RE: The Great Wishlist Thread (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Time of Fury



Message

Petiloup -> RE: The Great Wishlist Thread (3/15/2012 5:37:45 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: doomtrader
Actually the Germans did transported couple of subs and smaller attack boats by land to the Black Sea.

Indeed they did but I'm speaking here of moving 6 Panzer Division from Trieste to Tobruk using German STP. That's slightly different.
Anyway I understand the design decision to keep it simple but this makes taking North Africa for the German way too easy. Transport issue were key in preventing the German to bring enough troops and supply to the Afrika Korps. Without this represented somehow it creates an imbalance.

quote:

ORIGINAL: doomtrader
However as we wanted to make the game accessible for more casual players we decided to simplify couple of things. All of the issues you have mentioned above are not broken, only the design decisions, so I don't think they might be fixed.

Too bad.

quote:

ORIGINAL: doomtrader
There are very limited situations in the real life when units were directly controlled by other countries. Africa case is indeed one of those rare situations, but I would like to avoid changing whole game to represent those.

Well in real life, the German didn't move first then the Italian then the Slovaks then the French and so forth. So you are contradicting this even more by not making an alliance move together at the very least.

Also in real life an Armored Corps wasn't a counter on a map but thousands of troops spread on a certain area which could be attacked from different sides by troops from different countries based on an attack plan.

I don't think in real life someone was telling the German "Please attack first" then to the Slovaks or Romanians "Ok it's your turn now". You are right they would have been under different command structure but the end result would still be for them to put pressure on the enemy at the same time more or less. Not one after the other.

The Eastern Front was definitely such a case as well.

As for units being controlled by other countries should we just look at Operation Market-Garden, if I recall well the 82 and 101 aren't British troops. just a tiny example is the French tanks used in the British counterattack of Arras.

In digging a bit I can come with plethora of example to contradict this.



doomtrader -> RE: The Great Wishlist Thread (3/15/2012 8:10:18 AM)

You have to remember that if you have got your allied troops next to the unit you are attacking, you are receiving a bonus to your strength, so this simulates support they can provide.



borsook79 -> RE: The Great Wishlist Thread (3/15/2012 6:10:52 PM)

While I understand the issue in theory, I don't understand the practicalities of it. Contrary to HOI3 in TOF you can take control of your allies, so you can do it either permanently or just for a turn when you're planning some joint operation.



Petiloup -> RE: The Great Wishlist Thread (3/23/2012 2:18:49 PM)

Ok, so I just finished a Grand Campaign with the Axis (Human Control of Germany, Italy and other Axis countries once joining Germany).

First I must say the game is beautiful and indeed easy enough to play. No non-sense details that impedes playability. Truly a wargame.

I like a lot of the features like only one combined attack per unit, research is helpful but not decisive, ships in details, great graphics,...

The AI is doing as expected, no better or worst for me as I managed to take over Poland, Luxemburg - Netherland - Belgium and France by Feb'1940, UK by May'1940 then attack Russia in August'1940. The first Winter was a scare as the Russian production is huge but the habit for the AI to lock his unit with a second line of units in the back make him looses tons of troops when they surrender having no place to retreat. Instead of being totally destroyed they should maybe come back in the force pool at 10 or 20% total value or give some PP like when you disband an unit. Russian went down in 1942 after gobbling up Denmark, Yugoslavia, Greece, Turkey, Iraq, Egypt, Norway, Ireland, Iceland and Portugal. With almost 1,000 PP per week of production I thought of waiting for the Atomic Bomb but didn't see the point.

Now there are quite a bit of flaws as well but overall nothing that does threaten playability so it is still a great game to play on my sense. So posting here as part of my wish list for improvements:

Major issues:

- CV Interceptions: I had one British CV intercepting almost ALL my attacks on the fleet in the Channel and I did so with almost 10 Tactical Air Units. Each interceptions damaging my Air unit and with 2 attack per unit you can imagine how much it did cost to build back everything. This is of course ridiculous as in reality this CV would have been sunk 10 times over. In my case he wasn't even scratched. Interception should be limited and subject to a %age chance of intercepting depending also on the number of fighters able to cover the attack. My fighters of course played no role in all this which is also a non-sense as in reality they would have wiped out the CV Cap without breaking a sweat. I had 10+ fighter units.

- Fighter Interceptions: Same here, during Sealion the RAF managed to Intercept a lot of my recon and attacks with only 2 or 3 fighters while I had 10+ of mine at the ready. Interceptions should be limited to maybe 2 times the number of action left from the player turn (overusing units at the attack should prevent a good coverage in defense) or 1 time the action number if we can't keep track of what was used during the player turn.

- The US never entered the war. Not sure why at all.

- I can't crush the Allies as you can't invade the British Colonies. I know I tried as it was all that was left on the map for me besides the US. So you can't win the game.

Issues that bothers me:

- After taking Leningrad the Baltic Russian Fleet went on fighting for 9 months more or less before I finally managed to destroy every single one units. This isn't very plausible. The ships should be automatically destroyed if there is no friendly ports at moving distance and they are at sea for more than X weeks (to be defined).

- Due to Allies Victories, Vichy decides to show its true colors and Germany decides to annex it. Well I wonder which victories as by that time I did conquer France and the UK the controlled Leningrad and Moscow in Russia pushing the Russian to Stalingrad. Well I did welcome the whole French Fleet in the Kriegsmarine even if in reality they did destroy themselves. Not sure if it's a % of chance it happens but if so it should be per ship not for the whole fleet including submarines.

- There is no ending to the Winter War between Russia and Finland? or is it that you need to accept Russian demands the first time. Then would Finland join Germany later? Events aren't very well explained at all.

- Speaking of events I did invest 300PP for the Sealion Operation event... then never saw anything coming out of it. Next time I'll keep those to build my own Sealion operation... which I did obviously.

- the British Army doesn't screen all its ports so I could land Para in Plymouth and mop up the UK from there. The British Navy can't even intercept anything as you can move from Caen to Plymouth in one turn disembarking everything right away.

- the Sea Battles are strange as you never really fight with your whole fleet against the enemy fleet. At least not against the AI. I felt like the Kriegsmarine had numerical superiority against the British Navy all the time.

- Tac Bombers can't bomb other Tac Bombers. I can accept they can't do so against fighters but bombers did destroy a lot of planes on the enemy airfields.

- Tac Bombers losses are heavy attacking troops especially in Russia. So when you get the cost of repairing a plane versus the cost of the unit destroyed it's not very interesting or efficient.

- Strategic Bombers get losses from the troop, the city/factory and not sure what else but I stopped using them right away but for anything else than recon. Especially I don't feel there is an impact on the enemy production.

- Great Britain surrenders and become a puppet of Germany, the British Union. That's great but then Egypt becomes part of Britain once again. You can't even choose the territorial compensations like Gibraltar and Malta. Pretty sure Italy would have insisted to get Malta and Egypt if the UK decides to surrender and Germany would have asked Gibraltar to become Spanish once more.

- You can transfer PP from Rumania, Bulgaria, Croatia and even Ukraine if created to Germany (via Sevastopol for example) but you can't transfer the PP from Hungary and Slovakia because they are all land countries. Reason being???

- Carrier strikes never did destroy another ship in my case. After building a few CV's with the Italian and using them I got one hit or 2 hits in over 10 attacks. Might be unlucky but normally the CV's where the best anti-ships weapons so should be more efficient than that.

- When you reach a new level with your troops they all get the bonus even if they don't level up. So for example suddenly all my planes got the bonus of reaching level 3 even if they were still all at level 2. Nice but not logical.

Minor issues:

- German Strategic Bombers at level 2 and over are showing a B-24 photo. Not a problem but would prefer to see a German plane.

- FOW is showing if a unit is a division or a corps. Not a major issue but it helps to know where to attack. Maybe planes could recognize big and small formations so really not a major problem.

- Amphibious pts are destroyed after being used even if you disembark in a friendly port. I did that after cancelling an attack so better be sure that once you decide to invade you commit to it.

- No partisan units ever appeared in Russia (now I chose Mild policy in Russia so this might have an impact, as events aren't well explained I'm not sure) I had 2 in France and 1 in Yugoslavia in over 3 years and that's it. Reading about Tito's resistance army in Yugoslavia and you'll know this isn't realistic. In Russia resistance was a nightmare for the Germans.

- There should be a reminder that you have unused leaders in the HQ. I had one or two new or back there after the unit is destroyed that did nothing for most of the war.

For the rest I still don't like Axis countries moving separately and using their own supplies but that didn't prevent me to play the game.



doomtrader -> RE: The Great Wishlist Thread (3/23/2012 6:02:20 PM)

Hi Polonthi,

Really great post and constructive observations, some of the issues were already addressed with the 1.01 patch (from your description I assume you have been playing with 1.00).
Some of them are already prepared for 1.02.



Petiloup -> RE: The Great Wishlist Thread (3/25/2012 10:33:33 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: doomtrader
Hi Polonthi,

Really great post and constructive observations, some of the issues were already addressed with the 1.01 patch (from your description I assume you have been playing with 1.00).
Some of them are already prepared for 1.02.

Thanks, must say the game kinda grow on me and just playing a campaign as the Russian... to see the first round of Barbarossa and understand what it means getting the Red Army surprised by the German onslaught.

Will load the patch and see what happens still one big surprise in this game is to read that Slovakia surrenders to Great Britain. With the FOW I'm not sure what happened but would guess it's due to paratroops as if not I really have no clue [X(]



Razz1 -> RE: The Great Wishlist Thread (3/25/2012 4:57:02 PM)

We have hot keys for sea battle but lost the Auto resolve after release.

M = next move
N = Next turn
C = Close

But no A for Auto resolve


Also, there is no report for shore bombardment losses



Hairog -> RE: The Great Wishlist Thread (3/27/2012 3:14:11 AM)

I would like to see another role for the Tac bomber. That of interdiction. Give them the ability to destroy a RR hex or cause a hex to be controlled by your side to cut supply. This would give them a much greater and more historical role than they have now.

Some how I would like to see more benefits from total air superiority. If no enemy fighter units are within range a tac bomber would have its attack strength increased dramatically. This would simulate the devastating effect of the Stuka when it was free to roam or the IL2 and P38/Tempest etc. when they were freed from attacks from enemy fighters and owned the sky destroying ships, trucks and trains at will. This would add another layer and more accurately model the war in the air as well as give greater urgency to the British and eventually the Germans in keeping their fighter forces strong.

Example... if the Germans gained air superiority over the Channel then Sealion could become a reality and the BOB would have a historical purpose. The German Tac Bombers could enjoy enhanced abilities to keep at bay the British Home Fleet went it sortied to stop the invasion. Conversely the same would be true if the Allies did not gain air superiority for D-day.Neither invasion would be possible with air superiority.

Another feature I would like to see would be the ability of the players to set the route that convoys take. If they diverge from the optimal route some kind of penalty in either time or loss of PPs would occur. This would add to the cat and mouse feel that the real War for the Atlantic had.



duncan007 -> RE: The Great Wishlist Thread (3/27/2012 10:56:53 AM)

One big wish :
Link ToF to SotP so we can play the whole war.
[&o]



wolf14455 -> RE: The Great Wishlist Thread (3/30/2012 1:44:03 PM)

Ive been playing a bit now and I miss something in my desert fighting. Supply!! In ww2 they accumelated supply by waiting and then made an offensive and then waited again. Can that be introduced in the game? Especially in areas that are on sea supply.



wolf14455 -> RE: The Great Wishlist Thread (4/2/2012 3:35:08 PM)

Maybee a supply chit can be introduced in the game with two sides. Half and full. Built in home country and can be used as a supply boost for troops with low basic supply. So I thinking it can be transported by rail and transport ship. For a sum or deduction from strategic transport points make the supply motorized. When used it will be flipped and for game balance sake increase surrounding units with supply to be used for prederment time of turns for offensive/defensive operations. Two areas to be used could be in the desert and on the russian tundra, long from railheads. The motorized supply will use own supply when moving second turn. This is just sudjestions how to implement it but I think Supply build up in any form will make an already good game even better.



JLPOWELL -> RE: The Great Wishlist Thread (4/4/2012 9:55:35 PM)

Work on the Events

Document the events. Wild and crazy stuff happens but its all 'hidden' Hidden can be good but this is not.
Document particularly those events or event like items which directly impact the play like the arbitrary infantry size limits.
Option for players to remove some events.
Spring cleaning clear out some of the events (most of them perhaps)
Enable choice during PBEM events go completely out of control in PBEM
Enable event descriptions in the reports (full description with the mouse over text) stuff happens particularly in PBEM and not is it often crazy random but you can't tell what...



JLPOWELL -> RE: The Great Wishlist Thread (4/4/2012 10:45:42 PM)

Some Thoughts on Technology

Consider Separating tech development from $$$ each country should have a tech budget SEPERATE from production. Few projects required massive economic R&D efforts (A- Bomb in US and German Rockets did but otherwise $$$ did not = progress as directly as in the game) Countries should get 'tech points' to spend perhaps tech points could be 'bought' at a very high $$ cost to supplement the basic allowance.

If not halve all US research costs as only half of the economy is represented (pacific theater R&D would apply to ETO so for example PTO would 'pay' for at least Sub and Navy research and some air as well.

US and UK shared R&D this should be modeled.

Starting Tech

This and most games tend to overvalue German technology. Germany tends to be rated #1 in technology. This is simply not accurate. Wonder Weapons were essentially a myth. The true breakthroughs (V1 V2 and Jets advanced subs) had much less impact than Allied technology. (and if you carry the war to 1948 (as ToF does) this becomes much more pronounced.

US and UK domination of electronics (sonar radar and code breaking computers) Germany was always behind in radar sonar and had not any concept of electronic computers used for code breaking. This area is HUGE and impacted all branches (Air ground sea) significantly. Germany was ahead in jets but UK and US were not far behind and by 1946 they would have dominated.

And of course the famous big ticket wonder weapons. Who really developed effective wonder weapons?

V2 rocket with very impressive technology was pretty much a nuisance weapon which had less impact (pardon the pun[:D]) on the war than the US proximity fuses for artillery (see electronics....) In contrast the two main allied wonder weapons were Enigma (HUGE impact) and The A-Bomb which was essentially a war finisher (The Trinity Test effectively rendered all other weapons obsolete for 'Total War'). The enigma in particular was really a wonder weapon the enemy didn't even know it existed they just had to wonder how they were outguessed so often. (perhaps this should be modeled by turning of FoW for US and UK)

Many other of the famous German wonder weapons were while technically 'sweet' or impressive actually were pretty much worthless. (Maus Tank etc...)

Tanks, Germany was likely behind USSR in tank tech at the start and really never even caught up let alone passed them. The dominant tank and one of the most advanced was the T-34 and its variants German PzII and PzIII (of the same period) were inferior. German tank doctrine was of course second to none and use of radios and command and control was only ever matched by the US late in the war. But that is more a total doctrine advantage than technology.

German navy was NOT technically superior to UK or even US. In a single area battleships it could be argued that they were slightly better but behind in other areas. Naval Aviation was the key naval technology in WW2. A aaval aviation ranking by nation in 1940 would likely look like this.
1 - Japan
2 - US
3 - UK
4 - It
5 - GE
6 -USSR

Hardly reflected by giving GE the top naval tech in ToF Particularly as Naval aviation totally dominated naval technology in WW2 carrier battle groups crushed battleship groups.



JLPOWELL -> RE: The Great Wishlist Thread (4/4/2012 11:00:11 PM)

Fix The MAP

Add the Qattara Depression effectively IMPASSABLE to the map in Egypt. This is a glaring omission. You don't need a new terrain type (but that would be optimal) you can just use ocean or move the map edge up...



wolf14455 -> RE: The Great Wishlist Thread (4/5/2012 12:27:32 AM)

I like what u sudgest and have a addition to it. Research in weapon airoplane and tanks are in great part experence from the battlefield and impression of the enemy material impact on your forces. So I would like to see some bonus from the account of losses and damaged dealt.

Otherwise it can be as for me playing Russia. Tech money used to build troops too replace losses. So no new equipment would emerge. If ofcource some events give me it.



JLPOWELL -> RE: The Great Wishlist Thread (4/5/2012 2:38:32 AM)

Convoys Ouch.. I do like this game but it has some elements which are REALLY poorly executed. The way ToF handles convoys is just dreadful.[:@][:@][:@]

1st Let the players set the route seazone by to seazone the AI is hopeless.

2nd British Colonies should be MSS for UK convoy India to Suez for supply better still British colonies (commonwealth) should be part of the UK add a hex for Canada and India which would be MSS and South Africa while you are at it. And practically speaking Axis units should not be able to operate 10000 km from home for extended periods with any effectiveness at all. UK had ports all over the world Axis had none, while some 'raiders' early in the war had limited success players will 'game' this and it really wasn't a sustainable thing.

3rd Revise AI routing (if player can't set route), LOOK at what is going on AI routes UK convoys always routes via med when it is not defensible. It should not be to hard to set up some logic to evaluate risk based on losses and 'known' sea zones. Longer 'safer' routes may take more stp but they would be used if alternative is (as it is) automatic failure.

4th eliminate 'stupid' routing Suicide routes like UK thru Bay of Biscay (seriously who EVER do that..) ALWAYS avoid routes covered by (or cover able by enemy air (strange that tac air cannot hurt a convoy but slaughters naval units like sheep but that's another issue) as ftr can cover subs in this game (a bit of a stretch in some sea zones but we can't fix everything) Some sea zones just would NEVER be used like bay of Biscay when GE controls France

4th Gibraltar a minor point but I recommend you move the sea zone boundary between Atlantic and Med next to Gibraltar and permit convoys (and ships) to enter Gibraltar directly from either (subs in Med interdict Gibraltar convoys from UK as it currently plays which while minor is inaccurate and irritating.

5th Recommend simplifying the map conflict really does not need to be modeled in distant sea zones convoys would have been very difficult to find existing zone to zone create bottlenecks where there were none and ignores bases like South Africa which made Axis operations in these areas impractical.



JLPOWELL -> RE: The Great Wishlist Thread (4/5/2012 3:41:11 AM)

I like the idea of experience effecting R&D, but don't think it should be tied to success, quite the contrary. Also the effect may not be significant enough to require modeling it in the game. I believe most military's (they are bureaucratic after all) learn MORE from FAILURE than success battle experience on either (winning or loosing; taking or dealing damage) side particularly for with Armor would 'help' somewhat, but tanks are mechanical contrivances and can (and were)tested off the battlefield. Besides non combatants had observers, for example the US military had close ties to UK and even representation in the USSR while neutral.

Some other points are that: 'the best tank does not make the best tank unit' and the 'most powerful tank is not the best tank' Bang for buck is a factor. Based on mechanical reliability maneuverability and low cost you could argue that the T-34 and even M-4 were more effective weapons than the much vaunted Tigers. More subtle effects are less famous but more decisive. Innovations by the allies such as improved anti-tank ammunition. HVAP; HEAT; APDS etc. In some instances APDS for example the US (and UK) were able to produce the ammunition where Germany was not (in quantity) due to availability of Tungsten Germany used most available Tungsten for machine tools and did not have surplus supply need to use in munitions. APDS was by the way developed by the French who 'evacuated' the technology and the engineers associated with it to Britain in 1940. These innovations were pretty much purely technical (no battle field experience needed)

War games and wargamers tend to over emphasize primary weapons rather than the usually more significant secondary technology's (like advanced ammunition)

A primary example of this is the 'Legendary' Tiger tank. This IMO mediocre weapons system is practically worshiped by WW2 'buffs'

While well armed and armored and having an almost mythical reputation Tigers for example were:
Time consuming to produce
Very expensive
very limited in range and endurance
difficult to transport
mechanically unreliable

While kill to loss ratios are hard to evaluate (they were usually outnumbered and under combined arms attack) they only managed about a 1:1 kill loss ratio. Considering they likely cost 4x as much as an M-4 that's not a war winning weapon. "I'll take 3 Shermans and a Wolverine for the same cost thanks...."[:D][:D][:D] Or on the other front 6 T-34's and a Sturmovik (OK that's an exaggeration but not by much)

As the French transfer of APDS technology to the UK demonstrates 'allied' tech efforts were shared. This is a big deal and ToF should model it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Swedewolf

I like what u sudgest and have a addition to it. Research in weapon airoplane and tanks are in great part experence from the battlefield and impression of the enemy material impact on your forces. So I would like to see some bonus from the account of losses and damaged dealt.

Otherwise it can be as for me playing Russia. Tech money used to build troops too replace losses. So no new equipment would emerge. If ofcource some events give me it.



Razz1 -> RE: The Great Wishlist Thread (4/5/2012 5:27:22 AM)

I believe this is already modeled behind the scenes. Each country has a different rate of progress that is controlled by the developers.
On top of that, research is random as to how much you will gain each month.

You can adjust the cost for each country, but that is only one the way to effect the outcome.

I believe that is not the correct method as you will only research that technology sooner and effect game balance too much. Much better off controlling progress.

There is script that moves along research. In the Third Reich there is some technology sharing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JLPOWELL

Some Thoughts on Technology

Consider Separating tech development from $$$ each country should have a tech budget SEPERATE from production. Few projects required massive economic R&D efforts (A- Bomb in US and German Rockets did but otherwise $$$ did not = progress as directly as in the game) Countries should get 'tech points' to spend perhaps tech points could be 'bought' at a very high $$ cost to supplement the basic allowance.

If not halve all US research costs as only half of the economy is represented (pacific theater R&D would apply to ETO so for example PTO would 'pay' for at least Sub and Navy research and some air as well.

US and UK shared R&D this should be modeled.




Razz1 -> RE: The Great Wishlist Thread (4/5/2012 5:43:13 AM)

Were lucky we have the British colonies. I tried to get more like Canada but we are lucky we have the British Colonies and were able to model it well.

Yes, the convoy routes are an issue and are being looked at. There is only so much you can do before release.

Once the convoy routing is perfected, you will be happy to have all those sea zones to move your navy if your Axis.

By the way... the Third Reich has convoys from Canada and enhanced detection for the UK.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JLPOWELL

Convoys Ouch.. I do like this game but it has some elements which are REALLY poorly executed. The way ToF handles convoys is just dreadful.[:@][:@][:@]

1st Let the players set the route seazone by to seazone the AI is hopeless.

2nd British Colonies should be MSS for UK convoy India to Suez for supply better still British colonies (commonwealth) should be part of the UK add a hex for Canada and India which would be MSS and South Africa while you are at it. And practically speaking Axis units should not be able to operate 10000 km from home for extended periods with any effectiveness at all. UK had ports all over the world Axis had none, while some 'raiders' early in the war had limited success players will 'game' this and it really wasn't a sustainable thing.

3rd Revise AI routing (if player can't set route), LOOK at what is going on AI routes UK convoys always routes via med when it is not defensible. It should not be to hard to set up some logic to evaluate risk based on losses and 'known' sea zones. Longer 'safer' routes may take more stp but they would be used if alternative is (as it is) automatic failure.

4th eliminate 'stupid' routing Suicide routes like UK thru Bay of Biscay (seriously who EVER do that..) ALWAYS avoid routes covered by (or cover able by enemy air (strange that tac air cannot hurt a convoy but slaughters naval units like sheep but that's another issue) as ftr can cover subs in this game (a bit of a stretch in some sea zones but we can't fix everything) Some sea zones just would NEVER be used like bay of Biscay when GE controls France

4th Gibraltar a minor point but I recommend you move the sea zone boundary between Atlantic and Med next to Gibraltar and permit convoys (and ships) to enter Gibraltar directly from either (subs in Med interdict Gibraltar convoys from UK as it currently plays which while minor is inaccurate and irritating.

5th Recommend simplifying the map conflict really does not need to be modeled in distant sea zones convoys would have been very difficult to find existing zone to zone create bottlenecks where there were none and ignores bases like South Africa which made Axis operations in these areas impractical.




JLPOWELL -> RE: The Great Wishlist Thread (4/6/2012 1:28:10 AM)

I second this one excellent suggestion[:D]



JLPOWELL -> RE: The Great Wishlist Thread (4/6/2012 1:29:33 AM)

Guess I should quote what I am seconding. I second this great idea!
quote:

ORIGINAL: Greyshaft

Category: Scenarios.

Can we have a Barbarossa scenario where the player can be Germany without having to play the Med and Western Europe?
Just play Germany v. USSR without needing to worry about other fronts.
Obviously PP revenue would be reduced to make it fair.




JLPOWELL -> RE: The Great Wishlist Thread (4/6/2012 1:31:17 AM)

Pretty good point I notice R&D costs are less for the US.
quote:

ORIGINAL: Razz

I believe this is already modeled behind the scenes. Each country has a different rate of progress that is controlled by the developers.
On top of that, research is random as to how much you will gain each month.

You can adjust the cost for each country, but that is only one the way to effect the outcome.

I believe that is not the correct method as you will only research that technology sooner and effect game balance too much. Much better off controlling progress.

There is script that moves along research. In the Third Reich there is some technology sharing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JLPOWELL

Some Thoughts on Technology

Consider Separating tech development from $$$ each country should have a tech budget SEPERATE from production. Few projects required massive economic R&D efforts (A- Bomb in US and German Rockets did but otherwise $$$ did not = progress as directly as in the game) Countries should get 'tech points' to spend perhaps tech points could be 'bought' at a very high $$ cost to supplement the basic allowance.

If not halve all US research costs as only half of the economy is represented (pacific theater R&D would apply to ETO so for example PTO would 'pay' for at least Sub and Navy research and some air as well.

US and UK shared R&D this should be modeled.






wolf14455 -> RE: The Great Wishlist Thread (4/6/2012 6:06:49 PM)

So if I play a major Country from 1939 to 1948 without putting any money in tech I still getting Tech? By events?



doomtrader -> RE: The Great Wishlist Thread (4/6/2012 8:41:11 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Swedewolf

So if I play a major Country from 1939 to 1948 without putting any money in tech I still getting Tech? By events?

AFAIK, no.



JLPOWELL -> RE: The Great Wishlist Thread (4/6/2012 8:51:29 PM)

I don't know of any tech granted by events, so I doubt it but can't be sure. If the country started with a 'star' in an area you would eventually get that tech advance as well.

It may make sense to grant the US naval advances based on the Pacific, but I haven't seen anything like that.

Overall tech is pretty well implemented. Most of my quibbles are around the periphery not the execution of the core concept.

One place where a 'new' event (gasp I am advocating an event...[X(]) might make sense would be to check close allies for tech and give points to countries with whom they would have shared the technology. The US and UK shared technology pretty freely. Even Germany shared technical know how with others as well Italy Hungary Romania, even Japan albeit much less freely. And of course the Russians were masters at stealing secrets from everyone.

Including espionage is likely taking things a bit too far however. This area works pretty well so I would give a lower priority to 'fixing' it compared to other areas with significant playability issues like:supply (being addressed); naval surface combat; convoy implementation; PBEM events choice by players etc.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Swedewolf

So if I play a major Country from 1939 to 1948 without putting any money in tech I still getting Tech? By events?



Razz1 -> RE: The Great Wishlist Thread (4/7/2012 5:03:14 AM)

That is exactly what happens. Minors get a boost.

However, it is very little and not enough so see the Third Reich scenario for more of this:

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3042300



wolf14455 -> RE: The Great Wishlist Thread (4/7/2012 2:46:55 PM)

Ok thanx, good to know. Hope for the future patches some tech investment will trickle in from battle experience and secondary experiences.



wolf14455 -> RE: The Great Wishlist Thread (4/7/2012 2:53:19 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: doomtrader
However as we wanted to make the game accessible for more casual players we decided to simplify couple of things. All of the issues you have mentioned above are not broken, only the design decisions, so I don't think they might be fixed.

Will there be code lines discarded for the common good that can be used to create a "Master Version" for us more experienced players? [;)] To be sold for say 5 Euro.[:D]
Wishfull thinking i guess but I must ask. [:)]



wolf14455 -> RE: The Great Wishlist Thread (4/30/2012 10:22:01 AM)

Another wish is to have some sort of espionage and passive air recon. Where there is a chance to get a report on any landing craft sited and the air recon could be divided up with AP costly recon as of now but also a tech choice recon range working when it just sitting idle. Wheater could impair this range ofcource.



Meteor2 -> RE: The Great Wishlist Thread (4/30/2012 11:35:07 AM)

Thats a good idea. I have never been a friend of this fixed FOW range. The SC-games are doing it in a plausible way. Invest in intelligence and you may know some more about your enemy... FOW range should be depended on such a factor and weather, of cource.



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4] 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
8.125