SC2 v1.02 Tech caps “Thank you for your visit and goodbye”

[Sombra]

I want add some comments regarding the introduction of the new tech caps.

Positive:

- The life is harder for the axis

Negative:

- The game depends more on luck than before

- Many new game options are obsolete:

• No intel research

• No sub research

• No rocket research

- The tech caps feel artificial to me (Russia more research capacity than UK or Germany????)

- Poorer research system: After the introduction of the tech caps only the must have techs are researched.

After playing quite a lot with the new patch 1.02. I have to admit that the game is more balanced still I feel it gets more boring and luck dependent.

How so?

Certain techs are a must have, for example IW , tanks and perhaps production tech.

Hellraisers famous words”IW3 is against IW 0 like frontloader against phasers” is still valid.

Certain techs are not used anymore (at least for Germany ) you can´t spend some “lucky” chits on atypical research topics like : rockets , subs or even anti air defense not because you don´t have the MPs but the research cap. It is always the same research path, right now you can scrap half of the research areas. The game gets poorer, in v.1.00 sometimes you can see somebody is trying a subwar strategy in V1.02 forget. Rockets, even before they were rare now they are extinct.

Suggestions:

- Increase number of researchable tech levels : aka 5 level for IW etc.

- Decrease value of tech increase in combat calculations by half. (Therefore a IW5 level will be roughly the same worth as IW 3 now)

- Increase certain costs for research for example tank research, IW research.

All these measures give slight advantages to the allies because they have the possibility to invest more money into long term research. More categories will prevent that Germany has maxed out tech before Barbarossa . Intel would be more useful as well, The difference between minor nations and mayors nations would be decreased.

[Hyazinth von Strachwitz]

Regarding the maximum MPP to be spent on Research I need to say that it makes life harder for the Axis (which is basically okay), but it REALLY makes research boring coz if you want to win the game, you need to do it in a standard way.. otherwise you get whacked.

I know the comment "if you don`t like it, change it in the editor", but most people like to play the normal plain vanilla version... and we are talking about the normal version, because everyone wants to use in Multiplayer.

For that reason I`d say: okay, 2000 for Germany was too much, but 750 is way too low. Makes research kind of a standard thing... can be almost scripted.

Agreeing to Sombra, increasing the price for tech Germany needs would be one possible solution.

[dicedtomato]

The tech system is broken because it's too variable. We're told that it's supposed to average out, but it never seems to. In my first game against Sombra, his Germans had IW2 against my IW0 Russians in 1941 (despite massive Soviet research). This is a game-breaker.

Tech is too random and advances too quickly. Going from HT0 to HT3 in two years is like going from Sputnik to a moon landing in six months.

One solution is to borrow from the board game World in Flames. WiF lets players advance build units from their force pool, so you can produce in 1941 a fighter that would normally appear in 1943. However, you pay double or triple the production cost.

Why not link SC2 tech advances and upgrades to a particular year? We can either increase the cost of chits, so that a 1939 IW chit costs 100 while a 1942 chit costs 150. Or, we can increase the upgrade costs, so upgrading from IW1 to IW2 costs 20 in 1940 but 10 in 1941.

DT

[Lars]

Er, how many games have you played? And to what date?

Would like to point out that many people are saying, "X is broken because of blah, blah blah. I had to resign the game in '42 because my opponent had blah, blah, blah".

Play them out to the end, several times, then tell me it's broke. Lot of quitters out there.

[Hyazinth von Strachwitz]

Linking it to a certain year is good... i.e. no HT Level 5 in 41... and if Russia decides to buy IT Level 1 in 42, they get it as soon as they invest the MPP. This would take a bit of luck out the game... and if a country just reasearched Level 1, they cannot have level 2 quicker than half a year later.... or similar.

Basically it should be worth considering to link prices for certain tech levels to the year it will be purchased, i.e. buying the level 3 IW chit in 1943 should be cheaper than in 1939.

Apart from that: another idea would be that buying of high level chits is cheaper once you have achieved the levels close below.... if I have tank level 0 and buy 5 chits in 1939 to boost it, my scientists won`t have any idea about the necessities for warfare in 1944. But having seen the T34 in 1941 they will have it easier in 1942...

What do you guys think?

[Sombra]

Lars, I am quite an active player. Since Sc2 comes out I think roughly 30 games HvH perhaps more. Since the patch quite a few.

As Dicedtomato said. IW2 against IW 0 and you are screwed. Thats some prove to what I call to luck depended and tech right now to strong. If there are more levels for example for infantry weapons more time to level out (If the player invests enough money) right now a difference of 2 lvl in tanks and or infantry weapons and you can either wait for your end as Germany or you can see your troops blasted away as Rusia. And a 2 lvl differencve in tech happens quite often (experience from Sc1 )

As Hyazinth said: Research a standart way or you will most probably lose.

In version 1.00 we had some surprising developments: Battle for the Atlantik and some playrs tried funny things like investing in rockets. With 1.02 you can´t play around any longer with research.

P.S: Its not to increase only the cost for Germany of techs but increase the cost for certain key techs. Other re more or less useless for Germany as intel and industrial tech could stay low and give the Allies (especially Rusia and US a stronger advantange)

[ June 13, 2006, 08:58 AM: Message edited by: Sombra ]

[dicedtomato]

Really, Lars? So you've played the Allies in games where the Germans had IW2 and the Soviets IW0 in 1941? Tell us how you managed to win, because I couldn't figure out how to save Russia from the German phaser infantry. As I recall, Italy also had GL2 while Britain had GL0 (and the UK did invest in GL). Any suggestions for how Britannia should keep the Med?

Oh, I'm sure Russia would have reached IW2 . But it doesn't do much good if Germany is the Urals.

DT

[Lars]

Try Industrial 5. I'll take anyone on with an Industrial 5 Russia.

[Edwin P.]

Thought:

Research Infrastructure Tech - Increases Tech Cap by 125 MPP per tech level (Max 2).

Cost: 125 MPP per Tech Level

Benefit to USA: Low, Benefit to Germany: High

Pros: Raises Tech Cap for Germany, Soaks up MPPs, unpredictable

USA and USSR start with Research Infrastructure (2) and their tech cap would not increase. Germany, Italy and GB can research and increase their Tech MPP limit if successful.

[ June 13, 2006, 12:41 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[Lars]

Oh, keeping the Med, almost forgot.

Heavy Bomber 2. GL2 does no good whatsoever against it.

[dicedtomato]

You still don't get it, Lars. You can pump 5 chits into Russian Industrial tech, and end up with IT1 in 1941. Meanwhile, the Germans - who only put 3 chits in IW - get IW2 infantry that devour the Red Army. Getting IT5 in 1943 doesn't help if Russia is reduced to a single city in the Urals.

The problem is timing. Russia can't afford bad luck in IW before 1941. The Brits need success in GL if Sealion is coming. The Germans need luck in aircraft and tanks.

DT

[Lars]

Well, how many games have you played where the Germans didn't get their goodies? It all evens out over time, and keeps the game interesting.

Btw, if your opponent is a IW diehard, try research something else and surprise him. There are counters.

[Sombra]

After your last remark I have to ask you: How many games have you played against other human players??????

Besides what are from your view the advantages of the current system?

[Rolend]

I have to agree here that tech is too random and by limiting how many techs you can be researching at one time really forces you into cookie cutter builds and takes options away. If you want to keep the luck in then I say raise the cap, that way luck 'picks' which techs you get not rather you get any techs at all.

I also think tech should be tied to other things then just luck, the problem with tieing it to the year is most of my games end by 44 so that means the chances of seeing any of the higher level techs will be slim. If you tie techs into certain years then this will mean most games will have the same techs at near the same time and I don't like that either.

Pesrsonally I think doing away with the cap or raising it is the way to go. Also I would make the first chit invested in a tech the cheapist and as you add chits to the same tech the price goes up. As an example if I put one chit into IW it cost 100, if I put a second chit into IW it could cost me 125 and a third 150 etc. This would encourage us to spend those chits in things we might not other wise do.

[Lars]

Originally posted by Sombra:

After your last remark I have to ask you: How many games have you played against other human players??????

Besides what are from your view the advantages of the current system?

Uhh, they changed it from the one you were bitching about before?

[TaoJah]

I am still in favor of taking out the randomness in research, or at least partially.

For every chit invested in a field, you get one point each turn, to a max of 5 point per turn.

When you have acumulated 20 points, you got a 50% chance that you get level 1.

When you have acumulated 45 points, you got a 50% chance that you get level 2.

When you have acumulated 80 points, you got a 50% chance that you get level 3.

When you have acumulated 130 points, you got a 50% chance that you get level 4.

When you have acumulated 200 points, you got a 50% chance that you get level 5.

[Blashy]

Must have techs for Germany vs. a poor Allied player: IW, AT, HT, Production.

Vs. a good Allied player: The 4 above plus: AdvAir, LR, AA and IT, possibly Infrastructure as well.

A well prepared allies player can keep all of France (except for the Mine, let the partisans take care of it), Benelux and the German mine at 0 mpps once USA joins, prior to that, Paris and Benelux should always be kept at 0. That will force the Axis player to invest in AA and IT to make up for the loss of 68mpps and add it the bombing of the Danish port to kill off Norway and Sweden that is close to 100 mpps gone for Germany.

The only detterant is AA or having AFs with AdvAir (because the allies will have it) and trying to make some of t hose mpps up with IT.

In this game the only useless techs are Rockets and Intelligence for Axis while for the Allies you can add AA and Motorization lvl2.

Basically what I'm reading is people are "stuck" going one way when you have other possible strategies, Axis with a few level of heavy bombers early on works very well in Russia and by then the Russians have most often NOT invested in AA.

Ask Jollyguy in our game where I had 2 Bombers and they were not level 1 yet, they made things really easy for me. At level 2 they start to kick butt. I was getting hurt in another game by those same 2 Axis bombers.

Or going heavy in production early to put a massive army in the game early for the Axis, it has worked out for me and then repairs are cheap as well.

I've seen Rambo make a very successfull Axis navy because most Allied players have no ASW and GLR and he went heavy this way... and won.

The only tech I find has zero use is Rockets and IMHO I would prefer to see it replaced by another tech, as Rockets were a German thing in WW2 and had more psychological value than any tactical.

[Iron Ranger]

"and if a country just reasearched Level 1, they cannot have level 2 quicker than half a year later.... or similar."

Now I LOVE this idea. Script in a time delay that once you get a tech advance there is no more checks on it for X turns. I'd say between 3-6 months at least. Others with more game experence could put a better number on this. It will slow down / prevent the case where one side get 1-4 quick advances and the other is haveing bad luck.

Tech SHOULD be random, this is a WW2 game but I would hate to be forced in to a set tech range ect.. the fun is in tring new and different ideas and approces... like Rambos heavy Navy for Axis.

Rockets were just ALOT by the Red Army as well as Germany. In fact it was thier version of massed heavy guns.

[Blashy]

Rockets and heavy guns are two different things.

As for time delays, I find the formula find as it is. Its just about not falling into the same strategy trap and thinking it is the only one that works.

[Sombra]

Blashy you said it yourself you have already named 4 techs as must have: You have 6-7 research chits. Afterwards again 5 techs which are nice to have.

Looks like as everybody will reswearch teh same techs over and over.

Originally posted by Lars:

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

After your last remark I have to ask you: How many games have you played against other human players??????

Besides what are from your view the advantages of the current system?

Uhh, they changed it from the one you were bitching about before? </font>

[rleete]

Originally posted by Iron Ranger:

Now I LOVE this idea. Script in a time delay that once you get a tech advance there is no more checks on it for X turns. I'd say between 3-6 months at least. Others with more game experence could put a better number on this. It will slow down / prevent the case where one side get 1-4 quick advances and the other is haveing bad luck.

But that isn't realistic, either. Tech advances sometimes do happen that way. As a designer working in mostly R&D over the last 23+ years, I've seen it happen. One advance can trigger new ideas that take you to the next level almost overnight. Then again, I've worked on programs that yeild nothing new, in spite of big budgets and large headcounts. It's a crapshoot, but the payoffs can be huge, so companies are willing to gamble.

I think the problem stems from the lowering of the MPP, and thus every little change can be a big hit to game balance. Sure, they even out over time, but it's that one that tipped the game for or against you that you remember.

I posted early on, that during early play I had taken France, and then saved and quit. Subsequent reloads to try different strategies revealed plunder that swung over a range of 300+ MPP. That right there, because of the lower incomes, is enough to decide a game. When it's a smaller percentage of the total, you don't notice it as much if at all.

My solution would be to double the number of tech advance levels, and half the effects of each as Sombra stated in the original post.

[Lars]

Originally posted by Sombra:

I you have read my posts ,you will see that I never asked for tech caps and I am /was of the opinion that the importance of tech per lvl is way to much.

Problem before was that Germany for different reasons could walk obver the Allies. I think that the tech caps have some fairly side undesired side effects. Right now tech is to important to ignore but boring to research + combine it with unbalancing luck effects.

It takes out the possibility to persue a high tech strategy (small army high tech level), makes many techs obsolete, unblances the game in favor of luck => the game is better balanced HvH but porer itself

Ok, and when Hubert changes it that so that tech per level isn't so important, I'm sure some will be back to say, "Tech has no effect, I just build umpteen Corps & Armies & Tanks instead. Fix or do sumfink!"

On a side note, I don't really like the caps at the current level either, but I'm willing to give them a chance for awhile before I open up the editor.

Guess all I'm saying is be careful what you ask for.

[Blashy]

I stated must have vs. a poor opponent.

Read my whole post properly please.

You'll need 8-9 Techs vs. a good Allied player as I mentioned in my previous post.

While the Allies also need 9-10 techs.

The only techs the Axis can go a whole game without bothering whatsoever without any negative effects vs. a proficient allied player are: Heavy Bombers, Rockets and Amphibious.

[TaoJah]

Originally posted by Blashy:

Must have techs for Germany vs. a poor Allied player: IW, AT, HT, Production.

Vs. a good Allied player: The 4 above plus: AdvAir, LR, AA and IT, possibly Infrastructure as well.

Yes, yes, those are all great, of course.

But unless you are playing the non-patched version there is NO WAY that you can get all those with 750 MPPS.

[Sombra]

Originally posted by Blashy:

I stated must have vs. a poor opponent.

Read my whole post properly please.

You'll need 8-9 Techs vs. a good Allied player as I mentioned in my previous post.

While the Allies also need 9-10 techs.

The only techs the Axis can go a whole game without bothering whatsoever without any negative effects vs. a proficient allied player are: Heavy Bombers, Rockets and Amphibious.

Blashy I didnt say otherwise. Still you only have 6-7 chits aka 750 MP with a little bad luck you are hard pressed to get even the most basic tech. You can have the money and be forced to buy one "useless" unit after the other.

But that isn't realistic, either. Tech advances sometimes do happen that way. As a designer working in mostly R&D over the last 23+ years, I've seen it happen. One advance can trigger new ideas that take you to the next level almost overnight. Then again, I've worked on programs that yeild nothing new, in spite of big budgets and large headcounts. It's a crapshoot, but the payoffs can be huge, so companies are willing to gamble.

I think the problem stems from the lowering of the MPP, and thus every little change can be a big hit to game balance. Sure, they even out over time, but it's that one that tipped the game for or against you that you remember.

I posted early on, that during early play I had taken France, and then saved and quit. Subsequent reloads to try different strategies revealed plunder that swung over a range of 300+ MPP. That right there, because of the lower incomes, is enough to decide a game. When it's a smaller percentage of the total, you don't notice it as much if at all.

My solution would be to double the number of tech advance levels, and half the effects of each