Frustrated with tech

[JanSorensen]

I think the people most opposed to the tech part of the game are thinking that tech is only the development of new items while forgetting that refitting existing troops is also a part of the deal.

[Scott_WAR]

You know Jan, you are right, in a way. Tech does encompass refitting your existing units, and is shown by the fact that buying more units before the tech advancement is made, increases the cost of the tech being developed.

When you ADD that consideration, I believe it makes the argument for tech being too strong for its cost even more true.

The PP it takes to increase geman subs BOTH evasion and torp attack(14), will buy me 3 subs(2 PP left over). Remember, all existing subs get this tech benefit for no extra charge. Easy to see where my 14 PP are better spent.

The PP it costs to increas WA light fleets to asw 2 (9) will buy me 1.5 light fleets. Considering the existing fleets that get the asw 2 advantage, no question at all where those 9 PP get me more value.

These numbers are taken from turn 1, scenario 1, with NO units being bought. Compare the other units for yourself. I think you might see my point.

[JanSorensen]

Your argument was that you use too large a part of your production on tech. My point is that quite alot of that is simply refitting existing units and not really "tech".

You then say that some of the early tech upgrades are cheap - well, I would argue that some of the initial improvements came quite "easily" when the armies went from peace time to getting actual (larger scale) combat experience. This experience and gear improvement for existing troops was likely also worth alot more than having a few extra units with the old gear/knowledge.

What I wont argue is that tech plays a large part in this game (it is afterall a pretty abstract game rather than a detailed simulation) and that it could have been done differently. That does not make this game bad though - not in my opinion anyway. It merely makes it different from many other games - which to me atleast is positive.

As the game in itself is quite abstract the rules for tech are also. You can develop tank tech as the WA despite not having a single tank and hence no active combat experience. Well, I doubt that would be terrible succesfull in reality - but its part of the abstraction and it makes for a decent enough game. For me thats the importent part - it makes for a decent game.

[Scott_WAR]

Now, I can agree with that. The game is still very good. Tech being too strong, in my opinion, isnt unbalancing, which is whats most important. It shouldnt be as strong, again, in my opinion, but currently it is and while it seems unrealistic, it doesnt hurt the game THAT much. Other issues, that DO affect balance, and hurt the game, should be the most important things dealt with. THEN, if possible, and if wanted by enough people, should things that DONT hurt the games balance should be expanded upon.

But, I do agree, its a great game, even if I am correct, and tech is too strong/cheap.

[Espejo]

ORIGINAL: Scott_WAR

Now, I can agree with that. The game is still very good. Tech being too strong, in my opinion, isnt unbalancing, which is whats most important. It shouldnt be as strong, again, in my opinion, but currently it is and while it seems unrealistic, it doesnt hurt the game THAT much. Other issues, that DO affect balance, and hurt the game, should be the most important things dealt with. THEN, if possible, and if wanted by enough people, should things that DONT hurt the games balance should be expanded upon.

But, I do agree, its a great game, even if I am correct, and tech is too strong/cheap.

Well I personally agree with Scott here. Yes , the game is balanced , yes I can play with the given rules. Still, even considering that refitting the troops is part of the costs it still doesn´t explain why the new starship troopers cost the same as stone age infantrie from the production costs => German tigers were technically wonderful tanks but alas Germany could only build a few of them perhaps the cioncept of Rusia to develop a lighter modell that was "mass producable" was much more effectiv.

I miss althouhg something as like catch up system. In the industry this concept is called fast follower simply said it is much easier to copy then to invent something new yourself. The arms race WAW are like a chess game ok I can live with it. Still if you follow the real life concept:"let the other have for some time a small advantage and I don´t have to spend as much on research" you are simply dead in WAW or in deep trouble. 1 Step ahead in tech you are in trouble, 2 step you are nearly dead, 3 steps ahead start a new game. You have to anticipate the research tactics of your enemy. As a game concept it is fun and works still as a simulation of the real world it is counterintuitive at least for me.

[TOCarroll]

You do catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.....but we all know what really draws flies (hint: s**t).

Sorry, couldn't resist. The abovelisted comment seems to epitomize our political process for the last 20-40 years. (At least the election ads). Also seems to work well with the public & the war.

As to the tech., I think it's as it should be...look at Ultra, varoius Nazi "secret weapons...early use of paratroops, hollow charge shells, panzerfausts. Small or large scientific advances were always wrecking havock with one phase (or another) of the war. If it weren't for the overwhelming material superiority of the allies, (think: 50+ Russians in one attack) (40 + transposts moving allied troops every which way) the Axis would have had a much easier tme of it. This game simulates that fact very well, as well as the effect of scientific advances on the material superiority.

[Espejo]

[:)] Well I think a poll is a nice idea. I don´t think that you can change much regarding the the research system at this stage of development the product is finished. Still I think a poll under us hardcore strategy gamers would be a nice idea.

Still I am really looking forward for TCP/IP patch perhaps it is simply the kind of gameflow feeling that I am missing in WAW and this is why I am bitching about tech. Though and now I have to prepare my bombers to look for these "Seewölfe" running amok in the atlantic.

[MarcelJV]

yes I was addressing the issue of Light ships and subs, but I agree with you as I do it for Heavy bombers and CAG as well as Carriers and Light ships.
I can post a spreadsheet with all in consideration for attacking subs, if you like?

I do not think tech is broken and it is a choice that you apply to the strategy you want to use. ASW is a must but after fall 40 or winter 41 you will know if the Axis are interested in sub use and if not you can stop as well, I would continue to one level upgrade just to be sure.

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

You failed to mention that it is much easier to research Carrier Air and Heavy Air ASW, which is what I always do as WA (along with light fleets) if I think there is any chance the Germans are spending on U-boats. By doing this, you can stay with or ahead of the Germans and a double team of carrier air and light fleets attacking (as a second attack) can do wonders to taking out the U-boat threat. It's the price you pay to keep the WA in the game with all of it's capabilities intact.

For those of you that don't like the tech being as important as it is, why don't you start a poll. I'm not saying we'd follow it, but it would be nice to know whether there are many that agree with you. We think the system works pretty well (of course were biased) and don't really want to spend the time to rebalance the game with a new tech system (which we think is pretty balanced aside from the known AV issues that we will ultimately adjust). When you account for the need to update equipment and ship them to existing units, which is what our research system accounts for, I don't see any reason why it wouldn't be expected to cost a huge portion of your production to develop and then produce the new weapons for your exhisting army.

[Scott_WAR]

We have been over the plane vs light fleets for ASW debate, and its not a hard decision. Planes an travel at MOST 3 spaces, 4 if you research them up. Trust me when I say a smart german player will not leave subs within range of those planes. So building up asw is pointless if you cant reach the subs to attack.
However, light fleets can use extended movement and reach a much larger area. They can actually go get the subs, and not hope the german player leaves them close enough to my planes so I can attack.
For CAG, there is the problem of the carrier they are on being protected. Sure the carrier can move anywhere a light fleet can, but you wont leave it undefended. You will move other fleets with it, and end up spending insane amounts of supplies to hunt down one or 2 subs. Not effective at all.

Sorry. For asw purposes, planes dont cut it.

[Svend Karlson]

ORIGINAL: Scott_WAR

ORIGINAL: Svend Karlson

Take autovictory away from the Germans, and this game is balanced like a pin on a knife edge in my own experience. That's a good thing.

You miss the point entirely. I am not saying the game is imbalanced. I am saying the game puts too much importance on tech.

ORIGINAL: Svend Karlson

You spending so much proves nothing other than that you spend lots on tech.

If you read through this post you will see I am not the only one to say that too much is spent on tech. So I am not the only one saying its a problem.

Scott, my comment about the game balance is not missing the point entirely, I posit exactly the opposite. Any change made to the way tech works will inevitably change the game balance, which right now is very fine indeed IMHO. Therefore that forms part of the reason I would argue against any changes at all.

In such a highly abstracted game, I don't see why one ahistorical aspect is selected for malediction. Why not choose the complete absence of diplomacy instead for example? That is unrealistic too.

Secondly I did not claim that others do not share some of your views, rather I pointed out the fact that you personally spend lots of production upon tech proves nothing at all. Your comment referenced your own expenditure as proof and that is what I refute.

[SeaMonkey]

Alright Scott I'm going to expand on what Jan posted. Tech, IMO, is not about the acquisition and distribution of improved weapons of war, although that is definitely the conclusive condition of the game feature.

Think about Tech as an improvement of the conditions to wage war more effectively. Everything from doctrinal to retooling of factories as well as the supporting infrastructure to the forces(soldiers) on the line. It all has to be improved and that costs an investment, just like the ongoing progress of man's conditions on this planet.

Little things like the efficient delivery of mail from the homefront, to the replacement of worn out parts of more sophisticated weapon systems, it all has a price. So you really think it cost too much?

It is a fact of everyday life, the quality of life costs more and more; examine your own conditions. What happens when your life gets more complicated? It is the same now as it was in WW2 and it will always be that way unless you embrace regression. So you think this is an unrealistic feature? Tech costs, it's too important, perhaps you would rather lose, be unsuccessful, be a recluse, go back to playing board games?

[Scott_WAR]

ORIGINAL: Svend Karlson

You spending so much proves nothing other than that you spend lots on tech.

Thats was your statement. My counter is that I am not the only one who has noticed that a lot is spent on tech. In fact you claim that you dont spenf more than 50% of your production on tech early. You dont see this as EXTREMELY unrealistic, and prrof that tesch is TOO important?


As for balance. If the devs decide to fix this mistake, then they will have to ensure the balance is unaffected.

Honestly, its my belief they should have realized that tech was too important to begin with and corrected it before release. They didnt, and now we are trying to see how many of us feel it needs to be corrected. See the Poll.


BUT, if for some reason, fixing the tech issue makes the game unbalanced, and it would take too much work/time to rebalance it, then I would agree to leave it as is. Better to have an unrealistic but balanced game, than a realistic but unbalanced game.

[Joel Billings]

If you are not using aircraft to go after subs then you are not following the Allied path to victory in the ASW war. Long range bombers flying patrols to force subs around them and able to fly out to 4 can seriously limit German options. Carrier air can go and get the subs. Yes, it takes a ton of supplies, but would you rather lose production points building supplies or rebuilding sunk transports. You must have good ASW aircraft or you will lose to the subs if Germany spends on them. The WA player must be willing to expend huge quantities of supplies to go after and sink German subs at every opportunity or will find themselves in an untenable situation.

[Scott_WAR]

Hmm, I have to disagree Paul. Destroyers were the main anti sub platform in world war 2. I think thats a pretty well known fact. Its true that TODAY planes are good at ASW, but in world war 2 they were not.

Edit- ASW includes FINDING subs and destroying them. WW2 era aircraft were unable to find enemy subs. Destroyers did that as well as destroy them.

[Svend Karlson]

ORIGINAL: Scott_WAR

ORIGINAL: Svend Karlson

You spending so much proves nothing other than that you spend lots on tech.

You dont see this as EXTREMELY unrealistic, and prrof that tesch is TOO important?

Unrealistic? Well maybe, on the other hand I consider 'tech' to be an amalgamation of doctrinal advances, command/control/communication developments, theoretical & applied research, plus the horrendously expensive process of retrofitting & refitting existing military forces. When all that is taken into consideration I don't think it is so far off.

Too important? No not really. Not when I consider what an ME262 jet, a Type XXI u-boat, or a King Tiger could achieve against less advanced opposition. Viewed from the Allied perspective, I can see for instance the obsolesence of the snorkel-less Type VII u-boat leading it's almost total elimination & ineffectiveness from March 1943 onwards.

[Scott_WAR]

You are forgetting that NONE of those units ever achieved mass production, and were VERY Rare on the battlefield. Not becasue they werent desired units, but becasue their cost and time to produce were huge. Something which is NOT factored in GGWaW, and is very much a part of the tech problem.


As for that long of list of things you claim are a part of tech, I must ask, what part am I supposed to play in this game, if EVERYTHING of value in coimbat is determined by a tech value? It doesnt matter if I outmaneuver and outplan my enemy, if he has just teched up his units.

[Svend Karlson]

ORIGINAL: Scott_WAR

Its true that TODAY planes are good at ASW, but in world war 2 they were not.

Edit- ASW includes FINDING subs and destroying them. WW2 era aircraft were unable to find enemy subs. Destroyers did that as well as destroy them.

WW2 era aircraft were in fact extremely effective at finding u-boats & sinking them.

Here are two links as hard evidence:

This one lists u-boat losses by cause
http://uboat.net/fates/losses/cause.htm

And this one talks about use of radar by Allied aircraft
http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/ETO/Ult ... 025-1.html

Of course Allied aircraft also spotted u-boats visually when they came to the surface for air.

[Scott_WAR]

Lol, well, they tended to not come up for air around enemy ships if they had a choice, so the ONLY way to find them in combat conditions were hydrophones, and later, sonar, something NO ww2 era planes possessed. Yes, planes did destroy subs, but those were mainly subs that were already detected and located, by....... yep you guessed it....... destroyers. ASW is a little more than strapping depth charges to a wing and dropping them in the ocean where a sub has been located. Its mainly the location of the sub that is difficult. and planes in WW2 just were unable to find a submerged sub.

Trust me, I know world war 2 VERY well, having done nearly every report throughout high school and college on some aspect of it.

You can keep trying though.


edit- Oh, and radar doesnt work underwater, therefore did not help allied planes to find uboats that were submerged.

[Svend Karlson]

ORIGINAL: Scott_WAR

You are forgetting that NONE of those units ever achieved mass production, and were VERY Rare on the battlefield. Not becasue they werent desired units, but becasue their cost and time to produce were huge. Something which is NOT factored in GGWaW, and is very much a part of the techproblem.

Scott, why do you keep on accusing me of 'forgetting' things or 'missing the point' just because I disagree with you?? Don't you realise that in fact what I have is a valid opinion, albeit different to yours? Do I seem stupid to you?

So to put the record straight, I am forgetting nothing. With competent, focused, research & manufacturing efforts Germany could have designed & deployed such weapons far earlier. If you disbelieve me I suggest you read the excellent book 'Hitlers Scientists' by John Cornwell.

[Scott_WAR]

Well you claimed that those units were devesatating to the allies. On an individual level they were. But in the overall scheme of things they made no difference at all. Yet you tried to make it sound as if they were things that turned the tide of the war. History disagrees with you. So either you obviously forgot, or intentional tried to twist the truth to make your argument seem more valid than mine.


Yes Germany could have developed those things earlier, but at what cost? Would they have been able to have the success early in the war? I doubt it. They wouldnt have had the troops needed. No, I believe, and this is opinion by the way, that if germany had tried to develop those wweapons earlier, they would have lost the war even earlier.