The logistic System is a gigantic mess

[gilith]

Would you like to manually manage worker recruitment for each zone, every turn? I wouldn't, and I'm glad I don't have to; but you do have a choice. There's an option to set fixed amount of workers in zone orders screen. Maybe it'll even be necessary at some point in late game when there's not enough population; I'm not there yet.

If you enjoy fiddling with traffic lights, that's fine; but you still should have a choice. For me, those are trivial decisions that I would expect my minions to handle. If there's a crisis and I run below capacity, let me shoot that minion [8D] and handle the priorities manually; at this point, fiddling with it may be fun. But not while the capacity is high.

[DTurtle]

ORIGINAL: Dampfnudel

What is the argument for having a push-based system over a pull-based system? [&:]
The only difference is that the first has always huge waste and dumb micromanagement while the second is efficient and is focused on strategic decision making.

As others pointed out: A pull system works perfectly as long as the logistics are available to fulfill all demand. The moment that is not the case, then you have to have some kind of prioritization. And then suddenly you have lots of micro again. With the traffic lights, I can simply block off/limit one direction so that more goes in the other (for example to the front, and not to a back area city).

The strength of this game is that pretty much everything can work to a good enough extent with a very hands-off approach, but to get the most out of each system, you can then go into more detail. As an example, it is possible to get good enough troops, by simply updating the models with always the newest technology. To get the very best troops, you can then start looking at the various design scores, weight vs engine power, etc.

Repeating myself from my previous post: the problem with the current system is that it often requires some intervention to get even basic logistics working (not much but a little). I know of several people who had such problems with the logistics (just getting a second city connected) that they almost completely gave up with the game. They tried stuff like building additional truck depots (outside the city, because they couldn't build inside because of a private depot), building additional (shorter) routes, even building a second SHQ, etc. Unfortunately, none of that helps, or even makes the problem worse.

In my opinion, unless you want to overhaul the entire system (which at this stage is a no-go, I think), what is needed is an easy way to tell the logistics system, that THIS route is the one that should get most of the truck points going along it. So instead of placing traffic signs restricting truck points from going into a direction at a fork in the road, you instead place priority signs, or a priority road telling the system that at least 95%, 90%, 80% or whatever percentage of truck points are supposed to go along this path. I think that that is an addition to the current system that is easy to understand and easy to explain.

[Malevolence]

ORIGINAL: Malevolence
(2) A "Red Ball Express" (i.e. main supply route) with some appropriate cost that allows to you to grease the skids with the movement of logistic points from a start point to and end point. Think of it as a temporary paved road.

ORIGINAL: DTurtle
... what is needed is an easy way to tell the logistics system, that THIS route is the one that should get most of the truck points going along it. So instead of placing traffic signs restricting truck points from going into a direction at a fork in the road, you instead place priority signs, or a priority road telling the system that at least 95%, 90%, 80% or whatever percentage of truck points are supposed to go along this path. I think that that is an addition to the current system that is easy to understand and easy to explain.

I agree; it's realistic and it makes easy sense to new players too.

[diamondspider]

Hmmm... now thinking that there is indeed something wrong here, meaning something looks buggy. I've been playing with "Current Supply" turned on and, sitting on a hex that shows a supply of 786, I go in to replace troops and it says there is 0 logistics. This was not happening when I had one city, even when it was servicing many zones. Now I have 3 cities but still one SHQ. I have situations where 1200+ logistics is going in the the "Current" value, and it will branch into two outgoing roads with no traffic lights of something like 120 and 150. Basically, unless I am misunderstanding what "Current" means, it makes absolutely no sense.

[MarbleToad]

ORIGINAL: DTurtle

ORIGINAL: Dampfnudel

What is the argument for having a push-based system over a pull-based system? [&:]
The only difference is that the first has always huge waste and dumb micromanagement while the second is efficient and is focused on strategic decision making.

As others pointed out: A pull system works perfectly as long as the logistics are available to fulfill all demand. The moment that is not the case, then you have to have some kind of prioritization. And then suddenly you have lots of micro again. With the traffic lights, I can simply block off/limit one direction so that more goes in the other (for example to the front, and not to a back area city).

The strength of this game is that pretty much everything can work to a good enough extent with a very hands-off approach, but to get the most out of each system, you can then go into more detail. As an example, it is possible to get good enough troops, by simply updating the models with always the newest technology. To get the very best troops, you can then start looking at the various design scores, weight vs engine power, etc.

Repeating myself from my previous post: the problem with the current system is that it often requires some intervention to get even basic logistics working (not much but a little). I know of several people who had such problems with the logistics (just getting a second city connected) that they almost completely gave up with the game. They tried stuff like building additional truck depots (outside the city, because they couldn't build inside because of a private depot), building additional (shorter) routes, even building a second SHQ, etc. Unfortunately, none of that helps, or even makes the problem worse.

In my opinion, unless you want to overhaul the entire system (which at this stage is a no-go, I think), what is needed is an easy way to tell the logistics system, that THIS route is the one that should get most of the truck points going along it. So instead of placing traffic signs restricting truck points from going into a direction at a fork in the road, you instead place priority signs, or a priority road telling the system that at least 95%, 90%, 80% or whatever percentage of truck points are supposed to go along this path. I think that that is an addition to the current system that is easy to understand and easy to explain.

I prefer the Logistics as is right now over a demand based system. I like the fiddly bits. That is why I bought his game. Because it has complex systems to fiddle with. If it gets changed too much from fiddliness, I will still play this game, but have to go searching for another game to fill my logistics fiddliness niche. That being said, if there was a Logistics Counsel that let you prioritize routes and then the counsel placed appropriate traffic signs I'd be cool with that. Especially if there was a limit to the number of prioritized routes based on the competency of the counsel leaders. Heck, this could open up a whole new can of worms if the counsel leader becomes really upset. So you could weigh the pros and cons of even building the counsel in the first place.

[omzh]

I don't think there is anything wrong with the traffic lights, and I enjoy a little bit of micro when it comes to logistics, and stretching out offensives that are further out. That being said, I think some of the ideas in this forum make sense to me personally, and would put logistics in a place where it isn't game-ending if you don't micro the system every turn.

1. Pull-based logistics - I tend to think this is the more optimal way to set up logistics, as having demand drive where logistics go removes the micro of having to constantly check your network to make sure none of it is getting wasted. I think DTurtle mentioned, it would require micro once you don't have enough enough supply to reach all of the demand, then you can adjust the routes using traffic lights to make sure supplies are going where they are needed.

One thing I want to add that's been suggested a lot is having a new mechanic that manages your logistics for you - I'm not really a big fan of that, if you're going to add it might as well simplify the system rather than adding a mechanic barely anyone would use, because no one really trusts an AI to handle this stuff for them.

2. Removing Roads - I want this purely for the aesthetics, but I'll admit even besides AI wonkiness I've mistakenly built roads I didn't want. Sure I can just traffic light them, but I'd rather make the map look clean if I can.

As above, the mechanics suggested to deconstruct roads I think is again an unnecessary gimmick. Make the roads free or half cost to deconstruct, it's not a system that needs to be over complicated.

3. More Information/Transparency with Logistics - Part of the problem my ignorant self has with the Current Logistics map mode is that I find it hard to tell how much supplies are actually needed down a certain road. What I would like to see is a map mode where you can see where your supplies are being consumed (e.g. troops/buildings) and how much they need so that I can properly allocate logistics as I need, and traffic light what I want. This follows to the next point brought up;

4. Change Percent-based Logistics to Absolute Value - I think the current percent-based system of traffic lights doesn't really allow for the full control of how much supplies go in which direction. I'd like to limit by the exact number of logistics I need, so I'm not going over and having it get wasted.

My final thought is I would like to see logistics having the same treatment of other mechanics, where it's not game-ending if you don't get deep into it but at the same time gives opportunities to min/max it and adjust based on your situation in game.

[JWW]

I don't know what changes Vic will bring about to logistics, but whatever it is, I hope it is the least invasive changes possible. I really don't think the system is broken, and I don't think it always requires intense micromanagement. At the same time it could be improved. I think we could easily end up with something that isn't as good as what we have now if he attempts major surgery. Based on past experience, though, I think he will make tweaks rather than major changes. So I think those with a really deep understanding of what is going on -- and I don't claim to have a deep understanding; I'm just developing a good understanding -- should be offering suggestions that are along those lines, beneficial without being deeply invasive. And a lot of the suggestions are along those lines.

[MarbleToad]

ORIGINAL: omzh

I don't think there is anything wrong with the traffic lights, and I enjoy a little bit of micro when it comes to logistics, and stretching out offensives that are further out. That being said, I think some of the ideas in this forum make sense to me personally, and would put logistics in a place where it isn't game-ending if you don't micro the system every turn.

1. Pull-based logistics - I tend to think this is the more optimal way to set up logistics, as having demand drive where logistics go removes the micro of having to constantly check your network to make sure none of it is getting wasted. I think DTurtle mentioned, it would require micro once you don't have enough enough supply to reach all of the demand, then you can adjust the routes using traffic lights to make sure supplies are going where they are needed.

One thing I want to add that's been suggested a lot is having a new mechanic that manages your logistics for you - I'm not really a big fan of that, if you're going to add it might as well simplify the system rather than adding a mechanic barely anyone would use, because no one really trusts an AI to handle this stuff for them.

2. Removing Roads - I want this purely for the aesthetics, but I'll admit even besides AI wonkiness I've mistakenly built roads I didn't want. Sure I can just traffic light them, but I'd rather make the map look clean if I can.

As above, the mechanics suggested to deconstruct roads I think is again an unnecessary gimmick. Make the roads free or half cost to deconstruct, it's not a system that needs to be over complicated.

3. More Information/Transparency with Logistics - Part of the problem my ignorant self has with the Current Logistics map mode is that I find it hard to tell how much supplies are actually needed down a certain road. What I would like to see is a map mode where you can see where your supplies are being consumed (e.g. troops/buildings) and how much they need so that I can properly allocate logistics as I need, and traffic light what I want. This follows to the next point brought up;

4. Change Percent-based Logistics to Absolute Value - I think the current percent-based system of traffic lights doesn't really allow for the full control of how much supplies go in which direction. I'd like to limit by the exact number of logistics I need, so I'm not going over and having it get wasted.

My final thought is I would like to see logistics having the same treatment of other mechanics, where it's not game-ending if you don't get deep into it but at the same time gives opportunities to min/max it and adjust based on your situation in game.

Interesting ideas. I like them. But I do have some counterpoints:

If it was a pull based system what would become of the Truck Station and Supply Base relationship? Right now, as I understand it, the Truck stations add push and the supply bases extend the range. Also, there would be a lot less wasted logistics. I understand that this is could be seen as a benefit. But I also see the downside. The difficulty in optimizing the supply lines is an aspect of the game that adds verisimilitude. And it makes sense considering your first units are a rag tag militia with hand-me-down patchwork gear and hodge podged unit compostions. Should logistics networks in this post-apocalyptic world have easily optimized logistics? Or should a large part of the game be figuring that puzzle out? I personally like puzzles. To me, more puzzles is more better.

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: MarbleToad
And it makes sense considering your first units are a rag tag militia with hand-me-down patchwork gear and hodge podged unit compostions. Should logistics networks in this post-apocalyptic world have easily optimized logistics?

But I tend to think the opposite--in these very resource-constrained worlds, maximizing resource management/logistics would be a very important ingrained trait of every proto-civilization, and not something that should have to be learned as you go... When every drop of water and bite of food is precious (and has been for centuries), you're not going to be shipping stuff willy-nilly all over the place.

[omzh]

ORIGINAL: 76mm

ORIGINAL: MarbleToad
And it makes sense considering your first units are a rag tag militia with hand-me-down patchwork gear and hodge podged unit compostions. Should logistics networks in this post-apocalyptic world have easily optimized logistics?

But I tend to think the opposite--in these very resource-constrained worlds, maximizing resources/logistics would be a very important ingrained trait of every proto-civilization, and not something that should have to learned as you go... When every drop of water and bite of food is precious (and has been for centuries), you're not going to be shipping stuff willy-nilly all over the place.

I have to agree with 76mm there. I think Truck Stations and supply bases would still be necessary, I just don't like how the system now has so much waste, and there isn't enough control with the traffic lights to really min max it.

And to caveat I haven't gotten to the end game yet due to a few restarts, but even when you hold 2-3 cities you captured from minors plus your capital it already gets very cumbersome to check every turn, where I think there are better decisions to be made.

[Ayus]

ORIGINAL: Vic

Just wanted to say I am reading this thread and making notes. I do feel there is room for improvement.

Good to know So heres my 2 cents:
I havent even finished my first game, but i won my first major war. It was super epic. Actually i was fighting on two fronts. And as i am a noob, i only have a vague idea on how to manage the supply.
First point i wanna make is: I love the overall supply System! So much strategic possibilities. Actually the battle for "Sandersdorf" felt like a battle for Stalingrad and as soon as i took it and with it the supply lines, the main enemy army in the north-east collapsed epicly and i was able to heroically defeat it. Even though a few turns before, that front was on the edge of collapse. It felt really rewarding.

But back to the topic:
My main issue with the system is what some other people already said: The supply to nowhere. I shouldnt have to manage it. Why are my trucks driving into no-mans-land instead to the front? Dont i have some supply-officer thats managing the micro logistics? It doesnt even make sense.

I understand that i would manage the supply with traffic signs if there was two fronts and not enough supplys for both. I understand that i need to order the buildung of truck stations and so on. But i dont get why i gotta micro if the trucks drive into nowhere.

Also i feeld like some units get over-supplied while others starve. I feel like the distribution should also be optimized (by my imaginary logistics-officer) and i shouldnt need to erect traffic signs myself in that case.

Hope the point i wanna make is clear The overall system is genius. Just a bit illogical and too micro heave in some aspects.

[diamondspider]

ORIGINAL: 76mm
When every drop of water and bite of food is precious (and has been for centuries), you're not going to be shipping stuff willy-nilly all over the place.

++

[Malevolence]

Per the log, is there any case where a split is also not sent? If a split always results in a sent (as I assume), then reduce the log lines by combining "Split and Sent xx Truck Points ..."

Notice in the image, "Split 16 of 30 Truck Points to the South-West." That was the direction received. There is no, "Sent 16 of 30 Truck Points to the South-West." because the split was (15 TPs * 0.40 = 6) to the North and North-East. I assume 18 TP's were lost or was it something else?

Is it possible to add Received, Sent, Used Logistic Points to this log?

Truck Points are the potential, but the LP's are what actually happened during the previous turn calculation.

The Initial, Used, and Current LP can be seen on the map via the Orders Bar (Map Layer), but we are manipulating the Truck Points, not the Logistics Points with Traffic Lights.

I see the most odd behavior with hexes that generate Truck Points. Per the logs, "xxx Logistical Pts using 'Truck' movement have been generated in Hex".

However, even if that hex needs Logistics Points, the log reads, "Sent 770 Truck Points..."

Mixing those two units of measure (LP vs TP) is likely a learning point for players.

I have no idea how "weight" fits into Logistics Points-- I ignore it and hope for the best. The tank requires more logistics points to move than the trooper due to weight.

[diamondspider]

ORIGINAL: Malevolence

The Initial, Used, and Current LP can be seen on the map via the Orders Bar (Map Layer), but we are manipulating the Truck Points, not the Logistics Points with Traffic Lights.

Hmmm... this is good to know, but in reality, when I need replacements, how can I tell where logistical support is available for this?

Your questions here seem to hit the nail on the head. I know that weight has a big impact, because when I try to use strategic movement it is usually extremely limited, and that costs a lot of weight.

[Malevolence]

Remember that you need the available "Current Pts" (LPs) to do player commanded changes like strategic move.

3.4.1.4. STRATEGIC MOVE MODE
Allows you to transfer a Unit over an unlimited distance providing your Logistical Network has the Logistical Points available to pay for the weight of the Unit.

5.10.11. REPLACING TROOPS
If it is a Model that is “replaceable” you can select a Troop Type in the SHQ that is of the same Reinforcement Type. It is basically switching equipment around while leaving the Soldiers in place (respectively at SHQ and in the frontline Unit). It is a good way to get newer equipment to highly experienced frontline Units. You need to have enough Logistical Points for this operation. The weight cost of the replaced and the replacing equipment is added up.

... and section 5.11.1.4, "WEIGHT OF CARGO" which covers all the commodities in a table.


I don't know anywhere a ratio of weight to LP is explicitly stated, therefore I assume it is 1:1.

[diamondspider]

Thank you. I think I am getting bugs here that are confusing me, because I have cases where I am simply wanting to replace dead infantry in multi-stack units and even when their are adjacent to units that can get the replacements, some OHQs will allow replacement and problem one never will. Even if I move units from the bugged OHQ back towards the SHQ it doesn't help and they NEVER allow replacement... so that OHQ either must be bugged or there is something very strange going on that I am not understanding, like the leader of that OHQ has blocked the replacement somehow.

BTW, I use the UPGRADE command to upgrade equipment for infantry, of course you need the logistics to do it. Vehicles can now be replaced to upgrade them, which is great. So far I cannot see the need to use the "first buying troops for the SHQ pool" replacement option because of this.

[Malevolence]

Notice how the author of this manual section jumbles terms.

5.11.3.9. Rail Points only Strong Between Stations

The Rail Points are less flexible than your Truck Points and 90% of them [which them? Assume RP?] will only be applied on rail between two Stations. (10% will still be applied to any rail line) [wait 10% of what? RP?]

If you want to economize on your construction costs you can also construct a Railhead Asset, which will function in the same way as a Station, except for the fact it does not add any logistical points [LP? or RPs?] as Stations do. [Don't stations create RPs?]

A railhead is just a place where trains can turn around and have some minor servicing.

Any Hex with Rail Points is a place where the train can stop and offload [LPs]. Or in other words: you do not need a station to offload your trains [LPs]. You need two stations (or one station and one railhead) for Rail Points to be applied on the Rail Hexes between them.

So, two rail stations at either end of a line create RP's and push them out in the same way Truck stations push out TP's. You could use a Rail Head to just push RP's out from one place, but you must have such at either end to use a rail line at all.

The 90% and 10% is incomprehensible to me at least.

Do units get a movement benefit following a rail line? (e.g. Kelly's Heroes)

Does it cost less to build a rail line where a road already exists? ... or less to build a road where a rail line exists?

Be careful, the pathing engine encourages players to follow roads when building a rail line. Based on terrain, this is not always a good idea. Road movement of TPs and units are subject to terrain penalties.

Rail lines are a great way to get LP's over very difficult terrain like High Mountains. RP's suffer no penalties for terrain.

I started as, and still am, a monster map board, counter-pushing wargamer. I'm not suggesting every case written like a SFB rule book, but above quote isn't very good.

As with TP's, RP's are initial points (potential LP's). They are not synonyms.

[AttuWatcher]

I'm fully onboard with the suggestion to make traffic signs so that they allow the player to directly enter a logistics points value instead of a just a few options based on percentages.

There should be much finer gradation of control with the traffic sign values. This is a relatively minor change that can have a big impact for the better.

[diamondspider]

ORIGINAL: AttuWatcher
I'm fully onboard with the suggestion to make traffic signs so that they allow the player to directly enter a logistics points value instead of a just a few options based on percentages.

As Malevolence has pointed out, the first question if if the traffic lights deal at all with LPs or only TPs?

[AttuWatcher]

ORIGINAL: diamondspider

ORIGINAL: AttuWatcher
I'm fully onboard with the suggestion to make traffic signs so that they allow the player to directly enter a logistics points value instead of a just a few options based on percentages.

As Malevolence has pointed out, the first question if if the traffic lights deal at all with LPs or only TPs?

That question is purely academic. I'll leave it up to Vic to run the math and the conversions. Currently the player has (a rather limited) ability to already directly modify the values. This is just a change in the way the info is presented and/or converted.

If for some reason it would be far easier for it to remain percentage based, then allow a slider with full 0-100% control similar to the myriad of other sliders we already have for other parts of the game.

Considering how absolutely critically important logistics is it's actually a bit silly that we don't have full 0-100% control of the logistics pipeline.