Frustrated with tech

[Scott_WAR]

Well, even at midway, both sides had losses.

[Svend Karlson]

ORIGINAL: Scott_WAR

Well, even at midway, both sides had losses.

Yes but . . .

Before I continue with the but . . . let me explain that I hope I'm not coming across argumentatively. It's just that IMHO the way in which tech is being described is overly polarised, so I am adding my pennies worth.

but . . . did both sides take losses that would amount to damage or destruction of a corps or a fleet sized entity such as are used in WaW? The level of abstraction is very high, so the equivalent of losing say, a battalion or a handful of destroyers for instance, does not even get modelled in WaW. You either lose effectively one half of a corps/fleet etc, or you lose nothing at all.

[Joel Billings]

If you have a save just before the attack where the opponent should have 0 supplies, please send it to Paulv@matrixgames.com. It sounds like a bad analyzer or some other problem because by my calculation the losses should be under 2 or over 4. If the analyzer is not accounting for lack of supplies, I'd like to get that fixed.

I do suggest that for those that don't like the large impact that tech has in the game, that you play with fog of war off (I realize someone already suggested this). This allows you to counter enemy research before it gets too big of an edge. This game was designed to play like a boardgame, and it many ways it works better without fog of war (certainly for those of us that grew up playing boardgames).

[Joel Billings]

ORIGINAL: von_Schmidt



How about the following for units which are allowed to shoot at the target (so excluding sub v air etc):

- calculate the odds to hit
- if >10%, apply
- if <10%, apply 10% chance to hit

You been reading the tester forum this morning? I just mentioned the 10% solution in a post there 5 minutes ago. However, figuring out the chance to hit for the unit is not easy, so we have to add any minimum after the shot has missed. So it would not work exactly as you propose it. We have discussed a possible optional rule like this, but there are GUI issues and major game balance implications (that's why it would be an optional rule). We also never got complete buy in on exactly what it would be, although my vote is for the basic 10%. It would make militia much better than it currently is along with making units out teched able to hit teched up units. It might also end up with some units that have no chance to hit (like fighters against a Heavy Fleet) suddenly have 10% when we might not want it. In general I think it would make the game more dicey, but that's not necessarily a bad thing.

[JanSorensen]

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

ORIGINAL: von_Schmidt



How about the following for units which are allowed to shoot at the target (so excluding sub v air etc):

- calculate the odds to hit
- if >10%, apply
- if <10%, apply 10% chance to hit

You been reading the tester forum this morning? I just mentioned the 10% solution in a post there 5 minutes ago. However, figuring out the chance to hit for the unit is not easy, so we have to add any minimum after the shot has missed.

Joel

I wont debate if its a design good idea or not - merely that I think you are missing the technically easy way to get 10% exact.

Poul Vebber posted the chart of hit probabilities in the War Room forum. Referring to that lets consider an example.

Say a 6 die units is firing. We notice that its 14.6% to roll 26 or better and 9.7% to roll 27 or better. So, if the target takes a 26 (including any drm) or better you go ahead as per normal - but if it takes a 27 or better you instead roll 1d10 - with a 10 being a hit.

That way you get exactly 10% as the lower bound for the to-hit chance - with just one simple table lookup.

[Joel Billings]

Thanks, I see that it's not all that difficult to do if you have the table and check it (the game does not do things this way, but it could be added with some additional code). Of course Paul also wants an automatic miss, which require a different table. In any case, there's work involved to get the game and the analyzer to add in an automatic hits/misses, and some rules are much easier to add than others.

[Scott_WAR]

If the dice rolled in combat were d10, then it would be VERY simple. A 1 is always a miss, a 10 is always a hit. 10% either way.

Using the above method of rolling a d10 after the initial roll, if that roll falls in certain parameters, could be used for the auto miss too. The same as above. If its a 1 its an miss regardless of whether it was initially a hit or not.

[JanSorensen]

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

Thanks, I see that it's not all that difficult to do if you have the table and check it (the game does not do things this way, but it could be added with some additional code). Of course Paul also wants an automatic miss, which require a different table. In any case, there's work involved to get the game and the analyzer to add in an automatic hits/misses, and some rules are much easier to add than others.

You are welcome. Mind, you obviously dont need the full table - just the one value per each number of dice is needed.

I perfectly understand that the combat engine routines would need some changes - to the less elegant sadly.

As for the combat analyzer I believe the suggestion I submitted not long ago to simply let that work by samling from the combat routine means it should never need any changes no matter how you change the combat routine. If that suggestion is actually usefull for you I dont know obviously.

Automatic miss too - I suppose. Personally I am not fond of either idea - maybe I will post my own ideas once I have given it some more thought.

[JanSorensen]

ORIGINAL: Scott_WAR

If the dice rolled in combat were d10, then it would be VERY simple. A 1 is always a miss, a 10 is always a hit. 10% either way.

Using the above method of rolling a d10 after the initial roll, if that roll falls in certain parameters, could be used for the auto miss too. The same as above. If its a 1 its an miss regardless of whether it was initially a hit or not.

Scott

The idea isnt to roll the d10 after the normal roll - but instead of. Otherwise you are introducing an error.

[Espejo]

Well, I think one thing is really a little bit unrealist. It seems quite common for human players to invest 30-50% of their production capacity into research. That this kind of investment is some kind of a must or lets says pays off shows IMHO that perhaps some more small adjustments could be made to not make tech as important as is or make it easier to catch up when somebody gets a significant advantage.

[James Ward]

It seems quite common for human players to invest 30-50% of their production capacity into research.

I wonder if they could put a cap on the amount of research each country can use per turn or increase the cost, like after you spend 10 points each additional point only gives you 1/2 a point increase?

[MarcelJV]

Cool thread.

Some suggestions. I have not done the math but I thought the allies were one turn behind in asw for light ships from increases in sub tech, if not why not allocate research to asw for light ships, lets say 1, at the start.

Ok I will try the math. This is the current situation.

Germay has 0 points at start and assuming the building of some subs needs 7 to get up one level.
Spring 40 - 1 point allocated (1/7)
Summer 40 - 2 points (total of 3/7 per area)
Fall 40 - 3 ponts (total 6/7 per area) Chance that they will get the result as they are close to what is needed. Not sure what the chance is though.
Winter 41 - 1 point (total 7/7 per) level acheived. Gets to use is for defense of subs this turn. If the die roll got the advancement then add
Spring 41 - 2 for evasion (2/14) - 1 for attack (1/7)
Summer 41 - 4 for evasion (6/14) - 2 for attack (3/7)

Allies Light ships Start at needing 11 to move up a level.
Spring 40 - 1 point ( total 1/11)
Summer 40 - 2 points (total 3/11)
Fall 40 - 3 points (6/11)
Winter 41 - 3 points (9/11) Not there and I do not believe they do not qualify for a die roll to see if they get there.
Spring 41 - 2 points (11/11) Level achieved but can not be effective until next turn.

If we start light ships at 1 point in research of asw here are the changes.
Spring 40 - 2 points added (3/11)
Summer 40 - 3 points added (6/11)
Fall 40 - 3 points added (9/11) Not possible to get the roll, I believe
Winter 41 - 2 points added (11/11) Level acheived.

Based on this one change Western allies and German advancement keeps pace through the first phase.

In the first case the Germans can get a two turn advantage on the allies (well 1.5 turns). This does not seem like much but now you get to add to what is need for the next level. By the time the allies are ready to start adding points to level 3 you are already 1/2 the way to level 3. Assuming maximum allowed spending you will continue to have a 2-3 turn advantage for every level. A one turn advantage can be devasting to the allied player.

In the second case the Germans can get a one turn advantage, this will then be maintained but is managable for the allies. Normally there is only a 1/2 turn advantage for the Germans and this can still hurt as you may not be able to stop the subs on your allied turn and then have to suffer through an attack phase before you get your shot back.

I think adding one research point to light ship asw is a good fix to limit the lead the German can get to about one turn.

Thats my two cents.

Every consider how effective a 10 evasion infantry units is? 40 defense and 36 after the first attack. Given a 10 attack that averages on 35 attack it makes it really hard to kill them, and you can build them twice as fast as tanks. bring on your 10 attack and 10 defense tanks. 10 evasion tanks have a 30 defense (27 after the first attack) and a 9 attack infantry would get 31 average die roll, oh look out.

Here is a nice chart with my basic research. The later total might be wrong. Red indicates an research success. I think this shows the picture of how Germany can get ahead big time.

[Scott_WAR]

I'm glad others are seeing my point, and have found better words to put it in. When I play Germany, I spend insane amounts on research the first few turns. As WA I spend nearly EVERYTHING the USA has for nearly half the game buying tech. Its just silly when you think about it how unrealistic it is.

The fact that SO much is spent on tech SHOWS without a doubt that it is just too important in this game.

[JanSorensen]

Marcel

As the WA you only need 9 to get to level 1 ASW. If you have more than 20 LS you make sure to lose one.

[Svend Karlson]

ORIGINAL: Scott_WAR
The fact that SO much is spent on tech SHOWS without a doubt that it is just too important in this game.

I must contend that blanket statement from you yet again Scott.

I play Germany without spending more than half my production on technology, at least until late 1944 onwards, by which point manpower constraints & being forced over to defence mean that I can't build units & don't need many supplies.

You saying that you spend 'insane' amounts is simply a subjective judgement call with no reference point, which tells us nothing.

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

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.

[Scott_WAR]

You need 7 to get to level 2 evasion and torp for subs.

Its level 3 and even level 4 that gets to be aproblem. When Germany can get evasion 3 subs, WA still needs a few turns to get to level 3. In fact German subs can be at level 4 evasion shortly after WA gets asw of 2 for its light fleets. We all know what the advantage of 2 tech level means. Consider that the German subs can have it for SEVERAL turns, and you see where the imbalance starts to show.

[Scott_WAR]

Svend, if you dont spend much on tech early with Germany, you must be playing people that dont spend much for tech as the allies. If you allow The WA to get ahead in fighter air attack and evasion, you will find yourself fighterless, and having the crap bombed out of you. Or you will find yourself on the wrong end of a tech advantage in many other important areas. You must be playing against others that dont realize how strong tech is. Thats the only way you can get away with not researching a lot as germany early. If the WA isnt teching early either.

The FACT is if I spend a lot on tech and my enemy doesnt, it isnt much of a game. I roll over them with little difficulty at all. Every game that I have played that WAS NOT a complete walkover, BOTH sides bought tech out the wazoo.


Edit- Let me add though that there is a limit. You can buy tech all day, but if you dont at some point actually get the units, tech wont do a darn thing. But right now a 2 tech level advatage is better than 4 to 1 odds in combat. There is the root of the problem, in my opinion.


Aother edit- I just noticed the way this was worded---

ORIGINAL: Svend Karlson

I play Germany without spending more than half my production on technology, at least until late 1944 onwards,

I read it wrong earlier. You do spend around half your production for Germany for research early then Svend? And you dont see that as unrealistic?

[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.

[MarcelJV]

I updated my post with a spreadsheet view and my proposed change.

I did not take into account losses, so you could go with one less point required.
I could put up a sheet with that view as well. I also did not account for building more units that would increase the research cost. But you can see the advantage you can get in the Sub/ASW race.

You could also increase the ASW world standard to 2 instead of one, but that only reduces the amount of research not the time it takes to get there.

[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.