Ships: Supply

Past public reviews and discussions.
Message
Author
User avatar
eleazar
Design & Graphics Lead Emeritus
Posts: 3858
Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 7:09 pm
Location: USA — midwest

Re: Ships: Supply

#31 Post by eleazar »

Sandlapper, did you notice this line at the beginning of the thread?
Tyreth wrote:Remember to keep solutions simple. We don't want a solution that takes too much micromanagement.
sandlapper wrote:* You must manage the supply you, uh, supply, to your expeditionary fleets, as well as manage your total supply infrastructure (number of supply ships in service).

* You must (or at least should, if you know what's good for you) manage your escorts and privateers to maintain supply and deny supply to the enemy.
Unless there's some kind of strategic value here that i'm totally missing this sounds like exactly the kind of thing we purposefully omit from FO. Basically is sounds like a bunch of additional actions the player needs to perform without much variety in how it can be done. It's as if you are trying to make an entire game out of the supply aspect.
Why create a semi-abstracted class of ships, "privateers" to harass supply lines, when a real fleet of non-abstracted ships can do the same job?

sandlapper wrote:I would propose that jump capable ships have both jump drives and starlane drives. The jump drives would not be based on fuel use, but something like battery capacity.
Why in the world would we need two kinds of "drives" that do essentially the same thing? The difference between a ship that can travel 6 "star-lane units" per turn, but only if it's within 4 jumps, and a ship that can do the same but only within 3 jumps is hardly worth the player's (or game designer's) trouble.

User avatar
loonycyborg
Compilation Expert
Posts: 219
Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2006 10:30 pm
Location: Russia/Moscow

#32 Post by loonycyborg »

I propose this fleet supply model:
1.Each fleet has a supply efficiency value. A fleet's supply efficiency is function of length of shortest safe path to closest resupply point (e.g. colony).
2.As fleet's supply efficiency decreases, it gets penalties to speed and hitpoint regeneration rate.
In Soviet Russia, forum posts YOU!!

Sandlapper
Dyson Forest
Posts: 243
Joined: Sat Nov 01, 2003 11:50 pm
Location: South Carolina, USA

#33 Post by Sandlapper »

Eleazer wrote:


Sandlapper, did you notice this line at the beginning of the thread?

Tyreth wrote:
Remember to keep solutions simple. We don't want a solution that takes too much micromanagement.
The whole point was to reduce micro. All you have is one supply overlay UI to toggle on or off. Once on, you only have one thing to do, assign a supply route. Once a route is established, you only have one thing to do, maintain a minimum amount of supply ships to acheive 100% resupply. And this can easily be automated to meet a minimum ratio. If done manually, you either build new ships, or siphon from another route. Thats it. The only other supply related UI to worry about is on the combat screen. And 99.99% of the time, the already pre-checked option to flee, will be the option of choice. The only thing afterwards is to respond to attacks on your supply line accordingly.

As related in the brainstorming thread, there are strategic, and dire consequences to allowing your supply to be cut.


* You must manage the supply you, uh, supply, to your expeditionary fleets, as well as manage your total supply infrastructure (number of supply ships in service).

* You must (or at least should, if you know what's good for you) manage your escorts and privateers to maintain supply and deny supply to the enemy.
Tzlaine wrote that, not me. I concur with it within the scope of my proposal. Admittidly, I failed to mention that, which I intended to. For the first quote, within the scope of my proposal, you do manage your supply routes, and you maintain a minimum ratio of supply ships to the point of supply. As for the second quote, I concur with concept of managing your supplies, and not letting the enemy capture and use your own supplies against you. Other than the possibilty of initialy hiring a privateer, I would make escorts and privateers totally abstracted. Other than occassional GNN sit-reps of privateer attacks against your enemy, you never hear from, nor deal with them directly, except for the hiring process (if we deal with them at all).


eleazer wrote:

Why in the world would we need two kinds of "drives" that do essentially the same thing? The difference between a ship that can travel 6 "star-lane units" per turn, but only if it's within 4 jumps, and a ship that can do the same but only within 3 jumps is hardly worth the player's (or game designer's) trouble.
It was idea I struck upon based on your idea of a high cost to jump. There doesn't arbitrarily have to be a seperation of the two. We can have a Starlane Jump Drive individually that incorparates both concepts. There are several reasons I like this concept. One of the foremost is for balance purposes. Having a seperate component to access a starlane can have limiting factors such as the size of a ship that access a starlane, or perhaps the overall size of a fleet. Note: the jump component accesses the starlane, it does not propel the ship.

Additionally, the jump capacity tech could out accelerate fuel tech, where you could possibly jump 12 times, but only have fuel to reach 3 jumps. However, if you jump along a supply route, you can refuel and make the 12 jumps in one turn. Wander off the supply route, and you're stuck to three jumps. Conversely, if you have short jump capacity, and long fuel range. A supply route may be able to recharge the capacity toward the same effect.

Additionally, if there is a particularly long starlane(s) taking you all the way across the star map, having long range fuel can be beneficial. You may still only have short capacity jumps, but have long range fuel to make it most of the way, then limp through to the other side(if necessary), if the amount of turns to do so are acceptable. I don't recall if starlane distances are a factor, but I just made the assumption for example.

This proposal accentuates the strategic need for supply routes. It also provides more than one way to advance tech that the supply routes can support(supply jump capacity, and\or fuel).

User avatar
Tortanick
Creative Contributor
Posts: 576
Joined: Sat May 26, 2007 8:05 pm

#34 Post by Tortanick »

loonycyborg wrote:I propose this fleet supply model:
1.Each fleet has a supply efficiency value. A fleet's supply efficiency is function of length of shortest safe path to closest resupply point (e.g. colony).
2.As fleet's supply efficiency decreases, it gets penalties to speed and hitpoint regeneration rate.
Wouldn't it be better if you actually had to move a fleet back to repair after combat? Makes it a bit easy to defend places if ships heal without having to go home for repairs.

User avatar
loonycyborg
Compilation Expert
Posts: 219
Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2006 10:30 pm
Location: Russia/Moscow

#35 Post by loonycyborg »

Tortanick wrote: Wouldn't it be better if you actually had to move a fleet back to repair after combat?
No. That would be too much micromanagement if you had many fleets and many places to defend in a huge hostile galaxy. It's admiral's job to make sure that all ships are repaired, not emperor's.
Last edited by loonycyborg on Wed May 30, 2007 12:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
In Soviet Russia, forum posts YOU!!

User avatar
Tortanick
Creative Contributor
Posts: 576
Joined: Sat May 26, 2007 8:05 pm

#36 Post by Tortanick »

Simply put you're defensive fleets in colonised systems so you don't have to move them. Or mabey starbase shipyards could be built.

I just don't like the idea of conquering someone's border worlds then leaving the fleets to defend against counter attacks and because the systems bordered yours getting them repaired at the same time. It should be an either or thing.

Mabey you could have repair ships that fixup the hull but complicated problems like damage to components need to go home, but you really shouldn't be able to keep ships in a newly conquered province and get them repaired at the same time.

User avatar
loonycyborg
Compilation Expert
Posts: 219
Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2006 10:30 pm
Location: Russia/Moscow

#37 Post by loonycyborg »

I agree that it should be much harder to get repairs in a contested system, but I don't think it should be impossible altogether.
In Soviet Russia, forum posts YOU!!

User avatar
Tortanick
Creative Contributor
Posts: 576
Joined: Sat May 26, 2007 8:05 pm

#38 Post by Tortanick »

Perhaps we should start a new thread for this on the brainstorm section? Unless I'm mistaken this thread is about the logistics of getting supplies to fleets, not where they can and can't be repaired.


Speaking of Logisitcs; I've finished my proposal, my plan is to have very little management of supply at all in you're empire, and have a little management when you leave, the idea is that when you leave you're empire its for something interesting and not too common like exploration or an invasion so a little supply management will be fun. I have tried to ensure that it isn't spreadsheet supply management and I think I did it unless you're low on supplies and trying to ration them out.

Here's my plan:

every colony creates an infinite amount of supplies and automatically distributes them to ships in the same system or a few star lanes away (“a few” increases with technology). However they cannot send supply through a system that's:

1) controlled by another empire's ships (unless you have a treaty),

2)the territory of another empire (unless you have an even more permissive treaty),

3) in the middle of a space battle (Assuming space battles can last multiple turns)

4) suffering from a pirate threat, a pirate threat appears as a result of a random event, or the “fund privateers” espionage mission.

Ships in systems you're colonies can supply never fall below 100% supply, only once they're too far away will you have to worry about supply. (note, they lose the supply needed to jump from a supplied system to an unsupplied system), this means that there is absolutely no micromanagement for defences or repositioning ships.

when a ship is outside the area you're colonies can resupply then they'll use their own supplies, or if they're part of a fleet the entire fleet will pool their supplies allowing for one value for the entire fleet.



For keeping you're ships supplied outside your own systems without needing to keep turning back I'm proposing a modified version of Sandlapper's supply route idea, mine uses normal ships rather than abstracted “supply ships”

The player can create a supply route, supply routes don't have a beginning, just a destination that's either a system, fleet or an individual ship, you then assign ships to the supply route, these aren't special supply ships but normal military vessels although chances are they'll have extra supply storage.

Ships on a supply route will travel to their destination, fill up the supplies of the ships they're assigned to, then travel back and get more. They'll keep some supplies in reserve so they can get home and defend themselves when attacked. Players chose how many groups to split a supply route , if the player tells ships on a supply route to go in multiple groups they'll try to equalise the time between each shipment.

The reason I chose normal ships over specialised abstract supply ships are twofold:

1) its intuitive, the player knows exactly how defended his supply ships are since it uses the same system as the rest of his fleets.

2) Its more involving, rather than backing up you're invasion with excel you get to have fun designing adding point defence and powerful shields to supply ships so they can run blockades. Similarly cutting off supplies isn't changing the number of privateers on a spreadsheet, you analyse his supply ships, see how well defended they are and attack them accordingly.
Last edited by Tortanick on Wed May 30, 2007 7:26 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
eleazar
Design & Graphics Lead Emeritus
Posts: 3858
Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 7:09 pm
Location: USA — midwest

#39 Post by eleazar »

tortanick:
Welcome :)
You think and write clearly, which is important in this process.

Responses to the ideas since my last post will come later.

User avatar
Tortanick
Creative Contributor
Posts: 576
Joined: Sat May 26, 2007 8:05 pm

#40 Post by Tortanick »

awww thank you :) I look forward to hearing you're views on it.

One little thing I'd like to add is adding lots of supply storage to a ship, or better yet sending transporters with lots of supply storage in a fleet should be equally valid to using a supply chain.

Sandlapper
Dyson Forest
Posts: 243
Joined: Sat Nov 01, 2003 11:50 pm
Location: South Carolina, USA

#41 Post by Sandlapper »


Tortanick wrote:

However they cannot send supply through a system that's:

1) controlled by another empire's ships (unless you have a treaty),

2)the territory of another empire (unless you have an even more permissive treaty),

3) in the middle of a space battle (Assuming space battles can last multiple turns)

4) suffering from a pirate threat, a pirate threat appears as a result of a random event, or the “fund privateers” espionage mission.
For number one, do you mean a specific blockade? Or do you also mean any fleet in a system (what if a fleet is unknown, a first contact, does this automatically cut your supply route? If a single scout can deny access to a system, that will be a difficult game to play ) Additionally, you suggest later that the supply will go by normal military ships. Shouldn't they be able to blast their way through, or at least attempt to?

For number two, what if your supply goes through a system you are unable to colonise yet, but another race shows up and places a colony. If there are no alternate routes, does your supply route cease to exist?

For number three, what if there are two other races battling, couldn't the supplies slip around another part of the system to continue on? And if not, is this effectively the same as a blockade, by your earlier rules?

For number four, any pirate activity will cause a blockade? If you're using normal military ships, shouldn't they clear the system of pirates?

these aren't special supply ships but normal military vessels although chances are they'll have extra supply storage.
The reason I chose normal ships over specialised abstract supply ships...

...you get to have fun designing adding point defence and powerful shields to supply ships ...
In reference to my replies\questions above.

Which do we use, normal military ships, or supply ships? Your statements contradict each other.

One little thing I'd like to add is adding lots of supply storage to a ship, or better yet sending transporters with lots of supply storage in a fleet should be equally valid to using a supply chain.

I presume you mean that larger ships with larger storage will offset the need for lots of smaller ships in a supply chain. With the progression of tech, bigger,better, and faster can be expected in all regards, including supply tech.

User avatar
Tortanick
Creative Contributor
Posts: 576
Joined: Sat May 26, 2007 8:05 pm

#42 Post by Tortanick »

I thought I made it clear, there are two compleatly distinct types of supply routes: Civilian and Military.

Civilian supply routes are compleatly automated, they travel to systems within X starlanes of a colony. Any ship in a system supplied by civilian supply routes never falls below 100% supply. The first half of my post is about civilian supply routes, the 4 exceptions apply to them.

Military supply routes are created by the player, they use player designed ships and can travel anywhere you chose. They exist to supply ships who've travelled outside civilian supply routes. When I talk about "supply ships" in the context of Military supply routes "supply ships" are any ship the player is using on a supply route, you could use battlecrusers covered in weapons as supply ships but its not the most efficient decission.


In response to you're more specific points:
Sandlapper wrote: For number one, do you mean a specific blockade? Or do you also mean any fleet in a system (what if a fleet is unknown, a first contact, does this automatically cut your supply route? If a single scout can deny access to a system, that will be a difficult game to play ) Additionally, you suggest later that the supply will go by normal military ships. Shouldn't they be able to blast their way through, or at least attempt to?
I haven't decided yet how its worked out, I tried not to use too many details. If people like my plan then its time to work out the exact macanics :) A single scout blockade dose sound silly.

Military ships can blast their way through, if you think they'd succeed, they can also run through
Sandlapper wrote: For number two, what if your supply goes through a system you are unable to colonise yet, but another race shows up and places a colony. If there are no alternate routes, does your supply route cease to exist?
If you're talking about civilian supply routes then yes it dose, unless you sign a treaty allowing them through. Military supply ships can go through without a treaty but that will be a diplomatic incident.
Sandlapper wrote: For number three, what if there are two other races battling, couldn't the supplies slip around another part of the system to continue on? And if not, is this effectively the same as a blockade, by your earlier rules?
Civilian supply ships refuse to go into a battle they're civilians. Weather or not they can run it safely is irrelivent, and yes it is the same as a blockade, it is supposed to be. Although I imagine the game will be self correcting here. However if you want to have a distinction between big battles and small ones that could easily be done. You simply say that the supply route is restored instantly if the turn starts and the fight is over. Small battles will finish in one turn and won't affect supply, big battles will last longer.

Military supply ships can go through a battlefield, you run the same risk as you always do sending you're ships into a battlefield
Sandlapper wrote:For number four, any pirate activity will cause a blockade? If you're using normal military ships, shouldn't they clear the system of pirates?
Pirate activity is using espionage to cause a blockade as opposed to the military. Sending military ships to exterminate the pirates probably should be an option. Pirates won't attack military supply ships, they're not suicidal.

Sandlapper wrote:I presume you mean that larger ships with larger storage will offset the need for lots of smaller ships in a supply chain. With the progression of tech, bigger,better, and faster can be expected in all regards, including supply tech.
I meant that if you add more storage to a fleet (or single ship) that's leaving the empire, that should be an alternative to having a supply route leading to it. Balancing the two options is another of those details I'm not going into now.

tzlaine
Programming Lead Emeritus
Posts: 1092
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 1:33 pm

#43 Post by tzlaine »

Sandlapper wrote:Okay, my two cents worth:

I like Tzlaine's amended propasal(from brainstorming thread)
Perhaps not unexpectedly, so do I :) .

Here's what I was going for with my proposal:

1) Supply should set real limits on how fast you can expand & explore, and how deep into enemy territory you can attack.
2) Supply should enrich the strategic game by allowing maneuver to be really important. Maneuver in many 4X games is just a question of how well you coordinate your movements to get the biggest fleet to the next big battle coming up. Effective use of supply raids ought to be a strategy that saves a more light, nimble force from a more slow, powerful one.
3) It should be relatively easy to manage the support of friendly supply and disruption of enemy supply.

We can argue whether these are good goals or bad, or whether the proposal meets them, but now we at least have something concrete to discuss.

I think my proposal meets the above goals, while remaining relatively simple. Some specific considerations:

I understand the desire to do everything with "regular" ships -- good ol' KISS. However, I think that the prospect of moving a bunch of ships all around to blanket your space with anti-piracy or anti-raider cover is boring, and the definition of micromanagement. I would prefer to have this abstracted, so that the player just builds "escort" ships, which never appear on the map, and which automatically cover the player's space. 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.)

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.

Note that I got the idea of escorts from Hearts of Iron II, which has been a very influential game to our design efforts in the past. I think they work well in that game.

Having said all that, the abstract escort part is not strictly necessary. The proposal is basically the same in either case:
1) There is some supply level associated with how far your fleet is from friendly supply.
2) There is some supply disruption factor associated with the friendly and enemy presence along the supply route.
3) You combine these two numbers to get the actual supply level.

User avatar
eleazar
Design & Graphics Lead Emeritus
Posts: 3858
Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 7:09 pm
Location: USA — midwest

#44 Post by eleazar »

:arrow: Perhaps we do need to discuss goals a bit more before getting to implementation:
tzlaine wrote:Here's what I was going for with my proposal:

1) Supply should set real limits on how fast you can expand & explore, and how deep into enemy territory you can attack.
2) Supply should enrich the strategic game by allowing maneuver to be really important. Maneuver in many 4X games is just a question of how well you coordinate your movements to get the biggest fleet to the next big battle coming up. Effective use of supply raids ought to be a strategy that saves a more light, nimble force from a more slow, powerful one.
3) It should be relatively easy to manage the support of friendly supply and disruption of enemy supply.

We can argue whether these are good goals or bad, or whether the proposal meets them, but now we at least have something concrete to discuss.
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.


:arrow:
tzlaine wrote:I understand the desire to do everything with "regular" ships -- good ol' KISS. However, I think that the prospect of moving a bunch of ships all around to blanket your space with anti-piracy or anti-raider cover is boring, and the definition of micromanagement. I would prefer to have this abstracted, so that the player just builds "escort" ships, which never appear on the map, and which automatically cover the player's space. 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.
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.

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.

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.


:arrow: As mentioned before i believe this ship resupply should only be considered with resource redistribution in mind. I believe i have a solid basis for it with Explicit Supply Routes.

User avatar
loonycyborg
Compilation Expert
Posts: 219
Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2006 10:30 pm
Location: Russia/Moscow

#45 Post by loonycyborg »

tzlaine wrote: 1) There is some supply level associated with how far your fleet is from friendly supply.
2) There is some supply disruption factor associated with the friendly and enemy presence along the supply route.
3) You combine these two numbers to get the actual supply level.
Sounds like job for Dijkstra's shortest path algorithm. You assign weights to starlanes considering friendly/enemy presence on their ends and the algorithm gives you the optimal supply route and its supply level.
In Soviet Russia, forum posts YOU!!

Locked