Matrix Games Forums

In the thread "Frustrated with Tech," Joel wrote: "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."

So - I propose the following poll. The question is "Is tech appropriately weighted in WAW on a scale of 1 to 10?":
1 is equivalent to saying tech is underweighted. I.E.: tech advances on the whole cost too much and the minimal benefits you get for tech improvement isn't realistic.
5 is equivalent to saying tech is appropriately balanced on the whole. I.E.: You get what you pay for in a realstic model of researching and implementing WWII tech advances.
10 is equivalent to saying tech is unrealstically overweighted. I.E.: Tech is too cheap and/or the benefits of tech advances too great to realistically model the era.

Please keep your reponses short as this is just a poll. If you have extended commentary - you can post in the other thread about "Frustrated with Tech."

If someone else has started a similar poll, I'll remove the threat - but I thought I'd try to get the ball rolling. [8D]

ADMIN - I added the poll function so please vote on the poll and make comments as below - if you voted with a post, please go back and vote.

[8D] Well, I would give it an 8 the way you put it. I would like to see a scale down of tech.

6, in-game tech means technological and doctrinal advances (for me, at least)

7

Technology was very important during WW2, but not as it has been modeled here.

Radar, communications, sonar, etc. had big impacts and have nothing to do with this game.

Want stronger tanks? Add thicker armor, bigger guns, and larger engines. Not a technological advance by any means.

6

9

The cost of making a tech advance in PP(production points), is too cheap (the average tech advance costs 7 PP, which is equal to 3 infantry or 1 tank) when compared to the units those PP would buy. SO I can buy a 1 tech leve advantage or 1-3 units. Which is the better value? The tech level, by a large margin.

On top of that is the fact that it seems that a 1 tech level advantage CANT be overcame by 2 to 1 odds, meaning 4 tanks that have a 1 tech advantage will beat 8 normal tanks nearly every time. Superior numbers SHOULD be able to overcome a tech advantage, but the strength of a 1 tech advantage currently makes it so that is not the case.

5.

You have many options and as such you need to find what works for you.

5 = Just right for me

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.

Consider what an ME262 jet, a Type XXI u-boat, or a King Tiger could achieve against less advanced opposition.

Check out the other thread and my chart and start adding up the total PP spent on production for Germany subs to get to 3 evasion and 4 attack. Total of 36 production points, which is, lets say, 18 infantry or 8 tanks or 8 subs. Seems like a hefty trade. If you want 8 subs it will cost another 36 Production to get them. They will be good then.

ORIGINAL: Scott_WAR

9

The cost of making a tech advance in PP(production points), is too cheap (the average tech advance costs 7 PP, which is equal to 3 infantry or 1 tank) when compared to the units those PP would buy. SO I can buy a 1 tech leve advantage or 1-3 units. Which is the better value? The tech level, by a large margin.

On top of that is the fact that it seems that a 1 tech level advantage CANT be overcame by 2 to 1 odds, meaning 4 tanks that have a 1 tech advantage will beat 8 normal tanks nearly every time. Superior numbers SHOULD be able to overcome a tech advantage, but the strength of a 1 tech advantage currently makes it so that is not the case.

5 - it makes for a splendid game in my opinion.

ORIGINAL: Svend Karlson

5 = Just right for me

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.

Consider what an ME262 jet, a Type XXI u-boat, or a King Tiger could achieve against less advanced opposition.

Ahh, but it doesnt cost that much to achieve a tech level AND retrofitt all the existing units. Its relatively cheap to do so in fact.
The time it took to make those super units and the huge cost of those units meant that while they were superior to anything on the battlefield, they were outnumbered by lower tech units and were ineffective in the big picture.
Yet in this game it doesnt matter if high tech units are outnumbered by lower tech units, the higher tech ones ALWAYS win. Now, based on reality, what really happened, you should be able to see that having those high tech units DID not help Germany win the war, because they were outnumbered, and that is currently not the case in the game. Numbers should overcome tech at some point, but it does not in GGWAW.

I think one of the problems with tech is the retrofit. Older units often took ages to get the newest tanks, or other weapons. There is a lag between desgining a new tank, and to finish the deployment.


Retrofitting ships wasn't even possible in some cases. Newer targeting systems don't simply pop on the ship.


Is part of the answer that only newly build units get the tech bonus? Make the older units have to get a retrofit in the factories?

In order to keep all units of the same type the same, we had to go with a simple system. You can assume that while the research is underway but before the values go up, that limited production is available and being tested by units in the field and/or new doctrine is being developed. The completion of research represents when the new item or doctrine has reached enough units to tip the balance and has begun to make a difference in the majority of actions. It is simplistic. We have already discussed other possible systems for future WaW type games that would not have generic units (where they are all the same) but instead would have variations. This increases the complexity and mostly the amount of information that the user must retain and analyze and is not necessarily better overall. For WaW, given the design goal, we went with the abstraction/simplification that you have stated.

Thanks for setting up a more formal poll, Paul. I do wonder, however, if the results won't be a little tilted based on how the question is framed. It seems from the couple of "6's" we has so far, that some people think tech is almost perfectly balanced but not quite - i.e., it is a little too strong. Others think tech is significantly too strong. Both might reasonably respond that it could be more expensive and less effective but is not a game spoiler........

Yes, according to the wording I voted that way. It IS NOT unbalancing the game, but in my opinion it needs scaling back a bit for realisms sake.

I do wonder, however, if the results won't be a little tilted based on how the question is framed.

I was in a rush and wanted to get something out that - but that was useful for us as decision support tool, basically if a lot of people think "its broke" and they basically don;t play teh game becasue of it, that tells us one thing. If pretty much everybody is "unhappy but not so much that they don;t play teh game" that tells us someting else,a nd if a lot of folks think its fine teh way it is- more information.

More shades of grey may better reflect how people feel, but makes it that much harder to figure out what it means and what to do about it.

A discussion toady shed a lot of light on the issue to me, when someone who is "VERY knowledable" on WW2 (he teaches about it at teh Naval War College" suggested that the limits or proportions spent on supply, research, and unit production isn't teh crux of teh issue as he saw it, but teh FLEXIBILTY the player have to totally shift teh gears of their economy each quarty.

His suggeestion was to use "house rules" rules (as it would require a major overhaul of the production system to "do it right") where player write down the number of PPs they will spend on research, supply and unit production NEXT turn, at the start of THIS turn and that you can't change more than 1/4 of your total PPs from one category to another each year.

To be "realistic" he suggested that players should have to "plan the economy" for 18 mos (6 turns) at the start of the game and only make changes each turn for 6 turns later...and only allow 10% to change turn to turn! He recommended everybody read Spear's 'Inside the Third Reich for insight...'

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.

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. The behavior encouraged by the system was so foreign from what WWII was all about as to make it a game of pure fantasy to me - and a rather uninspired one at that.

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

Umm, as I recall, the Unites States esentially did this. Using superior air power to compensate for weaker tanks and lower numbers of infantry by comparison to other combatants

As the Germans, it was all about making a giant stack of super tanks

Again... This is a historical truth. The Germans did have "super tanks"!

Tigers and Panthers... just in too low of numbers to be significant.

Shermans were tin cans by comparison.

Tech works well in this game for alot of reasons.... but it IS a little overpowered. Numbers should mean more in a fight than they do now. Everyone with a weapon counts in a fight, except for here. [:'(]

IMO WAW is just an improved Axis and Allies, which is really a simple game. WaW is more complex with much more strategies but still a simple game. If you wanna have a complex tech system then you should better play Hearts of Iron I.

The unbalance in the tech race comes from the decisions from the players what to research and which strategy they try but i think there is always a way to react.

And when you face unbeatable units then avoid them and hit your opponent where he is weak.

If the tech is such a serious problem for some i would suggest you to play with houserules........make a upper limit on tech, make a limit how much points you may invest, make a limit in how many areas one is allowed to research .....just to name some examples.

A 6 from my side btw.

ORIGINAL: Doobious

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

Umm, as I recall, the Unites States esentially did this. Using superior air power to compensate for weaker tanks and lower numbers of infantry by comparison to other combatants

As the Germans, it was all about making a giant stack of super tanks

Again... This is a historical truth. The Germans did have "super tanks"!

Tigers and Panthers... just in too low of numbers to be significant.

Shermans were tin cans by comparison.

Tech works well in this game for alot of reasons.... but it IS a little overpowered. Numbers should mean more in a fight than they do now. Everyone with a weapon counts in a fight, except for here. [:'(]

Heavy bombers did do some damage to combat formations. But their real effect was crippling the infrastructure and means of production. Any airchair general will tell you you can't win with airforces alone - you have to put troops on the ground. That was even more true during WWII than it is today. Those outgunned Sherman tanks won by swarming the enemy with superior numbers and the bombers helps them do it by limiting the panzer's supply of gasoline and making sure the factories weren't able to produce them in large numbers.

But Allied troops had to fight for every inch of hard won dirt. The bombers couldn't do all the work for them. If superior air power was just compensating for other weaknesses in a combined force structure, I would agree with you. But Bombers just kill everything and then a cub scout troop can walk in and claim victory for seizing an empty piece of land. That's just silly.

If you want a real sense of just how far off things are, examine how many panzer divisions versus infantry divisions were created by each nation during WWII and then look and what the typical build ratio is in this game. You can't tell me that the results are anything even approaching historical ranges. Does anyone build an infantry division? Anyway I don't want to belabor the point, but I continue to believe that the tech system is a serious design flaw that incents players to do things that are totally out of step with reality. For me, that makes the game less enjoyable. But all of us have our own preferences and predjudices so even though I am discouraged by this aspect of the game, I am glad that others do enjoy it.