So, why do we need selective unit trade
Moderators: Balthagor, Legend, Moderators
- Zuikaku
- General
- Posts: 2394
- Joined: Feb 10 2012
- Human: Yes
So, why do we need selective unit trade
Now, few days before release, when it is more than obvious that there will be no selective unit trade and that it never got past "studio discussion" I woul'd like once again to highlight why this feature is needed for the game of this scope.
Also note that this was topis of several long threads:
http://www.bgforums.com/forums/viewtopi ... unit+trade
http://www.bgforums.com/forums/viewtopi ... unit+trade
There was also one poll voting on this (unable to find it at the moment) where users voted in favour of new unit trading system.
And here we are, right where we begun our story more than 2 years ago in the same trenches. BGs claims that unit trading as it is now is a good solution ,and some IJN carrier(s) disagree. I stand my ground that current unit trading system is most unfortunate, unlogicall, historically incorrect, unrealistic, clumsy and user unfriendly. Weapon trade and world market is just not lottery.
But let's see why unit trading as it is now is bad solution:
- basic economic law of supply and demand is totally ignored in unit trading system as it is now. Demand is non existant, since you can not even demand anything. Production seems to be pointless. Good and bad products do not exist since market has no any influence on unit production. Do I need to further explain the nonsense of this system?
- The only way to buy unit is to wait being offered by something (obsolete). What is connection to real life weapon trading?
- AI allways offers the same units. USSR allways offer R1 recons and torpedo boats and T-26 tanks. UK allways offers Universal carriers. US B-10 bombers. France Serie 600 subs. And the same quantities over and over and over the time in every campaign. Italy, Germany and Japan never bother offering anything at all. Do I have to mention how bad that is for replayability??
- Smaller regions are heavily impacted by this system. Try to arm yourself playing as Iraq, Siam, Ireland, Finland or Bulgaria, even close to historicall numbers. Good luck with that!
- Not being able to purchase weapon as non-major region is a very bad thing for replayability!
- Bigger regions also tend to suffer from this. IRL France and UK contracted huge numbers of american warplanes, ships and other heavy weapons. You can not do that with unit trading system as it is now.
- Allied will never help you to arm yourself if in war. Never offer units or anything. Do I have to highlight that that happened and happens IRL?
- Allied or friendly nations never donate obsolete or new equipment to it's brothers in need. Do I have to remind you that that happened and happens IRL and all over the world? But is again ignored in trading system as it is now.
- You can not contract building units from another region although it is a regular practice all over the world.
- Scrapping units instead of selling them for profit is a bad idea. You can earn more by selling them, but AI knows better...
- It would be funny thing IRL if all that Australia could do is to sit and wait for US to offer them surplus of F-18s... sometimes around 2036 when they are considered obsolete enough...
- Explanations that SUT can be abused by players is absurd when we got 10+ cheat codes at the same time.
- Unit trading IRL is never impacted by government system but by relations with weapon producer
- obtaining unit licences is absurdly easy and cheap
(c/p from http://www.bgforums.com/forums/viewtopi ... &start=105)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And now let's see why do we need selective unit trade:
- Weapons trades are done in that way since ancient history. someone produces weapons and someone else wants that specific weapon. obviously, demanding side tends not to sit and wait to be offered something....
- We really need a way to obtain what we really need. It is most frustrating experience when you need subs and AI regions offers you Artillery or recons....
- It would'd be good thing if we could order units- that is a common practice in the world. But SUT even without ordering woul'd be great at the moment.
- not all the players tend to play big and powerfull regions. For smaller, undeveloped and poor regions it is much cheaper to buy or order units than to research, participate in tech race, build industry, build military industry, research/trade designs and then build units. I'm talking about playing without cheats.
- big and powerfull regions do not need SUT, right?! Wrong! Especially in the times of war. Imagine what woul'd happen to UK (and France, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, China, USSR and many more) if there weren't selective unit trade during WW2. So, history is on the side of SUT.
- For some countries it is just impossible to build suitable army or to defend themselves without SUT. Just imagine Iraq during Iraqi-Iranian wars if there were no SUT! Or Israel during arab-Israeli wars. Or just imagine how Saudi Arabia woul'd be armed with SR1936 unit trading system
So, is there any hope things are going to change for better? I don't think so. And i don't mean to be harsh in anyway, just want better game, THE GAME. Feedback from BGs about this topic was minimal all the time, so I guess they just scrapped the whole idea and decided to polish a bit their lottery unit trading system. It is their right to make the game the way they want, but it is also my right to speak if I think something is bad decision.
So, I'm doing this only to defy absurd and bad design decision that impacts gameplay. And it is duty of every IJN officer and sailor to defy bad design and fight it as long as it can.
Today, as chief
Of the sea guardians
Of the land of the dawn,
Awed I gaze up
At the rising sun.
I am still the sword
Of my Emperor
I will not be sheathed
Until I die.
Also note that this was topis of several long threads:
http://www.bgforums.com/forums/viewtopi ... unit+trade
http://www.bgforums.com/forums/viewtopi ... unit+trade
There was also one poll voting on this (unable to find it at the moment) where users voted in favour of new unit trading system.
And here we are, right where we begun our story more than 2 years ago in the same trenches. BGs claims that unit trading as it is now is a good solution ,and some IJN carrier(s) disagree. I stand my ground that current unit trading system is most unfortunate, unlogicall, historically incorrect, unrealistic, clumsy and user unfriendly. Weapon trade and world market is just not lottery.
But let's see why unit trading as it is now is bad solution:
- basic economic law of supply and demand is totally ignored in unit trading system as it is now. Demand is non existant, since you can not even demand anything. Production seems to be pointless. Good and bad products do not exist since market has no any influence on unit production. Do I need to further explain the nonsense of this system?
- The only way to buy unit is to wait being offered by something (obsolete). What is connection to real life weapon trading?
- AI allways offers the same units. USSR allways offer R1 recons and torpedo boats and T-26 tanks. UK allways offers Universal carriers. US B-10 bombers. France Serie 600 subs. And the same quantities over and over and over the time in every campaign. Italy, Germany and Japan never bother offering anything at all. Do I have to mention how bad that is for replayability??
- Smaller regions are heavily impacted by this system. Try to arm yourself playing as Iraq, Siam, Ireland, Finland or Bulgaria, even close to historicall numbers. Good luck with that!
- Not being able to purchase weapon as non-major region is a very bad thing for replayability!
- Bigger regions also tend to suffer from this. IRL France and UK contracted huge numbers of american warplanes, ships and other heavy weapons. You can not do that with unit trading system as it is now.
- Allied will never help you to arm yourself if in war. Never offer units or anything. Do I have to highlight that that happened and happens IRL?
- Allied or friendly nations never donate obsolete or new equipment to it's brothers in need. Do I have to remind you that that happened and happens IRL and all over the world? But is again ignored in trading system as it is now.
- You can not contract building units from another region although it is a regular practice all over the world.
- Scrapping units instead of selling them for profit is a bad idea. You can earn more by selling them, but AI knows better...
- It would be funny thing IRL if all that Australia could do is to sit and wait for US to offer them surplus of F-18s... sometimes around 2036 when they are considered obsolete enough...
- Explanations that SUT can be abused by players is absurd when we got 10+ cheat codes at the same time.
- Unit trading IRL is never impacted by government system but by relations with weapon producer
- obtaining unit licences is absurdly easy and cheap
(c/p from http://www.bgforums.com/forums/viewtopi ... &start=105)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And now let's see why do we need selective unit trade:
- Weapons trades are done in that way since ancient history. someone produces weapons and someone else wants that specific weapon. obviously, demanding side tends not to sit and wait to be offered something....
- We really need a way to obtain what we really need. It is most frustrating experience when you need subs and AI regions offers you Artillery or recons....
- It would'd be good thing if we could order units- that is a common practice in the world. But SUT even without ordering woul'd be great at the moment.
- not all the players tend to play big and powerfull regions. For smaller, undeveloped and poor regions it is much cheaper to buy or order units than to research, participate in tech race, build industry, build military industry, research/trade designs and then build units. I'm talking about playing without cheats.
- big and powerfull regions do not need SUT, right?! Wrong! Especially in the times of war. Imagine what woul'd happen to UK (and France, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, China, USSR and many more) if there weren't selective unit trade during WW2. So, history is on the side of SUT.
- For some countries it is just impossible to build suitable army or to defend themselves without SUT. Just imagine Iraq during Iraqi-Iranian wars if there were no SUT! Or Israel during arab-Israeli wars. Or just imagine how Saudi Arabia woul'd be armed with SR1936 unit trading system
So, is there any hope things are going to change for better? I don't think so. And i don't mean to be harsh in anyway, just want better game, THE GAME. Feedback from BGs about this topic was minimal all the time, so I guess they just scrapped the whole idea and decided to polish a bit their lottery unit trading system. It is their right to make the game the way they want, but it is also my right to speak if I think something is bad decision.
So, I'm doing this only to defy absurd and bad design decision that impacts gameplay. And it is duty of every IJN officer and sailor to defy bad design and fight it as long as it can.
Today, as chief
Of the sea guardians
Of the land of the dawn,
Awed I gaze up
At the rising sun.
I am still the sword
Of my Emperor
I will not be sheathed
Until I die.
Please teach AI everything!
-
- General
- Posts: 2548
- Joined: Dec 08 2007
- Location: Tipton, UK
Re: So, why do we need selective unit trade
^tbh, I agree with all of this (except that the IJN was good, I can smell the (petrol) vapour on them). I wasn't completely convinced at first (back with sr2010), but the more I have played the game since, the more I have realised (especially with the smaller regions), that this is especially needed given the military production levels of the world in general.
My SR:U Model Project, get the latest and post suggestions here:
http://www.bgforums.com/forums/viewtopi ... 79&t=28040
http://www.bgforums.com/forums/viewtopi ... 79&t=28040
- Zuikaku
- General
- Posts: 2394
- Joined: Feb 10 2012
- Human: Yes
Re: So, why do we need selective unit trade
I must live according to my forum username But I can agree with youSGTscuba wrote:^tbh, I agree with all of this (except that the IJN was good, I can smell the (petrol) vapour on them).
The whole problem is gameplay with smaller regions that do not have tons of money, no resources or are industrially undeveloped. With unit trade as it is now, they are sometimes unplayable (military) or just force player to exploit, do gamey stuff or cheatsSGTscuba wrote:I wasn't completely convinced at first (back with sr2010), but the more I have played the game since, the more I have realised (especially with the smaller regions), that this is especially needed given the military production levels of the world in general.
It's not problem playing regions like UK, USSR, USA, Germany... but even they sometimes need to buy some units from the market. Specific units they lack or do not have production capacity....
Please teach AI everything!
-
- Corporal
- Posts: 7
- Joined: May 06 2014
- Human: Yes
Re: So, why do we need selective unit trade
Isn`t the work around of the issue... I can go to pretty much any AI country and PURCHASE the plans of any item they have? And if I can do that.... ATleast in SR2020... I don`t see this as a make or break issue... Your points are valid that their is no "World Arm Market"... I have but I not going to buy this title for that. This title just has limits that any player can exploit.
I would prefer time spent on AI improvements. I would like to see logical pincher movements when the AI is on attack. Bypass towns and cities... you know... "Real World Military Tactics" Denial of supply efforts. Holding of choke points.. using terrain logically.
I would prefer time spent on AI improvements. I would like to see logical pincher movements when the AI is on attack. Bypass towns and cities... you know... "Real World Military Tactics" Denial of supply efforts. Holding of choke points.. using terrain logically.
- Zuikaku
- General
- Posts: 2394
- Joined: Feb 10 2012
- Human: Yes
Re: So, why do we need selective unit trade
And that is total exploit and abuse of system. And is historically incorrect with little or no support in real life. Aside the facts that licences are far too easy to get, but let's look what happens when you try to do that as small region with limited cash reserves:bitterwinterz wrote:Isn`t the work around of the issue... I can go to pretty much any AI country and PURCHASE the plans of any item they have? And if I can do that.... ATleast in SR2020... I don`t see this as a make or break issue... .
1. To obtain some blueprints you need to:
-make huge amounts of money (remember that you are small region and that is not easy thing to do)
-buy some techs too
-build research facility (for cash, IGs and TIME)
-research non tradeable techs for CASH and TIME (take into consideration you are undeveloped country
- build extremely costly (in cash and IG/MG) land fabs or air/naval fabs which also takes time
-then and only then you can purchase blueprints
-buy MGs again for cash
- to produce what?! 50 or 100 tanks or APCs? 2 squadrons of airplanes? Isn't the easiest way to just ORDER them or BUY them from some major region??! Isn't that most logical thing to do?!
Have in mind that you are playing small, undeveloped region and you don't want to cheat. But game just forces you to do that.
And what happens when suddenly war starts and you need some weapons quick?! ah, yes, you are gonna do above workaround which takes years instead to just buy something as normal regions woul'd do
I can see this and some other issues as major problems. The simple things (like support/condemn boxes that do nothing, game mechanics that forces you into unwanted spheres no matter what you do, or endless AI vs. AI wars) which are not breakers per themselves but cumulate andlower quality of gaming experience.bitterwinterz wrote: I don`t see this as a make or break issue...
I just think that it is very strange decision not having selective unit trade in such global strategy title. Many, many inferior, unsupported titles have this feature. This title is well supported but promptly refuses to introduce any logical or usable weapons trade system....bitterwinterz wrote:Your points are valid that their is no "World Arm Market"... I have but I not going to buy this title for that. This title just has limits that any player can exploit.
I woul'd prefer that too, but along with some little "finesses" like SUT or logical and more complex diplomacy...bitterwinterz wrote: I would prefer time spent on AI improvements. I would like to see logical pincher movements when the AI is on attack. Bypass towns and cities... you know... "Real World Military Tactics" Denial of supply efforts. Holding of choke points.. using terrain logically.
Please teach AI everything!
-
- Lieutenant
- Posts: 91
- Joined: Oct 29 2002
Re: So, why do we need selective unit trade
I totally agree with Zuikaku. Sadly I beleive that it is to late now for BG to do anything to change this for SR1936 but hopefully they will continue to make these games and get a better arms trade solution for future games.
Here is my suggestions for what it's worth:
1: Any nation that wants to sell some of their units can set them up on the market for an initial price. Then anyone can bid on those. Seller then decides who gets to buy.
2: Any nation that wants to buy some units announce on the market that they are in need of for example tanks. Then as it is today random offers for what you need are presented for you but only for that product that you are looking for.
Here is my suggestions for what it's worth:
1: Any nation that wants to sell some of their units can set them up on the market for an initial price. Then anyone can bid on those. Seller then decides who gets to buy.
2: Any nation that wants to buy some units announce on the market that they are in need of for example tanks. Then as it is today random offers for what you need are presented for you but only for that product that you are looking for.
-
- General
- Posts: 2548
- Joined: Dec 08 2007
- Location: Tipton, UK
Re: So, why do we need selective unit trade
This is what is suggested to BG when SR1936 was first announced and may go back to ideas I had for Cold War.Saarud wrote:I totally agree with Zuikaku. Sadly I beleive that it is to late now for BG to do anything to change this for SR1936 but hopefully they will continue to make these games and get a better arms trade solution for future games.
Here is my suggestions for what it's worth:
1: Any nation that wants to sell some of their units can set them up on the market for an initial price. Then anyone can bid on those. Seller then decides who gets to buy.
2: Any nation that wants to buy some units announce on the market that they are in need of for example tanks. Then as it is today random offers for what you need are presented for you but only for that product that you are looking for.
My SR:U Model Project, get the latest and post suggestions here:
http://www.bgforums.com/forums/viewtopi ... 79&t=28040
http://www.bgforums.com/forums/viewtopi ... 79&t=28040
- number47
- General
- Posts: 2655
- Joined: Sep 15 2011
- Human: Yes
- Location: X:913 Y:185
Re: So, why do we need selective unit trade
Debating on SUT always felt like beating a dead horse...*(proverb somewhere)
"If everyone is thinking alike, someone isn't thinking."
- General George Patton Jr
- General George Patton Jr
-
- General
- Posts: 2548
- Joined: Dec 08 2007
- Location: Tipton, UK
Re: So, why do we need selective unit trade
I believe its "The dog will bark, but the caravan will keep moving on".number47 wrote:Debating on SUT always felt like beating a dead horse...*(proverb somewhere)
My SR:U Model Project, get the latest and post suggestions here:
http://www.bgforums.com/forums/viewtopi ... 79&t=28040
http://www.bgforums.com/forums/viewtopi ... 79&t=28040
- number47
- General
- Posts: 2655
- Joined: Sep 15 2011
- Human: Yes
- Location: X:913 Y:185
Re: So, why do we need selective unit trade
Nope, but that one applies alsoSGTscuba wrote:I believe its "The dog will bark, but the caravan will keep moving on".number47 wrote:Debating on SUT always felt like beating a dead horse...*(proverb somewhere)
"If everyone is thinking alike, someone isn't thinking."
- General George Patton Jr
- General George Patton Jr
- Zuikaku
- General
- Posts: 2394
- Joined: Feb 10 2012
- Human: Yes
Re: So, why do we need selective unit trade
Well, silence from BGs is answer to whole SUT issue....number47 wrote:Debating on SUT always felt like beating a dead horse...*(proverb somewhere)
But that is not the reason to once more conclude that their decision is wrong. weapon trade is not a lottery!
Please teach AI everything!
- Balthagor
- Supreme Ruler
- Posts: 22099
- Joined: Jun 04 2002
- Human: Yes
- Location: BattleGoat Studios
Re: So, why do we need selective unit trade
... we are kinda busy this week, don't expect many responses on anything...
- Zuikaku
- General
- Posts: 2394
- Joined: Feb 10 2012
- Human: Yes
Re: So, why do we need selective unit trade
So, what can we do to put SUT on the "development roadmap" ??
Please teach AI everything!
- Balthagor
- Supreme Ruler
- Posts: 22099
- Joined: Jun 04 2002
- Human: Yes
- Location: BattleGoat Studios
Re: So, why do we need selective unit trade
It's already on the wishlist, but we lose about the next 10 days to marketing and administrative paperwork. Things that get neglected in the push to reach release.