Jump to content

Tech Advances

Recommended Posts

While I surely do understand and appreciate that it is likely too late in the process to have any significant changes, there is one thing -> consistent throughout ALL of the iterations since SC-1, that I have ALWAYS wished were different.

Some kind of tech advancement model where you could check-off a box at game outset, and have a "semi-HISTORICAL" outcome.

Now, I appreciate that varying tech advancements absolutely! Makes each game different, and terrifically re-playable. No argument there.

Tho, I would counter by saying that there are several OTHER aspects that provide PLENTY of opportunity for "randomness." IE, combat outcomes, Diplomacy, decison-events, unpredictability of Human or AI, varying "triggers" on Events, and etc.

Granted, the outlier/unusual thing does NOT happen very often, but, it is TRULY frustrating - as recently happened to me when playing "Storm of Steel"... when you don't EVEN get L-1 tanks for GErmany by late 1943. Whereas them Relentless Reds had L-4 tank tech by that time.

[... yeah yeah Terif I know, I know, you CAN adjust yer strategy and still win, well, YOU could, so you claim anyway, but not I... where in tarnation ARE you BTW?]

Anyway, utterly RUINED the whole game and I deliberately crashed it.

Kinda like playing Third Reich and making a one to one attack on Paris or Leningrad and rolling a wrong number and, having lost 2 "4-6" armor and 4 "3-3" infantry, well, ipso finito, THAT game is over.

And so, the upshot: I'd really REALLY REALLY! like to see an option at game start to have that previously mentioned "semi-historical" tech tree. Really. :)

Not precisely, but say, oh, each researchable area would advance for each unique Nation within 6 months to year of it's ACTUAL historical outcome.

GIVEN -. Global is likely to be MUCH larger in terms of... all of what you NEED to do in TWO Theatres.

I can remember playing SC-1 until 3 or 4 in the morning, BECAUSE -> I had to finish "just one more turn," I couldn't help it, there was NO stopping now! And I mean I would start and finish -> a WHOLE and complete game! Didn't do much for my work output the next day, but, well worth it anyway!

OK, and again, I COMPLETELY understand that it's HIGHLY unlikey that MAJOR changes can be made at this late stage.

Perhaps... down the glory road, as enhancement that is part of a patch? Or, wait until SC-3? No problem, fine by me.

For here & now, I wonder? Could something be coded in where you would select that "semi-historical" or, maybe better stated... "more historical tech advances," AND -> you would DEFINITELY reach the next tech level after so many months/years have passed.

IE, you invest a chit in heavy tanks in November of 1939. You would keep the SAME 5-4-3-2-1 chance, BUT... the % would INCREASE by X number of percentage points... EVERY 6 months. Or every 3 months. Or every year, whatever is determined to be most appropriate.

Well, a long post, but I gotta admit... THIS is the ONE thing -. out of every other game feature, that has bothered me the MOST over these 8 years. Thus, the l-o-o-o-n-g X-planation.

[... yep, I know there ARE a few ways to fiddle this into APPROXIMATE reality, and I've modded them all, BUT they don't come anywhere near what I've described above... I am talking about a SIMPLE little pre-game "click." And there she is! :)]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quick Addendum:

What I am sorta getting at there is this... IF I could click on a "semi-historical" tech outcome, I would NOT have to deal with this for the rest of that particular game.

Same way as how we can turn off Diplomacy for instance.

Let the tech advances happen according to the dictates of my "Research Minister," so to speak. IE, in the way that some games have it where you can turn over many aspects of the game, to an "advisor" or "minister."

That way, and again, given the long time to play out the whole Global, this would help SPEED UP the game.

Then! I could stay up to 3 or 4 in the morning for "just one more turn!" for reasons other than insomnia or the doggone Cat moaning like a banshee to get outside.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like simple, DD. And it seems that I may assume that I can count on your company for SC3 if indeed Hubert will grace us with its creation?:)

No disappearing act...this time!;)

LOL! Ah, that recent hiatus was so much fun! And also -. not fun! Simultaneously no less!

Sure, SM you can count on me -. one 2 anna 3! :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

GG's World at War had a good tech tree where you had an idea when you would make an advancement. You made investments every turn and as they accumulated you had a better % chance of getting the next level with each succeeding level requiring more and longer investments.

Ultimately though you knew, even if you got bad rolls, that you would get that advancement in a finite maximum amount of turns. That being said, I still prefer Hubert's version.

I will bring up the superior build Q that GGWaW had, based on population/resource availability and paying MPPs every turn(Pay as you go) with the ability to either terminate, upgrade, or delay anything in the build Q. It required planning because you couldn't deploy the finished unit unless you had the required trained recruitments available( pop. chit), Infantry and armor require two chits, air/naval ..one, etc.

Be kind of nice in SC3 if we could make investments in the recruitment/infrastructure/training segment to increase the availability to fill "the ranks" in a build Q similar to WaW.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

GG's World at War had a good tech tree where you had an idea when you would make an advancement. You made investments every turn and as they accumulated you had a better % chance of getting the next level with each succeeding level requiring more and longer investments.

Ultimately though you knew, even if you got bad rolls, that you would get that advancement in a finite maximum amount of turns. That being said, I still prefer Hubert's version.

You just described that big hairy thing I wrote up a couple of years ago, to a T. I just dislike every random roll being completely independent of the previous ones-that's most certainly not how it works (for starters).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about it! Another veteran answers the call and let's give credit where credit is due, JDF2, used to be just JDF, was the first to call for that tech tree.

An avid wargame player, what goes JDF? I've seen you interacting around the various boards, what are you playing now?

What can you recommend?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ditto, DD.

I think your ideas on it are just what the doctor ordered. Those issues always frustrated me too, forcing me to go to the editor to find a way around it to some degree, but could never quite perfect it enough.


Glad you are in accord (... ah, MOSTLY, since no 2 humans EVER agree fully, eh? Well, that's how it should be).

To elaborate a little more:

1) I would like to play the game(s) where SKILL is the primary determinant.

All too often I have heard (... even if merely echoes in my own hollow head) the following moan-full lament... "I'd'a beat that no-good sonofagun! IF NOT FOR THE RESEARCH LUCK! Bah!"

How often would I myself play it using "more historical research?"

I'd say -> EVERY OTHER GAME. You know what, that's a LOT.

2) Those opposed (... who haven't made much of a case, either in this thread or on ANY threads I've read over these many years) like to tell me... "You've ALREADY got sufficient control on TOO MUCH LUCK in research. You've got that 1% added to your research success IF another player/nation is ahead of you. ONE WHOLE PERCENT. How often does that strike? 1 in 100 times.

They also remind me of the "intel" that now & again grants me a bonus. How often does that occur? I've played 3 or 4 games in recent weeks and it has happened ONCE (... and then, when I had 2 intel successes).

3) I have been playing war-games -- and especially WW2 ETO games, since age 9. That's HALF A CENTURY. I have managed to thoroughly! enjoy most of those games, and NONE of them had random research. They had competely faithful or mostly faithful progressions through the tech tree.

4) When you have ONLY random chances, the ONE AREA that really makes a difference (... even moreso than my above related example of L-0 tanks VS opponent with L-4 by 1943) is in INDUSTRIAL advances.

It is impossible -> EVEN when playing the AI @ "Expert, +2 -- for Russia to be able to push the GErmans back into Eastern Europe IN ANY GAME where they DO NOT get adequate research advances in "Industrial Tech." There is simply not enough $$$$. There is no there there.


OK, here's one way to do it:

After 3 months -- ADD 2% to the chance of success for any given research field.

After 6 months -- ADD 4% to the chance...

After 9 months -- ADD 6%

After 1 year -- ADD 8%

After 15 months - ADD 10%

STOP at that point.

STILL random alrigt.

And STILL in addition to ALL those other factors that ALSO make the game random.

Such as:

Combat outcome variability, weather effects, trigger effects on Event and AI schematics, variablility in Human/AI responses, diplomacy (whether using the table or random events), decision event choices, and even more.

That's not enough CHANCE?


AND/OR... as part of our pre-game CHOICE of HOW we'd like to play -- you know, simply clicking a button, same as you'd do with "soft build limits" or "diplomacy" and etc,

You could have it where there is an alternate and/or a wholly separate... 2nd kind of feature (... and this is where our trusty "Science Minister" comes in):

Simply remove research altogether and let it progress according to "historical outcomes."

WITH a 6 month to 1 year variablilty either way.

So that, you would STILL have "semi-random." True?

JJR has stated in this thread that this would make the games BORING.


It would mean you would play the games (... at least sometimes, and for me, every other time) and MAINLY -> your SKILL at tactics would be the determinant in game outcome.

Not a bad way to go IMHO. :)


Having said all that, I am in NO WAY suggesting that Hubert's games are deficient somehow.


I have ALWAYS said that his Editor and his AI are... SECOND TO NONE.

To make it plainer than that even -- and as I've ALSO always said, EVEN to the extent of posting harsh and detailed critiques of ALL those other WW2 "pretenders" out there -- that SC is the very best game in this genre... now on the market.

Can't be more complimentary than that I wouldn't suppose. Well, I am purely interested in seeing that it remains that way.

Somebody disagrees? Get in here and say so. Not too awful hard to do.

**And the ONLY way that it will REMAIN the best, is when Forum folks say what's on their mind and not become victims of "groupthink" or rely mostly on "kiss-*ss approvals" or O/W subtly or overtly undermine DYNAMIC and X-traordinary development by witholding honest and up-front comments.

Hey! It's change or stagnation. Always has been, as the Competitors (... in whatever field) ain't gonna stand around and wring 'em hands and mope. Nope, nope, that's for dopes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Been farting around with Storm of Steel, some Silent Hunter, but also rFactor, when I get a jonesing for some racing action (like at the Nurburgring...mmmm).

Oh, and here's the post I alluded to above:


I like it JdF2! It's... succinct and straight like an unleashed bow arrow -> FIERCE to the far, FAR away bulls-eye!

More economical than my comments, also... kinda like Pre-Reagonomics, and Post-Reagonomics!

(... IE, more Keynesian and less "Chicago School," IE -> Milton Friedman and that there pitiless obsession with... perpetual shock doctrines, ugh!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this is a good concept, for my two cents. Especially in head to head play, of which I've done little.

When playing the AI, I've had times when key tech (like Russian industrial output or British ASW) just didn't come to happen. Which is fine, because it all leads to what if type outcomes and tense expectations everytime you hit the end turn button.

But on head to head, I think it could get frustrating to play with excellent strategy only to lose to random elements. But only sometimes. so an on/off switch before play incorporating elements of what you suggest might be excellent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've learned in the head to head action to take everything in stride as no two games are ever alike. If its not the tech hits, its the weather, or you make a dumb mistake or the mouse does a double click and you lose that 2nd strike, seems to me.......

"Its just the fortunes of war"

.....actually adds to the realism, you win some, you lose some. Thing is, there's always another game to play, another hill to climb. Great "gray matter" exercise.:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Imho Russia should start with a little more(dont know how much)industrial capacity right away.We all know that Allied might was just to overwhelming for the Axis so the game is play balanced but perhaps it could be setup in such a way that if the Axis really do start to get the upper-hand then(this would be a tough one to decide when it kicks in) historical Allied industrial might kicks in over a few turns.This would give them a second chance to turn the game around.It could be setup as an option and if accepted then the overall victory conditions change making so the Allies would have to win quicker.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not a bad idea, Arado.

By the way, has anyone noticed the deafening silence from Hubert and Co. the past 10 days or so? Haven't seen anyone's suggestions or questions answered in awhile. If I didn't know any better, I would swear an announcement concerning development is fast approaching. :D;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.....actually adds to the realism, you win some, you lose some. Thing is, there's always another game to play, another hill to climb. Great "gray matter" exercise.:)

Since the VAST MAJORITY of games are played SOLO,

I'd imagine that it would be a grand thing

To have as many CHOICES as possible?

The more choices, the more satisfied players.

The more satisfied players, the better is the "word of mouth."

The exponentially increasing word-of-mouth leads to more sales.

The more sales, the increased likelihood there will be more games.

More games - and especially those as accomplished as SC

Means more FUN! For every one!

Even! For those that prefer more SKILL requirements,

And a LITTLE less "luck, randomness and chance."

Which is ALL I am asking for.

NOT eliminating it, nay, nor, even, DRASTICALLY cutting it back.

See what I be gettting -at here SeaMonkey?


They probably have mixed emotions. More people posting (good), but the deliquents are back (bad).

Hmmm, IF it quacks - rack 'em! just like a Duck,

And, IF it walks golf courses awkwardly (... it's that crooked 9-iron we know about)

Just like a Duck,

Well then, it's probably...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I got you DD, I'm in "camp", always did like JDF2's idea and scheme.


It's just that I wanted folks to COMPLETELY understand me -> That I would LIKE TO HAVE that option for MORE historical research,

AND! Given that the game has progressed to the point where there are a MULTITUDE of events, decisions and very many other time-consuming aspects... well, IF I did NOT have to worry about research anomolies & vagaries (... IE, advancements would arrive in due course all the while -> RETAINING some parameter of chance) THEN I could!

JUST... play! ... the game! With SKILL being the PRIME mover mover! Whoa!

What a fantastic big-ring SHOW it could be!

For those like JdF2, and you -> and me! :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My rationale for my tech system is as simple as this: once a country had a national will to actually develop a specific desired tech, they almost always got it within a reasonable period of time. The only real exception to this would be the adverse effects of the sorry state of the German and Japanese industries at the end of the war, which is why (in part) it took so long for the Kriegsmarine to get their XXI's into combat (which they never quite did anyway). But if you look at just about anything else, once a need was demonstrated for tech X, it became a reality within 1, 2 years at the most:

German heavy tanks? Once they started encountering (and capturing) T-34's during Barbarossa, the Germans realized their tanks were inadequate. The only slightly less revolutionary Tiger I started full production about 15 months after June 22 '41, while the more complex Panther came along just about 2 years later.

Allied long range escorts? Yes, it was a combination of serendipity (P-51 getting the Merlin engine) and necessity (drop tanks), but the USAAF didn't really take long to get all of their fighters longer range after the 2nd Schweinfurt massacre absolutely demonstrated the need for same.

The Battle of the Atlantic is probably the best example. The Allies were almost always one step ahead; Doenitz & Raeder never really considered the possibility that mere submersibles (with their crap underwater performance) would become obsolete anytime soon, while the Allies, being on the defensive, had more incentive to not take anything for granted, and this bequeathed them airborne centimetric radar, among other things (again a development that Doenitz never even thought was possible). When a need was fully grasped, the Allies got what they wanted fairly promptly; the Germans like I said waited too long on the electroboots & other things (dithering for far too long on radar warning receivers).

Jets-same thing as the electroboots, tho many actually got to see combat, despite Hitler's order to give the 262 bombing capability. Anti-tank weapons? Need I say more.

I could go on, but I think the historical record is pretty clear on this point. Any game system which calls too much attention to its random number generator is probably doing something wrong. Now yes, before someone accuses me of trying to make the game too "deterministic," I'll say two things: one, player choices, and not the RNG, should be the prime movers in which techs get developed (fog of war will be maintained), and two, there is plenty of room to tweak the algorithims to adequately simulate dead ends, teething troubles, critical delays in vital metals, etc. Some techs are going to be more revolutionary than others (electroboots are a much more complex and involving tech than drop tanks are), but then that's already built in more or less.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

J.DF.the 2nd what you say makes total sense but do you think that you would have to put Allied industrial might more on track to historical levels?The reason I say this is because the Tiger,Panther,KingTiger vs the Sherman.The Sherman had really no hope against any of these tanks but because we could grossly outproduce the Germans it didnt matter(I do realise that the Allies can invest in heavy tanks).These games arenot setup that way for obvious reasons but in this case it might have to be?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Create New...