tech more than 5

[ozman2]

I think 10 tech teams is an ill-conceived idea that discriminates against many small and medium sized countries, including France, Italy, Japan, China, India, Australia, etc. Let's take Australia for an example. Under HOI2 with an alliance with the USA and blueprints, with 2 tech teams they can do 80% of what the USA can do in research (assuming blueprint bonus of 2). Under AoD they can only do 40% of what the USA can do. Now AoD introduced an after historical date bonus but that caps out at 1.5. So even with that, Australia would only be able to keep up with 60% of USA technology in spite of an alliance, for technologies three years behind the times. I see no option but to raise the blueprint bonus and maximum value of the behind time bonus.
Suggested values
blueprint bonus 4.00
maximum after historical date bonus 3.00
These figures are in misc.txt and can be user modded.
The new values would allow a one tech slot nation in an alliance to stay about 10-15 years behind the technology of its alliance leader.

 

[unmerged(83496)]

Yeah, well I haven't heard of many remarkable ideas coming out of countries like Surinam or Cote d'Ivoire, have you?

 

[Crilloan]

I think 10 tech teams is an ill-conceived idea that discriminates against many small and medium sized countries, including France, Italy, Japan, China, India, Australia, ...

+1

I would like to disabel this feature or reduce to max 6 slots.
As it is now, if you play a country with 10 slots you never have to chose between what to research, since you can do it all.

Making hard choices is an important part of grand strategy games.

/C

 

[ozman2]

Yeah, well I haven't heard of many remarkable ideas coming out of countries like Surinam or Cote d'Ivoire, have you?

They're not going to have any, even if you make my suggested modification. They'll just get the technologies of the big guys if they're in an alliance, about 10-15 years late. If they're not in an alliance they'll fall about 40 years behind the times by the year 2000.

You can't disable this new feature without hacking the executable. This is something I don't want to touch. But if the misc.txt values are modified, you should at least be able to keep your valued allies from falling progressively farther behind.

 

[Kombatdoctr]

+1

I would like to disabel this feature or reduce to max 6 slots.
As it is now, if you play a country with 10 slots you never have to chose between what to research, since you can do it all.

Making hard choices is an important part of grand strategy games.

/C

Disabling that feature would be incredibly stupid, researching 10 things at the same time is great.

 

[Crilloan]

To each his own.

I find it unbalancing.
Its much harder than in HOI2DD to keep up historical research with industrialized medium western countries that are not part of an alliance.

Would have prefered 1 slot per 20 IC upp to 4 teams, then getting slot 5 at 100 IC and slot 6 at 150 IC. (or something similar)

With faster research speeds of course.

I stand by my opinion that with 10 teams you never have to choose what to research. You could go for both army, navy and airforce edge at the same time.

I understand that a lot of people like the new research model, differrent opinions

/C

 

[Johnhawkwood]

What I like about the new system is that it revives what I liked about HOI 1 - you can decide how much of your economy you want to put into production or research. Having ten slots running as Germany in 36 is no problems at all - just don't build so much IC or units. It all depends on the problems you are trying to solve based on what country you are. Sacrifice research for infrastructure (for IC, resources, movement) - whatever. The choices are yours - and they are many!

 

[unmerged(104560)]

i like the new concept. It means that ic whoring is also now good for something else.

I mean who come italy/france should be able to keep up with the German/USA/USSR tech levels. They have way less ic.

So please keep the way it is.

 

[Johnhawkwood]

To each his own.

I stand by my opinion that with 10 teams you never have to choose what to research. You could go for both army, navy and airforce edge at the same time.

/C

But with the money you are putting into research can you build everything as well? U.S.A - no probs, Germany. UK, Soviets, Japan - maybe depending on your difficulty level - everyone else - I doubt it. And why should they?

But as you say different styles for different people - I like this one, please keep.

 

[unmerged(189717)]

Maybe they could lower the IC one needs for another techteam - from 0, 20, 40, 60 to 0, 15, 25, 35 or so. And if that is too much, lower the research speed again.

 

[Tegetthoff]

I still reserve my judgement and was initially opposed to the 10 teams. I now have a first game as Germany under the belt and was researching way ahead by 1938 but was more or less down to historical levels by 1941.

I am now playing Japan and trying to keep up with 5 teams. I am at 95 IC in 1937 and getting the sixth tech team at 100 is a definite goal and motivation in the Chinese war.

Research is a lot slower than in HO2/ARM and there is a benefit for researching after the historical time.

My gut feeling is that giving the sixth team at 100 and then increasing the intervals to one team every 25 IC would balance the game more. Of course they could export this to misc.txt and make it moddable.

 

[Alex_brunius]

Those that say 10 techteams are enough to never choose either play very boring and with no fantasy, or don't know what they talk about.

If you want 5 teams, just select a few cool techs you really wan't to push ahead of time, Like Carriers, Nukes, Rockets, Computers for example. Then those techteams will be permantly occupied with those jobs and not available to research other on time techs.

Im falling behind in airplanes currently as Germany with 10 techteams, just because I thought it was a fun Idea to get electro subs, nukes and a few more fun stuff ahead off time.

And this is with spending 200-300 cash daily on research. (most of it Indirectly to steal blueprints).

 

[Rhedd]

I'd like to point out that although mutually exclusive choice is the right way to design an entertaining research system for most games, it's not right for this game.

Let's look at the US, since they're one of the few countries that get ten tech slots, and the only one to start with ten in '36.

Very nearly everything on the list of techs was developed and produced by the US during the timeframe covered by the game. At the end of the war the US did, in fact, have B-29s, Mustangs, Shermans, Essex CVs (my father served on the USS Essex), Iowa BBs, advanced radar, computers, highly trained elite Airborne and Marines, and NUCLEAR BOMBS. In other words, everything.

The only things the US didn't have- like assault guns, super-heavy tanks, and railway cannons- were things they decided simply weren't worth the time to research, since they didn't intend to use them.

If the game was set up so that a country like the US was forced to make a choice between having an advanced navy or an advanced air force, it would just be stupid.

Being able to research everything as a large country, and nothing as a small country, might not be the way other carefully designed video games handle game balance, but it's the way the real world works.

I do, however, think that you should be able to lease designs from larger allies, like you (hypothetically) can in HoI3, and if you can't, then blueprints should have a much larger benefit. It shouldn't matter if you're a small country that can't do research, because bigger countries should be giving you all the instructions you need to crank out decent equipment. The only problem is that since you can also steal blueprints, they can't be free passes to instant inventions.

 

[unmerged(189717)]

I do, however, think that you should be able to lease designs from larger allies, like you (hypothetically) can in HoI3, and if you can't, then blueprints should have a much larger benefit. It shouldn't matter if you're a small country that can't do research, because bigger countries should be giving you all the instructions you need to crank out decent equipment. The only problem is that since you can also steal blueprints, they can't be free passes to instant inventions.

What about separating blueprints (recivied from allies) and espionage information on techs (recivied via spies)?

 

[Tegetthoff]

This could be made into a great feature (is Lennartos reading this?):

Have two types of blueprints: a stolen one, representing drawings and reports snatched from a safe or half-decoded radio intercepts of analysis of damaged enemy equipment ...

and an "official" one, full documentation provided by a friendly ally together with a couple of engineers to help you set up the production line....

Cheers,

T.

 

[Johnhawkwood]

I do, however, think that you should be able to lease designs from larger allies, like you (hypothetically) can in HoI3, and if you can't, then blueprints should have a much larger benefit. It shouldn't matter if you're a small country that can't do research, because bigger countries should be giving you all the instructions you need to crank out decent equipment. .

This is an example of what we in IR studies call Hegemonic theory - why would Australia bother to research guided missile destroyers when they can get a perfectly good design from good ol' Uncle Sam and build it themselves in their own back yard?

How about then making research times for blue prints 'shared' (not stolen) even quicker? ie a research time for stolen and shared blueprints? After all shared research usually comes with advisory technical staff.

 

[Tegetthoff]

How about adding a "blue print efficiency"?

A "friendly" blueprint has 100% efficiency while the stolen ones depend on your espionage settings?

You could get 80%, 50% 10% efficient blueprints .....

Triple Emu-ing above, by the way (great minds think in similar ways)

 

[H2Odk]

I think it would be better to have to amount of IC required for each TT increase, and start with a lower number for the first. eg you gain a TT at 0, 8, 25, 46, 72, 100, 130, 162, 196, 231.

 

[ozman2]

I think the best idea is to urge the developers to make the minimum number of tech teams and the levels at which they increase all moddable.

 

[Crilloan]

I think it would be better to have to amount of IC required for each TT increase, and start with a lower number for the first. eg you gain a TT at 0, 8, 25, 46, 72, 100, 130, 162, 196, 231.

+1
Diminishing returns.

@nomohan
not a bad idea.

/C