. You really think play balance will be solved if the concepts of experience, research, and pillage were simply removed? This post deserves no more replies. So to answer your question, yes your wrong! Unit costs per nation, mpp resources, and starting levels of research are the more pressing issues that deal with play balance.

Mind your manners sir, I was just thinking of new options. Can you really deny that currently, whoever gets a large disadvantage in experience is set upon a downward spiral? Also, research progress has too large an effect on the game for something that is left entirely to luck. Finally, pillaging makes an already too rich Axis even richer (I know the Allies can benefit from pillage too, but not to the same extent).

[ October 07, 2002, 11:29 PM: Message edited by: Ancient One ]

[Ancient One]

Originally posted by iolo:

Experience makes the game a lot more fun (and realistic)

Realistic in theory, but not in practice. Perhaps it should stay, but in an slightly altered form (more effort to reach the higher experience levels), same with research.

I was just wondering how the game would play without them, didn't mean to step on any toes.

[Desert Dave]

As originally posted by Ancient One:

I was just wondering how the game would play without them, didn't mean to step on any toes.

Wondering is a fabulous adventure, and so too is mindless banter, and surmising and supposing and juxtaposing and also counting sheep jumping over a meadow rail -- backwards, when it is you are trying to sleep.

Everyone! should indulge in it often, else we would yet be slogging about in primaevel bogs.

As for toes and trodding-on or toting up those, no need to apologize -- each CHOOSES their own footwear, and some will lark about in Jesus sandals, and some will stride forth briskly in jump-boots, and some will kick the day away in high-top tennies, and, some will trip the light fantastic while wearing scintillant slippers with bells on the toes!

And some have long toes, and some have short ones, and, some are bent and some are classicly composed, and well,

It doesn't much matter what you change in SC, because whatever it is WILL end up someway altering the play balance.

Which is why Hubert is very slow and very careful about changing anything. It is a daunting task, no doubt. As is -- selecting which particular footwear -- or going about without! -- fits the foot the sublimely finest.

[I/O Error]

Originally posted by Ancient One:

Mind your manners sir, I was just thinking of new options. Can you really deny that currently, whoever gets a large disadvantage in experience is set upon a downward spiral? Also, research progress has too large an effect on the game for something that is left entirely to luck. Finally, pillaging makes an already too rich Axis even richer (I know the Allies can benefit from pillage too, but not to the same extent).

Look, the fact remains that he was justified using that tone with you. Take out experience? You might as well say you prefer arcade style gamestyle to true strategy.

"Can you really deny that currently, whoever gets a large disadvantage in experience is set upon a downward spiral?"

Of course we can't deny that. What's your POINT? That's reality, mon frere. Try comparing a Waffen SS unit to a garrison unit when they're equipped the same. There's a slight difference in quality and ability! To use American battles in France as an example, they were almost always going up against troops who had cut their eye teeth on experienced soldiers long ago. Hell, some of them had even marched through Paris and half-starved outside Moscow. Experience is CRUCIAL.

[ October 08, 2002, 05:12 AM: Message edited by: I/O Error ]

[Zeres]

I'm going to chime in. I've put some thought into this. Shouldn't you have the option to buy lower tech units even when you have achieved a higher tech level. This seems realistic. I mean just because you have the ability to make expensive Me262's doesn't mean your still not going to want some cheap ME109's in quantity. And just because you Can make a Mechanized Army group with Level 5 anti-tank weapons doesn't mean you shouldn't have the option to plug the line with some low tech cannon fodder. Industrial tech would matter more because you could choose to field a small, higher tech force. Or a bigger moderately armed force with a few high tech special units. Or a huge, no tech force... Currently you really can't make those strategic decisions.

[Edwin]

A good point ZERES. Also realistic, as it did happen during WWII.

I seem to recall that the old board game Third Reich allowed something like this - I could be wrong

[Ancient One]

Originally posted by I/O Error:

You might as well say you prefer arcade style gamestyle to true strategy.

That's ridiculous, there have been many sophisticated wargames that do not include experience, and do not suffer from the lack of it. In fact, SC is the only strategic level wargame I can think of that does include it, to disastrous effect.

Originally posted by I/O Error:

Of course we can't deny that. What's your POINT?

It prevents reversals, as the side with more experience suffers fewer losses, hence gains experience faster, hence suffering even fewer losses, etc. It's called "snowballing"

Originally posted by I/O Error:

To use American battles in France as an example, they were almost always going up against troops who had cut their eye teeth on experienced soldiers long ago. Hell, some of them had even marched through Paris and half-starved outside Moscow. Experience is CRUCIAL.

And who ended up winning? Maybe you should have used an example of where the more experienced side won if you want to prove how CRUCIAL experience is. Experience can be gained quickly, and lost even faster through casualties. There were no invincible super units in the real war.

[Ancient One]

I didn't really want to get involved in a big debate on experience anyway. I agree that there are far more pressing problems, like research and pillaging. Experience is just a minor side issue. I don't really want either research or experience taken out (they do need to be changed somewhat however), I was just curious as to what extent the current imbalance is caused by these issues.

I would have liked to have the option to turn them off just to see if the game would be more balanced that way (which nobody has really commented on). Upon further reflection, I think it would skew the game in favor of the Allies, though not as much as the game is skewed in favor of the Axis now.

[arby]

Originally posted by Ancient One:

To use American battles in France as an example, they were almost always going up against troops who had cut their eye teeth on experienced soldiers long ago. Hell, some of them had even marched through Paris and half-starved outside Moscow. Experience is CRUCIAL.

Which, no doubt, is the reason that the Germans had so little difficulty repelling the Normandy invasion and throwing the Allies back into the sea.

I'm not suggesting that experience be eliminated. But I don't think it's rank heresy to suggest that maybe the way the game handles experience is one of the reasons for an Axis imbalance, especially in Russia. Units gain twice as much experience attacking as they do in defending; does this correspond with reality? Moreover, attacking units gain a whopping half-point experience for every victory, while defending units gain nothing from one. The result is that by 1943 most German units have two, three, and even four levels of experience, while it's rare to find Russian units with any. Combined with the HQ's, and the experience they have, there is no way that the Russians can mount any sort of counterattack.

This, of course, does not correspond to what actually happened. The Germans managed to hold out as long as they did on that front because of a great superiority in leadership, not experience. The German advantage in HQ's definitely reflects the former; but the way the game handles experience should probably be toned down a bit.

[Ancient One]

Originally posted by arby:

I'm not suggesting that experience be eliminated. But I don't think it's rank heresy to suggest that maybe the way the game handles experience is one of the reasons for an Axis imbalance, especially in Russia. Units gain twice as much experience attacking as they do in defending; does this correspond with reality? Moreover, attacking units gain a whopping half-point experience for every victory, while defending units gain nothing from one. The result is that by 1943 most German units have two, three, and even four levels of experience, while it's rare to find Russian units with any. Combined with the HQ's, and the experience they have, there is no way that the Russians can mount any sort of counterattack.

This, of course, does not correspond to what actually happened. The Germans managed to hold out as long as they did on that front because of a great superiority in leadership, not experience. The German advantage in HQ's definitely reflects the former; but the way the game handles experience should probably be toned down a bit.

I totally agree. It's a well known fact that while Axis expansion in the early years is quite reasonable, the main problem is having the Allies wrest the advantage from the Axis in the later years.

Much has been said about the research system with regard to this problem, but I believe I'm the first one to mention that experience might have a hand in this as well. I didn't think it was that unreasonable, but look at the outrage it has caused.

[pzgndr]

Can you really deny that currently, whoever gets a large disadvantage in experience is set upon a downward spiral? Also, research progress has too large an effect on the game for something that is left entirely to luck. Finally, pillaging makes an already too rich Axis even richer (I know the Allies can benefit from pillage too, but not to the same extent).

Certainly some valid points. Research is already recognized as an issue. Proposed tweaks to slow down reasrch at higher levels, make higher techs cost more, and perhaps make successive research points cost more should all help.

Experience gain/loss is too linear right now and could be made more exponential. Make it easier to reach and maintain average experience levels, and harder to reach and maintain elite levels. Instead of 4 levels, maybe decrease experience to only 3 levels to narrow the gap and limit the "downward spiral" effect during some games.

Plunder has an interesting game effect, but seems grossly unrealistic. There's no DOW cost like in 3R, only instant reward when the hapless nation surrenders. This encourages aggressive strategy, which is necessary for the bad-guys Axis but questionable for the good-guys Allies. IMHO, I'd rather see resources adjusted to provide a more realistic economic model. Not sure how to do this to recreate the German buildup in the early years without giving them a long-term advantage, so this one's tricky.

I would recommend keeping the plunder system for now and looking toward the political model to keep Allied aggression in check, and limit builds to home country to prevent instant armies and navies from popping up in captured territory. This bugs me more than the MPPs from plunder. Besides, any major changes to the economic model will have to wait until SC2. Some of these other tweaks could be applied to a future SC patch to improve the game.

[Zeres]

If they screw with the political model too much you not going to have very many what if scenerios....The fact that American comes in later ( most of the time) when your aggressive is punishment enough isn't it? The biggest problem in the game right now is the boring midgame....England sitting there researching..... Axis building up for Russia...Nothing going on in Africa because there is no strategic reason to duke it out or send Rommel down there or anything. That is why I Propose giving the Suez Canal a significant point value if you own both sides. Also you should be able to build limited amounts of units in Alexandria if you control Gibraltor, Malta and the Suez canal....This would be realistic ( It would reflect troops pouring in from India and Australia and give the Empire a point value), cut off the canal and you cut off the empire. this would create a reason to fight for Africa and the reason would be historical. And A midgame that matters and really impacts the end game...

[Zeres]

With regards to plunder. perhaps the amount of money you get for conquering a neutral should fall lower and lower the longer it takes to conquer the country. This would reflect the neutrals moving assets out of the country as the battle went on. Pretty historical. Norway managed to keep their gold reserves our of Nazi hands And used the money to resist. Maybe the money deducted by a botched invasion could go to the opposing side.

[Russ Bensing]

Originally posted by Zeres:

With regards to plunder. perhaps the amount of money you get for conquering a neutral should fall lower and lower the longer it takes to conquer the country. This would reflect the neutrals moving assets out of the country as the battle went on. Pretty historical. Norway managed to keep their gold reserves our of Nazi hands And used the money to resist. Maybe the money deducted by a botched invasion could go to the opposing side.

I don't think you need to do anything with plunder. First, it's hardly ahistorical; there is some economic benefit to taking over a country, or else people wouldn't do it. Second, it's intricately important to the game. I know the tendency is to believe that plunder allows the Germans to build up its armies and invest in research. If you eliminate plunder, how exactly does it do that? I'd rather keep plunder and allow the Allies a few extra research chits to balance that out.

[Ancient One]

Originally posted by Russ Bensing:

I don't think you need to do anything with plunder. First, it's hardly ahistorical; there is some economic benefit to taking over a country, or else people wouldn't do it. Second, it's intricately important to the game. I know the tendency is to believe that plunder allows the Germans to build up its armies and invest in research. If you eliminate plunder, how exactly does it do that? I'd rather keep plunder and allow the Allies a few extra research chits to balance that out.

The Axis has plenty of time between the fall of France and the invasion of Russia to build up their army.

[pzgndr]

If they screw with the political model too much you not going to have very many what if scenerios....The fact that American comes in later ( most of the time) when your aggressive is punishment enough isn't it?

The early-game (39-41) politics seem to work fine by affecting the random US and USSR entries, for better or for worse depending on what happens. The late-game (42-45) politics may need some work. What's to stop Allied aggression AFTER US entry? (I'm assuming play balance here.) Would Sweden activate as an Axis minor if the Allies invade neutral Norway? How about Spain and Turkey and Vichy France if the Allies start playing the bad-guys in the Med by attacking neutrals? We don't want to eliminate the what-if games, but don't want to encourage wanton aggression with all reward and no cost either. It's not clear what the late-game politics are in SC or even what they SHOULD be, but it's an area worthy of discussion.

Not sure what Hubert has programmed into the political model (since that's still a secret!), but my original point was that we should use political "costs" to offset the rewards of plunder rather than eliminate plunder altogether, since it's not clear what we should replace it with. I agree we don't want to screw with the political model too much and force historical events. Leaving some variability and randomness in the process will ensure replayability and provide opportunities for what-ifs. That's important.

[pzgndr]

Copy deleted

[ October 08, 2002, 09:42 PM: Message edited by: Bill Macon ]

[Zeres]

What did you guys think of my Suez idea?

[Ancient One]

Originally posted by Zeres:

What did you guys think of my Suez idea?

I think it would need a larger map to work properly.