Tech Question for everyone

[Shaka of Carthage]

The question is: What tech if any would benefit gameplay the most, not unbalance the game and not be too difficult to program?

I kidnapped this from Edwin P's topic. As he mentioned, there appears to be enough room to add one (1) more tech on the R&D screen.

So, please limit your answer to one (1) choice, following the above conditions.

</font>

• Benefit gameplay</font>
• Not unbalance the game</font>
• Not too difficult to program</font>

Of course, you have to give your reasoning why. Who knows, once we determine a winner, maybe I'll send you a prize.

[JerseyJohn]

I support Edwin's partisan and espionage idea. For one thing it was a form of warfare that some countries were better at than others. Germany's handling of sympathic ethnic minorities, with the exception of Yugoslavia, was awful. The USSR and Britain were much better at utilizing these forces while America had still to learn the skills -- mainly from Britain, much of it directly from Churchill to Eisenhower, one of the few Americans inclined toward spies and behind the lines raiders.

Hopefully Edwin will explain his own idea in a much better manner than I've done.

[ May 13, 2003, 04:17 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Edwin P.]

JerseyJohn, you listed two ideas, so I will cover the Partisan tech and let you cover the intelligence tech.

Partisan Support Tech

Summary: Reflects the investment in resources and manpower that countries devoted to supporting partisan/guerrilla movements in occupied countries - France, Yugoslavia, Greece.

Effect:

Allows creation of Partisan units in all conquered nations except for: Belgium & Denmark & Poland & Baltic States & Portugal & Switzerland & Yugoslavia (Yugoslavia already has its own rules for partisans). These units would appear in a random hex within the affected country according to the following priority: (1)any unoccupied city, mountain, swamp or forest hex, or 2) any clear hex not adjacent to an enemy unit.

Tech 0: Base 1% for a partisan unit per turn per country with a Str 1. (about 1 unit per 4 years of occupation)

Tech 1: 5% per turn per country for a 2 Strength Partisan unit to appear in a conquered (not liberated) country. (about 1 per year per country)

Tech 2: 10% per turn per country for a 3 Strength Partisan unit to appear. (about 2 per year)

Tech 3: 15% per turn per country for a 4 Strength Partisan unit to appear.

Tech 4: 20% per turn per country for a 5 Strength Partisan unit to appear. (about 4 per year)

Tech 5: 25% per turn per country for a 6 Strength Partisan Unit to appear. (about 5 per year)

Note: If the country with the Partisan tech surrenders the chance for partisan activity in occupied countries returns that of Tech Level 0 (1% chance for a 1 strength partisan unit).

Benefit to Gameplay:

Simple wars of conquest could become wars of controlling supply lines if the opposing side decided to support guerrilla operations.

The thrill of seeing guerrilla units liberate a conquered city or stopping production in the oil fields.

The thrill of seeing a French Partisan sabatoge German mining production.

The agony of seeing Russia or Italy liberated by a lone guerrilla unit that occupies the capital city.

Not Unbalance the Game

This tech would benefit the Allies and Axis powers.

The allies would gain the benefit of partisan units that would force the Germans to garrison conquered countries (including Norway, France, Spain and even Russia) after their surrender. Although the partisans might not be able to take a garrison city they can create zones of control that will reduce the MPP that the city provides.

The Axis powers would gain from partisans that would oppose the usuall Allied targets of conquest - Iraq, Norway, Finland, Portugal, Spain, Vichy France, Italy and Greece and reduce the readiness of invading Allied forces. Thus forcing the allied powers to garrison any countries they conquer.

At low levels of Partisan Tech these guerrilla units can easily be destroyed by a corps unit and are not strong enough to destroy a full strength unit unless they are allowed to mass in large numbers.

The partisans would also enable the garrison forces of each side to build up their experience, thus making any future liberation of that country more difficult.

Not too difficult to program

I am assuming that the same routine used for Russian/Yugoslavian partisans can modified to handle this.

[ May 13, 2003, 04:32 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[JerseyJohn]

Edwin

I have to throw the ball back in your court; you've already expressed the ideas much better than I would have and I trust you'll do so again in this thread.

[dragoon19]

Why not just make partisans increase the cost of movement in certain states in western europe.

so that if UK has partisan tech level 1 there would be +5 per cent increase in transport cost.

level 2 +10 per cent etc.

that way 'partisan tech' would be workable in all of the European area of operations. This would simulate low level partisan war.

dragoon19

[JerseyJohn]

A fine idea. Similar ideas were discussed before but yours is the most concise. I'd be in favor of it but would also like to see countries like Yugoslvia and Russia retain the ability to have partisan units as they are presently depicted -- which they also had historically. Also, I'd like to see the same sort of partisan activity in Spain and Sweeden, if invaded, and the possibility of it happening in France, the UK and Greece if they're left grossly undergarrisoned.

Partisan activity could be represented in several forms, encouraging strong rear area occupation, especially from the Axis.

Partisans and partisan activity should exist in countries that have been declared war on and be directed at that country's invaders. There should be no partisan activity directed against the liberating country.

[ May 13, 2003, 03:03 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[SeaWolf_48]

My choice would be Military Intelligence. MI was a collage of services from all of the branches of military of each country. Code breaking, spy's, radio detection, photo planes, prisoner info, underground info, electronic warfare, partisans, recon, and luck. As your branch of MI gets better the more hidden units are exposed during Fog of war option. I would suggest that a percentage of enemy units would randomly be exposed depending on the strenght of the MI growth. Churchill once said that one good spy was worth several divisions of men.

[Edwin P.]

If three techs were allowed I would go for;

Partisans and Military Intelligence and Counter Intelligence .

Partisans - Its fun to see new units pop up.

Military Intelligence - Great for FOW Play, Equalizer for less experienced players.

Counter Intelligence - A counter to the other two

Counter Intelligence would reflect the large investments made in secret police forces (aka KGB, SS) to control the population and disrupt enemy espionage efforts (MI5). Each tech level in Counter Intelligence would reduce the opposing side's effective Partisan Tech by 1 and Military Intelligence by 1.

Note: German counter intelligence tech advances would only protect German units from Military Intelligence & German conquered nations from partisans.

Example: The UK with Military Intelligence Tech 2 might have an effective intelligence rating of 2 vs Italian units, 2 vs Bulgarian units, and 0 vs German units.

Now, lets see some more tech ideas.

So far the contributions are;

1. Partisan units

2. Military Intelligence

3. Counter Intelligence (to counter 1 and 2)

4. Intelligence and Espionage (combines 1 and 2 and 3)

5. Partisans effect on cost of movement.

[ May 13, 2003, 07:38 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[JerseyJohn]

Why not combine it all as Inteligence and Espionage ?

I don't see any reason there couldn't be a broad field covering these things. It could include supplying and organizing partisans as one of the tech levels with other things in inteligence/counter inteligence abilities happening at other tech levels.

By the last year of the war German spies were rounded up so routinely they resorted to sending cooperative Jewish prisoners on the premise that it was really just a suicide mission. Needless to say they received the same one word message from each of their Jewish spies -- suuuckerrrr!

[ May 13, 2003, 03:04 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[SeaWolf_48]

Very good ideas Men.

The combinning or separate tasks, whatever, would be fun.

[Shaka of Carthage]

Let me play devils advocate for a moment.

Intelligence and Espionage... so far, you are allowed to see more of the enemy units. But I can get the same effect by investing in Long Range aircraft. So what have I gained that I couldn't gain thru LR?

I'm surprised no one has brought up the Propellor aircraft being seperate from Jet aircraft idea.

[SeaWolf_48]

True Shaka, but LR air only see so far and only with air units. MI would see ships, subs, planes, army units inland and on Islands, the way WW2 MI units would act in occupied countries, or by decoding enigma. Also unit strengths and experience should be shown.

[Edwin P.]

I presume that Military Intelligence allows a percentage chance per turn per unit to see units that are beyond the range of your Long Range aircraft. Ie 20% per turn to see that German transport approaching Canada.

Long Range Aircraft gives you a 100% to see units within range.

------------------------------------------------

JerseyJohn,

Combining techs of Partisan, Espionage and Counter Intelligence would be interesting. How would you do it?

Personally, I like the idea of being forced to decide between supplying partisan units with smuggled weapons (via air drops and night time freighters) vs focusing on military intelligence vs counter intelligence vs all of the other tech options available.

[ May 13, 2003, 07:05 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[Edwin P.]

As Shaka said I am amazed not to see a suggestion for Prop tech, so to get everyone thinking, here's another tech to consider;

Fortified Cities - Represents investments of time and materials in preparing a country's home cities for the invading army with barriers, bunkers, underground tunnels, minefields, buildings rigged to explode, etc. Think of it as a higher level of entrenchment.

Tech 1: +1 Soft Defense Bonus for units stationed in a home country city

Tech 2: +1 Tank Defense Bonus for units stationed in a home country city

Tech 3: +1 Air Defense Bonus for units stationed in a home country city

Tech 4: +1 Soft Defense Bonus (ie +2 SDB)

Tech 5: +1 Tank Defense Bonus (ie +2 TDB)

This is a defensive tech so it does not add much to game play, but it should provide some fuel for thought.

[ May 13, 2003, 07:49 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[Shaka of Carthage]

Edwin P

Fortification Tech you proposed would be better served by having a Engineer Unit.

[JerseyJohn]

Edwin

"Personally, I like the idea of being forced to decide between supplying partisan units with smuggled weapons (via air drops and night time freighters)."

That sounds very good. I was also thinking along those lines. Historically Britain supplied France, Yugoslavia and most of the other partisan movements. Russia supplied it's own groups, though AKs wound up all over the place, including Italy where most of the paritsans were openly communist.

Getting back to the original point, I'm in favor of the suggestion as you posted it.

[Shaka of Carthage]

Edwin P

Here is my opinion regarding some of the techs you have suggested (here and the original thread). SeaWolf_48 and JerseyJohn have hit upon a good point. Go with one tech called Intelligence Activities. This would allow the probability of partisans showing to increase. You should also combine the commando concept you mentioned somewhere else. But don't forget the scale we are in. So the commando effect should do nothing more than have the ability to cause random damage to ports, ships in ports, mines, oil wells and cities. As the tech increase, the % chance of the random damage would increase. Also, give thought to the ability of this tech to also increasing the probability of a neutral to "declare" for your side.

Counter-Intelligence... you don't need a seperate tech for this. Roll the effect into the Intelligence Activities tech.

Also, the random commando damage would not occur if a military unit was in that location. This way, by placing units in locations (ie garrisons), you have eliminated the possiblity of those effects occuring (just like we do with partisans now), without having to invest in the Intelligence Activities tech.

[Shaka of Carthage]

Before I can give my choice, I need to explain my assumptions.

Mr H has done a excellent job on the tech's. There are no obvious areas that he has missed. Each area I thought was lacking, really can be handled creatively with what we have.

We have a weakness in the naval area though. I am going to assume that SCII will expand the Atlantic to its real size, using the current 50 mile hex.

Based on those assumptions, here is my choice for a new Tech... Anti-Submarine Warfare.

Without getting into wheter or not there are new units, this tech would simply act as a counter to the Advanced Sub tech. In other words, it makes it easier to detect the subs. Thats my choice.

[Wachtmeister]

Suggest that Anti-Submarine warfare tech could be added to the existing Sonar tech by increasing naval unit sub spotting range for each higher rech level, along with the existing inceease in Naval Defence against subs.

[Shaka of Carthage]

Wachmeister

I thought about that, but the Sonar tech doesn't do anything about the advantage the Advanced Sub tech gives. You know, when you "attack" it, the % chance that it has to "dive"? Adv Subs keeps increasing that %. I was looking for the ASW tech to reduce that %.

And since the Sonar would increase the "spotting" distance (does it?), I didn't want to mix the two.

[pzgndr]

There are no obvious areas that he has missed.

I agree. I thought about this a bit yesterday but could not come up with any suggestions for new tech areas. If you look at the combat tables and parameters for the current unit types, everything that changed significantly over the course of WWII is adequately addressed with the 10 research areas we have now. The 11th, Industrial Technology, adequately addresses economic production, which was handled by growth rates in 3R and industrial base multipliers in COS.

Some of the current parameters could be adjusted for a more realistic or historic effect, but the basic engine is sound. And it is elegantly simple.

At this scale, we should restrict research to those key areas that had a significant effect during WWII and actually changed significantly (L0-L5) over the course of the war. Many proposed ideas are more or less binary, either they happened or they didn't, and these could be handled as game events rather than tech areas. Like partisans. Maybe add them to France and Spain with some reduced effect, but why spend 250 MPP's to research L0 partisans up to L5? Another concern is specificity, for stuff like intelligence. If UK researches intelligence, then all Axis units are candidates for all Allied units to spot. Maybe add an optional ULTRA event to the game where Axis units have a 20-25% chance of being "spotted," and perhaps a counter-ULTRA event later. Even with ULTRA, FOW was real up to the end and we should maintain some of that uncertainty to keep the game interesting.

I like the idea about improving ASW somehow. Maybe increasing the air/naval spotting of subs with each sonar tech would be good, assuming ULTRA advances in addition to sonar advances.

[KDG]

First I'd like to see some techs improved.

I'd like to see anti-aircraft improved. Currently it only helps cities and resources. I'd make it also help the hexes immediately around the cities and resources as well. This would make a nice counter to jet tech.

I'd like tank research to also improve the tanks soft attack.

I'd like heavy bomber research to also improve the defense of bomber, and have a greater increase in strategic attack then it is currently.

I'd remove sonar completely and combine it with gun laying radar research, which essentially does the same thing.

New things I'd like:

I'd like to see a HQ research. Ideas for this would be as follows:

1. Improve HQ defense

2. Increase number of units HQ can supply

3. Increase distance HQ can supply

4. Improve the supply of HQ's.

Any combination of the above would work for me.

I like a tech for partisons, allowing for greater pct. of occurance. The current problem with partisons now though is the Axis can station units in a couple places and keep partisons from happening. Axis should have to station more units then the game currently requires, or the partison tech would be a waste. Why spend 500-750 MPP's on this tech when Germany could use 4-5 units to stop the spread of partisons. Require Germany to use 8-9 units would be better(to offset the partison tech).

I also like army intelligence tech, allowing knowledge of unit locations, as well as knowing opponents research levels.

Lastly I'd like to see a 3 chit max per research. Currently, with 5 chits, you can gain 3 research levels in one year, and have level 5 by 1942/43. By using a 3 chit limit, research would be slowed, with a max of 15% chance per turn instead of 25% per turn.

[ May 14, 2003, 04:01 PM: Message edited by: KDG ]

[Wachtmeister]

Shaka:

Agree that the increased dive % that comes with Advanced Sub is the most powerful aspect of sub tech. I found this out to my cost in a recent loss to Rambo where I had Sonar tech equal to his sub tech, but still suffered unacceptable losses due to several of "2 to 4-in-a-row" sub dives that negated my counter attacks, and allowed him several free extra shots, or a retreat.

My understanding is that research techs currently only improve the attributes of affected friendly units - they do not now directly reduce the attributes of enemy units. Therefore, I'm not sure how this would be coded. Also, if tech improvements, like dive %, are being directly cancelled out by opposing tech, how would the affected party know this? Its one thing to be surprised by improved enemy capabilities, but it seems a little unreasonable to have one's own capability reduced without some type of notification.

Maybe the enhanced Sonar or separate ASW research tech could increase Naval Attack against subs and increase spotting? - (Naval Defense against subs is already increased by Sonar).

[6thAirborne]

I would like to suggest Command and Control .

This could gradually upgrade the number of units an HQ could supply and control aswell as the amount of extra supply and readiness that was added to the controlled forces.

The USA in WW2 improved their command and control doctrines a great deal, especially during Normandy where they were pinned down in deadly clost quarters battle and new ways of fighting in the Bocage were developed.

[Edwin P.]

1. RE: ASW

I do not think that the spotting range of ships vs subs should be expanded. The Atlantic hexes are 50 miles miles+ accross and I believe that sonar in WWII had a relatively short range.

Personally I would like aircraft to have a chance of seeing subs that would improve with a greater ASW tech. Now aircraft can see all subs within range all the time.

Example for Aircraft - ASW: Tech 0: 50% to see a sub, Tech 5: Detect Sub 100%.

Also remember that attacking a sub is a free attack, the sub can't shoot back, so I would not increase any ability to attack subs.

The best way to find and destroy a sub in the Atlantic was more ships and more aircraft. During WWII the Allies stationed ASW aircraft in Canada, Iceland, and Greenland. Convoy routes were altered to maximize the time they spent in zones covered by ASW warfare. The ability of a sub to evade an attack is historically correct and often times destroyers could not find the subs which attacked their fleet.

SC Tip: Station an Air Fleet in Ireland and the US if the Axis player has a large sub force.

Also, in WWII the allies often changed the routes of convoy ships. As was stated in an earlier posts prehaps a future game would allow the allies to change their merchant ships routes by 1) plotting new routes or 2) selecting from a set of predefined routes or 3) varying the width of the route (1 to 3 hexes). A narrower route would be harder to find but offer increaed MPP damage to an intercepting wolf pack.

2. Partisans

I favor a tech / aka allocation of resources / that would reflect a country's invesment in supporting local resistance units. The UK expended resources in supporting these resistance units. The US and USSR did not. The result was that it tied down Axis forces, destroyed enemy resources and gave the UK valuable intelligence on the location of enemy troops.

A tech that increased the chance of partisan units occuring in most conquered nations would do this. Partisan units would cause the Germans to devote more resources to garrisoning conquered nations, could attack resource hexes, isolate cities, and provide limited intelligence on the disposition of Axis forces. For the UK it might be a worthwhile to invest 1 chit in this area especially if it also created partisans in a post surrender Russia. They may even get lucky (ie TECH 5) in developing a system of reliably smuggling in supplies to support larger partisan units, buts its highly unlikely.

3. I like the concept of a command and control tech which would affect the readiness of HQ units and the number of armies which they could effect.

4. Although many people complain about air power, I agree with the games restriction of AD benefits to cities and resources as one normally did not place AA guns outside of the cities. To do so would have limited the number of AA guns that could be concentrated in defending the city. If a unit wanted protection against air power it had to be within a city or under the protection of a nearby air fleet. - Remember this is WWII.

[ May 14, 2003, 05:51 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]