Russia not in war - still able to build up military?

[Kuniworth]

One thing that really sucks with sc 1 is that axis got from 1939-41 to build up tech while US and USSR have to join the tech-race and get progress fast to stand a chance. This is one of the allies main disadvantages. In sc 2 - Will it be possible for the allied player to handle tech investments and production for USSR and US while they are not in war?

[jon_j_rambo]

Yeah, get those American scientists on the move!

[Hubert Cater]

Yes

[Blashy]

TECH in SC1 just plain sucks. Because it has too much luck involved.

Best games I've had and most challenging are no tech games.

[SeaMonkey]

I have to agree with Blashy, but not to that extreme. Believe me this tech problem is not limited to SC, but also resides in WaW. Perhaps there are models of a balance of tech categories, but I have not played them.

The problem is not with the tech feature itself, but with the narrowed, coreographed actions that the game manipulates the players into, the cookie-cutter actions.

There always seems to be a good variety of technical categories for investment choices, but unfortunately some seem to get no activity due to their insignificance when prosecuting the "winning" strategy.

I realize that this may be due to the limited scope of players thinking outside "the box" and an unwillingness to deviate from tried and true policy. Perhaps the "rocks-paper-scissor" concept needs some expansion, maybe into a realm of interactive intangibles, where certain technical accomplishments develop unit attributes in a way not previously comprehended.

For an example, the development of radar leads to not only a disclosure advantage, but enhances the soft attack factor of infantry armies and corps due to the acquisition of the proximity fuse for their artillery shells.

Now I no this is not a new thought as it has been proposed by other forum members before, but since it was touched on, I threw it out there again.

[ June 10, 2005, 04:23 PM: Message edited by: SeaMonkey ]

[Kuniworth]

Originally posted by Hubert Cater:

Yes

Great news. Ok then we need to get the US and USSR peacetime military strength as close to reality as possible.

US for example would start with;

1 cavalry division.

5 infantry divisions.

[Edwin P.]

Interesting trade-off. Do I build increase the size of my army or do I engage in research?

[SeaMonkey]

This is essentially what the US and USSR do in WaW until they are activated.

The question is, what are the limitations? Will the US and USSR be able to significantly increase they're military forces and/or technical capabilities before becoming active?

My opinion would run along the lines that until the historic entry dates, the US and USSR would be somewhat limited in their endeavors, the trade off as Edwin's comment suggests should correspond to their actual historical levels, with little "wiggle" room.

Now after their DoW dates(historical) then things could potentially ratchet up significantly.

[John DiFool the 2nd]

Now that someone brought up the tech race, what

precautions are you guys taking to a) limit the

imbalance in the categories, as Seamonkey mentioned,

and decrease the effect of luck, where one guy

can put 5 chits into something, and get virtually

zilch out of it over a 3 year period, while someone

else puts in 2 and in those same three years gets

up to level 5?

[Edwin P.]

Its not luck, its probabilities.

[Kuniworth]

Originally posted by Edwin P.:

Its not luck, its probabilities.

Yes but when you play a game for 24 hours and then get screwed n the win by bad tech rolls it just aint fun. I prefer the Hoi system so you know when stuff is supposed to be ready.

[Edwin P.]

Seamonkey,

You are saying that if; for example, I advance a level in Rockets there is a 10% I will also receive a level in another tech area.

This might help in balancing the different techs, if HC and assoicates have not balanced them already (which they probably have).

Example:

--- Rockets - 10% for advancement in Jets at each level advancement.

--- Jets - 0% secondary advancement

This gives players an additional incentive to invest in Rockets to counteract the limited mobility of Rocket Units.

[SeaMonkey]

Exactly Edwin, it should be a tech tree. While I agree the primary tech advancement should be definitive, ie. you know when you will get it(95% probability), I also believe that other advancements should exist in a more random atmosphere and not always be known.

I mean isn't this the way it happens in real life?

[Blashy]

That's why I say make tech something you BUY, not a roll of the dice.

I used SC1 as an example once:

Level = cost

1 = 250

2 = 500

3 = 750

4 = 1000

5 = 1250

Total cost to get level 5 = 3750 comared to 1250 now.

But when you buy them you get it right away.

The price would make people use tech more strategically and conservatively. Basically use your head more in planning.

[SeaMonkey]

I understand Blashy, but the outright purchase of an advancement does not solve the problem of the ineffectiveness of certain tech categories in relation to the game mechanics.

There has to be some randomness also, some intangibles of discovery.

Think about it. Tech procurement is a process, driven by your investment, as you elude to. But for every process comes the vague possibilities that invite innovation, the byproducts.

Vast empires of manufacturing and production have sprung up by the necessities that byproducts dictate...a further use of the hereto thought of as a waste or immaterial. My industry is a prime example, the fractionation of hydrocarbons and the reassembly, from the original use of fuel to....well use your imagination.

With the development of tech "byproducts" you essentially produce a game of "what ifs" in the Game of "what ifs".

You see it is nothing but a logical deduction from the realities of life, it is how it is, how it was, and how it will be.

[Blashy]

I agree with that SeaMonkey.

But if it remains "luck" based for when you wish to acquire a specific tech, I'm still going to play games with no tech, they are always more challenging.

What they could do for byproduct is if you do buy a tech you get a % to discover a by product, if you get it you then get a pop up asking if you wish to spend $ to developed this byproduct. Once again luck would not be such a big factor and the player would have to think strategically, spend the money or not.

[kozmeister]

I agree.

The player controlling the US and USSR should have some capability to control the preparation of at least the military constituents and R&D prior to their entrance into conflict.

Roosevelt (a clear proponent for war) whose hands were tied politically still had the ability to direct military resources.

Added benefit would be increased fun for the poor allied player sitting and taking a whipping while waiting.

KOZMEISTER

[SeaMonkey]

Right you are Blashy. I like the idea of additional investment to develop the byproducts.

Good suggestion.

[Shaka of Carthage]

I really don't understand the complaints about "luck".

The idea behind the research techs and the probablities of when you achieve the advance, is how Mr H is giving you replayability.

If you don't want to use it, because of some perceived notion that you as a player should be able to control everything, then in SC2, turn it off.

Tech research, in addition to replayability, also give you the historical uncertainity that the leaders of the times faced.

Fog of War, historical uncertainity, replayability, random weather, etc are all the things that make it a "wargame", as oppossed to a game.

[Sombra]

Originally posted by Shaka of Carthage:

I really don't understand the complaints about "luck".

The idea behind the research techs and the probablities of when you achieve the advance, is how Mr H is giving you replayability.

If you don't want to use it, because of some perceived notion that you as a player should be able to control everything, then in SC2, turn it off.

Tech research, in addition to replayability, also give you the historical uncertainity that the leaders of the times faced.

Fog of War, historical uncertainity, replayability, random weather, etc are all the things that make it a "wargame", as oppossed to a game.

Some of the things I don´t like in SC is that research is asured investment usally. I reality you try to research something and the outcome many times is not what you expected.

On the other hand this instant upgrade of all your units when you researched something. You get a new tank design and within a week all your tanks are magically transfromed (I think this is addressed)

And sometimes there is this freaking luck you never get an adavance and the other guys has already x wing fighters.....

I would like to see a system which combines certain luck like in Sc and a good catch up system already in Sc but weak to make strategically research decisions. Perhaps the first 3 turns after after an advance is made and the the new design appared !!! on the battlefield (enemy must have seen this unit) no catch up bonus for the eneimy afterwards a very slowly rising catch up bonus afterwards.

I think research money should (could) be used up. Trying to be the tech leader should have its benefits and its risks. Like making huge investmensts and never get any benefit.

I don´t like the system in Waw it is to predictable, the units get to much benefit. if somebody is 2 lvl above you, your units are totally wothless. Even the most advanced design in WAW costs the same as the basic design of a tank. There SC has a huge advantage because lvl 5 fighters are really expensive!!!

[John C]

In my mind, there needs to be some variability to keep things fresh and therefore a random element is a good thing. That said though, this is a strategy game where the majority of your fate should be determined by your decisions and not by randomness. If I wanted to play a game where winning and losing was determined entirely by dice rolls, I'd buy yahtzee. And so, if I invest in aircraft and occasionally get an advance in rocketry - ok, interesting. But by the end of the war I expect to have progressed mostly in aircraft tech. And if I invest substantially more than my opponent, I expect that my tech level should be significantly greater than his. Any system that doesn't essentially ensure that basic result isn't in keeping with the game I want to play.

Instant upgrades of all units is simply an abstraction. Personally, I don't mind it. If it helps, just assume the tech advance event doesn't represent discovery but rather implementation of the new tech. That said, I could see requiring some form of refit that required additional investment to upgrade each unit. The problem is that it might begin to feel like micromanagement. What I definitely wouldn't want is where it takes a random amount of time for each unit to upgrade and I have no control over the priorities - that would introduce frustration without really increasing the depth of the strategic situation.

And to WaW, you are right that tech levels are far too important in that game. In actuality, the entire tech system in the game is hopelessly broken. It encourages the creation of super units and completely throws out the desirability of combined arms warfare - just invest in one thing and then build lots of that one thing. And each tech level has far too much impact as units quickly become unkillable. In so many ways, that game is a shining example of how not to implement tech.

[Sombra]

Originally posted by John C:

In my mind, there needs to be some variability to keep things fresh and therefore a random element is a good thing. That said though, this is a strategy game where the majority of your fate should be determined by your decisions and not by randomness. If I wanted to play a game where winning and losing was determined entirely by dice rolls, I'd buy yahtzee. And so, if I invest in aircraft and occasionally get an advance in rocketry - ok, interesting. But by the end of the war I expect to have progressed mostly in aircraft tech. And if I invest substantially more than my opponent, I expect that my tech level should be significantly greater than his. Any system that doesn't essentially ensure that basic result isn't in keeping with the game I want to play.

Instant upgrades of all units is simply an abstraction. Personally, I don't mind it. If it helps, just assume the tech advance event doesn't represent discovery but rather implementation of the new tech. That said, I could see requiring some form of refit that required additional investment to upgrade each unit. The problem is that it might begin to feel like micromanagement. What I definitely wouldn't want is where it takes a random amount of time for each unit to upgrade and I have no control over the priorities - that would introduce frustration without really increasing the depth of the strategic situation.

And to WaW, you are right that tech levels are far too important in that game. In actuality, the entire tech system in the game is hopelessly broken. It encourages the creation of super units and completely throws out the desirability of combined arms warfare - just invest in one thing and then build lots of that one thing. And each tech level has far too much impact as units quickly become unkillable. In so many ways, that game is a shining example of how not to implement tech.

John C. I agree with you 90%. I like a certain randomness sometimes even quite a lot.

I don´t like it when the luck is able to turn around 100%. A game from where I am losing because I am totally outclassed andsuddnly I am winning because I have superunits and my opponents luck sucks big time....

SC already walks here a fine line because I still believe that skill is the deciding factor in SS. Sometimes some games are frustrating due to mayor good luck or bad luck.

I don´t like to much micromangement either. The tech system in WAW is for me broken beyond) to. Unfortunatly WAW is mostly decided by research. I will give the game another try when they implement TCP/IP because I simply love this kind of games and I am still not ready to give up on it.

[Blashy]

You don't need to have a part of the game to be "luck" based to have replayability.

The fact that research could be bought but at high cost (see my example above) would offer replayability because you could go so many different ways and not just "jet tech, jet tech and more jet tech" because HC has made overall research more balanced in this game.

Plus the slight possibility of getting lucky with a byproduct and getting the option to invest in it or not would also add another option that would add to the game.

I play Halo 2 on xbox over and over, same 10 maps, same weapons, same vehicles, same gametypes with no luck involved, yet I find there is plenty of replayability, because of the people playing it, not the game.

[Shaka of Carthage]

Blashy, your last post, and perhaps by implication your other posts, isn't about luck.

Its about the effect Air units have, made worse by every Air Tech Advance.

[John C]

Out of curiosity, what avenues of research does everyone believe should be available in a game such as this? Personally, I hate the idea of researching tanks or infantry separately as if an armored division went into battle with just tanks and combined arms warfare was never invested. Personally, while fancier names would obviously be used, here's the tech avenues I would include for research:

Ground Combat Offense

Ground Combat Defense

Fighter Aircraft

Heavy Bombers

Submarine warfare

ASW

Some might find those 6 categories to be overly simple. I would argue that they force players to choose between real strategic alternatives on where to invest and then facilitates those decisions being the key factor rather than micromanagement of some extensive tech tree.