I don't like how current system works too. I don't have a problem with str. design stat itself. Issue is literally 2-3 completely random rolls with no way for player to influence them can actually ruin your game (I'm thinking multiplayer in particular). Getting 2-3 bad basic infantry (or anything important really) designs in a row puts you at massive disadvantage against other major regimes. Not only your basic unit will be weaker, it will continue to be weaker throughout the game. Spending increasing amounts of BP to try to fix the design is gonna put you behind significantly on model design in general. Player who got lucky and got like 120 roll from the start will be investing that into light tanks, artillery etc. getting ahead even on those designs. Let's say you eventually on third roll finally get something decent. Guess what? Player who started with good design has been putting field testing into his model this entire time, you are starting from scratch even if you do get a good roll eventually. If you decide to stick with bad design and just overcome it with field testing ... again you're still behind and will continue to stay behind for whole game. There is no real catch up mechanism and it is frustrating since player has no control over it, it's literally single die roll with no modifiers or anything you could influence.
I proposed it in some other thread but I would like for field testing to apply to some nation design score for model type so even if you do get bad roll then at least you can work on field testing in the meantime and you can focus on getting ahead on other design types instead of trying to roll single design type multiple times in a row because field testing is tied completely to one particular model line. Game would flow more naturally and frankly make more sense, it is weird how models of the exact same type exist in completely isolated bubbles.
Another idea would be to compensate for worse stats with better field testing growth (easier to improve when well there is more things to improve on) and to add to that since in that case low str. design wouldn't be necessarily such a bad thing you could just get rid of upgrade option and just balance game around doing new model with new str. score every time you want new model. Sometimes you'd get better stats sometimes you get better growth for the future but that's more of a complicated idea for more of a total rework of system since you'd also need to figure out how weapon/armor/engine would tie into that and probably some other stuff too.
Anyway just few random thoughts. IMO I already got my moneys worth out of them game [:)].
For current design process, Str.Design stat is absurd
Moderator: Vic
-
lloydster4
- Posts: 174
- Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2020 8:13 pm
RE: Petition to remove "Structural Design" for unit models
ORIGINAL: Locarnus
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.
I think you've got 2 valid points here.
1) It's a bit strange that design scores are preserved even if you replace all of the unit's equipment.
2) The escalating design costs are just a matter of game-balance. The current values are intended to encourage model upgrades over re-designs. (Digression: That said, new designs don't get easier, faster, or cheaper in the real world. The Abrams wasn't easier to design than the Patton. The F-22 wasn't easier than the F-16.)
When you combine these two ideas, you end up with a system that over-rewards a lucky S Design roll and over-penalizes an unlucky one. Personally I would have the system be even more random, whereas you only want to eliminate it entirely.
RE: Petition to remove "Structural Design" for unit models
I love the way strat design works, I think it's an elegant and subtle way of making sure games are varied and also realistic.
Here's how I think of it:
The unit design doesn't represent just how good a weapon system is - the effectiveness of different formations has always been reliant on training, doctrine and logistical assumptions. When you design a unit your model design team isn't spending months worrying about "wait...could we give this new gun to a soldier???" A new design represents not just technical designs ("Automatic rifle technology) -> "Chobsky & Co Military Rifle 2092") but also the assumptions, tactics, support chain, that take you from ("Chobsky & Co Military Rifle 2092" -> "Piedtruppen '93")
When you redesign, you go from "Piedtruppen '93" to "Piedtruppen '98". Even without weapon changes, you apply lessons learnt - maybe they carry less ammo per soldier, because you find weight makes them less effective and your supply assumptions weren't tweaked quite right. But if "Piedtruppen '93" were a flawed formation because there was a bit too much emphasis on personal courage over discipline, squad sizes were too big to be maximally effective, and your supply chains assumed more coherence than exists on the battlefield so sometimes logistics bogged down on a divisional level, the Piedtruppen '98 are based on the same structural design choices.
You want different? That requires a structural redesign - *and your designers already did the best they could at first pass* So you want a new design, even for infantry formations, let alone armour? It'll take longer. And, probably, some folk need to lose their jobs, to get lead designers with different assumptions about doctrine, etc etc. Roll another unlucky str design? Sounds like next time through you need to sack most of your design bureau. They're all entrenched in a philosophy of design that just doesn't get the best results. Of course, at some point, you're going to have a shitty tank design - just like some nations historically did.
By thinking about it as formation design - the whole way that a group of units fights, rather than individual tank/soldier design, it makes total sense to me.
----
As another angle to approach it, I'm pretty sure anyone at least as groggy as me can name militaries that have kept a reputation through a drastic evolution in the technology they fight with. From wooden ships with cannon to modern carriers in the royal navy, for instance. Or even if you insist on seeing it as a model only design process and for a less extreme example, how long has the structural design of the M1 Tank provided the US with a good MBT? It's 40 years old! Do you think the structural design of the original M1 doesn't play in to its effectiveness today? Of course not - the incremental improvements were cheaper than designing a new tank, and the initial structural design still affects the modern variants.
Here's how I think of it:
The unit design doesn't represent just how good a weapon system is - the effectiveness of different formations has always been reliant on training, doctrine and logistical assumptions. When you design a unit your model design team isn't spending months worrying about "wait...could we give this new gun to a soldier???" A new design represents not just technical designs ("Automatic rifle technology) -> "Chobsky & Co Military Rifle 2092") but also the assumptions, tactics, support chain, that take you from ("Chobsky & Co Military Rifle 2092" -> "Piedtruppen '93")
When you redesign, you go from "Piedtruppen '93" to "Piedtruppen '98". Even without weapon changes, you apply lessons learnt - maybe they carry less ammo per soldier, because you find weight makes them less effective and your supply assumptions weren't tweaked quite right. But if "Piedtruppen '93" were a flawed formation because there was a bit too much emphasis on personal courage over discipline, squad sizes were too big to be maximally effective, and your supply chains assumed more coherence than exists on the battlefield so sometimes logistics bogged down on a divisional level, the Piedtruppen '98 are based on the same structural design choices.
You want different? That requires a structural redesign - *and your designers already did the best they could at first pass* So you want a new design, even for infantry formations, let alone armour? It'll take longer. And, probably, some folk need to lose their jobs, to get lead designers with different assumptions about doctrine, etc etc. Roll another unlucky str design? Sounds like next time through you need to sack most of your design bureau. They're all entrenched in a philosophy of design that just doesn't get the best results. Of course, at some point, you're going to have a shitty tank design - just like some nations historically did.
By thinking about it as formation design - the whole way that a group of units fights, rather than individual tank/soldier design, it makes total sense to me.
----
As another angle to approach it, I'm pretty sure anyone at least as groggy as me can name militaries that have kept a reputation through a drastic evolution in the technology they fight with. From wooden ships with cannon to modern carriers in the royal navy, for instance. Or even if you insist on seeing it as a model only design process and for a less extreme example, how long has the structural design of the M1 Tank provided the US with a good MBT? It's 40 years old! Do you think the structural design of the original M1 doesn't play in to its effectiveness today? Of course not - the incremental improvements were cheaper than designing a new tank, and the initial structural design still affects the modern variants.
-
Pratapon51
- Posts: 137
- Joined: Sun Jun 28, 2020 5:44 pm
RE: Petition to remove "Structural Design" for unit models
Again, I don't have a problem with the stat itself, but I dislike that it is completely random and is one more factor that negatively affects possible multiplayer balance (not that there are already many balance isues in that regard...).
I'd like a Vehicle Design linear tech to improve it the same way Aircraft/Thopter/Helicopter Design works, too. Maybe to a lesser extent if we'll have the Leader's skill rolls affect it, e.g. Str. Design is 70-130 + Vehicle Design/4.
RE: Petition to remove "Structural Design" for unit models
i think to solve the str.design problem all we need is a reroll button. basically when you ask for a NEW design you ask for a prototype. the BP is spent and when done the director will show you one or multiple prototypes, aka it will show you the design stats of the model(s). you can then either accept one of them, or discard them and try again (reroll). every reroll would train the model director, so overtime you would eventually get a good or decent model. the idea is that since you want a good model for yesterday this exchanges valuable time for a chance at a better model.
RE: Petition to remove "Structural Design" for unit models
I like structural design. It can force you to take something different than the "optimum" path.
Even with bad structural design rolls you can still get good design rolls. Once you've made a good roll, you can never get worse than that for that model line. So be smart with getting field testing and iterating on your designs.
In one game, my enemy got ridiculously lucky with his design rolls for his infantry. Well, so I never fought his infantry with mine and instead went with mass light tanks. In addition I didn't get good rolls for my medium tanks, only relatively decent ones. Well, I iterated on two medium tank lines until I got lucky on the third or fourth iteration of each model and then stayed with that one.
Even with bad structural design rolls you can still get good design rolls. Once you've made a good roll, you can never get worse than that for that model line. So be smart with getting field testing and iterating on your designs.
In one game, my enemy got ridiculously lucky with his design rolls for his infantry. Well, so I never fought his infantry with mine and instead went with mass light tanks. In addition I didn't get good rolls for my medium tanks, only relatively decent ones. Well, I iterated on two medium tank lines until I got lucky on the third or fourth iteration of each model and then stayed with that one.
RE: Petition to remove "Structural Design" for unit models
@Janekk
Yep, the current implementation is the issue and your suggestion of nation design improvements is great.
Maybe we could improve components, not just the model. Eg a unit model would include a 500kg engine&transmission. And we could improve that 500kg engine.
@lloydster4
While the F22 was not easier than the F16, it is rather a successor to the much bigger F15.
And I have no problem having to pay more for more advanced designs decades later. I have a problem with the same design at the same tech being much more costly for no reason.
Why would the YF-23 cost 2.5 times as much as the YF-22? And why would neither of them incorporate any lessons learned with the F-16?
@SuperTris
Practically no nation built a great prototype of anything without learning from previous experiences (own or others).
The Abrams was not a number of dice rolls in various categories. It built upon the experiences with the Pattons, Pershings, Shermans and Lees, and considered the testing and reports of Soviet, UK, German etc models.
No one started from scratch and got it right (M3 Lee says hello). On the contrary, not learning is the key reason why some countries built bad stuff for quite some time.
You are saying that you love how Str.Design works, while your text argues against how Str.Design currently works.
Yep, the current implementation is the issue and your suggestion of nation design improvements is great.
Maybe we could improve components, not just the model. Eg a unit model would include a 500kg engine&transmission. And we could improve that 500kg engine.
@lloydster4
While the F22 was not easier than the F16, it is rather a successor to the much bigger F15.
And I have no problem having to pay more for more advanced designs decades later. I have a problem with the same design at the same tech being much more costly for no reason.
Why would the YF-23 cost 2.5 times as much as the YF-22? And why would neither of them incorporate any lessons learned with the F-16?
@SuperTris
Practically no nation built a great prototype of anything without learning from previous experiences (own or others).
The Abrams was not a number of dice rolls in various categories. It built upon the experiences with the Pattons, Pershings, Shermans and Lees, and considered the testing and reports of Soviet, UK, German etc models.
No one started from scratch and got it right (M3 Lee says hello). On the contrary, not learning is the key reason why some countries built bad stuff for quite some time.
You are saying that you love how Str.Design works, while your text argues against how Str.Design currently works.
-
Prozorovsky
- Posts: 19
- Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2020 5:02 am
RE: For current design process, Str.Design stat is absurd
Do we not have influence over the quality of our designs through the people we put in charge of designing them? An adviser skilled in the relevant skill can also be added into the mix. Doesn't seem completely random. If you're getting bad designs consistently you're either very unlucky or your staff have a competency issue.
Then there's field testing guaranteeing improvement bad design or not, there's potential for something there to be salvaged. And if you get a bad design, early game sure it's a problem, but you can get the model designer first and focus getting something better as quickly as possible. Your new model blows? Nothing is stopping you from just starting from scratch right away.
Bad designs can be made up for by overcompensating as well whether that be by numbers or putting a bigger gun etc on it. Sure its more expensive to make and run but maybe it'll do.
The structural defect in infantry may not be the gun but something else in the kit, you're not just making a gun when you design infantry but a kit. The increase in expense may represent stretching something beyond what it can easily do. Has the rest of that infantries kit been made with that new laser rifle and polymer armor in mind? Maybe there's all sorts of issues that need to be worked out.
Same goes for that tank based on an old design. Is it really meant to have that 88? Can the structure handle it? It was made for a 40! The Panzer III was replaced in part because it couldn't be made it fit the 75 and why bother when they had the IV. Eventually you get to a point where you've just pushed something too far. It gets harder and harder to do. I think ballooning model costs represent a lot more then may come to mind.
You gotta retool factories, prototype, work out how to make this old thing work with the new thing, or just a new thing work with new things, paper design these things took years and in game it days often takes a few seasons.
I'm not saying it's perfect but for an abstract mechanic trying to represent something complicated I'm able to rationalize/imagine what it represents and I'm okay with it. I'm all for improvements though! If it can be better, why not? I don't know.
Edit: Working on individual components would be very cool, an engine could carry over between designs etc. Reminds me of Aurora if anyone has played that. That being said, this game is already scary I think for most I think haha.
Then there's field testing guaranteeing improvement bad design or not, there's potential for something there to be salvaged. And if you get a bad design, early game sure it's a problem, but you can get the model designer first and focus getting something better as quickly as possible. Your new model blows? Nothing is stopping you from just starting from scratch right away.
Bad designs can be made up for by overcompensating as well whether that be by numbers or putting a bigger gun etc on it. Sure its more expensive to make and run but maybe it'll do.
The structural defect in infantry may not be the gun but something else in the kit, you're not just making a gun when you design infantry but a kit. The increase in expense may represent stretching something beyond what it can easily do. Has the rest of that infantries kit been made with that new laser rifle and polymer armor in mind? Maybe there's all sorts of issues that need to be worked out.
Same goes for that tank based on an old design. Is it really meant to have that 88? Can the structure handle it? It was made for a 40! The Panzer III was replaced in part because it couldn't be made it fit the 75 and why bother when they had the IV. Eventually you get to a point where you've just pushed something too far. It gets harder and harder to do. I think ballooning model costs represent a lot more then may come to mind.
You gotta retool factories, prototype, work out how to make this old thing work with the new thing, or just a new thing work with new things, paper design these things took years and in game it days often takes a few seasons.
I'm not saying it's perfect but for an abstract mechanic trying to represent something complicated I'm able to rationalize/imagine what it represents and I'm okay with it. I'm all for improvements though! If it can be better, why not? I don't know.
Edit: Working on individual components would be very cool, an engine could carry over between designs etc. Reminds me of Aurora if anyone has played that. That being said, this game is already scary I think for most I think haha.
-
ColRosenberger
- Posts: 30
- Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2017 4:31 pm
RE: Petition to remove "Structural Design" for unit models
I strongly object to the game being affected in any way, shape or form by "multiplayer balance". I've seen this mentality suck the fun out of multiple games, usually for the benefit of a microscopic group for which the game wasn't designed in the first place, and which demands change loudly but then dies off quickly, leaving a mess behind.ORIGINAL: Pratapon51
Again, I don't have a problem with the stat itself, but I dislike that it is completely random and is one more factor that negatively affects possible multiplayer balance (not that there are already many balance isues in that regard...).
This game is a simulator and is inherently unbalanced (like real life). The only sane way to play it in multiplayer is with a roleplaying mindset, to see what happens and play it through even if you get destroyed by bad luck. It won't ever be a competitive-friendly game... at least I hope not, because it would destroy the fun.
Now regarding this particular mechanic, I don't have a strong opinion at the moment. Except that if it gets changed it should solely be to make the single-player experience more fun.
RE: Petition to remove "Structural Design" for unit models
ORIGINAL: ColRosenberger
I strongly object to the game being affected in any way, shape or form by "multiplayer balance". I've seen this mentality suck the fun out of multiple games, usually for the benefit of a microscopic group for which the game wasn't designed in the first place, and which demands change loudly but then dies off quickly, leaving a mess behind.ORIGINAL: Pratapon51
Again, I don't have a problem with the stat itself, but I dislike that it is completely random and is one more factor that negatively affects possible multiplayer balance (not that there are already many balance isues in that regard...).
This game is a simulator and is inherently unbalanced (like real life). The only sane way to play it in multiplayer is with a roleplaying mindset, to see what happens and play it through even if you get destroyed by bad luck. It won't ever be a competitive-friendly game... at least I hope not, because it would destroy the fun.
Now regarding this particular mechanic, I don't have a strong opinion at the moment. Except that if it gets changed it should solely be to make the single-player experience more fun.
I agree with ColRosenberger.
Seems the issue for MP should/could be simply addressed by an option to normalize Structural Design values across all players. Hell, that option could be used for SP as well.
RE: Petition to remove "Structural Design" for unit models
Locarnus
That's an interesting point in favour of the suggestion to add linear research fields mirroring those for aeroplane design, certainly - and I'd agree that would improve the current system. Still your casual one line dismissal of my paragraphs as saying the opposite of what I claim I like doesn't really give me the impression you're actually engaging with different views. I don't think ranting past each other without engaging is a good use of even the excess amount of time I have on my hands these days, so I'll leave you to it.
That's an interesting point in favour of the suggestion to add linear research fields mirroring those for aeroplane design, certainly - and I'd agree that would improve the current system. Still your casual one line dismissal of my paragraphs as saying the opposite of what I claim I like doesn't really give me the impression you're actually engaging with different views. I don't think ranting past each other without engaging is a good use of even the excess amount of time I have on my hands these days, so I'll leave you to it.
-
beyondwudge
- Posts: 86
- Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2020 12:33 pm
RE: Petition to remove "Structural Design" for unit models
What it seems to be is this: there is a real world concept the developer is trying to model in a very broad but deep game.
The way the concept has been abstracted within the model design process is not perfect.
On the whole, the problem isn't game-breaking. You can still win. You have more than an even-chance of still winning.
However, it is irritating the person who started the topic. Irritating in the way that sand in your shoe can be on a walk, making it hard to relax and just enjoy strolling around. I think it is understandable how that sort of irritation can affect you.
It is most likely the case that more work is needed to fix the problem. It is also the case though that this isn't the sort of game where convenience is placed at a premium.
I've spent days trying to figure out how the game works, as much because the information isn't convenient to access. I have had to engage in a lot of trial and error, more than a few experimental starts and restarts and a lot of expectation resetting from "I'll just work out the build and win a game" to "print out the manual, get the PDF up for searching and go through each major concept one by one until I know how I get from the root game concepts all the way to final victory".
In doing this I have discovered that there is a lot about this game that is intentionally inconvenient. A theme that matches the subject matter of the game, attempting to unify a world after a most inconvenient apocalyptic event. I won't pretend that I haven't felt frustrated at times. However, I also won't pretend that this game isn't ambitious and that if I wanted an easy win that I would have purchased it in the first place.
Because the game is trying to achieve a lot, I am hesitant to just agree with seeing parts of it chopped out without there being some really clear thought as to what the impact of that chopping will be. Don't get me wrong, I couldn't stand the way the cult story worked so I turned that module off. The manual actually said that option was there by design. Following in that approach, I wouldn't have a problem with a simple toggle for the design rules at the start of the game to hotfix this issue. If it really bothers someone, its not unreasonable to let them opt-in a quick fix for it. However, I would have a problem seeing an extensive system of hotfixes and toggles just to please whatever the most vocal forum posters are annoyed about in a given month. How can the developer know when there is a problem with his game or whether a player is giving up too soon on a challenge if the forum poster's irritation level is all they are responding to?
The way the concept has been abstracted within the model design process is not perfect.
On the whole, the problem isn't game-breaking. You can still win. You have more than an even-chance of still winning.
However, it is irritating the person who started the topic. Irritating in the way that sand in your shoe can be on a walk, making it hard to relax and just enjoy strolling around. I think it is understandable how that sort of irritation can affect you.
It is most likely the case that more work is needed to fix the problem. It is also the case though that this isn't the sort of game where convenience is placed at a premium.
I've spent days trying to figure out how the game works, as much because the information isn't convenient to access. I have had to engage in a lot of trial and error, more than a few experimental starts and restarts and a lot of expectation resetting from "I'll just work out the build and win a game" to "print out the manual, get the PDF up for searching and go through each major concept one by one until I know how I get from the root game concepts all the way to final victory".
In doing this I have discovered that there is a lot about this game that is intentionally inconvenient. A theme that matches the subject matter of the game, attempting to unify a world after a most inconvenient apocalyptic event. I won't pretend that I haven't felt frustrated at times. However, I also won't pretend that this game isn't ambitious and that if I wanted an easy win that I would have purchased it in the first place.
Because the game is trying to achieve a lot, I am hesitant to just agree with seeing parts of it chopped out without there being some really clear thought as to what the impact of that chopping will be. Don't get me wrong, I couldn't stand the way the cult story worked so I turned that module off. The manual actually said that option was there by design. Following in that approach, I wouldn't have a problem with a simple toggle for the design rules at the start of the game to hotfix this issue. If it really bothers someone, its not unreasonable to let them opt-in a quick fix for it. However, I would have a problem seeing an extensive system of hotfixes and toggles just to please whatever the most vocal forum posters are annoyed about in a given month. How can the developer know when there is a problem with his game or whether a player is giving up too soon on a challenge if the forum poster's irritation level is all they are responding to?