Thoughts on the new "pull" system in logistics

[Twotribes]

There is a specific forum at top of all these that is specifically for bugs.

[zgrssd]

ORIGINAL: Sieppo

I also know there are good arguments into automating things but if everything in games was automated, how and what would you "play" in it?

I am playing the Supreme Commander of [Insert Regime Name]. A guy to wich the SHQ Commanders, Governors and the entire Cabinet report to.

Managing Logistics is something for the "Quartermasters Office", wich is a element of a healthy SHQ. If even that much - sounds more like any Logistics Dispatcher in any truck stop can do that.
Or in other words:
It is beneath the reserve pool members!
Beneath the Secretary!
It is a job for those workers that are running the Supreme HQ Bunker or the Truck Stations.
Not a job for the immortal, intangible ghost directing the actions of a entire Regime!

There is still plenty of relevant stuff for me to do.

[Smidlee]

ORIGINAL: Vic

I'm pleased that in single player at least we'll be able to choose to turn the automation off and if that wasn't the case I'd be pretty pissed off about this change. This will most affect multiplayer games I think.

Each player can choose his own settings.

And if you turn it off everything stays exactly as it was before.

best wishes,
Vic

What a great idea. It's like Burger King "Have it your way."

[PyrrhicDefeat]

I am playing the Supreme Commander of [Insert Regime Name]. A guy to wich the SHQ Commanders, Governors and the entire Cabinet report to.

Managing Logistics is something for the "Quartermasters Office", wich is a element of a healthy SHQ. If even that much - sounds more like any Logistics Dispatcher in any truck stop can do that.

Well in that case you shouldn't be giving move orders to individual units, or deciding when to upgrade a hospital in one of your cities, or whether to cut another three hexes of dirt road somewhere. All way beneath you. Maybe those can be automated too?

[JWW]

ORIGINAL: PyrrhicDefeat

I am playing the Supreme Commander of [Insert Regime Name]. A guy to wich the SHQ Commanders, Governors and the entire Cabinet report to.

Managing Logistics is something for the "Quartermasters Office", wich is a element of a healthy SHQ. If even that much - sounds more like any Logistics Dispatcher in any truck stop can do that.

Well in that case you shouldn't be giving move orders to individual units, or deciding when to upgrade a hospital in one of your cities, or whether to cut another three hexes of dirt road somewhere. All way beneath you. Maybe those can be automated too?

Agree. To continue, or deciding on what size main gun the new model light tank will have. Or deciding just how many spies will be assigned to that minor nation on your border.

As for logistics, it is the key to victory. It always has been. It is even more so in modern warfare, which is roughly what we are emulating in SE. zrgssd, if you were being serious, you grossly underestimate the importance of logistics.

Leaders win through logistics. Vision, sure. Strategy, yes. But when you go to war, you need to have both toilet paper and bullets at the right place at the right time. In other words, you must win through superior logistics.
– Tom Peters

The war has been variously termed a war of production and a war of machines. Whatever else it is, so far as the United States is concerned, it is a war of logistics.
– Fleet ADM Ernest J. King

Logistics is the ball and chain of armored warfare. Heinz Guderian

You will not find it difficult to prove that battles, campaigns, and even wars have been won or lost primarily because of logistics.
Dwight D. Eisenhower

Amateurs talk strategy. Professionals talk logistics.
Omar N. Bradley

The tactics...no, amateurs discuss tactics,.... Professional soldiers study logistics.
Tom Clancy

The line between disorder and order lies in logistics.
Sun Tzu

The amateurs discuss tactics: the professionals discuss logistics
Napoleon Bonaparte

NOTE -- I know enough about using quotes to know that some of these that I pulled off the Internet may be attributed to the wrong person or that the person may not have said those exact words or that they might be mis-translated or that he may not have said those words at all even if he is widely quoted as saying them. But the point is made.

[jpwrunyan]

Totally in favor of the direction of these changes despite the temporary issues that have also been introduced.

It's perfectly fair that some people enjoy the puzzle element of the old system. Puzzle games are fun. However, when I play Shadow Empire, I want to play a war game. If I want to play a logistics puzzle game, I'll play Cities: Skylines.

Since the old system is preserved, I believe we can all be happy.

[JWW]

+1 especially last sentence.

[ramnblam]

After playing almost 100 turns with the new system, I would never go back. I like that a pull system feels intuitive, the AI spaghetti roads are no longer a real annoyance. Logistics still have to be managed and there is room for manual optimization but it feels more in tune with the other games systems. I really enjoy not having to spend time every second turn, scouring my empire with the traffic sign tool making sure everything is working as it should.

[PyrrhicDefeat]

Fleet ADM Ernest J. King
Heinz Guderian
Dwight D. Eisenhower
Omar N. Bradley
Tom Clancy
Sun Tzu
Napoleon Bonaparte

Haha, do you know the old Sesame street song: "One of these things is not like the others..."

But yes, I think it's important we speak up now, who knows how long Vic will want to maintain two separate logistics systems in one game.

The importance is that like you said, logistics are an essential component of real life strategic and operational conflict, and the original system not only emphasized this but gave an unprecedented level of control over them. To me they were item one on the list of why this game is different from others and worth the money. God knows there's no shortage of games where you can push units around hexes or, ugh, play cards.

If they're automatically handled in the background they become like population health: something important in real life I ignore in the game. When I get a notice people are sick I upgrade a hospital one level, when I get a notice supplies aren't getting through I upgrade a truck station one level, otherwise I let the game handle it in the background.

Instead of a complex system to master to become good at the game, it's more abstracted window dressing. Certainly the logistics system could benefit from being less opaque, easier to interpret and understand what is needed. But if automatic logistics becomes the only choice then the game will become less original, less distinct, less compelling.

[JWW]

Tom Clancy. Author. Damned good one. I just looked as some "logistics quotes" sites and liked his. And Tom Peters is a business guy, but he did serve in the US Navy including in Vietnam. I had never heard of Peters, so I looked him up before using his quote.

[PyrrhicDefeat]

yeah Tom Clancy was the one who stood out.

If you're into logistics I highly recommend Supplying War: Logistics From Wallenstein To Patton by Van Creveld. It has one of my favorite stories, about how the prevalence of early railroads in Europe laid down over Roman roads led to a standardized European rail gauge that was the width of a Roman road, but since the Romans never made it past Germany into Russia the Russians developed a wider gauge, leading to a massive bottleneck at the border that helped slow down the Nazi advance and save Russia.

[AttuWatcher]

I'm looking forward to trying out the changes when I get some time, hopefully this weekend. I didn't think the previous system was horrible, just needed a few changes. I welcome Vic's attempt to please everyone and potentially provide us with a superior gameplay experience at the same time.

The world just had a very revealing experiment in logistics at a "special place" known as CHOP. And what a mighty failure it was. [:D]

[Tomn]

I think there's some confusion of terms going on here. Everyone agrees that logistics is important and should be modeled, but I feel like there's some unstated differences over what, exactly, logistics actually IS and should be in gameplay terms.

For those who welcome the new pull system, logistics means establishing logistical routes and bases, ensuring that infrastructure keeps up with logistical requirements in whichever direction is deemed vital for an offensive push, defending your logistical links from enemy action and acting to cut the enemy's own links where possible. In other words, logistics is mostly about setting up the infrastructure, with meaningful gameplay decisions coming in terms of where and when to establish that infrastructure, and how to protect it - that's the stuff that really matters to them, and to them the pull system doesn't affect what's important, and in fact makes it easier to focus on what matters.

Those who are opposed to the new system, on the other hand, seem to define logistics more broadly - it's not just establishing the infrastructure, but actively managing the daily traffic flow of logistics that constitutes logistics and logistical gameplay. For them, traffic management is so integral to their concept of gameplay that the automation of such would be like having a FPS server where everyone uses aimbots - there are still decisions and tactics to be made, but the heart of the gameplay has been removed for them.

It's not really a case of one side or another wanting the "better" game per se, it's just a case of different priorities that's been tangled up in argument since the word "logistics" is used to define two different concepts. "I want to do this thing you find boring" vs "I don't want to do this thing you find interesting" is what it boils down to. Frankly, both sides are free to want what they want - trying to find a compromise between that is Vic's headache as a game designer. If that compromise happens to displease someone - well, that's practically inevitable for anyone designing a game that appeals on as many layers as Shadow Empire does.

As an aside, can I just say that folks here seem to have some really skewed views about Steam? We're not all unwashed barbarians who scream in primal monkey rage every time more than four numbers come up on the screen, you know. Just take a look at the reviews for Decisive Campaigns: Barbarossa - the vast majority of front page reviews are positive and praise its depth, with the one negative review complaining that the Soviet campaign wasn't as in-depth as the German campaign. Steam generally tries to recommend games based on what you already have and enjoy, and folks who come across Shadow Empire are mostly going to be fans of other complex strategy games including other grog games, of which there are many on Steam these days. Sure, folks are more likely to hold the game up to wider industry standards of UI design and such, but extra diversity of thoughts and experience is hardly the worst thing for a designer to take on board.

Besides, looking down on Steam gamers for being somehow intellectually inferior is kinda hilarious given that Steam gamers tend to bemoan PC games getting "dumbed down" for console kiddies, while Playstation and Xbox fans are united in their contempt for childlike Nintendo fans, while everybody turns their noses up at mobile casual gamers, and on and on it goes. Let's not think grogs are immune either - I guarantee there's chess players out there who sniff about how no video game can ever capture the elegance of strategy in chess, while Go players chortle about the need for representational pieces instead of pure, abstract strategy, and so it goes, same as it ever was, tale as old as time.

[ramnblam]

ORIGINAL: Tomn

I think there's some confusion of terms going on here. Everyone agrees that logistics is important and should be modeled, but I feel like there's some unstated differences over what, exactly, logistics actually IS and should be in gameplay terms.

For those who welcome the new pull system, logistics means establishing logistical routes and bases, ensuring that infrastructure keeps up with logistical requirements in whichever direction is deemed vital for an offensive push, defending your logistical links from enemy action and acting to cut the enemy's own links where possible. In other words, logistics is mostly about setting up the infrastructure, with meaningful gameplay decisions coming in terms of where and when to establish that infrastructure, and how to protect it - that's the stuff that really matters to them, and to them the pull system doesn't affect what's important, and in fact makes it easier to focus on what matters.

Those who are opposed to the new system, on the other hand, seem to define logistics more broadly - it's not just establishing the infrastructure, but actively managing the daily traffic flow of logistics that constitutes logistics and logistical gameplay. For them, traffic management is so integral to their concept of gameplay that the automation of such would be like having a FPS server where everyone uses aimbots - there are still decisions and tactics to be made, but the heart of the gameplay has been removed for them.

It's not really a case of one side or another wanting the "better" game per se, it's just a case of different priorities that's been tangled up in argument since the word "logistics" is used to define two different concepts. "I want to do this thing you find boring" vs "I don't want to do this thing you find interesting" is what it boils down to. Frankly, both sides are free to want what they want - trying to find a compromise between that is Vic's headache as a game designer. If that compromise happens to displease someone - well, that's practically inevitable for anyone designing a game that appeals on as many layers as Shadow Empire does.

As an aside, can I just say that folks here seem to have some really skewed views about Steam? We're not all unwashed barbarians who scream in primal monkey rage every time more than four numbers come up on the screen, you know. Just take a look at the reviews for Decisive Campaigns: Barbarossa - the vast majority of front page reviews are positive and praise its depth, with the one negative review complaining that the Soviet campaign wasn't as in-depth as the German campaign. Steam generally tries to recommend games based on what you already have and enjoy, and folks who come across Shadow Empire are mostly going to be fans of other complex strategy games including other grog games, of which there are many on Steam these days. Sure, folks are more likely to hold the game up to wider industry standards of UI design and such, but extra diversity of thoughts and experience is hardly the worst thing for a designer to take on board.

Besides, looking down on Steam gamers for being somehow intellectually inferior is kinda hilarious given that Steam gamers tend to bemoan PC games getting "dumbed down" for console kiddies, while Playstation and Xbox fans are united in their contempt for childlike Nintendo fans, while everybody turns their noses up at mobile casual gamers, and on and on it goes. Let's not think grogs are immune either - I guarantee there's chess players out there who sniff about how no video game can ever capture the elegance of strategy in chess, while Go players chortle about the need for representational pieces instead of pure, abstract strategy, and so it goes, same as it ever was, tale as old as time.

REEEEEEEEEEEEEEE MOBILE GAMERS

Good post bro, very nuanced.

[Tree Dog]

ORIGINAL: Tomn

As an aside, can I just say that folks here seem to have some really skewed views about Steam?

Besides, looking down on Steam gamers for being somehow intellectually inferior

I think the funniest part about all this complaining about Steam players and reviews is that the game isn't even out on Steam yet...

[zgrssd]

ORIGINAL: PyrrhicDefeat

I am playing the Supreme Commander of [Insert Regime Name]. A guy to wich the SHQ Commanders, Governors and the entire Cabinet report to.

Managing Logistics is something for the "Quartermasters Office", wich is a element of a healthy SHQ. If even that much - sounds more like any Logistics Dispatcher in any truck stop can do that.

Well in that case you shouldn't be giving move orders to individual units, or deciding when to upgrade a hospital in one of your cities, or whether to cut another three hexes of dirt road somewhere. All way beneath you. Maybe those can be automated too?

That "single unit" is a Batallion of 500-1000 men. And your "orders" are only about the rough 200 km Hex you want to have them.

How the heck does that compare to sending 101 or 102 tucks on that road?

[GodwinW]

Good post!

[Tomn]

For what it's worth, my personal view of the matter is that while I could understand the dopamine rush of getting everything lined up right, I had real trouble considering it worth the aggravation of constant fiddling and fine-tuning. I can respect those who enjoy managing traffic flow, but I deeply appreciate not having to do so myself.

[GodwinW]

Just going to say it didn't require constant fiddling and fine-tuning at all (what I call 'constant fiddling and fine-tuning' anyway) once you kept a few things in mind. I'm happy for you that you get a better experience, and I hope Vic will keep supporting the old system.

[Werezak]

I can't imagine why anyone would be against automating this.

There are no interesting decisions here. Either your LP allocation is optimal, or it is suboptimal.

Can someone please fill me in on what options traffic-sign micromanagement added to the game and why I would want to choose between these options?

A game should not reward un-fun busy work. It should automate away all the uninteresting choices leaving only the ones where there are trade-offs between the options and no obvious "correct" choice.