Matrix Games Forums

A day i have to take a holliday in order to translate this topic in french...

Hi Parat,

If you ever encounter a turn where you feel the supply boost between HQs is not quite what it should be please send me a turn to support@furysoftware.com.

I just mention this as ideally the engine is maximizing unit and HQ supply automatically, e.g. this is what it is supposed to be doing, and if it is not then I can take a closer look and apply the appropriate fix.

As mentioned above, manually re-assigning on your turn would be potentially problematic.

At the moment I honestly don't see a good solution here, just meaning it could be technically done, but in order to not exploit the supply rules it would have to literally be done prior to moving any of your own units, and that could end up being confusing with players wondering why this is the case and why it has to be limited this way and why you can't boost an HQ after they have moved and so on.

For now I'd rather the automatic calculation simply be refined to be as optimized as possible for all players.

Hubert

ORIGINAL: Hubert Cater

Hi everyone, I can confirm that a boosted HQ cannot then boost another HQ.

We can think about a way to manually select which HQ should boost another, but this is a bit tricky as positions change on every turn and there is no guarantee that what you select on a previous turn will hold up on another turn leaving players to wonder why an HQ is not linked.

Also supply is calculated prior to the beginning of the turn and then it would have to be recalculated if you are manually amending the HQ link/boosts, and this might be exploitable unless you only allow it prior to any moves. In the end, with the additional rules and restrictions in place it could be just as frustrating, for some, relative to the current automatic assignment etc.

I can give you a very simple and reliable way to handle this without exploits and problems and give people what they are asking for .

Allow designating an HQ as the priority for boosting (either boolean flag or rank integer). The code then will then try to find another HQ to boost it and compare boosting the HQ to using an ordinary supply source (to avoid the problem with 4 that people pointed out). The code will not need to guess or make mistakes about what should be boosted since the player chooses. The player will get the best supply available for the designated HQ.

Then it is up to the player to manage HQ boost designations (which will take effect on the next calculation phase). If there are conflicts like designating every HQ as boosted (boolean true or equal ranks), then the code will default to the current rules for trying to sort it out. Right now the code uses command value to try to decide priority. I am just proposing using a separate flag because command value is not always the right criterion.

Flagging an HQ for boosting is a simple way of telling the code which HQ is "at the front" and needs to be optimized.

Hi Hubert!

In this example the american HQ to the south is not boosted while the south african and sudanese HQ are. The american HQ has expensive air units attached to it. The South african and sudanese have no units attached to them.

Sorry if the image is croped but it was difficult to stay under size limit!

Thanks for the additional thoughts here gentlemen, let me have a good think on this for a little while, and of course add this to the list.

I would also greatly appreciate beeing able to set some sort of priority. Especially in Russia it can get quite confusing.
I would like the possibilty to connect them manually like I can do with units. Just a "Semi Auto" Mode. If it wont give a positive effect any longer, switch to auto calculation.

Why has this to be done prior to any unit movement? It wont take effect in the current turn anyway, no?!

Correct, it won't take effect on the current turn, but I would think we'd still need to continue to show what the previous association between parent HQ and boosted HQ was so that the supply map for the current turn still makes sense. So we'd need highlights for proposed association, previous association etc., and this might be confusing, maybe for new players, maybe not for those pretty familiar overall with the system.

It's just a matter of getting it all right and intuitive enough as many find the current supply model confusing enough as it is. At the moment I'm really just suggesting that these kinds of things really do need a good think to sort it all out in an ideal way.

ORIGINAL: Hubert Cater

Correct, it won't take effect on the current turn, but I would think we'd still need to continue to show what the previous association between parent HQ and boosted HQ was so that the supply map for the current turn still makes sense. So we'd need highlights for proposed association, previous association etc., and this might be confusing, maybe for new players, maybe not for those pretty familiar overall with the system.

Maybe you are overthinking this? (plz dont get me wrong!)
Right now I have an HQ which I desperately want to have more Supply but I often cannot see which other HQ I would have to move where. All I can see is "Supply now" and "Supply next turn".
I cannot see why where would be a need to see all the "what ifs" you mention.
If the player decides to manually interfere with HQ coupling then he wants the supply status next turn to change a lot. So there should be not head scratching about the effects I think.
Maybe hide it in an expert mode or flag it as such?

But:
If you decide not to do anything I will still love this game!