And that's the disconnect I think, because I wasn't parsing the current weapon stats and refinements in that way, the opposite is closer to the truth currently.Vezzra wrote: Please consider we're not talking about a rather minor enhancement here, we're talking about a considerable jump in available firepower. One of our design goals concerning techs and research is that we do not want to have a lot of cheap, minor improvements when researching new techs, but make techs more expensive and have them provide a significant improvement instead. Meaning, if you research a weapon refinement, you're supposed to get a significantly improved weapon.
To research Laser 1, it's 60 RP and 8 turns, whereas Laser 2 is only 40 RP and 2 turns, generally your research output is improving substantially at this point. Yes, laser 3 is more, at 60 and 2 turns, but given it's equivalent to Plasma1, which is 300 and 8 turns, the costs don't really compare. Plasma1 and Laser3 are as strong as each other, but L3 is cheaper to produce and takes less time, to get to it after L1 you need 100 RP and 4 turns.
Even Death Rays, which are the most expensive refinements, only double at the highest end, from 15 to 30 base damage, but the costs for DR4 is massive (then, at the stage you're researching it it doesn't seem expensive).
Currently, therefore, refinements are the exact opposite of what you'r ethinking of, and I'm thinking entirely about balance within the game as is, you're thinking more about what we want it to be.
Ergo, if we introduce refinements in this way, it would with the current stats not be at all problematic as the improvements are cheap and relatively minor, but it could be problematic if we make the refinements more powerful.
However, I'd say that introducing this mechanic would give a much greater scope for refinement techs and make their potential as an interesting research point on their own much better.
You would absolutely be right if refinement techs were massively more powerful and they could come into force while in enemy territory, I didn't have an objection to the latter happening because, in the current game, the former isn't true.
I now understand your objection and, for the most part, agree with it, but I think like you said the discussion has moved on in a way I like the idea of & that, I think, reduces your concerns and opens up a whole new load of potential for different refinements and similar in a way that, if it works, wouldn't be unbalanced.