Is Research too expensive?

[pat.casey]

I'll admit to a certain degree of inexperience here. I've only played through three complete games so far (twice as CP, once as Entente), and I've never done any PBEM.

Still, I have to think the research costs are too high as it stands. I never have the money to buy more than a point or two of research per turn, and at that rate by 1918, I'm usually looking at level 4 forts and yellow cross gas, with everything else at baseline.

Point is I seem to have resources to about 3/4 research 2 of the 6 areas in a "normal game". Whereas historically, the CP pretty much "maxed" trench, gas, artillery and assault troops (although their tank development lagged).

Seems like either A) I'm doing something wrong or B) the costs should be cut by about 1/3 so one could invest more equitably. It shouldn't be a game breaker because tech rate is still fixed (you can only put 1 point per turn in one area anyway).

Thoughts?

[SMK-at-work]

Research is certainly expensive, but IMO you really do have to bite the bullet and allocate a point or 2 to it every turn if yuo're playing a long game unless things are going REALLY badly....and even then you should only take a holiday for a turn or 2 max.
 
Allocating 1 point to research is the 1st thing I do every turn.

[Gresbeck]

Probably every game overestimates the cost of research. I admit I have no particular experience, but as far as I know today Europe aims to spend 3% of its continental product in research, and it doesn't succeed in it. I figure that by the time of WW1 the spending in research couldn't be higher. So probably in real life the research spending would be in any case too low to be modeled in any game.

Probably we should consider research spending somewhat "abstracted": a model not only for resources needed to research, but also to upgrade equipment.

[hjaco]

Your question can not be answered with a simple answer.

You really have to look through it under the laws of diminished return. You invest assets and expect a return in the future. So you have to hold up the investment in that light compared to your present situation and what benefit those assets otherwise could have.

An example:

You are CP in early 15' and unsure about whether you can crush France or you have to seek victory in the east going into defense in the west at some point in the near future.

You can use your assets in the present trying to knock out France with a maximum investment thereby largely disregarding research.

Or you can start invest in say researching trenches to cut down on future losses and better to hold ground. Now it cost you 15 RP to get from trench level 1 to trench level 4 which should on average cost you something like 9 IP (including prewar investment). You can expect to reach level 4 after 1 1/2 years research.

Now the game ends after 1919 so the later you begin researching trenches the smaller benefit you will be able to gain from it and the more "expensive" it will therefore be compared to other uses of your assets.

For the Entente try to have your transports sunk by hordes of SUBS and you will know the necessity of early investment in ASW to at least level 1.

You state that you never have the production to invest in research ? I think you should take another approach on this matter.
What areas do you think you can disregard and which most certainly not ? Think that through early in each game and begin researching as early as possible.

One final note IMHO - you really always must invest in aircraft very early in each game. Not only will you get to shoot down enemy aircraft sooner rather than later you also boost the effectiveness of already lethal artillery especially if used concentrated with air support.

[pat.casey]

hjaco,

My concern isn't about the game value of the current research mechanism. I'm all about having meaningful choices in my games.

My concern is that it doesn't seem practical to achieve the "historical" levels of research that the great powers achieved.

I don't think it's practical for the CP to to max out:

Artillary
Trench
Gas
Assault

Whereas historically they did.

[EUBanana]

I don't think they historically had assault troops 'maxed', they were turned back by fresh fortifications after all and defence in depth, in the game maxed assault troops wouldn't care about any fortifications. 

And I don't think they had artillery maxed either, given Entente artillery in 1918 (and indeed through most of the war) was superior.

I think by 1918 you could have the same sort of tech they had IRL without too much problem?  Trenches 4, artillery 2 or 3, gas 3, assault 1, aircraft 2 or 3.  Thats probably about 1 or 2 R&D points a turn every turn.

[hjaco]

ORIGINAL: pat.casey

My concern is that it doesn't seem practical to achieve the "historical" levels of research that the great powers achieved.

I don't think it's practical for the CP to to max out:

Artillary
Trench
Gas
Assault

Whereas historically they did.

What source did you use in determining that the CP historically maxed out the researching areas in question ? Trench and gas certainly and assault troops to at least level 1 but artillery at level 7 ? I am not so sure.

On the other hand you left out aircraft research in which the CP excelled during most of the war. After all the Fokker D VII was by far the best fighter of the war being the only weapon specifically banned in the Versailles treaty.