Optional Tech System

[Bismarck fan]

Personaly i don't like the role that luck play's when it comes to tech advances.

You don't have a lot of MPP to spend when for example you'r playing for the allies and Russia is only up to 20% activation, so when i decide to spend them on something i want to be certain they pay of.

When it comes to unit production you have to options:

Instant build

or

Delayed build

Why not have an option for tech too?

Current system

or

having a chit pay of within a chosen period of time (for certain)

within 3 months for example

another option would be to be able to invest even just one MPP in a tech, that tech would accuire 100 MPP to complete and when the research bar is full, you get it

Just spraying some ideas

[John DiFool the 2nd]

Read This

[John C]

I really like your system JD2. A strategy game should rely mostly on strategy and your system seems to do just that.

The only addition I might suggest is that subsequent chits should cost more so that it is more difficult to boost technologies overly quickly. Each Chit might cost 15% more than the previous one invested in the same tech. So it might cost 100 MPP for the first, then 115 for the second, 132 for the third and so on.

[Sombra]

I work in R&D . Sometimes I wonder how we ever left the caves

There are many things going wrong if you consider R&D not only the new idea and new designs but the implementation in production.

[Bismarck fan]

Once i started reading it i remembered glancing over this a while ago. hve to agree with JC on this one. System looks like it might work

nice thinking JD now lets hope HC feels the same

And yes i do very much like to use short verions of names

greetings BF (no i'm not with BattleFront )

[vveedd]

I agree. I always saying this and nobody listen – in any grand strategy game (especially with PBEM option) luck factor must be at minimum because there is still no effective solution for reloading issue. To my opinion, except tech system, diplomacy system also must have much less luck factor involved.

[Blashy]

The Hubert has it functioning, I do not find it to be an issue.

I've been playing it since October.

And I was a proponent of being able to buy levels (at higher costs). But as is, the progression is mostly constant and once in a while you get luck or not in one area or level and that feels historical.

Anyways, changing the whole research system when plenty of other stuff needs more attention, I'm not Hubert, but it would be the last thing on my mind.

[Lars]

But to take all luck out of it just leads to cookie cutter strategies.

i.e - hmm, let's see here, I'll get Industrial 3 by '40, dump it all into Heavy Tank, should have level 5 by 42, and the USSR is doomed, bwahahaha...

A bit of randomness makes for a better game.

[John C]

Originally posted by Lars:

But to take all luck out of it just leads to cookie cutter strategies.

i.e - hmm, let's see here, I'll get Industrial 3 by '40, dump it all into Heavy Tank, should have level 5 by 42, and the USSR is doomed, bwahahaha...

A bit of randomness makes for a better game.

A bit of randomness is a good thing. When you invest heavily in JD2's system, you might get results in two months, or 4 months or perhaps even 6 months because progress takes random steps forward. That's a bit of randomness. But when you are just waiting to hit the lottery on a small percentage chance then you might get something tomorrow, or perhaps next year, or you might not ever get results. That is more than a bit of randomness. At that point, the dice become a primary deciding factor and you might as well just play yahtzee.

P.S. - Under JD2's system, having L5 tank by 1942 can be prevented since you can set the "costs" and progress accordingly to ensure proper progress based on investment. There is a measured amount of progress being made each turn. Under the current system, it is actually possible for a very lucky person to max tanks out in 1940. Again, in my mind at least, his proposal is better than the current system.

[ May 23, 2006, 08:46 AM: Message edited by: John C ]

[Desert Dave]

I would agree with Lars & Blashy,

That "re-play-ability"

Is FAR more important

Than a "truer" historical time-line

For advancements in ANY category.

Makes things... SOMETIMES "what-if"

But, mostly, and according to

A "normal curve" on the graph,

Pretty much ordinary.

"Outliers" are notso very frequent

As some might suppose; after all

We usually ONLY hear about those,

And NOT the "scatter points"

That remain close to the "ideal curve."

Besides,

There CAN be a way to improve

The current implentation,

Either as part of default game,

Or in modded version.

We'll see.

[TaoJah]

Originally posted by Blashy:

I've been playing it since October.Anyways, changing the whole research system when plenty of other stuff needs more attention, I'm not Hubert, but it would be the last thing on my mind.

Yes, well, that is your opinion.

In my opinion, the current system does NOT work : luck is too important in this system. You can have Advanced Infantry at 3/3 by February 1940 and then you win the game, easy as that.

Lucks hould not be so determinal in a game like this.

[Blashy]

That is not luck, that is something else entirely.

Being able to invest too much money in research.

If you were limited, you would have to make choices.

You might be high in one area, but weak in another.

[TaoJah]

Originally posted by Blashy:

That is not luck, that is something else entirely.

Being able to invest too much money in research.

If you were limited, you would have to make choices.

You might be high in one area, but weak in another.

I don't care if I am weak in other fields : when I own the infantry part of the game, I own the game.

There should be some changes in the research, now you can win the game by it.

Either take away the randomness or make a rule like "maximum one advancement in a field every year".

[Blashy]

In no way is having infantry level 3 a game winner.

You either have been playing vs. the AI, which is flawed at this time and being improved for the first patch.

Or your opponents are making some serious mistakes.

[Rolend]

Well the history of war shows countless times that luck plays a huge part in the outcome. Now to take luck out of the game will be turning it into a chess game and make it VERY unrealistic. No thanks I like luck in my games and this comes from some one who is very unlucky.

One other note, no MATTER how much money you invest in a problem it does NOT assure a return on that investment. Just ask the drug companies who can literally invest a billion dollars on a promising drug just to see it fail.

I like the system the way it is, maybe some minor tweaks but please don't take the luck out of it.

[ May 23, 2006, 11:07 AM: Message edited by: Rolend ]

[John DiFool the 2nd]

Replayability can be made up for in other areas; it

is not a valid argument to bolster a flawed system.

Note those who are arguing that my original proposal

"takes luck out of the equation" have constructed a

very nice straw man. I suspect the optimal point

lies somewhere between what I proposed (which was

meant as a starting point-tweak it all you want).

and what Hubert has.

This game is great, but it is also frustrating

because, while we can mod certain aspects to heck

and back, other things aren't moddable at all.

[Exel]

Luck played a major role in historical R&D. It is of course easy to say with great hindsight that such and such were doomed to fail and others were sure to pay off. However from the perspective of the time investing part of your limited resources was a huge gamble. Germany notoriously invested in all kinds of "scifi" projects - it produced many great innovations (eg. Panzerfaust) but also gargantual flops (superheavy tanks).

I think SC2 reflects this very well. Investing in research is always risque and you can't be sure when it will pay off, if ever.

A tweak I would like to see with the tech system in the future is a random chance of getting another tech than you have invested in. For example a chit in ASW might end up producing the next level of heavy tanks (historically an anti-submarine rocket launcher developed for the Kriegsmarine ended up being used in the Sturmtiger heavy assault tank).

[Lars]

They also ignored advances they already had.

Germany patented a turbojet engine in 1934, flew the Heinkel HE-178 in 1939.

So, maybe you get really just get "lucky" (or smart ) and decide to listen to Hans von Ohain a little earlier…

[Rolend]

Exel now that is an idea I LOVE, a lot of tech devolpment ended up in areas they had not intended. Heck was not the German 88, the tank killer in Africa produced to be a Flak gun?

[John DiFool the 2nd]

Sure luck played a part, and nothing I've said

eliminates luck. But examining the historical

record, when a country wanted something bad enough,

they typically got it in fairly short order. The

Germans, despite a cool array of Cold-War era

weapons at the end of the war, porked themselves

when they decided to cut R & D funding to the bone

after France fell, and it appeared the war (with

the West at least) was over.

Tying in with the other thread, Doenitz decided to

stick with the traditional "submersible" u-boats for

about 1-2 years too long, while the Allies were

devising all sorts of improvements to ASW. Only

once it was clear that the VII and IX submersibles

were doomed whenever they sailed from mid '43 on

did they ramp up the Type XXI program. Same thing

with heavy tanks-before Barbarossa they didn't have

much going in the way of better tanks but after

encountering some T-34's and KV-1's they certainly

changed all that. Now the Germans did have a

bunch of other things in the works that didn't pan

out (like heavy bombers), but I get the feeling

that the most important tech advances they got

once they prioritized them.

All I would like to see is some of weirdness

eliminated from both ends (getting tech ridiculously

quickly or agonizingly slowly). That may foster

better "replayability" but it porks game balance all

to heck.

[Rolend]

Ok John I will give you that, but there has to be some randomness and weirdness left in. War is unpredictable and you have to learn to over come that or lose. If you make the game predicatable you take out that factor.

[John C]

Replayability is important. But a random tech system shouldn't be the basis of replayability, strategy should. Does Germany do sealion? Put more into Africa? Build subs to attack convoys? Pressure Spain to join the Axis and attack Gibralter? Skip the Baltics and start Barbarossa earlier? Grab Turkey and then attack Russia through the caucasus?

And the allies? Attack North Africa? Invade Sicily? Go into mainland Italy? Greece? Invade France immediately? Bomb and wear down the economy?

Those are the strategic alternatives. That is what provides replayability. Not... gee, I got lucky and got higher tank tech in this game - wooot! this changes everything!

The proposal does have a degree of randomness. You can even tweak the ranges of the progress each turn. It just eliminates the potential for the outliers. How can that be a bad thing?

As for changing the entire system, it really isn't a major change. The UI and concepts stay entirely in place. The only difference is the math behind the scenes and the need to track one additional variable per major. I really don't see that as an enormous programming change. And as to balance, JD2 already did most of the math that would allow things to be averaged out to what they are now. Beyond that, it can be tweaked with all the other upcoming changes that will impact balance. Or more to the point, balance isn't yet done.

I think it is a good system. But as the title of this thread says, let's make it an optional config choice. We don't even need it in the UI, just make a customization flag in a file so we can try it. It isn't a massive change, so I'd like to see it added so that those who wish can use it and then we can all see how it does or doesn't work.

All that said, the tech system as-is is still a whole lot better than GGWaW and most of the other WWII games out there. Perhaps this isn't the first thing that needs to be done, but that doesn't change the fact that it really is a good idea.

[Lars]

If you really want to do it under the existing engine, just raise the research chance to 100% and adjust the mpp cost to suit the time scale you'd like.

[vveedd]

I am not against luck in games, I am against reloading. In TCP/IP game this is not an issue but in PBEM it is. To my opinion, tech system similar like Civilization games has will be very good in SC2