For current design process, Str.Design stat is absurd

[Locarnus]

This stat is not only bad, with the current land unit design process it is diametrically opposed to "realistic" and "balanced".

With the current process, "new design" instead of "updated design" is only a viable option before designs are used in numbers. And "new designs" of the same model type are somehow more expensive, yet you do not even learn from failed attempts.

In stark contrast to real life, where designers at least learn from bad designs when building a new design of the same type. And additional attempts are considerably cheaper, not more expensive.

Solution => simply ignore the structural design values in the calculations (ie as if it was 100 for every type).

Thus until the unit model design process is overhauled, only the "update design" is relevant. So designers can learn from past mistakes or at least not repeat them!

A lot of frustration would be removed from the gameplay. Especially when more important model types get repeated bad structural design rolls without learning from past attempts. Like Inf or LightArmor.

[springel]

I disagree.

Structural design errors were common, you only discover them - at the decisive level - over time. But starting fresh to correct them instead of working around them is expensive, and you don't know where the new design will have a flaw. Take things like nose heavy panzerjaegers, and those were relatively late designs, but a real grog can point to structural errors in almost every historical design. And then look at all those historical designs that were abandoned after a few prototypes, or after one battle.

One can maybe question the fact that the structural design error is immediately visible; that way you know that you should abandon the model immediately, instead of after discovering the failure in the battlefield

[Locarnus]

I'm not saying that the concept is bad.

I'm saying that within the current design process, using that concept is bad.
Why does it cost more than double the bp to create a new design of the same type, if I already have created basically the same design the previous turn?
Bad structural roll on initial model => request new design for 120bp? => bad structural roll on second design => request new design for 300bp??????

This is imho extremely unrealistic and extremely frustrating.

Since you are essentially locked into that structural design for that type for the rest of the game.
The next new design models with the exact same! components should only cost half of the first one with those components, not 250%! Then it is ok, then I can decide whether I want to play re-roll simulator for a few turns.

[springel]

Well,some nation prove to be bad at the production of certain weapon types. It happened in history. Either you spend huge amounts to stubbornly try to improve, or you decide to use other weapon systems.

This is a game about dealing with challenges in a hostile world. Frustration is part of that world. You have to deal with incompetency, just like in the real world.

[Pratapon51]

I don't mind the stat that much, but I want base numbers to be affected by Leader Skill and have Linear Techs that can boost it (Infantry Equipment Design, Tank Design, etc), just as Aircraft Design techs now do for Air models.

[zgrssd]

ORIGINAL: Locarnus

I'm saying that within the current design process, using that concept is bad.
Why does it cost more than double the bp to create a new design of the same type, if I already have created basically the same design the previous turn?
Bad structural roll on initial model => request new design for 120bp? => bad structural roll on second design => request new design for 300bp??????

Structural Design and the BP costs for new designs are two unrelated mechanics.

Strucutral design is not at fault for the BP costs.
Nor is the BP cost a factor in the Structural design roll.

If I wanted to "fix" the scenario, I would give a bonus to the structural design roll for the new design, equal to the number of design lines already started. Already got 4 failed design lines of Tanks? Not to worry, the extra BP cost gives you way better odds this time!

[Locarnus]

ORIGINAL: springel

Well,some nation prove to be bad at the production of certain weapon types. It happened in history. Either you spend huge amounts to stubbornly try to improve, or you decide to use other weapon systems.

This is a game about dealing with challenges in a hostile world. Frustration is part of that world. You have to deal with incompetency, just like in the real world.

No, there is no historical precedence at all for either being stuck with a "stat" or starting from scratch. Bad designs provide information on what to avoid/improve in a future design. Sometimes those lessons are ignored and rediscovered, but there are always lessons.

It is inconceivable that a guided missile destroyer has engine design flaws, just because the original torpedo boat destroyer in the 19th century had an engine design flaw.

Or a modern infantry unit has a worse assault rifle, just because the original line infantry musket had design flaws.

And there is no historical precedence at all for a 2.5 times increase in design cost, for the sole reason of having designed the exact same type two months earlier.

You are focused on a theoretical concept for a stat, without considering how it is implemented into the game.
With that mindset, the game will never improve...

[Locarnus]

ORIGINAL: zgrssd

ORIGINAL: Locarnus

I'm saying that within the current design process, using that concept is bad.
Why does it cost more than double the bp to create a new design of the same type, if I already have created basically the same design the previous turn?
Bad structural roll on initial model => request new design for 120bp? => bad structural roll on second design => request new design for 300bp??????

Structural Design and the BP costs for new designs are two unrelated mechanics.

Strucutral design is not at fault for the BP costs.
Nor is the BP cost a factor in the Structural design roll.

If I wanted to "fix" the scenario, I would give a bonus to the structural design roll for the new design, equal to the number of design lines already started. Already got 4 failed design lines of Tanks? Not to worry, the extra BP cost gives you way better odds this time!

No structural design stat => no need for completely new designs.

Ignoring the structural design stat is simply a quick and easy stop gap measure until the design process is overhauled. A five minute fix before a more detailed rebalance.

[zgrssd]

ORIGINAL: Locarnus

ORIGINAL: zgrssd

ORIGINAL: Locarnus

I'm saying that within the current design process, using that concept is bad.
Why does it cost more than double the bp to create a new design of the same type, if I already have created basically the same design the previous turn?
Bad structural roll on initial model => request new design for 120bp? => bad structural roll on second design => request new design for 300bp??????

Structural Design and the BP costs for new designs are two unrelated mechanics.

Strucutral design is not at fault for the BP costs.
Nor is the BP cost a factor in the Structural design roll.

If I wanted to "fix" the scenario, I would give a bonus to the structural design roll for the new design, equal to the number of design lines already started. Already got 4 failed design lines of Tanks? Not to worry, the extra BP cost gives you way better odds this time!

No structural design stat => no need for completely new designs.

Ignoring the structural design stat is simply a quick and easy stop gap measure until the design process is overhauled. A five minute fix before a more detailed rebalance.

A 5 minute rework, that will undo any guide and make newcommers think it is a massive rework when it is re-added.

The cost seems to high, for me at least.

[Locarnus]

ORIGINAL: zgrssd
A 5 minute rework, that will undo any guide and make newcommers think it is a massive rework when it is re-added.

The cost seems to high, for me at least.

If there is no structure design stat displayed and no "new design" option available (if there is already a design of that type) then how are guides irrelevant? It is simply something less to worry about.

You mean the video guide by DasTactic, that has the design stats mixed up and leads to people discarding good Str.Designs because of bad B.Design stats? Frequently leading to worse models for the rest of the game?
That guide?

I ve had enough of successive 80s Str.Design rolls for infantry and light tanks, combined with prohibitively increasing new design costs. And being essentially locked into those for the rest of the game, if I do not re-roll immediately.

This is a key element of a core feature (warfare) of the game and this topic has already been discussed on these forums multiple times.

I expected it to get fixed with the aircraft introduction, and for the steam release. I could simply regularly run a find and replace script on savegames, setting all Str.Design values to 100 for all existing designs. But modding and even savegame editing is not possible.

This is an absolutely unnecessary frustration, and with the forum fanboy attitude going on, the only option left is a bad review on steam to maybe get a fix for something that should not have survived the game design stage, let alone beta testing.

There are quite a few other unneccessary frustrations still in the game, but if the forum attitude can be summed up by "just accept the way it is, since I am not personally annoyed by that particular issue myself", then I m not surprised.

Indie game or not, it is still a 34€ game half a year after release. If the dev goes out of his way to prevent fixing or working around stuff myself (modding, savegame editing), then in turn I expect a 5 minute fix for a major issue (even for a seeming minority of players).

[springel]

and with the forum fanboy attitude going on

OK, that's it. You are just another spoiled brat who thinks people who disagree with him are 'fanboys'.

Yeah, so your tanks are not going to be greatest in the world, deal with it!

[Locarnus]

ORIGINAL: springel

and with the forum fanboy attitude going on

OK, that's it. You are just another spoiled brat who thinks people who disagree with him are 'fanboys'.

Yeah, so your tanks are not going to be greatest in the world, deal with it!

"This is not a problem for me, so it should not be fixed for you".

Fanboy (urban dictionary):
[...]"Known for a complete lack of objectivity in relation to their preferred focus. Usually argue with circular logic that they refuse to acknowledge. Arguments or debates with such are usually futile. Every flaw is spun into semi-virtues and everything else, blown to comedic, complimentary proportions."[...]

Spoiled Brat (urban dictionary):
[...]"Children who use their parents' weaknesses in order to get material goods. The weakness is usually guilt. These are the kids who expect their parents to buy them an awesome car for their 16th birthday, and another car when they crash that one. These children are truly ridiculous and give kids everywhere a bad name."[...]

Also, there is some mild difference between describing a general forum population attitude and name calling someone because of a disagreement. But I guess that this debate is futile...

[KarisFraMauro]

I look forwards to some day reaching a level of game comprehension where I can participate in these discussions. And yet at the same time, I kind of don't...

[Locarnus]

ORIGINAL: KarisFraMauro

I look forwards to some day reaching a level of game comprehension where I can participate in these discussions. And yet at the same time, I kind of don't...

I look backwards to a day where I did not consciously notice these issues and thus was not as frustrated by them. Ignorance truly is bliss.
And yet at the same time, I like to investigate and understand stuff. [;)]

[bvoid]

I agree certain aspects of the design process are rage-inducing.

Most obviously - if you get a bad roll for your initial infantry model this can be crippling - even more so on exteme/slow-tech.

I suggest the penalty for new designs be reduced. Also it would be nice if the skill of the Model director improved chance to get higher structural design. Does this have any effect Vic? Skill just speeds up the bp investment right?

[Edmon]

Springel & Locarnus,

Please avoid any unnecessary name calling. We're all here to both further understand and further improve the game. It is ok to disagree with each other, it is not ok to be hurling accusations of being children at each other.

I happen to feel this is an otherwise really good topic, so lets keep that focus on the details of the game and not the details of each other .

Thanks guys.

[lloydster4]

I think I disagree with you on some fundamental points

1) I don't stress too much over Structural Design unless it is particularly low. If a unit has low design values, I'll usually deploy a small number of prototypes and throw them into combat to get the Base Design value up high. With a high base design, there's a very good chance you'll be getting decent design rolls sooner rather than later.

2) I definitely don't feel "locked in" to a model for the entire game. By the end of a game, I've probably used 2-4 models for each type of equipment. At some point, the BP cost for upgrades becomes so high that you're almost forced to research new models.

3) Finally, this may be a controversial opinion, but I only have fun in Shadow Empire when things aren't going well. Overcoming a disadvantage is the most interesting part of this game. Developing a wide array of high-quality models will take a lot of time and resources (and luck) to accomplish. For me, that's fun.

[ramnblam]

ORIGINAL: lloydster4

3) Finally, this may be a controversial opinion, but I only have fun in Shadow Empire when things aren't going well. Overcoming a disadvantage is the most interesting part of this game. Developing a wide array of high-quality models will take a lot of time and resources (and luck) to accomplish. For me, that's fun.

Heavily agree with you on this lloydbaby <3

[Maerchen]

The logistics hell this game is IS the fun part...

[Locarnus]

ORIGINAL: ramnblam

ORIGINAL: lloydster4

3) Finally, this may be a controversial opinion, but I only have fun in Shadow Empire when things aren't going well. Overcoming a disadvantage is the most interesting part of this game. Developing a wide array of high-quality models will take a lot of time and resources (and luck) to accomplish. For me, that's fun.

Heavily agree with you on this lloydbaby <3

Yep, it can be fun if things are not going well. But imho that heavily depends on the implementation, whether the obstacle and the possible solutions fit into the world mechanic or if they are mindless rng.

There is a difference between season 1 smart but sometimes foolish and caring Tyrion getting captured by Lady Stark and having to use his wits to get back to King's Landing, and season 8 Euron re-rolling Dragon shots with his scorpions, hitting nothing from dozens of land based scorpions while doing a no-scope 2/2 hit and kill on a dragon from a mile away from a ship mounted scorpion...

The current mechanic just does not make sense. Having a structural defect from slug thrower infantry being carried over to laser armed infantry. And having a second attempt a month later costing 250% for no reason instead of eg 50% less due to learning effects. And so on.

But of course season 8 was full of many twists and thus had its fans. It just depends on what is more important to you. Having more story twists or having more cohesive world building.