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).