Tech Poll

[Paul Vebber]

The game allows the players to explore alternate strategies - even 'ahistorical' ones. The game for the most part rewards and penalizes those strategies consitently, if perhaps not appropriately in every case. To say the game has to recreate historical unit production to be "realistic" is to force teh players to replay teh war as it occured, not allow them to explore other possibilities.

There are couple tweeks in the works, but in general if a player builds only heavy bombers as the WA, it work once against a given player (and one not paying close attention to research breakthroughs) and can be countered assymmetrically either by sea (preventing them from being easily deployed where they do much) or withe more direct countermeasures (airfield bombing for one).

Once you get beyond "rock paper scissors" with the game, you get into a whole of subtlies and counters to things and tweaks to balance for perceived advantages.

Lots of strategies talked about, like super bombers, work if you can get teh enemy to 'play your game' and make it about a race to directly counter your strategy. The indirect approach usually is better, producing an 'asymetric threat" and trying to win with yours, before teh enemy can win with his, A balanced aresnal generally holds the best chance of haveing the forces available to do that, and is what veteran players gravitate back to.

[jchastain]

ORIGINAL: Paul Vebber

The game allows the players to explore alternate strategies - even 'ahistorical' ones. The game for the most part rewards and penalizes those strategies consitently, if perhaps not appropriately in every case. To say the game has to recreate historical unit production to be "realistic" is to force teh players to replay teh war as it occured, not allow them to explore other possibilities.

There are couple tweeks in the works, but in general if a player builds only heavy bombers as the WA, it work once against a given player (and one not paying close attention to research breakthroughs) and can be countered assymmetrically either by sea (preventing them from being easily deployed where they do much) or withe more direct countermeasures (airfield bombing for one).

Once you get beyond "rock paper scissors" with the game, you get into a whole of subtlies and counters to things and tweaks to balance for perceived advantages.

Lots of strategies talked about, like super bombers, work if you can get teh enemy to 'play your game' and make it about a race to directly counter your strategy. The indirect approach usually is better, producing an 'asymetric threat" and trying to win with yours, before teh enemy can win with his, A balanced aresnal generally holds the best chance of haveing the forces available to do that, and is what veteran players gravitate back to.

Thanks for the message Paul. I believe there is definitely some merit to your comments about air/land/sea tradeoffs, though I still believe that the system drives players to specialize unit type within a given domain. While that was historically true to a large extent with sea warfare, it does not translate nearly as well to land combat in my opinion. Under this system if you focus on tanks, you don't build infantry. Anyway, game design is an art where you cannot please everyone. I can't say this system is "wrong" per se because there is no right and wrong. Rather, it just isn't the system I would have advocated. The game enjoys a solid fan base that obviously feel differently and I am glad they are enjoying it. I don't want to turn this thread into a protracted debate - I just wanted to ensure that the minority opinion was expressed. I've done that now and there is nothing more that I can add that would contribute positively to the discussion so I will fade back into the background. Thanks again for your thoughts and perspective.

[MrQuiet]

Full Disclosure: I quit playing this game weeks ago. The tech system was one of the big reasons behind that decision. I never bothered to load a patch so my comments are based upon the game as released.

You should try the game with the patch, they tweaked a few of the starting tecks and world standards and the game is much, much better for it.

In my mind though it is not just a question of cost/impact that makes the tech system so horribly bad, it is the fact that it discourages combined arms warfare and forces people to specialize in a few super units. As the WA, it seemed far more effective to invest heavily in bombers and destory every enemy ground unit and then waltz through the countryside instead of trying to build a real army. As the Germans, it was all about making a giant stack of super tanks

I have played about a dozen different opponents, many have tried to specialize on one particular offensive unit, I have not lost a game yet. Not bragging, just saying if you focus in one direction then there has to be a trade-off from somewhere else. I find that somewhere else and hurt them. *hint* it seems some people have trouble thinking logisticly/ economicly/ and preplaning/ especialy for defense purposes.

In summary, try the game with version 1.040 and I even suggest turning AV off. You might find the beauty in it.

-MrQuiet

[Franky513]

In my opinion, tech is balanced in expense and effectivenes. No need to change.

Ciao Frank