FreeOrion

Forums for the FreeOrion project
It is currently Thu Dec 14, 2017 5:03 pm

All times are UTC




Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 151 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 11  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jun 01, 2007 2:03 am 
Offline
Dyson Forest
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 01, 2003 11:50 pm
Posts: 243
Location: South Carolina, USA
Tzlaine wrote:

Quote:
I also oppose the creation of supply lines, as suggested elsewhere in this thread. This also sounds like boring and micromanagey. Again, I think that managing one number is a better solution.


I have some concerns with this statement, otherwise everything else is good. If supplys routes are that abstracted, and not represented physically, how do you know specifically where your supplies are being attacked\blockaded? Do you receive a sit-rep about a system in trouble, and send a fleet to clear the system, or what? How do you know how it affects that part of the empire if you don't know where the supplies are coming from\going to? How do you gauge the overall supply "importance" of a system?

BTW, for additional reference (in regards to micro issues) to my suggestion of using supply routes, I would note that (in general) designating a route only involves selecting a destination ; the best route to the destination is automatically chosen by the AI.

eleazar wrote:

Quote:
Up to this point there has been discussion of to what degree pirates, anti-pirates, privateers, escorts, blockade-runners, etc. should be abstracted. What i haven't seen is a reason why we need these as special types of ships. I understand the need to treat cargo ships in a special abstract way, but i don't see a reason that your ordinary non-abstracted military fleet can't serve all other roles in the protection or disruption of supply lines.


For any blockaded, or effectively blockaded system a normal military fleet would\should be used, however, if their is minor raiding involved, I think either an escort fleet or armed supply ships(either one lightly armed) can handle most raiders. Sending out a fleet to chase every little raid would get old and lead to micro, that otherwise could be abstracted. As for the need for raiders, in general, I don't see any key strategic need, however, I personally like the idea of harassing (through hiring privateers) another race\player without having to formally declare war.

Quote:
Abstracting (or semi-abstracting) pirates, privateers, and escorts seems to lead to an unnecessary, additional set of rules regarding the interaction of concrete, semi-abstract, and totally abstract ships.


I have a preference for mostly abstracted. Abstracted ships are always behind the scene, unless you see some "passing through" a system, while inside a system. Additionally, when a system is under attack, supply ships, in their brief "normal" mode (in system) can be attacked and detsroyed, as with any other ship, or installation.

loonycyborg wrote


Quote:
Sounds like job for Dijkstra's shortest path algorithm.


I've heard of that algorithm before, but don't remember any additional details, other than being related to what you already mentioned.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jun 01, 2007 5:17 am 
Offline
Large Juggernaut
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2006 9:34 pm
Posts: 938
Location: GA
Here's a diagram of whatr I think Tzlaine is talking about.

http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f297/ ... iagram.jpg

_________________
Computer programming is fun.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jun 01, 2007 6:49 am 
Offline
Design & Graphics Lead Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 7:09 pm
Posts: 3858
Location: USA — midwest
marhawkman wrote:
Here's a diagram...

Oddly enough i was just in the middle of making a general mock up.

Image
[edit] image updated to include Sandlapper's better idea about displaying blockades.

In this example Red and Yellow are allied, and Red is at war with Teal. This sort of display is intended as normal, and in-fact is quite close to what the game currently does. It could be applied to various proposals.

    * Solid colored SLs: Standard supply routes between colonies
    * Parallel striped colored SLs: A Standard supply route shared by 2 empires. I.e. both have colonies at both ends. (Olympus to Vindemiatrix)
    * SL colored differently at each end: Supply lines connecting allies. (Graffias to Asterope)
    * Grey SLs: SLs not used as supply lines.
    * Dotted line: A Military supply line, connecting to ships beyond standard routes.


Thoughts:
* If the alliance between Yellow and Red were ended, but they didn't go to war, the Graffias-Asterope line would be broken, while Olympus-Vindemiatrix would remain active.

* Red has blockaded Teal's Dnoces. Notice that no supply lines go to it, in spite of all the adjacent colonies.

* The fleet at Cannon has 3 Red colonies at 2 SLJs away. Presumably supplies could be coming from any of those three. But if supply line cutting is going to be an important part of the game, those lines should be visible. But if this line were cut, i suppose it would jump to Kilja or Arneb. I rather dislike the idea of manually creating Military supply lines. (Also applies to fuel routes for non-combat scouts, colony ships) If one is possible, i believe the optimal line should create itself. Such automatic military supply line would be a little harder to block by the enemy, but saves the uninteresting micro of defining throw-away supply routes.

_________________
—• Read this First before posting Game Design Ideas!
—• Design Philosophy

—•— My Ideas, Organized —•— Get an Avatar —•— Acronyms —•—


Last edited by eleazar on Sat Jun 02, 2007 7:04 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jun 01, 2007 8:27 am 
Offline
Creative Contributor
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 26, 2007 8:05 pm
Posts: 576
Since we're adding goals I'd like to add:

Managing supply must be fun or non-existent. That is to say you manage supply in a situation where it is fun to manage supply and you don't where it would be tedious.

Tzlaine wrote:
I also oppose the creation of supply lines, as suggested elsewhere in this thread. This also sounds like boring and micromanagey. Again, I think that managing one number is a better solution.


It depends how its done, if you need to create supply lines from a colony with mines to one with factories: pure annoying micromanagement, the same if you need to worry about the supplys of ships patrolling the borders.

If you create supply lines from you're empire to ships a long way away then that's an ok amount of management because:

:arrow: These ships are either on exploration or invasion missions, these are important parts of the game that are naturally fun, making them more detailed will make them more fun.

:arrow: You probably won't have enough ships abroad to make managing supply tedious.

:arrow: protecting you're supply to an invasion fleet in enemy teritory adds strategic options and thus fun. There should be more ways to destroy a fleet then a just sending a bigger fleet against it.

tzlaine wrote:
Basically, this reduces the support of one's own supply lines to a single number -- the number of escorts divided by the area of coverage. (Presumably the area of coverage will be either the forward supply area -- the area between the outermost supply nodes and one's expeditionary fleet(s), or the entire empire, whichever makes the most sense as the design moves forward.)


But where is the fun in that? it essentially requires you to periodically check a spreadsheet and increase the number of escorts as the size of your empire grows.


eleazar wrote:
IMHO these are good goals, and i share them. I also have a 4th:
4) Supply should give strategic significance to the shape of the Empire and distribution of the colony worlds.

Please go into more detail on what that means and why we want it :)

eleazar wrote:
I don't see the need "to blanket your space with anti-piracy or anti-raider cover" if only cargo carriers are abstracted. You would need to protect your borders with normal military ships, but i presume this will be part of the game in any case.


Well said, in my proposal blockades on civilian supply ships essentially fell down to:
1) you can't send supply through other empires
2) enemy fleets can blockade, if they enter you're territory. Presumably if their in you're teritory you would deal with them weather or not they could block supply.
3) The enemy can use the intelligence department to create "blockades" invest in counter intelligence.

No blanketing required :)

eleazar wrote:
Abstracting (or semi-abstracting) pirates, privateers, and escorts seems to lead to an unnecessary, additional set of rules regarding the interaction of concrete, semi-abstract, and totally abstract ships.


Agreed.


A few questions about you're mock-up eleazar:

If red had a ship in Fetter, would it be supplied by the colony in Kilja?

Colonies need to be one starlane away, can that grow to 2 with technology?

Is the Graffias - Cannon supply lane consiting of military ships that travel forward and back, or some unit placed in Sual and perhaps Cannon


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jun 01, 2007 11:06 pm 
Offline
Design & Graphics Lead Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 7:09 pm
Posts: 3858
Location: USA — midwest
Tortanick wrote:
Since we're adding goals I'd like to add:

Managing supply must be fun or non-existent. That is to say you manage supply in a situation where it is fun to manage supply and you don't where it would be tedious.

That's a goal i agree with, but i'm not sure it's a useful goal. Chances are everyone believes that his proposal is fun. But if not, any proposals that nobody believes are fun should be smashed, utterly.

Tortanick wrote:
eleazar wrote:
I also have a 4th:
4) Supply should give strategic significance to the shape of the Empire and distribution of the colony worlds.

Please go into more detail on what that means and why we want it :)

Basically i find it boring in classic MoO, and current FO, that the only strategic significance that a colonies' position has is the distance to the enemy. If a colony is not near the border it doesn't really matter where it is— it just becomes a statistic adding production to your empire. There's no downside to grabbing colonies at random throughout the galaxy, besides defense issues. There is no connection or interaction between colonies.
However with a number of the proposed concepts of Supply Lines and Redistribution, the arraignment of your colonies begins to be significant, for their own internal support, and as support for those ships that patrol/explore the periphery. This i find more interesting. There is a strategic choice between a tightly knit empire which includes less than optimal planets, or an expansive empire which a vulnerable supply infrastructure.

Tortanick wrote:
A few questions about you're mock-up eleazar:
I don't have answers to those questions. I'm still examining/weighing several ideas.
The mock-up is intended to be somewhat generic, and to focus discussion. I.E. a poster can compare/contrast his scheme to a visible mock-up.

_________________
—• Read this First before posting Game Design Ideas!
—• Design Philosophy

—•— My Ideas, Organized —•— Get an Avatar —•— Acronyms —•—


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jun 02, 2007 1:15 am 
Offline
Large Juggernaut
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2006 9:34 pm
Posts: 938
Location: GA
Going along with the map analogy...

should we have fuel? And use the supply as a way of replenishing it?

_________________
Computer programming is fun.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jun 02, 2007 2:29 am 
Offline
Dyson Forest
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 01, 2003 11:50 pm
Posts: 243
Location: South Carolina, USA
Great Job on the mock-up, eleazar!

Everything you've presented with the mock-up, so far, works great to me.

I do have a graphical suggestion; in the Teal's blockaded system Dnoces, I think showing half of the Teal's supply SL's would be better. Half of a starlane as in your idea for an allied starlane. Half the starlane coloured teal from the unblockaded systems, and half typical unassigned grey starlane, for the half physically touching the blockaded Dnoces. I think this would graphically convey the prescence of a blockade better. It would, also, remind a player of what supply routes would reestablish, if the blockading fleet left, or was destroyed.

Additionaly, in regards to the fleet at Cannon, I think there should be someway to convey whether there are optional supply routes available. For instance, if another fleet blockades Sual, will the supply route reassign itself to an alternate route to maintain supply? It would be helpful to know, ahead of a fleet commitment, what options are available, "just in case".

eleazar wrote:

Quote:
However with a number of the proposed concepts of Supply Lines and Redistribution, the arraignment of your colonies begins to be significant, for their own internal support, and as support for those ships that patrol/explore the periphery. This i find more interesting. There is a strategic choice between a tightly knit empire which includes less than optimal planets, or an expansive empire which a vulnerable supply infrastructure.


I concur with your sentiments, and have been pondering a way to flesh out such a concept. One thought I had, working with Tzlaine's ratio of R < S < R*2 ; there must be some viable supply supporting prescence within R*2. This would either be purpose built supply depots (if a colony is unavailable) , or a colony that is able to produce a minimum amount of production in excess of it's own needs. If you have a poor world that can barely feed itself, then it would not be a contributer to the supply line. If this said system was the only available system within the R*2 constraint, then a supply depot must be built to utilise this system within a supply line.

Additionally, newly colonised systems would also have to "grow" to a point of minimum production, to qualify for a supply contributer. So if your fleet has a string of victorys, and you colonise several new systems, you would not be able use these systems immediately for supply. You either "grow" your systems, or build supply depots. Note: depots incur a high maintenece cost.

One caveat I would allow, in lieu of building a depot, if a system on a supply line doesn't meet the minimum production requirements, it can pool it's resources with any adjacent systems one starlane jump away, if the adjacent system(s) is\are not supporting another supply line already.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jun 02, 2007 4:23 am 
Offline
Cosmic Dragon
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2003 12:37 am
Posts: 2175
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
eleazar wrote:
However with a number of the proposed concepts of Supply Lines and Redistribution, the arraignment of your colonies begins to be significant, for their own internal support, and as support for those ships that patrol/explore the periphery. This i find more interesting. There is a strategic choice between a tightly knit empire which includes less than optimal planets, or an expansive empire which a vulnerable supply infrastructure.

Hmmmm. I like this idea. If colonies are dependent on other colonies, eg through starlanes used as varying degrees of supply capacity, then by shutting down certain starlanes or supply routes, colonies could be weakened, and so could the ships that depend on those supplies.

The only question is what effect does diminished supply have on colonies and more importantly, on ships themselves.

I could see, as a great example, that your empire is made up of 10 star systems. And supply flows between them, since they are all connected. But the enemy comes along and destroys the 2 systems in the middle that are the connection. Your empire is then cut in half, and isolated. There supply now is half as strong. Or if you think of supply as comming from certain important worlds, eg mining colonies, then if the mining colonies are in the right side of the empire, then the left side is weaker, while the right side is stronger, with more minirals to share between fewer colonies.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jun 02, 2007 7:48 am 
Offline
Design & Graphics Lead Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 7:09 pm
Posts: 3858
Location: USA — midwest
marhawkman wrote:
should we have fuel?

I don't want fuel, but there are really only 3 options.
    1) * ships have no limit on how far they can go
    2) * ship's range is limited by a flyable-area, and if that area changes, the ship is (a) marooned, (b) destroyed, or (c) automatically sent back to the flyable area (as in MoO1,2).
    3) * fuel is at least sometimes used to calculate how far a ship can go.
I don't like "1", or "2b,c", nor is anyone else supporing these. So unless i'm missing something i'll have to grudgingly decide between "2a", and some form of "3".



Sandlapper wrote:
I do have a graphical suggestion; in the Teal's blockaded system Dnoces, I think showing half of the Teal's supply SL's would be better...
Excellent idea. I added it to the mock-up.


Sandlapper wrote:
Additionally, in regards to the fleet at Cannon, I think there should be someway to convey whether there are optional supply routes available. For instance, if another fleet blockades Sual, will the supply route reassign itself to an alternate route to maintain supply? It would be helpful to know, ahead of a fleet commitment, what options are available, "just in case".
I fear that would grow too busy, because in many cases there will may be multiple possible supply routes. On the other hand, depending how military supply is done, a fleet may get it's stuff from multiple supply lines. At this point a major purpose for showing a supply line is to make it obvious when a ship is cut off. If we have military supply lines, it needs to be abundantly clear when a fleet is no longer being resupplied.


Sandlapper wrote:
One caveat I would allow, in lieu of building a depot, if a system on a supply line doesn't meet the minimum production requirements, it can pool it's resources with any adjacent systems one starlane jump away, if the adjacent system(s) is\are not supporting another supply line already.

I believe there has already been extensive discussion (in other threads) about weather fleets will be supplied by the mineral or industrial production of planets. I won't attempt a recap, but if military supplies are produced by production, (due to the nature of redistribution of production resources) any connected planets will almost certainly be allowed to contribute. For reasons discussed in this thread production resources flow instantly between connected planets.

utilae wrote:
The only question is what effect does diminished supply have on colonies and more importantly, on ships themselves.

The obvious is the answer. If a planet can no longer import enough food it starves. If it can't import enough minerals, the factories stop producing PPs.

_________________
—• Read this First before posting Game Design Ideas!
—• Design Philosophy

—•— My Ideas, Organized —•— Get an Avatar —•— Acronyms —•—


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jun 02, 2007 8:15 am 
Offline
Creative Contributor
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 26, 2007 8:05 pm
Posts: 576
eleazar posted while I was writing this I'll have to edit this to take into account his post. Ok done.

eleazar wrote:
Basically i find it boring in classic MoO, and current FO, that the only strategic significance that a colonies' position has is the distance to the enemy. If a colony is not near the border it doesn't really matter where it is— it just becomes a statistic adding production to your empire. There's no downside to grabbing colonies at random throughout the galaxy, besides defense issues. There is no connection or interaction between colonies.visible mock-up.


When I first heard that I thought it was a great idea, I was thinking of a simple system whereby colonies with excess supply in minerals or food would ship to nearby (one starlane perhaps) colonies with excess demand. However I'm having second thoughts:

Firstly wouldn't is be like having "super colonys" spanning multiple worlds, and rather than increasing the stategic choices being made when choosing a colony it would just add the number of neighbouring inhabitable worlds to the list of desirable features, right above size and mineral wealth.

Secondly an isolated colony would still be an advantage, if it can just scrape out self sustiance and add a little research to the empire why not colonise?

Thirdly, it dose make managing colonies a lot harder, think of this situation: You have 3 stars Zeus-Apollo-Athena Linked together in that order. Zeus and Athena have a manufacturing colony, Apollo has a mining colony.

Currently Zeus uses all of Apollo's minerals for production, the player then starts up production on Athena, this will mean Apollo will have to ration minerals between Zeus and Apollo. I think having to worry about this all the time will get annoying, fast.



Perhaps an alternative solution to the silly gameplay mechanic of "colonise everything" should be money rather than resources. A new colony needs subsidies from Empire Bank until it gets on its feet, a lot of subsidies. Even more so if its trying to terraform or on a hostile environment.

This means you will eventually start colonising everything, but you have to pace yourself or the economy will collapse trying to support all the fledgling colonies. It also makes the early game a tradeoff between a tight defensible empire, and spreading thin to claim lots of territory and filling it out with colonies later.


marhawkman wrote:
Going along with the map analogy...

should we have fuel? And use the supply as a way of replenishing it?


I was thinking that supply is either fuel, an abstract number covering both fuel and ammo, or two numbers one for fuel one for ammo. I don't think it matters at this point in the discussion.


Sandlapper wrote:
Additionaly, in regards to the fleet at Cannon, I think there should be someway to convey whether there are optional supply routes available. For instance, if another fleet blockades Sual, will the supply route reassign itself to an alternate route to maintain supply? It would be helpful to know, ahead of a fleet commitment, what options are available, "just in case".


Well in my system that's the players choice, dose he think his supply fleet can take on the blockade or not, and dose he want to try. But easy access to extra information can't hurt.
[edit] eleazar changed my mind with his point of clutter.


Sandlapper wrote:
Additionally, newly colonised systems would also have to "grow" to a point of minimum production, to qualify for a supply contributer. So if your fleet has a string of victorys, and you colonise several new systems, you would not be able use these systems immediately for supply. You either "grow" your systems, or build supply depots. Note: depots incur a high maintenece cost.


I love the minimum size idea :), but I still think a "depo" should be a fleet haning around in a system with lots of supplies so another fleet can drop by ask for some.


eleazar wrote:
marhawkman wrote:
should we have fuel?

I don't want fuel, but there are really only 3 options.
    1) * ships have no limit on how far they can go
    2) * ship's range is limited by a flyable-area, and if that area changes, the ship is (a) marooned, (b) destroyed, or (c) automatically sent back to the flyable area (as in MoO1,2).
    3) * fuel is at least sometimes used to calculate how far a ship can go.
I don't like "1", or "2b,c", nor is anyone else supporing these. So unless i'm missing something i'll have to grudgingly decide between "2a", and some form of "3".


I go for 3, there is a flyable area consisting of supply producing colonies and nearby systems, flying around here fuel never falls below 100%, when flying outside this "flyable area" fuel matters and military supply routes can keep it topped up


eleazar wrote:
Sandlapper wrote:
One caveat I would allow, in lieu of building a depot, if a system on a supply line doesn't meet the minimum production requirements, it can pool it's resources with any adjacent systems one starlane jump away, if the adjacent system(s) is\are not supporting another supply line already.

I believe there has already been extensive discussion (in other threads) about weather fleets will be supplied by the mineral or industrial production of planets. I won't attempt a recap, but if military supplies are produced by production, (due to the nature of redistribution of production resources) any connected planets will almost certainly be allowed to contribute. For reasons discussed in this thread production resources flow instantly between connected planets.

That's not the way I read it. I thought that if the production of a colony exceeded some arbatary value then it produced infinite supplies, otherwise none. That struck me as a good idea.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jun 02, 2007 10:45 am 
Offline
Cosmic Dragon
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2003 12:37 am
Posts: 2175
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
eleazar wrote:
I fear that would grow too busy, because in many cases there will may be multiple possible supply routes. On the other hand, depending how military supply is done, a fleet may get it's stuff from multiple supply lines. At this point a major purpose for showing a supply line is to make it obvious when a ship is cut off. If we have military supply lines, it needs to be abundantly clear when a fleet is no longer being resupplied.

Millitary Supply Lines. I think it would be ideal to have only one type of supply line. Supply Lines could have varying levels of strength, eg millitary supply line being the strongest type. Probably created through having your millitary ships on one or both sides of the supply line.

eleazar wrote:
The obvious is the answer. If a planet can no longer import enough food it starves. If it can't import enough minerals, the factories stop producing PPs.

Ok, I guess planets are easy in terms of what they are supplied with. But, ships is more difficult. If you have a doomstar with 90 plasma cannons. What is lack of supply gonna do to it? Only half of its plasma cannons will work? It would be wierd. I could understand that a lack of supply would diminsh fuel or crew strength however.

Tortanick wrote:
Firstly wouldn't is be like having "super colonys" spanning multiple worlds, and rather than increasing the stategic choices being made when choosing a colony it would just add the number of neighbouring inhabitable worlds to the list of desirable features, right above size and mineral wealth.

I don't think so. Because the 'super colonies' can be killed by chopping off there 'arms' and 'legs'. Kill that farm world, to starve the factory world, leaving no parts for the enemy millitary.

Tortanick wrote:
Secondly an isolated colony would still be an advantage, if it can just scrape out self sustiance and add a little research to the empire why not colonise?

I would like it if self suficient colonies were possible. But I think the benefits of supply lanes would also include trade between colonies and therefore form your economy.

Tortanick wrote:
Thirdly, it dose make managing colonies a lot harder, think of this situation: You have 3 stars Zeus-Apollo-Athena Linked together in that order. Zeus and Athena have a manufacturing colony, Apollo has a mining colony.

Currently Zeus uses all of Apollo's minerals for production, the player then starts up production on Athena, this will mean Apollo will have to ration minerals between Zeus and Apollo. I think having to worry about this all the time will get annoying, fast.

Why should the player have to make this decision. What if it was automatic. All resources (eg minerals) would be distributed between all dependant colonies (factories) within range automatically. So the ratio of supply to demand determines the strength of the dependent colonies, eg one mineral supplier to two factory demaders would leave the factories at half strength. As the player you need to decide wisely the relationships between your colonies when you create a colony.

Tortanick wrote:
Sandlapper wrote:
Additionally, newly colonised systems would also have to "grow" to a point of minimum production, to qualify for a supply contributer. So if your fleet has a string of victorys, and you colonise several new systems, you would not be able use these systems immediately for supply. You either "grow" your systems, or build supply depots. Note: depots incur a high maintenece cost.

I love the minimum size idea :), but I still think a "depo" should be a fleet haning around in a system with lots of supplies so another fleet can drop by ask for some.

Newly colonised or captured systems should not create a supply route until it has developed properly or come under control. So resources will not flow from them or to them, until a proper millitary strength supply route is in place (millitary ships at each end of supply route). Maybe ships could deploy into a millitary base to achive this in some unmicromanagment way.

Tortanick wrote:
eleazar wrote:
marhawkman wrote:
should we have fuel?

I don't want fuel, but there are really only 3 options.
    1) * ships have no limit on how far they can go
    2) * ship's range is limited by a flyable-area, and if that area changes, the ship is (a) marooned, (b) destroyed, or (c) automatically sent back to the flyable area (as in MoO1,2).
    3) * fuel is at least sometimes used to calculate how far a ship can go.
I don't like "1", or "2b,c", nor is anyone else supporing these. So unless i'm missing something i'll have to grudgingly decide between "2a", and some form of "3".

I go for 3, there is a flyable area consisting of supply producing colonies and nearby systems, flying around here fuel never falls below 100%, when flying outside this "flyable area" fuel matters and military supply routes can keep it topped up

Agree, ships should move freely along supply routes that have been created (automatically created as links between colonies). Beyond that, fuel is able to drop below 100%. Maybe the presence of a starbase, outpost or millitary base provides the start of a supply route into unknown territory, but becomes free once a starbase, colony, outpost or millitary base is created on the other end of the supply route.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jun 02, 2007 11:25 am 
Offline
Creative Contributor
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 26, 2007 8:05 pm
Posts: 576
utilae wrote:
Millitary Supply Lines. I think it would be ideal to have only one type of supply line. Supply Lines could have varying levels of strength, eg millitary supply line being the strongest type. Probably created through having your millitary ships on one or both sides of the supply line.


That's kind of blizare because the ships at either end that are escorting the invisible supply ships won't ever get into a fight with the blockade in the middle. It also requires the creation of an arbatary set of rules to deside weather the escort or the blockade is stronger rather than simple and obvious one of making them fight.

The use of invisible supply ships also means that you don't get the fun of designing ships with the optimum ratio of defence and supply storage and using them as you're supply storage.

utilae wrote:
Ok, I guess planets are easy in terms of what they are supplied with. But, ships is more difficult. If you have a doomstar with 90 plasma cannons. What is lack of supply gonna do to it? Only half of its plasma cannons will work? It would be wierd. I could understand that a lack of supply would diminsh fuel or crew strength however.


I would think that all the plasma cannons work until it runs out of ammo, possibly half way through a battle :twisted: I wonder if we could have supply ships in a battle supplying the fighting ships.

utilae wrote:
Tortanick wrote:
Firstly wouldn't is be like having "super colonys" spanning multiple worlds, and rather than increasing the stategic choices being made when choosing a colony it would just add the number of neighbouring inhabitable worlds to the list of desirable features, right above size and mineral wealth.

I don't think so. Because the 'super colonies' can be killed by chopping off there 'arms' and 'legs'. Kill that farm world, to starve the factory world, leaving no parts for the enemy millitary.


True I didn't think about it form a military perspective, but from a civilian perspective I still think you're just making bigger super colonies.

utilae wrote:
I would like it if self suficient colonies were possible. But I think the benefits of supply lanes would also include trade between colonies and therefore form your economy.


But if self sufficent colonies are possible then you'll still benefit from colonising every good planet you can. If they are impossible then you colonise every good group of planets you can. The planet choice became more limited, and the build queues changed to more specialised roles but there is no strategy, you still colonise every good group you can. Maby that's a good change but I'm not convinced, but I don't think such a system will add strategy to what you colonise.

utilae wrote:
Why should the player have to make this decision. What if it was automatic. All resources (eg minerals) would be distributed between all dependant colonies (factories) within range automatically. So the ratio of supply to demand determines the strength of the dependent colonies, eg one mineral supplier to two factory demaders would leave the factories at half strength. As the player you need to decide wisely the relationships between your colonies when you create a colony.


The player didn't make the decision to split minerals, the computer did. What happened was the players decision to start production on Athena meant that the computer made a decision to reallocate some minerals from Zues to Athena, I think this sort of thing will make planning hard and be incredibly annoying.

utilae wrote:
Newly colonised or captured systems should not create a supply route until it has developed properly or come under control.
Agreed entirely :)


utilae wrote:
So resources will not flow from them or to them, until a proper millitary strength supply route is in place (millitary ships at each end of supply route).


Disagreed, they shouldn't use a military supply route at all. Its unnecessary micromanagement for developing colonies and by the time they have anything worth the effort spare for off world they'll probably be advanced enough to make civilian supply routes.

New conquests again probably don't have anything because they're refusing to do any work. And if you can supply you're ships from captured planets then it becomes practically impossible for the defending empire to attack you're supply routes.

utilae wrote:
Agree, ships should move freely along supply routes that have been created (automatically created as links between colonies). Beyond that, fuel is able to drop below 100%.


If you're colonies can create a supply route to another colony one starbase away, why can't they create a smaller supply route to a ship stationed in empty space one system away and keep that at 100%? Although on the UI I would just show permemet supply routes to empty systems so its clear where you can go without fuel worries.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jun 02, 2007 4:35 pm 
Offline
Design & Graphics Lead Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 7:09 pm
Posts: 3858
Location: USA — midwest
Whoa, Tortanick, Utilae, the discussion of "supercolonies" is off topic here.

I believe i've already pointed out a thread about redistributing resources between colonies.

It's also irrelevant. It's a long-standing design decision that colonies can (and usually will) specialize and share resources. The individual planet is supposed to be rather simple to manage compared to MoO2, but we get more of them.

Tortanick, perhaps you haven't seen the roadmap, which links to a few specifications documents which are summaries of pretty much non-negotiable decisions.

_________________
—• Read this First before posting Game Design Ideas!
—• Design Philosophy

—•— My Ideas, Organized —•— Get an Avatar —•— Acronyms —•—


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jun 02, 2007 9:17 pm 
Offline
Dyson Forest
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 01, 2003 11:50 pm
Posts: 243
Location: South Carolina, USA
I'll repeat part of Tzlaine's proposal, in regards to supply:


Quote:
1) R is the supply radius of any supply point; this may change based on tech.

2) Any fleet within R of a supply point is 100% supplied, in the absence of any privateers.

3) Any fleet at distance S (where R < S < 2 * R) can remain supplied as long as there are enough supply vessels to keep it in supply; there is a certain ratio of supply ships to fleet ships that is required for 100% supply. This also assumes no privateers are present.


As stated, a fleet (and presumably anything else) within R is in 100% supply. My discussions, up to now, have been in regard to the supply beyond R. A fleet can operate up to the limit of 2 * R, if there are sufficient supply ships.

For a fleet to operate for any great length of time (like a blockade), beyond R, it should have a dedicated supply line. If a fleet is going to blockade near the limits of 2 * R, (or worse beyond 2 * R) then a supply line contributer must be established between R and 2 * R for the dedicated line. The contributer would either be a supply depot, or a colonised system that has just reached a minimum capacity to support the logistics of a supply line.

@ utilae:

If your fleet only has plasma cannons, there would likely still be a need for weapons maintenence. For the sake of arguement, I'm using simplistic techobabble here. For example, your plasma cannons may not need to be rearmed, thus no ammo supply to worry about, however, there could be some maintenence like new focusing lenses needed every few shots, and\or new power capacitors every few shots. So there can still be a vital need for supplies, even for plasma cannons.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jun 02, 2007 10:18 pm 
Offline
Large Juggernaut
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2006 9:34 pm
Posts: 938
Location: GA
utilae wrote:
Tortanick wrote:
eleazar wrote:
marhawkman wrote:
should we have fuel?
I don't want fuel, but there are really only 3 options.
    1) * ships have no limit on how far they can go
    2) * ship's range is limited by a flyable-area, and if that area changes, the ship is (a) marooned, (b) destroyed, or (c) automatically sent back to the flyable area (as in MoO1,2).
    3) * fuel is at least sometimes used to calculate how far a ship can go.
I don't like "1", or "2b,c", nor is anyone else supporing these. So unless i'm missing something i'll have to grudgingly decide between "2a", and some form of "3".
I go for 3, there is a flyable area consisting of supply producing colonies and nearby systems, flying around here fuel never falls below 100%, when flying outside this "flyable area" fuel matters and military supply routes can keep it topped up
Agree, ships should move freely along supply routes that have been created (automatically created as links between colonies). Beyond that, fuel is able to drop below 100%. Maybe the presence of a starbase, outpost or millitary base provides the start of a supply route into unknown territory, but becomes free once a starbase, colony, outpost or millitary base is created on the other end of the supply route.
Cool. I like that implementation.

I kinda dislike the idea of having to build your shipyard near a mineral rich planet though. It becomes too much of a beauracracy sim if you have to choose the locations of your colonies based on what supplies are available and where.

I don't really see it as a good idea to limit supply to planets unless one of the systems you control is outside your "supply net". In that case the system would only be able to consume what it produces.

_________________
Computer programming is fun.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 151 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 11  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group