Regarding Staring Research Advantages & Tech
Feb 25, 2020 8:39:43 GMT -6
axe99, garrisonchisholm, and 1 more like this
Post by generalvikus on Feb 25, 2020 8:39:43 GMT -6
In my ruminations about a historical mod, I've been thinking about whether any improvements could be made to technology. Of course, this is a tricky subject, since the current system is not intended to produce exactly historical results often - not necessarily ever - but rather to provide some historical flavor reflecting how the relative technological strengths and weaknesses of each nation would affect the probabilities that they would make a certain advancement, if history could be played over and over again.
One nation in particular really sticks out to me: the United States. At present, their bonus techs include superimposed X and B turret, both in the area of ship design. In addition to this, the United States led historically in a number of key innovations in the area of ship design:
6: Superimposed X Turret
7: 4 Centreline Turrets
9: Superimposed B Turret
10: 5+ Centreline Turrets
12: AoN Armour
Particularly impressive, both by the standards of the game and history, are the facts that Superimposed X, B, and 4 centreline turrets, all made their appearance historically at the same time in the South Carolina class. Equally impressive, level 10 '5+ centreline turrets' made its appearance before Great Britian had implemented level 6: cross deck fire, and a full two years before Germany would even implemented level 3: 3 centreline turrets, along with cross deck fire. Arguably then, the United States led the world in ship design in the pivotal period from 1906, when its first dreadnoughts were laid down, to 1912, when it pioneered the all or nothing armor scheme, which would only much later become the standard. Whether this spurt of innovation is sufficient to warrant awarding it a research advantage in the area is a matter for debate.
With all of this considered, I believe that the United States may be just as deserving of a research advantage in Ship Design as Great Britain.
This line of thinking led me to two additional questions: firstly, are there any other nations which are similarly deserving of advantages or free technologies which they do not currently have, and conversely, any that are undeserving?
Secondly, what is the logic according to which technological advantages are, or ought to be, handed out? I think we can identify two major themes. Firstly, an advantage may derive from an innate advantage, stemming from the peculiar qualities of a nation's industry. For example, the advanced state of metallurgy in Germany assisted in its development of armor and armor piercing shells. I think this is a strong justification. Secondly, an advantage may derive from the special emphasis which a nation historically placed on a technology - such as Germany's Zeppelins. I think this is a weaker justification, especially since it overlaps with an area in which the player ought to have agency - research prioritization. Nevertheless, I think that many would agree that it feels quite right and proper to have an advantage in airship technology when playing as Germany, and it's a part of the game that I think ought to be preserved.
Two further questions arise from this categorization. Are there any nations which deserve advantages they are currently missing, or do not deserve advantages they have been given?
For example, does Britain deserve an advantage in machinery development as much as it deserves its advantage in ship design? If Japan is to be awarded an advantage in naval aviation, not because of the advancement of the Japanese aviation industry, but because of the emphasis which the IJN placed on aircraft, then does Germany not deserve an advantage in submarines according to the same logic? Conversely - and I must plead ignorance on this matter - is there a solid justification for Italy's advantage in ship design?
Finally, we have the 'bonus' techs, for which I do not know of any logical justification - any reason why it was particularly necessary that one nation would achieve a specific innovation first - other than to make any given playthrough play out strictly more historically. I'm more lukewarm on this idea - I could take or leave it, and I think it would be a good candidate for a toggleable option at the start of the game, though of course there are many more urgent improvements for the devs to be making.
In summary:
1. Should any research advantages or bonus techs be added or removed?
2. Should research advantages be limited to only areas of broader, long term technological advantage, such as German metallurgy, or is to proper to broaden them to also include historical areas of emphasis by the navy in the absence of technological advantage, such as Japanese naval aviation?
3. How do we feel about bonus techs?
To begin the discussion, I would like to propose some changes that might be made, if the current philosophy is maintained. Note that I am approaching this question from the perspective of historical authenticity rather than ‘balance’ as I strongly feel that the balance in historical games should be asymmetrical, both to provide historical authenticity and the player’s chosen degree of challenge.
Germany:
Submarines [Led the way in the operational usage of submarines, and perhaps in technology]
Britain
Machinery [Steam turbines, oil firing]
Guns (if it is possible, and if early gun tech were rebalanced as I have suggested; at present, such a change would derange the balance even further.) [Consistently led the way]
ASW [Pioneered ASDIC, various weapons, practices]
USA
Ship Design [Superimposed X & B turrets, 4 & 5 centreline, AoN]
France
Light forces and torpedo warfare [consistently led the way with large destroyers]
One nation in particular really sticks out to me: the United States. At present, their bonus techs include superimposed X and B turret, both in the area of ship design. In addition to this, the United States led historically in a number of key innovations in the area of ship design:
6: Superimposed X Turret
7: 4 Centreline Turrets
9: Superimposed B Turret
10: 5+ Centreline Turrets
12: AoN Armour
Particularly impressive, both by the standards of the game and history, are the facts that Superimposed X, B, and 4 centreline turrets, all made their appearance historically at the same time in the South Carolina class. Equally impressive, level 10 '5+ centreline turrets' made its appearance before Great Britian had implemented level 6: cross deck fire, and a full two years before Germany would even implemented level 3: 3 centreline turrets, along with cross deck fire. Arguably then, the United States led the world in ship design in the pivotal period from 1906, when its first dreadnoughts were laid down, to 1912, when it pioneered the all or nothing armor scheme, which would only much later become the standard. Whether this spurt of innovation is sufficient to warrant awarding it a research advantage in the area is a matter for debate.
With all of this considered, I believe that the United States may be just as deserving of a research advantage in Ship Design as Great Britain.
This line of thinking led me to two additional questions: firstly, are there any other nations which are similarly deserving of advantages or free technologies which they do not currently have, and conversely, any that are undeserving?
Secondly, what is the logic according to which technological advantages are, or ought to be, handed out? I think we can identify two major themes. Firstly, an advantage may derive from an innate advantage, stemming from the peculiar qualities of a nation's industry. For example, the advanced state of metallurgy in Germany assisted in its development of armor and armor piercing shells. I think this is a strong justification. Secondly, an advantage may derive from the special emphasis which a nation historically placed on a technology - such as Germany's Zeppelins. I think this is a weaker justification, especially since it overlaps with an area in which the player ought to have agency - research prioritization. Nevertheless, I think that many would agree that it feels quite right and proper to have an advantage in airship technology when playing as Germany, and it's a part of the game that I think ought to be preserved.
Two further questions arise from this categorization. Are there any nations which deserve advantages they are currently missing, or do not deserve advantages they have been given?
For example, does Britain deserve an advantage in machinery development as much as it deserves its advantage in ship design? If Japan is to be awarded an advantage in naval aviation, not because of the advancement of the Japanese aviation industry, but because of the emphasis which the IJN placed on aircraft, then does Germany not deserve an advantage in submarines according to the same logic? Conversely - and I must plead ignorance on this matter - is there a solid justification for Italy's advantage in ship design?
Finally, we have the 'bonus' techs, for which I do not know of any logical justification - any reason why it was particularly necessary that one nation would achieve a specific innovation first - other than to make any given playthrough play out strictly more historically. I'm more lukewarm on this idea - I could take or leave it, and I think it would be a good candidate for a toggleable option at the start of the game, though of course there are many more urgent improvements for the devs to be making.
In summary:
1. Should any research advantages or bonus techs be added or removed?
2. Should research advantages be limited to only areas of broader, long term technological advantage, such as German metallurgy, or is to proper to broaden them to also include historical areas of emphasis by the navy in the absence of technological advantage, such as Japanese naval aviation?
3. How do we feel about bonus techs?
To begin the discussion, I would like to propose some changes that might be made, if the current philosophy is maintained. Note that I am approaching this question from the perspective of historical authenticity rather than ‘balance’ as I strongly feel that the balance in historical games should be asymmetrical, both to provide historical authenticity and the player’s chosen degree of challenge.
Germany:
Submarines [Led the way in the operational usage of submarines, and perhaps in technology]
Britain
Machinery [Steam turbines, oil firing]
Guns (if it is possible, and if early gun tech were rebalanced as I have suggested; at present, such a change would derange the balance even further.) [Consistently led the way]
ASW [Pioneered ASDIC, various weapons, practices]
USA
Ship Design [Superimposed X & B turrets, 4 & 5 centreline, AoN]
France
Light forces and torpedo warfare [consistently led the way with large destroyers]
_(edited)_Screenshot_(739).png?width=180&height=180&fit=bounds)
