Research is too predictable.

[Baron]

Just throwing this out there because I think research is a tad too fast also. My idea is this: why don't you wipe out all the research chits when a tech level is achieved in that particular tech. For example if you invest 5 chits in a certain tech and you get a hit on that tech then you lose all the chits. That way you really would have to pay to get those advances more quickly. I also like the idea of limiting how many chits can be placed on a tech at any given time - probably and easier solution.

[ev]

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

I think we should distinguish between the level of randomness built in to the research model, and the progress report you get in the tech window.

Maybe, if people could not see the research progress report they would feel different about the predictability of the research model. Perhapps, when fog of war is active, a much more limited report should appear.

[Eisenhammer]

Just throwing this out there because I think research is a tad too fast also. My idea is this: why don't you wipe out all the research chits when a tech level is achieved in that particular tech. For example if you invest 5 chits in a certain tech and you get a hit on that tech then you lose all the chits. That way you really would have to pay to get those advances more quickly.

I like this idea.

[xwormwood]

I like this idea.

Me too.

[Ivanov]

For example if you invest 5 chits in a certain tech and you get a hit on that tech then you lose all the chits. That way you really would have to pay to get those advances more quickly.

This is probably the best idea of all. Simple and effective solution. Thumbs up!

[acrashb]

I think it's somthing like the Holy Grail of the SC community.

Bingo. 890

[Sharkman]

Just throwing this out there because I think research is a tad too fast also. My idea is this: why don't you wipe out all the research chits when a tech level is achieved in that particular tech. For example if you invest 5 chits in a certain tech and you get a hit on that tech then you lose all the chits. That way you really would have to pay to get those advances more quickly. I also like the idea of limiting how many chits can be placed on a tech at any given time - probably and easier solution.

I like this idea, very good, it might lead people to spread out research not to loose too many mmp's, and if you do invest massive mmp's in one area, you pay for it. Great idea Baron.

[ev]

In real life, how does the cost of a research project go?

I am no expert on this matter, but my guess is that you have a large initial cost as you recruit your rsearch team, build your facilities, etc. Then you have a monthly expense as you keep paying the salaries and expenses.

Now this team does not suddenly dissapear because you reach a tech level. On the contrary, the team keeps working on solving the next set of problems to reach the next tech barrier.

So, what I would do is... In every turn, for each tech chit invested, I would subtract a few mpps. Maybe as much as 5% of the value of these chits.

[John DiFool the 2nd]

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:

That just proves the point-in that game the Axis will win easily.

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.

In that new U-boat wargame Steel Wolves, the main determinator of research progress isn't from the efforts of your dispassionate scientists in their ivory towers, but instead is mainly driven by political factors (read: you rarely get what you want). FWIW. I do agree (and have argued in the past) that the historical record shows that the various powers tended to get the advances they wanted once they truly committed to them, tho in some cases it took too long (c.f. the XXI U-boats which in SC terms represented a jump of 4 tech levels).

The problem with the "breakthrough" subroutine is that it means you're going to get advances at a quicker pace overall, unless this has been compensated by lowered average gains per turn (I'm not sure it has). In the games I've run my side invariably has maxed out several categories by 1944. I'd scratch those sudden jumps of 75 points and make them more like triple/quadruple the base chance (5% base means a 15%-20% gain), which still means you'll get it 2-4 turns quicker.