Tech Sharing Among Human Players

[unmerged(2833)]

Re: Historical Sim

Originally posted by fpolli
History did not have to follow the path it did. Very small variations could have produced wildly different results. For example, had the weather on June 6, 1944 been just a little bit worse (actually, had the weather on June 5 when Ike was making the decision been), Ike might have called off D-Day and it might never have happened. They had a very small window of opportunity that was closing. If it did not happen on June 6, it would have been a long time before they could try again. Imagine no D-Day. All of continental Europe might have been behind the Iron Curtain.

It would mean invasion on 3,4 or 5 july. Probably 4 or 3.

Month later. What would be the consequences, its hard to say. The Soviet offensive from Vistula to Oder started on 22 june or july, remind me?

 

[Mr.Bigglesworth]

Originally posted by Odin1970
...As it applies to game play it only effects it negatively if it were not applied universally, it is, and therefore anyone has the option to engage in it...

I have to respectfully disagree, it isn't universal. This isn't a free-for-all game. The countries do not all start out on the same level playing field. Not everyone gets 3 DI a month, has 200 IC's, has 2 human allies, etc. All of the variables are, well, variable. Different countries benefit at different levels from tech sharing. This can have the effect of wildly throwing off game balance, depending on the countries that are involved in the game.

 

[unmerged(12746)]

The application

The application of tech trading is universal any human can do it. So I dont get your point, how could it not ?

And I disagree Biggles it is a free for all game in MP you off all people should know this, in your warmonger I thread you had an army of 150 divisions in 1937. Of course its a free for all because of all the variables and what you can do ahistorically and how you can apply those variables, including tech trading.

If it was meant to be a historical application why would tech trading be in the game in the first place? Was it signifigant enough to have played a role in historical outcomes? If yes then it has to be a variable in the fantasy application based on historic parameters, if no it wasnt signifigant then its absolutely a fantasy element to the game.

Clearly Biggles your just being argumentative

At this time I respectfully request that all comments made that are in contradiction to my position be removed henceforth. Not only is it not condusive to a constructive debate on issues that specifically apply to my arguments merits, but it would therefore make me absolutely correct thereby affirming this proclomations validity.

First we start removing the yankee fans......

 

[unmerged(2833)]

Re: The application

Originally posted by Odin1970
The application of tech trading is universal any human can do it. So I dont get your point, how could it not ?

And I disagree Biggles it is a free for all game in MP you off all people should know this, in your warmonger I thread you had an army of 150 divisions in 1937. Of course its a free for all because of all the variables and what you can do ahistorically and how you can apply those variables, including tech trading.

If it was meant to be a historical application why would tech trading be in the game in the first place? Was it signifigant enough to have played a role in historical outcomes? If yes then it has to be a variable in the fantasy application based on historic parameters, if no it wasnt signifigant then its absolutely a fantasy element to the game.

Clearly Biggles your just being argumentative

At this time I respectfully request that all comments made that are in contradiction to my position be removed henceforth. Not only is it not condusive to a constructive debate on issues that specifically apply to my arguments merits, but it would therefore make me absolutely correct thereby affirming this proclomations validity.

First we start removing the yankee fans......

The only thing i understood from your post is that Biggles built 60 divisions in one year, and that you think he is argumentative.

Thats pretty much everything. Clearly my english skill are worse than ever

 

[unmerged(12746)]

Actually

Your english skills are perfect, I have master the art of being long winded, particularly when it comes to discussions at have been presented throughly in prior posts and all that is left to say are small jabs and attempts at humor.

Very astute Darth Maur, thanks a WHOLE bunch for exposing me!

Odin

 

[MAC]

First I thought House rules are limiting the fun, but after finally finishing my first MP game I have to say that house rules are neccesary for a good game.

You can't prevent your AI Minors to exchange teach with you - and I don't think it's that bad since you should be ahead of them anyways. We had a total limit of 5 tech trades for the players in that game and it was not bad. After War entry of Japan Russia USA there'd be a boost (could see it as simulating the help the US send to Russia/UK and the contacts Germany + Japan had for example).

So summarized:
5 tech shares in the whole game (per player).
You can share with minors.
US USSR Japan no tech share till war entry (also no receiving).
...is a good house rule IMHO.

 

[Mr.Bigglesworth]

Re: The application

Originally posted by Odin1970
The application of tech trading is universal any human can do it. So I dont get your point, how could it not ?

Does because the rule is universal doesn't mean that the effect is the same on every human. If you made a rule that there would be no more penalty on amphib attacks, it would help out USA a lot, but not USSR at all. Or if you doubled the effect of cold weather on attackers, it would probably hurt Germany and help USSR. Just because everyone can do it does not make it balanced.

Clearly, I have a coherent point, and am not just rambling like an old fool, just to hear the sound of my voice

 

[MAC]

I think the point is to have a game that is fun for all.
That requires a bit of a challenge/realism IMHO.
Since the Host has actually (sadly) not too many options of adjusting the game there is no other way as house rules.
Some people might be happy about a flawless victory, but I'd rather loose a challenging game. If I want a flawless victory I can play single-player

 

[Diefledermas]

I've been reading the posts keeping quite for awhile but I think its neccesary to establish a couple ground rules because the debate keeps getting argued on multiple fronts and clouding the issue.

Here are the factors (in my humble opinion) that need to be addressed.

1. historical accuracy

2. playability

3. flexibility to allow for fun game play (i.e. overly restrictive house rules)


United States Issue:

As for the United States being overly powerful in 1936. Their economy is by far the largest of any other nation (and this holds true for the other scenarios) BUT (and this important) their consumer goods requirement is enormous (to represent the depression and the American penchant for toys) AND they are far behind in the tech game. So, if the US chooses to dump all their spare IC into research from day one when war arrives they will find themselves win no army to speak off and a pre-war navy that while large will fall prey to a good Japanese player and have trouble hunting down U-boats in the Atlantic.

Tech Sharing Among the "Allies" and among the "Commonwealth"

As someone pointed out earlier, the Commonweath nations were organized to "fold in" the British command structure and there is a very good arguement for tech sharing BY the UK to her Commonwealth partners. BUT, this is purely a one way deal, if you want to be historical. And, if executed that way would probably maintain game balance just fine. As far as US-UK tech sharing, historically they were doing there own designs and not coorperating too much in the tech department. If anything, should be sending exp. forces to the UK en masse to represent US lend-lease directives. As for the USSR and the Allies. Tech sharing? Eh... no, not historical at all.

Tech Sharing Among the Axis

If anything, Germany and Japan were a lot more friendly in the tech sharing department than the Allies. We've all heard of the me262. Ever here of the Nakajima Kikka? Carbon copy of the German' jet fighter. On that note, the Italians flew a jet fighter prototype in 1931 (the Caproni-Campini N1). They INDEPENDENTLY built a jet fighter in 31! Second only to the Germans. Their great failing was an utterly horribly radial engine design (props) but that's a story for another day. My point? If anything the Axis should have less restrictions than the Allies (if you want to be historical).

Nuclear Research

There should be a 100% ban on sharing nuclear research, period. No nation shared nuke tech.

I have strong opinions on "production capabilities of the Allies vs. technological superiority of the Axis" but this post is already getting to long so I'll leave it where it is for now.

 

[TeutonicKnight]

You make good points Diefledermas, however, if I'm not mistaken, when a country starts making more divisions, then the consumer goods amount decreases. This makes America even stronger as they can now relieve their consumer dependence while at very least maintaining tech speed of others. This only multiplies as American armed forces grow to ungodly amounts, as does the industry base by improvements.

All one needs to do is create, Infantry, mech and or motorized, because these mostly upgrade without refitting, until he or she reach's the desired tanks they want then switch production.

At any rate the decrease in consumer goods is not offset by the increase in supplies, and one could even manipulate that with his or her allies. The fact is America can very easily emerge in 1940, or sooner, with enough divisions and tech advantages to completely allow the game to turn against the axis much much faster than in real life.

 

[MAC]

Some good points Diefledermas, seems in many MP games there is now a "tech share break" after 2 or 3 months (I am more for a max of 4 tech shares per year) - and the rules like "no nuke sharing" and "no sharing between US USSR and allies" (at least till war starts) sounds reasonable, too.

 

[Diefledermas]

when a country starts making more divisions, then the consumer goods amount decreases.

I believe its war entry percentage that decreases consumer demand NOT unit production.

All one needs to do is create, Infantry, mech and or motorized, because these mostly upgrade without refitting, until he or she reach's the desired tanks they want then switch production.

How are you going to get those troops to the Continent? Also mech inf defends poorly in certain terrain and both are poor offensive units in certain situations. i.e. the all infantry strategy won't work in all arenas

The fact is America can very easily emerge in 1940, or sooner, with enough divisions and tech advantages to completely allow the game to turn against the axis much much faster than in real life.

If the Axis is foolish enough to allow US war entry to reach 100 percent in 1940 so the US canb jump in the fight then you are correct but that isn't a game mechanics issue or a tech issue

 

[Mr.Bigglesworth]

Originally posted by Diefledermas
Tech Sharing Among the Axis

If anything, Germany and Japan were a lot more friendly in the tech sharing department than the Allies. We've all heard of the me262. Ever here of the Nakajima Kikka? Carbon copy of the German' jet fighter. On that note, the Italians flew a jet fighter prototype in 1931 (the Caproni-Campini N1). They INDEPENDENTLY built a jet fighter in 31! Second only to the Germans. Their great failing was an utterly horribly radial engine design (props) but that's a story for another day. My point? If anything the Axis should have less restrictions than the Allies (if you want to be historical).

You make some really good points, but I think the major issue is tech sharing before the war starts. In real life, nobody was sure who their allies were and who were their enemies, so they didnt tech share very much. In the game, on Jan 1, 1936 everyone knows basically how the alliances are going to work out, so the tech starts flowing freely, an issue the game was not balanced for.

 

[Diefledermas]

You make some really good points, but I think the major issue is tech sharing before the war starts. In real life, nobody was sure who their allies were and who were their enemies, so they didnt tech share very much. In the game, on Jan 1, 1936 everyone knows basically how the alliances are going to work out, so the tech starts flowing freely, an issue the game was not balanced for.

You just gave me an idea. How about this for a "house rule"?

(in addition to earlier mentioned restrictions)

No tech sharing between "officially" non-aligned members.

 

[MAC]

Well, I have yet to see a win of the Axis in MP.

One reason might be the Allies AI tech sharing, maybe it would be a good suggestion to have 1 tech for Allies and 2 techs for Axis every 3 months. At least that's what I'll suggest next MP session...

 

[Diefledermas]

Well, I have yet to see a win of the Axis in MP. One reason might be the Allies AI tech sharing, maybe it would be a good suggestion to have 1 tech for Allies and 2 techs for Axis every 3 months. At least that's what I'll suggest next MP session...

Playing as the Axis against competent opponents is difficult. One of the reasons is that the Axis (at least Germany) is not ready to fight at the beginning of 36 BUT if you wait to long then Allies will simply overwhelm you with production. Once the USA is in the game then you are fighting against time expotentionally. My point? You have a window of opportunity and then you're done. How this effects the tech debate is one of the things Germany needs to win is a tech advantage because a level tech playing field = defeat.

 

[MAC]

Yes, and I think tech share house rules can prolly help balancing the game for the Axis...

 

[unmerged(13894)]

I sure like that AI Commonwealth trading as UK in current MP game I have received 2 doctrines from Canada, 1 from S.Africa. Also got one from France

 

[unmerged(14719)]

But How about Nat China,

with limited Tech Share, Nat China is toast.

i've played MP a few times with Nat China..(only in full house situations when a UK or France is no needed).

Though i won in most instances, it was due to allied involvement rather than Nat China.

Firstly with Limited tech share in-place, 29 Nat Chinese Infantry divisions couldnt defeat 3 Jap divs and 3 Manchuko divs... in open terrain and a sunny day, with CHINESE AIR SUPERIORITY.

29 divisions got spanked, and i lost 4 before retreating.

However with unlimited tech share, playing as USA in SP, giving tech to china/UK/Minors respectively, China managed to whoop japanese butt.

The problem i feel is that non allied countries are giving each other tech.

Tech share amongst the commonwealth nations should be unlimited, as the commonwealth is more a british empire thing rather than an alliance of independent nations.

Tech share between USA and the commonwealth shouldnt occur until war starts. USA was isolationist and congress would never have approved any tech sharing till war is declared.

Furthermore, with Germany leading in land tech, we would see an italian, Japanese army of equal footing. plus with Japanese superior Naval tech.....it would create a German and Japanese army/navy of unrivalled power.

But that is getting sidetracked....how about Nat China? limited tech share will murder it unless all nations that China is allied with shares tech with it.

Nat China is rendered unplayable with limited tech share. With 80 IC and 10 dissent...plus 15 if you dont accept the Xi'an incident and 20 dissent if u DOW Sinkiang.....thats alot of dissent with 80IC.......

Nat China cannot research tech and build enough infantry to counter the japanese on its own. Furthermore it cannot field a large enough army with its limited IC base.

 

[Diefledermas]

Nationalist China shouldn't be able to beat the Japanese on their own. That's the point.