Redesign of the Research System

K.Rokossovski wrote:

Double cost, half time, simple as that.

However, I think I have an even better one: Increase the rare materials cost for researching higher levels (apart from that, please leave research as it is).

Approximately like this:

Research of level 1 costs unchanged;

research level 2 costs 25% more rare materials;

research level 3 costs 50% more rare materials than level 1

and so on. Certainly also increase research costs for RRG and commandos a bit as well, then.

So you can still hyperfocus on few technologies, but it would cost you more than a balanced army.

Secondly, this would remove the problem, that from approximately day 25 onwards, rare materials have practically no value any more (as nations keep growing during the game and rare materials income increases, but need for rare materials keeps being constant as in current design).

Hans A. Pils wrote:

. . . from approximately day 25 onwards, rare materials have practically no value any more . . .

From the experience of playing two 150+ day extended games played over the last year, I can tell you with some authority that it takes over 100 days to complete 100% of the available research from L1 through L7/elite ---- and that omits the stupid stuff like L7/elite militia.

Also, if you are in a longer game with nuclear-powered units (CVNs, BBNs, SSNs) and nuclear weapons, you can burn through your daily rare materials production very quickly. Not only does it require 10,000 tons of rare materials to build a reactor, it costs another 10,000 tons every time you produce a nuclear weapon.

I might also add that it costs 5,000 tons of rare materials every time you start another L1 industrial complex, and in the big games on the big maps, resource production is one of the keys to victory -- unless you plan on spending gold to overcome all of your resource shortfalls.

I am well aware of all of the above.

Research: Of course everyone keeps their research going all the time - also during late game. So your need for rare materials you want to spend on research is constant throughout the game.

L1 industrial complex: I agree raising industry and infrastructure to the maximum in all core provinces with resource production is mandatory if you want to win one of the bigger maps. But one should get that done as soon as possible. So the urge for raising a L1 industrial complex is highest between about day 5 and 30. During that time it's approximately constant, afterwards it will even drop.

Nuclear units and reactors: OK, in case you go for nuclear bombers, you will start spending rare materials on these on day 24 or later. But who does so? Nuclear bombers are not very useful and thus chosen by few players. So usually you won't start spending anything on nuclear stuff before day 40.

All in all, I still state your need for rare materials is constant until at least day 40.

Whereas your rare materials production increases drastically all the time.

Which matches my observation that the price for rare materials on the market drops from about 12 to about 5 on approximately day 25. And it won't rise again, because on day 40, so few nations will be left on the map that even if all of them start building nuclear (or nuclear powered) weapons, they will have plenty of rare materials for that by then.

I admit I played only 11 games so far, but it's always been like that. And it's not good this way. The game would be more interesting if rare materials kept their value all the time.

The price of rares can vary considerably from game to game and map to map. On day 57 of a 50 Player Pacific Conquest I'm playing, rares are at 10.6.

Chimere wrote:

So it could be cool to have :

- Armored Car tech 2 : Gives you +50% research speed for Light Tank tech 2

- Light Tank tech 2 : Gives you +50% research speed for Armored Car tech 2

- Destroyer Tech 2 : Gives you +33% research speed for Cruiser level 2 and BB level 2

- Cruiser Tech 2 : Gives you +33% research speed for Destroyer level 2 and BB level 2

- Battheship Tech 2 : Gives you +33% research speed for Cruiser level 2 and BB level 2

And, as someone mentioned, the "solution" above doesn't save research time, it just reroutes the time, so it kinda sorta accomplishes what I propose but in a haphazard way that overcomplicates the methodology behind how the research system works....something that the programmers won't want to implement. At least my idea doesn't break the research system, it merely adds requirement chains which actually follow existing code styles...and the actual tech path chains are probably determined in a list which the actual code should not be dependent on (assuming OO programming techniques employed).

Chimere wrote:

Typical example : I believe we all research light tanks and since light tanks are only a bit slower than Armored Cars and pack way more punch, we don't bother with Armored Cars. Maybe if after we have Light Tanks armored time to research was halved, we would consider "meh, maybe worth it for the extra speed and the scouting range".

Trust me, I've seen this done to many an ally and they never learn. If you've got an opponent who is building maxed out Armored Cars en masse, you've got a problem. At least, tactically, they are pretty easy to stop, but you have to be online a whole lot more than you might like, because they are fast....and I mean fast........a whole lot faster than their equivalently ranked Light Tank in the later tech levels.

Hans A. Pils wrote:

K.Rokossovski wrote:

Double cost, half time, simple as that.

Best proposal I read in here (I can only advice everyone not to read the rest).

However, I think I have an even better one: Increase the rare materials cost for researching higher levels (apart from that, please leave research as it is).

Approximately like this:

Research of level 1 costs unchanged;

research level 2 costs 25% more rare materials;

research level 3 costs 50% more rare materials than level 1

and so on. Certainly also increase research costs for RRG and commandos a bit as well, then.

So you can still hyperfocus on few technologies, but it would cost you more than a balanced army.

Secondly, this would remove the problem, that from approximately day 25 onwards, rare materials have practically no value any more (as nations keep growing during the game and rare materials income increases, but need for rare materials keeps being constant as in current design).

Yes, my proposal does cost more resources by widening tech requirement paths. But, unlike your proposal, mine does so with the purpose of encouraging players to use wider variety in their unit builds, so those extra resources don't stunt growth, but merely reapply it in a wider area. Your proposal only serves to stunt growth with no additional technologies researched. It's just the wrong direction....totally wrong direction.

MontanaBB wrote:

From the experience of playing two 150+ day extended games played over the last year, I can tell you with some authority that it takes over 100 days to complete 100% of the available research from L1 through L7/elite ---- and that omits the stupid stuff like L7/elite militia.

Also, if you are in a longer game with nuclear-powered units (CVNs, BBNs, SSNs) and nuclear weapons, you can burn through your daily rare materials production very quickly. Not only does it require 10,000 tons of rare materials to build a reactor, it costs another 10,000 tons every time you produce a nuclear weapon.

It really REALLY sucks. It's happened to me a couple times, including once very recently. But, you gotta just grin and bear it.

And you're right, Rares can still be a problem in the late game. For example, one might be building tons of nukes and nuclear-powered units, like you say, or expanding more and more level 1 factories. But another one is the occasional uber-rocket builder. I've tried that occasionally, and it can bite into your Rares as well as your Oil what with maintenance.

The key to any long-term match with gigantic empires is to expand your economy early and often. Build Build BUILD!

I'm sure I don't have to tell you that. But some readers here might not know of this very basic principle that I've often espoused in my own tutorials.

Hans A. Pils wrote:

L1 industrial complex: I agree raising industry and infrastructure to the maximum in all core provinces with resource production is mandatory if you want to win one of the bigger maps. But one should get that done as soon as possible. So the urge for raising a L1 industrial complex is highest between about day 5 and 30. During that time it's approximately constant, afterwards it will even drop.

Let's face it. In a typical match, you are not going to see Rares plummet to rock-bottom prices with tons of stock sitting on the market. THAT is what happens when everyone abandons a match. But any match worth playing will have at least more than a handful of players past the second week. And THOSE matches will usually run out of most if not all resources frequently.

And as for building level 1 factories, I'd much rather build a level 1 factory in a double Metal non-core province somewhat close to my capital than in a core non-resource province, any day. Like I said, aside from the money bonus, maxing out your non-resource cores just isn't worth it except if you have tons and tons of resources already pouring in from your vast international holdings. (Remember that soaring economy I keep talking about?)

Usually, by the time I am building factories in all my core non-resource provinces, I'm only doing so just because I can. It isn't even needed and my factories are usually only building units in regions of the map where the action is nearby. There's no point in building anything but aircraft and capital naval ships in your core regions because, by the time anything slow makes it to the front, the game is likely going to be over.

Hans A. Pils wrote:

nuclear units and reactors: OK, in case you go for nuclear bombers, you will start spending rare materials on these on day 24 or later. But who does so? Nuclear bombers are not very useful and thus chosen by few players. So usually you won't start spending anything on nuclear stuff before day 40.

"Oh, level 3 Nuclear Bombers have just become available...and you are raining destruction on all my armies with them already. You must be using Gold." Yeah, I hear that alot. But since I almost never use Gold, I just love surprising foes with this and being able to proudly proclaim that I did it with planning and strategy.

Hans A. Pils wrote:

the price for rare materials on the market drops from about 12 to about 5 on approximately day 25. And it won't rise again, because on day 40, so few nations will be left on the map that even if all of them start building nuclear (or nuclear powered) weapons, they will have plenty of rare materials for that by then.

I admit I played only 11 games so far, but it's always been like that. And it's not good this way. The game would be more interesting if rare materials kept their value all the time.

I'm not bragging here in saying that I've played this game for 3 years, now. I'm not the only one, there's lots of people on here that have played Call of War from the beginning. But when you realize you've "only" played such and such, maybe you should temper your observations just enough to display your assertions with care. It's OK to make observations...of course. But think about what you are saying before you say it.

Anecdotal evidence is a perfect example within this forum. I use it periodically, as it is a perfectly valid form of evidence in an argument, but I've been observant for years and understand this game on many very deep levels. So my anecdotes have a lot more merit than some users by simple fact of experience (though @Quasi-duck might be the only long-timer to disagree with me on this) and thus they (my anecdotes) are worth using in an argument. But without experience, one's anecdotal information tends to be less complete.

So, I'm not saying "don't use them", but rather, just think about your choice of words before you use them. Structuring what you have to say can be just as powerful as the thought you are trying to convey. In other words, how you say a thing is just as important as why you say a thing. A soft tongue turneth away wrath and a well structured argument can make even the hardest nose turn to reason. Remember, speak with purpose.

@Diabolical you mentioned me and there is so much text I can't even see where it is.

Quasi-duck wrote:

@Diabolical you mentioned me and there is so much text I can't even see where it is.

Diabolical wrote:

Try CTRL-F

"Just because you have an idea, does not make it a good one."

-Quasi-duck

I tried ctrl-F, typed "sensible idea", no hits.

I can not understand the point of this thread. First post was just using biased examples, even from historical maps, so i can not take it seriously into consideration. Research in my opinion does not need to be changed. You have 2 slots, you know the times before hand and you can decide your path based on experience, map and opponents.

Game mechanics of cow makes specific options more effiecient so i believe we should start by balancing out the game and then we can argue what to do with research.

For example, native provinces provide 15% extra strenght to units. To make things worst, this bonus stacks with forts. If we also take into consideration that defensive stats of the units we start the game are 50% higher than the attacking we can see the advantage for the defender. As a result, game forces you for specific strategies only.

As a conclusion, good players will not have problem because of the 2 slots in research or because they will not have the time to research. Many times resources will not be enough to use both slots constantly. Good players have problems because this game is based on using gold and giving new players an advantage.

Ohkay Diabolical.

I could describe why also my proposal would serve to widen the player's research choices, that it would slow down research only a little and why I think that slowing it down a little wouldn't be negative. But readers of this thread are already bored like anything.

So I now take only a little satisfaction answering the part where you're saying your reasoning must be better since you've played ten times as many games: Please take a look at my stats and yours, hold them side by side and then tell me again if you're really in the position of the teacher. Who can tell the little kids around him to "temper their observations" and to

Diabolical wrote:

Remember, speak with purpose.

This forum is free for everyone to state their observations once they're sure about them and that should be kept up.

Apart from that, please excuse I don't speak with such a

Diabolical wrote:

soft tongue

cchyt wrote:

I can not understand the point of this thread. [...] Research in my opinion does not need to be changed.

a) Not realistic. All major nations had at least a few models of all unit types there are in CoW (except for those in the secret weapons research tree).

b) Boring. There are fewer strategic decisions you have to make during the game. Decide at the beginning and then just continue with the same units blindly. Fall half-asleep in the meantime. The game would be more interesting if you had to ask yourself questions like "better research level 1 cruisers or upgrade my battleships to level 4?" each time you have a free slot.

Everyone in here agreed so far that that's an uncomely characteristic of the research system and all proposals in this thread aim or partly aim on softening it.

Your quote shows me that i was not clear enough. Let's have a philosophical discussion about changing the research system.

But no matter what changes happen there, 15% bonus for native provinces and the chaotic difference between attack and defense of starting units make the research slots and time to research irrelevant with the efficient strategies. is it clear now?

I do not want to spam or go off topic, so i will stop here

There are a lot of problematic issues with the game. The research system is only in, about, the 13th place. When we, the community, want to present any issues AT ALL to the powers that be, we should prioritize, cause it is obvious that resources to change anything are very, very limited.

cchyt wrote:

I can not understand the point of this thread. First post was just using biased examples, even from historical maps, so i can not take it seriously into consideration. Research in my opinion does not need to be changed. You have 2 slots, you know the times before hand and you can decide your path based on experience, map and opponents.

cchyt wrote:

native provinces provide 15% extra strenght to units. To make things worst, this bonus stacks with forts. If we also take into consideration that defensive stats of the units we start the game are 50% higher than the attacking we can see the advantage for the defender. As a result, game forces you for specific strategies only.

Oh, and those "specific" strategies are pretty varied, already. You're probably not used to seeing how important a dynamic strategic position helps one to overcome changing situations in this game. But, with more experience, you'll pick up on this....probably.

cchyt wrote:

good players will not have problem because of the 2 slots in research or because they will not have the time to research. Many times resources will not be enough to use both slots constantly. Good players have problems because this game is based on using gold and giving new players an advantage.

BTW, if you are having problems dealing with golders, be sure to pay attention to myself or some of the other more experienced members of this community who've put up tips, hints, and guides, here in the forum, which are more than sufficient to help a typical player find ways to overcome others' gold usage.

And it's very possible to do so. In a World Map match I started only a few days ago -- and a day late, I might add -- I selected Goiás and quickly found myself surrounded by four different hostile players, at least one of whom is using Gold. Thus far, with careful gameplay, a watchful Fighter on patrol, and attentive diplomacy, I've managed to avoid war with three of them (though I'm told by a potentially-reliable source that two are actively preparing for war with me). As for the fourth, I was fortunate enough to catch him en route to my borders before he could attack me and so I was able to reposition into a very strong defensive posture while timing a scout just right to slip past him and pretty-much gut his entire back country.....ONE scout, lol.

Anyway, I'm not saying these are the most competent players, necessarily, but with what is likely to amount to a 4 on 1 war, I still wouldn't be doing as well as I am had I not utilized all the [legitimate] tools at my disposal. And among those is a very carefully-honed strategy which began early on but has been dynamic enough to be able to adapt to a constantly changing situation.

I might yet lose. However, that one nation's invasion force, which contained about 90% of his army, has been wiped out with only minimal losses on my part. Thankfully, I was able to properly make use of those defensive advantages that you seem so keen on eliminating. Oh, and I did it all (thus far) without using any Gold.

Hans A. Pils wrote:

Please take a look at my stats and yours, hold them side by side and then tell me again if you're really in the position of the teacher.

My biggest opponents come down to two groups of people....the golders, and the [REAL] strategists. And do you know what happens to your stats when you don't target the noobs but instead fight the opponents with real teeth? Your stats get hosed. Now, I'm not saying my stats are bad....in fact, I think they're pretty good on average. But I've encountered several newer players (and some not-so new) who swear by their stats and I would have only one question to ask them ..... and to ask you.

Are you targeting mostly noobs and soon-to-be inactive players? (You know, the ones who left their armies sitting somewhere but not being moved nor new units built for two full days.)

I'll put my stats up against yours -- or anyone's -- and proudly say that mine are both good AND they are relevant. Can you say the same about yours? Perhaps. But I really couldn't care less, though.

Sorry.

K.Rokossovski wrote:

There are a lot of problematic issues with the game. The research system is only in, about, the 13th place. When we, the community, want to present any issues AT ALL to the powers that be, we should prioritize, cause it is obvious that resources to change anything are very, very limited.

And THAT is why I take in noobs under my wing...to help them get a chance to learn to love this game before they quit out of frustration. And, you know what? It might not be a bad idea to make it so higher-ranked players can't be in the same matches as the newest players except maybe as shepherds who guide the noobs but can't participate, themselves, beyond a token level (like a permanently neutral player). The noobs need at least a few nursery matches where they can do more than just the tutorial.

God damn, we have a signature limit can we get a character limit too please?

Diabolical the only one with the inability to understand in this thread for me is you. Probably you consider yourself such a good player that you do not pay attention to what others say or believe.

This high idea about yourself though comes as a surprise because we have played together in a PL game and you were part of my coalition with Mark and you played so bad we could not believe it.

Moreover, i can not remember when i said that i had problem with gold users etc? i still do not understand why discussing about research when there are more important problems of the game like implementing changes that help starting or mediocre players have a chance and support gold using without compensation for loyal users.

If you are bored let's discuss about something more serious like the 15% native bonus, which makes no serious difference for new players but gives a chance to mediocre ones since they get extra defense to compensate their abilities and makes certain units lose their value like arts and air.

ps: stats and games won show a lot for a player, it is strange you believe otherwise!

cchyt wrote:

This high idea about yourself though comes as a surprise because we have played together in a PL game and you were part of my coalition with Mark and you played so bad we could not believe it.

I also seem to remember another match....that North American map one....where you and I were not on the same team. And I had to fight tooth and nail to gain ground in a losing war where I only had one ally at my side while our third was largely absent. And yet, the two of us who remained gave about five other players the bloodiest nose they've ever had. Even that Clownpunk, or whatever he calls himself, was nearly wiped out by my armies and your pal, Mark (whom I've got nothing bad to say about) was able to take advantage of the situation and, I think managed to win the last season in large part because of that huge match.

In a way, Mark owes me for helping him to win the league since I pretty much kept Clownpunk and his allies from taking over the whole American west. The fact that the three of them (and a couple others aligned with them) were still not enough to take me out until the match was nearly over just goes to show how wrong you are about me. But then, what else is new?

Oh, and one more thing....if I played so "bad", how on earth could I have top-level stats when there are lots of other players who've played just as long as me and many more matches than me who're not even close to my ranking, nor my stats, for that matter?

Just sayin'.

cchyt wrote:

Moreover, i can not remember when i said that i had problem with gold users etc? i still do not understand why discussing about research when there are more important problems of the game like implementing changes that help starting or mediocre players have a chance and support gold using without compensation for loyal users.

But, you say there are bigger fish to fry than the research issue which -- in your estimation -- isn't even an issue. To you, and to any detractors, I say only that if the devs focus on only a single issue at a time, then they'd never get anything done. Their staff is big enough to take on more than one topic or problem. And it's up to them to make the ultimate decisions about which tasks have higher priority than others.

And if they only ever fixed things that are broken, then they'd never EVER get around to adding new features because there'll ALWAYS be broken things in the code. That's a simple fact of any large development. A fix for one problem leads to three other problems, one of which is old but hasn't been discovered, yet; one that is new but exists because the conditions for which a function relied upon have changed; and one that is entirely new and only exists because a mistake was made elsewhere during the implementation of the "fix".

That's just the plague of code development. And as much as I'm a stickler for following code libraries and using responsible forms of Agile development, there will always be flaws in the system because human beings are not perfect no matter how thoroughly they use test cases and flawless coding practices, etc. That's human nature. That doesn't mean they don't explore potential changes....especially ones that are well-founded ideas like mine.

cchyt wrote:

ps: stats and games won show a lot for a player, it is strange you believe otherwise!

I'm not opposed to stats, etc. What I'm opposed to is a total disregard to rank as well as to creative contributions. Unlike some users, I actually posit some pretty good ideas for improving the game, as well as some very-well-thought out solutions to known problems. You see, not only am I a genius, but I'm actually a programmer with a degree in Software Engineering. I 've studied application development, and I've developed entire suites of applications. I'm also a lifelong strategy gamer and extremely keen on how gaming works on many many levels of play.

You know what? If you want to try to one-up me, then why don't you tell me just how much experience YOU have in this area and how much YOU could contribute to the creative community. In the meantime, if you happen to come up with a good idea to improve the game, I might just find myself endorsing it. But just because you don't like one of my ideas doesn't mean you've gotta pick apart every bit of my ideas. A constructive critique is welcome. A carefully-thought-out deconstruction of one of my ideas is fine too. But simply using straw man arguments like "there's more important things to do" won't fly with me.

I've got no personal issues with you. I hope you don't try to elevate this to a personal level. I'm an INTJ. If you make a sound argument, I will consider it and show you the due respect that you will have earned in making that argument...even if I disagree with your conclusions. But if you just say "this is this" or "that is that" for no valid reason, then I'm going to totally disregard your reasoning, altogether.

In conclusion, I'll leave you with this quote from Harlan Ellison.

Harlan Ellison wrote:

You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant.

• The INTJ personality type is nicknamed the "Strategist" and belongs to the NT Intellectual temperament. INTJs are private, independent and self-confident. They strive for perfection and achievement. They are gifted strategists with analytical, conceptual and objective minds. They are flexible and like to formulate contingency plans. Strategists are able to see the reasons behind things.