0-200% sliders would be great. Maybe not doable, but great!
- 2
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
I like the idea of having more control over tech development, although the down side of allowing accelerations above 100% is that I think it gives even more power to the mega states, i,e, Germany, US and possibly Russia and Britain as they can more easily commit resources to such steps. Would prefer the possibility to prioritize some projects over others say?
One hopefully small thing that I would find very useful. When you allocate a tech team to a project you see the date at which it will be completed. This can change of course with a number of events - changing percentages of research, tech team gains or losses, research boosts from minister or blueprints etc. Would it be possible to have some way of seeing end dates with the current settings?
- 4
Certainly you get that already in the tech teams those nations have. For instance, Japan is already well poised to compete in regards to the navy and naval aviation. But it is quite fixed (i.e. Germany will always struggle with carrier research, Japan with armour & slightly beyond on air research) due to the levels of the tech teams.
I do like the idea of allocation funding per tech, but am leaning more towards the idea of funding tech teams specifically in order to increase their skill level, and improve their skillset.
But hard to find a balance here as everyone might just end up rushing to getting 10 level 9 tech teams!
- 3
I do like the idea of more control over the research portion of the game however, I do not think using option b (above) is a good idea (I did until I read stevep's post). stevep brings up a good point:
I do have an idea that could work but it might not be in the 1.13 release. We could use a system like the production sliders (consumer goods, production, supplies, reinforcements, upgrades, and repair provinces) that would dynamically increase and decrease depending upon the number of technology slots a country has. Here is a proposed screenshot:
- We can put an ETA date under the photo/logo of each technology research team.
- The Research Funding slider (under Expenses on the Production screen) would still be the "Master" in determining the amount of IC that goes to all research and the current logic to determine how much IC can be assigned to the overall research remains the same. This would keep the amount one can assign IC to research the same and address the good point that stevep brought to our attention, not to let majors overpower research.
- The new sliders (under each individual technology being researched) on the Research screen would allocate how much goes to each tech.
- So let us say that (the "Master") Research Funding is 10. If one doesn't change the initial individual research sliders, then both Basic Construction Engineering and Great War Cavalry Division would be set at 50%...so basically 5 IC to each technology being researched.
- Since one cannot exceed the "Master" Research Funding allocated by the game, then there is only 10 IC available to all technologies being researched.
- Within the Technology screen, we would be able to "steal" funding from one technology to help another technology. This has advantages and disadvantages with nations that have two or more research slots gaining an advantage over nations with only one slot.
- In the screenshot above, Poland has 10 IC available for all research. They decided to "steal" 10% of the research funds for Great War Cavalry Division and give that 10% to Basic Construction Engineering. So we see Basic Construction Engineering at 60% and Great War Cavalry Division at 40%...Basically 4 IC is now going to the Cavalry and 6 IC going to the Construction Engineering for a total of 10 IC ("Master" Research Funding).
Last edited:
- 3
It does add a layer of complexity to research, and would give players more agency when it comes to research, but wouldn't it still run into the problem stevep identified, perhaps even more so? Ie the IC rich nations could simply invest even more into research and outpace everyone at potentially everything!
Especially if it is purely from IC invested into research, this could heavily favour free market economies as they have a higher research cost to pay in the first place. Making central planning even less appealing then it already is.
Especially if it is purely from IC invested into research, this could heavily favour free market economies as they have a higher research cost to pay in the first place. Making central planning even less appealing then it already is.
- 2
Ah, Mr_B0narpte,
You got a comment in before my other two ideas
The huge issues with implementing any of these ideas (except for the ETA date), is how to add the AI logic, when to use it, and how (what techs to double, triple, or leave single). We can't just make the change and not let the AI have the same ability as a human player.
You got a comment in before my other two ideas
- Use the above idea, individual sliders for each technology being researched, but with a slight modification. The modification would be the individual slider going from setting a percentage of the "Master" Research Funding slider to how much to fund per each technology being researched. So the individual research team sliders would go from 0 to the full cost of the research. If a research technology costs 5.75 then the research team slider would look like a 0 (zero) on the left side (-) with 5.75 on the right side (+) instead of using percentage.
- We can implement the single, double, triple arrow logic like Vitality suggested for each technology being researched. When one sets a technology(ies) to double or triple, it increases the "Master" Research Funding (similar to how setting a production item to double or triple increases the Production slider on the Production screen). This would be the easiest to implement.
The huge issues with implementing any of these ideas (except for the ETA date), is how to add the AI logic, when to use it, and how (what techs to double, triple, or leave single). We can't just make the change and not let the AI have the same ability as a human player.
- 3
Good ideas indeed. But it would be nice if version 1.14 was focused only on the map.
Ah, Mr_B0narpte,
You got a comment in before my other two ideas
I think having an ETA date of the research team is a great idea. The percentage completed isn't a big help but knowing about when it will be completed is a huge help.
- Use the above idea, individual sliders for each technology being researched, but with a slight modification. The modification would be the individual slider going from setting a percentage of the "Master" Research Funding slider to how much to fund per each technology being researched. So the individual research team sliders would go from 0 to the full cost of the research. If a research technology costs 5.75 then the research team slider would look like a 0 (zero) on the left side (-) with 5.75 on the right side (+) instead of using percentage.
- We can implement the single, double, triple arrow logic like Vitality suggested for each technology being researched. When one sets a technology(ies) to double or triple, it increases the "Master" Research Funding (similar to how setting a production item to double or triple increases the Production slider on the Production screen). This would be the easiest to implement.
The huge issues with implementing any of these ideas (except for the ETA date), is how to add the AI logic, when to use it, and how (what techs to double, triple, or leave single). We can't just make the change and not let the AI have the same ability as a human player.
CJ
Well its morning here and as a night person I'm struggling to follow some of that but sounds interesting and could give some very useful added flexibility. Have to see what it looks like when I play it and sounds like that would be v1.14 - which I think is right as it would probably be too much for 1.13 given that's nearly finished. If I understand correctly you can still increase the 'Master Research Funding' total by going double or triple speed which might still give the major powers with a lot of IC an edge but with reduced efficiency as with production slider double and triple.
Definitely agree a big problem is how the AI - or as I tend to call it in games the AS
- handles the issue. Its already at a hell of a disadvantage compared to a competent and player with some experience already so needs some method of balancing things out.One other thing to consider is that you might need to have an exception for nuclear research and possibly some other key techs else we could - at least in a multi-player game have a made rush for that technology and numbers of nukes appearing say in 1940-43 period?? - guessing as not sure how it would work as to the possible date. Since if one major nation started doing that - or even the others thought they were - then they have to follow suit.
Many thanks for the ideas. As I say the ETA for the completion of a project removes the need to make a note of what it is at the start of the project and also the uncertainty if any parameter changes.
Steve
The ETA date being a feature would be a tremendous boost, I still worry about the balancing issue for these boosted research speed ideas. I only see how minor nations simply just lose out from it. The early nukes is also another potential problem with this, so exceptions I believe would be necessary for these "special" areas of research.
It is already so hard to keep up with certain areas of research simply because of the fixed nature of tech teams, where nations simply will lag behind specific areas due to the tech team handicaps that can't be adjusted, except via random event, which isn't really a solution.
Also just wanted to acknowledge Epokextra's comment and say the map has certainly been an important thing in the polling done. The problem lies in how to improve it. Players and developers alike have done great work in improving it - but, assuming we can get content creators agreement, does it seem right to include one over others into the base game? Especially if people have to buy that content/game alongside AoD in order to use it? It gets quite tricky.
It is already so hard to keep up with certain areas of research simply because of the fixed nature of tech teams, where nations simply will lag behind specific areas due to the tech team handicaps that can't be adjusted, except via random event, which isn't really a solution.
Also just wanted to acknowledge Epokextra's comment and say the map has certainly been an important thing in the polling done. The problem lies in how to improve it. Players and developers alike have done great work in improving it - but, assuming we can get content creators agreement, does it seem right to include one over others into the base game? Especially if people have to buy that content/game alongside AoD in order to use it? It gets quite tricky.
Really really nice. Just wondered why no « 1936 Lt Tank div » ? (especially if you have « 1927 Tankette div »)
By the way, I came across the term « elite » used for Mech/PzG div. This word is not appropriate for describing equipment generation. You might use « semi-modern » or « modern » or the year when available, as you do everywhere else in the tech trees.
By the way, I came across the term « elite » used for Mech/PzG div. This word is not appropriate for describing equipment generation. You might use « semi-modern » or « modern » or the year when available, as you do everywhere else in the tech trees.
Last edited:
I was never a fan of the Generic Basic, Advanced, Semi-Modern, Modern, Elite, Super Advance, Out-of-this-World Super Duper Cone-of-Silence Advance, etc...
The team has been talking about this and 2 of us, so far, are leaning more to just using years...1918 Infantry, 1938 Destroyer, 1964 Main Battle Tank, etc.
- 5
+1I was never a fan of the Generic Basic, Advanced, Semi-Modern, Modern, Elite, Super Advance, Out-of-this-World Super Duper Cone-of-Silence Advance, etc...
The team has been talking about this and 2 of us, so far, are leaning more to just using years...1918 Infantry, 1938 Destroyer, 1964 Main Battle Tank, etc.
- 1
Years also give you something to go after. Am I behind in tech ro just slightly ahead, for example.I was never a fan of the Generic Basic, Advanced, Semi-Modern, Modern, Elite, Super Advance, Out-of-this-World Super Duper Cone-of-Silence Advance, etc...
The team has been talking about this and 2 of us, so far, are leaning more to just using years...1918 Infantry, 1938 Destroyer, 1964 Main Battle Tank, etc.
You also don't have to answer questions like, well,, what's the difference between Modern and Elite or what makes them elite..?
- 2
There are components, within some original technologies, that still used these terms. For example, you will see this within the 3 original light tank technologies:
And it's because we didn't change it. The new technologies are researched, and the components are specific to that model/year technology. It takes a bit more time to research components that are not generic.
I was never a fan of the Generic Basic, Advanced, Semi-Modern, Modern, Elite, Super Advance, Out-of-this-World Super Duper Cone-of-Silence Advance, etc...
The team has been talking about this and 2 of us, so far, are leaning more to just using years...1918 Infantry, 1938 Destroyer, 1964 Main Battle Tank, etc.
That would have the advantage of simplicity. Saves having to check what term, i.e. basic,improved. advanced etc applies to what year as you can see immediately how up to date or not a unit is.
- 2
We could have this late 1950 tech if the player got all the basic radars and computers from the 1940s. Distant Early Warning Line would also make more fog of war interesting.
en.wikipedia.org
Distant Early Warning Line - Wikipedia
- 2
I was hoping for this month. I still have a lot to do and should have an updated release for the team this coming week.
- 1
Can you release an alpha version by September 12th? It's my birthday on the 12th. The most important thing is to make decisions and a technology tree, and the graphics and map will wait for the release candidate.