It has occurred to me that, in those very long matches where it is down to just a handful of players -- especially on the World Map -- that research (which was toned down for game balancing in the World Map) is excruciatingly slow in the late game.
You can use careful planning, constantly keeping your research active, only focusing on areas of specialty that fits your playing style, and ensuring you never run short on the resources needed to conduct the research. But you will rarely -- if ever -- get all of the research possible in your areas of focus -- let alone the whole panel of all techs.
So, it has occurred to me that Bytro's game designers have been adamant about leaving the research at only two techs at a time while encouraging slow research (unless aided by Gold, of course). But, for the late game, maybe after the first month has passed, why not add a third research slot. And for each 30 days after day 31, add another research slot up to 5 or 6...or maybe 10 or 12. This way, these ultra long matches which go on at least for several months don't have to be dragged out quite so much.
Think about it this way. The advances in each area are to simulate increases in understanding for that field in the time period of the game (1930's - 1950's). However, the increase gradient in the timeframe for each level of a tech is scued against the likelihood of tech increasing as specialists in an area achieve new leaps and bounds. For that matter, sometimes someone has a brilliant insight leading to a faster advance and this could be reflected by an occasional -- though rare -- random increase in a tech that is currently being researched (kind of like someone pressing the Gold button once in a tech). Such an idea could happen on the day change and only affect techs that can be researched at the time of advance. Also it would need to be very rare or else it could upset Bytro's Gold purchasing incentives.
Of course, I've been a big advocate of contest and in-game prizes, but a random generator reflecting a quick boost in tech, or maybe a random rich guy's patriotic donation to your national cause (resulting in some extra money added), or maybe an occasional free Militia or Armored Scout representing a patriotic fervor by loyalists (the partisan factor) -- of all these things -- this is an idea of adding more events and specials to enhance the flavor of the game.
We need these things. Random yet rare bonuses would reflect real life and make the game more interesting while having a natural but gradual increase in available research slots as the game moves along will keep it from lagging and getting boring. Also, the folks that abandon nations prematurely may be less likely in the hope of seeing an occasional benefit.
One more thing. With random events comes the need for random negative things too, like an occasional explosion at a factory damaging it or pushing back construction of a unit by a few hours (like the spy effect but without enemy spies). You could have a very rare random plane crashes while en route between airports or on patrol (seems unfair, but is far more realistic if you think about it). The rebellion factor -- which is set for 32% and lower, might have a very rare -- but realistic -- uprising in a higher-morale province. This would have to be separate from the 32% threshold as a special event and not a general event. Or perhaps have a single unit in a far-flung owned province turning rebel and taking over the province in spite of a not-so-low morale (not a rebellion of the province but a rebellion of a disloyal unit). Also. negative resource losses due to accidents by klutzy workers and theft by mob bosses would be realistic.
So, to summarize:
Please add more research slots as the game progresses, perhaps one additional slot per full month of game time played. Please add random events (rare but realistic) both positive and negative including Money or other resource boons and boondoggles, free units granted or occasional units lost, atypical citizen behavior or disloyal units, damaged structures or maybe even enhanced structures (like a Seaport granting higher resource production than usual by an additional 50% for a day).
I know it's a lot to think about, especially the random events part. But these are some ideas that could take a game that is starting to get too...settled...to a higher level of enjoyability. As with all games, the addiction factor does wane over time and you need some new stuff (besides units and buildings) to spice it up once in a while.
Our relationship with Bytro should not be allowed to go stagnant. Let's spice up our love life with the company with random features. 
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.Please log in to post a reply.
Good suggestion!
Getting another research slot sounds like a bad idea. It breaks the concept of having slots at all. It is possible to have everyhing you need researched with only two slots. Even if not, you can still prioritise and research the more important things first.
I agree with you in part. The balance of the game is such that technologies don't fly out the door and no nation can rise too far above the others without a lot of Gold spending.
This is the idea for accelerating research; by adding one more slot per month as the game goes beyond that initial first-month's rush to expand, you can maintain a better realism of the simulation of world affairs. As the game progresses, the number of active and viable players decreases -- often quite dramatically. Meanwhile, the number of players becoming larger and having a more dominating presence within a match -- as a percentage of the total -- actually increases dramatically.
For example, after a couple of months have passed in a typical World Map match, there will usually be maybe a dozen active players at most and, of these, most are clearly dominant and far larger than was their starting national positions.
That commonly-occurring early rush to form giant alliances has largely faded as most of the big alliance wars have typically passed while only a select few players have managed to come out on top...usually by sacrificing some or all of their allies as pawns in their ominous war plans against their in-game enemies.
So, the common state of a mid-game to late-game match is a race to see who can better and faster outgrow their neighbors and out-research them for some specialty tech, i.e. Tactical Bombers, in which they can achieve a substantial superiority in their chosen methodology of warfare. As the game gets long, a lot of stalemates can occur, things get stagnant, everybody seems mostly to have chosen the same technological specialties as each other. Some nations are trying to max out their resources for an even longer game endurance while other nations are trying to max out their units until they can't support anymore for an attempted shorter game victory with a Zerg-rush of [i.e.] Light Tanks.
The point is that, for most of the matches I've played in and wasn't eliminated very early on, I've observed this same set of circumstances or something similar. And I'm positive that this is commonly experienced by much of the playing community.
So -- again, to spice things up -- if we add more research slots later in the match, then those fewer and larger nations can be more accurately reflected in a larger research output. Now, I'm not suggesting lowering the time for each research project to be completed. After all, learning is a slow process. But, a bigger nation should be able to afford more branches of study and focus at the same time. Thus, with the nations becoming fewer and larger, the idea of branching out in the number of simultaneous research projects seems to be far more realistic.
Finally, as I've stated in my first post, I think it would be important to gradually increase the available research slots. My suggestion stands at one additional research slot per completed month of a World Map match and maybe after every three weeks of a non-World Map match (though those matches may still not start adding the first additional research slot until the first full month has passed).
Hopefully, this helps to explain my position and maybe it can get you to come around to my idea.
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.I like the idea of random events, not too common, not too rare, and not too impactful (as in: no cores can revolt for instance). Wouldnt mind a daily random event for each country, I have no preference for the % of positive/negative effects, as long as they are equal for everyone in terms of chance.
1) As time goes on, and extra research slot would be helpful: totally agree. Making it a core part of the 100 player map is another great idea.
2) Random events is a great idea! It could be listed in the daily spy section, such as "Due to workers taking longer shifts, our medium tank production in Berlin will be completed in three hours" and as for negative effects "Partisan raids have damaged oil containers in *insert oil city here* and we have lost *insert reasonable amount her*"
Edit: OOPS! I mistook your core for the reactor but I realize you meant core provinces. Still, my response is pretty AWESOME!miech wrote:
I like the idea of random events, not too common, not too rare, and not too impactful (as in: no cores can revolt for instance). Wouldnt mind a daily random event for each country, I have no preference for the % of positive/negative effects, as long as they are equal for everyone in terms of chance.
Now a blown reactor core would be a realistic occurrence causing the effect of a level 1 atomic bomber hitting the city. Think about it; the rush of nations to get to the top causes mistakes to occur, some tyrants -- desperate to dominate the world -- may push their researchers beyond the limits and someone makes a fatal mistake.
BOOM!!!!
It would need to be exceedingly rare...and the likelihood of it happening should actually go down the longer a nation has the technology but go up with the higher number of reactors built. This would also be an interesting new spy interaction.
SABOTAGE REACTOR
A very costly and very low percentage chance of success, but send a group of 10 spies to a reactor and -- if they succeed -- this very event would occur.
That would be a nice equalizer in the world scene.
Also, the daily random events would need to be not the same for everybody. Instead of having one per day, it should be that everyone faces the possibility of an event happening, then the less likely possibility of another event happening, then an even less likely possibility of a third event happening. Theoretically, a nation could get super unlucky and have many random events (and they all happen to be negative) that really hurts them at the day change. That would more accurately reflect real life.
In life, things happen. There are no rules that determines when an accident or a boon occurs. But, as most people know, you can affect your chances with proper preparation or caution to avoid a problem and you can increase the odds of a positive occurrence with a smarter gamble.
But, it all boils down to trying to simulate the randomness of life. It's not trying to be fair except that it can happen to anyone whether positive or negative nor is it fair yet it can happen whether one, none, few, or many times.
That's the whole point in a random generator...to be random.
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.Though I value realistic game behavior, I value playability more, and I think that too extreme effects shouldnt happen therefore (be it positive or negative).
The sabotage reactor is actually a nice exception, and can be done inside the regular sab spy affairs. Chance could be 1% per spy or something
Good idea.Diabolical wrote:
SABOTAGE REACTORA very costly and very low percentage chance of success, but send a group of 10 spies to a reactor and -- if they succeed -- this very event would occur.
Good suggestion.Diabolical wrote:
SABOTAGE REACTORA very costly and very low percentage chance of success, but send a group of 10 spies to a reactor and -- if they succeed -- this very event would occur.
Random events should only appear on the historical map.miech wrote:
Though I value realistic game behavior, I value playability more, and I think that too extreme effects shouldnt happen therefore (be it positive or negative).
The sabotage reactor, it's good idea.miech wrote:
The sabotage reactor is actually a nice exception, and can be done inside the regular sab spy affairs. Chance could be 1% per spy or something
Maximilien wrote:
Random events should only appear on the historical map.miech wrote:
Though I value realistic game behavior, I value playability more, and I think that too extreme effects shouldnt happen therefore (be it positive or negative).The sabotage reactor, it's good idea.miech wrote:
The sabotage reactor is actually a nice exception, and can be done inside the regular sab spy affairs. Chance could be 1% per spy or something
Well, I think perhaps the opposite would make more sense on which type of map to apply random events too. Since the historical maps are based on actual events...sort of...having a random event wouldn't necessarily apply to the possible alternative histories. In other words, a historical map might make less sense to have a nuclear missile in a the era than the world map. The Blitz map is very aligned with the historical European Theater and set up approximately equal to the realities of the time period. The Road to War is more imaginative and the Clash of Nations and World maps are just what if scenarios for fun with no realism whatsoever. I have no comment on the Mediterranean map since I've never played it.
Anyway, the more imaginative the map, the more effective entertainment and the more sense does a random event generator make. But that's my two bits on that.
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.Interesting.Diabolical wrote:
Well, I think perhaps the opposite would make more sense on which type of map to apply random events too. Since the historical maps are based on actual events...sort of...having a random event wouldn't necessarily apply to the possible alternative histories. In other words, a historical map might make less sense to have a nuclear missile in a the era than the world map. The Blitz map is very aligned with the historical European Theater and set up approximately equal to the realities of the time period. The Road to War is more imaginative and the Clash of Nations and World maps are just what if scenarios for fun with no realism whatsoever. I have no comment on the Mediterranean map since I've never played it.Maximilien wrote:
Random events should only appear on the historical map.miech wrote:
Though I value realistic game behavior, I value playability more, and I think that too extreme effects shouldnt happen therefore (be it positive or negative).The sabotage reactor, it's good idea.miech wrote:
The sabotage reactor is actually a nice exception, and can be done inside the regular sab spy affairs. Chance could be 1% per spy or somethingAnyway, the more imaginative the map, the more effective entertainment and the more sense does a random event generator make. But that's my two bits on that.
I think it would be a good idea to keep this topic alive. That Diabolical has shown that he's got a keen mind and lots of wonderful ideas. I sure hope that the staff at Bytro look into his suggestions.
Please log in to post a reply.
