I've only been playing a short while, but I'm already disturbed by how easy I can make my time in the GC simply by only researching the 'right' techs. As a land based power I know I have to get those decent medium tanks, one of (fighters/interceptors), etc. Basically by eliminating the less rewarding/duplication of effort I get a technical advantage I can exploit against the weak battle AI to the extent of beating very enormously (numerically) superior foes.
Obviously that's not how it worked in '36. Nobody really knew how good the end result of research would be - Stalin couldn't foresee that lots of Mig3s would be a better choice than bothering with Lagg-3s for instance (I know the difference isn't that great but it always frustrated me in accurate simulations that I had far more not-so-good Laggs rather than the pretty-decent Migs). Nobody knew exactly how long it would take to get a useable version of the Panther into production, nor just how well it would perform. Obviously they had a fair idea that it would be good - but not really the cost/benefit of driving all their energies in that direction, rather than toward the Tiger.
In order to realistically simulate this you would have to apply random pluses and minuses to the models so a player doesn't know what he's getting - until a given model has seen statistically significant combat. But I really doubt anyone would be happy with that, and it wouldn't be feasible before 1.9, say. ;-)
Instead how about :
Every tech has a random multiplier between 0.8 and 5 (ouch) for it's length of R&D time. The player gets only the estimated 1.0 multiplier end date. Restarting the research with a different team gets a different multiplier.
Implications:
You can't rely on getting that perfect force mix for your next campaign. It actually makes sense to spread your tech efforts wide in order to find those 'easy' techs. You will need to adapt your strategy according to what you can get off the drawing board first.
If this were to be used I'd suggest a significant reduction in the 'early' research penalty, to allow a bit more of a push in a direction where your researchers are doing well.
Comments/suggestions?
Obviously that's not how it worked in '36. Nobody really knew how good the end result of research would be - Stalin couldn't foresee that lots of Mig3s would be a better choice than bothering with Lagg-3s for instance (I know the difference isn't that great but it always frustrated me in accurate simulations that I had far more not-so-good Laggs rather than the pretty-decent Migs). Nobody knew exactly how long it would take to get a useable version of the Panther into production, nor just how well it would perform. Obviously they had a fair idea that it would be good - but not really the cost/benefit of driving all their energies in that direction, rather than toward the Tiger.
In order to realistically simulate this you would have to apply random pluses and minuses to the models so a player doesn't know what he's getting - until a given model has seen statistically significant combat. But I really doubt anyone would be happy with that, and it wouldn't be feasible before 1.9, say. ;-)
Instead how about :
Every tech has a random multiplier between 0.8 and 5 (ouch) for it's length of R&D time. The player gets only the estimated 1.0 multiplier end date. Restarting the research with a different team gets a different multiplier.
Implications:
You can't rely on getting that perfect force mix for your next campaign. It actually makes sense to spread your tech efforts wide in order to find those 'easy' techs. You will need to adapt your strategy according to what you can get off the drawing board first.
If this were to be used I'd suggest a significant reduction in the 'early' research penalty, to allow a bit more of a push in a direction where your researchers are doing well.
Comments/suggestions?
Upvote
0
