Economic/Industrial issues

[marklavar]

Will there be a way of managing economic and industrial production in SC2? Will this become more complex than it was in SC1?

Could someone clarify?

[marklavar]

BUMP!!!

[KDG]

I do know that you can use the editor to choose how long it takes to produce an individual unit. Thus you may buy your unit, then wait 1-3 turns before you get it(or whatever you choose).

[pzgndr]

OK, here's a bird's eye view of Military Production in SC2. A new industrial modifier will apply to each country, with 1 equaling 100% production from resources. So with a modifier less than 1, we can see PARTIAL production. Like for USSR and USA prior to entry.

Production technology research will work pretty much the same as in SC1 except there will be country-specific increases to the industrial modifier. Italy may only get 5% level increases while USA gets 25%.

AND, with new event scripting, we may be able to further customize things. Like set USA to get increases at 60, 80 and 100% war readiness. Or some sort of Urals Industry transfer for USSR. Or whatever.

And all of these things can be edited! So, combining ALL of these options together, you get a pretty flexible economic model. Not to mention being able to edit resources on the map and what those resource values are.

Confused yet? Bottom line is a LOT of flexibility which means being able to tweak the economics to be "just right."

[Desert Dave]

As originally posted by pzgndr:

Bottom line is a LOT of flexibility which means being able to tweak the economics to be "just right."

Absolutely. :cool:

Especially for those who like to play (... or have to occasionally play) solo games.

Before, you merely had 15 possible combinations for "tweaking" the AI (... 5 levels of difficulty Xs 3 levels of computer experience).

Now, you have, without exaggeration, thousands upon tens of thousands of combinations.

[someone could no doubt calculate what that precise # is, but I can't and don't care to... all I know is what my eye & gut-instinct tells me, and it's... a LOT, though probably somewhat less than the # of Angels dancing on the head of a micro-dot... ]

Obviously this is due to ALL the variables (... not only to the very important area of Industrial production tech AND Industrial Country modifier) and ALL those closely honed increments of change... in each category that can be edited.

Edit... build limits, unit cost for each country, production delays as KDG has mentioned, along with research capabilities and resource data, and terrain defense and and and,

You can easily see that the variables are numerous, and the possible outcomes predictably geometric to that.

Upshot: there isn't anyone on the Planet who cannot finally PERFECTLY balance their SOLO game, playing either side, against the AI.

Of course, the default game will be as finely balanced as can be humanly done.

And this is not even to include the fact that the AI should be much better.

Given that the Editor is VERY easy to use, everyone will quickly have their very own X-tremely PERSONALIZED game for competition with a friend, or for solo play... right at their dextrous fingertips. :cool:

[Edwin P.]

And this is not even to include the fact that the AI should be much better.

Just want I want, a finely tuned game designed to test you and with a much better AI. Now, only if it automatically adjusted the difficulty to match your skill based on your prior win loss record so you didn't know exactly what its advantage was - spotting, production cost, research, etc.

But this game from what I have read promises to be truely outstanding and different. From the tiles to the most robust editor I have seen in a wargame. Truly different and engaging. Certainly not a clone of what is available in the market place. Congrats HC. I like what I see very much.

[pzgndr]

Certainly not a clone of what is available

This may be one of several reasons for going with tiles versus hexes. Try something different, yes? I admit I'd be guilty of taking a hex map editor and trying to recreate Advanced Third Reich and banging to fit. And probably becoming hopelessly frustrated in the process, which is exactly what I did to myself 3 years ago with Xconq. And then along came an announcement about SC and what a fun journey this has been! :cool:

Someone could no doubt calculate what that precise # is

Spock perhaps? "Captain, there are 3.79 times 10 to the 47th power number of possible user combinations and permutations."

Now the really TOUGH question is just which one of those zillions of possibilities is going to be the IDEAL game?? That will be up to players to decide.

Just looking at the economics alone, how should we set the numbers? Original research of all historical data and custom fitting for SC2 would take forever. Fortunately, we already have some well established benchmarks. The AH 3R/A3R/RS series which is now A World At War has 3 decades of gameplay experience justifying a very good economic model. ADG's World in Flames has an almost equally long run of experience and its Final Edition rules also offer a very good economic model. High Command, Clash of Steel, and others provide comparable models. And of course we have SC1 which plays very well but needs some fine-tuning.

With the flexibility of SC2, we can more or less simulate either AWAW or WiFFE economics, or something in between, or something slightly different. And of course players can take whatever is released and tweak it to their heart's content. Which should ensure SC2 is played for a VERY long time.

[Elmo]

Originally posted by pzgndr:

OK, here's a bird's eye view of Military Production in SC2. A new industrial modifier will apply to each country, with 1 equaling 100% production from resources. So with a modifier less than 1, we can see PARTIAL production. Like for USSR and USA prior to entry...

Germany should not start at 1 either. They didn't put their economy on a total war footing until a couple of years into the war IIRC.

[Exel]

I just hope HC wont count too much on the flexibility and moddability of his creation as to let the players do the final balancing for their "personalized" game. We are still expecting to get a finished product that doesn't require any user modifications. And if there will be some issues in the initial release versions, the proper reaction should be "we'll fix it in a patch" and not "you can edit it right yourself". Don't get me wrong, all this editability is great, but it should be treated as a "bonus" instead of a built-in feature to the game itself.

[Edwin P.]

Of course, the default game will be as finely balanced as can be humanly done.

I am confident that HC will ship a great and balanced game.

At the same time I see that everyone has their own view of what the perfect WWII game is and HC's system will allow players to create a game that matches their perception of history.

Some players believe that the US should be stronger, that luck should not play a facter in R&D, that Italy should never be able to build a Carrier, and others that carriers are too strong. The system proposed for SC2 will allow everyone to easily mod the system to meet their perception of reality and/or to create a more competitive and interesting game.

[ April 18, 2004, 08:50 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[Battlefront.com]

Originally posted by Exel:

I just hope HC wont count too much on the flexibility and moddability of his creation as to let the players do the final balancing for their "personalized" game. We are still expecting to get a finished product that doesn't require any user modifications. And if there will be some issues in the initial release versions, the proper reaction should be "we'll fix it in a patch" and not "you can edit it right yourself". Don't get me wrong, all this editability is great, but it should be treated as a "bonus" instead of a built-in feature to the game itself.

No worries! Notice that we do not market the game as a Do-It-Yourself Kit. The flexibility will support an already strong game out of the box.

Martin