Production Technology

[Col. Gen. Guderian]

Does PT reduce the cost of reinforcements or is it just for the initial cost of the unit? It doesn't seem to specify this in the manual.

[SeaMonkey]

Page 19, reinforcements are based on the current cost of the unit.

Page 25, Each level of PT reduces unit cost by 5%.

It seems the conclusion is yes, although there is not a specific referral.

[Terif]

Production Technology only reduces the initial base costs when buying a unit (e.g. a corps costs 95mpps instead of 100 with PT1).

PT does not reduce reinforcement costs and also does not reduce costs for upgrading.

That´s why researching PT is not the first choice (to get your investment of 100 mpps back, even if you got the tech advance you need to buy units for base costs of 2000 mpps - which means with upgrading more than 3000 mpps...).

Therefore only for USA this may be a good investment if they plan for a longer war. Russia and Germany also can benefit - but have usually more important things to research. First priority for them has to be combat techs.

[jon_j_rambo]

Game Yodl? Or are you hiding in the Swamp?

[Terif]

Sorry, can´t play this weekend - but seems you didn´t hold it out long in SC2-retirement...the urge to play got you again .

[SeaMonkey]

Interesting Terif as the manual leads one to surmise differently.

1st paragraph on pg25 under PT Research;

"In general, advances in any of the above research areas(referring to the R&D section) result in cumulative production and reinforcement cost increases ....................... Thus to offset these(plural) additional costs(plural), developing PT will not only improve a country's IC but also the efficient use of raw materials."

HC....is this one of those hidden agendas?

[pzgndr]

PT does not reduce reinforcement costs and also does not reduce costs for upgrading.

My understanding from Hubert is that as unit costs are reduced by PT, so to are the reinforcement and upgrade costs based on the revised unit costs. At least that's what should be happening; PT should be reducing all these costs.

[Terif]

Since Germany starts with PT 1 you can easily test this yourself (just upgrade one of your units or repair a damaged one): upgrading is not reduced and also reinforcing costs are not reduced by PT .

Upgrading and reinforcing use the normal costs (without PT) as basis - which is good as this leads to PT beeing a choice and not a must have. It is the decision of the player if he plans for a long war or not.

[ September 15, 2007, 10:33 AM: Message edited by: Terif ]

[SeaMonkey]

I just tested it Bill and Terif is right, PT only reduces the cost of the initial purchase and not in the field replacements/reinforcements/upgrades.

By the way has anyone noticed that you can get supply in NA from Gibraltar port, ie. across water, a direct contradiction to last sentence, 2nd paragraph, page 30?

Already notified HC.

[SeaMonkey]

And another rationalization for thought, usually the Germans receive approx. 4200 MPPs(conservative conquest) for use pre-early Barbarossa (may41).

I usually use 2200 of those for unit purchases.

So .05(per PT level) X 2200 = 110, cost 100.

Obviously later down the road there is a much better return, but May 41 is the break even point.

PT....high priority research...perhaps, perhaps not.

[Terif]

Sure the Gibraltar port gives also supply in North Africa - like all ports it provides supply to the tiles around it and ports are no open water so it is also no contradiction.

Btw: as it was not Hubert that wrote the manual it is more of a guideline and you can´t take every word literally. It´s main focus is also to make it easier for new players to get into the game - therefore it often simplifies things.

[pzgndr]

Btw: as it was not Hubert that wrote the manual it is more of a guideline and you can´t take every word literally. It´s main focus is also to make it easier for new players to get into the game - therefore it often simplifies things.

FWIW, the game manual was written to be literally accurate based on clarifying conversations with Hubert and not just some "simplified guideline" written independently.

[SeaMonkey]

Hey..I'm OK with ambiguity, after all it is a strategic abstracted game.

In fact I prefer to be in constant pioneering mode making discoveries as I dwell within the idiosyncracies of SC.

Keeps things interesting. :cool:

I do know players that take the manual as the finality of its written word and they are sometimes unhappy with the supposed disconnect from gameplay.

You know...like arguing over the meaning of the written rules of our long forsaken boardgames, requiring the errata sheets.

Never you mind Bill, I think you did a great job, I just feel sometimes the need to share some of the discoveries that may have been taken literally.

Hmmmm

Could that be one of the secrets....to a life fulfilling......sharing?

[Liam]

There are a few players that really show determination to make France a battleground. I usually enjoy them as they're some of the most bloody. Terif is right Axis played well, will repulse most D-Days until the right date. Though the USSR comes near the Brink and the timing shifts to the Allies to open up that second front before it's too late.. I just had a game with him where I could not get a Second Front before he polished off the East in '43 and playing a game with him now on different sides where in early '42 he captured Brest and unloaded all the Allied Armies. Very Fun to have a historical battle but a little early and I'm unprepared, as I had my units sparse and thinned over the map with my Axis missing some valuable units to garrison France and protect from a grave threat... Recon is also very important for the Axis....... hindsight is 20/20, though historically I do not think there was a better place to unload so many troops, Northern France was Ideal and in the game it's neat to see a similar history with our own twists unfold!

This is all about your overall stature and gameplay though. I still believe that France can if in the right hands be very very hard to take.. Many Allied players would prefer a softer target at first then maybe come back to it... As players "overdefend France." depending on the "overall strength" of one side. In '44 the USA can be a major threat with the UK nearly unstoppable

[SeaMonkey]

Wait a minute Liam, he polished off the East in 43?

If that means USSR surrender, then:

WTH happened, let's analyze your Red Army play, what could you have done differently?

Don't tell me he cut off your convoys.

[arado234]

One of the games im playing right now the amis. have their P.T.and IND.tech at 5.Terif is right in that you sure can build alot if the war drags on.With the ami.IND,tech at 5 they get 375mpps a turn(not bad).Although it as fairly costly.

[Liam]

In that particular game Russians were crushed my superior #s. A very good Axis strategist can overwhelm the Russians early, especially if the Russians are not properly prepared and attempt to overly invest in IT or Production and not in staples like IW, AT and plenty of corps for defense... Convoys are not much more than sucking Uncle Sam, holding the valuable resource areas of USSR are pretty vital or at least keeping them contested.....in the end if USSR is about sacrificed and Allies kick in with those amazing #s and take over you've got a pretty realistic scenario IMO

IT for USA is very fun, and it does a lot for her since she is isolated. She can really pump a lot of equipment

[pzgndr]

In fact I prefer to be in constant pioneering mode making discoveries as I dwell within the idiosyncracies of SC.

Yeah, I was constantly in that mode while drafting the manual and trying to keep up with all the new features and revisions during playtesting. I believe the intent was to have PT reduce all costs but Hubert has verified this never got implemented and we never caught it in the manual. Obviously Terif and others have already figured this out.

Upgrading and reinforcing use the normal costs (without PT) as basis - which is good as this leads to PT beeing a choice and not a must have. It is the decision of the player if he plans for a long war or not.

This begs a question. Is it really good, or is PT just not worth it as currently implmented? In a well-balanced game, and SC2-WaW is better now than SC2, it should be a long war and players should be planning accordingly. Reinforcements and upgrades will be continuous and expensive, and PT could be reducing these costs as well.

[Terif]

With my USA I always research PT (usually till level 3/4). Russia also researches it - usually IW+AT first, but then IT and PT follow. Germany also could use PT - but here definitely combat techs have priority since it has to fight during the whole time. UK also can research PT if it intends to use the mpps for itself instead of leaving them to USA or sending them to USSR.

So in the end PT is fine how it works now .

[ September 16, 2007, 10:27 AM: Message edited by: Terif ]

[Col. Gen. Guderian]

Originally posted by Terif:

UK also can research PT if it intends to use the mpps for itself instead of sending them to USA.

What do you mean by this, how does this work? Some guy said on another thread how with IT you can make a strong Russia if you're willing to have a weak USA. Is there a choice on how many MPPs you want to ship between the big three or something that I didn't know about?

[Col. Gen. Guderian]

Oops, haha, just spotted how this works on the convoy map. I can't believe I never noticed it before.

Now that I know how this works, I'm just wondering what the best strategy is. Presumably as soon as lend-lease starts the US convoys should be maxed out seeing as they're still not officially in the war. This would obviously be a daft idea if the atlantic is swarmed with U-boats though.

[ September 16, 2007, 10:15 AM: Message edited by: Col. Gen. Guderian ]

[Terif]

Just mistyped - it is meant sending the mpps to USSR of course (corrected it in above post) . But increasing US convoys to UK is also a standard measure (you can adjust mpps transfered via convoy in the convoy map).

[Liam]

Yes those Convoys are something I Learned from someone on here... Adjusting them when U-boat raiding for the USA or USSR can be very nice! Sort of reflects the historical, Churchill stopped sending USSR convoys after some dreadful U-boat raids along the Artic supply routes! Big defect with SC however is the inability for Big Ships to interfere in this area, when historically they did so with great effectiveness... I think it would be neat at least

Production is a pain in the rear... As Germany I can almost never afford it. Although it would be especially nice she has to build a lot of Units between '40-'42 to compete... England the same! However the US or USSR can usually invest into it as they have more MPPs to spare and could reap the greatest reward, as they're longhaul players USUALLY...though some strategies with the USSR are implemented much too early to see it really a benefit and plus who can live without the combat techs, England has a Navy to protect, Russia has an Army... Period

[Hubert Cater]

In fairness to Bill, who I strongly believe did such a great job with that manual (as well as the fine edits contributed by Dave), it is probably next to impossible to get absolutely everything 110% correct when it comes to game manuals.

Thinking back I remember I was not always as detailed as possible when he was writing the thing and asking questions (side effect of already being over my head in just getting the game done) so I am sure that didn't help either!

[Retributar]

The Russians got most of their supplies from the West through 'Lend-Lease',...but at the same time Aircraft & Supplies run in by Aircraft were going on!.

Im not sure about the rest, but...i believe that other land-routes were also utilized to supply the 'Russian-War-Effort'!...however!,...not on the scale of 'Lend-Lease!'.