Redesign of the Research System

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • First of all wether I am winning or losing in the first 2 weeks is not the point and your argument is meaningless and too case specific depending on various variables to have any merit at this juncture. We are discussing the merits of each proposal, our goal is to improve the overall experience not haggle over what if scenarios.

      Back on point the problem with your proposal is that if all nations start with 5 research slots even if these slots are segregated per type of research it does not leave any room for growth. My nation at day 1 with 10 provinces has the same research capacity as my nation at day 40 that has 100 provinces.

      Research wise you get no competitive advantage for growth over time. I am not saying that gameplay wise its not a whole new game starting with 5 slots instead of 2 from day 1 but it does nothing for competitive advantage over time due to having no growth potential.

      A nation that spans half the globe compaired to a 10 province nation has a much bigger resource output, production capacity, etc, and should also have an advantage in research as well by having more slots. Unless I misunderstood your proposal does nothing to address this dicrepency.

    • Very glad you made this comment as it is a common misconception! Under the current system larger nations cannot have better quality armies then smaller nations. They can certainly have larger armies as they have a larger economy they can out produce smaller nations no doubt.

      However as all nations can only have 2 research slots regardless of size; then no nation can ever gain a technological advantage over another unless one of the two stops researching or researches suboptimal technologies for the situation they are faced with or will be faced with in the near future.

      Once players learn the proper order of research prioroties the games become repetitive almost carbon copy of the previous one. Its precisely why we see so much light tanks / bomber spam strategies. I bet the majority of the players have virtyally the same order of research for the first 3 weeks.

      This does not encourage variety, originality or replay value. The ideal game should not have a recepie for doing things, it should encourage thinking outside of the box and you should only be limited by your imagination and creativity.

    • Kanaris wrote:

      However as all nations can only have 2 research slots regardless of size; then no nation can ever gain a technological advantage over another unless one of the two stops researching or researches suboptimal technologies for the situation they are faced with or will be faced with in the near future.
      Mmmmm. Not exactly.

      Large nations typically have a huge advantage in the production of cash, goods and rare materials, the last usually being the most critical in terms of maintaining a 24/7 research schedule, especially in the first two weeks of a game. That said, I am currently playing a round of the 25-player historical map, and goods are also in critical short supply there, even more so than rare materials.

      So, no, just because large and small nations all have two research slots, they are most definitely NOT on an equal footing when it comes to research and weapons technology.

    • To my knowldge there are no limitations to what I can buy on the market or what I can trade with other nations to account for any short commings in my economy. I know that I have managed it in the past be it with rares, grain or steel to accomplish my objectives

      Thus its not far fetched to imagine that there are alot of things one can do in order to keep 2 researh slots going continuously, even for small nations it should be possible. Perhaps not easy but FAR from impossible. Its just a matter of priorities and long term planning.

    • There are limitations to what can be bought on the market. They are as follows:
      1. You can only buy resources if they are available on the market
      2. you can only buy resources if you have enough money or gold
      "White Fang knew the law well: To oppress the weak and obey the strong"
      Jack London, White Fang

      My parents once told me not to play with matches, so I built a flamethrower

    • As I have already mentioned you can also trade resources with orher nations look it up its called Diplomacy!

      Whats up with the selective reading? Why have we gone off on a tangent? Why are we nitpicking one aspect of the proposal at a time instead of looking at the overall mertis of the proposal?

      I dont see the relevance of discussing if you are eable to keep the two existing research slots going as personally I never had trouble with it and more importantly I did take time to offer suggestions as to how this can be accomplished.

      Here is the question we are trying to answer: Does making available extra research slots available to a nation gradually over time as it is expanding and gathering VPs make sense? Does it enhance gameplay by allowing a bigger variety of units to be seen and perhaps as a result give way to more competitve styles then the same old light tank / bomber spam?

      Personally I think it makes senese but if you dont like it fine! Make a proper statement with some tangible arguments and lets discuss it. Better yet come up with a better proposal of your own!

    • Look I am not against your Idea, in fact, If you look earlier at this thread, I suggested it first. However, that one statement about there being no limit to what you can buy on the market is false. Even trading with other nations has a logical limit. you can't trade a resource if you do not have it.
      "White Fang knew the law well: To oppress the weak and obey the strong"
      Jack London, White Fang

      My parents once told me not to play with matches, so I built a flamethrower

      The post was edited 1 time, last by NukeRaider33 ().

    • Kanaris wrote:

      Back on point the problem with your proposal is that if all nations start with 5 research slots even if these slots are segregated per type of research it does not leave any room for growth. My nation at day 1 with 10 provinces has the same research capacity as my nation at day 40 that has 100 provinces.

      Research wise you get no competitive advantage for growth over time. I am not saying that gameplay wise its not a whole new game starting with 5 slots instead of 2 from day 1 but it does nothing for competitive advantage over time due to having no growth potential.
      To your point, there is a limit based on growth. With 5 slots, it would be quite difficult to keep them all working unless you do grow your nation enough to afford the extra resources needed to keep researching along all 5 lines. Also, because my proposal is two-fold, the competitive advantage is deliberately decreased by the added cross-technological prerequisites. This second part of my proposal serves not to give advantages to the fast-rising uber empires, but it does encourage a much-wider variety of strategies, especially in the mid to late game. Thus the bomber/light tank combination ceases it's dominance as the go-to for most players.


      Kanaris wrote:

      Once players learn the proper order of research prioroties the games become repetitive almost carbon copy of the previous one. Its precisely why we see so much light tanks / bomber spam strategies. I bet the majority of the players have virtyally the same order of research for the first 3 weeks.

      This does not encourage variety, originality or replay value. The ideal game should not have a recepie for doing things, it should encourage thinking outside of the box and you should only be limited by your imagination and creativity.
      While there is some carbon copying going on, there really is no "proper" order. As I typically advocate, one's research priorities should be based on the conditions for the map they are playing and for the conditions they are facing in their individual match.

      And, as I stated further above, my proposal does serve to encourage more "variety" and "originality" which in-turn does enhance "replay value". Having more research slots -- though specialized -- and reinforced with more cross-technological prerequisites, will make players more dynamic and spice up this game's playability by leaps and bounds. If anything, my out-of-the-box proposal will encourage more out-of-the-box thinking.

      MontanaBB wrote:

      Large nations typically have a huge advantage in the production of cash, goods and rare materials, the last usually being the most critical in terms of maintaining a 24/7 research schedule, especially in the first two weeks of a game.

      MontanaBB wrote:

      That said, I am currently playing a round of the 25-player historical map, and goods are also in critical short supply there, even more so than rare materials.
      I remember this being an issue when I played as India. The key is to max out all Goods as early as possible and hord it from day 1. Even keeping token AI players alive with a single Goods province (as core to them) will keep the market filled with more Goods. This is one of those times where one needs to dust off the old strategists' playbook and dig deep for some bottom-of-the-barrel scraping to get every last ounce of Goods.

      Kanaris wrote:

      To my knowldge there are no limitations to what I can buy on the market or what I can trade with other nations to account for any short commings in my economy. I know that I have managed it in the past be it with rares, grain or steel to accomplish my objectives

      NukeRaider33 wrote:

      There are limitations to what can be bought on the market. They are as follows:
      1. You can only buy resources if they are available on the market
      2. you can only buy resources if you have enough money or gold
      @NukeRaider33 gave the perfect answer. So I will defer to him, on this.

      Kanaris wrote:

      Here is the question we are trying to answer: Does making available extra research slots available to a nation gradually over time as it is expanding and gathering VPs make sense? Does it enhance gameplay by allowing a bigger variety of units to be seen and perhaps as a result give way to more competitve styles then the same old light tank / bomber spam?
      You are in error. The question of this thread is not about adding more research slots over time. This thread is about my idea to create path-specific research slots (and more of them) along with a wider variety of tech prerequisites -- two halves of a well-designed tandem proposal -- in order to reduce the repetitiveness of the game as well as to give a better chance at early game survival to lesser-experienced players. So, a new question is whether my proposal, or yours, has a better chance at accomplishing this. I say it is mine....hands down.

      Kanaris wrote:

      Lets agree to disagree and get back on topic because I have not seen any imperical evidance that suggests 2 research slots cannot be maintaned with proper planning.
      My "imperical" evidence is that Stormtroopers are going to raid your camp. Now, "empirical" evidence has been given in an anecdotal way....in that "many" players use the bomber/tank combination, more so than seems to be the likelihood unless considering that the current set of techs and research slots appear to encourage this. I say that it is a lack of imagination that encourages the bomber/tank combo, rather than the research slots. But my proposal will still force players to use the bomber/tank combo at-least a little less.
      It seemed like such a waste to destroy an entire battle station just to eliminate one man. But Charlie knew that it was the only way to ensure the absolute and total destruction of Quasi-duck, once and for all.

      The saying, "beating them into submission until payday", is just golden...pun intended.

      R.I.P. Snickers <3

    • Diabolical wrote:

      To your point, there is a limit based on growth. With 5 slots, it would be quite difficult to keep them all working unless you do grow your nation enough to afford the extra resources needed to keep researching along all 5 lines.
      Excellent point I had not considered that. However the issue remains that its a heck of alot more work having to redesign the tech trees making sure they are properly balanced, etc in order to make your concept work. Much simpler to add an extra slot every x amount of VPs conquered. But lets just say the devs accept it and are willing to implement it there is another issue when comparing the two proposals.

      The reason I prefer mine is because it is less restrictive in how I go about doing my researh. Once I gain my 3rd slot I am not limited in any way as to what I research. I am not forced to research naval stuff or leave the slot empty. If I want to put all my 3 slots on airforce or spit them anyway I see fit well I can. My proposal affords the individual alot more flexibility.

    • Kanaris wrote:

      The reason I prefer mine is because it is less restrictive in how I go about doing my researh. Once I gain my 3rd slot I am not limited in any way as to what I research. I am not forced to research naval stuff or leave the slot empty. If I want to put all my 3 slots on airforce or spit them anyway I see fit well I can. My proposal affords the individual alot more flexibility.
      And that is the reason why I consider my proposal more flexible. Your proposal simply makes it easier to focus on a single tech path which would increase the likelihood that people use only the bomber/tank combo. My proposal is meant to discourage a reliance on single-strategy one-mindedness in this game. I want to encourage variety by making it easier to implement a variety of strategies. My proposal doesn't make it harder to do what you want, but it does make it easier to do those other strategies.

      It's a tit-for-tat difference between mine and yours, proposals. As for the level of difficulty in implementing the tech tree differences, it should be no difficult thing to add the additional research slots except to restrict them to certain branches. The balancing of the tech tree and which prerequisites should merely be a matter of changes to entries in the database of technologies. Balancing those changes is only a matter of making different data choices rather than a bunch of new programming algorithms. Also, the balance tweaks are decided by testing the game in beta and see what works. So hard-coded balances are most likely not the case.
      It seemed like such a waste to destroy an entire battle station just to eliminate one man. But Charlie knew that it was the only way to ensure the absolute and total destruction of Quasi-duck, once and for all.

      The saying, "beating them into submission until payday", is just golden...pun intended.

      R.I.P. Snickers <3

    • Diabolical wrote:

      Sure, those various scenarios offer a variety of playing styles. But the problem with them is that you are pigeon-holed into your decision -- like going down a rabbit trail -- where you can't just back out and change your mind without suffering vast technological deficiencies. So, if you decide to change your focus on naval power (for instance) into air power, your newly-constructed air forces will not be able to compete against your competitors who already built up their air corps and so your change in focus will only fail.
      Dude, that is insightful. I pride myself in thinking about this game and strategies, but, man, I'm impressed. Finding yourself having researched one area to the exclusion of another, may've worked in the early game, but late game play can be murder because of this. But you argue that a player often has no choice, i.e., being "pigeon-holed" because of being land-locked or an island nation. There needs to be a way around this problem. And I read on, so I saw what you are doing here, and I have to admit, it's a "winner winner chicken dinner" of an idea.

      Diabolical wrote:

      Now, I'm not in favor of forcing any player to build a balanced military. Though I much prefer balance, myself, if someone else wants to build nothing but Bombers, that's their choice. But as it stands, now, the way the technology system is set up, it encourages players to hyperfocus on only a few technologies.
      Exactly....ish. I think this may have been written before the change of the game to it's current format. But it still makes a good point. The requirement to have your individual unit types only be built by a certain type of construction building is specific to the tech, and so it makes sense that one gets bogged down trying to research for one tech or even a group of techs that only work for those buildings.

      Diabolical wrote:

      So I propose this change. First, the prerequisites for various techs should continue to be cross-category far and above the early versions of each tech area. For example, instead of just requiring level 2 AA tech before researching level 1 SP-AA, maybe the level 3 SP-AA should require level 4 AA tech in addition to level 3 SP-AA tech. And, the level 5 Naval Bomber should require maybe level 3 Tac Bomber tech combined with level 4 Submarine tech...this would simulate the impetus behind both the need for and ingenuity behind the design of a more advanced Naval Bomber. Maybe it would make sense for a level 4 Light Tank to require the engine upgrades designed for a level 3 Armored Car. And maybe a level 3 Transport Ship should require a level 2 Medium Tank to be researched to simulate the need for, not just a faster ship, but one with a larger cargo-hold for those heavier units.


      Then, to facilitate this need for more research, so that the pigeon-holing isn't just prevented, but the ability to actually keep up in research across the board is better-balanced, I propose more research slots be made available. However, I am not proposing more of the slots as they currently are. Instead, there needs to be only one research slot per each of the four main categories and one additional slot for any category including the Secret branch. This way, you will always have one research slot dedicated to the naval branch, one for the Air branch, one for the Infantry branch, and one for the Armored branch.

      The fifth slot can focus on the Secret branch while being able to supplement any of the other branches as well. I believe that fifth slot would offer both an additional bit of balance as well as enabling players the ability to still choose to focus on fewer technological paths, somewhat.

      Thus, to sum up, my proposal is twofold:

      1.) Increase the prerequisite technologies for higher level techs with cross-category requirements.
      2.) Have 5 research slots...1 for each of the 4 main categories and the 5th. slot for any category including Secret.

      Mod edit - changed the title of this thread as it is obviously not "Top Priority"
      OK, so from what I am reading, each technology group should have multiple requirements for each level, to better simulate real-world requirements, both in necessity and in ingenuity of the researchers and the "impetus" behind each level of tech. That's a good idea. But then you also say each branch should get it's own research slot. But you say that's a total of five, yet there are more research groups. So this is an old idea. But it's clearly never been implemented, because there are still only two research slots. Too bad.

      Still, it's an awesome idea. But instead of limiting to "five" research slots, they should just make it "one" research slot for each research tech tree. That makes sense. Even the so-called "Secret" one should get it's own exclusive tech slot. Then, there should ALSO be an additional slot that can be used for any tech group, such that one could still use two slots for foot soldiers, or two slots for air power, etc. So, your idea makes sense, but it needs expanded to cover all research groups.

      This idea is actually pretty incredible. I don't think I've seen research treated as the priority it should, except that the company wants to give us lots of research options. But there isn't any way to research even half of all technologies without cheating with gold, or playing a match for so long, that there's no one left to play against, anyway...and that's no fun.

      So, while I agree with you in principle, both on the reason for the need of the new proposal as well as the way to fix this to work for everybody, I don't think you go far enough in how it should be implemented. Furthermore, I think you failed to point out that the company is over-focusing on the choices of technology without focusing on making it possible for players to be able to actually achieve those technologies. And this is especially needed, now that units have specific buildings required to construct them.

      Regardless, I really hope they'll pay attention to this now. Because your idea is excellent. And it's needed, probably far more now than when you must've come up with this idea.