Tech system is bugging me
Posted: Thu Oct 06, 2005 10:58 am
A buddy recently introduced me to GGWaW, and I want to thank the developers for the many hours of fun we've already had. However, there are some aspects of the tech system that have started to bother me more and more with every game.
1) The techs are too granular.
One level of improvement in certain techs a huge jump in the combat abilities of some units. Efficient play seems to necessitate keeping careful track of exactly how many of certain units are produced and how that affects the timetable of key research. With games lasting so few turns, losing 3 months' use of a new technology because you fielded an extra division seems a little harsh.
2) The techs give unequal benefits.
I have no problem with some techs being more useful to a certain nation or at certain times, as this is expected from a historical viewpoint. However, at least a third of the possible research options are so ineffectual that I can't fathom a situation where any player, at any time, would ever want to research them outside of "just messing around". To beginner players, these are just opportunities to waste resources, and to experienced players, they are just a waste of screen space.
3) The techs don't reflect battlefield experience or captured equipment.
It's hard to design weapons and improve doctrine in a vacuum; feedback from actual combat greatly aids both processes. It's much easier to figure out how to shoot down a bomber if you can examine the wreckage those crashing in your backyard and doubly so if you have the luxury of testing and dissecting ones you happen to capture intact. I think the tech system should reflect this.
4) The tech system emphasises some 'gamey' moves.
Because of the greater efficiency (both in PP and turn count) of researching upgrades before producing the units, there is an advantage to saving up population and clearing production space before trying to crank out units en masse at the last second. An Axis AV attempt really highlights this situation. This just feels wrong...wouldn't your research actually be further along if you had been actually producing some of those units the whole time and testing them in combat?
What do y'all think of these ideas to ameliorate these issues:
1) For partially researched combat techs, each unit has a chance, during each combat, of fighting at the higher value. The chance is proportional to the progress towards the next level. Perhaps it could be scaled so the actual breakthrough still has some meaning. (i.e., 90% progress to a breakthough gives ~70% chance of fighting at the next level) Units that do not have a supply line back to the capital do not get this opportunity (i.e., some troops in the UK might have the new toys, but isolated colonial garrisons won't)
2) Partially researched movement/capacity techs stay as they are. The only major weirdness here is fighter range 1->2, but it's more reasonable for that to happen in one big jump than, say, infantry attack rating.
3) Maximum research investment for a unit is partially limited by the number that engaged in combat in the preceding phase.
4) Engaging in combat with an enemy unit gives a chance of earning a free tech point in appropriate areas. Surrounding and destroying (capturing?) a unit gives a larger chance. These chances are modified by unit type, level relative to enemy, level relative to world standard, supply line to capital, etc.
WW2 certainly had plenty of breakthroughs that changed the war almost overnight: Radar, Enigma decoding, A-Bomb, etc. GGWaW just seems to treat every advance as drastic. I think it would feel more accurate if the progression were smoother in most cases.
1) The techs are too granular.
One level of improvement in certain techs a huge jump in the combat abilities of some units. Efficient play seems to necessitate keeping careful track of exactly how many of certain units are produced and how that affects the timetable of key research. With games lasting so few turns, losing 3 months' use of a new technology because you fielded an extra division seems a little harsh.
2) The techs give unequal benefits.
I have no problem with some techs being more useful to a certain nation or at certain times, as this is expected from a historical viewpoint. However, at least a third of the possible research options are so ineffectual that I can't fathom a situation where any player, at any time, would ever want to research them outside of "just messing around". To beginner players, these are just opportunities to waste resources, and to experienced players, they are just a waste of screen space.
3) The techs don't reflect battlefield experience or captured equipment.
It's hard to design weapons and improve doctrine in a vacuum; feedback from actual combat greatly aids both processes. It's much easier to figure out how to shoot down a bomber if you can examine the wreckage those crashing in your backyard and doubly so if you have the luxury of testing and dissecting ones you happen to capture intact. I think the tech system should reflect this.
4) The tech system emphasises some 'gamey' moves.
Because of the greater efficiency (both in PP and turn count) of researching upgrades before producing the units, there is an advantage to saving up population and clearing production space before trying to crank out units en masse at the last second. An Axis AV attempt really highlights this situation. This just feels wrong...wouldn't your research actually be further along if you had been actually producing some of those units the whole time and testing them in combat?
What do y'all think of these ideas to ameliorate these issues:
1) For partially researched combat techs, each unit has a chance, during each combat, of fighting at the higher value. The chance is proportional to the progress towards the next level. Perhaps it could be scaled so the actual breakthrough still has some meaning. (i.e., 90% progress to a breakthough gives ~70% chance of fighting at the next level) Units that do not have a supply line back to the capital do not get this opportunity (i.e., some troops in the UK might have the new toys, but isolated colonial garrisons won't)
2) Partially researched movement/capacity techs stay as they are. The only major weirdness here is fighter range 1->2, but it's more reasonable for that to happen in one big jump than, say, infantry attack rating.
3) Maximum research investment for a unit is partially limited by the number that engaged in combat in the preceding phase.
4) Engaging in combat with an enemy unit gives a chance of earning a free tech point in appropriate areas. Surrounding and destroying (capturing?) a unit gives a larger chance. These chances are modified by unit type, level relative to enemy, level relative to world standard, supply line to capital, etc.
WW2 certainly had plenty of breakthroughs that changed the war almost overnight: Radar, Enigma decoding, A-Bomb, etc. GGWaW just seems to treat every advance as drastic. I think it would feel more accurate if the progression were smoother in most cases.
