Playing Russian Roulette

[SMG42]

I'm in a PBEM with my opponent being German.

Its early 41, and so far my investments in infantry and AT techs never gave anything. I feel I will loose the war just because of that.

My point is: too much randomness is such criticals areas is not desirable, unless you think SC2 should play like Risk or Axis&Allies that is (boardgames with a loose relationship with history).

I would suggest this:

Guaranteed gain of a certain tech level, for a given country, at a given time, if at least one tech chit has been invested in the tech area (and the chit is expended).

For Russia, as an example, I suggest a script that would give Infantry tech level 1 in July 1941. Russian player would need to have invested the chit, and the chit is expended, so no gamey technique. This would trigger only if at 0.

Some others scripts could be set like this one, just to ensure a minimum historicity and game balance. See that as safeguards against stroke of bad luck, that don't imbalance anything anyway. (and can prevent the total screwing of a game).

[SMG42]

If its not clear from my previous post, my Russians are now at war against Germany with 0 techs in infantry and AT. Basically the game is over, a pity really as I don't have made major strategical errors, and had just a big stroke of bad luck with tech accrual.

It reminds me of the wargames of my youth were you can say screw the entire war on a dice roll (a very important attack like Pearl Harbor eg, where you are Japan and roll a double 1 with your 6-sided dices).

[Sombra]

I have to say I disagree mostly. Investing in tech is a gamble. ( I work in R&D ) The only thing I would like to change is perhaps the catch up effect (making it a bit stronger) and / or strenghen the intelligence tech. A fast follower strategy in tech should be possible (hey its the way most companies work today ) Or perhaps an event script. If you kill a technically superior unit for the first time you get a random chance for a one time a research boost of 1%?

From the game perspective:

Tech is very strong. If you get an sure payback for your tech investment you would take away strategic options from the player. Everybody would have to invest in tech (like GGWAW where the game in the end is only a tech race up to 50% money on tech argghhh).

Right now you can decide: Will I gamble on invest for high tech weapons (like the "wunderwaffen" which never appeared) or I am better of buying troops I know which will be avaible.

You took a gamble and perhaps in history books they will say yeah he shouldn´t have invested so much money in weapons which never worked.

As I said I think the catch up effect should be stronger. Perhaps the tech cost need a little bit fine tuning if the players start to invest always in the same 5-6 techs (like production , production etc.) Perhaps teh cost for Indus./production tech should be increased and other costs for subs /rockests etc should be lowered (I have the feeling that again rockets never show up on the battlefield).

I think there we need to see more AARs to see how and if the tech system needs to be changed.

[ April 19, 2006, 12:51 AM: Message edited by: Sombra ]

[SMG42]

ok for catch up, as my aim is to be sure that the basic techs have a reasonable chance of being developed in a reasonable amount of time.

I do agree that if you want to be at the tech edge, no insurance should be given to achieve a breakthrough, but clearly my post was not aimed at that.

[hellraiser]

SMG42, I think you will catchup quite soon, don't worry. If you feel you cannot push forward with your actual troops/techs, just find something else to do until you feel comfortable - go get some minors, make air raids, etc.

Techs alone won't win the day anyway - in my game vs Terif we both had comparable weapon techs (not economical ones, though - a reason why I lost) - the difference in how the troops behave was given by the proximity to high supply areas and proper employment of HQs. Even at lower tech, if you are properly supplied and your enemy is not, you will wipe him out. Ok, if the tech difference becomes too large, you may have a problem but so far I've played games relatively balanced from the tech point of view.

[pzgndr]

Basically the game is over

Maybe. You did invest in tech, yes? So advances may yet come, followed by others. This randomness and uncertainty is what makes the game so interesting, and each game unique. If cookie cutter tech strategies and guaranteed advancements were the standard, where's the suspense?

And if the game is indeed "over," well then you just have the next game to look forward to and try to do better. That's called replayability, and that's a good thing.

[Blashy]

This must remain as is, this is what helps in making SC2 not the ONE strategy fits all game (along with Diplomacy).

Have you invested in Intelligence? +1% for you and -1% for your opponent per level, that could have proven fruitifull on your end and MAYBE your opponent has invested in Intelligence.

[Lars]

IF the game is balanced with no tech investment whatsoever by either side, then there's really no reason to change it.

[beginner's luck]

How do you get it so the research chits aren't expended when you get a break thru. I thought I read a while ago that you could set something so it either spent the chit or didn't. If I am mistaken sorry for the waste of a post.

[Blashy]

This no consumable chits can be set in the editor.

Open the campaign with the editor, click campaign, click edit campaign date, click advanced and look to the left for the toggle on/off check marks.

You'll have to save the game, now ALL games started will have this turned off so you would need to go in again to change it or select the Save As button and rename it something like: 1939 -no consubmable chits

[John DiFool the 2nd]

Either or fallacy:

EITHER we have the totally random tech we have now,

OR a totally deterministic tech.

I see a possible middle ground, where several

possible algorithms suggest themselves. Sure

knowing exactly when a tech pays off is bogus, but

equally bogus is investing for 3 years with nothing

to show. I think a review of the history of tech

advances in the real war shows that, when there was

a significant desire on the part of the leaders of

a nation to get tech X, they got tech X sooner or

later.

Thinking specifically of Germany, where Hitler and

Co. put tech on hold after the Fall of France, but

cranked it up in terms of rockets, jets, heavy

tanks, and advanced subs later in the war, and got

all 4 in a reasonable period of time (the question

of whether doing so was a good idea or not is a

completely different issue).

I certainly think a mix of random/determined tech

would work just fine in this game. Replayability

can arise from many other features not just tech.

[beginner's luck]

Thanks a lot Blashy--- I didn't really want to ask on forum cause I didn't want to get blasted by everyone,lol. I kept thinking it was under the options and I was just missing it.

Again thanks!

[SMG42]

Blashy, which enemy will give you its penalty from intelligence? The one who achieved the highest level?

I don't quite like (even if I can live with the current model) that research is pure luck, without a start of a begining of % chance accrual of having the tech breakthrough at a given time... But to each its own.

[Blashy]

Ah yes, luck and tech. I was always a proponent that you could BUY your tech levels.

But no more, TECH really does have alot to do with luck and in some games (RARELY) it could cost you achieving victory, but I've seen it once since I started beta.