should tech event bumps be larger

should tech event bumps be larger (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's World at War: A World Divided

[Poll]

+0 ---> (1+d4, 6+d4) unchanged

37% (3)

+1 ---> (2+d4, 7+d4)

0% (0)

+2 ---> (3+d4, 8+d4)

37% (3)

+3 ---> (4+d4, 9+d4)

25% (2)

+4 ---> (5+d4, 10+d4)

0% (0)

Total Votes : 8

(last vote on : 2/13/2008 1:05:20 AM)
(Poll ended: 2/17/2008 7:00:00 AM)

Message

WanderingHead -> should tech event bumps be larger (2/10/2008 10:05:05 AM)
Currently tech events cause a research bump of 6+d4 (jet engines,LCVP, LST) or 1+d4 (all else). There's been some discussion of increasing the size of the bumps. For simplicity let's just say that we don't change anything except for applying a larger non-random value to each, where we increase them both the same. E.g., if we icrease by 2 we will get 8+d4 and 3+d4 respectively. How much should we increase the research bump? I'm going to vote 0, not because I particularly object to a change but simply because I don't think a change is necessary.

GKar -> RE: should tech event bumps be larger (2/10/2008 1:02:23 PM)
I voted +2 because I think a modest bump will make the tech events more meaningful.

Marshall Art -> RE: should tech event bumps be larger (2/10/2008 4:33:30 PM)
I gave it a +3 bump because it feels more like a push than the current bonus which is not much more than a calm wind...

MrQuiet -> RE: should tech event bumps be larger (2/10/2008 4:47:36 PM)
I gave it a +2 but I do feel the landing craft bumps are plenty high enough already. And with 75% chance to fire they are almost certain to come on time.

Lebatron -> RE: should tech event bumps be larger (2/10/2008 8:13:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrQuiet I gave it a +2 but I do feel the landing craft bumps are plenty high enough already. And with 75% chance to fire they are almost certain to come on time. Yes I feel the same way and almost wanted to say myself that the landing craft techs really don't need the extra muscle. But the trade off would be that Germany has a slightly easier time getting jets. But the WA do gain more in the big tech increase which is why I've been saying all along that if the snorkel event wasn't moved to 1942, then it should be classified in the same category as jets, and landing craft. In this way both sides get 2 events with the larger bump in tech.

MrQuiet -> RE: should tech event bumps be larger (2/10/2008 8:28:17 PM)
While we are at it, Japan seems to be getting the short end of the stick again. Is there any possible tec event they could capitalize on?

WanderingHead -> RE: should tech event bumps be larger (2/10/2008 11:27:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrQuiet While we are at it, Japan seems to be getting the short end of the stick again. Is there any possible tec event they could capitalize on? Well, this basically comes to my perception. Technology advances should be based on industrial capacity and the choices of the player. Hence my lack of enthusiasm for tech events. Even less enthusiasm for significantly reduced randomness in tech advances, because then it starts to feel like we're just trying to script a historical tech path, and the player can plan better on specific outcomes. The reality is that planning based on technology advances could _never_ be so certain, and there is already a remarkably (and unrealistically) low amount of uncertainty in the research process. The powers that had these technology advances attained them because they had the industrial capacity, the scientific knowledge base, and made the decisions to pursue them. That is all modelled in the game without making the tech events more significant, and the very production factors that led to few significant Japanese advances during the war are already at play in the basic economic model.

christian brown -> RE: should tech event bumps be larger (2/12/2008 4:08:34 AM)
Darnit, I have to agree with WH basically because he's right about the forced historical path. It is clearly more "fun" to have them (technology breakthroughs) in the game, especially for the new or casual player but I'd actually prefer to see a lot more randomness via a really large range of events for every nation with bigger impacts and much less of a chance of occurring at all (e.g. Japan or Russia would have at least 10 events each that would raise any tech a full level but only a 3% chance of firing each turn. An even better scheme would have a possible reward to any any nation who "maxes out" on research for 4 or more consecutive turns. They could have a 10% chance each turn when that condition is met of having what they just spent doubled. Call it a "matching funds grant" if you will and remove the random events entirely (you could still come up with enough descriptions for these events as a reserve to make it more fun when they did occur.) This would better represent the effects of an otherwise insignificant discovery being backed by the full force of a nation's military industrial/educational/doctrinal leadership, as well as allowing a player to be rewarded with a breakthrough in a tech they actually care about and have made the conscious choice to pursue. Well that is clearly not going to happen, and for now I'll vote for no bonus to the existing scheme as well.

Fanatic2008 -> RE: should tech event bumps be larger (2/17/2008 3:04:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WanderingHead quote: ORIGINAL: MrQuiet While we are at it, Japan seems to be getting the short end of the stick again. Is there any possible tec event they could capitalize on? Well, this basically comes to my perception. Technology advances should be based on industrial capacity and the choices of the player. Hence my lack of enthusiasm for tech events. Even less enthusiasm for significantly reduced randomness in tech advances, because then it starts to feel like we're just trying to script a historical tech path, and the player can plan better on specific outcomes. The reality is that planning based on technology advances could _never_ be so certain, and there is already a remarkably (and unrealistically) low amount of uncertainty in the research process. The powers that had these technology advances attained them because they had the industrial capacity, the scientific knowledge base, and made the decisions to pursue them. That is all modelled in the game without making the tech events more significant, and the very production factors that led to few significant Japanese advances during the war are already at play in the basic economic model. Japan had almost created the nuclear bomb before the allies did except there reaserch facility got destroyed and they had less then 10% of the amount of scientist USA had japan was very advanced they just didnt have enough resources to build the advance units, there techology wasnt based on there factory output if you want to be historically accruate.

Lebatron -> RE: should tech event bumps be larger (2/17/2008 5:29:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Fanatic2008 Japan had almost created the nuclear bomb before the allies did except there reaserch facility got destroyed and they had less then 10% of the amount of scientist USA had japan was very advanced they just didnt have enough resources to build the advance units, there techology wasnt based on there factory output if you want to be historically accruate. I have never heard that before. Where did you read this? In the books I've read concerning the lives of the great Physicists of that era, Japan's great minds were left out. Perhaps that's just western bias in our history books, a very common thing, or maybe there weren't any Japanese Physicists of this caliber. So please where did you read this because I would certainly like to know more.

WanderingHead -> RE: should tech event bumps be larger (2/18/2008 10:06:45 PM)
With the votes (3,0,3,2) the average right now is +1.5. I am inclined to do +1, because when in doubt I would prefer to round towards "the smallest change". Also, there was some comment that the big jumps were already plenty big. How about +1 for the small ones and leave the big ones untouched? The result would be 6+d4 (unchanged) and 2+d4 (+1).

Fanatic2008 -> RE: should tech event bumps be larger (2/18/2008 10:13:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lebatron quote: ORIGINAL: Fanatic2008 Japan had almost created the nuclear bomb before the allies did except there reaserch facility got destroyed and they had less then 10% of the amount of scientist USA had japan was very advanced they just didnt have enough resources to build the advance units, there techology wasnt based on there factory output if you want to be historically accruate. I have never heard that before. Where did you read this? In the books I've read concerning the lives of the great Physicists of that era, Japan's great minds were left out. Perhaps that's just western bias in our history books, a very common thing, or maybe there weren't any Japanese Physicists of this caliber. So please where did you read this because I would certainly like to know more. the History channel channel 43 on canadian TV. the americans do deny it even though the japanese say they bomded the facilty, there has been evidence found of a very devolped nuclear weapons program for japan though in what WAW refers to as manchuria. they even found the remaints of an attempt to build the first atom bomb.

MrQuiet -> RE: should tech event bumps be larger (2/18/2008 10:19:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WanderingHead With the votes (3,0,3,2) the average right now is +1.5. I am inclined to do +1, because when in doubt I would prefer to round towards "the smallest change". Also, there was some comment that the big jumps were already plenty big. How about +1 for the small ones and leave the big ones untouched? The result would be 6+d4 (unchanged) and 2+d4 (+1). Sounds ok with me

Page: [1]

0.8439941