lettowvorbeck Posted May 9, 2011 Share Posted May 9, 2011 In my pbem game up to early-mid 1916, I've been able to hold German conquests to the balkans (Serbia and Montenegro), the usual swath of France, and only four Russian cities in the north front. Yet my opponent seems to have MMPs for everything, production, research, diplomacy, etc. Able to get ALL his units back to full strength every turn, repurchase all lost units, get up to full entrenchment levels before I could get past 2, conduct constant offensives, do a diplomatic blitz [see my Switzerland complaint thread], turn all his old battleships into superdreadnoughts and repair the navy fully every turn, and on and on. Even if he lucked out and has full industrial tech improvements already, which would seem to be incredibly lucky as I am not close to matching it and I am heavily researching as well, he seems to have more than enough MMPs for all his needs in all areas. There doesn't seem to be a need for any kind of prioritization. Undoubtedly, he is a very experienced player with the SC system (and I am brand new and learning) but something seems dreadfully out of whack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hubert Cater Posted May 9, 2011 Share Posted May 9, 2011 Send me a copy of any saved turn and I'd be happy to take a look, send to support@furysoftware.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lettowvorbeck Posted May 9, 2011 Author Share Posted May 9, 2011 Thanks. I just sent it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hubert Cater Posted May 9, 2011 Share Posted May 9, 2011 Thanks for the turns and I don't see anything wrong with what the German player is doing, i.e. there is no cheating that I can see. What I would suggest is asking your opponent for some insight, perhaps when the game is completed, as to what they did if they are up for sharing their strategy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lettowvorbeck Posted May 9, 2011 Author Share Posted May 9, 2011 I did not mean to imply cheating (how that would even be possible, I have no idea), but rather possible bug(s). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lettowvorbeck Posted May 9, 2011 Author Share Posted May 9, 2011 If no bugs, he must have just been very fortunate with research. What makes Germany so pronounced, I think, is it is basically two or more powers combined into one and doesn't have to research independently like GB, Fr and Russia. Germany also has a bit of an early window to concentrate on research, while the TE powers have to fight just to survive in 1914-15 the early onslaught. With fortunate rolls, the research disparity can just snowball from there. I recall getting huge German MMP totals mid-war vs the AI, but didn't suppose the same could be replicated against a human. Looks like I was wrong! Ha. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hubert Cater Posted May 9, 2011 Share Posted May 9, 2011 The cheating aspect was actually just my curiosity (as well as looking for bugs) as I just wanted to make sure and it was not intended as a slight against either you or your opponent, my apologies if it came out that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isnogud Posted May 9, 2011 Share Posted May 9, 2011 Well; I'm playing the central powers in this game. We are now in July 16 and my first priority in research is always industrial technology. I try to invest 5 chits in there as soon as possible. Currently I am now at industrial tech level 4 with germany (2 with Austria and 3 with Turkey) and getting 870 MPP with Germany 230 with Austria and 210 with Turkey. I have also played multipel times with the Entende getting about the same or slightlih higher MPP for them. The main advantage is that Germay is as strong as France and Russia together but only have to research for one country. On the other hand it has to fight on 2 fronts and to maintain it's navy. Being on the offence is also costly since the defender has the trenching advantage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lettowvorbeck Posted May 9, 2011 Author Share Posted May 9, 2011 Yep, with my inexperience, I definitely made a mistake of making industrial tech a co-priority instead of THE priority. That's about what I guessed for Germany in terms of MMPs needed to do what Isnogud has been able to do. I am definitely learning a lot playing him. Given the immense fruits available, I do think advancing Industrial Tech should be more expensive and/or have a decreased chance of progression the higher the level, to reflect the real world law of diminishing returns. In the tech world, if you graph the sheer amount of investment vs. the innovations that result, it does not of necessity result in the steep upward curve (the classic "hockey stick" of overoptimistic predictions of economic growth). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lettowvorbeck Posted May 9, 2011 Author Share Posted May 9, 2011 Hubert, I understand. I just didn't want Falk to think I was making accusations of that short. Thanks, Drew The cheating aspect was actually just my curiosity (as well as looking for bugs) as I just wanted to make sure and it was not intended as a slight against either you or your opponent, my apologies if it came out that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bossy57322 Posted May 9, 2011 Share Posted May 9, 2011 This entire thread amazes me because I get absolutely nowhere playing the Central Powers. Maybe I should try my luck in MP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill101 Posted May 10, 2011 Share Posted May 10, 2011 Yep, with my inexperience, I definitely made a mistake of making industrial tech a co-priority instead of THE priority. That's about what I guessed for Germany in terms of MMPs needed to do what Isnogud has been able to do. I am definitely learning a lot playing him. I still recall my first ever PBEM game of SC1 with a mixture of fondness and embarrassment, because I played as the Allies and lost so badly that I think I only destroyed one German unit in the whole game! :eek: But I really learned so much from it that I went straight back into battle after that and was soon doing much better. Given the immense fruits available, I do think advancing Industrial Tech should be more expensive and/or have a decreased chance of progression the higher the level, to reflect the real world law of diminishing returns. All tech does have a decreasing chance of progression the higher the level, but I have been considering for a little while capping Industrial Technology at level 3 in future due to the difference it can make to the balance of the game. Reading this thread is inclining me more and more to that conclusion! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lettowvorbeck Posted May 10, 2011 Author Share Posted May 10, 2011 To me anyway, the current levels just seem way too transformative for such a short period of time. Discovering and implementing technologies that can basically triple MMP outputs amid a myriad of other wartime labor and resource demands and shortages seems a bit too much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lettowvorbeck Posted May 10, 2011 Author Share Posted May 10, 2011 Even given my research blunders, I am still doing pretty good. Mid-1916, Russia's NM is still above Germany's by almost 10% -- although he just got level 2 infantry. Another thing to consider might be tying NM decreases to industrial increases. More resources devoted to industry means less for the Home Front. I still recall my first ever PBEM game of SC1 with a mixture of fondness and embarrassment, because I played as the Allies and lost so badly that I think I only destroyed one German unit in the whole game! :eek: But I really learned so much from it that I went straight back into battle after that and was soon doing much better. All tech does have a decreasing chance of progression the higher the level, but I have been considering for a little while capping Industrial Technology at level 3 in future due to the difference it can make to the balance of the game. Reading this thread is inclining me more and more to that conclusion! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Palchinsky Posted May 11, 2011 Share Posted May 11, 2011 Bill, Hope you don't jump to any rash decisions based on this AAR alone. This single game hasn't been completed yet, and both sides have access to the Industrial Tech. This could be simply a case of gamesmanship vs. a perceived flaw. As you yourself know, only thorough testing will determine the correct action to take. So, if you have AAR from the Beta Testing you could share to back up what Lettow perceives as a flaw, then that would be very reassuring to those gamers following this thread so they are not disappointed by any hasty changes in the next patch. Thanks. PP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wlape3 Posted May 11, 2011 Share Posted May 11, 2011 To me anyway, the current levels just seem way too transformative for such a short period of time. Discovering and implementing technologies that can basically triple MMP outputs amid a myriad of other wartime labor and resource demands and shortages seems a bit too much. One thing to consider is the historical performance of Nazi Germany during WWII. The industrial ouput of the country increased in the face of strategic bombing right up to 1945. The same is true of the USSR which dramatically increased production despite having lost significant resources and industrial capacity. It can be done if the will is there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lettowvorbeck Posted May 11, 2011 Author Share Posted May 11, 2011 Yes, we all know significant increases occurred but the key with Nazi Germany was their relative might fell precipitously as the war went on, even with their control of nearly all of western and southern europe's resources. I would maintain the magnitude of possibilities of Germany's MMPs in real and relative terms in the current version of the WW1 scenario does not have a historical basis. No matter what the research level disparity, Germany should never be able to approach the combined outputs of the UK, France, and Russia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panama Red Posted May 11, 2011 Share Posted May 11, 2011 The economies of Europe at that time was: 1. Germany 2. UK 3. France 4. Austria 5. Russia 6. Italy Even the British realized that Germany had overtaken them industrially before WWI (currently reading about the British Grand Fleet during WWI). It states that the main reason that the British were able to stay ahead of the German in Battleships pre-WWI is that the British dockyards were more efficient than the Germans when came to building the Battleships, otherwise the Germans would have had more Battleships than the British by WWI. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill101 Posted May 12, 2011 Share Posted May 12, 2011 Bill, Hope you don't jump to any rash decisions based on this AAR alone. This single game hasn't been completed yet, and both sides have access to the Industrial Tech. This could be simply a case of gamesmanship vs. a perceived flaw. As you yourself know, only thorough testing will determine the correct action to take. So, if you have AAR from the Beta Testing you could share to back up what Lettow perceives as a flaw, then that would be very reassuring to those gamers following this thread so they are not disappointed by any hasty changes in the next patch. Thanks. PP Agreed, though this is something I've been contemplating over the last few weeks based on my own gaming experience, as I have a number of PBEM games on the go too. That said, there are alternatives to capping the tech at level 3, such as modifying the actual benefits of increases per level. No final decision has been made yet but this subject is on my mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts