Secret weapons

[out]

Without Oppenheimer USA would still build the nuke, but perhaps not fast enough for it to be of any use in the war. Without Einstein we would perhaps have to wait as much as 10 or even 30 more years before Atomic power could be understood and harnessed.

And that would make it off the HoI timeframe. I don't want to argue about whether nukes or whatever would have been invented or not, but a time variation of "10 or 30 more years" would be quite significant in game terms.

By that logic CV's and BB's of the game should be random in their efficiency against each other

That's why I wanted to limit the randomness to secret weapons. The keyword is incremental research vs ground breaking research. Nukes are pretty damn groundbreaking, as well as turbo jet planes, flying wings, strategic missiles and so on. Incremental research like making better ships or rifles really wouldn't gain much, gameplay wise, by having too much randomization.

Oh and the random stuff (random people dying, random wars) are aready in the game.

ps. You might want to add Sinkiang, Taiwan, South Ossetia, Abkhazia, Basque and Flanders to your sig.

 

[unmerged(44926)]

A lot of the things considered "secret weapons" during WWII, (and in HoI2) were later developed and became regular old not so secret weapons. Jet aircraft? Check. Atomic bombs? Check. Ballistic missiles? Check. Nuclear powered ships? Check. (Well, maybe not nuclear battleships, but they aren't impossible, just stupid.) SAMs? Check. Computers? I'm using one right now, and I'm not even in the military.

I'm not even quite sure why they have a secret weapons category at all, as pretty much everything on it became standard military equipment eventually. Nuclear research and rocketry should have it's own page and the other techs should just be rolled into the end of their respective trees.

All those dead ends, like tanks the size of a 7-11, or swarms of exploding bats, are dead ends for a reason... They either wouldn't work, or just weren't worth the effort. I wouldn't want some random number generated by my game deciding that all of a sudden a 1,000 ton tank not only makes sense, but it can kick my ass.

That said, I have no idea how the research model will work for HoI3, but I would love to simulate the uncertain nature of research by putting "blockers" in the tech tree representing the uncertain nature of investing in a new area of research. Take for example rocketry. Any techs related to rocketry don't appear on the tech tree at all initially... The only thing you've got is something called "Rocketry Concept"... You can invest in it, but there is no estimated time of completion, nor is there a historical date (it is hidden). Investing in it is similar to waiting on a MTTH trigger a la EUIII. Might pop up quickly, might not... Once it does, the rocketry techs will appear where they are relevant on the tech tree, and be available for research (assuming other pre-reqs are met).

This would do a good job of simulating the uncertainty of trying an unproven concept, without adding any unrealistic super weapons. Big, early investments in things like nuclear weapons, jet propulsion or heavy tanks might pay off by granting you access to advanced weapons well before your enemies, but they might also just end up consuming an incredible amount of resources for little gain.

 

[Shabz]

I still want my Habakkuk...

 

[PIT_AMERO]

The germans had so many "strange weapons", because they try to do something and they failed. I mean that there weapons were not more "uber" than the "standard" weapons project which were realized. Lets face it, the germans did not have any big super ideas, which if they worked will be something more than the allied projects for which many of us think that they are just "normal". The germans want super-longe range heavy bomber- the allies have a lot of them, they want super useful electronic equipment and radars- the allies had them all.
But, dont get me wrong- I 'm in favor to secret and non standard weapons research, but they shouldn't be so super duper and eating ten of their normal counterparts just for breakfast.

 

[Edzako]

I support idea for uncertain research, at least for complicated projects, like nuclear bombs/rockets and such, but I don't think we need "german superweapons" as some other people pointed.

 

[unmerged(44926)]

I came across something mentioned in passing in a local newspaper this morning. Not sure how true it is, but it is funny, and worth mentioning in this thread:

"A proposal was sent to the Naval Office in London at the height of the German U-boat threat in early 1941. It was from an engineer who claimed that due to the design of German submarines, their hull would not be able to maintain pressure in water temperatures above 80 degrees C. Thus winning the battle of the Atlantic was simply a matter of raising the water temperature.

When the Naval Office asked how it would be possible to bring the North Atlantic to a boil, the following reply was given: 'I leave the technical details up to you.'"

Again, no idea where this story comes from or how true it is, but it makes a pretty good point...

 

[unmerged(94130)]

When the war stimulates the ideas

 

[Battlecry]

Perhaps a suitable alternative would be the possibility of a "major research setback" event, which would decrease the knowledge gained on a particular subject substantially.

This would represent the common situation of researchers advancing down a "dead end road" and then finally realizing their mistake, and having to "go back to square one".

The likelihood of such an event firing could be made to increase as the research subject became more complex/advanced.
For instance the development of the jet engine (which historically took many paths, only two of which, turbojet & turbofan, succeeded in a practical sense), or the atomic bomb would be far more likely to experience major setbacks than the development of a new tank, which entails much more engineering & experience than theory.

This could introduce an element of randomness to research as it gets into the theoretical realm, while not flooding the game with experimental (and largely ineffective) projects.

 

[out]

Perhaps a suitable alternative would be the possibility of a "major research setback" event, which would decrease the knowledge gained on a particular subject substantially.

That probably accomplish the same thing mathematically speaking. But personally I think I'd be pretty damn miffed and feel being cheated if an event like that happens to me. On the other hand, if this risk is built into the research process, it'd feel more reasonable -- just a gamble went crap.

Only subjective, but I think the game can go without more pre-scripted events.

 

[Battlecry]

That probably accomplish the same thing mathematically speaking. But personally I think I'd be pretty damn miffed and feel being cheated if an event like that happens to me. On the other hand, if this risk is built into the research process, it'd feel more reasonable -- just a gamble went crap.

Only subjective, but I think the game can go without more pre-scripted events.

You want to pre-script the possibility of failure into the research system, but have an issue with an event? I fail to see the difference.

 

[Alex_brunius]

And that would make it off the HoI timeframe. I don't want to argue about whether nukes or whatever would have been invented or not, but a time variation of "10 or 30 more years" would be quite significant in game terms.

Einsteins discovery and theory of Relativity is also "off the HoI timeframe" And that was my point. It was an important prerequirement but It had already been made, the path and hunt to harness the power of E=mc2 was already started by 1936.

Perhaps a suitable alternative would be the possibility of a "major research setback" event, which would decrease the knowledge gained on a particular subject substantially.

I like this Idea. It could make for some interresting unplanned turns in your games.

 

[out]

You want to pre-script the possibility of failure into the research system, but have an issue with an event? I fail to see the difference.

If at the time of the investment, you're told that the tech is highly experimental and the chance of success is low, then if you don't get any results you'd just feel you've made a bad investment.
But if, without any kind of warning, you're suddenly slapped with a research setback, then the whole thing would feel very unfair, especially in a MP setting.

Like I said, I know it's mathematically the same, but it's a perceptual thing. A glass of water can be half full or half empty: it's one thing to watch the glass fill up extremely slowly and possibly stop filling up altogether, but it's another thing to watch it almost filled up and then suddenly emptied again. See the difference?

 

[Amob_m_s]

If at the time of the investment, you're told that the tech is highly experimental and the chance of success is low, then if you don't get any results you'd just feel you've made a bad investment.
But if, without any kind of warning, you're suddenly slapped with a research setback, then the whole thing would feel very unfair, especially in a MP setting.

Like I said, I know it's mathematically the same, but it's a perceptual thing. A glass of water can be half full or half empty: it's one thing to watch the glass fill up extremely slowly and possibly stop filling up altogether, but it's another thing to watch it almost filled up and then suddenly emptied again. See the difference?

But to the player, it would appear the same; whether it is the event engine or the research engine generating the setback, all the player would see in either case is a popup window reading "Research Setback" (or similar) and their research be... well... set back. I think the event would simply be easier to script, and EU3-style MTTH modifiers could increase/decrease risk for various techs.

If we had a "research" scope, like we have province, capital, and nation scopes in EU3, one modifier could be someting along the lines of

modifier = {
    factor = 0.7
    NOT = { historical_year_difference = -3 }
}

... where "historical year difference" refers to the current date - the historical date. Thus, NOT = { historical_year_difference = -3 } means the tech is over 3 years ahead of time, and thus has greater chance of getting the event.

 

[Battlecry]

If at the time of the investment, you're told that the tech is highly experimental and the chance of success is low, then if you don't get any results you'd just feel you've made a bad investment.
But if, without any kind of warning, you're suddenly slapped with a research setback, then the whole thing would feel very unfair, especially in a MP setting.

Like I said, I know it's mathematically the same, but it's a perceptual thing. A glass of water can be half full or half empty: it's one thing to watch the glass fill up extremely slowly and possibly stop filling up altogether, but it's another thing to watch it almost filled up and then suddenly emptied again. See the difference?

The effect would be identical. If you wish, you could be told which projects are "risky" and might trigger the event - but I don't see either as more unfair than the other, they'd accomplish the exact same thing - slowing down research on a project. The fact that one makes it go slower, and one takes away from a full speed project is merely mathematic - in the end it's the same.

EDIT: The post above covers essentially what I mean.

 

[out]

The effect would be identical.

Yes I know it's mathematically the same. I said it twice already. It's a matter of perception: if you can make the setback feel reasonable and doesn't make the player feel cheated, then I'm all for it.

 

[Battlecry]

Yes I know it's mathematically the same. I said it twice already. It's a matter of perception: if you can make the setback feel reasonable and doesn't make the player feel cheated, then I'm all for it.

The difference we're having is one of opinion. No realistically oriented "setback" in research would make me feel cheated, or at least any more than the actual persons involved felt cheated. But I of course can't say the same for anyone else...I find most people are more sensitive than I, as my wife will readily confirm lol.

 

[peo]

In a way I feel that Paradox have decided to go the right way, just read the tech dev diary where Johan states there are two kinds of research "theoretical and practical".
Theoretical I would expect includes the prototype "secret weapons" and the practical decides what is needed and you get the things that are wanted.
I would suspect that the german "superweapons" were mostly not super and even less wanted by the german military. Many if not most were pure crap decided by Hitler to be a "end game weapon" so to speak.
In my opinion if it didn't work in ww2 or close to ww2 then it shouldn't be included in the game. Pointless waste of development time.

 

[Battlecry]

just read the tech dev diary where Johan states there are two kinds of research "theoretical and practical".
Theoretical I would expect includes the prototype "secret weapons" and the practical decides what is needed and you get the things that are wanted.

As was mentioned in the previous dev dairy practical values are gained from building things while theoretical knowledge is gained from research

So while pure research (e.g. before the war, or for an entirely new weapon/unit) will give you theoretical, production and/or battle experience (and perhaps other factors) will let you improve upon already existing weapons/units.

So perhaps pure theoretical might give you the first V1 missile, but practical will allow you to improve the V1 design to become a V2 eventually.

At least that's how I see it.

 

[out]

In a way I feel that Paradox have decided to go the right way, just read the tech dev diary where Johan states there are two kinds of research "theoretical and practical".

From what I've understood from the dev diary, I don't think the theortical&practical design has anything to do with our discussion here. I think it's more of a general vs specific design: theoretical research can have wide-ranging impact but it's effects aren't as pronounced, whereas practical research focus on specific stats boost.

 

[Amob_m_s]

All of you anthology owners, get out your HoI 1 games. The rest of you, listen up.

The HoI 1 engine uses a much more detailed tech tree than HoI 2. In 2, you simply tell a tech team what unit you want, and they develop component techs to get there. In HoI 1, you had to develop each component individually. Also, some components for a unit would be available early on, while others required a great deal of research to achieve. Thus, you might have the transport planes required for an airborne assault (fairly easy-to-get heavy aircraft research) but if you don't have nylon (medium-level industrial research) and the technology to create paratrooper equipment (gliders, etc., mostly low-level aircraft/infantry research) then you can't build paras. Then, of course, once all of the components are researched, you'd have to spend research time putting it all together into a working design.

Here's the scoop on theoretical vs. practical:

Theoretical research might be termed "Level Research." It has zero practical effect, as it cannot be immediately translated into battlefield uses. However, each opens up a "level" of practical technology in it's field. Thus, you have to research the theoretical tech "sloped armor" in order to research the practical "Advanced Gear," "Advanced Suspension," and "Advanced Engine" technologies, which in turn are required for the "Improved Medium Tank Prototype Testing" tech, which, upon completion, allows Improved Medium Tanks. Yes, this requires a bit more micromanagement, but not as much as you might think: in both 1 and 3, it seems there will be no techteams. This means you can queue techs in the order you want them researched ahead of time, and only have to worry about updating your queue when new techs become available.

Thus, theoretical research will neither

"give you the first V1 missile"

nor

have wide-ranging impact but it's effects aren't as pronounced

but rather opens up new useful technologies for research.