Matrix Games Forums

I was thinking that if the darability of infantry was reduced from 4 to 3 and their evasion upped to compensate it could solve the problem of infantry having a 36 or even 40 defense late in the game. 9*4 or 10*4. Right now a 9 evasion which would give an infantry a 36 defense is only 3 levels above the world standard. If the darabilty was changed to 3 it would take an evasion of 12 to have a 36 defense. Starting at evasion 8 (8*3=24) which gives the default defense of 24 for German infantry you can see that it would take Germany 4 levels of teching to achieve a 36 defense. For the WA's it would take 5 levels! The WA's would start at evasion 7 since that gives a defense of 21 which is close to their stock level of 20. Changing the durabilty of infantry like this reduces the payoff with each level of evasion you research since your only getting 3 added to your defense instead of 4. This may increase the variety of arms we see in the game.

Heres a breakdown of evasion * durabilty=defense
Old
4*4=16
5*4=20
6*4=24
7*4=28
8*4=32
9*4=36
10*4=40
new
5*3=15 Russia starts here or maybe at 6. Obviously its 3 levels below WS so Russia will need to be spotted research points
6*3=18
7*3=21 WA's starts here.
8*3=24 Germany starts here World standard starts here
9*3=27
10*3=30
11*3=33 Probably the pratical limit
12*3=36 It would be very expensive to attempt this
13*3=39 For the WA's this is 6 levels over their stating value. To cost prohibative to be worthwhile.

i think it helps as instead of facing EV 10 (5 lv over opening EV) WA infantry w/ DEF of 40, i expect to fight EV 12 (also 5 lv over opening) w/ DEF of 36 (ouch!).

while fighting infantry with DEF of 36 still hurts but at least its better than DEF of 40 ...

but the change will make RUS (iirc, JP and CHN as well) a lot more expensive to tech up its infantry EV (unless a substantial amt of free research pts are available to EV research in the opening)

AN

We're considering a future change to limit research improvements to 2 over the world standard (except for heavy bomber evasion and land attack which would be limited to 5 over the world standard).

Joel, that's the perfect solution you've presented. IMO, 2 over World Standard is already high enough. I've played 7 games as the Allies, won all of them, some against very good players, and never once did I need to go to 2 above World Standard. Another possibility would be to not just triple research costs when going to 2+ WS, but to quadruple it. That should adjust what people will research. If they choose to invest what I consider a huge amount of PP's, then yes, they can get their super weapon.

Again imo, I simply believe one doesn't need Super Inf to win, as there are other lotsssss of other methods. Getting 9/9 super inf is imo still very cheap, so any limit to that end is welcome. 2 above WS is fine.

Avatar47 if you looked closely at what I suggested there would be no need to quadruple research at +2 over WS. Having to pay x3 for a forth and x3 again for a 5th increase would be all the deterent in cost necesary. In fact my solution makes going to 36 or 40 defense infantry more expensive than the quadruple. Another thing I see as a bonus to my method other than just limiting research to 2 over world standard is that infantry casualties for both sides will increase slightly. Thus, one would not want to rely to heavily on infantry. I'm sure this would increase variety in arms. I think it should be play tested to get a feel before a patch just limits tech to 2 over. I would hate to see a patch do this. If it was cost prohibative enough a hard ceiling is not necessary. Leaving the choice up to the player has always been the philosophy of this games tech tree. Its only problem was that it was to optimal to invest in infantry tech because of the 4 durabilty. You change that and players will distribute their tech points more evenly though choice rather than because they hit a limit.

I do agree Lebatron that your method is expensive, but what I think you might be missing is the time actually needed to research. Since Russia starts at 5, to get to level 8 (24 ev) would require 12+ turns. Too much.

Also, as an experienced Allied player, I would not say that the Axis armies relying all that much on Inf. Even so, they're really capped producing them because of manpower limits. Even producing 3 inf a turn (6 manpower points) is already a lot, because you also need those MPP's for other troop types.

I personally think that ev 8 should be the max reachable, 32 evasion is a lot already. If some guy wants to go to 9 ev, and CAN actually pay for it (35+ PP's needed for the x3 multiplier cost at current rules), then that guy must already be winning the game. A smart counter to the guy who's already at 8ev is imo to invest in Arty attack, where getting up to 8 attack is cheap and fast.

The more I think about it, the more problems I see with limiting tech to 2 over world standard. First of all the game was designed with going over the world standard by 3. Limiting it to 2 removes the x3 cost penalty. A feauture of the game will just disapear. If a limit has to be put in place make it 3 instead of 2. Limit only the infantry to 2 over if you must go this route.

Second of all you got to ask yourself, is there any other problems of significance with other units besides infantry going 2 over the world standard? Not really. So why curb a players flexabilty to reasearch all units when its really the infantry causing the problem? The world standards are near perfect now. The x3 cost penalty works to balance research in all units except the infantry. My suggestion, if taken, makes it more expensive to create super infantry without tampering with the nice balance we now have in the other units. If the goal is to limit the appearance of 9/9 (36 defense)infantry in the game, just make it less optimal to choose that path, and the problem will solve itself. Putting hard ceilings in place just goes agianst the open ended philophy of this game. For instance, if a player wishes to spend a lot to have 10 attack artillery let them, or fighters with air attack 9 let them. Its about choices.

I took a look at the world standard and starting levels of tech for units to see how a ceiling of 2 over WS would restrict choices or make knew problems.
1. Russian tank EV already at +1 WS. So the Russains only need to spend a few points and they hit the ceiling. Boy its nice to know that the Germans can't outspend you there. For a few points the Russians just ensured themselves that the Germans can't have a more superior tank. It used to be that if the Russains stopped at 9EV the Germans could try and trump them with 10EV tanks. Now the Russains have no need to achieve parity since 9 is the ceiling. This is just one example where limiting tech to +2 WS hurts gameplay. I'll give you more.
2. Germans can't have 5EV subs. Why not? If the player wishes to expend the huge amount needed let him.
3. Fighters can't reach 9AA if they are needed to take on EV8 heavy bombers.
4. What if a player wants range 5 or level 5 torpedoes with their tac air? I say let him have it if he wants it bad enough.
5. What if a player wants ASW4?

I can go on and on with the choices we have in this game and now that may change. All the choices I outlined above require that a player go 3 over the WS. The x3 cost penalty is enough to ensure cost/payoff balance in all units accept infantry. The reason why the system breaks down with infantry is that they have a 4 durabilty. Change it to 3 and the same cost/payoff balance that exists in other units will limit the appearance of super infantry.

As I outlined above placing a ceiling on all units just to limit infantry to 8/8 is a very poor solution, as it limits a players freedom to do what he wants with his points.

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

We're considering a future change to limit research improvements to 2 over the world standard (except for heavy bomber evasion and land attack which would be limited to 5 over the world standard).

I would like to suggest you first try only placing a limit on evasion teck for all units (either 1 or 2 over WS) but let the player have total freedom on the other tecks. That way strong units can still be reasearched, but no unit can become allmost invulnerable.

After this patch is officially released, I was thinking of holding another tournament with that above house rule but I was going to make the evasion cap ONE over WS.

-MrQuiet

We're considering a future change to limit research improvements to 2 over the world standard (except for heavy bomber evasion and land attack which would be limited to 5 over the world standard).

I hope there is a poll and a bit of a debate about this before it is added to any patch. I, for one, am not sure at this point whether it is a good idea or a bad one. Needs some thought. [;)]

A preliminary assessment would put me in the court of "no restrictions" on research levels.

I'm leaning toward Lebatron's suggestion of lowering durability to 3 for infantry.

Makes more sense, but I will listen to other perspectives.

I have no interest in changing infantry evasion to 3 (of course modders are welcome to do it). So far there's not a lot of opinion either way on my proposed rule so I'm not sure if we'll add it or not. I'm happy to set up a poll if someone wants to tell me what should be in it.

I still am not sure about capping the WS - it seems like a bit of overkill. For most units, allowing improvements beyond the WS (with the additional costs already built-in to the system) is not a problem. The main problem is with infantry evasion. What about just decreasing the WS for infantry evasion to 5? This wouldn't affect the initial research of the WA, the SU, and Japan toward catching up with Germany (At 6). But it would make it pricey to make super-infantry for everyone. The only negative I see with this suggestion is it also makes it very tough for the Germans (with a lot more infantry at start than the WA) to improve. To compensate, you could spot them some initial research toward level 7 evasion.

as discussed in some other threads, the main problem is the research time.

while lowering WS helps in making the research more expensive, it wont stop a determined WA player to get 9-9 or even 9-10 infantry. it will stop the WA super-everything issue but WA super infantry remains.

i have suggested, in another thread, to lower the max research to spend in one particular tech for research over WS, but the idea was not thoroughly discussed ...

while both Lebatron's idea and Joel's suggestions got its own pos and cons, i see both idea as an improvement over the stock game and is happy to see either one of them is incorp. in the next patch.

AN

as discussed in some other threads, the main problem is the research time.

I agreed and still agree with this. If there is time for some kind of hardcoded chage (such as the WS limitation), limiting research to make it take longer to develop advanced units is worth considering. If not - I just don't know there any problems with the current research system that warrant a major change to it. Other perceived problems with super-WA heavy bombers and super-tanks were essentially cured by minor tweaks directed solely at those particular units. If there is no simple tweak for super-infantry in a patch, it could be limited by houserules or mods in accordance with Lebatron's suggestion. I think I'd rather stick with these types of solutions than propose any major change that would limit the flexibility of the game's research system. I kind of like the broad flexibility to research other units (such as carrier air that can attack landbased air or really good artillery) whether or not it's actually worth the investment. And perhaps making super-infantry very expensive would work. You could have any super-unit you wanted, infantry included, if you were willing to lose the war to get it...... [;)]

Ok, I'll favour decreasing the WS of Inf EV by 1. Give the Germans free research points so that it gives them an incentive to research it. If the WAllies actually pay all those PP for getting 9 ev, then imo, they're not too bright. There are much better investments. Just going to 8 ev will already be a big investment.

A few of you expressed concerns over the speed at which the WA's can get to 36+ defense. Just to point out in case you didn't see that at first, dropping the durabilty to 3 would, in effect, slow down the advance as well as make it more expensive. For my mod I've been concidering to approaches. The first was outlined above. Change everybody's durabilty to 3. This would have uniformity going for it but a few minor gameplay balances would be changed. For instance China's infantry. Right now they have 16 defense and if I change their durabilty the closest match would be 15, so they would lose a little strength. Russia I decided would have to start at 6*3 giving them a little better starting defense, but then they would only need two levels to match the WS. Then this would solve the problem of time for Russia as it would be similar to stock. Generally Russia is up to 5 before Germany attacks and under this system Russia would be up to 7 at the same time. They compare 20 to 21. So under this sytem Russia would have a slight advantage come Barbarrosa. This is why I have some reservations about changing everybodies durability even though the uniformity would be nice.

My second choice would be to just change the WA's durabilty and leave everyone elses stock. This would then have the advantage of keeping the numbers the same for China, Russia, etc. Since the super inf is mainly exploited by the WA's, purhaps they should be the only ones I slow down and make more expensive. The only downside I see to this is the lack of uniformity. When you first look at the tech screen you may be thrown off by the artifically high EV the WA's may have. It would only be after you compare durabilty*EV that you can make a true comparise to other nations infantry. But I can live with this as it is a fine solution to the super infantry problem.

I think either version could work. Capping at WS+2 does not seem to break anything to me - nor does the suggestion Lebatron suggests. Either has merit.

Personally though Iwould prefer a system where research is slowed down so it not only gets more expensive but also takes longer as you go above the WS.

Present system
As it is now you can research the higher levels as fast as the lower levels (see example below) - so while the cost goes up the time to research does not.

Example: Say the WA has 10 INF - starting at EV5 with 1 towards EV6.

From 5 to 6:
Turn 1: add 2 - total 3/7
Turn 2: add 3 - total 6/7
Turn 3: add 2 - total 8/7

From 6 to 7
Turn 1: add 2 - total 3/7
Turn 2: add 3 - total 6/7
Turn 3: add 2 - total 8/7

From 7 to 8
Turn 1: add 4 - total 5/14
Turn 2: add 6 - total 11/14
Turn 3: add 4 - total 15/14

From 8 to 9:
Turn 1: add 6 - total 7/21
Turn 2: add 9 - total 16/21
Turn 3: add 5 - total 21/21

In case its not clear - the rules governing how much you can spent go like this:
Factor = 1 if you are on or below WS
Factor = 2 if you are 1 above WS
Factor = 3 if you are 2 above WS etc

If you spent 0 last turn you can spend 1*Factor this turn
If you spent 1 last turn you can spend 2*Factor this turn
If you spent more than 1 last turn you can spend 3*Factor this turn

As the example also shows this means that the time to research remains pretty much static with only the cost going up.

Suggested system
I suggest this system be replaced with a much more simple system where
- If you spent n points last turn you can spent n+1 this turn (with no max).

With this rule in place the example would instead go like this:
From 5 to 6:
Turn 1: add 2 - total 3/7
Turn 2: add 3 - total 6/7
Turn 3: add 2 - total 8/7

From 6 to 7
Turn 1: add 2 - total 3/7
Turn 2: add 3 - total 6/7
Turn 3: add 2 - total 8/7

From 7 to 8
Turn 1: add 2 - total 3/14
Turn 2: add 3 - total 6/14
Turn 3: add 4 - total 10/14
Turn 4: add 5 - total 15/14

From 8 to 9:
Turn 1: add 2 - total 3/21
Turn 2: add 3 - total 6/21
Turn 3: add 4 - total 10/21
Turn 4: add 5 - total 15/21
Turn 5: add 6 - total 21/21

This leaves Heavy bomber LA as a special case - or making the A-bomb would be impossible - but thats no different from capping at WS+2.

Comparison

Without complicating matters too much this would add 1 turns to how fast the WA is likely to sport 8/8 INF and 3 turns to how fast 9/9 INF will show up. Thats assuming no more than 10 INF are in game. If the number grows to 15 INF after 8/8 is research the present system does not slow down at all - while the system I have suggested would another turn again.

Overall, the change isnt exactly huge - but its large enough to slow the research of stats far above the WS a good deal down - enough that it because questionable if you can research before you *need* to start building the units in large numbers.

Problem with this Jan is that the code would have to track what you spent last turn and ideally it would have to be shown on the interface somewhere. This is more work than we would want to do for a patch for something that can be addressed in several other much simpler ways. I have to say although I know some don't like having limits on research, I don't see the +2 over WS limit limiting much in practice. Only in games that have no end is this a problem. Although Gary didn't think he could make it a preference, perhaps he can make it so it only applies if the game uses the end date. I think the limit adds much realism to the game while not really impacting any reasonable research strategy.

Joel,

It already tracks how much you spent last time though, as far as I can tell - thats how it knows how much you can spent this turn afterall. So as such thats not new unless I am am missing something.

What if after your ramped up to the 3pp you maxed out and could never spend more then 3pp on a single teck each turn?
That sure would slow em down.