Research is too predictable.

[Sharkman]

I find the new research a bit too predictable, I usualy know about how many turns I need to reach the next level. I think maybe there should be a chance of a research setback, then instead of making progress you go backwards. Possibly even a minimal chance of a catastrophic setback destroying all current progress.

[Kommandant]

I think the research system is good, i played other games where the research system is very predictable, but that does not make the game lame or boring... I’m talking about HoI2... I think the idea of set backs that could be activated with intelligence action that steal or sabotage an research progress is interesting to be considered...

[Rabelesius]

I am against a catastrophic setback. The way the game works, between splitting MPP between replacements and research, research tends to get waysided sometimes. Therefore, I suggest to leave it as it is or make only minor adjustments.

[Hyazinth von Strachwitz]

Sharkman, I agree to your thoughts. But I prefer the current system to the old model BIG TIME.. in many other games research doesn`t offer ANY uncertainty at all, and in SC you don`t know when the new tank model arrive.. you just have an idea about the timeframe. Maybe the research model needs a bit of tweaking, but in general I like it. You are right, it is predictable, but in my ideas this disadvantage is way easier to cope with than the disadvantages of the old model..

[Sharkman]

I too like the new research model much better than the old, I just think it could use a little bit more unpredictability. As it is now I can be pretty sure if I put this many chits in that area the advance will come in about this many turns. It's a little too predictable.

The old system was totaly unpredictable, I didn't like that at all.

[ev]

I also like the new research model much more so than the old model.

...some tweaking? Maybe. But, patch 1.03 just came out. We should give it a good try first.

[Bill101]

The settings in WWI campaigns are different from WWII campaigns, in the sense that in WWI the % increment per turn is slightly higher.

As a result you may notice a difference between the WWI campaigns and 1939 Storm over Europe?

Also, as the increments decrease in both wars the higher the tech level you are researching, it should be the case that the results will get less predictable the higher the tech. Luck will play a slightly more significant role the higher you go, due to the chance of a breakthrough every turn once you've passed the 25% threshold. Therefore hopefully the predictability should reduce as the game goes on.

[pzgndr]

The new research model deserves a fresh assessment. The practical test is whether the average tech advances to the highest levels are too fast and too predictable, in which case the percentages could be reduced and Lady Luck given a freer hand.

There was something to be said for some of the wild-ass research results that used to occur. For every disappointment there was some other surprise. I still vividly recall one SC1 game where the German AI invaded Russia in 1941 with L5 tanks. :eek:

[acrashb]

LMAO.

Let's all re-read the many threads on the frustrating and unrealistic unpredictability of the previous system. Note that applied research (not basic) produces predictable results most of the time - for example, the steady and predictable long-term doubling of computing power every eighteen months.

I am loving the new system. Hits the sweet spot just so, and makes research investment worthwhile.

[Syagrius]

Research is fine as it is for me.

[Sharkman]

The settings in WWI campaigns are different from WWII campaigns, in the sense that in WWI the % increment per turn is slightly higher.

As a result you may notice a difference between the WWI campaigns and 1939 Storm over Europe?

Also, as the increments decrease in both wars the higher the tech level you are researching, it should be the case that the results will get less predictable the higher the tech. Luck will play a slightly more significant role the higher you go, due to the chance of a breakthrough every turn once you've passed the 25% threshold. Therefore hopefully the predictability should reduce as the game goes on.

Everything sounds great, and I do prefer the new system to the old, but after you reach 25% there is allways the chance of a breakthrough, why not also have the chance of a setback?

[acrashb]

Everything sounds great, and I do prefer the new system to the old, but after you reach 25% there is allways the chance of a breakthrough, why not also have the chance of a setback?

the setback is there - you don't get the breakthrough and keep waiting.

[Sharkman]

It would appear that the vast majority doesn't want any adjustment of the new research system. Nothing left to chance. But that's ok, it is not a bad system at all, I can live with it the way it is, it deffinitely makes it easier to plan ahead. The old system was more exciting though.

[Desert Dave]

the setback is there - you don't get the breakthrough and keep waiting.

Exactly.

I have played enough of this latest WW2 ETO game by now to truly appreciate that sometimes you do not achieve a research advance very quickly -- certainly not as soon as you would like. You are subject to a sort of -- occasional statistical strangeness. You keep right on getting 3 or 4 % incremental increases instead of the average, or if lucky (... yep Dame Lady Luck IS in fact in this current schematic, and smiling mighty slyly, at that) you will get more of those 6 or 7% increases.

And so and ipso realistico, that particular research area has indeed suffered a "setback."

Besides, I'm not agreeing with the whole idea of a larger setback anyway. Scientific knowledge has always been quite quickly spread around the globe. Before the internet, scientists have ordinarily been "apolitical" in the sense that they prefer their hard-learned creative knowledge, and naturally -- the credit that goes with it, to reach a much larger audience -- mostly other scientists.

Setbacks are most often due to "political meddling" and/or outright sabotage or deiberate dissemination of misinformation. The latter is already accounted for with your opportunity to invest in "intel." In a typical game I will mostly insure that I have at least 2, or sometimes even more research achievements in intelligence. The former is more in the "what if" category and hardly deserves much attention.

All that being said, I would make the following suggestion:

1) Do not allow a breakthrough until you reach 35% instead of 25%

My reasoning is this -- it should take a little longer to determine if a particular design is even going to be functional in the first instance. You cannot know in advance that any given area of research WILL SURELY result in a viable instrument of war. There are tried and true, and time-taking stages of development that must be FIRST accomplished. Once the initial testing (... beyond the paper work, and even beyond the prototype) is proven, THEN you proceed further, but not until. You don't throw away sparse money or critical time-lapses on potential "duds."

2) INCREASE the variable % possibilty per turn, oh, plus and minus 1% each direction. That way you have a LITTLE more Dame Lady Luck without undermining the current superior SC improvement in research results.

And it most assuredly IS a VERY great improvement over the previous paradigm.

IMHO, THE very best improvement since SC2. Well, retreats and swapping units are pretty doggone good too. In fact, Hubert has done what he has ALWAYS done since the very beginning, and that is... constantly and consistently improve his gaming franchise. Unlike way too many others I could name, but won't, he refuses to merely and lamely throw some half-finished product out there, and take the money and run run run. That's just not how he conducts his business, and we should all be grateful. I know I am. <G>

[SeaMonkey]

My thoughts also!

[Big Al]

Research is good now

[Rabelesius]

Yes, don't change it...

[Sharkman]

Exactly.

I have played enough of this latest WW2 ETO game by now to truly appreciate that sometimes you do not achieve a research advance very quickly -- certainly not as soon as you would like. You are subject to a sort of -- occasional statistical strangeness. You keep right on getting 3 or 4 % incremental increases instead of the average, or if lucky (... yep Dame Lady Luck IS in fact in this current schematic, and smiling mighty slyly, at that) you will get more of those 6 or 7% increases.

And so and ipso realistico, that particular research area has indeed suffered a "setback."

Besides, I'm not agreeing with the whole idea of a larger setback anyway. Scientific knowledge has always been quite quickly spread around the globe. Before the internet, scientists have ordinarily been "apolitical" in the sense that they prefer their hard-learned creative knowledge, and naturally -- the credit that goes with it, to reach a much larger audience -- mostly other scientists.

Setbacks are most often due to "political meddling" and/or outright sabotage or deiberate dissemination of misinformation. The latter is already accounted for with your opportunity to invest in "intel." In a typical game I will mostly insure that I have at least 2, or sometimes even more research achievements in intelligence. The former is more in the "what if" category and hardly deserves much attention.

All that being said, I would make the following suggestion:

1) Do not allow a breakthrough until you reach 35% instead of 25%

My reasoning is this -- it should take a little longer to determine if a particular design is even going to be functional in the first instance. You cannot know in advance that any given area of research WILL SURELY result in a viable instrument of war. There are tried and true, and time-taking stages of development that must be FIRST accomplished. Once the initial testing (... beyond the paper work, and even beyond the prototype) is proven, THEN you proceed further, but not until. You don't throw away sparse money or critical time-lapses on potential "duds."

2) INCREASE the variable % possibilty per turn, oh, plus and minus 1% each direction. That way you have a LITTLE more Dame Lady Luck without undermining the current superior SC improvement in research results.

And it most assuredly IS a VERY great improvement over the previous paradigm.

IMHO, THE very best improvement since SC2. Well, retreats and swapping units are pretty doggone good too. In fact, Hubert has done what he has ALWAYS done since the very beginning, and that is... constantly and consistently improve his gaming franchise. Unlike way too many others I could name, but won't, he refuses to merely and lamely throw some half-finished product out there, and take the money and run run run. That's just not how he conducts his business, and we should all be grateful. I know I am. <G>

Some interesting suggestions Dave, I just played a game where I got level 1 infantry just after reaching 25% (I had 5 chits invested) and I believe it was 3 turns later I got level 2, that should not be possible, the 35% level sounds like a good compromise. Annother possibility would be not to allow buying more than 1 chit in any particular techlology per turn, (trenches should be exempt from this).

[xwormwood]

.... Annother possibility would be not to allow buying more than 1 chit in any particular techlology per turn, (trenches should be exempt from this).

Good idea, i like it.

[Rabelesius]

Mmm...now, that is very fast. I guess that this could skew the game...so either disallow more than one chit or make research breakthroughs only possible after certain time.

[SeaMonkey]

Nupremal's mod had such a feature, only 1 investment chit per category, but still even then research could be a little too premature. Perhaps coupled with the new patched research model and the one chit limitation we would see a more realistic tech advancement scenario.

[Ivanov]

After the new research model was introduced, something was said that it would be now possible to control the progress of the research. I still haven't figured out how it can be done. Anybody knows how to monitor the progress of the research, or have I just misinterpreted the statement?

[xwormwood]

When you are in the research menu, move your mouse cursor on top of the research topic.

Than a pop-up will inform you about your progress.

[Ivanov]

Thanks, it works:) Well, I just want to add, that it realy makes the research too predictible:)

[Sharkman]

Choose your words carefuly, it could be dangerous to life and limb to suggest any meddeling with the new research model, I think it's somthing like the Holy Grail of the SC community.