Slitherine

Hi All-

I am new to the game but not new to this genre of wargaming. It was good to see someone on another thread referring to AH's Third Reich. I spent a lot of time on that years ago (and occasionally, so did the cat with disastrous results).

Anyway, this is an interesting topic and people have put a lot of good thought into it. It certainly does seem that the default formulae allow for advances to be made rather quickly, especially given the time it takes to adapt scientific/engineering discoveries to successful, practical battlefield equipment (Panther D model, anyone?).

I do like the model of increasing the cost of each lab. It reflects diminishing marginal returns on research and the difficulty of mobilizing more and more researchers from a limited pool.

I would suggest revisiting raising the price of additional labs through modding rather than limiting the number. This way, if someone really wants to invest in labs it is going to cost them dearly, to the point that they will be vulnerable to their opponent (especially in human v. human) because they cannot afford sufficient units. In other words, I would suggest that modders consider leaving the choice to the player (with some limits as are already in place), just make the tradeoff pricier.

firepowerjohan wrote:

Happycat wrote:

vypuero wrote:he was saying thats the way he wants it to be, not the way it is

Considering how my game against Stauffenberg is going, I would like it that way too

Can you evaluate on that? Do you agree that we need a tougher limits that the "half of labs per area" ?

What about changing it to no more than one-third per area? This avoids creating any cumbersome new mechanics, shouldn't be too much coding trouble, and (hopefully) isn't radical enough to outrage anyone too badly.

Strictly speaking, the current limit is not "half", since it's rounded up. If the same generous rounding is applied, I think 1/3 will be entirely bearable.

I think a better solution would be to say that each subsequent tech costs more than the first. E.g. Armour 1 costs say 25, armour 2 costs 30, 3 35, 4 40 etc. This way you'll get diminshing returns for your tech investment in an area, and a more equal spread could be more effective.

That makes sense Iain. I thought about it more and was thinking along the lines of each additional lab costing more plus an additional cost for each lab in individual research areas. But that's complicated. What you propose is simpler and accomplishes the same thing, it would seem.

I would suggest an escalating scale of cost. Not exponential, but more than linear. Maybe something like 1 = 25, 2 = 28, 3 = 35, 4 = 45, 5 = 58 that reflects a curve similar to diminishing returns.

But you are both suggesting fundamental changes in game mechanics. Isn't it sort of late in the game for that?