Tech Progression - Opinions?

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Tech Progression - Opinions?

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Shadow Empire >> Tech Progression - Opinions?

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Tech Progression - Opinions? - 11/27/2021 2:12:42 PM

mroyer

Posts: 914
Joined: 3/6/2016
Status: offline

Is the tech progression from one tech to another too much of a quantum leap in capability?

I feel that it is, and the game might be more interesting if tech progression was more of a continuum than a series of huge quantum leaps. The early forms of a new tech should only be mildly better than the old tech, but then progressive advances of the new tech over time would eventually obsolete the old tech, but not so immediately.

For example, when a regime deploys newly developed polymer armored tanks, the immediate benefit is so huge that they become nearly unstoppable by the steel armored tanks opposing them. The other regime is compelled to a mad scramble to develop it's own polymer armor and there is no effective alternative strategy.

If instead, the early poly tanks were just slightly better than their steel-armored counterparts, the effect wouldn't be so dramatic and wouldn't drive such a single-minded strategy - there would be time to pursue alternative strategies while developing ones own polymer capability.

The same can be said of infantry's combat armor, and many other quantum tech steps.

Thoughts? Opinions? Am I missing something?
-Mark R.

< Message edited by mroyer -- 11/27/2021 2:13:32 PM >

Post #: 1

RE: Tech Progression - Opinions? - 11/27/2021 5:32:19 PM

zgrssd

Posts: 3385
Joined: 6/9/2020
Status: offline

"Research has been modelled as if the game�s turn scale was actually higher. It
would be doubtful our survivors in Shadow Empire could in reality actually
advance from bullet-spitting rifles to plasma weapons in less than the span
of a lifetime. However, in my defence: a Slow option is proposed in the game
setup and much left-over knowledge can still be found on the Planet. It
would be good to look at research as partially research and partially learning
to re-understand old documentation and machinery"
Manual, 5.17. desIGn ComPromIses

< Message edited by zgrssd -- 11/27/2021 5:33:16 PM >

(in reply to mroyer)

Post #: 2

RE: Tech Progression - Opinions? - 11/27/2021 7:12:20 PM

mroyer

Posts: 914
Joined: 3/6/2016
Status: offline

Yeah, that talks about the slope of the line of tech advancement (i.e., speed) in the game. That's not the issue I'm discussing - a steep or shallow line of progression is fine; good game settings options, IMO. Instead, I'm questioning the stair-case nature of that line in the game.

-Mark R.

< Message edited by mroyer -- 11/27/2021 7:13:17 PM >

(in reply to zgrssd)

Post #: 3

RE: Tech Progression - Opinions? - 11/28/2021 3:01:39 AM

solops

Posts: 814
Joined: 1/31/2002
From: Central Texas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mroyer

Is the tech progression from one tech to another too much of a quantum leap in capability?

I feel that it is, and the game might be more interesting if tech progression was more of a continuum than a series of huge quantum leaps. The early forms of a new tech should only be mildly better than the old tech, but then progressive advances of the new tech over time would eventually obsolete the old tech, but not so immediately.

For example, when a regime deploys newly developed polymer armored tanks, the immediate benefit is so huge that they become nearly unstoppable by the steel armored tanks opposing them. The other regime is compelled to a mad scramble to develop it's own polymer armor and there is no effective alternative strategy.

If instead, the early poly tanks were just slightly better than their steel-armored counterparts, the effect wouldn't be so dramatic and wouldn't drive such a single-minded strategy - there would be time to pursue alternative strategies while developing ones own polymer capability.

The same can be said of infantry's combat armor, and many other quantum tech steps.

Thoughts? Opinions? Am I missing something?
-Mark R.

I am not sure I agree. I like the jump, which is offset by the cost in New minerals. A slower progression does not seem very real, either. And there should be a penalty for lagging technologically.

_____________________________

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.-Edmund Burke
Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; if it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it.-Judge Learned Hand

(in reply to mroyer)

Post #: 4

RE: Tech Progression - Opinions? - 11/28/2021 6:36:06 AM

eddieballgame

Posts: 676
Joined: 6/29/2011
Status: offline

Mark, not sure if this helps, but using the S&S Editor one can adjust the armor strength.
For example; Envirosuit = 50 armor strength
Padded Suit = 100
Combat Armor = 200
Heavy Combat Armor = 300

Maybe adjusting these numbers on down the armor tech line would suffice.

I get that the jumps in certain techs per military can quickly make the early techs obsolete pretty quick.

< Message edited by eddieballgame -- 11/28/2021 8:48:47 PM >

(in reply to solops)

Post #: 5

RE: Tech Progression - Opinions? - 11/28/2021 11:01:22 AM

zgrssd

Posts: 3385
Joined: 6/9/2020
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: eddieballgame

Mark, not sure if this helps, but using the S&S Editor one can adjust the armor strength.
For example; Envirosuit = 50 armor strength
Padded Suit = 100
Combat Armor = 200
Heavy Combat Armor = 300

I get that the jumps in certain techs per military can quickly make the early techs obsolete pretty quick.

I do feel it makes sense for new tech to completely invalidate the old one (and it's tactics). This is what historically happened.
Firearms invalidated knight armor so completely.
Firearms got invalidted by automatic firearms.
The concept of the High-Velocity gun was completely invalidated by Hollow Charge weapons. So much so, the HV-Gun is basically a stopgap.
Rail- or Coilguns would completely obsolete all current weapons and armor. As would energy weapons.

The people in SE have one advantage: They know where the tech tree ends. The Galactic Republic existed for ~5000 years. Everything that can be researched in the laws of physics, propably has been researched. So they know what will give them a instant win advantage.

< Message edited by zgrssd -- 11/28/2021 11:02:43 AM >

(in reply to eddieballgame)

Post #: 6

RE: Tech Progression - Opinions? - 11/28/2021 4:57:30 PM

ruzen

Posts: 24
Joined: 12/31/2020
Status: offline

Yes I like the jump because the world feels to me like a numenera.
There are lots of techs from the old world.
but it would make more sense to me if there is more than something beyond "just research" and you have it.
Maybe the new techs won't be powerful immidietly as we researched it but the more we use it we understood how we use it properly.

Just like unit model progression but with more impact as it levels up.

< Message edited by ruzen -- 11/28/2021 4:58:23 PM >

(in reply to zgrssd)

Post #: 7

RE: Tech Progression - Opinions? - 11/28/2021 9:28:05 PM

mroyer

Posts: 914
Joined: 3/6/2016
Status: offline

quote:

I do feel it makes sense for new tech to completely invalidate the old one (and it's tactics). This is what historically happened.
Firearms invalidated knight armor so completely.
Firearms got invalidted by automatic firearms.
The concept of the High-Velocity gun was completely invalidated by Hollow Charge weapons. So much so, the HV-Gun is basically a stopgap.
Rail- or Coilguns would completely obsolete all current weapons and armor. As would energy weapons.

The people in SE have one advantage: They know where the tech tree ends. The Galactic Republic existed for ~5000 years. Everything that can be researched in the laws of physics, propably has been researched. So they know what will give them a instant win advantage.

Yes, this is the subject I was addressing in the opening post. Through the long-lens of historical hindsight what you say is certainly true. But it's not so clear to me how quick the transitions were - I have a suspicion they took much longer than SE depicts.

quote:

Maybe the new techs won't be powerful immidietly as we researched it but the more we use it we understood how we use it properly.

This is what I'm thinking too - it takes a while to figure out a new tech, exactly how to maximize it's effectiveness, the best ways to employ it tactically and strategically, how to work around weaknesses, and so on.

A teeny-tiny bit of digging led me to this (from Met Museum):

12. Armor became obsolete because of firearms.�In its broadest sense, true.

Generally speaking, the above statement is correct as long as it is stressed that it was the ever-increasing efficiency of firearms, not firearms as such, that led to an eventual decline of plate armor on the battlefield. Since the first firearms appear to have been in use in Europe as early as the third decade of the fourteenth century, and the gradual decline of armor is not noticed before the second half of the seventeenth century, firearms and plate armor coexisted for more than 300 years. During the sixteenth century, attempts had been made to render armor bulletproof, either by hardening the steel or, more commonly, by thickening the armor or adding separate reinforcing pieces on top of the normal field armor.

and this (from Me262 vs P-51):

Arguably two of the finest fighters built during the course of World War II, the Me 262 and P-51 Mustang heralded new dawns in aircraft performance. Making its operational debut in the summer of 1944, and powered by the Jumo 004 jet engine, the Me 262 outclassed Allied planes in terms of speed and firepower ratio, offering a formidable punch with four 30 mm MK 108 nose-mounted cannons. However, in the P-51, fitted with the Rolls-Royce (Packard) Merlin engine and drop tanks, the USAAF finally had a fighter that had the �legs' to escort its heavy bombers deep into Reich airspace and back. If flown to its strengths, the P-51 was more than capable of taking on the feared Me 262 on an equal footing, despite the differences in power and top speed. Indeed, the Mustang proved to be the Luftwaffe fighter arm's nemesis.

Both passages seem to indicate that the advent of the new tech did not translate to immediate domination in battle, but a first step in the eventual obsolescence of the older tech. I feel like the game instead shows tech transitions as instantaneous domination by the newer tech. (Unless....? perhaps... various optimizations of older tech in the game make it more competitive with the new tech? Has anyone explored that approach?)

-Mark R.

< Message edited by mroyer -- 11/28/2021 9:37:33 PM >

(in reply to zgrssd)

Post #: 8

RE: Tech Progression - Opinions? - 11/28/2021 10:54:25 PM

Zanotirn

Posts: 113
Joined: 3/12/2021
Status: offline

That transition period can be simulated by making a new completely new generation of gear start from zero testing.
Although on the WWII fighters specifically, I'd say that the issue with Me262 was largely lack of numbers, and the inability of Germany by 1944 to produce enough planes to challenge Allies' air superiority. Plus Germany was lacking experienced pilots by this time, and it's hard to get new ones when the strategic side is stacked against your air forces (same problem faced by USSR earlier in the war).

An opposite example would be for example Hussite wars, in which Bohemian forces were among the first in Europe to use significant numbers of firearms in battle, as well as pioneered the use of battle vehicles, and immediately proceeded to successfully use them against in theory superior crusader forces.

(in reply to mroyer)

Post #: 9

RE: Tech Progression - Opinions? - 11/29/2021 11:51:34 AM

zgrssd

Posts: 3385
Joined: 6/9/2020
Status: offline

quote:

Yes, this is the subject I was addressing in the opening post. Through the long-lens of historical hindsight what you say is certainly true. But it's not so clear to me how quick the transitions were - I have a suspicion they took much longer than SE depicts.

Historically we did not know how any idea ends.

We did not know that Spontaneous Generation was a stupid idea. You know, that thing Louis Pasteur had to disproove? You know, that idea you never lerned is school because it was just a way to stupid idea?

We know it is wrong.
The people in SE know it is wrong.
They know where the Armsrace ends. And where all the important steps and pitfalls lie.
They have slight issue with the industrial base and other detail questions, but they know:
- Solar Power is a thing that works with X% efficiency on this planet
- Power Plants are a feasible way to produce power, not something we have to argue about
- DC power is more usefull then AC (except for some extremely long distancce applications)
- Carbines < Automatic Weapons < Coilguns < Lasers < Plasma

(in reply to mroyer)

Post #: 10

RE: Tech Progression - Opinions? - 11/29/2021 6:08:27 PM

SamuraiProgrmmr

Posts: 353
Joined: 10/17/2004
From: Paducah, Kentucky
Status: offline

I do not have the experience that many of you have with this game. I am, however, an experienced gamer. I have been playing 'war games' since 1977.

I do not propose to dictate how others play. Everything here is my opinion even if stated as fact.

In my opinion, the pace of the game using normal research speed is a good pace.

Is it realistic? Probably not, but remember that the situation is one of emerging from a sort of 'dark age'. It is easy to assume that many of these are old technologies that are being rediscovered.

Furthermore, I think that slowing down the tech will cause the game to be a little more chaotic.

Two things that immediately come to mind are the increase in importance of the Archive card and the additional difficulty of catching up to an opponent (human or AI) that has advanced beyond your technology.

Slowing down the tech will shift the balance of what is necessary for 'good play' toward an emphasis on discovery and research. This will, in turn, lower the importance of all other facets of the game and make alternate paths to victory less viable.

I find that I am able (or nearly able) to field new weaponry (and armor etc.) at about the time I feel a need to start a new push against another regime. This timing creates yet another interesting decision about whether to forge ahead or wait until it can be incorporated in a new model before starting the offensive.

Clearly, other more experienced players may find that timing to be different as their technique of early game management creates a different synergy. For that reason, while in my opinion the speed of discovery and research is appropriate, I can see how more experienced players would like to slow it down some.

Personally I was surprised that there were game options that slowed the tech advance down and astounded at the amount at which the rate was affected.

Again, I don't propose to dictate how others play.

I do, however, have a suggestion.

Instead of the checkboxes to slow the technology down, what if there were a slider instead. It could increase the cost of discovery and research by a percentage from -50% (i.e. speed it up) to say 500% (or whatever value the community thinks will never be needed). This would allow each player to set the challenge to a value they wish. Furthermore, in my opinion, radical changes in this setting could change the dynamics of the game in such a way that it 'feels' like an entirely different struggle.

For reference, I always start on the first tech level and normal tech speed.

_____________________________

Bridge is the best wargame going .. Where else can you find a tournament every weekend?

(in reply to zgrssd)

Post #: 11

RE: Tech Progression - Opinions? - 11/29/2021 9:14:25 PM

eddieballgame

Posts: 676
Joined: 6/29/2011
Status: offline

Maybe, based on the fact all techs should be known anyways, have an option for no need for any research.
Everything is discovered & researched.
Just balance (if possible) the values of each tech & assign the necessary costs per their relative value.

OR...everything is discovered/known, but research is required to build the weapons, items, etc.

(in reply to SamuraiProgrmmr)

Post #: 12

RE: Tech Progression - Opinions? - 12/2/2021 5:27:07 PM

Cassini

Posts: 26
Joined: 11/30/2021
Status: offline

The issue I have with the system, is that there is no way to pick and choose which tech to research next. Sometimes one gets a choice between two techs, but spending multiple rounds researching something that is not going to be of any use in the next 10-20 rounds is a bit frustrating.

(in reply to eddieballgame)

Post #: 13

RE: Tech Progression - Opinions? - 12/2/2021 6:57:54 PM

Wtface

Posts: 14
Joined: 4/28/2021
Status: offline

Some techs like airplanes, advanced armors have a big power jump but require economic techs and special production resources to ramp up for machinery or high tech in order to make use of them. You cant just get plasma armor and win because you need heavy industry tech, the buildings, high tech tech, high tech buildings, and the power to support them.

Other techs require nothing but a little more cost, but give you modest improvements - combat armors, RPGs, sealed roads, upgraded machine guns. You cant just get upgraded machine guns and win because it just isnt that much more firepower. Over time you will win but the opponent has time to counter, or can overwhelm you with quantity, or better leaders and tactics.

Lasers, gauss, powerplants and polymer are huge power jumps that are not limited by economic techs, or special resources. You can just get gauss and win immediately. Leaders, unit compositions, postures, tactics, experience cant change that because the jump from tech is too big and what is gained from all other sources from a similar investment is too small in comparison. Rares are not a real cost as you get them free from scavenging and they have no other use.

Gauss, lasers and polymer need either smaller firepower increases or machinery/high tech costs. Tech level 3 needs some minimal buildable energy source.

Slower tech speed settings actuslly make the issue worse because that one decisive tech advantage lasts even longer.

< Message edited by Wtface -- 12/2/2021 7:32:18 PM >

(in reply to Cassini)

Post #: 14

RE: Tech Progression - Opinions? - 12/2/2021 7:01:06 PM

zgrssd

Posts: 3385
Joined: 6/9/2020
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cassini

The issue I have with the system, is that there is no way to pick and choose which tech to research next. Sometimes one gets a choice between two techs, but spending multiple rounds researching something that is not going to be of any use in the next 10-20 rounds is a bit frustrating.

Set different priorities for Discovery and Research then. That is what the sliders are there for.

The latests betas add a option to research nothing, similar to how you can already do it for Model Designs.

(in reply to Cassini)

Post #: 15

RE: Tech Progression - Opinions? - 12/19/2021 1:09:44 AM

Dogetor

Posts: 6
Joined: 12/16/2021
Status: offline

That's a brilliant idea. The easiest way to achieve this would be to divide techs into tiers, for example: prototype, early, regular, advanced.

(in reply to mroyer)

Post #: 16

RE: Tech Progression - Opinions? - 12/19/2021 1:40:27 AM

eddieballgame

Posts: 676
Joined: 6/29/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dogetor

That's a brilliant idea. The easiest way to achieve this would be to divide techs into tiers, for example: prototype, early, regular, advanced.

The S&S Editor does allow one to move the techs around per tiers.

(in reply to Dogetor)

Post #: 17

RE: Tech Progression - Opinions? - 12/19/2021 1:27:39 PM

solops

Posts: 814
Joined: 1/31/2002
From: Central Texas
Status: offline

The survivors in SE absolutely DO know what and where the tech tree is. They are rebuilding and they just have to rediscover the tech and figure out how to implement it. They already know most of what is possible.

_____________________________

(in reply to eddieballgame)

Post #: 18

RE: Tech Progression - Opinions? - 12/19/2021 2:31:35 PM

KingHalford

Posts: 488
Joined: 8/18/2016
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: eddieballgame
The S&S Editor does allow one to move the techs around per tiers.

This I didn't know. That's really interesting. There are some techs that I think could do with being placed lower in the tree (Solar Power is one, I think it's too effective and cheap, and providing you've got Rare Metals it's a no-brainer)

_____________________________

Ben "BATTLEMODE"
www.eXplorminate.co

(in reply to eddieballgame)

Post #: 19

RE: Tech Progression - Opinions? - 12/19/2021 5:52:28 PM

Cassini

Posts: 26
Joined: 11/30/2021
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: KingHalford

quote:

ORIGINAL: eddieballgame
The S&S Editor does allow one to move the techs around per tiers.

This I didn't know. That's really interesting. There are some techs that I think could do with being placed lower in the tree (Solar Power is one, I think it's too effective and cheap, and providing you've got Rare Metals it's a no-brainer)

You hit the nail on the head here. Early on, your development is SEVERELY limited by the 100 energy available in your starting zone. You can power your capital structure, a bureaucratic structure and maybe 1 other level I improvement (barracks, hospital, vidcom, etc.). Until you capture and hold a hex perk that has energy production, you are severely constrained.

Then 'magically', once the solar panel option is available, all your energy woes disappear. You can now power all those 'laser rifles' (that you've managed to develop after about 75 rounds or so) and have energy to spare to ramp up zone development as much as metal availability holds.

There needs to be an adjustment to the tech progression, to enable 'power plants' (I still haven't received this tech - but have others in the third tier down (in the tech tree) available for research.

The power plant tech needs to be made available at start, and permitting production of say 50 energy at level I, then progressing upwards - all to be presumably powered by the oil available from scavenging and oil wells.

It was later in my play, that I discovered the 'trick' to getting all those binary techs to become available, was to engage in a level 1 'scientific exchange' with a major power - then all the sudden the binary techs started to magically flow in. I readjusted the 'sliders' for my researchers to shift from discovery to actual research, and the usable techs starting popping up at the rate of about 1 per round (I developed the bureaucratic assets quickly to get the BP up to the point where the program was stating there was 'wasted' BP due to inefficiency).

I've gone from 'slug throwers' in round 1, to having about 15 or brigades (could have double that if I didn't focus on zone development so much) with all the infantry equipped with combat suits and laser rifles by about round 75 or so (12-13 earth years time scale). Frankly, this is just too damn fast. I know players want to have all the 'Star Wars' technology, but if things are going to start off at presumably bolt action rifles, there does need to be some constraint on tech development. I skipped completely over Gauss weaponry, just because things were developing so rapidly.

So my recommendation at this point would be to have the 'game' to SLOW THINGS DOWN - cut the rate of tech progression by at least half, possibly two-thirds. Each 'level' of tech should take about 60 rounds (10 earth years) AT LEAST to develop. So from bolt action (slug thrower), to carbine, to automatic, to gauss, to laser rifles should take a MINIMUM of 300 rounds to accomplish (50 earth years). Even this is too fast, but things need to progress at some rate to keep the 'game aspect' interesting - at the expense of any simulation credibility.

All 'tech levels' would need to progress at the same rate (approximately 10 years to 'gain a level'). Since there are techs for ground vehicles, air vehicles, personal armor, energy production, health care, training and protection, entertainment, education, etc.; each of these could have an approximate 10 year progression - ALL progressing at the same time. The player could shift priorities - to 'push' infantry weapons at the expense of others, but if a 'balanced' approach were undertaken, each of these tech categories would advance a level in the span of about 10 years.

(in reply to KingHalford)

Post #: 20

RE: Tech Progression - Opinions? - 12/19/2021 7:31:44 PM

mroyer

Posts: 914
Joined: 3/6/2016
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cassini
It was later in my play, that I discovered the 'trick' to getting all those binary techs to become available, was to engage in a level 1 'scientific exchange' with a major power - then all the sudden the binary techs started to magically flow in.

Is the exchange with an AI major, human major or either?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cassini
So my recommendation at this point would be to have the 'game' to SLOW THINGS DOWN - cut the rate of tech progression by at least half, possibly two-thirds.

What 'development speed' are you referring to, normal, slower or slowest? I also tend to think things go much too fast, especially at normal rate. Perhaps if things were slowed down across the board, we'd also need an option to start at higher tech (e.g. 6 or 7) so players who want to play with star-wars weaponry don't have to play hundreds of rounds to get them.

-Mark R.

(in reply to Cassini)

Post #: 21

RE: Tech Progression - Opinions? - 12/19/2021 7:55:23 PM

eddieballgame

Posts: 676
Joined: 6/29/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: KingHalford

quote:

ORIGINAL: eddieballgame
The S&S Editor does allow one to move the techs around per tiers.

This I didn't know. That's really interesting. There are some techs that I think could do with being placed lower in the tree (Solar Power is one, I think it's too effective and cheap, and providing you've got Rare Metals it's a no-brainer)

Interesting, as some thought it should be available sooner, if not...already researched.
You make a very good point, however.
I had done up a simple mod to address this per some wanting it to be available at the beginning per starting with Tech Level 3.

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=5025445

(in reply to KingHalford)

Post #: 22

RE: Tech Progression - Opinions? - 12/20/2021 12:18:08 AM

Cassini

Posts: 26
Joined: 11/30/2021
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mroyer

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cassini
It was later in my play, that I discovered the 'trick' to getting all those binary techs to become available, was to engage in a level 1 'scientific exchange' with a major power - then all the sudden the binary techs started to magically flow in.

Is the exchange with an AI major, human major or either?

AI major

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cassini
So my recommendation at this point would be to have the 'game' to SLOW THINGS DOWN - cut the rate of tech progression by at least half, possibly two-thirds.

What 'development speed' are you referring to, normal, slower or slowest? I also tend to think things go much too fast, especially at normal rate. Perhaps if things were slowed down across the board, we'd also need an option to start at higher tech (e.g. 6 or 7) so players who want to play with star-wars weaponry don't have to play hundreds of rounds to get them.

-Mark R.

I'm not using any mods, so I have to assume normal development speed.

I was initially thinking, that engaging in 'scientific exchange' would benefit the AI major more than me - so I refrained from doing so. Getting those binary tech discoveries was PAINFULLY slow - so I decided what the heck and went for a level 1 exchange. Presto - the discoveries started rolling in and I had multiple options to select for my military, air force and economic research.

However... I've got discoveries into the 4th tier of tech, but my economic research in getting any single tech is still painfully slow. I'm thinking that higher level scientific exchanges would be needed to speed this up.

(in reply to mroyer)

Post #: 23