Game Play

[arby]

Originally posted by Jollyguy:

You've already played a game in which no chits were moved around, against me in our round four game. How did this happen? Because I didn't realize you could move chits around until recently, after reading posts on this topic you initiated! I thought (ignorantly) that once research chits were commited, that was that.

In that game I bought ten chits ASAP, starting with the fall of Poland, and maxing out by the fall of France, when I bought the final four chits. I ended up with 2 in each of the following: 1) Industry 2) Tanks 3) Anti-tank 4) Jets 5) Anti-air.

You saw the result. By late 42, early 43 I had: 1) Level 5 tanks 2) Level 5 production 3) Level 5 anti-air 4) Level 4 jets 5) Level 2 anti-tank.

Bob

Which just goes to show you're a dummy: instead of playing me in SC, you should have been out at the race track, because you are the luckiest sumbitch I ever encountered, or at least were that week. Pull out the pocket calculator and figure out what the odds are of that happening again. I'd guess they're slightly better than the chances of OJ finding the "real" killer.

In fact, I wish I'd kept my mouth shut about this. Ever since I raised the subject, the Tech Gods have been laughing their butts off at me. I'm presently about five turns into Barbarossa in two different games; in both, I'm at Ind Tech 3 and Tank 1. Jets? We don' neeed no steeenkin' jets. Course, they could come in handy when I have to trek west to deal with that, especially since the UK is already at L5 jets. In my last game against the AI, I got a taste of what L2 planes do against L0 ones, so I gotta figure that a lot of flyboys are going to be taking a bullet for the Fatherland.

[arby]

Originally posted by Jollyguy:

Now that I've played numerous PBEM games, I still don't understand why the U.S. starts with 180 MPPs, and that's that. They basically get sand kicked in their face by the Germans, which a-historical aspect aside, isn't even a good what-if result. As you saw in our game, your American contribution ended up being so what.

Bob

Yeah, but look at our game before that. The American contribution (along with the British air support) is what brought you down. I tend to think that the Americans could be juiced a little -- maybe start off at Ind 2 and with 2 research chits, like the Russians do -- but not a whole lot. As Hubert mentioned a long time ago, MPP's reflect not only industrial might, but also things like manpower. And there's a political aspect to that last factor. The Russians wound up with 20 million dead because they could afford to, both demographically and politically. We might have been able to do so demographically (doubtful), but there's no way it would have happened. Had we wound up using our troops in human wave attacks like the Russians did, Roosevelt would have been impeached and we would have retreated back to Fortress America. The American player has to be much more careful with his units than the Russian, and I think the game reflects this, perhaps without intending to do so.

The only thing that bothers me about the American output is that by the end of the game, the UK is usually outproducing it substantially. The reason is simple: the UK gets all the MPP's from liberated countries. Besides not making sense -- when the Soviet Union conquers Romania, Britain gets the 80 MPP's a turn -- it leads to the ahistorical result where the UK is an industrial powerhouse and the US its tagalong brother. This could be remedied by simply giving the MPP's of a liberated country to the country that liberates it.

One more thing: if the extra row is added to the North Africa, which I think is probably the second biggest complaint, it will open up the Mediterranean as campaign option, which would also open up a conquest of Italy as a viable strategic option. I've had one game where the Americans conquered Italy, and that makes a real difference in the MPP's. That brings up another point, too -- the Italy surrender rules -- which I'm not even going to get into.

[Good Soldier Svejk]

Just a thought about U.S. production (since it's come up several times). Taken turn by turn, the production number does seem to be low, but only if you attempt to play the U.S. as if it were a continental power (Soviet or German, to a lesser extent GB), as RB indicated.

The great advantage of the U.S. is that it is overseas (both in the game and historically). As long as the Royal Navy is still largely intact, the U.S. has the luxury of doing what other countries can't do who are on the "front lines": stockpiling.

The U.S. wasn't going to come out of the gate in '41 with major forces, but had to build to that point. The production rate, I think, handles this nicely (just a thought).

Salute!

[Hubert Cater]

Originally posted by Scorpion_22:

This is actually my suggestion number 4, if you look at my post, so there

Yup, noticed that!

Hubert

[Hubert Cater]

The American player has to be much more careful with his units than the Russian, and I think the game reflects this, perhaps without intending to do so.

All part of the plan

The only thing that bothers me about the American output is that by the end of the game, the UK is usually outproducing it substantially. The reason is simple: the UK gets all the MPP's from liberated countries.

This is part of the Allied minor relationship although the idea that the liberator controls the country does have some merit.

Hubert

[pzgndr]

This is part of the Allied minor relationship although the idea that the liberator controls the country does have some merit.

Would this be a good time to talk about the liberation of major powers? I'd rather see the French MPPs go to Britain or the US rather than France re-entering the game immediately and starting from scratch. Maybe a 3-6 month delay at least or some other random period to reflect the chaos involved and reestablishment of everything. Same should apply to Italy if conquered by Allies and then liberated by Germany, and to Britain if liberated by US. Thoughts?

[Jollyguy]

Pulling out the Calculator (as I am a CPA)

Russ;

I count 29 turns per year (13 one week summer turns, 13 two week fall/spring turns, 3 winter one month turns). The way the game plays, each player gets 1/2 of those turns, or 14 1/2 per year.

Each chit has a 5% chance of advancing to the next level per turn, two chits a 10% chance. That means on average, two chits will return an advance every ten turns, or, if lucky, two a year.

Realizing the game's economic component is important, plus tanks key in Barbarrosa, those were the first four chits I bought, starting two turns into the game. Industrial didn't go level 5 until mid/late 1943. That may have actually been behind mathematical schedule +/-, (14 1/2 turns per year * 4 ='s 58 turns (39 to 43 =s 4 years)).

Then I started to sprinkle among jets, anti-air, anti-tank. I got to level 5 tanks by Barbarossa, although now that I think of it, maybe it was level 4 at the onset, perhaps even level 3. I can't remember. Regardless, lets say Level 5 tanks started to lumber off the assembly lines about one year after buying two chits, which made them at least three advances, or about two years "ahead" of schedule. Got pretty lucky on that one.

But I never got beyond Level 2 anti-tank the entire game, so I was way behind on that, cancelling out my tank luck. Although, I acknowledge the tank luck was timely, the anti-tank bad luck manageable.

Anti-air arrived a bit of ahead of schedule, but not by much, and jet advances arrived more or less on schedule, perhaps a little behind.

So, all things considered, I would say my luck on advances was probably on schedule: Extremely slow anti-tank cancelled extremly fast tank; Industrial slightly behind, cancelling anti-air slightly ahead; Jets more or less on time, maybe a bit behind.

Remember, I was fully researched-up when France fell, in early 1940. That meant once fully funded, all five research areas had 14 1/2 turns per year to ripen, times 3 + years to the conclusion of our game, or at least 43 1/2 turns. I was four research levels shy of maximum in the five disciplines at that time (level two anti-tank, level four jets), so overall, the averages were on schedule.

As to being a dummy. Well, can't argue with that. Ha, ha. As to being lucky. Have three times missed the lottery by one number, and drew 3 pat royal flushes in my short (but profitable) poker playing career. I do get my share of luck, but I find overall that good luck cancels bad. Inbetween is how good you are.

As to our games. For the record, you beat me the first three times, I won the fourth. I have never considered myself a quick study, but am a good, steady, determined study. You are probably both quick and good. But the fact that the "student" could eventually defeat the "master," and overwhelimingly, highlights the Axis PBEM imbalance I believe we all want addressed.

Plus, I found myself on the receiving end as the Allies of the same heavy research strategy I employed when playing the Axis. I eventually capitulated in those games, because the conclusion became foregone, and to continue to play would have been a waste of time.

Bob

[Doomsday1]

Originally posted by Good Soldier Svejk:

Just a thought about U.S. production (since it's come up several times). Taken turn by turn, the production number does seem to be low, but only if you attempt to play the U.S. as if it were a continental power (Soviet or German, to a lesser extent GB), as RB indicated.

The great advantage of the U.S. is that it is overseas (both in the game and historically). As long as the Royal Navy is still largely intact, the U.S. has the luxury of doing what other countries can't do who are on the "front lines": stockpiling.

The U.S. wasn't going to come out of the gate in '41 with major forces, but had to build to that point. The production rate, I think, handles this nicely (just a thought).

Salute!

1. I agree that you cannot play the US as a continental power, at least not in '41, however, I stick to the contention that the MPPs the US recieves is still to low. By 1943 the US was in full production, sending hundreds of B-24's and B-17's to the UK to start strategic bombing. (These were expensive planes with large, highly trained crews). In this game, that cannot be replicated and still cover the other major undertakings the US was involved in, like North Africa, build up for taking Sicily and Italy proper and the War in the Atlantic. Not to mention advances in nuclear warfare, keeping england fed, and aid to the USSR.

Won't even discuss the naval build-up necessary to defeat the Japanese.

2. The US historically defeated the U-boat menance with the technique of convoying, as well as having aircraft cover almost the entire expanse of the convoy routes. The Royal navy did not protect the US from a pipe-dream axis invasion. By 1943 we had ample Naval strenght w or w/out the HMS-whatever. Looking at what the US had in its aresenal after defeating germany & Japan, it was almost overkill....we mothballed more ships that the Brits ever had in service at any time.

3. I think the production rate sucks. The starting point is fine, but it does not take into account the massive build-up of everything conceivable. I remember watching a movie rendition of the Battle of the Bulge. A German officer was dismayed because he knew it was a futile pursuit to even think they had a chance when he saw that the US was flying fresh cakes from Boston to the men. The US and its production is what saved the day. An increase of 2-3 MPPs per turn would more accurately reflect the historical US production rates and might be what is needed to counter the known axix bias inherent in the game as it now plays. Still love the game, but maybe a additional tweak or two might make it better, Eh?

[DK_Faramir]

Greetings to all fellow SC players. I too love this game, much more so than I expected.

However, it has flaws, as do all games I know.

Primarily, I have a problem with the tech model.

I also find it much too dependent on luck, and it can (in my experience) most definitely ruin game balance.

I suggest reducing the random factor, and instead increasing the chance of success in relation to not just resource investment, but more importantly time investment.

I've had a couple of games where I've reached level 5 in multiple categories by 1941, and that seems a little excessive to me.

I'd like to see a system where a player gets rewarded in accordance with his dedication to a research field.

Naturally, any game without a certain factor of luck would be boring and have a foregone conclusion.

I believe three things should be taken into consideration when determining research advances.

Presented in priority order:

1. Resource investment

2. Time investment

3. Luck

One could argue that the current model does indeed follow the above steps, but I don't think so.

First of all, the Axis side has an economic advantage at the beginning, and for a long while. The way tech works now makes this a big problem, because Germany is free to invest hugely in tech and almost certainly be at an advantage for too long and by the time the Allies even out this advantage, the war is more or less over.

How can this be solved ?

Well, naturally the Axis side SHOULD have an economic advantage, so that can't be changed.

Instead, I suggest investment in research be abstracted as a percentage of total MPP income.

This might seem a little unfair, because it would be much more expensive for the Axis (initially) to invest in research than the Allies. To rectify this injustice, a minimum total MPP investment should exist for each step of research investment. Also, remember that research is very much a result of human brilliance, and not how many cities you've conquered.

To avoid mega-researching, I suggest a limit of 20-25 % of total MPP.

A model could look like this:

Increases exist in steps of 5 %.

For each step, there is a cost of 50 MPP + (5 % of total MPP each turn).

So, it would cost 150 + 15 % of total MPP income, to have a combined research of 15 %.

Those 15 points could then be assigned by steps of 5 in each of the categories (3 steps in case of 15 %). For each increase in tech level, the total points would reduce by five (1 step), to represent lost investment.

So, to maintain a certain total, you would have to pay 50 MPP for each level increase (because of the lost investment).

This somewhat takes care of the Axis advantage, and allows the Allies to stay competitive.

However, it does not take into account the time investment.

I realise this is already sounding very complex, but bear with me.

To represent the dedication to a certain field, I suggest the following:

Each year, there is a turn in which the total research in a field doubles its chances of increase. Let's say I play Axis, and I've invested 10 % in Jets, and 10 % in Ind. Tech.

Every year, there will be a randomly assigned turn with a double chance for each of those to increase (20 % in this case). If said increase does not cause the tech to level up, then the following year will incur a a triple chance. This will continue (x4, x5 etc.) each year until an increase is made. Then it will drop back to normal.

This will represent the investment of time, and reward dedication to a field. It will also offset the luck factor somewhat.

Buyback of research investments will be limited to the 50 MPP, not the percentage of MPP. This will further represent lost investments, and discourage heavy reassignments.

As I write this, I realise I may have created a monster of complexity, but it works in my mind. By keeping the total research down to 25 % (equalling 5 total points in the current system), it reduces the chance of those ridiculous 1941 level 5 jets and tanks. Also, it should reward players for staying dedicated to a certain field. But most of all, it heavily reduces the major Axis research advantage at the beginning stages of the war.

Anyway, they're just ideas for thought, and I hope they can inspire a solution in some form or another.

- Faramir

[ September 16, 2002, 04:22 PM: Message edited by: DK_Faramir ]

[DK_Faramir]

I just figured out a simpler way of doing much the same thing.

Every major country starts out with 2 research points (1939). They will receive 2 extra points each year, ending with a total of 10 points in 1943.

(to match the maximum investment of 2500 MPP in the current system.)

To actually apply a research point, costs 150 MPP.

(So that the Allies have a chance of competing technologically in the beginning stages.)

It's impossible to apply more research points than is available.

(There must be a limit to prevent the random mega-research in the current system.)

Maximum points in a category should be limited to 3.

(The limit again.)

Each point will give a 5% chance of level increase, like with the current system.

(No need to change what works.)

When a category has 3 points assigned, it will automatically (free of charge) gain an extra 5% chance of increase per turn, for each passing year (starting a year after the first 3 points are assigned). This extra chance will only apply if the tech didn't increase by itself.

(This is done to make sure that research will succeed at one point or another, so that MPP aren't wasted in the end, and also to ensure that dedication is rewarded.)

Once a tech has increased in level, investment in that category will automatically drop 1 point, representing loss of investment, as well as increased costs for advanced research.

(It makes sense to me that funding is not a one-time thing.)

If a tech increases due to the free of charge bonus, investment points will drop to 10 % (15 % minus the standard loss of 1 point.

(Just a natural consequence.)

No buyback is possible.

(It makes no sense that you can simply get back investments already made.)

- Faramir

[ September 16, 2002, 04:02 PM: Message edited by: DK_Faramir ]

[kenfedoroff]

Originally posted by Scorpion_sk:

"Anyways, I don´t see how the proposed tech engine would change the fact that one side can get very lucky while the other spends the rest of the game waiting for the same miracle to happen. This has larger consequences in especially jets, the rest can be dealt with...altough having high industrial tech is a great big advantage if the other side does not have it."

"2. Modifiers according to date -

Each tech level would belong to its corresponding 1940 year (note that as it is I think it´d be best to make it universal, instead of bickering about the individual historic dates....)

Ie. level 1 would belong to 1941

level 2 to 1942 etc.... (which would conveniently mean that Me-262´s, ie. level 4 jets, belong to 1944, and level 5 tanks, belong to 1945)."

Could the above date modifier for tech as proposed by Scorpion be integrated into the game as an option (such as FOW is offered)?

Has anyone play-tested the date modifier option in a pbem game?

It seems to me that two honorable gamers could use the date modifier option as a "house rule", and check to see if this makes SC more fun to play.

I have yet to play a pbem game, but when I do, I would like to use the "tech date modifier" option(except for Ind./tech, which would be more of a mobilization factor). I have been amazed by degree of luck, (both good and bad), that I have experienced when playing against the A/I. I would not want this "tech luck" to decide a game. Rather, I would like the "Strategic Command" of the individual to decide the issue.

Thanks to everyone for participating in this forum.

Sincerely,

Ken

[kenfedoroff]

Please direct me to any discussion about the Winter turns being compressed into a length of one month. I'm sure this issue has been covered elsewhere but I haven't found it.

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

Consider:

One month winter turns put the allied player at a huge disadvantage regarding sea transport to the Middle East. Rather than have four move turns to transport to Egypt, (or anywhere else for that matter), he now only has one.

Perhaps this is accounted for by giving troop transports a movement factor that enables them to out-run just about any fleet unit, (or are they riding on the Queen Mary?), but I wonder how this effects game-play.

I realize this issue could be solved by allowing unit builds in Alex., but I would rather the convoys have to battle their way thru the Med. Just consider giving them the time to get there.

I understand the Med./Middle East area was a small scale operation, (compared to the russian front), as far as forces involved, but it is important area as far as resources are involved, (witness Churchills' personal visit to Egypt). It is also the only area left where the allied player has a foothold from which to start a comeback against the Axis juggernaut without having to make an anphib/invade.

Maybe this post should be under wish-list for SC2.

Sincerely,

Ken