**Weapons and Warfare** Expansion Pack announced!!!

[borsook]

Originally posted by ev:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by targul:

I like the random but it should probably be offered as non random also as an option.

Too bad about the Cav but we have seeded Hubert mind as you can see so maybe not immediately but eventually SC3 (with hexes) and/or cav will be in an expansion. Oh to dream they say is to live.

A semi random would be best... what I mean by semi random is that as time goes on since research started, the probability of success should increase.

There are several ways to do this: One way is for the program to remember the date when research started and then the probabilistic formula should take into account time elapsed since that date research started.

Another way is what I call the bucket approach. Imagine you have to fill a bucket. Each turn you have a probability of adding one cup of water to the bucket. This probability of adding water to the bucket depends on # reseach chits allocated, intelligence, and anything else Hubert cares to throw in. As the bucket fills up you get closer to completing research. Say each bucket holds 10 cups. The probability of adding one single cup may be quite high (say 80%), but it still would take at least 10 turns to fill the bucket. On average it would take about 12 turns to fill the bucket. If you have bad luck it may take a few more turns... so you get some ramdomness, but not quite as much as you currently have. </font>

[borsook]

One more question (and I'm sorry if it has been answered) - will the "smaller" scenarios (like Kursk or Africa) benefit in any way from the expansion additions?

[Moonslayer]

The smaller scenarios have, indeed, benefited from the expansion. I have play tested all of the ones created/improved so far and every one plays much, much better.

My favourite aspect as an owner of SC2 is the modding potential of this 'tool'... SC2:WaW increases my excitement of this game by a lot. Noone will be disappointed by the smaller scenarios imho.

[Blashy]

Originally posted by borsook:

One more question (and I'm sorry if it has been answered) - will the "smaller" scenarios (like Kursk or Africa) benefit in any way from the expansion additions?

IMMENSELY!

[borsook]

Originally posted by Blashy:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by borsook:

One more question (and I'm sorry if it has been answered) - will the "smaller" scenarios (like Kursk or Africa) benefit in any way from the expansion additions?

IMMENSELY! </font>

[John DiFool the 2nd]

Originally posted by ev:

Another way is what I call the bucket approach. Imagine you have to fill a bucket. Each turn you have a probability of adding one cup of water to the bucket. This probability of adding water to the bucket depends on # reseach chits allocated, intelligence, and anything else Hubert cares to throw in. As the bucket fills up you get closer to completing research. Say each bucket holds 10 cups. The probability of adding one single cup may be quite high (say 80%), but it still would take at least 10 turns to fill the bucket. On average it would take about 12 turns to fill the bucket. If you have bad luck it may take a few more turns... so you get some ramdomness, but not quite as much as you currently have.

Sounds exactly like that big hairy thing I drew up a couple of years ago.

[Moonslayer]

Originally posted by borsook:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Blashy:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by borsook:

One more question (and I'm sorry if it has been answered) - will the "smaller" scenarios (like Kursk or Africa) benefit in any way from the expansion additions?

IMMENSELY! </font>

[ev]

Originally posted by borsook:

Well, current approach is semi-random, as the number of chits increases your chances. I think adding another random approach will have lesser impact than a totally non-random one (where each chit gives you an increase per turn, upon reaching 100 a tech is researched). [/QB]

I guess I did not explain myself very well. I am trying to reduce randomness without eliminating it completely. I am suggesting that there should be some degree of randomnes, but as time progress, the degree of randomness should fall.

When you start working on a research project, there is a very small chance you may hit on the right answer on your first try. But, most likely, not everything will work out quite right at first. So you start looking at what went wrong, try to fix it, or to look for alternative. Of course, you learn through the process, so failure actually brings you closer to success... at the very least you know what does not work, so you won't try it again.

There are many algorithms I can think of to model how time elpased in a research project increases the probability of success. Some of them my look to John as the big hairy thing he drew last night. But, still the general idea is fairly straigth forward: the odds of success should increase as time researching a given subject passes on.

[borsook]

Originally posted by ev:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by borsook:

Well, current approach is semi-random, as the number of chits increases your chances. I think adding another random approach will have lesser impact than a totally non-random one (where each chit gives you an increase per turn, upon reaching 100 a tech is researched).

I guess I did not explain myself very well. I am trying to reduce randomness without eliminating it completely. I am suggesting that there should be some degree of randomnes, but as time progress, the degree of randomness should fall.

When you start working on a research project, there is a very small chance you may hit on the right answer on your first try. But, most likely, not everything will work out quite right at first. So you start looking at what went wrong, try to fix it, or to look for alternative. Of course, you learn through the process, so failure actually brings you closer to success... at the very least you know what does not work, so you won't try it again.

There are many algorithms I can think of to model how time elpased in a research project increases the probability of success. Some of them my look to John as the big hairy thing he drew last night. But, still the general idea is fairly straigth forward: the odds of success should increase as time researching a given subject passes on. [/QB]</font>

[Blashy]

A non random system is almost possible with the editor.

You can make each level achieved a 25% chance. You're pretty much sure to get what you invest in fast.

[borsook]

Originally posted by Blashy:

A non random system is almost possible with the editor.

You can make each level achieved a 25% chance. You're pretty much sure to get what you invest in fast.

Yes, on the other hand, that solution has one drawback - it can make tech progress really fast, which is even worse than what we have now.

[Blashy]

You can easily increase the price of tech. Progression would not be so fast or if a player chooses to invest to get them fast, he will end up paying by being short on units.

IMO, if you could have it at 100% for each level and you make a mod like that, you double the price of all techs. Because when you invest you get it for sure.

[borsook]

Originally posted by Blashy:

You can easily increase the price of tech. Progression would not be so fast or if a player chooses to invest to get them fast, he will end up paying by being short on units.

IMO, if you could have it at 100% for each level and you make a mod like that, you double the price of all techs. Because when you invest you get it for sure.

But can I emulate slow but sure progression, were e.g. each turn brings you 10% closer to completion? Unless I am missing something, modding alone cannot substitute a point-buy system.

Speaking of modding - I'm currently doing a Battle of Crete scenario and hence a question - will the conversion to the exp. require much manual work? (I do not mean implementing new exp features in the scenario, just getting it to work).

[The K Man]

Ev: I really like the idea of a "progressive" R & D. The longer your in it, the chance of hitting should increase. Yes I would still like it as an option, because sometimes you might want to play it completely random (as is now.)

Another option I wouldn't mind seeing for those who like it more historical (Targul) would be a "historical" R & D. Meaning, you get the breakthru the exact time in history. So as axis, you would get the breakthru in tiger tanks the month/year they actually went into production/discovered. It could be similar to like when territories join (Hungary, Romania etc.) With those you can play it Historically (join on the actual date) or variable (sometime around the actual date.) So I was thinking you could do the same with R & D. If done historically, you get the breakthru on the actual date, variably, you get around that date.

You could do it without putting $ into R & D or if done with $, then you just make the date of "breakthru" a little closer (with each chit added in.)

[SeaMonkey]

The good news is there seems to be a consensus for a little less random tech, always has been and JdF had a brilliant algorithm to accomplish just that.

The bad news is that was a long time ago and I feel fairly certain that if HC had agreed with the concept we would already have it.

The system as it stands now lends to greater playability under a more variable advancement schedule and after all, that's not a bad thing.

Look at it like this, if you're on the receiving end...elation, which sometimes leads to inattentative mistakes later. If you have to deal with it as the opponent then it makes you a better SC player.

Sounds like a double positive to me.

[John DiFool the 2nd]

Found My Big Hairy Thing

I think this is pretty much what you had in mind, ev.

Now SeaMonkey does raise a good point: if tech luck, for good or bad, can be so decisive, why hasn't anybody "lucked" into a win vs. Terif? Sooner or later someone will roll Supersubs, Supertanks, IndTech, and FighterTech, all at the same time, and wax his ass-except it's never happened. [Yoda can chime in at any time if he likes]

[ August 23, 2007, 12:42 PM: Message edited by: John DiFool the 2nd ]

[borsook]

Originally posted by John DiFool the 2nd:

Found My Big Hairy Thing

I think this is pretty much what you had in mind, ev.

Now SeaMonkey does raise a good point: if tech luck, for good or bad, can be so decisive, why hasn't anybody "lucked" into a win vs. Terif? Sooner or later someone will roll Supersubs, Supertanks, IndTech, and FighterTech, all at the same time, and wax his ass-except it's never happened. [Yoda can chime in at any time if he likes]

Still with two players of similar skill getting lucky with techs may be the decisive factor. Not to mention that watching your research progress from turn to turn can be a great fun, and it gives you the sense of being in control. Currently it happens that I put 3 chits in one field and every other tech progresses except for this one, that I want to put emphasis on...

[targul]

Maybe Terif is the luckiest man in the world? You know someone has to be the luckiest man alive and he just might be the one.

[Terif]

The good thing in SC2 is there is no killer tech any more like in SC1 (in SC1 it was in deed possible to win just by tech luck when you got e.g. high jet levels and the other side not). In SC2 not getting a certain tech is no game breaker. One or two tech levels difference are no real problem, the base combat values are high enough and more important any attack/defence values are multiplied with readiness which can be reduced by airstrikes or cutting of enemy units, so it makes not that much of a difference. Not having tech also has its advantages cause then you save the mpps to buy new chits and your units are cheaper if they are not upgraded which compensates a large part of any tech advantage the enemy may have.

So e.g. if Russia gets no Infantry Weapons or Anti-Tank, their units are very cheap – they may not be able to launch counteroffensives, but in the early stage of Barb this is not the best idea anyway - with non-expensive units they can just put a lot of cheap cannon fodder in the Axis way to delay them until Russia has researched the necessary techs and build up its forces to enable counterattacks. Anyway, if Russia invests first into combat techs, it will always get some of them till 1941 and even with very bad luck then still has enough territories available to trade for time if necessary, so they can max IW/AT out till 42/43.

However, often the so called „bad luck“ in tech is nothing more than the wrong investment strategy. E.g. investing into economy techs first as Germany/Russia when they need combat techs first and then wondering/complaining not to have combat techs when Barbarossa starts. If you invest into economy instead of combat techs, then you will have to expect that and deal with it !

Also I already met several players that just don´t spend the necessary mpps for research (and diplo) and then complain about not getting techs – which is no wonder when they don´t hire scientists . Instead they build units in 39/40 and even after the fall of France sometimes don´t max research out and prefer to buy units (e.g. bombers, subs, engineers, rockets etc. appear on the battlefield in early 1940...) instead of tech (or diplo) chits. Getting less techs then is not bad luck but simply logical and the consequence of the own choice. It doesn´t need to be a bad choice as having these units instead also has advantages, but then it just has to be expected to have less techs.

If Germany invests as soon as possible into tech (+Diplo) and also in the essential techs first, then it will nearly always get them till Barbarossa – there is simply no real luck involved, it´s just statistical certainty. Luck/random events simply even out during the course of a game - there are so many random events (not only tech and diplo, but also combat) and each only within a relatively low span. Combat only differs by max +-1 points and since you have thousands of (combat) events during a game it just evens out. In tech it is comparable – you have around 8 chits with each 4-6% chance over 20-30 turns till Barb...there is just no way you don´t get several tech hits till then. You only have to make sure you invest in the ones you absolutely want first and you will get them.

In the early game it is not important if or when you get tech as there are seldomly battles where tech plays a role while conquering minors/building up for the war against Russia. You only need it at the time when Barbarossa starts as then the real battles begin – you have 1.5 - 2 years for research. For Germany this means you get pretty much every game a certain number of tech advances till then – in which area you get them you can determine by the order in which you invest into tech areas. Invest only in techs you really want, then you can´t get other (unwanted) techs. At least the first techs you should choose the ones you really need (IW+AT) and then you can spread your research and see what else you get. Depending on that you then can choose your strategy (e.g. if you get high tech subs, go for subs. If you get rockets, go for rockets etc. But don´t go for rockets when you have sub tech and no rocket tech... ). Even if you don´t get IW or AT – as long as you adjust your tactics to this you don´t have a problem – this only means you better don´t send your ground units too agressively forward if the enemy has better tech on the ground, but instead reduce his readiness first via airstrikes and encircling him before going into real combat – then ground techs don´t matter much.

In the end the important thing is to adjust your strategy always to the situation – both on the battlefield and to the techs you actually have. As long as you do that, which or if you have techs doesn´t really matter – any case has its advantages and disadvantages, you only have to recognize how to make the best of your situation and give the right orders to your troops .

P.S.: Having said that – a non random tech system as option wouldn´t hurt .

[borsook]

Originally posted by Terif:

However, often the so called „bad luck“ in tech is nothing more than the wrong investment strategy. E.g. investing into economy techs first as Germany/Russia when they need combat techs first and then wondering/complaining not to have combat techs when Barbarossa starts. If you invest into economy instead of combat techs, then you will have to expect that and deal with it !

It may very well be that one remembers better the cases where something went wrong, but I remember quite a few games in which I put maximum chits in an area I especially wanted to develop but instead researched those that I put 1 chit into, the former staying dead for half a game. This is for me the main problem with random tech system, I want to suffer the consequences of my bad decisions not luck or lack of it.

[Terif]

Yep - remembering more the exceptional games (selective memory) and not the probably >95% of the games that go normal is certainly one of the main factors .

In principle you get a certain number of tech advances till Barbarossa - you can influence in which area most likely, by distributing your chits accordingly. In extreme just only invest into IW+AT first and move on to the next areas when you have maxed them out - then nothing can happen and luck is eliminated.

Randomness plays a role, but only a small one and mostly at the higher tech levels 4 and 5. If you really want to have a certain tech, just put 5 chits into it and you will nearly with certainty get till level 3 until Barb, only level 5 and to some extend level 4 are more determined by randomness and luck. But the important techs are caped at level 3 anyway and getting 4+5 makes not that much of a difference in the other techs usually - nice to have but not crucial for the outcome of the war .

[Desert Dave]

Yep - remembering more the exceptional games (selective memory) and not the probably >95% of the games that go normal is certainly one of the main factors

Seems, IMO, you suffer from that identical

Memory malady.

I've played many games as well,

And yer 95 % figure is surely

Far, far RE-moved

From that clench of clustered little

Plotted-dots,

On that there scatter-graph.

I wouldn't mind some sort of alternative

Toggle-on, or, toggle-off

"Fair faithfully historical

research paradigm"

Similar, but not

The SAME - nope, we are all unique,

Thank the Lord for that!

As what others are a'askin for. :cool:

[Honch]

Waiting patiently for the new expansion. CEAW's scale and user interface are nice but the moddability and level of detail just don't cut it. (for myself at least)

From what I've read, WaW looks perfect but ................. what about a map scale that really gives us "corps/division" level play? Even though someone keeps saying that the map is bigger it is still an "army" level scale in the screenshots I have seen. Am I wrong?

The last piece to Hubert's perfect efforts would be a map that uses up all available hexes through the editor. That would truly be PERFECT!

I know that I could do it myself but then all of the scripts would have to be redone. yikes!

Can I hope?

[Retributar]

Honch!... Good to see you here again!. I too secretly hope for the same/similar effort that you do someday!.

As far as im concerned,...too maybey help make that be able to really happen,...a game could be designed to hold several different Map's at the same time,...instead of just one Big,...but...perhap's...not quite big enough Map in order to play European-Theatre or Pacific-Theatre or even both theatre's combined!.

To make this a reality,...Italy, France, North-Africa [Different Theatre's of Operation's],...etc, etc...could all be separate map's that could be played in an orderly succession or prioritized according to the player's personal preference's...all during the same game-turn!.

So this would now mean that there would no-longer be any Map-Size-Restriction's to hinder realistic size Map displacement's/development that would be needed to assist in an enrichened environment full of historic fortifications, natural topographical barrier's, etc!.

I can only see nothing but a myriad of advantages to a larger Map-Scale!. The only downfall of that, is that now it would no-longer be able to be as readily categorized as a 'Beer & Pretzel' game!.

[Retributar]

Now 'another fanagaling-managaling item', ... 'Why can one Move & Fire![Which Works Like It Should],...BUT cannot instead... Move then STOP![Without Firing For Now],...then later...Fire?.

"Panzer General II" allows you to Move & Fire in that motion-action, or move all of your units first, then fire with whichever ones you want to later!.

Im sure that there are other idiosyncracies such as the one mentioned above,...so why not identify them and weed them out?.

[ September 05, 2007, 01:52 PM: Message edited by: Retributar ]