Most unlucky HA improvement rolls ever?

[lettowvorbeck]

In my pbem game, I had 3 and 4 chits devoted to British HA and it took 2 full YEARS to go from level 0 to level 1. The French apparently offered no assistance..LOL. That's got to be the most remarkably unlucky turn of events I've seen in my brief experience with the game. It crippled the Middle East (couldn't cross the suez against entrenched, and improved Turk corps) and could conduct no planned offensives on the western front with British armies [the French had their own crises].

[Bill101]

That is a run of bad luck considering how high the chance per turn would be.

It might pay to invest a chit in Intelligence in future as that can help too.

[Catacol Highlander]

Nope - I can top that. In GC I got to 1945 in a game without getting a single Jap industry chit despite years of max investment. In a recent ww1 game amazingly I got to the summer of 1916 with 2 or 3 chits invested in industry across all 4 entente powers without a single hit to any of them. Was most crippling to Russia, as I then found that when a chit did arrive mpps went from 89 to 192. I'm still playing that game, and my Brits in 1917 are still without any industry at all.

I have said actually that I think the industry boost is too high for the price paid, and too much of a game changer or loser.

[lettowvorbeck]

I agree entirely.

[John DiFool the 2nd]

For the newer members this is a long-standing issue going back many years-Hubert is aware of it, but wholesale changes may not be possible in this engine.

[Kuniworth]

In fact the whole tech tree should have a pretty fixed time to get things. Would be more strategy if you knew that investing would give you an invention in a certain time give or take some minor delays.

This is vital to industry. It should not be a question of chance if you gear up for war. You should now that if I put this much effort into it I would know I get my investment back.

Do you honestly think that during the world wars, any nation would gear up industry without knowing the time to it and what the effects would be?

[vonRocko]

I don't know if anything should be adjusted at all. This is just my opinion but I can see many reasons why industry could be delayed in real life, for months or even years. There could be "red tape", labor problems, factory conversions, raw materials, tranport new equipment, etc. No one in real life can guarantee that with x amount of money, they can get an arms factory up by some deadline, unless the deadline is extremely long. Delays always happen. I've had games both ways,Sometimes I drop a chit in some research and the next turn it advances, other times I wait years! It's all part of the game! Such is war.

[SeaMonkey]

Although I agree, as has been the case in the past, with JDF & Kuni, there is still a hint of strategy in the tech game. There is of course the tech catch up feature and the intelligence parameter to aid technological advancements. Depending on your game posturing you can use both of those in varying degrees, but still there is always the chance that your endeavors will lag severely.

Something along the lines on what JDF has detailed in the past would be more appropriate and I'll interject the GG's World at War is an example of a better advancement system as well as the build Q that would enhance the SC experience.

[John DiFool the 2nd]

Some areas are more variable and uncertain-radar for example, as compared to heavy tanks say.

[Iron Ranger]

Has anyone worked out the MMP gained for each tech level of IT for each nation, assuming no resources are lost?

[xwormwood]

In fact the whole tech tree should have a pretty fixed time to get things. Would be more strategy if you knew that investing would give you an invention in a certain time give or take some minor delays.

This is vital to industry. It should not be a question of chance if you gear up for war. You should now that if I put this much effort into it I would know I get my investment back.

Do you honestly think that during the world wars, any nation would gear up industry without knowing the time to it and what the effects would be?

Kuni, you have a point, and than you don't.

Of course advances were planned. But not all plans were good, and even isif the plan was good, the final product showed that it came to late or to complicated or badly produced.

Older designes sometimes proved that they were better than there new developed "heirs".

Maybe we need two or more different research trees.

One which will bring a new tech step if the player paid at the right time,

and one that offeres a chance that the next development will offer a technical breakthrough or state of the art equipment.

Maybe even for every weapon system its own reserch trees.

So while you use tanks level 1 you can improve them (or the whole tank tech), like with radio comunication (the russians had none) or with better guns, tracks or armor or even better tactics.

You can develop something new, which turns out to be absurd or not usable at the front lines.

You can develop something new and use it wrong.

You can develop something new and find out that you new development is worse than your older designs.

You can develop something new and it turns out that your enemies new equipment is still better than yours.

My point: you can plan a new development, but there is a good chance that something goes wrong and that this gets only revealed when you use the new development for the first time at the front lines.

[SeaMonkey]

An excellent point xwood! Perhaps there should be a % chance that when you get an advance a popup occurs saying "Your developmental investment did not end in a successfully practical design", losing your chit investments and a resulting % MPPs(of the original)added back to your pool for a reinvestment if the player so chooses.

[xwormwood]

Nice Idea, SeaMonkey!

[Isnogud]

In one of my current games I invested also quite early (1915) 2 chits in heavy artillery and infantry for the Osmanes. Until end of 1917 still only one hit for both.

I would suggest an additional bonus for each round a tech chit is invested.

It seem quite strange that sometimes a chit leads to a success in the same

round invested and others takes years with no result.

The change of a hit should be increased each turn a chit is invested.

So maybe a bonus of 1% per turn and chit so when investing two chits

you may have a bonus of 20% after 10 turns.

So you would still have the random advance but also increasing the odds in the long term.

[lettowvorbeck]

I've seen the same thing. You often see the R&D success at the end of the very same turn a chit is invested.

[ev]

There is a random element to research. A researcher tries different ways to solve the problem. Sometimes he lucks out and finds the solution in his first attempt. Most often, the first thing he tried does not work, and he has to keep trying again and again until he figures it out.

However, even if the first attempt fails, that does not mean this first failure does not bring you closer to a final result. At the very least, you can cross out one option that does not work. And, further more, you learn stuff in the process.

WaW's tech model assumes that past attempts to discover a technology do not contribute anything to the final result. Each turn, you roll the dice, and the conditions for the dice roll are exactly the same regardless of how many months or years you have been working on this research.

From what I read here, scww1 uses the same model previously used in WaW. I would like to suggest two alternative models:

(1) Filling the bucket: Each turn you roll a dice and obtain a result, say 1-6. You add this result into the bucket. Say the bucket can hold 60 points, when you have accumulated those 60 points you get you new tech.

If you invest two chits, then you get to throw a second dice. But if you want to factor in a diminishing return on investment, the second dice thow could be subject to some reduction...

The above scheme has a couple of advantages. You eliminate the unrealistc one turn discoveries (you cannot fully design and test tank or an airplane in one week). You also eliminate the extremely long periods of no advance. But you keep some statistical variation which would tend to concentrate along the center of your statistical "expectation".

(2) The turn counter: This method keeps tracks of how many turns you have been researching a given tech. And, for each turn you have been researching a given tech, you get a push on the likelihood your dice roll will be succesful.

I prefer #1...

[Sharkman]

An excellent point xwood! Perhaps there should be a % chance that when you get an advance a popup occurs saying "Your developmental investment did not end in a successfully practical design", losing your chit investments and a resulting % MPPs(of the original)added back to your pool for a reinvestment if the player so chooses.

This is a good idea, overall I think Tech advances should be slowed down a bit, in most games I have played the Germans are maxed out in the important areas by mid 1943 and the USA has everything by mid 44. On the other hand the British are lucky if they catch up by 1946. With a little luck the Germans can start Barbarossa with level 3 or 4 tanks and air which gives them a huge advantage.

[SeaMonkey]

Agreed Shark, Tech advances and the Build Q have always been weak features of SC. Adequate for play, but with lots of room for improvement. Perhaps the evolution of these features are too detrimental to the AI's performance?:confused: