Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

I (mostly) regret my decision

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Strategic Command Series >> Strategic Command WWII War in Europe >> I (mostly) regret my decision Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
I (mostly) regret my decision - 7/11/2019 4:48:35 PM   
Taxman66


Posts: 1328
Joined: 3/19/2008
From: Columbia, MD. USA
Status: offline
I (mostly) regret my decision to support a change in the Tech Breakthroughs (which has been implemented).

While level 3 Panzers won't show up and run over everything at the start of Barbarossa anymore...
Russia is taking too long to get to INF Weapons 2.
I can't figure out anyway to save them from the horror that will be the Summer of 1942.
Germany will have more units and Russia, while also having more units, will just get them picked off.
Russian Infantry can only counter attack if they manage to get an Axis unit out of supply or low on strength & supply.
In the later case they are happy to get to exchange a single point for a single point.
Axis Corps at lvl 2 can attack Russian Armies at lvl 1 with impunity and once the entrenchment is gone the stronger
units (Armies, Mech & Panzers) just clean up the Russian Armies taking minimal damage back.
Russian Corps at lvl 1 are all but a complete joke.
Their best use is holding a city against stray low supply Axis units wandering around looking for undefended towns/cities to seize.


_____________________________

"Part of the $10 million I spent on gambling, part on booze and part on women. The rest I spent foolishly." - George Raft
Post #: 1
RE: I (mostly) regret my decision - 7/11/2019 5:30:29 PM   
PvtBenjamin

 

Posts: 677
Joined: 5/6/2017
Status: offline
This was your idea?

I'd rather fight a lv 3 tank with armor warfare than a 2 without it.

We haven't even talked about how the Axis has a large C&C advantage for much longer.


< Message edited by PvtBenjamin -- 7/11/2019 5:31:17 PM >

(in reply to Taxman66)
Post #: 2
RE: I (mostly) regret my decision - 7/11/2019 5:46:30 PM   
crispy131313


Posts: 1283
Joined: 11/30/2013
Status: offline
Are we sure it's the tech breakthrough that is the issue? I swear that all of my research is being slowed on a turn-by-turn basis. I know the vanilla game is 5-5-5-4-4 right now, but i'm playing 5-4-4-3-3, started USSR with Infantry Weapons I, so began researching Infantry II in 1939 and it's October 1943 and I'm still only 69% towards Infantry Weapons III. It doesn't make sense, 4 years is too long to only gain a level and a half, even with the slightly lower 4% vs 5% per turn on research.

_____________________________


(in reply to PvtBenjamin)
Post #: 3
RE: I (mostly) regret my decision - 7/11/2019 5:58:14 PM   
Taxman66


Posts: 1328
Joined: 3/19/2008
From: Columbia, MD. USA
Status: offline
If it has, it is a bug.

_____________________________

"Part of the $10 million I spent on gambling, part on booze and part on women. The rest I spent foolishly." - George Raft

(in reply to crispy131313)
Post #: 4
RE: I (mostly) regret my decision - 7/11/2019 5:58:16 PM   
PvtBenjamin

 

Posts: 677
Joined: 5/6/2017
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: crispy131313

Are we sure it's the tech breakthrough that is the issue? I swear that all of my research is being slowed on a turn-by-turn basis. I know the vanilla game is 5-5-5-4-4 right now, but i'm playing 5-4-4-3-3, started USSR with Infantry Weapons I, so began researching Infantry II in 1939 and it's October 1943 and I'm still only 69% towards Infantry Weapons III. It doesn't make sense, 4 years is too long to only gain a level and a half, even with the slightly lower 4% vs 5% per turn on research.




I completely agree, I think its more than the breakthrough.

I mentioned in the other thread as SU I didn't get lv Inf wpns until July 25,1941(started 4/40). I've probably played over a hundred games and prior to v1.16 I always had lv 1 at least before June, usually much earlier.


Also it took 1 1/2 yrs for SU to get armored warfare in another game. The Brits already had armor warfare (so I should get a bonus) and I always have a Brit & US chit on S&I. S&I was lv 2.

There is no doubt x-breakthrough the research is much slower.

(in reply to crispy131313)
Post #: 5
RE: I (mostly) regret my decision - 7/11/2019 6:01:28 PM   
Taxman66


Posts: 1328
Joined: 3/19/2008
From: Columbia, MD. USA
Status: offline
Don't figure S&I, as it only helps if you are head of all your opponents.

My only suggestion is to open a Hot Seat game and just plug through turns (without doing anything else) spending any available MPP on Tech (for both sides) while keeping track of each Tech Advancement amounts each turn.


_____________________________

"Part of the $10 million I spent on gambling, part on booze and part on women. The rest I spent foolishly." - George Raft

(in reply to PvtBenjamin)
Post #: 6
RE: I (mostly) regret my decision - 7/11/2019 6:06:07 PM   
PvtBenjamin

 

Posts: 677
Joined: 5/6/2017
Status: offline

At the risk of sounding boring I go through the same research progression every game.

There is no doubt all research is slower.



< Message edited by PvtBenjamin -- 7/11/2019 6:08:09 PM >

(in reply to Taxman66)
Post #: 7
RE: I (mostly) regret my decision - 7/11/2019 6:09:53 PM   
Taxman66


Posts: 1328
Joined: 3/19/2008
From: Columbia, MD. USA
Status: offline
quote:

This was your idea?

I'd rather fight a lv 3 tank with armor warfare than a 2 without it.

We haven't even talked about how the Axis has a large C&C advantage for much longer.


The problem was that I had twice in pbem (out of half a dozen games) been facing level 3 German Tanks at the opening of Barbarossa (so no Russian Armor Warfare Tech and only crummy light tanks at level 1 anyway).
With level 3 Tanks, Russia couldn't even operate the Corps away the turn after contact. They were getting destroyed immediately. That left too much open ground and no means to form a meaningful line (even with Siberians), so the Germans just kept advancing right on through the Soviet Winter. Then in 1942 (even with lvl 2 INF & lvl 2 AA)) there just weren't enough units.

_____________________________

"Part of the $10 million I spent on gambling, part on booze and part on women. The rest I spent foolishly." - George Raft

(in reply to PvtBenjamin)
Post #: 8
RE: I (mostly) regret my decision - 7/11/2019 6:22:57 PM   
PvtBenjamin

 

Posts: 677
Joined: 5/6/2017
Status: offline
Do you research inf warfare fairly early? It helps some.


Against a very skilled attack I find the Axis are going to take Leningrad & Moscow. The map gets much more challenging for them after that.


(in reply to Taxman66)
Post #: 9
RE: I (mostly) regret my decision - 7/11/2019 6:23:52 PM   
Taxman66


Posts: 1328
Joined: 3/19/2008
From: Columbia, MD. USA
Status: offline
Of course it is slower. Breakthroughs are not insta giving the Tech and that means you're slower getting started on the next level as well.

Each Breakthrough is shaving off about 2 turns (e.g. A breakthrough of 15% is really a +10% as you would have gotten about 5% normally, and less if you have catch-up/sharing/S&I boni)
Breakthroughs with double chit investments are shaving off only about a single turn, but should be happening twice as often.


The only real question is if the non-breakthrough advancements are occurring correctly.
Maybe we can get the designers/programmers to double check the coding to see if the change to 5-5-5-4-4 was a) Implemented correctly and b) Didn't mess up any other part of the calculation (i.e. Catch Up/Sharing/S&I).

It would be very time consuming to plow through turns as I suggested and would get a rather limited sample size to see if the numbers appeared correct.
Hopefully, there is a test environment they can fire off hundreds/thousands of examples of the Tech calculations to ensure it is working properly (or at the very least provide the formula at time of calculation) to ensure it is working properly.

_____________________________

"Part of the $10 million I spent on gambling, part on booze and part on women. The rest I spent foolishly." - George Raft

(in reply to Taxman66)
Post #: 10
RE: I (mostly) regret my decision - 7/11/2019 6:27:28 PM   
PvtBenjamin

 

Posts: 677
Joined: 5/6/2017
Status: offline
Right thats what I'm saying.


If there are no breakthroughs the research is now slower.

Is it mathematically possible for a research (inf wpns in my case) to take 14 months when your opponent has lv 1 and your ally lv 1 for 1/2 the time?

< Message edited by PvtBenjamin -- 7/11/2019 6:30:45 PM >

(in reply to Taxman66)
Post #: 11
RE: I (mostly) regret my decision - 7/11/2019 7:53:54 PM   
Taxman66


Posts: 1328
Joined: 3/19/2008
From: Columbia, MD. USA
Status: offline
1. I don't remember how many turns there are in a year, but if you invested at the beginning of Fall it would take more calendar time than if you invested at the end of Spring.

2. If this is Russia then I believe that Sharing and Catch Up don't apply while Russia is neutral. Catch Up used to apply but I pointed out how it was unfair for Germany to get Catch Up bonus off the US (e.g. for Industrial Tech, but the UK wouldn't get a Sharing bonus until the USA was active). Having said that I'm not 100% certain it works the other way with the Neutral country getting (or not getting) a Catch Up bonus vs. an active opponent. Check the patch notes and hopefully Hubert or Bill will comment

Tech Example: USSR going from INF WEP 0 to 1.
Presumption: No S&I bonus presumed as it is unlikely for the USSR to get ahead of Germany.
Fact: Each turn the base roll increase is 2% - 7% (since we are at less than level 3, and only a single chit can be invested).
Presumption: 4.5% is the average increase per turn as it is the mean between 2% - 7%, not 5% as stated in the manual. I'm presuming each value from 2 to 7 has an equal chance of occurring each turn.

CASE A (No Catch Up or Sharing bonus applied as the USSR is Neutral):
Maximum Turns to increase would be 50: 100 / 2 {worst roll possible every turn and no breakthroughs}
Average Turns to increase would be 20: (100 / 4.5) - 2 {average roll every turn and 1 presumed breakthrough (at 5% each turn you would get 1.11 breakthroughs)}.

CASE B (Catch Up bonus of +1 applied, but no Sharing bonus as the USSR is Neutral. *Needs confirmation that Catch Up works this way)
Max Turns: 34 100 / 3 {round fraction up to next turn}
Average Turns: 16 (100 / 5.5) - 2 {1 presumed breakthrough (at 6% chance each turn you would get 1.08 breakthroughs) Normal fraction rounding}

CASE C (USSR is Active and going from lvl 1 to 2, Catch Up bonus of +1 applies, Sharing bonus of +0.5 applies {Half the time at equal level as UK, and half the time behind by 1 level})
Max Turns: 29 100 / 3.5
Average Turns: 15 (100 / 6) - 2 {1 presumed breakthrough at 6.5% chance each turn you would get 0.96 breakthroughs}

_____________________________

"Part of the $10 million I spent on gambling, part on booze and part on women. The rest I spent foolishly." - George Raft

(in reply to PvtBenjamin)
Post #: 12
RE: I (mostly) regret my decision - 7/11/2019 9:33:53 PM   
PvtBenjamin

 

Posts: 677
Joined: 5/6/2017
Status: offline
Looks like its probably possible, never happened to me before. Not even close.

When you have countries that are in large deficits in research technology (US/SU) when the game starts and you reduce the speed of technology research you give the dominant research country (Axis) a large advantage.

There should be offsets.






(in reply to Taxman66)
Post #: 13
RE: I (mostly) regret my decision - 7/11/2019 9:52:08 PM   
Taxman66


Posts: 1328
Joined: 3/19/2008
From: Columbia, MD. USA
Status: offline
Some possible options:
1. If you are receiving a Catch Up bonus, then a) A higher chance for a breakthrough; and/or b) A bigger breakthrough; and/or c) a better base catch up bonus (e.g. my already suggested 1% + 1% per difference).
2. Neutral powers are allowed a Catch Up bonus versus active powers (note this would also help Italy a bit).
3. Russia starts with a chit in Infantry Weapons (perhaps sacrificing the AT chit and/or her starting MPP or something else to compensate)

< Message edited by Taxman66 -- 7/11/2019 9:54:13 PM >


_____________________________

"Part of the $10 million I spent on gambling, part on booze and part on women. The rest I spent foolishly." - George Raft

(in reply to PvtBenjamin)
Post #: 14
RE: I (mostly) regret my decision - 7/12/2019 11:28:42 PM   
Taxman66


Posts: 1328
Joined: 3/19/2008
From: Columbia, MD. USA
Status: offline
In the case of the USA it's somewhat worse. Presuming Industry is a primary early research tech for the USA, it taking longer to fire means less MPP over the course of time before US entry. That means fewer Tech investments and those that are invested in are started later.

It also means a much weaker US at her entry, given the lesser tech and fewer units that can/could be built before hand.

The slower Tech affects the Axis too, but Germany already has a big starting advantage. Italy will take longer to get to whichever tech route she chooses ( Inf, Air or Naval) to try and match up with the Allies.

_____________________________

"Part of the $10 million I spent on gambling, part on booze and part on women. The rest I spent foolishly." - George Raft

(in reply to Taxman66)
Post #: 15
RE: I (mostly) regret my decision - 7/13/2019 11:30:21 AM   
PvtBenjamin

 

Posts: 677
Joined: 5/6/2017
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: PvtBenjamin


When you have countries that are in large deficits in research technology (US/SU) when the game starts and you reduce the speed of technology research you give the dominant research country (Axis) a large advantage.






Following are the finished research & investments at the game start - Germany (12/6), Italy (1/3), GB (7/8), US (4/7), SU (0/5)

Not only does Germany have the large advantage from the start it can also invest (+plunder) much faster than US & SU.

I stand by my statement above, slower research has significantly tilted the scales towards Axis.

My SU research progression is sell AT, buy IProd, IWpns, AA, IProd, AA , Inf Warfare. I then start buying Corps (9/40 ish) and Garrisons. Against a skilled attack (mob<30) in 1.15 I was able to occupy a good number of towns (etc) by Barbarossa, in 1.16 I have a huge vacancies.


I appreciate the changes need to be viewed in their entirety but this change is overwhelming.







< Message edited by PvtBenjamin -- 7/13/2019 11:43:33 AM >

(in reply to Taxman66)
Post #: 16
RE: I (mostly) regret my decision - 7/14/2019 12:36:23 AM   
Taxman66


Posts: 1328
Joined: 3/19/2008
From: Columbia, MD. USA
Status: offline
I've noticed that I believe my breakthrough calculations may be incorrect.
Breakthrough bonus may be being added in addition to the normal increase that is received.
I've recorded all my current values, and observed this at the end of the turn.
I'll confirm it at the start of my next turn.

_____________________________

"Part of the $10 million I spent on gambling, part on booze and part on women. The rest I spent foolishly." - George Raft

(in reply to PvtBenjamin)
Post #: 17
RE: I (mostly) regret my decision - 7/14/2019 4:46:40 PM   
crispy131313


Posts: 1283
Joined: 11/30/2013
Status: offline
Further evidence that something is up with the research; I have level 4 research set up at 3% per turn, I have spying and Intellignece level II with this major. However I have received 0% progress with a single chit in amphibious warfare for about a half dozen consecutive turns, I am still at 0%. Obviously there is no catch up bonus as Axis probably didn’t Research this. So based on the formula shouldn’t I advance at all?

This is for my Fall Weiss mod, I am going to replace with the same research increments as vanilla as a fix, but this doesn’t seem right.

_____________________________


(in reply to Taxman66)
Post #: 18
RE: I (mostly) regret my decision - 7/14/2019 5:10:16 PM   
Taxman66


Posts: 1328
Joined: 3/19/2008
From: Columbia, MD. USA
Status: offline
It does seem odd.
According to the manual the base (presumably at set value of 5) generates a random base increase from 2% - 7%.

I wonder if the value is set to 3 if it just subtracts 2 thus generating a value from 0% - 5%.

Howevwr, the odds of generating 0% 6 times in a row with that formula are rather small. So it seems likely that it doesn't work that way.

Would like to hear more from Hubert & Bill.

_____________________________

"Part of the $10 million I spent on gambling, part on booze and part on women. The rest I spent foolishly." - George Raft

(in reply to crispy131313)
Post #: 19
RE: I (mostly) regret my decision - 7/14/2019 6:19:38 PM   
crispy131313


Posts: 1283
Joined: 11/30/2013
Status: offline
In the end this is an issue for a mod, so it's really not a big deal. The easy and obvious fix is to just set up the research increments as it is in Vanilla which is working OK and I will just move forward.

_____________________________


(in reply to Taxman66)
Post #: 20
RE: I (mostly) regret my decision - 7/14/2019 7:17:10 PM   
Taxman66


Posts: 1328
Joined: 3/19/2008
From: Columbia, MD. USA
Status: offline
Im concerned a bit about vanilla too.

I'm seeing (Vanilla game) Russia at Inf Weapons 1 and 80% towards 2 in May of 1942. This with Russia buying the first chit as soon as 200 mpp was available (though without selling any chits) and reinvesting as soon as level 1 was achieved. Russia was unlucky and hasn't gotten a single breakthrough in Inf Weapons and odds say they should have seen 1 and had a better than 50-50 to have had 2. This is with Germany having gotten to level 2 beforw the DAK showed up (iirc).

< Message edited by Taxman66 -- 7/14/2019 8:37:17 PM >


_____________________________

"Part of the $10 million I spent on gambling, part on booze and part on women. The rest I spent foolishly." - George Raft

(in reply to crispy131313)
Post #: 21
RE: I (mostly) regret my decision - 7/14/2019 7:31:03 PM   
crispy131313


Posts: 1283
Joined: 11/30/2013
Status: offline
With the slower research I’ve given USSR Infantry Weapons I and Advanced Tanks 1, and MPP penalties in 1939 to make it very difficult to invest in these immediately, which should keep them behind Germany. In the end there are too many other differences to say this would work in vanilla, but I really want USSR to have some bite as early as 1942 be able to go on the offensive in 1943, since Germany can win the game by simply surviving 1945.

< Message edited by crispy131313 -- 7/14/2019 7:34:27 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Taxman66)
Post #: 22
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Strategic Command Series >> Strategic Command WWII War in Europe >> I (mostly) regret my decision Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.137