Game Play

[arby]

Originally posted by Good Soldier Svejk:

First of all, all supply is not dependent on connection to the Capital. You just can't build new units in cut off areas, and I believe city values are reduced (as are maximum reinforcing levels, if I'm not mistaken).

I believe you're wrong about this. If you check, you'll see that if the German player cuts off the Caucasus, Russian MPP's will plummet from about 350 to 200 per turn.

I agree with you that doing this is not a "gamey" tactic: the Caucasus was a goal of the Germans, simply because of its production. Not going after this makes no sense. Unfortunately, the game mechanism unduly rewards the German player for accomplishing this: once he does, the outcome of the Russian front is just a matter of time. Since the Russian player is unable to build any new units in the Caucasus, a "coherent, fully supported campaign" on the part of the Germans is not required to seize the supply sources; I've seen it accomplished with no more than four or five units, without HQ's. And with his production essentially halved, there's no way that the Russian player can build up a sufficient force to mount a counteroffensive, as they did in real life when the Germans pulled that routine.

Keep in mind that the production aspect of this game is highly artificial. Those resources don't represent just mines and oil fields and cities, but overall industrial capacity and manpower. The Germans did in fact seize Stalingrad, and it didn't result in Russia losing 40% of its industrial capacity and manpower. It shouldn't work that way in the game, either.

I agree with your general comments about the Russian front, and the necessity of not letting your panzers outrun their support. For the reasons that I've mentioned before, though, the Russian Front rarely works out like this. By the third turn of Barbarossa in every game that I've had as the Allies, I've managed to create a defensive line that will not permit one pincer, let alone two, to break through. From there on out, it's the Marne all over again.

[John DiFool]

Originally posted by Good Soldier Svejk:

I believe you're wrong about this. If you check, you'll see that if the German player cuts off the Caucasus, Russian MPP's will plummet from about 350 to 200 per turn. .

My solution (in another thread) was simple: if

the city (or resource) can trace a line to the

east edge of the map, it will still be at full

strength for MPP purposes. And you should still

be able to build units in said city.

I agree with your general comments about the Russian front, and the necessity of not letting your panzers outrun their support. For the reasons that I've mentioned before, though, the Russian Front rarely works out like this. By the third turn of Barbarossa in every game that I've had as the Allies, I've managed to create a defensive line that will not permit one pincer, let alone two, to break through. From there on out, it's the Marne all over again.

Have you played as Allies against a human? (well,

me neither ) The vets here seem to build a

lot of air fleets, poke a couple of holes in the

line by bombing the heck out of two or so piddly

corps, and then send in the panzers and encircle

the rest. I usually don't get a chance to do this

vs. the AI (as the Germans) because the AI rarely

is able (or willing) to build an unbroken front

(and thus I can easily outflank him without

having to punch and encircle).

John DiFool

[Good Soldier Svejk]

Thanks for the clarifications on the effects and rules, RB

You mentioned:

"the Caucasus was a goal of the Germans, simply because of its production. Not going after this makes no sense. Unfortunately, the game mechanism unduly rewards the German player for accomplishing this"

Seems like maybe there is some medium to be struck here between enough of a handicap and too much of one.

About my own refernce to Stalingrad, you mention, quite correctly:

"The Germans did in fact seize Stalingrad, and it didn't result in Russia losing 40% of its industrial capacity and manpower. It shouldn't work that way in the game."

My point, however, was not so much about the effects of taking Stalingrad itself in the game (which I agree should not have an exagerrated effect and does not warrant a change), but about the "what if" should the Axis, either by bypassing or taking Stalingrad, drive to the eastern map edge. Perhaps it makes a bit more sense in that light (I hope--things I write always make sense to me, ).

I've only one and a half pbem games, so can't comment on your own experiences regarding the continuous front in Russia (my brief experience has been quite different, so that may be another basic point of departure).

Salute!

[arby]

Originally posted by John DiFool:

Have you played as Allies against a human?

Yeah, about half a dozen times, and I've had to do a Barbarossa defense about three or four. The trick is to build a double line of corps. In the first couple of turns, that's impossible, of course, but if you slow him down enough around Kiev and Minsk, and use the river south of Kharkov to defend the mines, you can eventually build one up. It's almost impossible to penetrate that. In the first game I tried it, I held the Smolensk/Kharkov line until mid-1943, when I managed an invasion against poorly-defended France. When he started to bleed off the Russian front to fend off the Western Allies invasion, I used the Russian corps to seep through and around his lines.

In the second game, the same strategy would've worked, except that I stupidly made my "counterattack" too soon. He counterattacked me, and because of his overwhelming tech advantage (L5 tanks & planes, L3 infantry), he managed to breach my line. Once he does that, the game's pretty much up. It's now 1946, and I'm holed up in the Urals and stuck on the Siegfried line, which is pretty much where I anticipate the game will wind up.

The third game the strategy didn't work, again because of the tech advantage; by 2 turns into Barbarossa, he had L5 tanks, L3 jets, and L2 infantry. I couldn't do anything in the west because the US came in late and he also had L4 anti-aircraft. He headed straight for the Caucasus -- when I conceded in mid-1943, the Russian front was actually a diagonal running from Riga to Rostov.

[gorski]

By the third turn of Barbarossa in every game that I've had as the Allies, I've managed to create a defensive line that will not permit one pincer, let alone two, to break through.

I think you need to play against somone else. I attack Russia as late as possible with 5 Fully utilized HQ's and a smattering of corps. I kill or surround 7 armies and 1 tank corps on turn 1. This is just what I have done. I am sure there are more effective strategies for turn 1 Barbarosa that others have developed.

RE gameyness in Russia: I have never actually surrounded Moscow or driven to the eastern edge of the map. If all it takes for Germany to win, is to surround Moscow, then Germany can't possibly lose a game of SC started in 1939.

Gorski

[arby]

Originally posted by gorski:

I think you need to play against somone else. I attack Russia as late as possible with 5 Fully utilized HQ's and a smattering of corps.

That's what I'm pretty much counting on. You go in as late as possible I'm going to start with over 800 MPP's instead of over 400. That's 4 extra corps. The armies are immaterial; if they survive, I operate them back to Moscow anyway. And if you've built 5 HQ's and some corps, that means you don't have as many tanks or planes or armies. I usually do Barbarossa in spring of 1941, and try to have 6 planes, 7 tanks, 9 armies, and 2 corps. (And one of the corps is really only for garrisoning Riga, which I take on the first turn.) The HQ's are nice later on, when you have to breach the line, but at the beginning, give me those tanks. If I can get across the Dneipr before he sets up a line there, it's all over but the shouting.

[ September 10, 2002, 08:10 AM: Message edited by: arby ]

[Good Soldier Svejk]

Arby Said:

" I usually do Barbarossa in spring of 1941, and try to have 6 planes, 7 tanks, 9 armies, and 2 corps."

Even if you don't buy more HQs, this is a pretty tall order to have on hand by Spring of '41 :eek: I guess you probably have to have some good luck with industral tech levels early on in order to afford this sort of force by then.

Are you playing with the scorched earth option? If so, I don't quite see how you can manage without additional HQs. When the cities get set to 0, you need them to sustain supply.

What have you got left defending the West? Seems to me that the rest of the map would be pretty empty (need a cooperative allied player; once I saw that much force in Russia, I'd be on my horse in the West).

Interesting point about Russian forces. Does the size of the Russian Army grow the later you declare? I was under the assumption that the longer you staved off the declaration, it was to your advantage because you would be massing force against a fixed starting defense. Where is the "break point" in the process where the Soviet Defense gets larger?

[John DiFool]

Originally posted by Good Soldier Svejk:

Arby Said:

" I usually do Barbarossa in spring of 1941, and try to have 6 planes, 7 tanks, 9 armies, and 2 corps."

Even if you don't buy more HQs, this is a pretty tall order to have on hand by Spring of '41 :eek: I guess you probably have to have some good luck with industral tech levels early on in order to afford this sort of force by then.

I typically spend all my initial research on Ind

Tech: most of the time I can get it cranked up to

4 or 5 by June of '41, while saving most of my

MPPs until then, then buying units like mad. Now

what this might say about the 'plunder'

and 'research' rules (already debated to death

here) is another matter.

John DiFool

[ September 10, 2002, 12:35 PM: Message edited by: John DiFool ]

[arby]

Originally posted by Good Soldier Svejk:

Arby Said:

" I usually do Barbarossa in spring of 1941, and try to have 6 planes, 7 tanks, 9 armies, and 2 corps."

Even if you don't buy more HQs, this is a pretty tall order to have on hand by Spring of '41 :eek: I guess you probably have to have some good luck with industral tech levels early on in order to afford this sort of force by then.

Yeah, it is. I did say try, and I usually wind up an army or a tank group short. But yes, I dump whatever I can into Ind techs early on. If I can go into Barbarossa with Ind tech at 3, I've got a pretty good shot. I can then change that to tanks and aircraft. Which is why I'd like to change the tech rules; I think that strategy gives the German an unfair advantage.

Are you playing with the scorched earth option? If so, I don't quite see how you can manage without additional HQs. When the cities get set to 0, you need them to sustain supply.

We don' neeed no steenkin' supply. Seriously, my goal is to retain the initiative. Yes, some units will be out of supply, but other units won't. That's why I like tanks: they move far and hit hard. And yes, I do play with scorched earth.

I've had some guys want to play Axis with no partisans, no Free French, and no scorched earth. Hey, how's about we have the US enter on the Axis side? Think you can win then?

What have you got left defending the West? Seems to me that the rest of the map would be pretty empty (need a cooperative allied player; once I saw that much force in Russia, I'd be on my horse in the West).

Well, depends. Before American entry, I just garrison the cities. If the British player wants to build a corps or an army to mount an "invasion" (giggle) instead of building planes and bombing my ports and mines, more power to him. Once the Americans come in, I start sprinkling some corps around. My experience has been that the big mistake Allied players make is invading too soon, not too late. The Brits and Americans do not have the MPP's to make substantial reinforcements and build new units. If they come in too early and you hit them back hard, it's going to be a while before they can replenish.

Interesting point about Russian forces. Does the size of the Russian Army grow the later you declare? I was under the assumption that the longer you staved off the declaration, it was to your advantage because you would be massing force against a fixed starting defense.

The size doesn't grow, only the number of starting MPP's. (Exception: if you invade before the end of 1940, the Soviet force is smaller and back further from the front.) From my experience, both PBEM and against the AI, if you wait until war readiness gets to 85%+, Russia starts out with over 800 MPP's; if you do it before then, it starts with a little over 400. Interestingly, there's no similar effect for the US; it starts with 0, regardless of its war readiness.

[Jollyguy]

More game play observations:

I have played about ten PBEM opponents, and found Russ to be one of the best. I second everything he's written, and want to add my two cents:

1) Weather influenced all theatres in WW II, but only played a decisive role in one: Russia. There simply has to be supply and attack and defense factors involved in the Russian front. As it is now, a winter turn is still just a turn, in which a good Axis player still gets to bull his way east.

2) The game is extremely unbalanced in favor of the Axis. All he has to do is buy enough research chits, move them around as advances reach 4 or 5, and the game is a foregone conclusion by 1943. I mean I know Albert Speer was an industrial genius, but as the game plays now, the Germans player swamps the Allies, rather than the other way around. The Russians are simply punching bags against level five tanks and jets and industrial production.

3) The U.S. is insignificant in the outcome. 180 MPPs doesn't cut it. By late 1942 or 1943 a good Axis player can easily afford to start to seed the Western Front with units, while he mops up in the East, negating the American contribution to the war.

4) Touching the east side of the map shouldn't eliminate Causcus production. We have partisans popping up, Causcus strategic hexes getting razed to the ground even if cut off, Russians who fought valiantly against a hated invader, and the entire southern portion of Russia just rolls over because one supplied German corps touches the east end of the map?

5) Sub war is seldom a factor. Enough said.

Some suggestions:

1) Research should be harder to come by, and not just switched around at will. Maybe have several pools; Naval, land, air. I don't think a great naval architect could do much with jets, or vice versa. Once research is committed to one the three disciplines, they can only move around within that pool, or be switched at a reducte cost.

2) Increase Amercan MPP's each turn. Also start them with more research chits. Same for Russia. They fielded a great tank in the T-34, but it has little chance against level 5 German armor.

3) Cutting off the Caucus should be rewarded to the German player, but something like 1/4 or 1/3 reduced Russian MPPs would seem more realistic, not -100%

4) The subs in the 39 game are gone in a few turns if the Brits so choose. They should be harder to find and harder to attack.

My main complaint, though, is the research weights the game totally in favor of the Axis, with little recourse by the Allies. The outcome should be a nail biter, edge-of-the-seat. As it plays now, a good German player will not only prevail 9 or 10 times of ten, but absolutely pulverize the Allies by 1943.

Don't get me wrong, I LOVE the game. My suggestions are only meant to improve an already GREAT product.

Bob

[Scorpion_22]

Hm. I have won two games as the allies : in one the opponent was playing his first game and did gross mistakes, in the second I got tech-lucky and got russian industrial tech and jets maxed very early, demolishing the Luftwaffe and proceeding to do the old "buy dozens of airfleets and bomb the enemy to bits"-strategy.....

Which leads me to again gripe at the power of air power.......

I´m not going to say again what I´ve already told, see my thread here....

Air power is too powerful

It just needs to be fixed along with these other good suggestions!

Like it has been said, now the game degenerates into a trench warfare where the one side with air supremacy (that´s the way it always seems to be: the other side has total air supremacy after a brief struggle)

[Good Soldier Svejk]

Winter not modeled?

And suggestions on Partisans.

First, regarding Marshall Winter...

I thought this, too, that winter turns were just shorter months and not otherwise signficant. However, as I'm playing German in a pbem game I notice that, out of the blue, my HQs units drop from being supply 10 one turn to 8 or even 6(!) in some cases on the next.

Furthermore, even units adjacent to a headquarters couldn't be reinforced to their maximum levels and their supply levels were lower than they should have been given the distance to the nearest HQs.

It was Feb '41. The only conclusion I can draw for why my supply levels mysteriously dropped so dramatically by themselves (I hadn't done anything different from previous turns that I can think of--maybe there is some other explanation?) is that it there was a winter effect in the Feb turn. It would be nice for the manual to give you a hint about such things if my conclusion is correct. Anyone else notice this or something like it or am I mistaken?

About Partisans...

Here's another suggestion (as long as we're on it). The topic of Partisans has come up before. I think, as others do, that for simplicity, and to maintain the integrity of the game, new rules and units should be added with care. It is, however, an anomaly to have partisan units running around like conventional corps cone they appear (invading neighboring countries, leaving swaths of controlled territory in their wake, etc). I have a simple solution:make partisans static (make their movement factor 0).

Partisan activity is (was) regional, anyway, not mobile. This would still require the garrisoning of areas (as one does now), but also would give a bit more of a historical flavor.

There would be key garrisons and mobile security forces that would respond to uprisings--which is precisely how things worked in the rear areas. The whole country wasn't garrisoned, which is what you wind up with under the current program since you have, in effect, conventional units (like airborne drops) showing up and operating behind the lines.

If this would be too limiting on partisan activity, maybe they could be allowed appear in more places than they do now (if that's possible), and in proximity to more units, like allowing them to appear adjacent to air units and HQs. Just a thought.

Salute!

[Jollyguy]

Another few thoughts:

It is too easy for the Axis to operate units. Recent events (Persian Gulf war, Kosova conflict, Afghanistan), clearly show (as it always has been), that logistics is hard to coordinate, costly, and just plain time consuming. It's not as easy as packing up the truck and moving to Beverly.

When I'm the Axis player, and I see Allied transports off France or Italy, I operate armies, air, and heavy tanks, sometimes all the way from the gates of Moscow and even the Urals. When the Allied units hit the beach, I absolutely crush them, then operate back to finish up with Russia.

If memory serves me correctly, rail links between Germany and Russia were not compatible grades. One was wider, one narrower, considerably slowing the movement of cargo across the frontier. In the same vein, it was easier for the Allies to move from U.S. to England, than U.S. or England to France post D-Day, because there were well honed convoy/air links in place by then, while France's transportation system was shattered by Allied bombing.

I propose full operational capability within some geograhical regions, but make it a two turn process when the distance is vast. That would give the Allied player time to get ashore, perhaps even entrench, and brace for an Axis counterattack.

2) In conjunction, perhaps a logistics research would be available, which would make available easier and cheaper movement for the player that wanted to committ resources that direction. This would also give credit to the incredible contribution logistics played in the war, especially for the Allies.

3) Also, make it even more expensive to transport air than tanks than infantry. Moving an air wing is a high cost, time consuming endeavor, not done even today in a mere one week, when the distances involved are thousands of miles. Moving tanks should also be more costly, but not as much as air, with infantry being the easiest to transport.

4) Perhaps the solution to the Axis research imbalance is to reduce their chance of success to something like 3%, while leaving the Allies at 5%.

5) Perhaps time scale advances. The equivalent of F-86 jet fighters and M-48 heavy tanks for the German by 1943 is far too generous. Maybe limit certain advances to one per year.

Again, great game.

[pzgndr]

Op moves are to SC what strategic redeployments are to 3R. There should probably be some logistical limits to how many units can be magically zipped across the board in a single turn. Germany op moving units back and forth between Russia and France is a concern, as well as the Allies moving air units between Britain and the Med, and I'm guilty of doing this myself. In addition to op move MPP costs, maybe it's time to consider some limits?

[EUD]

Tech Advances-

I believe the best way to reduce the effectiveness of the tech is to make it more difficult to go up each level.

Currently 1 point equals 5% chance of discovery. 5 points means 25% chance. This formula continues all the way through each tech level.

Instead make each level more difficult to get. Level 1 tech you would only have a 20% of success at 5 points and level 2 tech you would only have a 15% chance of success of getting level tech 3. To get to a level tech 5 of Airplanes (Jets) you would have to be very lucky.

New Formula

Level Tech 0 at 5 points – 25% chance of moving to the next level

Level Tech 1 at 5 points – 20% chance of moving to the next level

Level Tech 2 at 5 points – 15% chance of moving to the next level

Level Tech 3 at 5 points – 10% chance of moving to the next level

Level Tech 4 at 5 points – 5% chance of moving to the next level

I believe this would keep players from trying to only dominant one tech level like Airplanes and make you spread the tech advances around.

[gorski]

However, as I'm playing German in a pbem game I notice that, out of the blue, my HQs units drop from being supply 10 one turn to 8 or even 6(!) in some cases on the next.

If your HQ is within 10 hexes ,counting terrain, of a level 10 city, it will have a supply level of 10. If you your HQ is 1 hex closer than the city value of a city that has a value less than 10, then the HQ will have a supply level of 8. Regarding your HQ with 6 supply, I can only guess that you are playing v1.04 and that another HQ was providing that supply level. I have not played in the east with v1.04 yet.

Gorski

[Tony Reale]

Originally posted by Jollyguy:

More game play observations:

1) Weather influenced all theatres in WW II, but only played a decisive role in one: Russia. There simply has to be supply and attack and defense factors involved in the Russian front. As it is now, a winter turn is still just a turn, in which a good Axis player still gets to bull his way east.

2) The game is extremely unbalanced in favor of the Axis. All he has to do is buy enough research chits, move them around as advances reach 4 or 5, and the game is a foregone conclusion by 1943. I mean I know Albert Speer was an industrial genius, but as the game plays now, the Germans player swamps the Allies, rather than the other way around. The Russians are simply punching bags against level five tanks and jets and industrial production.

3) The U.S. is insignificant in the outcome. 180 MPPs doesn't cut it. By late 1942 or 1943 a good Axis player can easily afford to start to seed the Western Front with units, while he mops up in the East, negating the American contribution to the war.

4) Touching the east side of the map shouldn't eliminate Causcus production. We have partisans popping up, Causcus strategic hexes getting razed to the ground even if cut off, Russians who fought valiantly against a hated invader, and the entire southern portion of Russia just rolls over because one supplied German corps touches the east end of the map?

5) Sub war is seldom a factor. Enough said.

Some suggestions:

1) Research should be harder to come by, and not just switched around at will. Maybe have several pools; Naval, land, air. I don't think a great naval architect could do much with jets, or vice versa. Once research is committed to one the three disciplines, they can only move around within that pool, or be switched at a reducte cost.

2) Increase Amercan MPP's each turn. Also start them with more research chits. Same for Russia. They fielded a great tank in the T-34, but it has little chance against level 5 German armor.

3) Cutting off the Caucus should be rewarded to the German player, but something like 1/4 or 1/3 reduced Russian MPPs would seem more realistic, not -100%

4) The subs in the 39 game are gone in a few turns if the Brits so choose. They should be harder to find and harder to attack.

My main complaint, though, is the research weights the game totally in favor of the Axis, with little recourse by the Allies. The outcome should be a nail biter, edge-of-the-seat. As it plays now, a good German player will not only prevail 9 or 10 times of ten, but absolutely pulverize the Allies by 1943.

Don't get me wrong, I LOVE the game. My suggestions are only meant to improve an already GREAT product.

Bob

Amen to all of the above

[J Wagner]

I believe operational movement should only allow you the ability to move a certain amount of additional hexes than normal, though not excactly a forced march but with similar qualities. Perhaps cut the cost of operational movement by half and only allow the unit to move 2.5 or 3 times their normal movement rate. This would add an extra turn or two to reach your destination. Though with the present turn lengths being what they are, this may tend to be a bit unrealistic since it can occur that it could take 2 to 3 months to go from Berlin to the Normandy coast.

[John DiFool]

Originally posted by Jollyguy:

Another few thoughts:

It is too easy for the Axis to operate units. Recent events (Persian Gulf war, Kosova conflict, Afghanistan), clearly show (as it always has been), that logistics is hard to coordinate, costly, and just plain time consuming. It's not as easy as packing up the truck and moving to Beverly.

My recent brainstorm on this topic was the idea

of Operational/Rail points (and likewise Sea

Transport points). I won't bore anyone with

details but in essence you have a set amount of

Rail points per turn (you can buy more of course)

for moving your units around operationally. Of

course you would have to recode the AI (so this

goes into the SCII wish list).

John DiFool

[pzgndr]

I believe operational movement should only allow you the ability to move a certain amount of additional hexes than normal, though not excactly a forced march but with similar qualities.

This should be possible someday if the action point system gets revised. Ideally, units should be able to move-attack, attack-move, attack-attack, or move-move. Move-move would be what I think of as operational movement. Op moves in SC should really be like strategic redeployments in 3R, and probably limited per turn to some reasonable number.

[Hubert Cater]

Originally posted by EUD:

I believe the best way to reduce the effectiveness of the tech is to make it more difficult to go up each level.

Currently 1 point equals 5% chance of discovery. 5 points means 25% chance. This formula continues all the way through each tech level.

Instead make each level more difficult to get. Level 1 tech you would only have a 20% of success at 5 points and level 2 tech you would only have a 15% chance of success of getting level tech 3. To get to a level tech 5 of Airplanes (Jets) you would have to be very lucky.

New Formula

Level Tech 0 at 5 points – 25% chance of moving to the next level

Level Tech 1 at 5 points – 20% chance of moving to the next level

Level Tech 2 at 5 points – 15% chance of moving to the next level

Level Tech 3 at 5 points – 10% chance of moving to the next level

Level Tech 4 at 5 points – 5% chance of moving to the next level

I believe this would keep players from trying to only dominant one tech level like Airplanes and make you spread the tech advances around.

OK give EUD the prize! I have to admit that this tech model really caught my attention. I think it sticks with the original flavour of the design but just may add that tweak to make a lot of people happy, i.e. the randomness is still there but does effect a diminishing return as you move higher through the tech tree. The idea that it may influence the spreading around of tech chits works well for me as well.

So the question is what say you all? Any objectors?

Hubert

[Jollyguy]

I second that emotion.

Keep in mind the other items discussed under this topic.

I'll be honest, I am not initiating any new games at the moment, just wrapping up a couple one turn a day PBEMs. The primary reason was that I was spending TOO much time on SC! ! But a close second is the game imbalance. Once the imbalance is addressed, I'll resume play, with a pledge to only play two turns per day per PBEM of this totally addicting game! !

[Good Soldier Svejk]

About Tech Level Tweaks (as quoted below):

"Instead make each level more difficult to get. Level 1 tech you would only have a 20% of success at 5 points and level 2 tech you would only have a 15% chance of success of getting level tech 3. To get to a level tech 5 of Airplanes (Jets) you would have to be very lucky.

New Formula

Level Tech 0 at 5 points – 25% chance of moving to the next level

Level Tech 1 at 5 points – 20% chance of moving to the next level

Level Tech 2 at 5 points – 15% chance of moving to the next level

Level Tech 3 at 5 points – 10% chance of moving to the next level

Level Tech 4 at 5 points – 5% chance of moving to the next level

I believe this would keep players from trying to only dominant one tech level like Airplanes and make you spread the tech advances around."

1) This table makes sense, but assumes maximum tech points allocated (5). How would the breakdown go for less than maximum levels of research (the percentage per point isn't always a round number)?

2) My concern that the already commented upon "luck" factor for research would become even more exagerated. I realize that in the "real world" research breakthroughs are volatile, but that doesn't make for a satisfying game system. I wouldn't want my game decided by one or two "die rolls" (to use an old grognard type of phrase). Under this table, the best you can do is still the same 25 percent chance, with all the volatility that comes with it. In short, assuming both sides invest equally, if one side gets a few good "die rolls" in tech, then the game would be even more skewed by tech volatility than it is now. Personally, I would rather have more decided on the board and less in the die rolls that go on in the tech tree. I think the progressively smaller chances of achieving a tech level are a good thing, but if you're going to reduce the tech percentages on the high end, then you probably ought to increase them on the low end, like maybe starting at 30 percent for the first level and 25 for the second, etc (not sure what the right figures would be; it would take some testing).

3) My last concern is a philosophical one (one that I'm aware may not be shared). There's a fine line between rules (and rules changes) that are "technical," meaning that they are intended to better reflect history, abstract a real function, or address a functional issue (like play balance or a rules gap) of the game system, and those that address the "style" of play, meaning how a player decides to approach the problems posed in the game and by his/her opponent. It is the contesting styles that are the attraction of games like this. In short, there's nothing wrong with the style of a player who tries to dominate a single tech field, and we should be wary of approaching rules that would make everyone play with the same "style." Having said this, I do think that these suggestions (with above reservations) do make good technical sense, and could allow for differing styles and better tech play.

Good stuff!

[Desert Dave]

As originally posted by Hubert Cater:

So the question is what say you all? Any objectors?

Not an objection exactly, but... unless this applies to each amount allotted -- whether maxed out at 5, or 4-3-2, then why would you even bother spending 250 MPPs to move up to level 5?

Stop at level 4 and you achieve the greatest chance for the amount of MPPs spent. So, in effect you are maxing each tech at 4?

[Hubert Cater]

1) This table makes sense, but assumes maximum tech points allocated (5). How would the breakdown go for less than maximum levels of research (the percentage per point isn't always a round number)?

It would work as follows:

Level 0 -> Each research point invested = 5%

Level 1 -> Each research point invested = 4%

Level 2 -> Each research point invested = 3%

Level 3 -> Each research point invested = 2%

Level 4 -> Each research point invested = 1%

Once you get to level 5, according to the formula each research point would be 0%, but that's irrelevant since you can't get any higher research at that point and you are better off investing in something else anyways.

2) My concern that the already commented upon "luck" factor for research would become even more exagerated....

To be honest I kind of disagree, if you increase the percentages than the likelyhood would be even faster of tech progressions and according to some of the arguments posted here I would think it would cause even more headaches.

Mind you I should state that I generally don't have an issue with the current system as is, (I know I don't count, but I've been consisten in winning as either side) I think there is much more that decides the game than research alone. As Immer and others have pointed out, I tried to make the game similar to chess where every decision matters, like unit positions, deployment, when and where to use them, experience and so on. I am not saying it is perfect system, but if it can be adjusted slightly to accomodate most wishes than why not.

3) My last concern is a philosophical one (one that I'm aware may not be shared)....

Agreed

Hubert

[ September 12, 2002, 11:53 AM: Message edited by: Hubert Cater ]