Most important question

[Dragonheart]

Hubert,

Is the tech progress still a matter of luck or did you implement another solution.....f.e. buying of tech or something else.

The tech gamble was one thing which sucks most in SC1.

Is there any new tech?

[Exel]

I loved the way the research worked in SC1. The random element should be retained in SC2 too. It's not like you get new tech by saying "take this pile of cash and give me that" in real life either.

In fact, I'd like the research to be randomized even further. You would only assign MPPs into a main research fund, and then could order an emphasis to certain branch which would make gaining advances there more likely, but you could not direct the resources to only developing that certain tech.

For example, you give 500 MPP to research and say that the emphasis goes to developing heavy tanks. So now the chances for the MPPs to actually going to tank research are little higher than it is to going somewhere else, but you'd have no way of being sure. So instead of getting tanks, you might just as well get anti-tank weapons or mechanization and only afterwards heavy tanks. That is the way it goes irl, that's the way it imho should go in the game as well.

Also, it'd be cool if there would be a certain (low) chance of getting at least lvl 1 advances without any efforts. By allocating MPPs and ordering concentration to certain branches you could just make certain things more likely to happen.

[Kuniworth]

Excel - with all respect;

your suggestion is among the worst I've ever heard. For 2 years the sc forum have complained about tech-levels and how it spoils the game.

The best players games are most often decided by who gets a lucky research roll at a critical moment. For instance my win over Dragonheart was mainly due to unlucky tech rolls and had nothing to do with strategy.

This suggestion will if it is accepted fully create an uproar among the top ranked players.

[Sombra]

@ On the other hand Kuniworth if you can buy advantages in tech the guy with the most cash will win.

Random elements add spice to the game I agree with Excel. In my last game against Dragonheart I was tempted to throw my computer out of the window at some point, I was soooo FRUSTRATED for nearly 18month game time lacking behind in tech. (Right now Dragonheart is getting bad luck even worse than mine)

[Exel]

If everything was to be done for just tournament play, the SC would no longer be SC. You just have to face it, luck is always an integral part of warfare, and in a war game it is part of realism.

If you can purchase precisely the tech you want when you want without any randomness, the research and the whole game will become pure number crunching, and the victor will be defined by the optimal maths. I wouldn't call that very fun or realistic. Of course your decisions regarding research must have significant effect, but imho a certain level of uncertainty and randomness must be retained.

HoI has a working tech system that lets you research exactly what you want, but it is not as nearly as abstracted as SCs tech tree.

[J P Wagner]

Of all my complaints about HOI, the one aspect I liked was the research and tech tree...now SC2 does not need the detailed step building that HOI has to complete a project, but if there was a tech tree which allowed you different research and tech paths to take, and the costs prohibited you from having everything maxed by games end, there could be enough variety without the random element...

[Sombra]

The problem isn´t so much the research speed but the "instant" upgrade of all units. Together with the never spend research budget and the instant advantages all over the board it is a huge advantage having the lead in tech and it is even a safe bid to invest in tech because at some point you will allways get get a cash back.

Ask yourself if the money disminishues every round you invest in tech without be assured to get an advantage and without the instant upgrade off all units.Would you invest as much money in tech as you do now? I think NOT

[ April 15, 2004, 07:49 AM: Message edited by: Sombra ]

[J P Wagner]

Which is perhaps why the screenshots of SC2 show units on the same map with ******* tech levels...perhaps only new builds will now benefit from the most recent research upgrades... older units perhaps, would need to spend a turn in a city hex for an upgrade...this would be a big improvement...

[ April 15, 2004, 07:44 AM: Message edited by: J P Wagner ]

[Dragonheart]

I did not say that the system in SC1 is bad...but maybe one can improve it a little bit in order to reduce the luck factor.

[J P Wagner]

Huh....since when is the word "various" a dirty word?...where is Howard Stern when you need him?

[Bill101]

One can incorporate both investment and luck. For example, let's say that investing 500 MPPs in aircraft research gives an estimated wait of 10 turns before the next level of jets will be ready.

However, there could be a dice roll built in so that in reality they could be ready in 8-12 turns.

That way we have both planning and luck mixed together, in a way that avoids the situations in SC1 where games can be decided (or at least strongly influenced) by one side's very good or bad luck with research.

[ April 15, 2004, 08:13 AM: Message edited by: Bill101 ]

[Exel]

Originally posted by Dragonheart:
I did not say that the system in SC1 is bad...but maybe one can improve it a little bit in order to reduce the luck factor. Well in my opinion the luck factor should be increased. You could still decide to research that and that, but there would a chance of getting something completely different than what you have aimed at. As I said before, that is the way it was/is in real life and that is the way it should be in the game.

Just think about it. The Germans developed the famous 88mm flak for destroying heavy high-flying bombers, but ended up having the most kick-ass anti-tank weapon of the war.

[Les the Sarge 9-1]

Hmm considering it sounded like Excel was darned near quoting me, I am naturally supporting his post here on this thread.

During my heyday with Magic the Gathering, I NEVER once built a "tournament" deck.

It ruined the game, it favoured fanatical devotion to the perfect play the perfect opening move the perfect card.

I don't want that in my wargames.

I don't want to go into a game knowing in advance that opening move A is a total must or you are already toast. I don't want to know that opening research B is a completely mandatory requirement or you are dead in X turns.

I want to be a General commanding my nation's forces and being made to rely on my skills of generalship to win the day. I want to need to master the game because the conditions might suddenly shift unexpectedly.
Because in real life, you can't just make absolute choices and get absolute results.
So I sure don't want that in my game.

Random keeps the playing field a lot more even. It also does a lot less harm to play balancing. And who wants to play a game, where the end is already known if you mangle just one key consideration.

[pzgndr]

The problem isn´t so much the research speed but the "instant" upgrade of all units. That's one "problem." Another is that reinforcement costs do not increase with tech level. Another issue is being able to invest more than 1-2 chits at a time, and then getting very rapid advances. So now you've got this "perfect storm" where you can achieve rapid tech advances, get free upgrades, and maintain 1939 reinforcement costs. This may be fun in some games, but certainly isn't a realistic sim of WWII. The new system attempts to resolve all of these issues while still maintaining the current random element which is necessary for replayability.

Another goal of SC2 is to better balance all of the tech areas to make player decisions REALLY tough. Right now it's pretty much a no-brainer to invest in Jets rather than other techs. Make all tech areas roughly equal and we can expect to see some very interesting games with players more willing to try alternate strategies. :cool:

[Dragonheart]

@Exel

The majority of the players were not very happy with this system....and this is not the opionion of ppl played just 10 - 30 online games but rather 150 - 200 games.
If i wanna play a luck game i play risk or gamble on a slot machine...but SC is a strategy game dont forget that.

[Exel]

Les: Yes I remember you suggesting something similar somewhere. And once again I agree with everything you posted.

Dragonheart: Majority of the hardcore tournament gamers maybe, but the majority of all players? I doubt it. All I've been playing with have been pretty happy with the SC research system. Maybe we should have a poll about it? Of course this aint a democracy, and Hubert makes the game just like he wants it, but I'm sure he too is interested in what the players think.

But like Les, I sure don't want my game to be a number-crunching optimization manager, but a serious and realistic grand strategy. Being able to dictate the results of research to every detail is surely not realistic, as I tried to point out in the flak 88 example. Nor is it fun with such an abstracted tech tree (unlike in HoI).

Surely you don't want to remove the random element in battles, so why remove it from research? Or would you prefer to have a linear combat system as well?

[Dragonheart]

Hm a poll would show you at least a 75/25 in favour to reduce the luck faktor. I´m pretty sure about this.

[pzgndr]

With SC2, you can create a zero-luck game. Set research max MPP to 0 and just lock in unit values. You can further edit unit values to give some countries appropriate bonuses, like Germany for tanks and subs or USA for bombers.

Or, just set max chits per area to 1 to really slow down research across the board. Or, set max MPP to something less than 2500 to limit research. Or, cap research levels at something less than 5. With SC2, you will have these options.

Keep in mind that a lot of little things are being revised. With a larger Atlantic, the naval war should take on more important role. Subs and carriers are now their own target type, naval bombers is a new research category, lend lease and convoys are being introduced, so a whole new dimension to the game is opening up. That's just one aspect. Optional force pool limits will affect the game. Diplomacy will also affect the game. More research categories are being introduced. Bottom line is that a LOT of new options are being presented that will challenge your decision making. Research will probably not be the ogre that it is currently.

[Edwin P.]

Les - I also agree with everything that you said, war is unpredicatable and the enemy & your scientists will rarely do/develop what you expect. Thats why I like the current luck system in SC1.

pzgndr - "nother goal of SC2 is to better balance all of the tech areas to make player decisions REALLY tough". I agree for as you said in SC1 its a nobrainer to invest in jets (although I just finished a game where I had Rockets Level 5 (it was pure luck- 1 chit - never happened before).

------------------------------------------
What I would like to see as mentioned by Exel is a chance for random related techs - example you have 1 chit in Jets and you make an advance but the advance has a 5% to occur in Rockets instead or you are researching gun laying radar and you have a 5% to get an advance in Sonar instead.

-----------------------------------------------

[Kuniworth]

I understand that luck is part of sc as it was in the real ww2. But this is a game, and unlucky rolls may cost you a 40 hour game. That pisses me off.

Remember; it's strategic command NOT lucky command

[Sombra]

Luck may play an important part but it will work as many times i your favor as against you.

Seriously: How many top notch player of SC are there: Terif, Dragonheart, Zap, Rambo , Kuniworth ... How many times do you loose against inferior medium players due to LUCK : 5% less? Is luck really the deciding factor. I like the way SC1 works even if I would throw the game out of the window at times. (I simply like to win)

I would like to the see the randomness of SC! combined with disappearing money risk. And it seems that two other of my main concerns are already adressed: No instant upgrades, really difficult choices. I am glad

[Dragonheart]

There are many other top players you dont know arround which stopped playing before you and me learned the game. The problem is not that you will loose ag a weaker player but the problem is that it can ruin a game between two top players.

[Ron]

For those players wanting to eliminate the "random" and "luck" factor I suggest Chess.


Edit: Just read pzgndr's post, it seems you can have your cake and eat it too! I would be suprised if no more than a handful actually played SC2 like that, however to each their own.


Ron

[Ron]

Originally posted by Dragonheart:
Hm a poll would show you at least a 75/25 in favour to reduce the luck faktor. I´m pretty sure about this. From hardcore regulars on this forum you are probably right, but there are a lot more SC players out there that simply don't post or read these boards, especially since SC went retail, and looking at "successful" games in general I would say you are very mistaken in that belief.


Ron

[Kuniworth]

I would say that this do not only affect so called "top" players. But everyone as it is the top fights that more than anything else have created tactics and strategies and make game evolve.

Tactics people use today eg cookie-cutter, dutch gambit, axis turn 2, AA bug, carrier bug, suez loop etc etc was all found by competition fights. THat is also what made patches come out more quickly and really took sc to the limit.

If we go back to luck again - strategy-thinking WILL decline.

Ok so strategical players should play chess says Ron. Well I say;

If you want luck - play lotto

[ April 15, 2004, 10:07 AM: Message edited by: Kuniworth ]

[Sombra]

@ Dragonheart: Yes I know that there are more TOP players since they don´t haunt these boards anymore if was refering to the players hte names I knew.

Don´t you think that a little randomness spices up the game?

[ April 15, 2004, 11:04 AM: Message edited by: Sombra ]

[Dragonheart]

Never talked about elimination of luck faktor as its a part of every game and also of real live :D

But for those who want more luck i would suggest monopoly or back gammon or some kind of card game.
:D

[John DiFool the 2nd]

Two conflicting ideas here:

1. Avoiding the Perfect Plans which often plague
games such as SC, 3R, WiF, vs...

2. Avoiding having luck (in its various SC forms)
becoming the main arbiter of victory.

Trying to balance these two is probably a task of
Solomonesque proportions.

SC1 probably had the worst of both worlds in that
respect: early on the Perfect Plans held sway, but
eventually Tech Luck kicked in and became the
prime determinant of success or failure. A good
strategist could hang in there during the middle
and end game despite bad tech rolls, but only to
a point.

Bill 101 already posted a compromise (which
everyone promptly ignored)-I'd imagine Hubert will
institute similar compromises. I don't want luck
as the be-all and end-all, but neither do I want
perfect plans to become refined to the point that
gameplay is highly stereotyped and dull.

John DiFool

[SeaMonkey]

This whole thread is irrelevent.......because SC2 has an editor. Did you guys lose your glasses....become blind or just suddenly become incoherent....READ what Bill(pzgndr) said.

[Kelly's Heroes]

I agree with Exel, Les and many others in this thread:

War is hell and unpredictable. If a person wants to have an "all knowing" game, with perfectly timed moves, then they should play chess.

I am all for random research; new tech upgrades should only apply to NEW units being built; upgrades applied to existing units should cost MPPs; attachments such as arty improvements should cost MPPs; etc, etc. . .

Just think, if the Americans had not known about the Japanese moves, then Midway might have turned out differently.

Sometimes war can be an unpredictable mistress. . .

Cheers!

[Bill101]

I think the main problem with this thread is that those who want less luck to be involved in research are being misinterpreted as being against there being any luck involved at all.

I want luck to play a part in this game, but I also want its role in research to be reduced.

It's just a question of getting the balance right.

From what I've seen so far some steps have been taken to address this in terms of how the research is implemented, but we don't yet know how research itself will be carried out.

[ April 15, 2004, 11:58 AM: Message edited by: Bill101 ]

[Exel]

Luck and strategy are not mutually exclusive. Of course luck shouldn't be the decisive factor that defines who loses and who wins, but in any case it should play a rather significant role - be it in combat calculations, partisans or research. I just don't get it why you people object to having things not totally under your control. Things weren't like that in real life either. Of course you can be a wise ass afterwards and say "why didn't you develop that and that instead of this", but things just don't go like that in reality. Do I need to retype my flak 88 example?

[Kelly's Heroes]

Research can be highly unpredictable.

Atomic Bomb Research:

Both the Germans and Japanese spent millions, but often went down the wrong road.

The USA was "lucky" to get the uranium oxide from U-234 in May, 1945 as well as being able to use the scientists that Hitler booted out of Germany in 1939. . .

Cheers!

[Kelly's Heroes]

Originally posted by SeaMonkey:
This whole thread is irrelevent.......because SC2 has an editor. Did you guys lose your glasses....become blind or just suddenly become incoherent....READ what Bill(pzgndr) said. Not really.

We still do not know what will, or will not, be hard-coded into the game.

This thread raises issues that may be important while SC2 is still in development.

Cheers!

[Exel]

A compromise suggestion:

Getting tech advances by research depends on luck, but by investing more resources and directing them to the desired branch the probability of gaining the tech significantly increases. Also, each turn you get a negative roll, ie. don't get the tech, the chances of getting it the next turn increase. Now, lucky ones can still get techs with low investment and quickly, but even the most unlucky ones will with utmost probability get the techs eventually, as their chances increase every turn. This prevents the tech race from being an expensive and decisive lottery, but still retains the random element to spice up the experience.

As for the random effect for research results I would suggest the following. Whenever the research calculations give you a positive roll, ie. you get a tech, there is a chance that the tech gained will be something else but the defined goal of research. Meaning that occasionally you'll get other techs than you have been aiming for, ie. anti-air research might produce you better anti-tank weapons (eg. 88mm FlaK 41).

[ April 15, 2004, 01:28 PM: Message edited by: Exel ]

[Bill101]

Exel wrote:

"I just don't get it why you people object to having things not totally under your control."

This is a clear case of misunderstanding what I've said in my previous post. However, I've just read your compromise suggestion and it is certainly one possible answer to the problem.

Kelly's Heroes' Atom bomb example is useful, but only if we are talking about researching atom bombs. It was such a new technology, reliant on rare components and major scientific breakthroughs that its research isn't in the same league as designing, for example, a more powerful aero engine, or a heavier piece of artillery.

I would concede that atom bomb research, if included, could be more luck based.

[ April 15, 2004, 01:05 PM: Message edited by: Bill101 ]

[Kelly's Heroes]

Originally posted by Exel:
A compromise suggestion:

Getting tech advances by research depends on luck, but by investing more resources and directing them to the desired branch the probability of gaining the tech significantly increases. Also, each turn you get a negative roll, ie. don't get the tech, the chances of getting it the next turn increase. Now, lucky ones can still get techs with low investment and quickly, but even the most unlucky ones will with utmost probability get the techs eventually, as their chances increase every turn. This prevents the tech race from being an expensive and decisive lottery, but still retains the random element to spice up the experience.

As for the random effect for research results I would suggest the following. Whenever the research calculations give you a positive roll, ie. you get a tech, there is a chance that the tech gained will be something else but the defined goal of research. Meaning that occasionally your get other techs than you have been aiming for, ie. anti-air research might produce you better anti-tank weapons (eg. 88mm FlaK 41). I like this approach. It sounds reasonable without being highly unpredictable.

Cheers!

[Kuniworth]

This is a vital issue and needs to be discussed.

Kelly's Heroes is right there.

And yes I'll go away play chess Kelly if you start doing lotto.

[vveedd]

I also didn’t like research concept in SC and I am for decreasing luck in research in SC2 but one fact mentioned above can be true. Maybe was real problem in automatic upgrade of all units. SC2 will not have that as I understood so this is big improvement. Main problem in SC was in 2 crucial tech which had to much influence for a game to my opinion. That was Jet aircraft and anti-tanks. If Hubert and guys will have less influential tech in SC2 maybe the same research concept will work.

[Kuniworth]

Anti-tanks?

Jets and long-range ruled..

[Exel]

Originally posted by Kuniworth:
Anti-tanks?

Jets and long-range ruled.. Yes. Anti-tank advance in a crucial time has many times changed the tide of battle in my games. Jet fighters have a more long term effect though.

But back to the subject. I'd like some more comments about my suggestion - I really believe it could be a solution to the issue (if Hubert hasn't already come up with a better one).

[Desert Dave]

As originally posted by Bill101:

Kelly's Heroes' Atom bomb example is useful, but only if we are talking about researching atom bombs. It was such a new technology, reliant on rare components and major scientific breakthroughs that its research isn't in the same league as designing, for example, a more powerful aero engine, or a heavier piece of artillery.

I would concede that atom bomb research, if included, could be more luck based.

Atom bomb research will NOT be included.

Thus far, there are eighteen (18) different categories, and this is definitely not one of them. ;)

On the bright side...

You can research Infrastructure for instance, which will have some certain effect on your Op Moves.

Kind of like keeping your road & rail in good working order.

I have been campaigning for this latter category for some long, dedicated time, and I am very glad that Hubert has decided to include it! :cool:

[KDG]

Expanding on what Exel said.


This would solve the problem and wouldn't be too difficult to program.

For each turn that you don't get a tech in a research that you have investments, you gain a 1/2% bonus chance per chit.

Example:
4 chits in Jets. Everyone at 0 tech level.
1st turn 20%(zero bonus per chit)
2nd turn 22%(.5% bonus per chit)
3rd turn 24%(1% bonus per chit)
10th turn 38%(4.5% bonus per chit)
20th turn 58%(9.5% bonus per chit)

After you get the advancement, everything is reset back to the 1st level.

I'd also make this an option, which could be turned on or off.

[ April 15, 2004, 07:13 PM: Message edited by: KDG ]