Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: KingHalford

Now we're having this bloody argument on eXplorminate's Discord.

I'm gonna copy/paste something I said there because it might highlight the issue from a certain perspective.

"I agree that using it to cut off supply from roads is busywork, but the cost of removing that would be to take the agency from the player in sculpting the logistics himself, and leaving much of the system to automation
and you know, that's how all the other games do it, if you're gonna automate it, just fully automate it and have done with it and then we've got Operational Art of War with a sci-fi vibe

Let me use a more obvious example to illustrate this point:

Total War: Warhammer has a problem. The RTS combat is amazing but the auto resolve sucks.
This means that if you want to really optimise your performance in that game you feel forced to fight every battle yourself.
Now, you don't HAVE to, the game is designed so you don't, but people do because they want to lose less troops than they would with autocombat
So is the answer to remove the RTS combat just to have the game automate it?
No
Same with Shadow Empires traffic light system, and I'd argue that the issue with Warhammer is WAY worse.
Now, some people don't like that RTS system so they might see no problem in removing it but the people who do like it will be unhappy.
Same with Shadow Empire here"

I doubt anyone has serious fun managing the traffic signs. The reality is that for traffic signs there is an essentially optimal solution which could be found by a computer, and all you're doing as a player is tediously figuring it out manually. If you avoid the tedium you're playing suboptimally, especially if long logistical distances get involved(I had to run an invasion across a bunch of empty terrain, which required a bunch of fiddling to maximize the throughput with the limited levels of truck stations I could build quickly). The thought and recognition of the need to build intermediate stations to support the offensive was interesting and required consideration of how supplies were flowing and would flow as I got further away from my territory, making sure I wasn't overstraining my resource production so the stations would finish quickly, and slowing the offensive to make sure I didn't run out of fuel. All of that was gameplay.

Fiddling with the signs so that I could do it as fast as possible wasn't gameplay, it was tedium- checking back and forth to see what percent back along the line gave the highest flow all the way along the line. Making sure to close all the side-roads the AI built also isn't gameplay, it's an idiot check. It's one of those things that might mess your turn up if you forget to do it because it's boring.

ORIGINAL: gilith

ORIGINAL: KingHalford

Now we're having this bloody argument on eXplorminate's Discord.

I'm gonna copy/paste something I said there because it might highlight the issue from a certain perspective.

"I agree that using it to cut off supply from roads is busywork, but the cost of removing that would be to take the agency from the player in sculpting the logistics himself, and leaving much of the system to automation
and you know, that's how all the other games do it, if you're gonna automate it, just fully automate it and have done with it and then we've got Operational Art of War with a sci-fi vibe

Let me use a more obvious example to illustrate this point:

Total War: Warhammer has a problem. The RTS combat is amazing but the auto resolve sucks.
This means that if you want to really optimise your performance in that game you feel forced to fight every battle yourself.
Now, you don't HAVE to, the game is designed so you don't, but people do because they want to lose less troops than they would with autocombat
So is the answer to remove the RTS combat just to have the game automate it?
No
Same with Shadow Empires traffic light system, and I'd argue that the issue with Warhammer is WAY worse.
Now, some people don't like that RTS system so they might see no problem in removing it but the people who do like it will be unhappy.
Same with Shadow Empire here"

The difference between Warhammner's RTS battles and SE's logistic system is that RTS battles are actually fun; managing logistics branches is not. It's just series of trivial decisions when placing traffic lights. Micromanaging is only fun as long as the decisions you're making are meaningful and not trivial. If it's trivial, then it should be automated.

"Well that's just, like, you're opinion man!"

Well anyway, everybody will have different ideas on this. Fire away

I'm sure Vic has his own plans anyway but it's clear he very much listens to the community.

ORIGINAL: DeltaV112
I doubt anyone has serious fun managing the traffic signs. The reality is that for traffic signs there is an essentially optimal solution which could be found by a computer, and all you're doing as a player is tediously figuring it out manually. If you avoid the tedium you're playing suboptimally, especially if long logistical distances get involved(I had to run an invasion across a bunch of empty terrain, which required a bunch of fiddling to maximize the throughput with the limited levels of truck stations I could build quickly). The thought and recognition of the need to build intermediate stations to support the offensive was interesting and required consideration of how supplies were flowing and would flow as I got further away from my territory, making sure I wasn't overstraining my resource production so the stations would finish quickly, and slowing the offensive to make sure I didn't run out of fuel. All of that was gameplay.

Fiddling with the signs so that I could do it as fast as possible wasn't gameplay, it was tedium- checking back and forth to see what percent back along the line gave the highest flow all the way along the line. Making sure to close all the side-roads the AI built also isn't gameplay, it's an idiot check. It's one of those things that might mess your turn up if you forget to do it because it's boring.

It's not my favorite logistics system, but I have fun using the traffic signs.

I, personally, would rather have the traffic signs than an automated system.

Given the other game mechanics, I think it's a good solution short of ripping out logistics completely. No logistics would take a lot of away from the game.

The traffic signs are a method to give the player agency over prioritization. I could imagine other ways to do that, but likely they would be as much or more tedium as well.

I do disagree with the enemy not being restricted by all the same logistics rules. Logistics and logistic targets are very cool attack surfaces (i.e. vulnerabilities) for players and the AI to exploit.

I do think there is room for other logistical elements. However, given the workload on one developer, I don't think that's a reasonable expectation.

ORIGINAL: willgamer

ORIGINAL: Dampfnudel


Vic please give us a pull/demand based system without traffic signs needed (but allowed).

NOT agreed![:-]

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.

You you prefer dumb micromanagement over smart thinking? I suggest not to play strategy games in this case. Clicker games offer more senseless clicking than traffic sign mangement can ever offer" [:D]

ORIGINAL: Destragon

....

Also, note that I don't mention anything about automating the traffic lights for units. My problems are entirely about the logistics used by buildings.

It's not only the problem of the dynamic loading of units, but also the vast flow of supplies into and out of zones to the SHQ.

Then there's the variability of the static building production AND raw material inputs due to upgrading and impacts from materials shortages.

How will an automated system, much less a "simple" pull system sort out the priorities of all the above (and I'm sure I'm forgetting about other variables)? [X(]

An engineering perspective says that "the devil is in the details" and I prefer the devil I'm learning about to an overly optimistic promise of a better system that will surely become its own Gordian Knot. [:D]

ORIGINAL: KingHalford

I'm repeating myself now, I laid this out in depth above, but if you automate one of the most unique, innovative and fun parts of this game then you're mostly removing the players control over it aside from positioning stations and bases. The traffic light system isn't a problem unless you're engaging in some autistic constant micromanagement on a turn by turn basis to squeeze out an extra LIS point here and there, in which case you should just be building more Truck stations, because by the point of the game that such micro might a problem (mid-late game) you've either got the resources to place an extra base or you're going to lose.

There's also a clear paradigm in games design to either hide automated systems from the player's view or to remove it entirely and there's a solid reason for that.

Furthermore, go ask anybody who still holds a torch for pre-2.0 Stellaris about how they feel to have features removed from a game they paid money for and see how they respond. Paradox might never recover their reputation over that.

What is innovative and fun about managing traffic signs just to make them push supply where it is needed and not into the desert?

Traffic signs should be only to priotize supply if supply is scarce. Not to prevent trucks to drive into the oblivion.

ORIGINAL: Dampfnudel



You you prefer dumb micromanagement over smart thinking? I suggest not to play strategy games in this case. Clicker games offer more senseless clicking than traffic sign mangement can ever offer" [:D]

Really!

Sunk to personal attacks! [:-]

Even with a pull system, you still have to prioritize. Traffic lights are about prioritization not push or pull.

ORIGINAL: willgamer

ORIGINAL: Destragon

....

Also, note that I don't mention anything about automating the traffic lights for units. My problems are entirely about the logistics used by buildings.

It's not only the problem of the dynamic loading of units, but also the vast flow of supplies into and out of zones to the SHQ.

Then there's the variability of the static building production AND raw material inputs due to upgrading and impacts from materials shortages.

How will an automated system, much less a "simple" pull system sort out the priorities of all the above (and I'm sure I'm forgetting about other variables)? [X(]

An engineering perspective says that "the devil is in the details" and I prefer the devil I'm learning about to an overly optimistic promise of a better system that will surely become its own Gordian Knot. [:D]

1. demand is calculated for each hex. (already exists)
2. range of supplier is calculated (already exists)
3. connection of suppliers to demander is checked ((already exists)
4. Supply is subtracted from the supplier capacity. (already exists))
5. If multiple suppliers are in range the closets/biggest supplier has priority (new)
Edit: 6. If not enough capacity is prived demanders get prioritized using a priority setting (already exists)

ORIGINAL: Dampfnudel
1. demand is calculated for each hex. (already exists)
2. range of supplier is calculated (already exists)
3. connection of suppliers to demander is checked ((already exists)
4. Supply is subtracted from the supplier capacity. (already exists))
5. If multiple suppliers are in range the closets/biggest supplier has priority (new)

Given scarcity, how does that loop decide which requests are filled first?

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

ORIGINAL: willgamer

ORIGINAL: Dampfnudel



You you prefer dumb micromanagement over smart thinking? I suggest not to play strategy games in this case. Clicker games offer more senseless clicking than traffic sign mangement can ever offer" [:D]

Really!

Sunk to personal attacks! [:-]

I am sorry and beg for pardon. I will correct my statement

Do you prefer chilled and relaxed micromanagement over tedious and exhausting thinking? I suggest so-called "Clicker games" which offer wast amount of mind liberating clicking, more than any traffic sign management could ever offer.

ORIGINAL: Malevolence

ORIGINAL: DeltaV112
I doubt anyone has serious fun managing the traffic signs. The reality is that for traffic signs there is an essentially optimal solution which could be found by a computer, and all you're doing as a player is tediously figuring it out manually. If you avoid the tedium you're playing suboptimally, especially if long logistical distances get involved(I had to run an invasion across a bunch of empty terrain, which required a bunch of fiddling to maximize the throughput with the limited levels of truck stations I could build quickly). The thought and recognition of the need to build intermediate stations to support the offensive was interesting and required consideration of how supplies were flowing and would flow as I got further away from my territory, making sure I wasn't overstraining my resource production so the stations would finish quickly, and slowing the offensive to make sure I didn't run out of fuel. All of that was gameplay.

Fiddling with the signs so that I could do it as fast as possible wasn't gameplay, it was tedium- checking back and forth to see what percent back along the line gave the highest flow all the way along the line. Making sure to close all the side-roads the AI built also isn't gameplay, it's an idiot check. It's one of those things that might mess your turn up if you forget to do it because it's boring.

It's not my favorite logistics system, but I have fun using the traffic signs.

I, personally, would rather have the traffic signs than an automated system.

Given the other game mechanics, I think it's a good solution short of ripping out logistics completely. No logistics would take a lot of away from the game.

The traffic signs are a method to give the player agency over prioritization. I could imagine other ways to do that, but likely they would be as much or more tedium as well.

I do disagree with the enemy not being restricted by all the same logistics rules. Logistics and logistic targets are very cool attack surfaces (i.e. vulnerabilities) for players and the AI to exploit.

I do think there is room for other logistical elements. However, given the workload on one developer, I don't think that's a reasonable expectation.

I mean you already have and require prioritization tools outside of signs. Signs don't have any more precision than a hex so if you want one building prioritized over another in the same hex(as a result of resource shortages) you have to manually turn the other building off. Which works fine when it's necessary.

I'd say that an automated system would make the AI's task when managing logistics much simpler. As-is the AI faces a pretty steep hill in that it needs to understand that it needs roads to get supply to troops, but too many roads stop supply from getting to the right places. If the AI was programmed to just spam truck stops to solve the problem, it would spend huge piles of resources to do so, which would both be suboptimal play and worse obviously poor play, which is almost worse. Teaching the AI to use traffic signs like a player is possible but complicated AI code is risky in that AI failures are hard to trace. What's worse is if you succeeded, then the AI would have an advantage at this tedious task, making it a requirement to keep up with the AI's traffic-sign placing skill.

Essentially an automated optimal pull system would reduce to a similar problem as "where do I put traffic signs" but separated from the AI's opacity and complexity. The AI could build roads as it's IP permits and logistical assets to extend range safe in the knowledge that there's no "trap" condition to placing roads. There's no risk of making the AI good at a tedious task the player has to keep up with, both sides get the same capacity.

ORIGINAL: Malevolence

ORIGINAL: Dampfnudel
1. demand is calculated for each hex. (already exists)
2. range of supplier is calculated (already exists)
3. connection of suppliers to demander is checked ((already exists)
4. Supply is subtracted from the supplier capacity. (already exists))
5. If multiple suppliers are in range the closets/biggest supplier has priority (new)

Given scarcity, how does that loop decide which requests are filled first?

There is already a priority screen in the game where you can limit logistic capacity used by specific things like zones/armies etc.

The same would apply here. There is a predefined priority list. (the player can modify it)
In last consequence in case of 2 identical things, like 2 divisons of the same army on the same hex share the supply equal.

ORIGINAL: Vic

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

Then I suggest two things.

(1) A mobile "Logistics Unit" counter for military formations that can extend Operational Logistics in order to allow units to push further away from roads, etc. This also provides a nice target for the enemy to destroy when you add airplanes, etc.

(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.

In both these instances, the issue with the current "Supply Base" is it's value can really only be determined at one point in time. As the circumstances change, you are left with a semi-permanent facility that is no longer useful as your lines of communication change.

ORIGINAL: Dampfnudel
There is already a priority screen in the game where you can limit logistic capacity used by specific things like zones/armies etc.

The same would apply here. There is a predefined priority list. (the player can modify it)
In last consequence in case of 2 identical things, like 2 divisons of the same army on the same hex share the supply equal.

So your idea to squash tedium is to manually set a priority for every game object on the map?

The whole purpose of the those priority screens is to further refine IF you feel like micro-managing more.

I would rather set the priority for an entire front with two clicks.

I'm with Will. Which is to say, I don't necessarily agree with all his ideas here, but he made his argument well and I respect that.

ORIGINAL: Malevolence

ORIGINAL: Dampfnudel
There is already a priority screen in the game where you can limit logistic capacity used by specific things like zones/armies etc.

The same would apply here. There is a predefined priority list. (the player can modify it)
In last consequence in case of 2 identical things, like 2 divisons of the same army on the same hex share the supply equal.

So your idea to squash tedium is to manually set a priority for every game object on the map?

The whole purpose of the those priority screens is to further refine IF you feel like micro-managing more.

I would rather set the priority for an entire front with two clicks.

No. I never said to manually set a priority for each object. Where do you read that?

I mean like Assets > Armies ; Zone A > Zone B ; Food > Ammunition ; Army 1 > Army 2.

I just want to state again (because a few seem to make the arguments broadly, e.g. 'nobody likes that' and 'is not fun'):

I like the Logistics system a lot.
I like fiddling with the Traffic Lights.
I even proposed an idea to ameliorate it for those who do not.
No one can tell me how to enjoy my time off with this game, if I like something you find terrible just accept that it is so, do not ignore it as if people like me do not exist