Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

[1.04b11] Modify administrative strain

 
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 >> Suggestions and Feedback >> [1.04b11] Modify administrative strain Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
[1.04b11] Modify administrative strain - 7/13/2020 10:46:16 PM   
Malevolence


Posts: 1764
Joined: 4/3/2010
Status: offline
Modify administrative strain.

Reference: Manual Section 5.3.4. Administrative Strain.

(1) Remove supply base from the administrative strain calculation.

(2) Allow a Bureaucrat Office (or some other form of "Administrative Base") to be built outside a city as well. The hex with such an asset is not party to administrative strain. The administrative strain remains for the office/base itself--the benefit only applies to the other assets in the hex. This is analogous to players establishing a village or hamlet. A municipal body.

(3) Add units inside the zone when determining administrative strain. The routine logistic requirement of the unit may be a good benchmark for the magnitude of the added strain. For example, a mechanized corps is more strain than a light infantry battalion (because of the logistic points needed). Militia units are excluded.

(4) Allow a Garrison to be built inside or outside a city. The asset hex and its neighbors, to a distance of six hexes, are not party to administrative strain with respect to units. This is analogous to players establishing a base that supports ground forces in a city and in other hexes in the zone.

(5) If enacted, restore the full inclusion of private assets when determining administrative strain.

A thoughtful issue with this proposal is that the AI should be using the same game rules. I am unsure if the AI is impacted by administrative strain even now.

However, the AI selecting positions for garrisons could be a simplification for the intelligent agent managing regimes. The selection of a few strategic garrison locations allows the agent to more easily determine the best destination and placement for individual units.

Also, per references, administrative strain is a good inducement for zones sized approximately 10-15 hexes from the city. The proposal allows the player a trade-off strategy in situations where larger zones are desired or needed. The trade is added asset production costs, added asset maintenance costs, and logistic points needed to service the assets (given further testing for balance).

With respect to zone size, it's an option to build tall or build wide, versus the current solitary strategy. The addition of a player choice, with costs and benefits for each.

Other references:

o Administrative strain - thoughts and ideas

o Administrative Strain

o Colonization and new cities

o Major Regime Border Gore

o Administrative Strain Penalty

o Administrative strain still seems bugged 1.03b9b





Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Malevolence -- 7/28/2020 3:58:22 AM >


_____________________________

Nicht kleckern, sondern klotzen!

*Please remember all posts are made by a malevolent, autocratic despot whose rule is marked by unjust severity and arbitrary behavior. Your experiences may vary.
Post #: 1
RE: [1.04b7] Modify administrative strain - 7/13/2020 11:00:08 PM   
demiare

 

Posts: 470
Joined: 6/20/2020
Status: offline
#1, #2, #4 and #5 are already in game. Called a "New zone".

#4 is a huge O_O from me. Since when civilian administration bother with military logistics AND involved into military chain of command? Plus you're suggesting to force player pay tipple times for his military forces - with logistics, with credits and now with a zone output.

(in reply to Malevolence)
Post #: 2
RE: [1.04b7] Modify administrative strain - 7/13/2020 11:21:02 PM   
tinjaw


Posts: 632
Joined: 8/5/2004
From: Leavenworth, KS
Status: offline
I'm with damiare on this one.

(in reply to demiare)
Post #: 3
RE: [1.04b7] Modify administrative strain - 7/13/2020 11:44:02 PM   
Malevolence


Posts: 1764
Joined: 4/3/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: demiare

#4 is a huge O_O from me. Since when civilian administration bother with military logistics AND involved into military chain of command?


With respect to the cause of administrative strain, nothing specifically separates "civilian" and "military". The impact is on the Governor's bonus. I believe military units in a Governor's zone would proportionally impact them.

That said, yes, military forces impact the governing administration at all levels when operating within their boundaries. The more troops, the more heartache for the local government. Also, the strain denotes the inability of management, support, and facilities to be everywhere at the same time.

The more stable the relationship and time period, the more they can establish agreements regarding countless issues that are too numerous (and boring) to name.

In many places, the first issue is, "Who is really in charge of this place?"

Feel free to email the local governments in Okinawa, in South Korea, in the Philippines, in Djibouti, in West Germany (when it existed), the State of California, the State of Texas, Leavenworth, KS, and Fayetteville, NC, with any questions or concerns you might have regarding my assertion. That should give you a good start.

I'm sure their reaction to your message will be respectful. intended as humor, not as scorn.




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Malevolence -- 7/14/2020 2:46:31 AM >


_____________________________

Nicht kleckern, sondern klotzen!

*Please remember all posts are made by a malevolent, autocratic despot whose rule is marked by unjust severity and arbitrary behavior. Your experiences may vary.

(in reply to demiare)
Post #: 4
RE: [1.04b7] Modify administrative strain - 7/14/2020 12:30:01 AM   
Malevolence


Posts: 1764
Joined: 4/3/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: demiare
Plus you're suggesting to force player pay tipple times for his military forces - with logistics, with credits and now with a zone output.


Administrative Strain is progressive and works in graduated tiers. Between 0% and 9% there is no effect. Between 10% and 19% results in a 10% penalty. Between 20% and 29% results in a 20% penalty. etc. etc.

More specifically, the negative impact is on the Governor's bonus.

Finally, yes, this requires the player to consider more dimensions. It requires not only execution (pushing counters), but prior planning and preparation. The player must think beforehand and set the conditions for success.

I'm sure you are capable.


< Message edited by Malevolence -- 7/14/2020 12:31:08 AM >


_____________________________

Nicht kleckern, sondern klotzen!

*Please remember all posts are made by a malevolent, autocratic despot whose rule is marked by unjust severity and arbitrary behavior. Your experiences may vary.

(in reply to demiare)
Post #: 5
RE: [1.04b7] Modify administrative strain - 7/14/2020 12:46:33 AM   
tinjaw


Posts: 632
Joined: 8/5/2004
From: Leavenworth, KS
Status: offline
Malevolence,

You are probably correct...

For the Planet Earth in 2020.

But this is far in the future with open warfare on all borders. These troops aren't rockin Posse Comitatus. These troops aren't performing parallel emergency disaster relief missions. They are not supporting the Governors as National Guard units.

These are federal troops during a hot war.

And... don't count this out...

This is a game that is supposed to be fun not some realistic military planning simulation.

(in reply to Malevolence)
Post #: 6
RE: [1.04b7] Modify administrative strain - 7/14/2020 1:39:50 AM   
Malevolence


Posts: 1764
Joined: 4/3/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: tinjaw

These are federal troops during a hot war.



It's no different. Actually, the further you go back in history, the more chaotic and traumatic, not less. The lines blur.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tinjaw

This is a game that is supposed to be fun not some realistic military planning simulation.


Indeed. I wasn't suggesting a military situation in any time frame. It was intended as a way to change administrative strain to be more interesting. None of the above explanation is necessary. The OP stands alone as the proposal.

I use examples I think people understand as a general analogy. Some people reply with anecdotes, and my response is to the anecdote.

I'd love for a challenge focused on some violation of game design principles.

quote:

The game’s model (i.e., the interactions of its core systems and mechanics), but also its simulation. The simulation, using the model to show changes over time and the cascading consequences of decisions made and the caprice of fate.


For example, the potential need for Garrisons and other assets add new elements to both use and to exploit (i.e. capture or destroy).

Constraints create problems. Problems require thoughtful solutions--or making a choice among a list of bad options.

The OP is more useful if the AI is forced to follow the same rules, but it also creates another dynamic in PBEM.

It is something meaningful to influence with those ships and planes we all requested in the survey.

The player might search, find, and attack such an asset with artillery, air, sea power, etc.

If I destroy the supporting garrison, I disrupt the zone. Should I use my limited resources there or somewhere else?

Opportunities and threats create the need for the player to develop strategies with contingencies, branches, sequels, etc.

In short, it was intended to offer a few additional meaningful choices and decisions.

We should have a game (in any fantasy world or time) that allows for more than one decisive strategy.

As far as I'm concern, the game could be about beavers and I could be writing about different kinds of dams based on the stream's current. Or a certain wood for the dam that does better in the winter as opposed to the summer. Someone would remind me cedar lacks that property. I would reply with my reasons for considering it useful. That discussion works too. Most games are simply a change of the imagery, setting, nouns, and verbs.

When airplanes are introduced, we can have discussions about hex perks and why I can't strangle the city of energy to drop its shield, because hex perks can't be destroyed by air units. This all never ends until we get bored with the game and/or the discussions.

I'm certain different strokes for different folks; it stands as a suggestion.





Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Malevolence -- 7/14/2020 5:26:59 AM >


_____________________________

Nicht kleckern, sondern klotzen!

*Please remember all posts are made by a malevolent, autocratic despot whose rule is marked by unjust severity and arbitrary behavior. Your experiences may vary.

(in reply to tinjaw)
Post #: 7
RE: [1.04b7] Modify administrative strain - 7/14/2020 3:09:31 AM   
Twotribes


Posts: 6796
Joined: 2/15/2002
From: Jacksonville NC
Status: offline
I found until you are very well established with good solid Governors you need an Brigade in every city. Always a revolt or unrest to contend with. Plus it lets you use the occasional unexpected revolt stratagem for 6 fate points with at least a force to contend with the rebels.

(in reply to Malevolence)
Post #: 8
RE: [1.04b7] Modify administrative strain - 7/14/2020 3:13:40 AM   
Malevolence


Posts: 1764
Joined: 4/3/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

I found until you are very well established with good solid Governors you need an Brigade in every city. Always a revolt or unrest to contend with. Plus it lets you use the occasional unexpected revolt stratagem for 6 fate points with at least a force to contend with the rebels.


My security and counterinsurgency unit is the independent light infantry regiment.

Others have made a good case for MG infantry as well. Good firepower, but less troops to supply.

I don't know if the unrest events included any normal bonuses, etc. so I just go with more troops for myself.


< Message edited by Malevolence -- 7/14/2020 3:14:31 AM >


_____________________________

Nicht kleckern, sondern klotzen!

*Please remember all posts are made by a malevolent, autocratic despot whose rule is marked by unjust severity and arbitrary behavior. Your experiences may vary.

(in reply to Twotribes)
Post #: 9
RE: [1.04b7] Modify administrative strain - 7/14/2020 3:14:11 AM   
lloydster4

 

Posts: 162
Joined: 6/19/2020
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Malevolence
(1) Remove supply base from the administrative strain calculation.


I like this a lot. I say we exclude rail heads as well

quote:

ORIGINAL: Malevolence
(2) Allow a Bureaucrat Office (or some other form of "Administrative Base") to be built outside a city as well. The hex with such an asset is not party to administrative strain. The administrative strain remains for the office/base itself--the benefit only applies to the other assets in the hex. This is analogous to players establishing a village or hamlet. A municipal body.


I dislike this. If you want to establish a village, then you should establish a village.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Malevolence
(3) Add units inside the zone when determining administrative strain. The routine logistic requirement of the unit may be a good benchmark for the magnitude of the added strain. For example, a mechanized corps is more strain than a light infantry battalion (because of the logistic points needed). Militia units are excluded.


I dislike this the most. But...you might be on to something. Put the strain on the SHQ instead of the zones. Add a soft cap on the number of OHQ's that an SHQ can field with a scaled penalty to command bonuses. This would encourage larger formations or possibly make multiple SHQ's more common.


(in reply to Malevolence)
Post #: 10
RE: [1.04b7] Modify administrative strain - 7/14/2020 3:23:45 AM   
Malevolence


Posts: 1764
Joined: 4/3/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: lloydster4

quote:

ORIGINAL: Malevolence
(2) Allow a Bureaucrat Office (or some other form of "Administrative Base") to be built outside a city as well. The hex with such an asset is not party to administrative strain. The administrative strain remains for the office/base itself--the benefit only applies to the other assets in the hex. This is analogous to players establishing a village or hamlet. A municipal body.


I dislike this. If you want to establish a village, then you should establish a village.


Sure, call it whatever you like. Village Hall, Library, Court House, Satellite Office, etc. The point is, the asset establishes a subordinate administrative office that relieves the Governor of burdens, but causes some administrative strain itself, because the city needs to manage, facilitate, and support its subordinate municipality.

It's inducement for the player to build such a hex tall with more assets. Locating the office with a single mine provides no benefit and adds costs. The benefit is proportional to the quantity of assets in the hex, beginning at two and more assets. Analogous to internal economies of scale.

This creates a strength, but also a vulnerability. It can become a single point of failure as well.

Airplanes attack. Missiles attack. Ground forces seize. The player begins to consider defenses like air defense, shields, etc.

It can become another driver for player strategy and decisions--and a sink for resources.

Simply adding another zone, requires the full burden of costs, administration, and player focus--with no new alternatives.

If you want to add a mayor, population, etc. and everything else we already have with a city, then this suggestion disintegrates. Build another zone. This suggestion is not intended as "the same by another name".




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Malevolence -- 7/14/2020 6:21:13 AM >


_____________________________

Nicht kleckern, sondern klotzen!

*Please remember all posts are made by a malevolent, autocratic despot whose rule is marked by unjust severity and arbitrary behavior. Your experiences may vary.

(in reply to lloydster4)
Post #: 11
RE: [1.04b7] Modify administrative strain - 7/14/2020 4:09:13 AM   
lloydster4

 

Posts: 162
Joined: 6/19/2020
Status: offline
Ok, what are the trade-offs to this proposition? Your arguments about creating a Strategically important hex would apply equally to both options, but there would be some differences.

Satellite Admin
-Creates some admin strain
-Assets benefit from original governor
-Doesn't require additional QoL infrastructure

New Zone
-Creates no admin strain
-Requires new governor
-Requires new QoL buildings
-You'll need to occasionally change zone orders
-Probably a longer delay until 100% production

Am I forgetting anything? You could make the choice more difficult by adding a long construction time for the admin asset. Something like 6-8 turns.





(in reply to Malevolence)
Post #: 12
RE: [1.04b7] Modify administrative strain - 7/14/2020 5:25:51 AM   
Malevolence


Posts: 1764
Joined: 4/3/2010
Status: offline
That looks like a good list, but a "satellite admin" in sum reduces admin strain--it does not increase it.

It's purpose is to reduce admin strain in a hex. This only works if the number of other assets in the hex equal or exceed two. That's the inducement to build high. So if the total assets in the hex is not going to be at least three, don't bother constructing it. That implies the player is committing a fair number of resources to the hex and delivering logistic points there.

It's an option, not a spammable advantage.

Zones are part of the logistics mini-game. In other words, not adding a zone is simpler given how logistics work under the hood (consolidation). There are all the events, decisions, stratagems, etc. tied to zones. This proposal requires no changes there, because it's built on the existing design and interface. No change to the zone as a game object.

It also requires no additional interface for reporting, because the zone handles assets already. That's a plus.

The biggest concerns I see with my own suggestions are the new assets, existing assets, and state changes. Nobody mentioned it as a problem.

For example, with respect to the game, assets may only use two concrete states--in a city or not. I have no idea, but it would matter here.

A change might blur the lines for asset definitions, if they are restricted to three conditions based on those two states: (1) only in city, (2) only outside city, (3) both.

Industry is restricted to only in a city. Is this idea beneficial if Industry assets cannot be built? Maybe not. What about defensive structures? Same potential issue.

You want to implement without breaking something--"players can now build industry anywhere in the zone" is bad given what we know about the developers' intent.

Nobody asked me about putting a truck station and this satellite admin asset in the same hex. How big could you make a zone using my suggestions? That's a concern of mine too.

Since I don't know the answers, I add my suggestions and let the developers decide if they make sense or not given their overall intent, design and the simulation.

I try to consider gameplay a few moves ahead--aircraft, VTOL, planes, airbases, ports, flak, etc.

Some players like specific rules. The player is allowed to do X, Y, Z. The costs and outcome of X, Y, Z are well understood. The game becomes muscle memory--like a side scroller. The player recognizes the situation, reacts to the stimulus appropriately, and is rewarded. They learn to play to the game. That's fun.

I tend to make suggestions where the rules and restrictions are few (see my posts about the TO&E/OOB system). You can do almost anything you like, but there will be a cost relative to the other options. Pattern recognition is difficult. Multiple roads to victory and multiple roads to defeat (even when your reactions were flawless). This game already contains much of that kind of gameplay. Otherwise I wouldn't be here.

Finally, I don't want to make too fine a point about this, but have you noticed my concerns seem to focus on different issues?

Others might be concerned about paying more for their units. I'm concerned if it adds choices and if that fits into the game we don't see as players. I don't want interface creep and complexity. I do encourage depth.

I'm not concerned at all about a player's units costing more, because it should be a proportional change for all players and can be fine tuned by the experts.

I never gave specific costs in the OP. All of that is fully in the realm of the developers. I used the current rules as the basis--my reference to the manual and other posts.

I'm just generating an idea, which could turn into something very different or simply be dismissed. The OP might be a spark for them. I'm happy to provide it or not. If the developers had time to experience what I have experienced, they would not have time to make games.




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Malevolence -- 7/14/2020 6:04:03 AM >


_____________________________

Nicht kleckern, sondern klotzen!

*Please remember all posts are made by a malevolent, autocratic despot whose rule is marked by unjust severity and arbitrary behavior. Your experiences may vary.

(in reply to lloydster4)
Post #: 13
RE: [1.04b7] Modify administrative strain - 7/14/2020 9:26:37 AM   
demiare

 

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

ORIGINAL: Malevolence

With respect to the cause of administrative strain, nothing specifically separates "civilian" and "military".


In this game "civilian" and "military" completely separated. Look at leader skills - two different branches.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Malevolence

That said, yes, military forces impact the governing administration at all levels when operating within their boundaries.


In urbanized areas or areas with intense farming? Yes. On distant bases in wilds? No. Then let's look on population in our zone - do you really think we have a overpopulated areas where all available land is used for farming?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Malevolence

Feel free to email the local governments in Okinawa, in South Korea, in the Philippines, in Djibouti, in West Germany (when it existed)



Sorry but this half of your statement is VERY wrong example. Of course occupation forces are provides some troubles for locals. Nothing changes since ancient age here.

But even then - how local governments are strained by military in that case? You really trying to tell me a story that Germany / South Korea industry have a reduced output because of military presence?

Or you're trying to say that local governments waste their time to solve everyday issues of military? So technically they're in command of them?

No, locals in your example have troubles with local morale from hostile presence. Some random unrest events when soldiers doing another crime and so on. This is covered by "Unrest" mechanic and not by "Administrative strain".

I think you don't understand idea behind admin strain. It's trying to emulate that civilian logistic is existing too and placing oil well 2k km away from near city will cost you A LOT. And I like how admin strain doing this job now - not too complex, but you're still forced to build new cities.

< Message edited by demiare -- 7/14/2020 9:28:47 AM >

(in reply to Malevolence)
Post #: 14
RE: [1.04b7] Modify administrative strain - 7/28/2020 3:58:09 AM   
Malevolence


Posts: 1764
Joined: 4/3/2010
Status: offline
Repeat. Version 1.04b11.


_____________________________

Nicht kleckern, sondern klotzen!

*Please remember all posts are made by a malevolent, autocratic despot whose rule is marked by unjust severity and arbitrary behavior. Your experiences may vary.

(in reply to demiare)
Post #: 15
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Shadow Empire >> Suggestions and Feedback >> [1.04b11] Modify administrative strain Page: [1]
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

0.142