Tech Avance & Unit Upgrade

[JerseyJohn]

A basic problem has just occurred to me along with what I think is a good solution.

As it stands in SC, if a nation has, say ten air fleets or ten tank units, what ever ... and has a tech advance in that area, the following turn all the units of that kind are automatically upgraded -- assuming an air fleet is at least a thousand to two thousand aircraft, that means during the month said country has produced between ten -twenty or so thousand of the new tech aircraft and all it's air-fleets are miraculously upgraded!

That's the problem, not the tech advances themselves, but that it's instantaneously put into effect!

I suggest units need to be upgraded to reap the benefits of new tech. Upgrade would be done at 50% the cost of a new unit at the new tech level. In being upgraded the unit is automatically at full stregnth. It loses experience bars in the normal fashion as it would be taking in fresh crews. So it would pay in that respect to upgrade full units but on the other hand inexperienced units that are half strenght would pretty much be recieving a reinforcement gift with the upgrade.

At this point the unit, which was previously say an L-2 now becomes an L-3; the airfleets around it may still be L-2 or even L-1 if they haven't upgraded. Units that are more than one tech grade behind should pay the full cost for a new air unit but they have the advantage of being at the front instead of having been built in some rear area.

All units should be subjected to this process, tanks, infantry, surface ships, subs, etc. ...

This would add a lot more realism and I believe it would eliminate all the tech related problems in relation to game play.

[Komet-163]

Thats a good idea and it takes into account that some units had to wait for crucial new weaponary. Like many of Luftwaffe forces were still using the me. 109-g's when the latest type was the me.109-k

[J P Wagner]

I think it would be an added challenge if land units could only do tech upgrades in friendly city hexes..uh..tiles...units would then need to withdraw in order to be refitted, so you will need to make certain you do not weaken your lines....it will also make that enemy city hex..uh..tile which is only two hexes..uh..tiles away, that much more of a plum to capture since it will advance you tech base ability...it will also result in a more measured tech advance rate for existing units...

[ May 03, 2004, 06:31 PM: Message edited by: J P Wagner ]

[pzgndr]

A couple of things will be a bit different in SC2. First, tech advances will not be automatic. You'll have to select a unit and CHOOSE what upgrades to give, and probably be able to reinforce it at the same time. When I say choose, we're talking total choice. Say you got tech advances in both jets and L/R. You can upgrade jets only, L/R only, or both, for any or all AFs. That's flexibility!

Second, upgrades and reinforcements probably will not be restricted to friendly cities, but there will be some reduction of max reinforcement level depending on the number of adjacent enemy units. We already see that now with surrounded units, but this is being expanded for all units. So a unit on the line adjacent to 2-3 enemy units may only reinforce to 7 or 8. That's the basic idea. You'd now have to withdraw the unit to give it full reinforcements, or to give it elite reinforcements up to strength 15.

This should be VERY interesting in practice. How many stalemate situations result when the defender simply reinforces up to full strength each turn? Now we're likely to see more worn out units on both sides and some real advantage to pulling units off the line for rest and refit. And the ability to truly customize your forces and decide who gets upgrades and when will no doubt bedazzle your opponent with FoW on and you truly surprise him with an elite super-unit blazing out of the shadows.

[SeaMonkey]

This is a very good observation and suggestion JJ. Let's examine it with reality in mind. How do most units get upgraded, in the field and at home training/reorg. bases? Usually not all the equipment is replaced all at once, but phased in. Losses are made up with upgraded replacements, some is exchanged, and other units are completely reorganized or created with the new equipment/training/doctrine. Not trying to complicate the issue, but when will a unit's upgrades pass it over the threshold of having combat enhancements due to the new equipment...> 50% equipped? With CPU power you could probably simulate this effect(mixed equipment TO&E) in the programming but my feeling is it will be an all or nothing decision. I would like to see the option in the subunit menu to either upgrade the unit completely or choose replacements at the old tech level(only the previous tech level eligible?)paying the appropriate MPPs. Now if your using "elite" replacements from a pool of already trained personnel(on the new tech level) then your MPP cost will be greater but your experience loss will be diminished. It seems to me the "right click" unit submenu will be almost doubled with user selections. Any comments Bill?

[pzgndr]

I would like to see the option in the subunit menu to either upgrade the unit completely or choose replacements at the old tech level

This will be possible. And, just which part of "total choice" didn't I make clear in my last post??

I also made a comment on another thread about possibly downgrading units as time goes on. Like stripping German infantry units of their mech assets toward the end of the war, and possibly recovering MPPs in the process. This may be possible, since everything else seems to be. Why not?

[SeaMonkey]

"Wow Bill" are you sure "total choice", that covers a lot of ground. We're going to have to change your name to "Wild Bill".

[JerseyJohn]

Komet & SeaMonkey

Glad you guys like it, I think it would have been especially good in the original SC.

Wild Bill

Thanks for the info, looks like everything I wanted is covered in it.

JP Wagner

Yes, definitely, and I think it would help the ebb and flow of the game; but what about Soviet Cities that have just been scorched or aren't back up to a five rating, would they still allow upgrades?

[ev]

Originally posted by JerseyJohn:

A basic problem has just occurred to me along with what I think is a good solution.

That's the problem, not the tech advances themselves, but that it's instantaneously put into effect!

I suggest units need to be upgraded to reap the benefits of new tech. Upgrade would be done at 50% the cost of a new unit at the new tech level. In being upgraded the unit is automatically at full stregnth. It loses experience bars in the normal fashion as it would be taking in fresh crews. So it would pay in that respect to upgrade full units but on the other hand inexperienced units that are half strenght would pretty much be recieving a reinforcement gift with the upgrade.

At this point the unit, which was previously say an L-2 now becomes an L-3; the airfleets around it may still be L-2 or even L-1 if they haven't upgraded. Units that are more than one tech grade behind should pay the full cost for a new air unit but they have the advantage of being at the front instead of having been built in some rear area.

[ev]

Originally posted by JerseyJohn:

A basic problem has just occurred to me along with what I think is a good solution.

That's the problem, not the tech advances themselves, but that it's instantaneously put into effect!

I suggest units need to be upgraded to reap the benefits of new tech. Upgrade would be done at 50% the cost of a new unit at the new tech level. In being upgraded the unit is automatically at full stregnth. It loses experience bars in the normal fashion as it would be taking in fresh crews. So it would pay in that respect to upgrade full units but on the other hand inexperienced units that are half strenght would pretty much be recieving a reinforcement gift with the upgrade.

At this point the unit, which was previously say an L-2 now becomes an L-3; the airfleets around it may still be L-2 or even L-1 if they haven't upgraded. Units that are more than one tech grade behind should pay the full cost for a new air unit but they have the advantage of being at the front instead of having been built in some rear area.

I agree with the problem, but I think the medicine is too strong.

A tank army had tanks, but it was not all tanks. Maybe as little as 10% of the vehicles in a tank corps were actually tanks.

Likewise, when we look at infantry weapons, the fact that say the Axis developed a bazooka, does not mean they are going to throw away 50% of the equipment of the whole infantry army.

Say we look at navy units, and, say we have improved radar. There is a cost for installing the radar in a ship, but you need not build a new ship.

50% cost to incorporate new tech is too high. With the exception of air units, the cost of incorporating new tech should be closer to 5% of cost per unit.

In the case of air fleets it should be higher since combat planes make such a large percentage of the airfleet equipment, but still I feel 50% sounds too high.

[JerseyJohn]

ev

When I was in SAC around thirty-plus years ago there was a great spot in the middle of the various runways, a little hill where it was possible to look around and see three huge groups of giant bombers, all of them B-52s. One contained the active bomber wing. The next contained slightly absolescent aircraft that could be whipped back in shape if the need arose, the third contained old bombers that were deemed unfit for active use and were in various stages of canibalization. From a distance it was difficult to tell the defunct aircraft from the latest models.

I'd imagine all military units work in a similar manner. Naturally only a small part of any unit is composed of what it's named after; except bomber wings mainly contain bombers and in our case tankers. The support to flight crew ratio had to be around 20 or more to 1.

The idea I propossed is meant to counter the present situation where all units of a kind are immediately upgraded -- that's why it becomes so impossible to catch up on the battle field after the other side gains a few tech advances, and it's pretty unrealistic.

Long after the Germans developed the Tiger and Panther tanks they had many panzer units whose tanks were almost entirely Panzer IIIs and IVs. Earlier in the war, when those tanks were the staple, there were also a large number of Panzer IIs and even I's with Czech medium tanks filling out the numbers.

What I'd like to do is strike some realistic relationship between advancing technology and industrial output. The more units you've got the harder it would be to retool and produce the numbers of new models to totally re-equip those units. Certainly it can't be accomplished in two weeks or a month!

At Kursk for instance, the Germans spent a lot of time in the Spring trying to decide whether to continue manufacturing Pz IVs for the battle, or to shift over to Pz V & VI production. In the end they chose the worse of both propossals, rushed the Panthers and Ferdinands into action before they had been adequately tested and actually produced nothing at all at one point due to conflicting production / re-tooling orders! What the didn't do was to suddenly have twenty upgraded panzer divisions ready for the battle!

Outdated equipment always finds a place somewhere, usually behind the lines either for training or in Germany's case to combat partisans and act as a reserve.

[ev]

Jersey John,

I see your point.

I guess each tech should be treated differently. Say you invent jet engines: either you replace your planes or you don't. And certainly that is very very expensive.

But say you develop a better radar or sonar, you don't need to scrap your battleships. You only install a new radar on the existing battleships (at a cost, but a propotionately small cost). Or say you, develop a better antitank weapon. You need to replace your old anti tanks, but, that will not affect the machine guns and the other weapons carried by infantry units.

I agree that upgrading to new weapons should cost, and, should not be automatic.

In fact, I would require naval units to return to port in order to be retrofitted with new tech. I would also require all units to be at very high supply levels before allowing them to retrofit.

Plus, as mentioned earlier, I would require varying MPP expenditures depending on the nature of the technology.

An army unit represents an assortment of many weapons systems, each affected by different research areas (anti tank, mechanization, soft weapons, and perhaps other new techs I still don't know about.) For an army unit I would like to see a smaller cost to upgrade each of the different weapons systems in an army unit as new tech becomes available in each different area. I don't think this contradicts your general thought with which I very much agree. In fact, after reading your last comment I must agree that for air units, the MPP cost of implementing new tech should be higher than I previously thought.

[JerseyJohn]

ev

Agreed, you brought up an interesting aspect to all of this. My main complaint is with air fleets and armored units where the transition is particularly unrealistic and devastating on the battle field.

Sure, it would be extremely difficult to represent upgrades in naval units other than in terms of naval radar. No way to distinguish a WWI era BB like the Queen Elizabeth from one two decades more modern like the Bismarck or KGV. Subs at sea in version one are particularly hopeless -- the whole situation becomes an outright abstraction.

Excellent point about the mix of weapons an army would contain. In anti-tank terms, even if the specific weapon is inferior there's usually a way of using a different weapon like the AA 88 mm to serve the purpose, though at the expense of something else, in this case anti-aircraft protection.

[Curry]

Do we have any idea of what Tech will look like in SC2. This is a good idea that JJ has.

also I would like to see a cap for tech in the editor so you could cap the highest level at whatever you wished. Also increase the catch up bonus and you may not have games where tech is the deciding factor.

[Retributar]

Im going to offer another idea here!.

In practice...when German Tanks became obsolete...they sent them back home on trains filled with wounded and removed the turrets from them and then with the basic chassis...they rebuilt them as Assault Guns, Self-Propelled Artillery & Tank Hunters for the infantry and panzer divisions.

In reality you cant take a PzrII chassis and upgrade it into a PzrIII or a Tiger-Tank...it just is not done.

However...for each category of chassis...new types of combat vehicles were developed...from the Jagdpanzer38(t)Hetzer(Czechoslovakian-Chassis), MarderII(Sd.kfz. 131) from the PzrII Chassis, StuG.III Ausf. G(Sd.Kfz. 142/1) from the PzrIII Chassis, SturmgeschutzIV (Sd.Kfz. 167) from the PzrIV chassis and so on!.

So what im talking about is 'Retrofitting' absolete retired equipment into usable necessary equipment...this is how i would like to see the upgrading done. Yes...existing equipment can be upgraded within their own intrinsic limits...but, not into entirely new weapons categories!.

These processes would be a realistic way to do upgrades.

[ May 20, 2004, 10:19 PM: Message edited by: Retributar ]