robinh wrote:New complexity? I think it's a nice bonus for the player to find out that now he's also an expert in a few semi-products
..and that his competitors are now experts at all the rest. It's would be simply an attribute for all the games "people", not a reward of any kind. *shrug*
This will confuse the continuous effort to balance the Product Classes. It adds more complexity than it may appear, because of the completely unbalanced cross-product-line nature of sub-components. Arbitrarily assign on certain sub-expertises will probably lead to making the strong product lines stronger, which is unbalancing.
[Give to biggest user:] For example, if only Automobile got expertise in Steel (which is logical as that's what uses the most steel), then it would be a reward to Automobile which is one that has already been nerfed (as mentioned in a current thread).
[Give to lines that need the help:] For example, if we rather give expertise in Steel to Sports Equipment, where it's an attempt to make the Sport Equipment Line better, then it seems illogical and people will continually question that decision.
[Give to all product lines that use steel:] Steel is used in 10 Product classes [Automobile, Computer, Home Appliances, Leather Goods, Photography Products, Sports Equipment, Watch, Communication Devices, Electron Products, Toy] Should all 10 get expertise in steel? How that work out if we include all sub-components -- Computer will get 20 expertises and Leather Products 6? (Notably because leather is not a semi-product (Just ballpark guess, I'm not going to look up more right now.)
robinh wrote:Apparel: Dyestuff, Textiles
Automobile: Engine, Car Body, Wheels
Computer: CPU
Cosmetics: Wheet germ oil
Electronic Products: Electronic Components
Photography Products: CCD
You proposal so far is very sketchy. In a previous post why does Sports Equipment not get any new expertise but Automobile receives three? We need objective reasoning to realize a possible implementation, just saying "makes sense" doesn't work.
robinh wrote:Yes, the semi-products are shared. But it makes sense that a Photography Company (Canon, Nikon...) makes better CCDs than a Mobile phone producer (Apple, Samsung...) and has an edge in CCD research and development.
No, it doesn't make sense. They would only have an edge if #1 they produced their own in the first place, and secondly if they invested time in developing them, which is more like acquiring experience over time, which is very different than what you've suggested. (And this separate idea of experience is very close to the product tech level we already have.)
The second real example to pop into my head is Tires. (Sorry if American doesn't carry over...) You've directly implied that it makes sense for Chrysler to make better tires than a company that doesn't make cars. But Firestone, Goodyear, Michelin, and Interstate seem to argue against that. N.B., looking at the WP
list of tire manufactures I don't recognize that any make cars. The idea of sub-expertise is not very realistic. I considered whether it's usually the other way around that the leading producer of a sub-product of turns into a notable end-product producer (Film Producer Kodak ends up making cameras), but that is also not an indication of expertise. (Kodak cameras were never top of the line, afaik. I guess, (ironically?) they were a low-end leader because they couldn't compete with the best ones? lol)
Of course "it is sound business strategy to make better semi-products to use in your end products." But interpreting the results as a cause is not sound. [There's a philosophic fallacy about that, I forget the exact wording.]
If an auto maker happens to make excellent tires, it should be because it was the player's choice to adopt that sound gameplay strategy, and not because it was "carved in stone".
The fact that end-products typical do
not specialize in the sub-products leads to a more diverse playing field. IF there's a huge corporation making cars, I think it would be a pity to exclude the option for someone else to take a small piece of that pie by R&Ding the hell out of one of the components to sell to the huge company.
The current state of the game is already tilted too much to the end company -- The giant car manufacture has the greater profit that a tire-dedicate startup, to more easily afford focusing on Tire development in order to supress any Tire startups. We don't need to give them any further bonus to help monopolize his entire supply chain. The game were a dedicated tire manufacture is able to successfully ride the coattails of an Industry giant is far more exciting.
Have fun!
tldr:
If an auto maker happens to make excellent tires, it should be because it was the player's choice to adopt that sound gameplay strategy, not because it was "carved in stone". Let's give the competition a chance.
