Let us prioritize workplaces

Moderator: Vic

Post Reply
Maerchen
Posts: 348
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2020 3:05 pm
Location: Germany

Let us prioritize workplaces

Post by Maerchen »

Attacking a major regime often results in logistical horror. After liberation Imagine the stupidity that all your precious workforce tries to work/repair the agridomes IV far far away instead of focussing on keeping the logistics network online at the Heimatfront. Even mothballing drains 1.4k pops.

I suggest a button to pin 100% of the workforce required to logistical assets, because why would a U-Haul driver suddenly become an expert farm repair man?
The logistics hell this game is IS the fun part! - Maerchen, 2020

The good thing is, we have all the information in the reports. The bad thing is, we have all the information. Maerchen, 2020

Came for SE. Will stay for SE.
zgrssd
Posts: 4208
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2020 1:02 pm

RE: Let us prioritize workplaces

Post by zgrssd »

The big problem with such a thing is:
If everything is priority, nothing is priority.

So there should be some kind of limit:
Maybe only 1 asset per building category?
Or maybe priotisation by asset category, rather then specific assets? Maybe even in a list you can reorder?
DW2 Poll:
"Should the Civil and non-Combat Ships loose all or most of their weapon slots?"
https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... 1&t=382690
Maerchen
Posts: 348
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2020 3:05 pm
Location: Germany

RE: Let us prioritize workplaces

Post by Maerchen »

Both good suggestions.

I would like to be able to say worker distribution offices: Always put workers prioritized in truck/rail stations, never fire those or allow resettlement/job change.

It is frustrating that we can finetune BP distribution to max out research but cannot keep vital logistics running smooth. People who can rearrange atoms should be able to set up trustworthy train and bus schedules that don't collapse because some thousand miles away some shady jobs are offered in a warzone.

"Jane, let's move and quit everything here we established where its safe in the capital because I heard of other jobs in a freshly nuked city our army just conquered. You know, I am a qualified train dispatcher, but they really need construction workers there and I am sure you and the children won't mind some fresh radiation levels."
The logistics hell this game is IS the fun part! - Maerchen, 2020

The good thing is, we have all the information in the reports. The bad thing is, we have all the information. Maerchen, 2020

Came for SE. Will stay for SE.
Soar_Slitherine
Posts: 436
Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2020 11:33 am

RE: Let us prioritize workplaces

Post by Soar_Slitherine »

Having some prioritization options would definitely be useful. It's annoying to have to micromanage the workforce to prevent new construction from disrupting logistics or key industries.
Maerchen
Posts: 348
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2020 3:05 pm
Location: Germany

RE: Let us prioritize workplaces

Post by Maerchen »

I suggest a range option from which immigration can be banned. Like 'only allow immigration from inside 12 hexes' and ban migration from everywhere else.
The logistics hell this game is IS the fun part! - Maerchen, 2020

The good thing is, we have all the information in the reports. The bad thing is, we have all the information. Maerchen, 2020

Came for SE. Will stay for SE.
TheSquid
Posts: 46
Joined: Sun May 05, 2019 8:31 am

RE: Let us prioritize workplaces

Post by TheSquid »

IMO the primary issue here seems to be the simple fact that the situation is a reverse of what it should be, i.e. the problem SHOULD be "we need to rebuild this city that's we reduced to rubble during the conquest, how do we convince people to move there and help out?".

As it now stands, the above isn't even a concern, because it seems that people from all over the empire are just itching to move far away to a (probably mostly lawless) hell-hole to take up a job in construction - so we get the opposite problem, which is how to stop all the cities that are currently working well from economic collapse due to the vast exodus.

Given the above, the most logical "fix" for this, is for things to be tweaked such that the "concern" for players is incentivising people to help rebuild the newly-conquered territory, and not trying to stop people from doing that. Possible ways to achieve this:

* The default situation for a worker should be to stay where they are.
* If they are not currently in "hardship", then the "new" potential workplace needs to offer something extraordinary for people to even consider migration, let alone actually leaving everything behind and heading there.
* "Not currently in hardship" would be all of the following to be true: currently employed; have enough to eat (no current or imminent starvation levels); not about to die due to radiation, toxins, etc.; no vast enemy very close (danger). Political issues (e.g. type of Government) shouldn't be a factor since this is the same regime.
* For people to want to move due to hardship, the new zone would naturally need to be an improvement over the current zone in these areas.
* People who are not currently employed in a location could still be highly likely to move (not having work is a big motivator). Ideally the new location would be requiring more jobs that the currently available population, and also be offering better pay (tax status of the new zone could factor in a bit, since non-incorporated zones pay less/no tax).
* "Something extraordinary" would be things that the player actually needs to do, in order to entice people (hardship notwithstanding). Which would mainly be offering better pay (the private industry pay would likely auto-adjust based on supply and demand of the population, so only public pay could really be influenced by the player - however one would expect there to be little private industry initially in territory that only recently was a warzone, especially if what's there of the population is being absorbed by public workplaces).
* Recruiting colonists, and transporting people there, would naturally still be an option if incentives fail.

Currently it appears that even workers gainfully employed appear willing to drop everything to start a new life in a recently-conquered rubble-strewn hell-hole - so there must be something seriously wrong with the migration calculations somewhere.

So generally, I would expect only people who are available (i.e. not already employed) would even be considering going anywhere, unless the current conditions are really bad, or the new location is offering an absolutely incredible opportunity.

Thinking about events on Earth, generally anything less than a gold rush wouldn't cause this kind of mass migration - and even then, it's not like entire industries from the host countries would collapse due to everyone leaving (real estate being the obvious exception, but even that wasn't a collapse).

tl;dr:

* It should be more effort to convince people to migrate to a newly-conquered territory;
* the default situation should be for people to want to stay where they are;
* Getting people to move should require massive incentives, raising colonists and moving them, or severe hardship in the origin zone.
* People that are currently employed and not in hardship shouldn't even consider moving; only the currently unemployed should be thinking about new opportunities (unless the potential income difference is incredibly large, or they're currently in an otherwise awful situation).

Post Reply

Return to “Suggestions and Feedback”