Matrix Games Forums

I've mentioned this a long time ago, and I bring it up again because, with a lot more SE game experience, I only feel stronger that the suggestion could improve SE by making it an even more realistic model.

In my opinion, dirt roads are just too good. As players we should be encouraged to pave with asphalt and/or lay track a lot earlier and more often than we do. We do, of course, improve the roads with time but I think we get away with dirt roads being too effective for too long, deep into the mid game.

So... I recommend:

Place logistic point (LP) limits on transportation lines by type:

Dirt road limit: 800 LP (i.e., Truck station I capacity)
Asphalt road limit: 4800 LP (i.e., Truck station III capacity)
Railroads: unlimited

LPs above the limit are lost.
The Logistics Optimization stratagem could increment the above limits upwards.


I'm not recommending the following, but just musing on it...
"double-track railroads" could be a cool, realistic addition to the game someday. In my limited-LP scheme above, double-track railroads would work exactly as regular railroads except as follows:

Railroads limit: 11000 LP (i.e., Rail station III capacity)
Double-track railroad limit: unlimited

For the heck of it, I submitted the question of military logistics on dirt vs asphalt roads to ChatGPT. This was its answer, to the extent we can trust it:


Transportation Speed
Dirt Roads: Typically have lower speed limits due to rough surfaces, leading to slower movement of vehicles (average speed around 30 km/h or 18 mph).
Asphalt Roads: Allow for higher speed limits due to smooth and stable surfaces (average speed around 80 km/h or 50 mph).

Load Capacity
Dirt Roads: Generally have lower load-bearing capacities (around 7.5 tons per vehicle).
Asphalt Roads: Can support heavier loads (around 30 tons per vehicle).

Maintenance Requirements
Dirt Roads: Require frequent maintenance and are highly susceptible to weather conditions, usable about 60% of the time.
Asphalt Roads: Require less frequent maintenance and are more resilient to weather, usable about 90% of the time.

Strategic Implications
Dirt Roads: Often found in remote or undeveloped areas, useful for operations requiring minimal infrastructure or where concealment is important.
Asphalt Roads: Crucial for high-intensity, large-scale military operations needing rapid deployment and sustained supply lines.

Numerical Ratio Approximation
Based on the above factors, we can approximate the logistical capacity ratio by multiplying the individual ratios for speed, load capacity, and usability:

Speed Ratio: 30/80≈0.375
Load Capacity Ratio: 7.5/30≈0.25
Usability Ratio: 60/90≈0.67

Combined Ratio (Multiplicative)
Combined Ratio=0.375×0.25×0.67≈0.0625

Conclusion
The approximate numerical ratio of the logistical capacity of dirt roads to asphalt roads, considering speed, load capacity, and usability in a multiplicative manner, is around 0.0625:1. This means dirt roads have roughly 6.25% of the logistical capacity of asphalt roads.

I'm ambivalent about this.

On one hand I feel that logistics are still too easy. Yes it can bite the unprepared player, however logistics assets are largely inexpensive so it's mostly a matter of time to get enough logistics where it's needed. The ammo rework was a good step but it doesn't do enough on its own. The ability to stockpile feels nice but at the same time is largely unnecessary. Oceania restrictions force me to try things differently, like building up local ammo factories (even when shipping metal is necessary it reduce logistics usage) but with a land connection, things are pretty straightforward.

On the other hand, when fighting a player removing his logistical network as he lose ground, it's currently reasonably affordable to rebuild logistics as pushing forward. I'm not sure it would be better for the game to add yet another major IP sink, while making it prohibitively expensive to build a logistical network. It would also add a bit of tedium building multiple roads on every major logistical road.

I think there's a word to be said that roads are too good as I spend most of the game without building railroads. At the same time roads have to be able to support major logistical strain as it's currently irrealistic to supply an army with railroads. Or we would need ways to reasonably target and destroy rocket and missile launchers, one that isn't too efficient either as destroying assets is their only niche.

So the TL;DR would be akin to I'd like to see more restrictions over logistics however if the only change is to add restrictions to LP flow going through roads I think it would cause more harm than good as it would be extremely hard to even supply units.

With that said, a form of malus for dirt roads that depends on rain would make a lot of sense.

mroyer wrote: Sat Jun 01, 2024 12:30 pm I submitted the question of military logistics on dirt vs asphalt roads to ChatGPT.

It looks like the bot has given you a summary page from a Traffic Engineering textbook, about the relative maximum capacity of the two surfaces.

Fair enough. Congestion is not currently part of SE, and roads have no limit to the amount of logi points they may carry. mroyer suggests adding it. I keep thinking about the time factor required for congestion to happen. Road capacity only makes sense if you add "over a given amount of time" to the equation.

In my opinion, the biggest difference between a rough and hard surface in this context, is in wear on the vehicle and the resulting maintenance requirements. Logistics AP cost differences could be considered to reflect this factor.

-----
Meanwhile, there seem to be problems with the way ammo, logistics and in-turn troop replacement interact, but that should be in its own post...