[Abandoned] Research & Conquer

[carlpgoodrich]

Thanks Tanarri for the explanation. I understand the rationale behind using this method to calculate neutral counts, however I think it leads to some results that won't make sense for how the gameplay will unfold. For example, I would argue that the more important "turn" quantity is how many turns does it take to research the tech, not how many turns after you get the benefit do you break even. Of course, this is much harder to measure.

I disagree with you about bringing the open conscription cost down so much. This is an advanced tech that will be used primarily in the later stages of a game. At this point, it becomes incredibly powerful (it has the potential to be more powerful than the doomsday device). Unlike Activated reserves and Deep mining, I forsee this tech as being a game changer (i.e. if there are only two or three players left, then the first with this tech gets a huge advantage). Accordingly, I like the neutral count of 90 (or as in my last post even 100).

As in my last post, I agree with you on secret conscription. I think 20 world work well.

Finally, I think we have to give people the option of being able to get a tech on their first turn (if they devote all their troops on that turn to research) to help move the map along. Otherwise, I am worried that the first few turns will be very boring. Therefore I think standing army, which is the most basic/fundamental tech, should have a few less than the maximum number of troops you can have on a lab to start your first turn. If memory serves, labs start with 9 and the first turn deployable is 6. Therefore, 12 I think is ideal, although 15 would be ok if labs started with a bit more.

Actually, now that I think about it, it would be nice to make people choose between TSF and Standing army on their first turn. How about keep the labs at 9 (so max is 15), then move TSF's cost down to 12 and have Standing army at 15. Therefore, they can go the safer rout and take the TSF or they can risk getting bad dice and try for the standing army, which gives the same number of troops but they are deployable rather than autos.

[TaCktiX]

One comment that I was going to save until later is that the TSF's and the doomsday device are not really advanced techs because there are no "basic" versions of them. The TSF's should probably be located directly under the Labs, since they are more of a spring board to other techs than a tech itself, the doomsday device probably belongs as the last of the basic techs. I think it would look fine to move the thick tube that separates the basic and advanced techs down a bit so that things fit.

I'm going to disagree on two different fronts. One is the fact that if I implement this I'm going to break the symmetry that I just established with the Basic and Advanced researches being in clear, rectangular boxes. No confusing loop-de-loops, no weird organization, clearly demarcated. Which is good for a complex map.

Second, I've been thinking of Basic and Advanced this entire time in terms of "cost." Yes there are three pairs of Basic and Advanced where one follows the other, but Doomsday is the most expensive technology there is. If it ISN'T advanced, something is wrong with the research priorities of the country in question. And since TSF is essentially a lab with more abilities, it's an Advanced version of the Lab itself. So taking these two together, Advanced is a way to denote that the researches in question should be saved until later. With TSF as cheap as it is though, I wouldn't be averse to switching Zeppelin Strikes with TSF. Consider that Zeppelin Strikes costs more than Activated Reserves does.

[-=- Tanarri -=-]

Thanks Tanarri for the explanation. I understand the rationale behind using this method to calculate neutral counts, however I think it leads to some results that won't make sense for how the gameplay will unfold. For example, I would argue that the more important "turn" quantity is how many turns does it take to research the tech, not how many turns after you get the benefit do you break even. Of course, this is much harder to measure.

I disagree with you about bringing the open conscription cost down so much. This is an advanced tech that will be used primarily in the later stages of a game. At this point, it becomes incredibly powerful (it has the potential to be more powerful than the doomsday device). Unlike Activated reserves and Deep mining, I forsee this tech as being a game changer (i.e. if there are only two or three players left, then the first with this tech gets a huge advantage). Accordingly, I like the neutral count of 90 (or as in my last post even 100).

As in my last post, I agree with you on secret conscription. I think 20 world work well.

Finally, I think we have to give people the option of being able to get a tech on their first turn (if they devote all their troops on that turn to research) to help move the map along. Otherwise, I am worried that the first few turns will be very boring. Therefore I think standing army, which is the most basic/fundamental tech, should have a few less than the maximum number of troops you can have on a lab to start your first turn. If memory serves, labs start with 9 and the first turn deployable is 6. Therefore, 12 I think is ideal, although 15 would be ok if labs started with a bit more.

Actually, now that I think about it, it would be nice to make people choose between TSF and Standing army on their first turn. How about keep the labs at 9 (so max is 15), then move TSF's cost down to 12 and have Standing army at 15. Therefore, they can go the safer rout and take the TSF or they can risk getting bad dice and try for the standing army, which gives the same number of troops but they are deployable rather than autos.

I'm not sure what you mean by your first paragraph. I would see these as being effectively the same thing for calculating the bonuses as the ratio is the same. The only difference is that the actual troops to take the techs would average at 16% or so lower than the neutral count. Of course, this is an average and dice, as we all know, will mess with those numbers quite dramatically depending on their mood.

For amusement (and procrastination at work) sake, I messed around a bit with the version 5 draft and tried to figure out what the common attack paths were without specifically going for extras for Conscription techs. There will always be some variation based on the game, but this should give an indication of typical numbers of territories that may be taken during the game. Below is the version 5 draft with green marks on the territories I would expect would be taken while either attacking other players or going for the mines. The red marks are other territories that I would expect would remain neutral unless someone was specifically going after them for additional Conscription bonuses. The reason I did this was to see how many territories would arguably be taken anyway and how many one could argue would provide bonuses at additional cost over and above the research cost, for comparison sake.

Click image to enlarge.

There are, if I counted correctly, 54 red and 120 green territories. There are actually more territories in green than I would have expected before I started labelling them. I think it would be fair to base the Conscription tech bonuses on the 120 territories, since taking any more than these territories would be expending even further resources to take to get further bonuses. Comparing it this way will also allow for a more even comparison to Mining when we get to that discussion, since getting to the mines will cost this amount of troops as well.

So, all that being said, if you were to use 120 territories for comparison sake, then at a neutral of 20, Secret Conscription would be a 6 turn cost and Open Conscription at 60 would be a 6 turn cost. That being said, I do see carl's point in the sheer potential of Open Conscription. If we were to use the 174 territory count instead, just to offset the sheer potential, then a rating of 85 would put it at 6 turns or, in late game (owning 1/2 of all 174 land territories, 2 turns. This would be the equivalent of having to own nearly 3/4's of the typically captured territories (120) in order to get the 43.5 bonus. Using the 1/3 of all 174 territory measurement (aka 'medium game'), which would be nearly 1/2 of the 120 territory measurement, the turn cost at 85 neutral would be 3 turns. Compared to Doomsday, which is 2.67 turns, I think this would be a good cost.

Regarding giving someone a tech on their first turn, I'm not sure that I support the idea. You would effectively be forcing someone to research tech, as it would be silly not to. It would be a free +3 with no work involved in obtaining it. If we were to consider how many neutrals someone has to go through in order to get a +4 bonus for their homeland, which is 15 neutrals plus the 1 troops staying behind, so 22 if you count the one extra troop. I think that if Standing Army is set at 18, that this would be roughly equal. I understand the concern with the game dragging at the beginning. I'm just not sure that the answer is lowering the cost of the tech.

One possible way to prevent the first few rounds from dragging without reducing the costs of techs would be to increase the bonus that a capital gets for its deployable troops. I think that it would even be reasonble to bump the deployable bonus up as high as 8 troops per capital that you own. This would allow a player to choose eo either focus on taking his homeland over in a turn or two or taking a tech within the first turn if he's lucky or 2 if he's not so lucky. It would also provide extra incentive for taking over other player's homelands and capitals, since doing so would undoubtedly be expensive. It would give extra incentive for taking over homelands that start neutral in 2, 4, and 5 player games. Heck, maybe stick it at a deployable bonus of 10 for capitals even and stick the starting lab amount at 3 or 6 instead of 9. I think that this would be a much more effective way of handling the stalling of a game than forcing a player to focus on research.

[-=- Tanarri -=-]

One comment that I was going to save until later is that the TSF's and the doomsday device are not really advanced techs because there are no "basic" versions of them. The TSF's should probably be located directly under the Labs, since they are more of a spring board to other techs than a tech itself, the doomsday device probably belongs as the last of the basic techs. I think it would look fine to move the thick tube that separates the basic and advanced techs down a bit so that things fit.

I'm going to disagree on two different fronts. One is the fact that if I implement this I'm going to break the symmetry that I just established with the Basic and Advanced researches being in clear, rectangular boxes. No confusing loop-de-loops, no weird organization, clearly demarcated. Which is good for a complex map.

Second, I've been thinking of Basic and Advanced this entire time in terms of "cost." Yes there are three pairs of Basic and Advanced where one follows the other, but Doomsday is the most expensive technology there is. If it ISN'T advanced, something is wrong with the research priorities of the country in question. And since TSF is essentially a lab with more abilities, it's an Advanced version of the Lab itself. So taking these two together, Advanced is a way to denote that the researches in question should be saved until later. With TSF as cheap as it is though, I wouldn't be averse to switching Zeppelin Strikes with TSF. Consider that Zeppelin Strikes costs more than Activated Reserves does.

I would agree that TSf and Doomsday should stay in the Advanced tech area. TSf really is an advanced lab and Doomsday is obviously an advanced tech, since it's the most expensive and arguably the most advantagous tech there is.

I don't think there's any reason to swap TSf and Zeppelin, as TSf at least has a reason for being in the advanced tech area, being an advanced lab. Zeppelins are in no way an advanced tech, aside from maybe cost.

[-=- Tanarri -=-]

Something just occurred to me...

The core idea behind the map... is it to force players to research in order to win the game (which is how it is now) or is it to give a player the option of researching as much or as little as they like?

As I mentioned, if it's the former choice, then this is how the map is now. Say we have a scale that looks like this:

Research <----------|----------> Conquer

Right now a player has the choice of playing a strategy anywhere between the middle (or one step to the right of the middle for the first few turns only) and the far left.

If the core idea behind the map is the latter of the above choices, then I think we need to do some serious rethinking of non-tech/map-only bonuses. In this case, the two possible map-only bonuses that could be added that pop out to me would be something like deployable bonuses for holding all of a neutral country and a village on each neutral country that would autodeploy a certain amount. Even these two additions would allow a more viable attempt at using Conquer only in order to win. It coincidentally would also help fix the debate of what to do about map texture, since the different neutral countries could be shaded in different shades of beige/tan/brown/etc in order to more easily show how they group together, thereby adding some variance to the map colouring.

If Oliver and/or TaCktiX could give some feedback on which direction the core idea behind the map goes in, then I think we can go from there.

[TaCktiX]

The title says it all: Research AND Conquer. To oomph it some more, the flavor text "Only the Most Advanced Shall Triumph." We want research to be an integral and required part of the map. It offers the greatest rewards, the greatest flexibility, and the greatest chance of winning (c'mon, Doomsday vs. attacking everyone else?). But in all likelihood, going pure research is a death sentence as you won't be able to take advantage of most of the bonuses, nor will you be able to defend your borders very effectively. So while research is required, some degree of conquering is as well. Where a player strikes on that spectrum (the middle ground) is where all the choice is, and where we should aim the map to stand. The extremes should not be possible as viable paths to victory against informed opponents.

And for reference, labs start with 6, not 9.

[-=- Tanarri -=-]

The title says it all: Research AND Conquer. To oomph it some more, the flavor text "Only the Most Advanced Shall Triumph." We want research to be an integral and required part of the map. It offers the greatest rewards, the greatest flexibility, and the greatest chance of winning (c'mon, Doomsday vs. attacking everyone else?). But in all likelihood, going pure research is a death sentence as you won't be able to take advantage of most of the bonuses, nor will you be able to defend your borders very effectively. So while research is required, some degree of conquering is as well. Where a player strikes on that spectrum (the middle ground) is where all the choice is, and where we should aim the map to stand. The extremes should not be possible as viable paths to victory against informed opponents.

And for reference, labs start with 6, not 9.

Alright, so if I understand correctly, the map is intentionally being designed to discourage Conquer heavy strategies. For example, if someone were to consciencely decide to spend 3/4 of their reinforcements on Research and 1/4 on Conquer, they should expect much better results than spending 3/4 on Conquer and 1/4 on Research.

[OliverFA]

Thanks carlpgoodrich and Tanarri for your comments about Standing Army and Activated Reserves

I tend to agree with you that maybe Standing Army (SA) tech could be lowered down a little bit (and consequently reduced in its cost) in order to provide a "fast" tech to grab early at the start. But I wouldn't reduce the power of Activated Reserves (AR) because I want it to have some utility at medium/late game. The point of SA is getting an early boost. The point of AR is having a(n almost) decent income during the late game even if you have few land. So in extreme situations when your empire is almost lost, you will have at least 18 armies for defending or for trying a desperate attempt at research.

With that in mind, I agrew with you in reducing SA from +6 to +3 and increasing AR from +9 to +12

• Standing Army: +3 armies --> for a total of minimum 6 armies --> 3% of maximum OC bonus --> Cost 12
  
• Activated Reserves: +12 armies --> for a total of minimum 18 armies --> 10% of maximum OC bonus --> Cost 50

I am a bit concerned with SA costing only 12 armies, but I am also afraid that if it costs too much players will just skip it, and I want it to be useful for an early boost and not only as a path to AR.

[OliverFA]

About the conscription techs:

The debate here is only about the cost, as everybody agrees about the effect (which is good ) I think it's not correct to say that those techs require territories to be conquered in order to obtain their effects. Remeber that even without Secret Conscription (SC) players get +1 army per each 3 territories. So the bonuses here are added bonuses. Very important bonuses, but added ones.

For SC I am comfortable leaving at 25 armies, but Open Conscription (OC) I agree more with 90. OC is just a too good technology. You get 1 army per each territory no matter what. And this cannot be broken except by taking each territory. If OC is too cheap, everybody will have epic armies. Keeping it at 90 will make it a choice for the late game. Somebody will pick it and somebody will prefer other options. SC on the other hand with 25 armies is likely to be researched by everybody.

• Secret Consctiption: +1 army per 2 territories --> Cost 25
  
• Open Consctiption: +1 army per 1 territory --> Cost 90

So this is a bit in line with Standing Army and Activated Reserves techs. The basic version is somewhat easier to get, but the advanced costs a bit more, as it is a lot more powerful.

[OliverFA]

Alright, so if I understand correctly, the map is intentionally being designed to discourage Conquer heavy strategies. For example, if someone were to consciencely decide to spend 3/4 of their reinforcements on Research and 1/4 on Conquer, they should expect much better results than spending 3/4 on Conquer and 1/4 on Research.

As TaCktiX said, it will discourage Conque heavy strategies AND Research heavy strategies, because if you only conquer, you will have a lot of land with very few income from that land. And if you only research, your land will be very productive but so small that less advanced players will outproduce you. You need to go something in the middle.

But if a player wants to be the conquerer type, then I think his strategy sould be go Secret Conscription plus Open Conscription and forget the rest of techs. I think it is a valid choice.

[OliverFA]

One comment that I was going to save until later is that the TSF's and the doomsday device are not really advanced techs because there are no "basic" versions of them. The TSF's should probably be located directly under the Labs, since they are more of a spring board to other techs than a tech itself, the doomsday device probably belongs as the last of the basic techs. I think it would look fine to move the thick tube that separates the basic and advanced techs down a bit so that things fit.

I'm going to disagree on two different fronts. One is the fact that if I implement this I'm going to break the symmetry that I just established with the Basic and Advanced researches being in clear, rectangular boxes. No confusing loop-de-loops, no weird organization, clearly demarcated. Which is good for a complex map.

Second, I've been thinking of Basic and Advanced this entire time in terms of "cost." Yes there are three pairs of Basic and Advanced where one follows the other, but Doomsday is the most expensive technology there is. If it ISN'T advanced, something is wrong with the research priorities of the country in question. And since TSF is essentially a lab with more abilities, it's an Advanced version of the Lab itself. So taking these two together, Advanced is a way to denote that the researches in question should be saved until later. With TSF as cheap as it is though, I wouldn't be averse to switching Zeppelin Strikes with TSF. Consider that Zeppelin Strikes costs more than Activated Reserves does.

I also think about basic and advanced techs in terms of costs. For that reason I would suggest to make the change that you are pointing yourself. Swap TSF and Zeppelin Strikes. TSF makes more sense as a cheap tech, and Zeppelin Strikes, even if it does not have a basic version, certainly looks more expensive than TSF.

[OliverFA]

Thanks Tanarri for the explanation. I understand the rationale behind using this method to calculate neutral counts, however I think it leads to some results that won't make sense for how the gameplay will unfold. For example, I would argue that the more important "turn" quantity is how many turns does it take to research the tech, not how many turns after you get the benefit do you break even. Of course, this is much harder to measure.

I'll add a tab to the Excel file that calculates the income based on how many territories of each type player has. Once it is done I'll upload it and hope is useful to you.

[OliverFA]

For amusement (and procrastination at work) sake, I messed around a bit with the version 5 draft and tried to figure out what the common attack paths were without specifically going for extras for Conscription techs.

Thanks for the map. It is quite illustrative.

[OliverFA]

Those are the new tech values:

Click image to enlarge.

Changes:
- Lowered Standing Army bonus from +6 to +3 and cost from 15 to 12. Reason: Make it more accesible as an early basic tech.
- Raised Activated Reserves bonus from +9 to +12 so the final bonus stays at +18, and changed cost acordingly. Reason: Keep this tech valuable as a last stand in the late game.
- Kept Secret Conscription cost at 25. Reason: Less than this would be too cheap.
- Raised Open Conscription cost from 75 to 90. Reason: Is a very powerful tech not ony because of the big bonus it provides, but also because the bonus is unbreakable
- In general, basic techs cheaper than their advanced counterparts.

And by the way, Merry Christmas!

[-=- Tanarri -=-]

Thanks carlpgoodrich and Tanarri for your comments about Standing Army and Activated Reserves

I tend to agree with you that maybe Standing Army (SA) tech could be lowered down a little bit (and consequently reduced in its cost) in order to provide a "fast" tech to grab early at the start. But I wouldn't reduce the power of Activated Reserves (AR) because I want it to have some utility at medium/late game. The point of SA is getting an early boost. The point of AR is having a(n almost) decent income during the late game even if you have few land. So in extreme situations when your empire is almost lost, you will have at least 18 armies for defending or for trying a desperate attempt at research.

With that in mind, I agrew with you in reducing SA from +6 to +3 and increasing AR from +9 to +12

• Standing Army: +3 armies --> for a total of minimum 6 armies --> 3% of maximum OC bonus --> Cost 12
  
• Activated Reserves: +12 armies --> for a total of minimum 18 armies --> 10% of maximum OC bonus --> Cost 50

I am a bit concerned with SA costing only 12 armies, but I am also afraid that if it costs too much players will just skip it, and I want it to be useful for an early boost and not only as a path to AR.

I could see Activated Reserves being set at +12 for a total of 18 deployable minimum. I do think that 50 is a low cost for a permanent unbreakable and deployable bonus. I think that a neutral of 60 would be a better choice, then at least it would have a 5 turn cost. This would make it on par with OC and owning 1/5 of all the territories, or around 1/3 of the 120 typically conquered territories that I mentioned earlier. I think that this would be a reasonable comparison, especially since the OC bonus can be reduced. While it does allow for a bonus of 1 for every 1 territory (which, for the OC bonus itself is 1 for every 2), those territories are likely to only have 1's guarding most of them and hence be easy to take.

Having SA at 12 is way too low. At the very, very least it needs to be at 15 and even then I would suggest even 18, especially if you're having SC at 25. Comparing it to SC for example, you would need to own 25 territories (1/7 of the board) in order for SC at 25 to be a 6 turn cost. In order to take over 25 territories one would have to expend a fair amount of effort, even if they landed on the blue homeland. I think that SA would still be more than worth it at 18. This map will produce games that will be long enough that 6 turns to receive payback on a tech shouldn't be too much of an issue. If you think that 18 is still too high, then I would suggest absolutely no lower than 15.

[-=- Tanarri -=-]

One comment that I was going to save until later is that the TSF's and the doomsday device are not really advanced techs because there are no "basic" versions of them. The TSF's should probably be located directly under the Labs, since they are more of a spring board to other techs than a tech itself, the doomsday device probably belongs as the last of the basic techs. I think it would look fine to move the thick tube that separates the basic and advanced techs down a bit so that things fit.

I'm going to disagree on two different fronts. One is the fact that if I implement this I'm going to break the symmetry that I just established with the Basic and Advanced researches being in clear, rectangular boxes. No confusing loop-de-loops, no weird organization, clearly demarcated. Which is good for a complex map.

Second, I've been thinking of Basic and Advanced this entire time in terms of "cost." Yes there are three pairs of Basic and Advanced where one follows the other, but Doomsday is the most expensive technology there is. If it ISN'T advanced, something is wrong with the research priorities of the country in question. And since TSF is essentially a lab with more abilities, it's an Advanced version of the Lab itself. So taking these two together, Advanced is a way to denote that the researches in question should be saved until later. With TSF as cheap as it is though, I wouldn't be averse to switching Zeppelin Strikes with TSF. Consider that Zeppelin Strikes costs more than Activated Reserves does.

I also think about basic and advanced techs in terms of costs. For that reason I would suggest to make the change that you are pointing yourself. Swap TSF and Zeppelin Strikes. TSF makes more sense as a cheap tech, and Zeppelin Strikes, even if it does not have a basic version, certainly looks more expensive than TSF.

I had planned to save this feedback until we reached the point of discussing TSFs, but if this change is about to happen because of the above listed reasons, then I should mention it now...

I strongly disagree with the idea of TSFs being only +3 autodeploy. The entire point, as far as I am aware at least, of TSFs is to provide a bonus for players who make a conscience decision to play a more research heavy strategy. If this is the case, then having something that is only a +3 autodeploy is pointless, as is having them cost so little, since it's hardly any investment. I would suggest raising the TSF bonus to something more like +8 or +10 and have the tech cost around the same turn cost as Activated Reserves, perhaps slightly higher. The thinking behind this is that TSFs would not require going through a basic tech (SA) in order to get the bonus, however they are an autodeploy and would not allow a player the same flexibility as Activated Reserves would. I think, perhaps, if TSFs were put at +8 then 45 (around 5.5 turns) would be a good cost and if it was set at +10, then either 55 or 60 would be a good cost.

Using these bonuses and neutral values, it allows a player to over the long run gain a distinct research advantage, however it has a signficant upfront cost which makes it so that it's not a tech that everybody will research as a matter of course, no matter what their strategy is.

On another note, it seems that there's still some discussion to have over whether basic techs are prerequisites for advanced techs or not. If they aren't, then I would suggest having the cost of TSFs be increased in turn cost according to their ability to research all advanced techs without the basic ones first; something that is a significant advantage and should be reflected in their cost, even if they remain as low in bonus as they are now. If basic researches are prerequisites, then I think the values that I posted above are good.

[-=- Tanarri -=-]

About the conscription techs:

The debate here is only about the cost, as everybody agrees about the effect (which is good ) I think it's not correct to say that those techs require territories to be conquered in order to obtain their effects. Remeber that even without Secret Conscription (SC) players get +1 army per each 3 territories. So the bonuses here are added bonuses. Very important bonuses, but added ones.

For SC I am comfortable leaving at 25 armies, but Open Conscription (OC) I agree more with 90. OC is just a too good technology. You get 1 army per each territory no matter what. And this cannot be broken except by taking each territory. If OC is too cheap, everybody will have epic armies. Keeping it at 90 will make it a choice for the late game. Somebody will pick it and somebody will prefer other options. SC on the other hand with 25 armies is likely to be researched by everybody.

• Secret Consctiption: +1 army per 2 territories --> Cost 25
  
• Open Consctiption: +1 army per 1 territory --> Cost 90

So this is a bit in line with Standing Army and Activated Reserves techs. The basic version is somewhat easier to get, but the advanced costs a bit more, as it is a lot more powerful.

The costs here are within what I would consider acceptable, so I'm good for finalizing these costs. I would expect that once Beta hits that SC may be brought down to 20 to make it more viable for early games, but I think 25 is at least an acceptable starting point to go with.

[-=- Tanarri -=-]

Those are the new tech values:
*snip*

Changes:
- Lowered Standing Army bonus from +6 to +3 and cost from 15 to 12. Reason: Make it more accesible as an early basic tech.
- Raised Activated Reserves bonus from +9 to +12 so the final bonus stays at +18, and changed cost acordingly. Reason: Keep this tech valuable as a last stand in the late game.
- Kept Secret Conscription cost at 25. Reason: Less than this would be too cheap.
- Raised Open Conscription cost from 75 to 90. Reason: Is a very powerful tech not ony because of the big bonus it provides, but also because the bonus is unbreakable
- In general, basic techs cheaper than their advanced counterparts.

And by the way, Merry Christmas!

A few other things that should be updated as well, to line up with what the map states and I believe has been discussed and tentatively accepted...

- Doomsday should be listed at 200 neutral and +75 bonus
- National Pride should be listed as +4 for holding the entire homeland
- Deep Mining's bonus is listed as 2 as a value but only +1 in the description. These don't match. Not that this one matters so much, since Mining needs discussion.
- Activated Reserves description needs updating to reflect the new bonus proposal

I think that covers it. All very minor details considering how well put together and useful the spreadsheet is. Thank you for making it Oliver

Would it be possible for you to post a link to the spreadsheet itself so that we can play with the values ourselves?

[MarshalNey]

I believe that all major concerns about gameplay clarity and balance have been addressed. Further discussions on gameplay can take place in the Graphics Workshop, as this map ultimately needs Beta testing in order to have truly fruitful progress in this area.

And so, after a long time coming, this map has been approved for gameplay.

[MarshalNey]

The above post notwithstanding, I have a few parting thoughts-

The Doomsday Device I think is a very good idea, but ultimately I don't like it being attackable without going through a basic tech first. Along those lines...
How about attaching Zepplin Strikes as a Basic and Doomsday Device as an advanced version? The bombardment ability links them already, plus it fits thematically as there has to be a good method of delivering the ultimate bomb/deathrays/etc (see the B-29 Superfortress and the A-bomb as an example).

Just a thought

Merry Christmas everyone.

[-=- Tanarri -=-]

I believe that all major concerns about gameplay clarity and balance have been addressed. Further discussions on gameplay can take place in the Graphics Workshop, as this map ultimately needs Beta testing in order to have truly fruitful progress in this area.

And so, after a long time coming, this map has been approved for gameplay.

Hurray! We even got the pretty Christmas Gameplay stamp!

At first I was wondering how the heck this got to the Graphic forum when we were just starting to nail stuff down, but I do agree that for the most part the gameplay is finished and except for a couple minor things the only way we'll know for sure how to balance this is if it gets to Beta.

Thanks for the stamp MarshalNey!

[-=- Tanarri -=-]

The above post notwithstanding, I have a few parting thoughts-

The Doomsday Device I think is a very good idea, but ultimately I don't like it being attackable without going through a basic tech first. Along those lines...
How about attaching Zepplin Strikes as a Basic and Doomsday Device as an advanced version? The bombardment ability links them already, plus it fits thematically as there has to be a good method of delivering the ultimate bomb/deathrays/etc (see the B-29 Superfortress and the A-bomb as an example).

Just a thought

Merry Christmas everyone.

I had thought that it would be nice if Doomsday had a basic tech to be attached to. Zeppelin Strikes may work for the above reasons and I kinda like it too. The other one that I had suggested previously was TSFs, but if this change were to happen, I like Zeppelin Strikes better.

[OliverFA]

I could see Activated Reserves being set at +12 for a total of 18 deployable minimum. I do think that 50 is a low cost for a permanent unbreakable and deployable bonus. I think that a neutral of 60 would be a better choice, then at least it would have a 5 turn cost. This would make it on par with OC and owning 1/5 of all the territories, or around 1/3 of the 120 typically conquered territories that I mentioned earlier. I think that this would be a reasonable comparison, especially since the OC bonus can be reduced. While it does allow for a bonus of 1 for every 1 territory (which, for the OC bonus itself is 1 for every 2), those territories are likely to only have 1's guarding most of them and hence be easy to take.

Having SA at 12 is way too low. At the very, very least it needs to be at 15 and even then I would suggest even 18, especially if you're having SC at 25. Comparing it to SC for example, you would need to own 25 territories (1/7 of the board) in order for SC at 25 to be a 6 turn cost. In order to take over 25 territories one would have to expend a fair amount of effort, even if they landed on the blue homeland. I think that SA would still be more than worth it at 18. This map will produce games that will be long enough that 6 turns to receive payback on a tech shouldn't be too much of an issue. If you think that 18 is still too high, then I would suggest absolutely no lower than 15.

I think those are valid points. So, after playing with several values, we have come back to 5 turns in terms of cost, and improved the effects of those techs to make one simpler but more reachable and the other a bit more difficult but more powerful. I am setting those cost values now at 15 and 60.

Your comments convinced me of what I already said, that 12 was maybe too low. 15 is the right value because otherwose it will be too expensive for what it gives, and stop being an early game tech.

[OliverFA]

I had planned to save this feedback until we reached the point of discussing TSFs, but if this change is about to happen because of the above listed reasons, then I should mention it now...

I strongly disagree with the idea of TSFs being only +3 autodeploy. The entire point, as far as I am aware at least, of TSFs is to provide a bonus for players who make a conscience decision to play a more research heavy strategy. If this is the case, then having something that is only a +3 autodeploy is pointless, as is having them cost so little, since it's hardly any investment. I would suggest raising the TSF bonus to something more like +8 or +10 and have the tech cost around the same turn cost as Activated Reserves, perhaps slightly higher. The thinking behind this is that TSFs would not require going through a basic tech (SA) in order to get the bonus, however they are an autodeploy and would not allow a player the same flexibility as Activated Reserves would. I think, perhaps, if TSFs were put at +8 then 45 (around 5.5 turns) would be a good cost and if it was set at +10, then either 55 or 60 would be a good cost.

Using these bonuses and neutral values, it allows a player to over the long run gain a distinct research advantage, however it has a signficant upfront cost which makes it so that it's not a tech that everybody will research as a matter of course, no matter what their strategy is.

That's a valid point. I had not debated about TSF yet because we were busy with the other techs. But with SA and AR closed, we can now open the TSF debate.

I think you are right about +3 being too low for the tech to make any sense. Maybe +10 is too high. So +8, which if I remember correctly was the originally proposed value, would be a good compromise between making the tech useful and making it too powerful. Also, the cost of 45 seems good, because it forces players to choose between an early investment for tech boost or using their armies somewhere else.

On another note, it seems that there's still some discussion to have over whether basic techs are prerequisites for advanced techs or not. If they aren't, then I would suggest having the cost of TSFs be increased in turn cost according to their ability to research all advanced techs without the basic ones first; something that is a significant advantage and should be reflected in their cost, even if they remain as low in bonus as they are now. If basic researches are prerequisites, then I think the values that I posted above are good.

TSF can attack any tech, but you must have the basic tech in order to enjoy advanced tech benefit. However, there is no way to apply this to Zeppelins and Dommsday, so I think you are right in raising the cost a little bit to compensate for this. I say this is worth 5 more cost, for a total cost of 50 and a bonus of +8.

[-=- Tanarri -=-]

That's a valid point. I had not debated about TSF yet because we were busy with the other techs. But with SA and AR closed, we can now open the TSF debate.

I think you are right about +3 being too low for the tech to make any sense. Maybe +10 is too high. So +8, which if I remember correctly was the originally proposed value, would be a good compromise between making the tech useful and making it too powerful. Also, the cost of 45 seems good, because it forces players to choose between an early investment for tech boost or using their armies somewhere else.

TSF can attack any tech, but you must have the basic tech in order to enjoy advanced tech benefit. However, there is no way to apply this to Zeppelins and Dommsday, so I think you are right in raising the cost a little bit to compensate for this. I say this is worth 5 more cost, for a total cost of 50 and a bonus of +8.

I think that +8 would work well as a bonus. After some further thought, I think that the same turn cost as Activated Reserves would be the best way to go, especially since we're trying to encourage people to use SA and hence there would effectively be little chance of there being 'extra' neutrals from the basic tech to go through, since they'll have already taken the bonus anyway. This would put the base amount at 40 neutrals, plus the potential 5 extra from the other comment.

I am uncertain what you're referring to when you mentioned 'there's no way to apply this to Zeppelins and Doomsday'. What are you talking about applying? What specific relationship are you referring to between Zeppelins and Doomsday? There's been a few different discussions regarding these two recently, so I'm not sure if you're referring to MarshalNey's suggestion, the swapping of Zeppelins into being an Advanced tech, or some other thing else.

Whatever the case, I think that 50 will be too high. At that point it's costing 6.25 turns, which sounds too high, especially when you compare it to AR which allows for a deployable bonus. Once you provide some clarification for the above questions, I'll give some feedback as to whether I think that TSF should be 40 or 45.