Thoughts on the new "pull" system in logistics

[Malevolence]

ORIGINAL: josefrees

If it’s going to be automated there should be a leader skill for it

So it would be automated but inefficient due to a leader's skill level?

[:D]

We would have to move the forum to the Eve Online boards for that level of salty tears.

[lloydster4]

ORIGINAL: Malevolence
That said, as a strategy-focused player, I have no new strategies to develop for victory. No new strengths or weaknesses to exploit or to counter. There are no new dimensions to the game.

The Traffic Light system is nothing to do with strategies either. It's an efficiency-puzzle with one clear, superior answer, that merely takes a brief mental exercise to work out. The original system was neither burdensome, as some claim, nor engaging. It was just a bit of light busy work that some people found satisfying (myself included).

Meanwhile, every other aspect of the logistics system has been improved! Reduced AP's mean you can't rely on a small handful of massive LiS hubs to fuel your entire network. Supply Dump rework means you now have hexes far away from cities that are both important and vulnerable. Branching penalties and Road demolition means you're encouraged to build a small number of meaningful roadways.

Perhaps the biggest tragedy is that there are no interesting counterplays against the AI's network because it has no weak points other than cities and borders.

Regardless of whether you prefer push or pull, it's a minor change. It certainly doesn't make/break the game.

[concern]

Started a new game under the push system. I have military extended down one road from a city, who seem to be getting their fair share of logistics. I have two assets one hex away from the city and they're definitely getting more logistics than they.

...and then I have another zone down an 8-10 length dirt road and they are getting nothing. I've tried turning the push down on the assets, but I can only switch them off, not reduce them from their 100 auto-push. I've tried putting up traffic lights to the assets and that seems to have a minor effect. Should I be setting a manual push priority to the other zone? Is that how I get stuff flowing there again?

Thanks

[Vic]

We are stil finetuning the new Pull Point system. Please read my posts on the Open Beta thread.

best wishes,
Vic

[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

[demiare]

I really liked that we are going to be relieved from a routine job of fine-tuning logistic points for our assets (bring needed amount but nothing more). It's too annoying and should be automatized.

[GodwinW]

ORIGINAL: Destragon

ORIGINAL: KingHalford

This system essentially automates one of the game's more interesting features, ...

I think this is the big misunderstanding. It doesn't automate any interesting part of the logistics system. It automates the brainless parts, specifically the following:
- That your assets receive enough logistics points, so that they can actually do the job that you wanted them to do
- Ensure that your units and cities are not starving, when you have enough logistics to supply them, but they are getting wasted by being sent into no man's land

A misunderstanding? Not at all. Just a difference of opinion. It seems hard for you to understand, but what you call the brainless part Kinghalford and me call the interesting part. I have tried explaining why it's cool to me in that post in the beta thread. Player agency, I feel needed, positive experience for managing well etc.
It's not brainless, and it's definitely not needed to spend every turn tweaking it. It's easy to manage when you just set it up right. Thought investment -> reward. It's fun (to us)!

ORIGINAL: Destragon
The logistics system is still there. The same amount of decisionmaking is present with the pull system as there was before it.

Absolutely nowhere close. Like I said, I played 2 hours ignoring it 100%, except building 1 road and upgrading truck stations after nationalizing them. It's basically gone, compared to how it was. For the things that matter of it to me.

ORIGINAL: Destragon

Traffic signs still have a use. You use them to make the one decision that you used them for even in the old system. To decide into what directions your leftover logistics points should be sent, so that you can use them for strategic move and raising troops.

[&:] That is really not what I use them for. That's only what you used them for? Man. THEN I really do not get what was there for you to want the game to automate [&:]

ORIGINAL: Destragon

At least in my eyes, this is an objectively good addition to the game and saying that this somehow ruins the spirit of the game in some way sounds hyperbolic to me.

It's nice that you said it's objective in your eyes, because that's the point: it's subjective. You can accept that we speak the truth, are not exaggerating, and just have an opinion that you find hard to believe (probably because you miss a lot of the steps/reasons between our opinion and yours). Just like I accept that you speak your truth, and that you are not just saying this for the heck of it but mean it.

[Vhalor]

Although I have only played a small amount with these new changes, so far it seems a step in the right direction and I like it. It now feels like the logistical network is run with some semblance of competency, instead of the previous utter incompetency! Nice.

Also, thanks to this new pull system, I estimate about 63,42% less heads to immediately explode, once this game appears on steam. To summarize, new LIS system likely to save countless lives.

[Atlanton]

I'm really confused about the claim that the pull-system removed strategic decision making.

In practice, there are no decisions to be made with the push system; just a solution to the problem of "send the logi points to everywhere it's needed". Traffic signs can be changed and adjusted turn by turn, so there's really no consequences nor difficulty for your management of the push systems. That's why other posters have called in a puzzle: it's not hard to fit the jigsaw puzzles together, you just have to sit down and spend the time doing it.

Meanwhile, all the decisions that affect logistics that actually require thought, are still in the pull-system. You still have to build truck stations, you still need to be mindful of where you build your roads and where you invest the IP in sealed roads, you still have to defend your supply lines, you still have to use rails so your cities can transfer goods without overloading your network... Those are strategic decisions. Decisions that have long lasting-implications, that take time to take effect, and cost resources that could be used elsewhere. The traffic sign system is just a pass/fail test of whether you remembered to do the busywork.

[JWW]

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

Thank you, Vic. I am good with this. Choices are good. Refine the new system. Keep refining the "old" system. You rule.

My great concern was that for the first time I encountered a game that modeled in many ways the real life problem of establishing main supply routes and traffic control points and everything associated with real logistics operations. And I was concerned that was going to be swept away simply because it wasn't easy.

At the same time I was confused by those who said that managing the logistics system was a study in intense micromanagement every turn with dozens of roadblocks with various percentages of closure determined apparently by the player doing higher order mathematics. I still haven't encountered that. I look at the bottleneck overlay, look at the colors, close off roads to nowhere, build up truck and rail capacity, and I have no real problems except when I am advancing in major offensive operations, which is exactly where the most problems would arise in real life operations. That is where I have to take a close look at the overlay every 3 turns or so. And usually my problems are more with lack of capacity than lack of roadblocks.

I was concerned that the feeling of realism and satisfaction in establishing successful MSRs was going to be taken away. Apparently it isn't, even with the new system, based on what I've been reading. And with the option to keep the old system, I think we have a problem and division solved.

As for those saying we have to bow to the wishes of the masses on Steam. This is a complex turn based, hex based, 2D game. We don't have 3D tanks and soldiers running across the map and pew-pewing and dying and engaging in hand to hand combat. Simplifying the logistics system some is not going to satisfy the people who will take one look at the game and write a negative review because they can't git gud and grok the game in 20 minutes. Of course there are also gamers on Steam who look for games just like this, but they are not the most vocal ones.

I wish Vic the greatest success with one of the finest games I've ever played. But it isn't a game for the cancel culture element of Steam who enjoy their feeling of power.

[zgrssd]

ORIGINAL: Atlanton

I'm really confused about the claim that the pull-system removed strategic decision making.

In practice, there are no decisions to be made with the push system; just a solution to the problem of "send the logi points to everywhere it's needed". Traffic signs can be changed and adjusted turn by turn, so there's really no consequences nor difficulty for your management of the push systems. That's why other posters have called in a puzzle: it's not hard to fit the jigsaw puzzles together, you just have to sit down and spend the time doing it.

Meanwhile, all the decisions that affect logistics that actually require thought, are still in the pull-system. You still have to build truck stations, you still need to be mindful of where you build your roads and where you invest the IP in sealed roads, you still have to defend your supply lines, you still have to use rails so your cities can transfer goods without overloading your network... Those are strategic decisions. Decisions that have long lasting-implications, that take time to take effect, and cost resources that could be used elsewhere. The traffic sign system is just a pass/fail test of whether you remembered to do the busywork.

Agreed. I never understand why some people think "building a Maze of Trafficsigns" was a good game mechanic.
Mostly I ignored it anyway, just solving the issue on the strategic level.

[JWW]

ORIGINAL: zgrssd

ORIGINAL: Atlanton

I'm really confused about the claim that the pull-system removed strategic decision making.

In practice, there are no decisions to be made with the push system; just a solution to the problem of "send the logi points to everywhere it's needed". Traffic signs can be changed and adjusted turn by turn, so there's really no consequences nor difficulty for your management of the push systems. That's why other posters have called in a puzzle: it's not hard to fit the jigsaw puzzles together, you just have to sit down and spend the time doing it.

Meanwhile, all the decisions that affect logistics that actually require thought, are still in the pull-system. You still have to build truck stations, you still need to be mindful of where you build your roads and where you invest the IP in sealed roads, you still have to defend your supply lines, you still have to use rails so your cities can transfer goods without overloading your network... Those are strategic decisions. Decisions that have long lasting-implications, that take time to take effect, and cost resources that could be used elsewhere. The traffic sign system is just a pass/fail test of whether you remembered to do the busywork.

Agreed. I never understand why some people think "building a Maze of Trafficsigns" was a good game mechanic.
Mostly I ignored it anyway, just solving the issue on the strategic level.

So perhaps the "maze of traffic signs" things was simply some people overly micromanaging when they didn't have to and reacting to that. I've managed the current logistics system quite well without ever resorting to the math I read about, even though I know the math is there. Look at colors on bottleneck overlay. Add roads/rail where needed. Increase capacity in rail and trucks where needed. Eliminate roads to nowhere. No math. No micromanagement. Just attention to detail periodically as needed. And I only do that when I notice units not getting supply. My only problems have ever been when on the offensive, just making sure the main supply route is getting what I need to my advancing forces.

Having said that, I have no problems with the changes that Vic is making based on his latest post. And even if I did, I don't think Vic would ever "break" the game.

[KingHalford]

Was there any maths involved in that decision making? I didn't really notice it, aside from a rough estimate that I need x amount of logistics so I need to set y% flow on that road.

If people are happy with the change then fair enough, I'm not going to argue because there is no accounting for taste. I was just trying to show that there will be consequences to this change that people might not initially have considered, particularly with the way MP works.

[Sieppo]

ORIGINAL: jwarrenw13

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

Thank you, Vic. I am good with this. Choices are good. Refine the new system. Keep refining the "old" system. You rule.

My great concern was that for the first time I encountered a game that modeled in many ways the real life problem of establishing main supply routes and traffic control points and everything associated with real logistics operations. And I was concerned that was going to be swept away simply because it wasn't easy.

At the same time I was confused by those who said that managing the logistics system was a study in intense micromanagement every turn with dozens of roadblocks with various percentages of closure determined apparently by the player doing higher order mathematics. I still haven't encountered that. I look at the bottleneck overlay, look at the colors, close off roads to nowhere, build up truck and rail capacity, and I have no real problems except when I am advancing in major offensive operations, which is exactly where the most problems would arise in real life operations. That is where I have to take a close look at the overlay every 3 turns or so. And usually my problems are more with lack of capacity than lack of roadblocks.

I was concerned that the feeling of realism and satisfaction in establishing successful MSRs was going to be taken away. Apparently it isn't, even with the new system, based on what I've been reading. And with the option to keep the old system, I think we have a problem and division solved.

As for those saying we have to bow to the wishes of the masses on Steam. This is a complex turn based, hex based, 2D game. We don't have 3D tanks and soldiers running across the map and pew-pewing and dying and engaging in hand to hand combat. Simplifying the logistics system some is not going to satisfy the people who will take one look at the game and write a negative review because they can't git gud and grok the game in 20 minutes. Of course there are also gamers on Steam who look for games just like this, but they are not the most vocal ones.

I wish Vic the greatest success with one of the finest games I've ever played. But it isn't a game for the cancel culture element of Steam who enjoy their feeling of power.

I couldn't have said it better and was also going to add in line to this. I never have felt true difficulty with the supply system and mostly have been pleased that it's "hard". This is and has been the situation in real war and things don't always go the way you have planned. If I have encountered something with supply, that has made me say "this cannot or shouldn't happen" (for example supply being delayed when it shouldn't to my knowledge. I know there is a delay), I have just thought about how many times this has happened IRL. Plenty, I'd say.

[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?

[rwbrown]

It was a good change. It’s about automating away tedious tasks to focus on fun. The game isn’t train simulator 2020. Logistics is a component of a war game, logistics must serve the warfare element. Previously it was doing so poorly. Shadow Empire is a great game, but not because of its logistics system. It was great in spite of it.

[Sieppo]

ORIGINAL: rwbrown

It was a good change. It’s about automating away tedious tasks to focus on fun. The game isn’t train simulator 2020. Logistics is a component of a war game, logistics must serve the warfare element. Previously it was doing so poorly. Shadow Empire is a great game, but not because of its logistics system. It was great in spite of it.

It's a war game embedding serious economic stuff into it as well and great that it does. IMO the only pull system needed would have been public private asset LIS requirements.

[JWW]

ORIGINAL: rwbrown

It was a good change. It’s about automating away tedious tasks to focus on fun. The game isn’t train simulator 2020. Logistics is a component of a war game, logistics must serve the warfare element. Previously it was doing so poorly. Shadow Empire is a great game, but not because of its logistics system. It was great in spite of it.

Again, I disagree on "poorly" and "tedious." Yours is an opinion. So is mine. What Vic has now done is to give us choices based on his last post:

"Each player can choose his own settings.
And if you turn it off everything stays exactly as it was before. "

I will try the new version when it comes out in a full update. If I like it better than the current version, I will go with it. If I think it is just dumbed down, I will stay with the "tedious" version.

And I appreciate Vic for offering the choices while working to improve the game.

[Sieppo]

ORIGINAL: jwarrenw13

ORIGINAL: rwbrown

It was a good change. It’s about automating away tedious tasks to focus on fun. The game isn’t train simulator 2020. Logistics is a component of a war game, logistics must serve the warfare element. Previously it was doing so poorly. Shadow Empire is a great game, but not because of its logistics system. It was great in spite of it.

Again, I disagree on "poorly" and "tedious." Yours is an opinion. So is mine. What Vic has now done is to give us choices based on his last post:

"Each player can choose his own settings.
And if you turn it off everything stays exactly as it was before. "

I will try the new version when it comes out in a full update. If I like it better than the current version, I will go with it. If I think it is just dumbed down, I will stay with the "tedious" version.

And I appreciate Vic for offering the choices while working to improve the game.

Yes I asked for the option some time ago and am extremely happy about. Not being able to choose would perhaps ended me playing the game. For at least some time.

[concern]

What's the best way to report bugs? while I appreciate the effort you must invest in reading our forum posts, it can't be too efficient from your end.

ORIGINAL: Vic

We are stil finetuning the new Pull Point system. Please read my posts on the Open Beta thread.

best wishes,
Vic