Tech Currency (Scrapped Idea)

[TntAttack]

Not sure if this idea is possible.

Player researches tech A. Unit 1 has a prerequisite of tech A, and thus player can build unit 1.

After unit 1 is built, tech A is forgotten. Player has to research tech A against to built more Unit 1s.

Economy like isn't it?

Practical applications:
- Restricts on Aircraft carriers, Battleships, and perhaps even subs.
- Restrictions on heavy bombers, and jet fighters

Also, dev, that float unit cost idea e.g. Unit 1 costs 3.7 turns? I think we should give it a chance.

[godOfKings]

Y need a separate tech? Y not just increase cost of unit 1 by same turn as u would need to research tech? Isnt the outcome same?

[TntAttack]

Y need a separate tech? Y not just increase cost of unit 1 by same turn as u would need to research tech? Isnt the outcome same?

Disclaimer: I wrote this to justify and explain thoroughly what I meant in the first place for an economy like tech resource but it ended up spiralling into something looong....

Sorry


Infantry pretty balanced:

Infantry cost 2-3 but only 6 of the 9 types of infantry are actually viable to use; rifleman, engineer (builder), smg (strong anti tank plus anti infantry ability), machine gunner (once op, now a ideally used for defending) and officers (a bit too op with their aura buff) and flamethrowers (anti building).

Only Mortars, anti tank rifleman, bazookas infantry aren't worth it.

b]Tanks not really balanced[/b]:

Light tanks cost from 2-3, but their costs overlaps a bit with armour cars which also cost around 3. Light tanks > armour cars, but armour cars > infantry but smg infantry > all Light tanks, armoured cars and to an extent medium tanks.

Medium tanks cost 3-5 ish maybe 6. Much better cost per unit, although some fraction imbalances exist e.g. Japan doesn't have any good tanks till much later approx industry 3.
Italy struggles in the tank department.

Heavy tanks cost 6-14 ish on the other hand are big, obsolete and vulnerable to air bombing.

The full sheer power of these heavy tanks are restricted by mobility and more economical anti tank counters.

Airforce not the most balanced

Early fighters 4-5 costs are almost too weak or slightly weak. Later planes are pretty good, except the USA gets that mustangs fight plane which absolute carries for like 2 industries.

All fighters planes become redundant when jet fighter planes (about 6 cost) are introduced. Granted you have to research jet technology first tho.

Torpedo bombers 4-5 cost, weak, and requires aircraft carriers to supplement its short mobility.

Paratroopers cost 5, but also kinda suck.

Bombers, dive bombers, heavy bombers, light recon bomber cost about 5-8 average. Distinction between these bombers are, does it hit hard and fly fast and cheap?

Navy is at all balanced

Subs cost around 2-3, with the advances ones 4-5. Excluding the advanced ones, that's the same price as the average infantryman.

Destroyers are 4-5, only useful against subs, but are at risk of getting shot down by subs as well. Losing one destroyer will set you back more than losing 2 subs.

Cruisers cost 7 and aren't the most balanced between the fractions. E.g. UK Cruiser have around 400 hp, much lower than average.

Battleships cost 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 17 and should be classified as tier one battleships and tier two battleships.

Tier one battleships cost about 10-12 and usually suck. Weak to subs, naval bombers, cruisers, battleships.

Tier two battleships cost 14, 15, 17 depending on fraction and so much more economical. For example the yamato has about 3000 hp for 17 turns.

Let that sink in. With 17 turns, you can build 8 infantry that can do jack shot against a battleship (on a water map) or 8 subs which can do terrible things to a battleship.

But wait, we got aircraft carriers (ACs) too. For 9, 11 or 12 turns you can build a mobile aircraft factory that produces aircraft....

You heard me. You can spent 10s of turns building airports or just spam ACs and you can produce about the same if not more value (turns as a economic output). Note that ACs are counted as mega buildings and can't be built indefinitely.

The conclusion

Scaling of cost between individual unit types e.g. tank A and Tank B, can be mitigated perhaps with the float turns costs.

Scaling of costs betweens categories of unit e.g. ground and Navy should be remedied with an additional currency.

As such is not possible, the conclusion I came to was to force players to research "resources" e.g. naval supplies 1, 2 and 3 tech in order to build one tier 2 battleship.

Ideally, once the unit has been made, all other attempt to build that same battleship will be cancelled as the tech will be forgotten.

So there is a restriction of some sorts.

Expanding on this idea, we can allow for Drejades idea of factory disruption via dive bombers and Espionage (spies) and tech steal mechanics to interact with one another and thus balance the game.

All that's left is to know whether this is possible and that it idea isn't half cooked like most of my other terrible ideas.

[TntAttack]

So if one player is trying to build a battleship, and has 2 of the 3 tech required, the second player may capture one of his towns and "accidently" steals the one of the required resource tech.

Thus this mechanic would be similar in a way to AoS's conversion mechanic, which acts as a catchup mechanic if one player gets too much value from a op unit.

Except in this case, we are stealing "supplies tech resource" from each other.

Okay I admit this idea is a bit premature.

@DreJaDe you got anything? Care to help me out?
@Jasondunkel ... You got anything as well?
@Stratego (dev) Is this even possible?

Can we set a tech to disable after a unit is produced (unit that had the prerequisite of that tech)? Can we set a tech to disable after 3 or 5 units are produced? Or perhaps we can qualify it with its turn value.

E.g. resource tech A costs 5 turns, and for that industry e.g. air, infantry, Navy, players can spent 5 turns worth of units before the tech Disables.

Ideally these tech will be universal through all fractions hence the stealing mechanic.

But on second thought, maybe this idea is too ambitious (if it's not unrealistic) and complex to implement.

[Stratego (dev)]

in general my thought:
- the reason we dont have resources is that i dont wanted to make the games being complex for gathering resources and to deal with such "economy" thing, to keep the game being pure tactical/strategical without logistics (eg. fuel) and tiresome economics like resource gathering.
- so we should not "work around" it as the result would be the same if we would have resources.
-> if resources will get "unavoidable" than the best solution is to implement resources some way (eg. by collect from something, or having X money per turn maybe).