Open Beta Patch v1.27a (18 june 2025)

[zgrssd]

ORIGINAL: Culthrasa

Will the drop be visible somewhere? Logistics is a difficult topic for beginning players and having supply "vanish" will probably confuse them.

Traffic Sign Menu, same as every other drop?

I think it may actually make the System easier for new players. Having the System be too lenient, means they run into issues to late thus too suddenly.
Crafting a learning curve is a important part of game design.

[LordAldrich]

ORIGINAL: Destragon

...And then once you do know about it, it makes you want to micromanage your road network even more than now, to minimise the amount of branching on your roads, to minimise the penalty. ...

If (if) the branching was a major factor in the logistics calculation, then this could be the actual intended outcome. It basically pushes the logistics optimization computation off onto the player so that it doesn't show up in turn times.

Personally that doesn't sound like a ton of fun to me, but on the other hand long turn times aren't fun either. If a human is significantly better at manually doing the logistics optimization than an algorithm is (which does happen for all sorts of algorithms), then doing it "once" and minimizing the branches in your network might be an OK trade-off.

Hard to measure though - this is the kind of question that UX designers get paid a bunch to analyze.

[GodwinW]

ORIGINAL: LordAldrich
If (if) the branching was a major factor in the logistics calculation, then this could be the actual intended outcome. It basically pushes the logistics optimization computation off onto the player so that it doesn't show up in turn times.

That would imply that the bulk of the time AI turns cost is purely the calculation of the logistics numbers for the 1 human player. Instead of the time reflecting calculations for the AI. And that sounds unlikely. Also considering the fact that early on small planets with less AI players DO have way less of a turn time than Huge planets with lots of AI, despite the player's logistics system being pretty much identical at that stage.

[Destragon]

The changelog says "After the 4th branching (not counting the source)", but it's looking like it does count the source tile after all, or at least the very beginning of the logistics stream is considered to be "the first branching", even though it hasn't branched out yet.
I'm getting the 5th branching penalty on the 4th branching, unless I'm miscounting it.


I really don't think I'm liking this penalty. It feels really arbitrary or gamey to me. I just don't understand why it would be happening.
It encourages me to min-max the road in some way like this to get rid of the penalty:

[DasTactic]

I'm guessing the nerfing of the logistics through the AP costs is to get players to use more SHQs to manage clusters of zones but I think this will add to the pain of players who aren't grasping the logistics system and this will be further compounded with the Steam release when the game moves away from the hard-core wargamers here at Matrix. So really not sure that this is a good option.
For me, the biggest issue with the way logistics is handled (thinking about new players trying to come to grips with it) is that the resources lists are not ever really current: the two-turn delay in seeing production/movement is a problem and probably should be from the start of that turn instead of the start of the next turn; and that constructing assets should be taken out of the pool when you start building instead of at the end of the turn.

[ramnblam]

Can confirm that the turn times feel much better, am looking forward to see how the logistic changes play.

[Culthrasa]

ORIGINAL: Destragon

The changelog says "After the 4th branching (not counting the source)", but it's looking like it does count the source tile after all, or at least the very beginning of the logistics stream is considered to be "the first branching", even though it hasn't branched out yet.
I'm getting the 5th branching penalty on the 4th branching, unless I'm miscounting it.


I really don't think I'm liking this penalty. It feels really arbitrary or gamey to me. I just don't understand why it would be happening.
It encourages me to min-max the road in some way like this to get rid of the penalty:

Totally agree with you destragon... that is what the effect will be.. more fiddling to minimize the branches, lots of parallel routes and weird zigzags to keep everything on the same route... It just doesn't feel like an improvement nor fun gameplay..

[Culthrasa]

sorry, somehow i got a double post

[Vic]

@Destragon,
Confirmed. It should start one branch later. Will be fixed.

@All,
On the matter of the WHY?

First of all these changes will have no impact on early games. As for to get to the 5th branching point requires already a rather larger road network. And the initial branching only takes -10 ap. Furthermore the sealed road is less effective for trucks (from 5ap -> 7ap), but early games usually only have dirt roads.

The reason i have made these nerves is for the mid to late game where the range of some Truck/Rail stations was just to far.

I have been looking at plenty of saves of like round 150, round 200 even round 300!.

Before the nerf a rail station could reach up to 100 hexes distance. And the HighSpeed Rail upto 200 hexes. Even truck station augmented with supply base III could over sealed roads go up to over 80 hexes.

Overlap between the networks of the source Assets is the whole idea, but it went to far in many of the late games where everything overlaps everything.

And thanks for the feedback. That is one of the ideas of these open beta's.

Also branches that are closed by traffic signs should not count as branch. That should already be the case.

I am still nerfing these rules. Going to reduce rail from 5ap to 4 ap and make Rail stations give more points than truck stations. Otherwise with the new distance rules they lose their interest.

Next 2 things planned are:

1. Clear feedback on if Units are not receiving supply or Zones not receiving Items ... WHY this is the case.
2. An optional pull-like-system to prioritize certain roads

Best wishes,
Vic

[Culthrasa]

Vic,

I get that yo want to reduce the overall range of the truck station, and i'm totally Oke with it. But wouldn't it be easier to nerf(or even remove) the supply base instead of the branch penalty? Even a short road can have multiple branches cause mines/farms etc are positioned beside it. This is probably easier for players.
And to reiterate, could you make separate traffic signs for Rail and Road then? Currently a road in the same hex as a railroad can't be shut off without also shutting of the rail component, other then removing the infrastructure, rebuilding the rail and diverting the road to another hexside.

[Vic]

I'll look into it Culthrasa. No promise on that one yet.

Keep in mind that a road that arrives at the 6th branch with newbee players (not using traffic signs) will only have left: 0.5^6 = 1% of the initial points anyway.

Best wishes,
Vic

[Vic]

some minor fixes done with beta-11

and some fine-tuning to the logistics changes of beta-10

best wishes,
Vic

[GodwinW]

Thank you for the explanation on why, and I do agree that trucks could already reach quite far.

80 hexes though is only with dwindling logistics I take it, because max full logistics distance with Supply Base 3 should be 110 + 100 / 5 = 44 hexes, so half the 80 you mention.

But please do not remove Supply Bases. I really enjoy using them and building them and I think they're great potential strategic locations to protect, fight over, and consider in plans. It really adds to the map and the fun of deciding where to move your troops towards and even knowing this where to build them.

I enjoy figuring out where the truck AP's start to run out between two cities and thus where to build 1 Supply Station to serve both of them, for example.

[Destragon]

ORIGINAL: Vic

The reason i have made these nerves is for the mid to late game where the range of some Truck/Rail stations was just to far.

Yeah, that's what I figured. Like I said above, I'm okay with nerfing the range of logistics stations, however, I don't like the branching penalty, because
1: It's currently too imperceptible for players.
2: It feels really arbitrary. Why would the branches increase the action point cost?
3: It encourages min-maxing your road network in some pretty unnatural way. By creating road snakes and by starting multiple roads originating from the same truck station that are not intended to touch each other, like a road octopus. It would make me want bridges or tunnels be added, so that you can have multiple roads going over one tile without touching each other, to minimise the branching penalty.

You can nerf the AP of truck stations or of supply bases or the AP cost of roads, but I don't see the point of the branching penalty.
If you nerf the AP of truck stations for example, the player can't get around it, but with the branching penalty, you give the player an option to bypass the nerf, which I doubt is intended.

ORIGINAL: GodwinW

But please do not remove Supply Bases. I really enjoy using them and building them and I think they're great potential strategic locations to protect, fight over, and consider in plans. It really adds to the map and the fun of deciding where to move your troops towards and even knowing this where to build them.

I think supply bases need some big rework, because they don't feel like they act the way they are intended to be used right now. Especially when you build a supply base and a truck station on the same tile. Isn't the intended purpose of a supply base to refuel logistics truck when they are in the middle of their journey?
I think supply bases should be changed so that they don't give additional action points to logistics trucks, but instead REPLENISH the exhausted action points of the logistics trucks.

[GodwinW]

They've always worked like giving jerrycans along with the trucks, not refueling the tank.

I'm fine with them not being able to be built in cities which probably are the best spots to build truck stations. Which is the case currently.

But changing them like that? They'd better be a lot cheaper then because now you have to put them along every branch if your roads branch before the trucks have lost enough AP.
PLUS, it's way more work to determine what a good location is when you have overlapping Trucks coming in from all kinds of directions. I'm not a fan of that suggestion for those reasons and I think they give extra AP precisely because otherwise it'll be a lot of extra micromanagement.

And what to think about when you upgrade a road from dust to sealed? Would you really want to have to take all that into account in order to be the most efficient? I like them the way they are.

I agree with your points regarding the branches btw, very much so in fact. All 3 (I've already thought about suggesting bridges/tunnels :p).

[Destragon]

ORIGINAL: GodwinW

They've always worked like giving jerrycans along with the trucks, not refueling the tank.

I know how they work. I'm talking about what I THINK is supposed to be their actual intention, looking at the examples the manual gives you for them. (They place them like 4 tiles away from the truck station, for pretty much no reason.)

ORIGINAL: GodwinW
I'm fine with them not being able to be built in cities which probably are the best spots to build truck stations. Which is the case currently.

I agree that it would increase min-maxing potential to have supply bases replenish AP instead of adding AP, but I still think something needs to be changed about them.
The restriction to not be able to build them inside cities doesn't make any sense to me. At the very least, this should be changed to a restriction that just prevents you from having supply bases and truck stations on the same tile.
Supply bases are currently in a very weird spot, because they kinda act like an upgrade to the truck stations, that is for some reason a separate asset. If you can build them on the same tile, then I don't really see why they even need to exist in the game, but if you are forced to build them on separate tiles (not just because of this silly city restriction), then they at least make a bit more sense to me.
There's actually a thread about it in the suggestions forum:
https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4834941

[Grotius]

I understand the rationale for nerfing truck distances. But what is the rationale for the branching penalty? Maybe it's designed to improve performance -- to speed up logistic calculations by reducing the number of branches?

[Vic]

Rationale for branching would be that there is only so many roads that can be served. Much like bus stops. A single truck cant be in 2 places at same time and a convoy would need to split up.

I by the way like the criticism on the supply bases.

Also I think I am going to make the branching count only for the percentage allowed through by the traffic signs.

Best wishes,
Vic

[Culthrasa]

That sounds pretty good vic, it would make the small branches only going to a mine less of a liability further down the road...

[GodwinW]

ORIGINAL: Vic

Rationale for branching would be that there is only so many roads that can be served. Much like bus stops. A single truck cant be in 2 places at same time and a convoy would need to split up.

Thank you for answering

Hm, in my mind there's just only trucks driving if logistics are used, not when they're not. If they're not used they're 'potential trucks' that can be sent out and are held in reserve because they might be needed (to raise a formation or do a strategic move or so).
And how many can go where, in order to not duplicate trucks, is diminishing per branch. Half the trucks (or potential trucks) will go left and the other half goes right at a fork in the road. So this is already the case (let's say no traffic lights). So the way I see it the fact that branches divide logistic points in half already signify that trucks cannot be in 2 places at once.
If the Logistics points did NOT decrease on a road splitting in two, then I see that trucks are in 2 places at once. So now I do not.