Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Thoughts on the new "pull" system in logistics

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Shadow Empire >> RE: Thoughts on the new "pull" system in logistics Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4] 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Thoughts on the new "pull" system in logi... - 7/4/2020 11:37:52 PM   
Sieppo


Posts: 757
Joined: 12/15/2012
From: Helsinki, Finland
Status: offline
I've also played war in the Pacific extensively. There is nothing to compare to this there because everything is proper and mature (nothing like the supply system here but its basically only precise micromanagement and also considered the finest and most detailed war simulation ever. Its not like strategems happen irl.. ) but even so I actually like how things are done here. I hate the fact that the masses come and want something special become dumbed down. Because it is exactly that happens when you start automating things because many think it's too complicated or time demanding otherwise.

< Message edited by Sieppo -- 7/4/2020 11:42:42 PM >

(in reply to Sieppo)
Post #: 91
RE: Thoughts on the new "pull" system in logi... - 7/5/2020 1:06:47 AM   
KingHalford

 

Posts: 296
Joined: 8/18/2016
Status: offline
Ok so now we've this new opinion that people are spouting as fact: "The push based logistics system doesn't allow for meaningful decisions, it is a mere binary switch "optimal"/"not-optimal" setting that you have to manage and that's it".

This is utter rubbish. Consider the case where you're low on logistics points in a city, and need to decide whether to send your trucks to resupply frontier troops, or to get that new Asset up in a city in the opposite direction. That's a meaningful decision, and the automated system does not fix this, it just adds two systems to do the job the first one did just fine.

I can think of other cases where altering the flow of supply one way or another reflects a genuine tactical decision and I'm sure the rest of you can too. I reject this "fact" completely, and add it to my evidence that the original claims made about the traffic light system were hyperbolic, and that's me being charitable.

This kind of thing annoys me: there are several valid and reasonable reasons for demanding an automated system, including "I just don't like having to click on traffic light management buttons I find it boring", and that's fine. But can we stop making stuff up and then holding it up as fact please? It does nothing to help the development of the game.

< Message edited by KingHalford -- 7/5/2020 1:07:40 AM >


_____________________________

Ben "BATTLEMODE"
eXplorminate.co

(in reply to Sieppo)
Post #: 92
RE: Thoughts on the new "pull" system in logi... - 7/5/2020 2:22:58 AM   
76mm


Posts: 4165
Joined: 5/2/2004
From: Washington, DC
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Tomn
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.

I have to admit that the logistic systems still completely confuses me...for instance, I don't understand your statement above...if you have road and rail along the same route, and then a "road only" route to the front, why does that double capacity to the front, why isn't the road still sending half the capacity back to the SHQ? Did you delete the road along the rail route? AFAIK the traffic signs don't distinguish between road and rail traffic. I just don't get it...

(in reply to Tomn)
Post #: 93
RE: Thoughts on the new "pull" system in logi... - 7/5/2020 4:09:43 AM   
demiare

 

Posts: 470
Joined: 6/20/2020
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: KingHalford
This is utter rubbish. Consider the case where you're low on logistics points in a city, and need to decide whether to send your trucks to resupply frontier troops, or to get that new Asset up in a city in the opposite direction. That's a meaningful decision, and the automated system does not fix this, it just adds two systems to do the job the first one did just fine.


This is pure imaginary example as such situation is possible only if you're:
a) Lacking Truck Station / have it underleveled and don't want to build it in that city (why???).
b) Overextend zones and admin strain to extreme amount by trying to build something 20+ hexs away.

Both are very unwise moves that shouldn't be encountered in normal game. Else you have a typical situation of lacking logistic points and pull system will not going to change anything here.

(in reply to KingHalford)
Post #: 94
RE: Thoughts on the new "pull" system in logi... - 7/5/2020 5:47:04 AM   
Tomn

 

Posts: 137
Joined: 4/22/2013
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Sieppo

So I touched your feelings did I :D? You admit there is a point? To my earlier comment regarding logic I have to apologise, I think you mentioned also the point that the opposite is also true.

I really do not have the need to wage any internet wars with any people. These are just the thoughts I get with this issue. Like someone said, making things easier and automating them is a slippery slope. One I hope this game is not going to down to since I enjoy it immensely even at this point.


I'm trying to deescalate, boss. Trust me, "being insulting" isn't the same thing as "having a point" - if it were, the only thing you'd ever need to prove yourself correct is to call someone an idiot.

If anything, I was more concerned that you overlooked my points in favor of making your own.

quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm
I have to admit that the logistic systems still completely confuses me...for instance, I don't understand your statement above...if you have road and rail along the same route, and then a "road only" route to the front, why does that double capacity to the front, why isn't the road still sending half the capacity back to the SHQ? Did you delete the road along the rail route? AFAIK the traffic signs don't distinguish between road and rail traffic. I just don't get it...


Right, so here's the thing about traffic signs: They're one-way. If you block OUTGOING connections in one direction, you can still receive INCOMING from that same direction. The railhead in that scenario isn't producing train logistical points, it's merely establishing a connection so that your train station further up the line can push logistical points forwards the railhead. That gives you the incoming logistical capacity you need. Now if in the same hex as the truck station and the railhead you place a block moving back towards the SHQ, you're now channeling the whole of the truck station's logistics out towards the front, while still receiving logistical capacity from the rail coming in from the SHQ. Lemme see if I can diagram it.

(Train points from SHQ) -> (Railhead+Truck station) -> Front

There's the situation, a three hex map - one hex with rail and road leading up to your logistical base, one hex with the railhead and truck station, and one hex with road leading to the front. Now let's suppose for the sake of argument that the train station at the SHQ is pushing 1000 capacity to the railhead, and that the truck station produces 1000 capacity total. Without roadblocks, the logistical situation would look like this:

(1000 train points + 500 truck points) <--> (1000 train points + 1000 truck points) -> (500 truck points)

Because the truck station is splitting its capacity between both branches, right? But if we set up a traffic sign in the logistical hex towards the SHQ, we've forbidden the truck station from pushing points towards the SHQ while not denying incoming train capacity, so instead we get this:

(1000 train points) -> (1000 train points +1000 truck points) -> (1000 truck points)

Try it out for yourself - I've done it, and it works. It was a real revelation when I realized that traffic signs were one-way stops, not two-way - there's a number of funky little things you can pull off once you understand that, though mostly not quite as dramatic.

Edit: If you have a train station instead of a railhead, then yeah, the block will cause the entirety of the train station's produced logistical points to be wasted - but you'll still get the incoming logistical capacity from home. It's cheaper to set up a railhead for this scenario since you don't actually need the hex to produce train points, but it'll still work with a train station, just inefficiently. However, if you then set up a new rail line to a new rail head or station further down the front, the block will benefit the train station as well, again doubling capacity by forcing it to concentrate towards the front.

< Message edited by Tomn -- 7/5/2020 5:53:50 AM >

(in reply to Sieppo)
Post #: 95
RE: Thoughts on the new "pull" system in logi... - 7/5/2020 5:51:07 AM   
jwarrenw13

 

Posts: 1569
Joined: 8/12/2000
From: Monroe, LA, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: zgrssd

I seriously can not understand why people want to make a "Maze out of Traffic Signs".
How is that a interesting part of the game?
How is that a test of my skills as supreme Commander?

And do not even dare to compare commanding units in a wargame, with setting the traffic signs. I would have to starting being insulting to properly explain how dumb that argument is!



We don't want to make a maze. We want to continue to have the opportunity to create realistic supply routes within the framework of the game. To some of us, it is interesting, even if it is not interesting to you. And it is just as much a test of your skills as supreme commander as personally directing the movement of a small militia unit, overriding the operational commander to personally direct units in an attack, or sitting down with a union leader in a distant town within your empire to discuss worker salaries.

Frankly, setting the traffic signs is a critical function in ensuring the success of real world supply lines. And the logistics system in the game models real world convoy operations in many ways. The units that control traffic are usually Military Police units. Just to give you a sample, I found this in the first document I could find that has good definitions for them. It is a training document for MP convoy support operations, and here we go:

"One of the main battlefield missions of the military police (MP) is battlefield circulation control. This is
to meet changes in tactical situations and route conditions. In a battle there is great need for such
control. Enemy forces interdicting the main supply routes (MSRs) disrupt movement. This creates a
need for extensive rerouting. One of the basic control measures is the traffic control post (TCP). The
responsibility for the TCP is that of the squad/team leader. You must know and be able to set up and
maintain a TCP.
1. Traffic Control Post.
a. MP personnel set up a TCP at critical points on main supply routes to control movement of
vehicles and personnel. The exact place where to put the TCP will be given to you by the provost
marshal (PM) operations section. At times it may be necessary to set up a TCP that is not called for by
the plan; i.e., congestion on an MSR at a junction. The number of MP and the types of weapons
needed to man the TCP are based on mission, enemy, terrain, troops, and time (METT-T).
1-1 MP1007b. The successful operation of a TCP includes preventing delays and congestion; ensuring
movement priorities are honored, enforcing rules and regulations. They must make adjustments for
unscheduled road movements, and be prepared to reroute as needed.

A roadblock is used to limit the movement of vehicles along a route or to close access to certain areas
or roads. Checkpoints are used to control movement. Roadblocks are checkpoints set up to ensure
that unauthorized vehicles are not using main supply routes (MSRs). They ensure that convoys move
along routes according to their priority and are kept on schedule."

Link

The evil roadblocks in the game are performing the control measures that MPs or local civilian police would perform in ensuring the the MSR stays open and supplies roll to the right place and not down a road to nowhere.



























(in reply to zgrssd)
Post #: 96
RE: Thoughts on the new "pull" system in logi... - 7/5/2020 7:30:44 AM   
demiare

 

Posts: 470
Joined: 6/20/2020
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: jwarrenw13

Frankly, setting the traffic signs is a critical function in ensuring the success of real world supply lines. And the logistics system in the game models real world convoy operations in many ways. The units that control traffic are usually Military Police units.


I really don't understand why you're argue now - military logistics is still in game and still important.

Now just your supply officers are finished elementary school and know:
a) place & nominal consumption of your industry zones and population of cities
b) location of your military units.

You still need to develop logistic network, plan in advance your needs for raising regiment or strategic move and deal with shortages. You just waste less LP in routine daily operations and it's great as in dire circumstances of any regime in game you aren't expecting to have a lot of corruption so there is no lore reason behind wasted LP but flawed logistic system.

Seriously, would you call flawed units pathfinding "interesting"? Technically pre-1.04 system were something similar to it.

P.S. Take in mind that we MAY need to balance logistic system later. As it forced to deal with massive wastes - I'm quite sure that currently generation of LP & logistic movement points are way too high and this is a reason why you see current changes as a nerf.


< Message edited by demiare -- 7/5/2020 7:32:14 AM >

(in reply to jwarrenw13)
Post #: 97
RE: Thoughts on the new "pull" system in logi... - 7/5/2020 7:57:02 AM   
Tomn

 

Posts: 137
Joined: 4/22/2013
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: KingHalford
Ok so now we've this new opinion that people are spouting as fact: "The push based logistics system doesn't allow for meaningful decisions, it is a mere binary switch "optimal"/"not-optimal" setting that you have to manage and that's it".

This is utter rubbish. Consider the case where you're low on logistics points in a city, and need to decide whether to send your trucks to resupply frontier troops, or to get that new Asset up in a city in the opposite direction. That's a meaningful decision, and the automated system does not fix this, it just adds two systems to do the job the first one did just fine.

I can think of other cases where altering the flow of supply one way or another reflects a genuine tactical decision and I'm sure the rest of you can too. I reject this "fact" completely, and add it to my evidence that the original claims made about the traffic light system were hyperbolic, and that's me being charitable.

This kind of thing annoys me: there are several valid and reasonable reasons for demanding an automated system, including "I just don't like having to click on traffic light management buttons I find it boring", and that's fine. But can we stop making stuff up and then holding it up as fact please? It does nothing to help the development of the game.


What you say is entirely true if there's not enough logistical points in the system to supply all needs - it's the economics of scarcity, where you're forced to allocate limited resources one way or another based on what you consider more important. But what about when you DO have enough logistical points in the system to cover everything, if only it was properly directed? Then it DOES become an optimization problem. You either direct the flow correctly so that your troops are fed, or you don't and waste logistical points. Not a lot of meaningful decisions to be made there, I reckon, and unfortunately a good player is more often going to have sufficient logistical flow than he is going to have to deal with insufficient flow, and a bad player probably won't yet have the mental toolkit to diagnose and fix the problem manually anyways.

Are there edge cases where you might still want to manually direct flow even when there's no scarcity? Sure - reassigning points for managing a strategic transfer you find important, for instance. But the question isn't whether edge cases exist or not, the question is "Does the prevalence of such edge cases make it worthwhile to require you to fiddle with the logistical system manually at all times?" To put it another way, hypothermia is a serious medical condition and you should absolutely layer up to protect against it, and it would make perfect sense to don cold-weather gear in Antarctica. Does it make sense to do so at all times of the year in Quebec? In New York? In South Carolina? In Florida? How often do these edge cases occur, and are they worth the aggravation of dealing with the system the rest of the time when they don't? That's something that everyone has to answer for themselves, but for me, personally, I don't find the edge cases occur often enough to make it worthwhile.

But that does bring up another question: do the edge cases warrant manual fiddling at all? What you're describing is a meaningful decision, yes, but it's also a prioritization problem overlaying an optimization problem. The meaningful decision is your choice of priorities - everything after that is simply twisting knobs until the flow does what it's supposed to, same as the rest of the time. Is manual control NECESSARY to make that decision? What if you attached a prioritization system to the pull system, so that you could designate given units or assets low, medium, or high priority (or even a percentage priority, if you like granularity) so that in times of shortage the logistical system automatically diverts towards what you consider more important? Et voila - you're making the same meaningful decisions, but no longer having to manually manage traffic signs to do so.

Of course, that comes with its own problems and isn't a perfect solution - namely, coding a system like that is likely to be complex, may introduce weird new bugs, and might prove hard to understand. Whether or not it would be worth it to include a system like that would be up to Vic and his estimate on how difficult it would be. But you see I hope how the meaningful decisions you point out aren't intrinsically married to manual management - they CAN be separated, if desired.

Edit: Just fired up my first 1.04b3 game and it turns out you actually CAN designate tiles to receive custom pull points so that they're automatically diverted where you wish, so...yeah! Not sure how that applies to priorities and such, but yeah, the tools to make the kinds of decisions you're talking about are still in there, you just don't have to worry about it the rest of the time.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jwarrenw13
The evil roadblocks in the game are performing the control measures that MPs or local civilian police would perform in ensuring the the MSR stays open and supplies roll to the right place and not down a road to nowhere.


While I can't quite speak for zgrsssd, isn't that his point? You're the supreme commander of an entire nation in arms, yet doing the duty of MPs.

Now I don't necessarily agree that being a supreme commander is inherently better than acting as a MP, or that there's no pleasure to be had in being a MP, but if someone's playing Shadow Empire largely for the experience of being in high command and making grand sweeping decisions, you can see how one might resent having to do the muckwork of low-level staff, yeah?

To use another analogy, suppose there was a game about naval warfare in the Age of Steam, where you're an admiral in command of one national fleet or another. But while you're busy ordering fleet divisions about, trying to guess the enemy's intentions, and doing their level best to get that goddamn battlecruiser squadron to give you some actual goddamn actionable information instead of cryptic remarks about a battle, the game ALSO expects you to manually stoke the boilers of every individual ship, shoveling in more coal and bleeding pressure where necessary.

Now, is it realistic that this needs to be done? Absolutely. Is it vital for the upkeep and management of any individual ship? Certainly. Is there a certain degree of thinking, planning, and management that goes into this? No doubt. Are there going to be some folks in love with this mechanic, so little covered elsewhere? Heck yeah!

But are there also going to be a sizeable amount of players, even I would guess the majority who would consider such a mechanic to be an irritating distraction from the business of leading a war fleet to battle, and would greatly prefer that it be automated or abstracted so that as fleet commander you see and manage only that which is directly relevant to your role as fleet commander? Also very much yes.

Again, of course, I stress that none of this is some universal, objective fact with anyone who disagrees turning their face from unfiltered TRVTH. Some folks enjoy manual logistics and thinks it's part and parcel of being a supreme commander, and other folks don't. But you can see how if you don't, you'd greatly resent being forced to do so, yeah?

< Message edited by Tomn -- 7/5/2020 8:24:11 AM >

(in reply to KingHalford)
Post #: 98
RE: Thoughts on the new "pull" system in logi... - 7/5/2020 12:06:20 PM   
zgrssd

 

Posts: 1492
Joined: 6/9/2020
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sieppo


quote:

ORIGINAL: zgrssd

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sieppo


quote:

ORIGINAL: Tomn


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 ;)..

They had Quartermastesr and Supply Companies. They were slightly smarter then teh Autoamtion we have.
I doubt anyone in the Cabinet about Adolf had to deal with Traffic Signs.
Except in your world, where Adolf Hitler apparently was also a Traffic Sign Nazi?

I still lack the words to express just how stupid the question was, without being insulting.


I still fail to understand the thing about where playing a complex game about totally managing your empire turns into "I don't want to play it like this, automate everything that feels annoying". Like why do we have to research army organizational structures? Or how thick the armor should be? Surely Adolf did not do it. Or schwarzkopf or whoever. I'm talking about a game, it's about doing stuff like this and I'm happy that I finally have a very complex wargame where I can feel responsible for everything. Like the 4x ww2 of dwarf fortress. But I guess it's a lost game trying to explain it to the masses.


So why do soldiers feed themself? Why don't you have to put them in a high chair and feed them like a baby?
Clearly this would be a exansion of the Logistics System you would enjoy!

In what universe is a supreme commander of a nation responsible for deciding if 101 or 102 trucks will go down a road?

(in reply to Tomn)
Post #: 99
RE: Thoughts on the new "pull" system in logi... - 7/5/2020 12:36:17 PM   
Sieppo


Posts: 757
Joined: 12/15/2012
From: Helsinki, Finland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: zgrssd


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sieppo


quote:

ORIGINAL: zgrssd

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sieppo


quote:

ORIGINAL: Tomn


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 ;)..

They had Quartermastesr and Supply Companies. They were slightly smarter then teh Autoamtion we have.
I doubt anyone in the Cabinet about Adolf had to deal with Traffic Signs.
Except in your world, where Adolf Hitler apparently was also a Traffic Sign Nazi?

I still lack the words to express just how stupid the question was, without being insulting.


I still fail to understand the thing about where playing a complex game about totally managing your empire turns into "I don't want to play it like this, automate everything that feels annoying". Like why do we have to research army organizational structures? Or how thick the armor should be? Surely Adolf did not do it. Or schwarzkopf or whoever. I'm talking about a game, it's about doing stuff like this and I'm happy that I finally have a very complex wargame where I can feel responsible for everything. Like the 4x ww2 of dwarf fortress. But I guess it's a lost game trying to explain it to the masses.


So why do soldiers feed themself? Why don't you have to put them in a high chair and feed them like a baby?
Clearly this would be a exansion of the Logistics System you would enjoy!

In what universe is a supreme commander of a nation responsible for deciding if 101 or 102 trucks will go down a road?


I'm totally sure you can find that 99% of the actions performed in the game are things not performed by a supreme commander IRL . Thus I'm not going down that road.

(in reply to zgrssd)
Post #: 100
RE: Thoughts on the new "pull" system in logi... - 7/5/2020 12:44:29 PM   
zgrssd

 

Posts: 1492
Joined: 6/9/2020
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Sieppo

I'm totally sure you can find that 99% of the actions performed in the game are things not performed by a supreme commander IRL . Thus I'm not going down that road.


Deciding Cabinet Members?
Declaring War?
Telling the design Council what to focus on next?
Dedicing when and where to attack on hte big map (resolution 200km Hexes)?

Please mention the other 396 things that are not normal part of a Supreme Commanders Job, so the 99% figure matches up.
Or maybe try something like a 50% figure first? Or a 25%?

< Message edited by zgrssd -- 7/5/2020 12:47:04 PM >

(in reply to Sieppo)
Post #: 101
RE: Thoughts on the new "pull" system in logi... - 7/5/2020 12:50:00 PM   
Sieppo


Posts: 757
Joined: 12/15/2012
From: Helsinki, Finland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: zgrssd

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sieppo

I'm totally sure you can find that 99% of the actions performed in the game are things not performed by a supreme commander IRL . Thus I'm not going down that road.


Deciding Cabinet Members?
Declaring War?
Telling the design Council what to focus on next?
Dedicing when and where to attack on hte big map (resolution 200km Hexes)?

Please mention the other 396 things that are not normal part of a Supreme Commanders Job, so the 99% figure matches up.
Or maybe try something like a 50% figure first? Or a 25%?


Yeah ok, 75% would have been a more accurate number. But you get my point. It is a game.

(in reply to zgrssd)
Post #: 102
RE: Thoughts on the new "pull" system in logi... - 7/5/2020 1:13:08 PM   
76mm


Posts: 4165
Joined: 5/2/2004
From: Washington, DC
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Tomn
Right, so here's the thing about traffic signs: They're one-way. If you block OUTGOING connections in one direction, you can still receive INCOMING from that same direction. The railhead in that scenario isn't producing train logistical points, it's merely establishing a connection so that your train station further up the line can push logistical points forwards the railhead. That gives you the incoming logistical capacity you need. Now if in the same hex as the truck station and the railhead you place a block moving back towards the SHQ, you're now channeling the whole of the truck station's logistics out towards the front, while still receiving logistical capacity from the rail coming in from the SHQ.


Thanks, although this is kind of funny, because that's how I started playing, but when I ran into a logistics problem and posted about it, several players told me that I was doing it all wrong, and that logistics should flow both ways, and that I shouldn't "shape" it as you suggest.

Also, doesn't your rail need to take excess zone supplies back to SHQ? Wouldn't a traffic sign used to shape truck traffic block that?

Like I said, I still don't get it...

(in reply to Tomn)
Post #: 103
RE: Thoughts on the new "pull" system in logi... - 7/5/2020 1:22:13 PM   
zgrssd

 

Posts: 1492
Joined: 6/9/2020
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sieppo


quote:

ORIGINAL: zgrssd

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sieppo

I'm totally sure you can find that 99% of the actions performed in the game are things not performed by a supreme commander IRL . Thus I'm not going down that road.


Deciding Cabinet Members?
Declaring War?
Telling the design Council what to focus on next?
Dedicing when and where to attack on hte big map (resolution 200km Hexes)?

Please mention the other 396 things that are not normal part of a Supreme Commanders Job, so the 99% figure matches up.
Or maybe try something like a 50% figure first? Or a 25%?


Yeah ok, 75% would have been a more accurate number. But you get my point. It is a game.

Okay. Then name those remaing 12 things that the palyer has to do, wich is not the normal job of a Supreme Commander of a Nation.
I am still waiting.

Unless of course you are just trolling us, by being contrary for no reason? That would make some sense right now.

(in reply to Sieppo)
Post #: 104
RE: Thoughts on the new "pull" system in logi... - 7/5/2020 1:30:03 PM   
Sieppo


Posts: 757
Joined: 12/15/2012
From: Helsinki, Finland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: zgrssd


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sieppo


quote:

ORIGINAL: zgrssd

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sieppo

I'm totally sure you can find that 99% of the actions performed in the game are things not performed by a supreme commander IRL . Thus I'm not going down that road.


Deciding Cabinet Members?
Declaring War?
Telling the design Council what to focus on next?
Dedicing when and where to attack on hte big map (resolution 200km Hexes)?

Please mention the other 396 things that are not normal part of a Supreme Commanders Job, so the 99% figure matches up.
Or maybe try something like a 50% figure first? Or a 25%?


Yeah ok, 75% would have been a more accurate number. But you get my point. It is a game.

Okay. Then name those remaing 12 things that the palyer has to do, wich is not the normal job of a Supreme Commander of a Nation.
I am still waiting.

Unless of course you are just trolling us, by being contrary for no reason? That would make some sense right now.


Chill man . Most of the stuff would be decided and implemented by the cabinet. Hitler for example meddled in war stuff a lot but he was an exception. This pissed off his generals and they ended up trying to assassinate him.

(in reply to zgrssd)
Post #: 105
RE: Thoughts on the new "pull" system in logi... - 7/5/2020 2:09:35 PM   
GodwinW


Posts: 510
Joined: 6/5/2020
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: zgrssd


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sieppo


quote:

ORIGINAL: zgrssd

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sieppo

I'm totally sure you can find that 99% of the actions performed in the game are things not performed by a supreme commander IRL . Thus I'm not going down that road.


Deciding Cabinet Members?
Declaring War?
Telling the design Council what to focus on next?
Dedicing when and where to attack on hte big map (resolution 200km Hexes)?

Please mention the other 396 things that are not normal part of a Supreme Commanders Job, so the 99% figure matches up.
Or maybe try something like a 50% figure first? Or a 25%?


Yeah ok, 75% would have been a more accurate number. But you get my point. It is a game.

Okay. Then name those remaing 12 things that the palyer has to do, wich is not the normal job of a Supreme Commander of a Nation.
I am still waiting.

Unless of course you are just trolling us, by being contrary for no reason? That would make some sense right now.


Are you kidding dude?

* Click end turn
* Select a unit
* Select a city
* Draw borders on a map
* Decide where a road goes
* Decide how many machines or water to buy/sell from traders
* Click enemy soldiers to inspect their combat strength
* Be able to determine the exact percentage between discovery and research
* Be able to steer discovery of things by not researching other things
* Play Stratagems
* Read Stratagems
* Have Directors roll dice
* Have a readout for relationships
ETC



(in reply to zgrssd)
Post #: 106
RE: Thoughts on the new "pull" system in logi... - 7/5/2020 2:38:33 PM   
Sieppo


Posts: 757
Joined: 12/15/2012
From: Helsinki, Finland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: GodwinW


quote:

ORIGINAL: zgrssd


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sieppo


quote:

ORIGINAL: zgrssd

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sieppo

I'm totally sure you can find that 99% of the actions performed in the game are things not performed by a supreme commander IRL . Thus I'm not going down that road.


Deciding Cabinet Members?
Declaring War?
Telling the design Council what to focus on next?
Dedicing when and where to attack on hte big map (resolution 200km Hexes)?

Please mention the other 396 things that are not normal part of a Supreme Commanders Job, so the 99% figure matches up.
Or maybe try something like a 50% figure first? Or a 25%?


Yeah ok, 75% would have been a more accurate number. But you get my point. It is a game.

Okay. Then name those remaing 12 things that the palyer has to do, wich is not the normal job of a Supreme Commander of a Nation.
I am still waiting.

Unless of course you are just trolling us, by being contrary for no reason? That would make some sense right now.


Are you kidding dude?

* Click end turn
* Select a unit
* Select a city
* Draw borders on a map
* Decide where a road goes
* Decide how many machines or water to buy/sell from traders
* Click enemy soldiers to inspect their combat strength
* Be able to determine the exact percentage between discovery and research
* Be able to steer discovery of things by not researching other things
* Play Stratagems
* Read Stratagems
* Have Directors roll dice
* Have a readout for relationships
ETC





Exactly . Like I said, I'm not going down that road..

(in reply to GodwinW)
Post #: 107
RE: Thoughts on the new "pull" system in logi... - 7/5/2020 2:53:55 PM   
zgrssd

 

Posts: 1492
Joined: 6/9/2020
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: GodwinW


quote:

ORIGINAL: zgrssd


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sieppo


quote:

ORIGINAL: zgrssd

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sieppo

I'm totally sure you can find that 99% of the actions performed in the game are things not performed by a supreme commander IRL . Thus I'm not going down that road.


Deciding Cabinet Members?
Declaring War?
Telling the design Council what to focus on next?
Dedicing when and where to attack on hte big map (resolution 200km Hexes)?

Please mention the other 396 things that are not normal part of a Supreme Commanders Job, so the 99% figure matches up.
Or maybe try something like a 50% figure first? Or a 25%?


Yeah ok, 75% would have been a more accurate number. But you get my point. It is a game.

Okay. Then name those remaing 12 things that the palyer has to do, wich is not the normal job of a Supreme Commander of a Nation.
I am still waiting.

Unless of course you are just trolling us, by being contrary for no reason? That would make some sense right now.


Are you kidding dude?

* Click end turn
* Select a unit
* Select a city
* Draw borders on a map
* Decide where a road goes
* Decide how many machines or water to buy/sell from traders
* Click enemy soldiers to inspect their combat strength
* Be able to determine the exact percentage between discovery and research
* Be able to steer discovery of things by not researching other things
* Play Stratagems
* Read Stratagems
* Have Directors roll dice
* Have a readout for relationships
ETC


Did you seriosuly have to add clicks in the interface to the actions, just to have a hope of getting close to 12? Because with something like that, I am sure it is trolling. Because I could add a million clicks and keypresses in any office programm to the Supreme Leaders side.

Excluding "I need to click on a interface":
* Draw borders on a map
Ever heard of the peace talks? Take 5 guesses wehre most borders in 2020 come from!
* Decide where a road goes
Yes, they did decide where giant road networks in the lenghts of hundreds Kilometers would go. But the exact route planning was usually left to a specialist *cough* pathfinding *cough*
And below that, it is up to the workers to find the exact path through each ~10000 km² region.
If you think the care about that 5 meter dirtroad behind you house, you are off by 5 orders of magnitude.
* Decide how many machines or water to buy/sell from traders
Yes, large sales and buys big enough to raise entire armies and build entire industries are up to them to decide.
* Be able to determine the exact percentage between discovery and research
Deciding where the focus should lie is integral part of the job. Not like you decide where each specific BP goes, just the rough budgets for the Ministereies
* Be able to steer discovery of things by not researching other things
I wonder who - if not the leaders - are focusing the worlds scientist on developing a Covid-19 Vaccine or Treatment right now? Or how much can be done if the leader is against any measures (USA, Brazil)
* Play Stratagems
"Secrtary, tell the Interior Minsitery to hold wargames". Oh yes, that it so not a thing a leader does
* Have Directors roll dice
"Secretary, hopefully that Interior Ministery knows how to hold wargaems. I did pick him for that job."
* Have a readout for relationships
"Foreign Minister/SCC Leader/Secretary, I want a briefing on how our relations with Nebelbank is. Or actually, just give me bi-monthly breifings with your estimations."

< Message edited by zgrssd -- 7/5/2020 3:03:36 PM >

(in reply to GodwinW)
Post #: 108
RE: Thoughts on the new "pull" system in logi... - 7/5/2020 2:57:13 PM   
Tomn

 

Posts: 137
Joined: 4/22/2013
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm
Thanks, although this is kind of funny, because that's how I started playing, but when I ran into a logistics problem and posted about it, several players told me that I was doing it all wrong, and that logistics should flow both ways, and that I shouldn't "shape" it as you suggest.

Also, doesn't your rail need to take excess zone supplies back to SHQ? Wouldn't a traffic sign used to shape truck traffic block that?

Like I said, I still don't get it...


Well, I've primarily been using that setup for offensive bases where all my needs are purely one-way - I haven't captured a city in the region yet, so nothing's going back up the pipe and it's all coming down. Thus, the need to ship things back to the SHQ doesn't exist as yet and doesn't pose a problem. There IS a good chance that once the local city has been captured and hooked up to the network it'll be necessary to rethink a bunch of traffic signs in the region, however.

That being said, to the best of my knowledge logistical capacity is "direction agnostic" - i.e., it doesn't matter where it comes from, if it's in the hex it can be used. Thus, as long as the rail provides logistical capacity running up to a railhead, that same existing capacity can be used to ship it back up the line to the SHQ as long as there's spare capacity.

Taking a look at your post, the problem wasn't that you were shaping logistical lines per se - the problem was that your use of traffic signs completely choked out available capacity. The method I describe only works if you're absolutely sure you have sufficient capacity coming from behind to be able to focus everything forward.

Lemme see if I can diagram it out.

(Rail) -> (Railhead+Truck Station) -> (Road to Front)

So same hex map as before, but let's change the parameters some. This time, for whatever reason, the rail station at the SHQ isn't pushing as much capacity down the line - maybe you branched off or something, whatever. Point is, your rail is only providing you with 500 train points, while your station is providing 1000 truck points as before. If you were using the roadblocks I suggested earlier, you get this:

(500 train points) -> (500 train points + 1000 truck points) -> (1000 truck points)

So the issue here is that you're bottlenecked by your SHQ rail - sure, you have 1000 truck points available at the front, but you can only rail in 500 train points worth of stuff, because that's all the capacity you have available. Thus, although you have in theory 1000 truck points available, they can only carry 500 points worth of stuff because that's all that the rail points can pass on to them to carry. This, by the way, was what was happening in the post you described - you had a lot of available capacity on the outward channel, but not enough coming in, and thus you were getting bottlenecked at the rail line despite having a lot of spare capacity down the line.

So what would we do? Well, assuming that your trucks actually have enough AP to go all the way back to your capital whole, you could remove the blocker entirely, in which case you end up with this scenario:

(500 train points + 500 truck points) <-> (500 train points + 1000 truck points) -> (500 truck points)

That looks better on the SHQ side, but now we have a problem - you're bottlenecked by the truck points available for the front now. You can ship in 1000 points worth of stuff down to the railhead by combined rail and truck, but you can only devote 500 truck points pass things down to the troops at the front. That's no better than before.

So what's the solution? Well, in this case, the best thing to do would be to slap a 50% blocker heading back towards the SHQ, so that only half the normal output can pass through. That'll get us this scenario:

(500 train points + 250 truck points) <-/-> (500 train points + 1000 truck points) -> (750 truck points)

As you can see, we're now making the best of a bad situation - we can shift a total of 750 points worth of stuff from the SHQ to the front, because at every hex there's 750 points at least available for us to use. That's the key to logistics - logistical lines are defined by their weakest links. They need to form a continuous chain of logistical capacity in every hex they're tracing their way down, and they're limited by the hex with the LEAST available logistical capacity.

Note, by the way, that this chain should in theory work both ways: You could potentially send 500 points worth of supplies from the SHQ to the front, and then have the front send back 250 points worth of obsolete equipment to the SHQ, and that's fine because you have 750 points available. But if you were trying to send 750 points worth of supplies down the line and return 250 points worth of obsolete equipment back up, you're out of luck - there's not enough logistical capacity to do both.

Couple more diagrams in case you're having trouble with the concept of bottlenecks. Let's say you have a chain of hexes with, for whatever reason, differing logistical capacity, like so:

(SHQ) -> (Hex) -> (Hex) -> (Hex) -> (Front)

Right! Now we need to move supplies from the SHQ to the front. Let's say the available logistical capacity looks like this:

(5) -> (5) -> (4) -> (5) -> (5)

How many supplies are getting to the front? Four units, because that's the lowest in the chain. Every other hex in the chain can pass up to five units, and all the hexes BEFORE that central hex might actually be passing five minutes to the front, but once they get to the central hex one of the packages slips out of their hands and all they have is four units which is what they pass on down the line.

Now let's take another scenario:

(5) -> (5) -> (5) -> (1000) -> (1000)

How many supplies are getting to the front? Five units, because again that's the smallest number in the chain. The hexes past the central front could take up to a thousand units, but the central hex can only pass on five units, because that's the limit of its capacity, so that's all the front will get.

One more scenario:

(1000) -> (1000) -> (1) -> (1000) -> (1000)

How many supplies are getting to the front? One unit, because that central hex can't handle passing on more than a single lone unit, despite the fact that all the other hexes are big and burly and can take a thousand units.

Picture, if you will, the second hex rolling up, a big massive longshoreman with bulging muscles easily lifting a thousand boxes, bellowing "All right, shrimpy! Got a delivery here for ya!" before slamming all thousand boxes to the floor. The central hex, a wide-eyed toddler, looks at the pile, gingerly grabs a single box with both arms, and then waddles over to the fourth hex, another big longshoreman, who looks at the toddler and goes "What, is that it? OK, then!" before carefully picking up the box between thumb and forefinger before passing that lone box to the front.

And that's how bottlenecks work.

< Message edited by Tomn -- 7/5/2020 3:02:39 PM >

(in reply to 76mm)
Post #: 109
RE: Thoughts on the new "pull" system in logi... - 7/5/2020 3:19:39 PM   
ramnblam

 

Posts: 197
Joined: 6/9/2020
From: Australia
Status: offline
Alright nerds, where are we putting supply bases these days? Make it simple for me, my mathematics are only good for selling drugs.

(in reply to Tomn)
Post #: 110
RE: Thoughts on the new "pull" system in logi... - 7/5/2020 3:23:49 PM   
Tomn

 

Posts: 137
Joined: 4/22/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ramnblam
Alright nerds, where are we putting supply bases these days? Make it simple for me, my mathematics are only good for selling drugs.


No ****in' clue. Never really used them, mostly because the information for how they worked kept changing. I got by without.

(in reply to ramnblam)
Post #: 111
RE: Thoughts on the new "pull" system in logi... - 7/5/2020 5:07:48 PM   
jwarrenw13

 

Posts: 1569
Joined: 8/12/2000
From: Monroe, LA, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: demiare

quote:

ORIGINAL: jwarrenw13

Frankly, setting the traffic signs is a critical function in ensuring the success of real world supply lines. And the logistics system in the game models real world convoy operations in many ways. The units that control traffic are usually Military Police units.


I really don't understand why you're argue now - military logistics is still in game and still important.

Now just your supply officers are finished elementary school and know:
a) place & nominal consumption of your industry zones and population of cities
b) location of your military units.

You still need to develop logistic network, plan in advance your needs for raising regiment or strategic move and deal with shortages. You just waste less LP in routine daily operations and it's great as in dire circumstances of any regime in game you aren't expecting to have a lot of corruption so there is no lore reason behind wasted LP but flawed logistic system.

Seriously, would you call flawed units pathfinding "interesting"? Technically pre-1.04 system were something similar to it.

P.S. Take in mind that we MAY need to balance logistic system later. As it forced to deal with massive wastes - I'm quite sure that currently generation of LP & logistic movement points are way too high and this is a reason why you see current changes as a nerf.



I could just as easily ask why you felt the need to reply to what you think is an unnecessary post.

But I continue to argue because of condescending posts like yours that denigrate anyone who enjoys the complex logistics system of 1.04. I see Vic's log system as a touch of genius in modeling reality that I have never really seen before in a wargame. "Flawed pathfinding" is a real problem with actual military operations, and many college educated officers have taken their units and their supply convoys down the wrong road, something that all previous games have ignored. And I am surprised that so many people have recoiled in horror at the idea of setting a few traffic control measures to maintain a main supply route, which is actually all it took to manage the system.

But as I've said repeatedly, and as you have of course failed to note, I am quite happy that Vic is giving players options, and I might even use the new system myself if I find it better than the 1.04 system. Or maybe you missed those comments.


< Message edited by jwarrenw13 -- 7/5/2020 5:09:19 PM >

(in reply to demiare)
Post #: 112
RE: Thoughts on the new "pull" system in logi... - 7/5/2020 5:42:50 PM   
76mm


Posts: 4165
Joined: 5/2/2004
From: Washington, DC
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Tomn
Lemme see if I can diagram it out.

Whew, thanks for the lengthy and detailed explanation...a bit of heavy sledding for me, I have to admit.

(in reply to Tomn)
Post #: 113
RE: Thoughts on the new "pull" system in logi... - 7/5/2020 6:05:33 PM   
GodwinW


Posts: 510
Joined: 6/5/2020
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: zgrssd

quote:

ORIGINAL: GodwinW


quote:

ORIGINAL: zgrssd


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sieppo


quote:

ORIGINAL: zgrssd

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sieppo

I'm totally sure you can find that 99% of the actions performed in the game are things not performed by a supreme commander IRL . Thus I'm not going down that road.


Deciding Cabinet Members?
Declaring War?
Telling the design Council what to focus on next?
Dedicing when and where to attack on hte big map (resolution 200km Hexes)?

Please mention the other 396 things that are not normal part of a Supreme Commanders Job, so the 99% figure matches up.
Or maybe try something like a 50% figure first? Or a 25%?


Yeah ok, 75% would have been a more accurate number. But you get my point. It is a game.

Okay. Then name those remaing 12 things that the palyer has to do, wich is not the normal job of a Supreme Commander of a Nation.
I am still waiting.

Unless of course you are just trolling us, by being contrary for no reason? That would make some sense right now.


Are you kidding dude?

* Click end turn
* Select a unit
* Select a city
* Draw borders on a map
* Decide where a road goes
* Decide how many machines or water to buy/sell from traders
* Click enemy soldiers to inspect their combat strength
* Be able to determine the exact percentage between discovery and research
* Be able to steer discovery of things by not researching other things
* Play Stratagems
* Read Stratagems
* Have Directors roll dice
* Have a readout for relationships
ETC


Did you seriosuly have to add clicks in the interface to the actions, just to have a hope of getting close to 12? Because with something like that, I am sure it is trolling. Because I could add a million clicks and keypresses in any office programm to the Supreme Leaders side.

Excluding "I need to click on a interface":
* Draw borders on a map
Ever heard of the peace talks? Take 5 guesses wehre most borders in 2020 come from!
* Decide where a road goes
Yes, they did decide where giant road networks in the lenghts of hundreds Kilometers would go. But the exact route planning was usually left to a specialist *cough* pathfinding *cough*
And below that, it is up to the workers to find the exact path through each ~10000 km² region.
If you think the care about that 5 meter dirtroad behind you house, you are off by 5 orders of magnitude.
* Decide how many machines or water to buy/sell from traders
Yes, large sales and buys big enough to raise entire armies and build entire industries are up to them to decide.
* Be able to determine the exact percentage between discovery and research
Deciding where the focus should lie is integral part of the job. Not like you decide where each specific BP goes, just the rough budgets for the Ministereies
* Be able to steer discovery of things by not researching other things
I wonder who - if not the leaders - are focusing the worlds scientist on developing a Covid-19 Vaccine or Treatment right now? Or how much can be done if the leader is against any measures (USA, Brazil)
* Play Stratagems
"Secrtary, tell the Interior Minsitery to hold wargames". Oh yes, that it so not a thing a leader does
* Have Directors roll dice
"Secretary, hopefully that Interior Ministery knows how to hold wargaems. I did pick him for that job."
* Have a readout for relationships
"Foreign Minister/SCC Leader/Secretary, I want a briefing on how our relations with Nebelbank is. Or actually, just give me bi-monthly breifings with your estimations."


Checkmate:

quote:

ORIGINAL: zgrssd

In what universe is a supreme commander of a nation responsible for deciding if 101 or 102 trucks will go down a road?


quote:

ORIGINAL: zgrssd

* Decide where a road goes
Yes, they did decide where giant road networks in the lenghts of hundreds Kilometers would go. But the exact route planning was usually left to a specialist *cough* pathfinding *cough*
And below that, it is up to the workers to find the exact path through each ~10000 km² region.
If you think the care about that 5 meter dirtroad behind you house, you are off by 5 orders of magnitude.


-> You as Supreme Commander do not direct individual trucks but you do make sure your logistics system will be able to cope.

"Eisenhower accepted the burden stoically, and worked 100+ hour weeks for months, poring over the logistics of this great undertaking."
https://www.artofmanliness.com/articles/leadership-lessons-from-dwight-d-eisenhower-3-how-to-make-an-important-decision/
Also see: https://www.c-span.org/video/?459079-4/general-eisenhower-day-naval-logistics

(in reply to zgrssd)
Post #: 114
RE: Thoughts on the new "pull" system in logi... - 7/5/2020 7:56:14 PM   
Tomn

 

Posts: 137
Joined: 4/22/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm
Whew, thanks for the lengthy and detailed explanation...a bit of heavy sledding for me, I have to admit.


Hey, as long as it made sense and helped you understand the system.

...it...it DID make sense and helped you understand the system, right?

(in reply to 76mm)
Post #: 115
RE: Thoughts on the new "pull" system in logi... - 7/5/2020 10:30:58 PM   
PyrrhicDefeat

 

Posts: 26
Joined: 6/24/2020
Status: offline
I enjoy being able to fine tune my "push" logistics to maximize flow to my priorities, but either way they are just a seriously complicated system. Every time I think I've got it I discover a new layer. I knew war with a major was coming so I built up truck stations and redundant nets of sealed roads to the future battlefront, expecting that some would get cut off. And that part worked - despite the enemy cutting one line of roads, my alternate line supplying my troops still has plenty of points on it. I was patting myself on the back but... somewhere much farther back in a whole different zone there is a single road that's been maxed out, and nothing is getting through that bottleneck. I have food in the zones, and logistics points on the roads my troops are sitting on, but I can't connect them and my troops are starving to death. It sucks but I kind of love that the game is that challenging.

Interestingly, from what I understand of the beta (I'm still on 1.04) the "pull" logistics wouldn't help that situation - even automated distribution won't fix a bottleneck right? And I love that about this game. It is genuinely strategic - you have limited resources and really have to plan for future contingencies or pay the price.

(in reply to Tomn)
Post #: 116
RE: Thoughts on the new "pull" system in logi... - 7/5/2020 11:12:00 PM   
DasTactic

 

Posts: 808
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
I haven't tested the new system too much but I really like the changes so far. It looks like it will play more intuitively but still require management to get the best results. Best of both worlds. :)

The system still can be tweaked to try and get through replacements for example, which I don't think is natively part of the pull system for units. And it doesn't stop the need to control logistics constructions to get the right amount of points where they need to go. It also allows us to specify a hex to focus our logistics points which would be great for a turn or two to get a front supplied properly before an attack etc.

I think it could be improved by allowing the traffic system to be by-passed for asset logistics so that dead-end roads could be blocked off but still have the needed logistics head down there to keep assets producing. I also feel there needs to be a way to differentiate between road and rail for traffic signs.

(in reply to Tomn)
Post #: 117
RE: Thoughts on the new "pull" system in logi... - 7/5/2020 11:50:02 PM   
jwarrenw13

 

Posts: 1569
Joined: 8/12/2000
From: Monroe, LA, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DasTactic

I haven't tested the new system too much but I really like the changes so far. It looks like it will play more intuitively but still require management to get the best results. Best of both worlds. :)

The system still can be tweaked to try and get through replacements for example, which I don't think is natively part of the pull system for units. And it doesn't stop the need to control logistics constructions to get the right amount of points where they need to go. It also allows us to specify a hex to focus our logistics points which would be great for a turn or two to get a front supplied properly before an attack etc.

I think it could be improved by allowing the traffic system to be by-passed for asset logistics so that dead-end roads could be blocked off but still have the needed logistics head down there to keep assets producing. I also feel there needs to be a way to differentiate between road and rail for traffic signs.


If it works out like that, especially the "play more intuitively but still require management to get the best results," I will be quite happy.

And thanks for your monumental tips and tricks videos. That is by far the most video I have ever watched for a single game.

(in reply to DasTactic)
Post #: 118
RE: Thoughts on the new "pull" system in logi... - 7/6/2020 1:12:52 AM   
Sieppo


Posts: 757
Joined: 12/15/2012
From: Helsinki, Finland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DasTactic
I think it could be improved by allowing the traffic system to be by-passed for asset logistics so that dead-end roads could be blocked off but still have the needed logistics head down there to keep assets producing. I also feel there needs to be a way to differentiate between road and rail for traffic signs.


Totally agree. Always think of that when planning my logistics system. I think the newest patch forced trains to use signs but sometimes you want your trucks to stop and trains to go on (of course you could demolish the road but that takes IP).

(in reply to DasTactic)
Post #: 119
RE: Thoughts on the new "pull" system in logi... - 7/6/2020 2:53:01 AM   
76mm


Posts: 4165
Joined: 5/2/2004
From: Washington, DC
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Tomn
...it...it DID make sense and helped you understand the system, right?

we'll see!

thanks again.

(in reply to Tomn)
Post #: 120
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4] 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Shadow Empire >> RE: Thoughts on the new "pull" system in logistics Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4] 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.199