I can't imagine why anyone would be against automating this.
There are no interesting decisions here. Either your LP allocation is optimal, or it is suboptimal.
Can someone please fill me in on what options traffic-sign micromanagement added to the game and why I would want to choose between these options?
A game should not reward un-fun busy work. It should automate away all the uninteresting choices leaving only the ones where there are trade-offs between the options and no obvious "correct" choice.
I love the logistic changes, but I can see where people are coming from. For example if Vic caves into people complaining about the logistics well where does it end? What other game systems are going to be potentially "dumbed" down for the unwashed steam masses?
I think these fears are unwarranted but you can see it goes.
ORIGINAL: GodwinW
Just going to say it didn't require constant fiddling and fine-tuning at all (what I call 'constant fiddling and fine-tuning' anyway) once you kept a few things in mind. I'm happy for you that you get a better experience, and I hope Vic will keep supporting the old system.
I've seen the "it's not that bad" argument come up a few times, and I have to admit, I find it pretty irritating to have folks try to somehow argue me or others out of not being annoyed at something that I find deeply annoying. It may not be that bad FOR YOU. It IS that bad for me. There's no objective amount of clicks after which point we can all nod and agree "Yes, that is too many clicks." It may be that my tolerance for such is lower than yours - it may be that I'm in some way playing the game inefficiently - it may be that YOU are in some way playing the game inefficiently - it may be that your PC is better than mine and doesn't take so long to calculate next-turn logistics previews - who can say? But it is my experience. Who am I to gainsay the fun you find in dealing with such details? In turn, who are you to gainsay the irritation I find in doing the same?
Frankly, given the amount of people who are annoyed by it, even if the problem IS somehow that they're playing the game wrong it's a common enough problem that clearly design-wise the game encourages "playing the game wrong," and that's a problem that can't be solved by arguing players into playing the game "right" because not everyone is going to go to the forums and get educated.
I think there's some confusion of terms going on here. Everyone agrees that logistics is important and should be modeled, but I feel like there's some unstated differences over what, exactly, logistics actually IS and should be in gameplay terms.
For those who welcome the new pull system, logistics means establishing logistical routes and bases, ensuring that infrastructure keeps up with logistical requirements in whichever direction is deemed vital for an offensive push, defending your logistical links from enemy action and acting to cut the enemy's own links where possible. In other words, logistics is mostly about setting up the infrastructure, with meaningful gameplay decisions coming in terms of where and when to establish that infrastructure, and how to protect it - that's the stuff that really matters to them, and to them the pull system doesn't affect what's important, and in fact makes it easier to focus on what matters.
Those who are opposed to the new system, on the other hand, seem to define logistics more broadly - it's not just establishing the infrastructure, but actively managing the daily traffic flow of logistics that constitutes logistics and logistical gameplay. For them, traffic management is so integral to their concept of gameplay that the automation of such would be like having a FPS server where everyone uses aimbots - there are still decisions and tactics to be made, but the heart of the gameplay has been removed for them.
It's not really a case of one side or another wanting the "better" game per se, it's just a case of different priorities that's been tangled up in argument since the word "logistics" is used to define two different concepts. "I want to do this thing you find boring" vs "I don't want to do this thing you find interesting" is what it boils down to. Frankly, both sides are free to want what they want - trying to find a compromise between that is Vic's headache as a game designer. If that compromise happens to displease someone - well, that's practically inevitable for anyone designing a game that appeals on as many layers as Shadow Empire does.
As an aside, can I just say that folks here seem to have some really skewed views about Steam? We're not all unwashed barbarians who scream in primal monkey rage every time more than four numbers come up on the screen, you know. Just take a look at the reviews for Decisive Campaigns: Barbarossa - the vast majority of front page reviews are positive and praise its depth, with the one negative review complaining that the Soviet campaign wasn't as in-depth as the German campaign. Steam generally tries to recommend games based on what you already have and enjoy, and folks who come across Shadow Empire are mostly going to be fans of other complex strategy games including other grog games, of which there are many on Steam these days. Sure, folks are more likely to hold the game up to wider industry standards of UI design and such, but extra diversity of thoughts and experience is hardly the worst thing for a designer to take on board.
Besides, looking down on Steam gamers for being somehow intellectually inferior is kinda hilarious given that Steam gamers tend to bemoan PC games getting "dumbed down" for console kiddies, while Playstation and Xbox fans are united in their contempt for childlike Nintendo fans, while everybody turns their noses up at mobile casual gamers, and on and on it goes. Let's not think grogs are immune either - I guarantee there's chess players out there who sniff about how no video game can ever capture the elegance of strategy in chess, while Go players chortle about the need for representational pieces instead of pure, abstract strategy, and so it goes, same as it ever was, tale as old as time.
Very good post. One thing I will add is that this game is unique or almost unique in modeling what you called "actively managing the daily traffic flow of logistics." That part really attracted me and a good many other people, and we would hate to lose that since the game stands alone or nearly alone in modeling that. I understand, however, why many people might not want to manage that way, so I argued from the moment the great logistics controversy first came up for an "easy" and "hard" logistics model, which seems to be what Vic is doing, though the new system is apparently only easy in comparison with the old system. (Note I don't play the betas, so I am just writing based on what I've read here.)
But I continue to get weary of the people who keep posting saying the old (or current 1.04) system required constant micromanagement. It mystifies me what those people were doing, except it appears they were taking something they didn't like to begin with and making themselves miserable by overthinking it. I envision them with calculators and scraps of paper jotting pages of numbers as they play. As I've stated and others have stated, eyeball the bottleneck overlay, make some adjustments where needed, build capacity, block roads to nowhere. And really that's needed only periodically, usually only when advancing on the offensive. I really never found that to be too hard or time consuming at all. In fact I think I spend more time looking at stratagem cards than managing the logistics. And though I know some found it tedious, others like me did not.
As for Steam, I am active on Steam and play a wide variety of games from Steam. I am quite familiar with the trolls and the "THIS GAME IS BROKEN BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE THIS ONE THING" crowd. This game isn't even on Steam yet, but there is already a rather busy discussion forum, unusually busy for a game that won't arrive for a few months apparently. And as for whether the game will attract the attention of the very real Steam bad boys or just the one attracted to complex games, this is not a WWII game. It is a 4x game set in space in the distant future. It will attract more than the DC Barbarossa folks.
But back to you post, Tomn, excellent and thoughtful post.
ORIGINAL: GodwinW
Just going to say it didn't require constant fiddling and fine-tuning at all (what I call 'constant fiddling and fine-tuning' anyway) once you kept a few things in mind. I'm happy for you that you get a better experience, and I hope Vic will keep supporting the old system.
I've seen the "it's not that bad" argument come up a few times, and I have to admit, I find it pretty irritating to have folks try to someone how argue me or others out of not being annoyed at something that I find deeply annoying. It may not be that bad FOR YOU. It IS that bad for me. There's no objective amount of clicks after which point we can all nod and agree "Yes, that is too many clicks." It may be that my tolerance for such is lower than yours - it may be that I'm in some way playing the game inefficiently - it may be that YOU are in some way playing the game inefficiently - it may be that your PC is better than mine and doesn't take so long to calculate next-turn logistics previews - who can say? But it is my experience. Who am I to gainsay the fun you find in dealing with such details? In turn, who are you to gainsay the irritation I find in doing the same?
Frankly, given the amount of people who are annoyed by it, even if the problem IS somehow that they're playing the game wrong it's a common enough problem that clearly design-wise the game encourages "playing the game wrong," and that's a problem that can't be solved by arguing players into playing the game "right" because not everyone is going to go to the forums and get educated.
And now you go from thoughtful to not thoughtful. Don't tell me what I should be annoyed about either. And your final argument is actually in favor of dumbing the game down. SE is a complex game even if the logistics system wasn't so complex. We have the slippery slope where. What gets simplified next to satisfy the gamers who find something else too hard?
ORIGINAL: jwarrenw13
And now you go from thoughtful to not thoughtful. Don't tell me what I should be annoyed about either. And your final argument is actually in favor of dumbing the game down. SE is a complex game even if the logistics system wasn't so complex. We have the slippery slope where. What gets simplified next to satisfy the gamers who find something else too hard?
ORIGINAL: Tomn
Who am I to gainsay the fun you find in dealing with such details? In turn, who are you to gainsay the irritation I find in doing the same?
Yeah, I ain't knocking that you enjoy this. But I AM pointing out that if a lot of people are annoyed by this, then it's probably because they genuinely find it annoying for whatever reason, and telling them that they shouldn't is going to rub them the wrong way. And I hate to repeat myself, but if repetition is necessary, yes, the same applies to those who DO like the system as well. Can't we just accept that people have different subjective tastes and tolerances and that it's not necessary to invalidate someone else's experiences because they don't match up with yours?
And the final bit of my argument actually isn't an argument for "dumbing things down," believe it or not. The fact is, gameplay design encourages certain behaviors and actions, and if certain unwanted behaviors keep happening that's an issue of design - and can be fixed by design.
Let's give a quick example. There's a LOT of support for that one game Suggestion to "please add a confirmation button to the "clear all traffic signs" button." Why is that happening? Because a lot of people are accidentally clicking the "clear all traffic signs" button! Why is THAT happening? Because it's placed in a fairly prominent position in the interface without a possibility of tracking back from that position. Is the problem simply that players should be more careful about where they click? No, it's an issue of design - you can either add a confirmation dialogue to the button, or place it somewhere less prominent, or both. Problem now mostly solved, without having made the game "dumber," such as by removing the button altogether.
Game and interface design can - and should - guide the player towards desired solutions and strategies, and this CAN be accomplished without somehow making the game less intelligent or thoughtful. It CAN'T be accomplished by scolding players into being better.
For those who welcome the new pull system, logistics means establishing logistical routes and bases, ensuring that infrastructure keeps up with logistical requirements in whichever direction is deemed vital for an offensive push, defending your logistical links from enemy action and acting to cut the enemy's own links where possible. In other words, logistics is mostly about setting up the infrastructure, with meaningful gameplay decisions coming in terms of where and when to establish that infrastructure, and how to protect it - that's the stuff that really matters to them, and to them the pull system doesn't affect what's important, and in fact makes it easier to focus on what matters.
[X(]
Or instead this wall of false assumptions, they're just players trying to min-max their logistic as logistic is very important part of game.
This is seems to be a breakpoint here - some players are tried to min-max and get very annoyed by it (have you ever tried to play in Stellaris with vanila genetic ascension slaver race or control each scout ship manually in DW:U?), while some players are not bother it and just playing the game in a relaxed way.
This is a best example:
ORIGINAL: Tomn
Those who are opposed to the new system, on the other hand, seem to define logistics more broadly - it's not just establishing the infrastructure, but actively managing the daily traffic flow of logistics that constitutes logistics and logistical gameplay. For them
=/
Assets don't have a build-in storage and have limited capabilities for workers. So every excess logistic point went into tiny road branch with a single mine/well/farm/etc is completely wasted. Then add AI free roads and crazy mess that remains after conquering their land... Sure, you have an another option - 5 IP per a hex. Hell. Shadow Empire is a first game that tax me for AI stupidity. [:D]
As you do not care about it obviously you're himself playing for a story, without min-maxing (either to satisfy own perfectionism or play challenging games).
I really like Vic decision even if it will add a lot of work in bug-fixing (as we technically get two versions of logistic system in same game - inevitable it will lead to bugs), as IMHO micro-management in strategic games shouldn't be only option to play efficiently.
ORIGINAL: demiare
As you do not care about it obviously you're himself playing for a story, without min-maxing (either to satisfy own perfectionism or play challenging games).
Complexity does not always mean fun. Someone above got it right, either your network is optimal or suboptimal. The problem is the computer will always be running, effectively, optimal. So unless you invest your time heavily on the logistics side, you are hamstrung by the old system. This is just like BP allocations and the soft caps. Unless you look at each org and task, do some math, you won’t know that you are hitting soft cap until next turn. Any choices that can be reduced to optimal / suboptimal are not choices, they are chores. Some folks like chores, but in a game, I find it particularly annoying to do chores to have fun.
A game (...) should automate away all the uninteresting choices leaving only the ones where there are trade-offs between the options and no obvious "correct" choice.
Disagree. Only having trade-offs is tiring and uninspired. Something it's nice to get a break and only get positive results from choices. And sometimes you have to have correct choices, even obvious ones, as there should be an obvious way to lose the game.
ORIGINAL: GodwinW
Just going to say it didn't require constant fiddling and fine-tuning at all (what I call 'constant fiddling and fine-tuning' anyway) once you kept a few things in mind. I'm happy for you that you get a better experience, and I hope Vic will keep supporting the old system.
I've seen the "it's not that bad" argument come up a few times, and I have to admit, I find it pretty irritating to have folks try to somehow argue me or others out of not being annoyed at something that I find deeply annoying. It may not be that bad FOR YOU. It IS that bad for me.
That's why I said "what I call 'constant fiddling and fine-tuning' anyway"! Because FOR ME you totally used words that do not describe the experience. You said "I had real trouble considering it worth the aggravation of constant fiddling and fine-tuning.". So all I am saying is that for me it's not constant fiddling and fine-tuning.
You had such a good post, so please continue understanding that different people just see things differently. That shouldn't be a problem. I put that "what I call.." part in there explicitly to make clear that I know it's my opinion of it all. So I am NOT telling you how to feel. At all. Just nuancing your point which sounded to me as if you told me I like to constantly fiddle with it. And I don't do that and I wouldn't like to do that even.
Tbh, I think you're mostly reacting to other posts than mine in which they made other points than I did.
That's why I said "what I call 'constant fiddling and fine-tuning' anyway"! Because FOR ME you totally used words that do not describe the experience. You said "I had real trouble considering it worth the aggravation of constant fiddling and fine-tuning.". So all I am saying is that for me it's not constant fiddling and fine-tuning.
You had such a good post, so please continue understanding that different people just see things differently. That shouldn't be a problem. I put that "what I call.." part in there explicitly to make clear that I know it's my opinion of it all. So I am NOT telling you how to feel. At all. Just nuancing your point which sounded to me as if you told me I like to constantly fiddle with it. And I don't do that and I wouldn't like to do that even.
Tbh, I think you're mostly reacting to other posts than mine in which they made other points than I did.
Yeah, and when I said "my personal view on the matter" it was intended to be just that - my personal experience, without implying anything for anyone else. Sounds like it's mostly a matter of touchy semantics in a heated debate, and I'm happy to let it drop.
I am still just perplexed by the idea that the 1.04 logistics system requires constant micromanagement. It does not, unless you choose to do so. I've never once looked at the numbers in the logistics system. I've just added capacity and blocked roads to nowhere after looking at the bottleneck overlay. Period. Now that requires some attention to detail, and I enjoy that, but it doesn't require micromanagement. I think some people went down a rabbit hole and decided that the system required this intense turn by turn micromanagement. In my experience I am enjoying the 1.04 system without that much micromanagement, and with no more management than I put into any other part of the game. As I stated earlier, I spend more time looking at stratagem cards than logistics. I review those every turn, logistics every few turns. In fact there is such a wealth of detail included in the game, most of which I don't even look at, that one could go heavy into detail on many different elements of the game.
Having said all that, again, if so many are so intensely upset by the 1.04 log system, then Vic is doing a good thing to put in an easier system. And easier must be the right word, since it apparently won't require the elusive micromanagement so many oppose. And I will give the new system a try when it comes out, and if I like it I will unapologetically switch to it. Just glad I will have the option to keep the current one.
This system essentially automates one of the game's more interesting features, ...
I think this is the big misunderstanding. It doesn't automate any interesting part of the logistics system. It automates the brainless parts, specifically the following:
- That your assets receive enough logistics points, so that they can actually do the job that you wanted them to do
- Ensure that your units and cities are not starving, when you have enough logistics to supply them, but they are getting wasted by being sent into no man's land
The logistics system is still there. The same amount of decisionmaking is present with the pull system as there was before it.
What the old traffic sign management really was is some sort of math puzzle minigame. You are given point number X and target number Y and you have to use multiple preset percentage blockers to get the right numbers on the tiles where you wanted them to be. There is a correct solution, which is why I call it a puzzle, but I wouldn't really think of it as a good puzzle either. It was mainly about clicking buttons until the logistics did what they were supposed to be doing. In my opinion, this should have never been delegated to the player in the first place. To me this very clearly seems like a task that is intended for the computer to calculate for you. Just like with all the other calculations that the computer does while running the game.
My kinda silly example is that if the game for some reason now and then tasked the player to do graphics rendering calculations manually, there would certainly still be some math fans out there who would like to solve these math problems, but the issue is that there is no actual decision being made by the player in that situation, because it would just be about working towards the one correct solution, and you kinda expect a strategy game to be about making decisions, not solving math puzzle minigames, so it makes sense for your GPU to do these calculations for you. And just because the computer is doing this for you, it still doesn't mean that the game would be playing itself. No one would ever think that a game is playing itself, just because the player doesn't have to somehow manually render the graphics or do whatever other calculations. That is exactly how I feel about automating the logistics delivery to assets, etc.
... and leaving the original system in there creates even more confusion: why bother with the traffic light system when it's more efficient not to use it? Well, one argument might be that the original system was fun to use. Now if you want to keep up in a multiplayer game, everybody will be forced to the pull system, meaning that we're left with what is essentially an automated system (with some small tweaking).
Traffic signs still have a use. You use them to make the one decision that you used them for even in the old system. To decide into what directions your leftover logistics points should be sent, so that you can use them for strategic move and raising troops.
This is a rather unsatisfactory "fix" for an issue that didn't exist in the first place as far as I'm concerned. Very disappointing.
I really can't disagree more. I think it's a pretty much perfect fix for what used to be my only gripe with the game. I was quited stoked when I saw it.
People new to the game will judge it as it comes for sure, but I can't help feel this decision was made to pacify a rather loud minority of players who made some rather hyperbolic claims about the traffic management system as it was, and likely as a defence against the inevitable (and frankly unavoidable) stream of criticism from Steam users when the game hits that platform.
I mean, and I can't help, but feel that the people in favour of the traffic light system are the loud minority who make the hyperbolic claims. At least in my eyes, this is an objectively good addition to the game and saying that this somehow ruins the spirit of the game in some way sounds hyperbolic to me.
It's really too bad that the poll on Vic's blog didn't mention the logistics system, because I would have liked to see the voting percentage. I'm pretty sure that the traffic light system is the thing that I've seen the most complaints about, at least of the people who started playing the game.
Well once you get airforce and navy managing logistics manually turn 200 gonna be a pain or very time consuming. It's like Amazon you will ask to automate for most people.
@Destragon saying this is like making the player do graphics rendering calculations is utter nonsense. By the same argument why bother with manual placement of your troops when you're mainly just clicking buttons until the military does what it's supposed to be doing?
Because troop placement is an actual strategic decision, while preventing LPs from going to nowhere land is just mindless clicking.
OK, I was hoping to avoid this, but what the hell, let's do this - but I'll be honest, my last game was just before the 1.03 beta that introduced branching AP costs. 11 or something?
So let's start with something simple: Near your front, your forces are being supplied by a railhead with rail connection and a truck station in the same hex, along a straight road with one branch leading to the front, and another branch leading to your SHQ. Now place a 100% (or 95%, if you like) in your logistical hub hex leading back to the SHQ.
Boom. You just doubled the logistical capacity available to your front, because your railhead is still shipping in enough supplies via rail to supply the hex with the truck station itself, but the truck station is now passing on its entire output to the front rather than splitting half and half between the front and the useless road leading home. You can now field double the army you could before at no additional cost.
Now you're pushing into enemy territory, and capture a set of road junctions, one area moving down to a less important front, the other leading to their capital. Obviously you want fewer troops down the less important front so you want fewer supplies, so you tune the traffic signs appropriately, popping in and out of preview mode to ensure that you're not starving units on either front while delivering maximum supplies to the important front. Cool!
And now your light armor and mechanized has come online and you're making big slashing attacks, cutting off great big pockets of the enemy and severing their supply lines. Ah, but the AI can build roads for free and negate that, you say? Yes indeed - but even though they can build roads THIS turn, they don't come online until the NEXT turn which means the units are still cut off, and if you sever the new roads you can KEEP those units cut off, starving them out and making them that much easier to kill - that's how I starved out a GR heavy tank so badly that it lost a battle against a unit of militia. The price, however, is that you inherit an insane mess of road spaghetti that specifically exists because the AI was furiously trying to negate your successful flanking maneuvers, and THAT means traffic signs aplenty if you don't want your supplies to be completely dispersed into uselessness.
"But wait!" you say, "You can destroy roads, can't you? Why not simply do that?" Sure - for a cost in IC. A minimal cost, maybe, but still a real, genuine in-game cost that could be devoted instead to raising new troops, preparing new reinforcements, or investing in your actual economy, making you stronger and stronger and better able to win the war. And while the cost per road may be low, it adds up over time when you're striking down every bit of desperate lunacy the AI creates. Meanwhile, the cost of setting up traffic signs costs nothing but the player's personal time and attention - costly enough in real life, but free in-game. As someone else mentioned earlier, the ability to destroy roads becomes a player tax, where either you accept a weaker empire relative to what you could have, or spend a lot of time and effort pruning out branches with traffic signs.
Meanwhile while all this is happening you're capturing enemy assets, branches which now require some degree of logistics to make use of so that they become productive for your empire, but every logistical point devoted to an asset branch is a logistical point not spent keeping your forces in the field supplied, so you want to carefully prune those branches with traffic signs to ensure that a minimum gets through while reserving most of your stuff for your offensive. If you don't do this, you either starve and stall out your offensive, or extract fewer material benefits from your conquest. Not ideal!
The upshot of all this? A player who DOES do all this in detail can sustain a lightning-fast, highly effective offensive for a fraction of the time and cost it would take to upgrade logistical bases to overcome inefficiencies through raw capacity instead. That brings snowballing benefits - hitting the enemy faster without pausing for logistical upgrades means they have less time to react, less time to recover, and less ability to mount an effective counteroffensive, which means you take fewer losses on the offensive overall which means you can devote even more resources to strengthening yourself which makes it even easier to break through their lines and of course breaking through their lines means you're sapping resources from them which further weakens them and on and on it goes until they shatter entirely. And make no mistake, you can sustain an offensive remarkably far on a L1/2 truck station if you channel it correctly. Micromanaging your logistics allows you to support larger, faster offensives further from your logistical bases at a cheaper price - the ONLY real cost is the time and effort it takes to do so. Does it not make sense to do so?
Now, could you overcome the AI without using such tricks? Yeah, almost certainly. But that does mean that every war you fight will be slower, more expensive, and less effective than it could be, and when you add up the cumulative effect of multiple wars that adds up over time to put you in a worse position overall. And in a real sense, that's what it all comes out to - the individual effect of most traffic sign micromanagement is relatively small, but the cumulative effect over time becomes a major advantage, and to do without when you KNOW you can take advantage of it is to fight with one hand tied behind your back. And let's not even talk about multiplayer - someone who doesn't use these tricks is going to have a real hard time against someone who does, all else being equal.
That's part of why I can understand and sympathize with those who like fiddling with such logistics. Because it actually does make a significant, measurable impact on the game! You can put in a whole lot of work, and get a big, tangible reward out of it! If you put in the effort, you can make a logistical system run red hot to sustain an attack at the very edges of your supply capacity, every muscle straining to deliver the decisive blow at the edge of the spear, the extra work, planning, and sometimes knowledge translating into victory! Conversely, with a largely automated system everyone has that advantage, which means effectively nobody has that advantage - it's a level playing field, and the difference that extra work, planning, and knowledge makes in that specific regard is much smaller.
But the thing is, for me? All those rewards still come at a big, big cost in tedium. I dislike having to spend that much time and energy on the business, but I also dislike leaving that much money on the table. It's a situation in which I'm left with no good choices - either I grit my teeth and spend the time, or I grit my teeth and accept the weakness. Neither is particularly appealing and that, ultimately, is why I welcome the new change - because even if for me something is lost, I'm no longer trapped between two fires.
Edit: And of course this isn't including optimization in the peacetime empire which again allows you to do more with less. There is a LOT of room for tuning to reduce your need to upgrade logistics - and remember, every pop not working in an overbuilt logistical building is a pop that can be used to more directly contribute to your economy through mining, factory work, etc. etc.
I think there's some confusion of terms going on here. Everyone agrees that logistics is important and should be modeled, but I feel like there's some unstated differences over what, exactly, logistics actually IS and should be in gameplay terms.
For those who welcome the new pull system, logistics means establishing logistical routes and bases, ensuring that infrastructure keeps up with logistical requirements in whichever direction is deemed vital for an offensive push, defending your logistical links from enemy action and acting to cut the enemy's own links where possible. In other words, logistics is mostly about setting up the infrastructure, with meaningful gameplay decisions coming in terms of where and when to establish that infrastructure, and how to protect it - that's the stuff that really matters to them, and to them the pull system doesn't affect what's important, and in fact makes it easier to focus on what matters.
Those who are opposed to the new system, on the other hand, seem to define logistics more broadly - it's not just establishing the infrastructure, but actively managing the daily traffic flow of logistics that constitutes logistics and logistical gameplay. For them, traffic management is so integral to their concept of gameplay that the automation of such would be like having a FPS server where everyone uses aimbots - there are still decisions and tactics to be made, but the heart of the gameplay has been removed for them.
It's not really a case of one side or another wanting the "better" game per se, it's just a case of different priorities that's been tangled up in argument since the word "logistics" is used to define two different concepts. "I want to do this thing you find boring" vs "I don't want to do this thing you find interesting" is what it boils down to. Frankly, both sides are free to want what they want - trying to find a compromise between that is Vic's headache as a game designer. If that compromise happens to displease someone - well, that's practically inevitable for anyone designing a game that appeals on as many layers as Shadow Empire does.
As an aside, can I just say that folks here seem to have some really skewed views about Steam? We're not all unwashed barbarians who scream in primal monkey rage every time more than four numbers come up on the screen, you know. Just take a look at the reviews for Decisive Campaigns: Barbarossa - the vast majority of front page reviews are positive and praise its depth, with the one negative review complaining that the Soviet campaign wasn't as in-depth as the German campaign. Steam generally tries to recommend games based on what you already have and enjoy, and folks who come across Shadow Empire are mostly going to be fans of other complex strategy games including other grog games, of which there are many on Steam these days. Sure, folks are more likely to hold the game up to wider industry standards of UI design and such, but extra diversity of thoughts and experience is hardly the worst thing for a designer to take on board.
Besides, looking down on Steam gamers for being somehow intellectually inferior is kinda hilarious given that Steam gamers tend to bemoan PC games getting "dumbed down" for console kiddies, while Playstation and Xbox fans are united in their contempt for childlike Nintendo fans, while everybody turns their noses up at mobile casual gamers, and on and on it goes. Let's not think grogs are immune either - I guarantee there's chess players out there who sniff about how no video game can ever capture the elegance of strategy in chess, while Go players chortle about the need for representational pieces instead of pure, abstract strategy, and so it goes, same as it ever was, tale as old as time.
Very good post. One thing I will add is that this game is unique or almost unique in modeling what you called "actively managing the daily traffic flow of logistics." That part really attracted me and a good many other people, and we would hate to lose that since the game stands alone or nearly alone in modeling that. I understand, however, why many people might not want to manage that way, so I argued from the moment the great logistics controversy first came up for an "easy" and "hard" logistics model, which seems to be what Vic is doing, though the new system is apparently only easy in comparison with the old system. (Note I don't play the betas, so I am just writing based on what I've read here.)
But I continue to get weary of the people who keep posting saying the old (or current 1.04) system required constant micromanagement. It mystifies me what those people were doing, except it appears they were taking something they didn't like to begin with and making themselves miserable by overthinking it. I envision them with calculators and scraps of paper jotting pages of numbers as they play. As I've stated and others have stated, eyeball the bottleneck overlay, make some adjustments where needed, build capacity, block roads to nowhere. And really that's needed only periodically, usually only when advancing on the offensive. I really never found that to be too hard or time consuming at all. In fact I think I spend more time looking at stratagem cards than managing the logistics. And though I know some found it tedious, others like me did not.
As for Steam, I am active on Steam and play a wide variety of games from Steam. I am quite familiar with the trolls and the "THIS GAME IS BROKEN BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE THIS ONE THING" crowd. This game isn't even on Steam yet, but there is already a rather busy discussion forum, unusually busy for a game that won't arrive for a few months apparently. And as for whether the game will attract the attention of the very real Steam bad boys or just the one attracted to complex games, this is not a WWII game. It is a 4x game set in space in the distant future. It will attract more than the DC Barbarossa folks.
But back to you post, Tomn, excellent and thoughtful post.
Totally agree, I'm in no way burdened by it and on the contrary, kind of fascinated by it. Not claiming I understand it yet. Nevertheless, I'm a person who has such a vast experience in strategy games, I find intricate and deep system very compelling. It's an addiction I guess, need stronger stuff.
> What is the hardest thing in the universe?
> A diamond?
> No. 500 machine gun men on a mountain.
ORIGINAL: jwarrenw13
And now you go from thoughtful to not thoughtful. Don't tell me what I should be annoyed about either. And your final argument is actually in favor of dumbing the game down. SE is a complex game even if the logistics system wasn't so complex. We have the slippery slope where. What gets simplified next to satisfy the gamers who find something else too hard?
ORIGINAL: Tomn
Who am I to gainsay the fun you find in dealing with such details? In turn, who are you to gainsay the irritation I find in doing the same?
Yeah, I ain't knocking that you enjoy this. But I AM pointing out that if a lot of people are annoyed by this, then it's probably because they genuinely find it annoying for whatever reason, and telling them that they shouldn't is going to rub them the wrong way. And I hate to repeat myself, but if repetition is necessary, yes, the same applies to those who DO like the system as well. Can't we just accept that people have different subjective tastes and tolerances and that it's not necessary to invalidate someone else's experiences because they don't match up with yours?
Your logic also implies, that because a significant number are NOT annoyed by it, there is actually nothing wrong.
> What is the hardest thing in the universe?
> A diamond?
> No. 500 machine gun men on a mountain.
Meanwhile while all this is happening you're capturing enemy assets, branches which now require some degree of logistics to make use of so that they become productive for your empire, but every logistical point devoted to an asset branch is a logistical point not spent keeping your forces in the field supplied, so you want to carefully prune those branches with traffic signs to ensure that a minimum gets through while reserving most of your stuff for your offensive. If you don't do this, you either starve and stall out your offensive, or extract fewer material benefits from your conquest. Not ideal!
The upshot of all this? A player who DOES do all this in detail can sustain a lightning-fast, highly effective offensive for a fraction of the time and cost it would take to upgrade logistical bases to overcome inefficiencies through raw capacity instead. That brings snowballing benefits - hitting the enemy faster without pausing for logistical upgrades means they have less time to react, less time to recover, and less ability to mount an effective counteroffensive, which means you take fewer losses on the offensive overall which means you can devote even more resources to strengthening yourself which makes it even easier to break through their lines and of course breaking through their lines means you're sapping resources from them which further weakens them and on and on it goes until they shatter entirely. And make no mistake, you can sustain an offensive remarkably far on a L1/2 truck station if you channel it correctly. Micromanaging your logistics allows you to support larger, faster offensives further from your logistical bases at a cheaper price - the ONLY real cost is the time and effort it takes to do so. Does it not make sense to do so?
Now, could you overcome the AI without using such tricks? Yeah, almost certainly. But that does mean that every war you fight will be slower, more expensive, and less effective than it could be, and when you add up the cumulative effect of multiple wars that adds up over time to put you in a worse position overall. And in a real sense, that's what it all comes out to - the individual effect of most traffic sign micromanagement is relatively small, but the cumulative effect over time becomes a major advantage, and to do without when you KNOW you can take advantage of it is to fight with one hand tied behind your back. And let's not even talk about multiplayer - someone who doesn't use these tricks is going to have a real hard time against someone who does, all else being equal.
Obviously you understand at all what happens in war IRL. Why didn't Germany just automate their logistics in their Russian campaign .. The logistics system that YOU manage gives you the feeling that YOU made that. Just like it would happen in real life. You mess up? It is your fault. You succeed? You can be happy and get a feeling of accomplishment. It's is why games are played. I will say again, there are tens if not hundreds of easier strategy games out there, try them out! Some of them are excellent.
> What is the hardest thing in the universe?
> A diamond?
> No. 500 machine gun men on a mountain.
ORIGINAL: Sieppo
Your logic also implies, that because a significant number are NOT annoyed by it, there is actually nothing wrong.
Yeah, no it doesn't. If I like spicy food and can handle it hot, while even mild spiciness sends you lunging for a glass of water, that implies nothing about our moral worth or the moral worth of our tastes. You're not a lesser person because you can't handle spiciness, I'm not a better person because I can, and the fact that I can barely taste the kind of spiciness that sets you gasping doesn't mean it doesn't exist for you.
But we're still gonna have to decide where to go for lunch, and I can't hardly expect you to keep quiet when I announce we're off to "Volcano Thai: Nothin' But Spice!" The fact that I don't mind spice and in fact love the curry at Volcano Thai doesn't mean that you don't have a serious problem with that decision.
Of course, that doesn't NECESSARILY mean that we're obligated to eat at Bob's Bland Burgers, either, since I'd have a problem with that myself. But we're gonna need to go SOMEWHERE, and either figure out a compromise of some kind or accept that someone's going to be kinda unhappy.
Adding an optional pull system seems like a decent compromise to me, personally.
.. The logistics system that YOU manage gives you the feeling that YOU made that. Just like it would happen in real life. You mess up? It is your fault. You succeed? You can be happy and get a feeling of accomplishment. It's is why games are played. I will say again, there are tens if not hundreds of easier strategy games out there, try them out! Some of them are excellent.