SeaMonkey Posted June 15, 2006 Share Posted June 15, 2006 Look guys, at this point, I believe it's still a little early to conclude this tech system is broken. Some refinement, yes, but let us try to refrain from premature conclusions. John has offered a better algorithm, IMO. Blashy has pointed out some categories of neglect and yes Sombra has a decent observation of the players' focus on certain techs. Some of this focus is due to player response to tried and true methods to obtain victory. Are we sure that the abandonment of certain tech experimentation is appropriate at this early stage? Are people compelled to winning and giving up on neglected techs because of a bad luck experience with the initial experimentation? Could there still exist the possibility they could counter the status quo tech strategy with more of a commitment to the road less traveled? Frankly, I don't know the answers...yet. The fog will clear eventually and modifications will take place. I like some of these ideas, if I was to add one of my own, I'd say let's turn Rockets into artillery, make it cheaper to research and build, then see how good it does at countering IW/HT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TFL Posted June 15, 2006 Share Posted June 15, 2006 There is one thing that nobody has brought up yet; the cost of tech chits. In my opinion the chits are dirt cheap. For the price of one army you can buy ~2 chits. Mmmm, should I buy two armies or invest 4 chits to IW? When the 2 armies are ready, my 4 IW chits would have brought me 1-2 levels of IW almost doubling the effectiveness of my 10 existing units... For this reason we need the tech caps, otherwise everyone spends all MPPs to tech. If chits were more expensive, it would remove the problem, as at some point it is more effective to buy troops instead of tech. I don't have SC1 installed anymore, but if my mind serves me right, the chits were much more expensive back then. Of course the other way around is to have more tech levels you need to research to get the same effect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exel Posted June 15, 2006 Share Posted June 15, 2006 About tech being broken... In my most humble opinion I don't think the problem is with too fast advancement, too much luck dependancy, tech limits, costs, or anything. The core problem I believe is the leaping tech advantages. The gains from tech level should not be as dramatic as they are now. IW3 should be superior to IW0 and clearly so, but it should not be whoop-ass dominant. Similarly in air craft tech leading your opponent with 1 level should give an advantage, but not a decisive one. So please, reduce the tech bonuses to unit attributes, and if necessary increase the number of tech levels. Instead of gaining IW3 performance at level 3, you'd instead get it only at IW5 - thus each level would be more incremental as opposed to a gigantic leap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dicedtomato Posted June 15, 2006 Share Posted June 15, 2006 SC2 has become a racing game. Who will be the first to reach IW3 or HT5? That's not wargaming. It's Formula One. DT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rolend Posted June 15, 2006 Share Posted June 15, 2006 Yes DT and to make matters worse reaching those levels is highly dependant on luck which for me compounds the problem even more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John DiFool the 2nd Posted June 15, 2006 Share Posted June 15, 2006 What I'd like to see are config files (think the Civ series) where the kinds of attributes we keep bandying about (in this case effectiveness of IW per tech level as Exel outlined) could be tweaked to death. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeaMonkey Posted June 15, 2006 Share Posted June 15, 2006 Wait a minute, isn't that what much of the war was about, the accumulation and application of tech advances faster than your enemy? :eek: Maybe I just imagined that....yeah, must have been a dream. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blashy Posted June 15, 2006 Share Posted June 15, 2006 Originally posted by dicedtomato: SC2 has become a racing game. Who will be the first to reach IW3 or HT5? That's not wargaming. It's Formula One. DT That is war in the 20th century, even in WW1 this was a constant factor. But make that tenfold in WW2. It was a race of technology. BTW, Ask me if I can have level 0 IW and AT as well as level 2 HT (default for Russia) but have PT and IT at level 5 and I'll take PT and IT. I won't say why, I'll let some of you discover why. Just think of your email... do you like spam? :eek: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dicedtomato Posted June 15, 2006 Share Posted June 15, 2006 Think again, Blashy. If the Germans have IW3 and Russia IW0, the Wehrmacht is going to wipe the map. Yeah, you can rebuild your troops cheaply -but they won't arrive for 3 to 6 months. In the meantime, the Germans pummel you even more and take your factories. It's the time lag that's the killer. But we can always put it to the test and try a game. I'd be curious to see how well your strategy worked. DT Originally posted by Blashy: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by dicedtomato: SC2 has become a racing game. Who will be the first to reach IW3 or HT5? That's not wargaming. It's Formula One. DT That is war in the 20th century, even in WW1 this was a constant factor. But make that tenfold in WW2. It was a race of technology. BTW, Ask me if I can have level 0 IW and AT as well as level 2 HT (default for Russia) but have PT and IT at level 5 and I'll take PT and IT. I won't say why, I'll let some of you discover why. Just think of your email... do you like spam? :eek: </font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mike Posted June 15, 2006 Share Posted June 15, 2006 Originally posted by Blashy: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by dicedtomato: SC2 has become a racing game. Who will be the first to reach IW3 or HT5? That's not wargaming. It's Formula One. DT That is war in the 20th century, even in WW1 this was a constant factor. But make that tenfold in WW2. It was a race of technology. </font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yogi Posted June 15, 2006 Share Posted June 15, 2006 Originally posted by dicedtomato: SC2 has become a racing game. Who will be the first to reach IW3 or HT5? That's not wargaming. It's Formula One. DT Actually I agree at least with the sentiment of the comment. We want wargames that require strategy and tactics. Not luck factors. There of course will always be some luck in the "roll of the die" battle results, but we don't need to create more. Now if tech advances when you spend the mpp's are automatic, one could argue it is strategy. Do I put money in units or research? But the more random luck involved in the if & when of success in that research, the less of a strategy (or at least tactics) game it becomes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rolend Posted June 15, 2006 Share Posted June 15, 2006 You want some random in the tech and still keep it strategy? Why not have it so that it is automatc but can take a random period of time to be deployed? Make the chance dealy say a few weeks to say 10 and make techs more expensive and not allow more then one chit at a time. EDIT ADDED: Another thing that bugs me is the set cost of a tech. NO way you can know how much something is going to cost going into a project. For each week of dealy it would be reuqired for you to put more MPP to keep the resarch going. That way you have to make real decisions about what is more important, the tech or that new unit or unit upgrade. [ June 15, 2006, 04:58 PM: Message edited by: Rolend ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John DiFool the 2nd Posted June 16, 2006 Share Posted June 16, 2006 Originally posted by Stalin's Organist: And of course the actual weapons used by infantry were among the least important weapons of the war - mostly they did nothing. closed quarter fightign such as at Stalingrad was a exception probably, but otherwise it was machine guns, tanks and artillery that mattered. It is one area where the tech system of SC bears no resemblance to reality. Making it a critical technology makes the game less playable. [/QB]Hmm wouldn't artillery tech (or more proper, artillery doctrine) be subsumed under IW? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mike Posted June 16, 2006 Share Posted June 16, 2006 Possibly - what were the changes to artillery tech and doctrine throughout the ar then? VT fuzes for tech for the allies, rockets for everyone....and......and??? Doctrine - not sure there were many doctrinal changes - crtainly comms got more efficient but land-line was still the normal means of communication to a batter at the end of the war. and doctrinal changes like putting artillery under central control rathe than doling out in "penny packets" to regiments and brigades was of course an improvement - but did it really cost the entire production of the UK for a fortnight to achieve?????? Again does the effectiveness advances in SC@ reflect real life? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hyazinth von Strachwitz Posted June 16, 2006 Share Posted June 16, 2006 Played my first 1.02 game yesterday.. almost bored me to death. I played Germany in the 39 Campaign....slow on purpose to see how it develops.. I finished in late 44 with HT4 (okay), IW3, PT1, AT1 (bull****!!!), Advanced Airplane 2 and LR1... NOTHING ELSE. For those guys who say they are easily maxed out on important techs I can simply say: okay, you were lucky. I put every MPP in HT and IW from the first moment on, and I reached HT Level 3 in earlier 43. You can say that this is bad luck, but I say I don`t like that system. 750 MPP sucks. I`m sure somehting will be done sooner or later... this is no fun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lars Posted June 16, 2006 Share Posted June 16, 2006 Well, tech is supposed to be a gamble. Diplo is a gamble too. If you take them out, either entirely, or by making them a sure thing on a timeline, it'll be a very different game. Honestly, I don't see it as broke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hyazinth von Strachwitz Posted June 16, 2006 Share Posted June 16, 2006 Of course it`s not a broke.... but something to be improved. I still love that game (it´s designed for HvH anyway), but this belongs to the few things which annoy me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blashy Posted June 16, 2006 Share Posted June 16, 2006 I find it fine, it adds variety. Change the limit in the editor if you want more points added in. But I like how the default stands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon_j_rambo Posted June 16, 2006 Share Posted June 16, 2006 This is a mess. You know what, my original comments might be coming true. Maybe HC was "just lucky" with SC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rolend Posted June 16, 2006 Share Posted June 16, 2006 Rambo, don't over react here, yea I think tech is off and needs tweaking but it certinaly is not a game breaker. My biggest problem with it is it relys too much on luck, sure I don't mind some luck but when it has such a BIG impact on the over all game that bothers me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blashy Posted June 16, 2006 Share Posted June 16, 2006 This is funny, I found SC was a tech based game, much more so than SC2 and luck was too much a part of it. Any SC game I played, it was with a no tech house rule. So I'm not fan of luck being too much of a factor in a game. I don't find it an issue in SC2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeaMonkey Posted June 16, 2006 Share Posted June 16, 2006 Same here Blashy. You know, it never fails, one man's garbage is another's treasure. You humans are such silly creatures! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rolend Posted June 16, 2006 Share Posted June 16, 2006 Who you calling human??? SeaMonkeys arn't the only allien life forms prowling the earth LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iron Ranger Posted June 16, 2006 Share Posted June 16, 2006 I found SC was a tech based game It was, LR and Air were all that mattered in the long run (post 42). Unless people were willing to play 'odd / Rambo' style of play it boiled down to who had the best air force around 42-43 in a evenly matched game. Nothing wrong with this as most war are determined by a few critical turning pts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeaMonkey Posted June 16, 2006 Share Posted June 16, 2006 Sorry Rolend, I hadn't recognized any other intelligence inhabiting this planet, not that these humans have a lot. My mistaken oversight, please accept my apology. By the way what it the basis of the Rolend specie? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts