Planetary Resource Distribution

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: Planetary Resource Distribution

#46 Post by eleazar »

Krikkitone wrote:The problem is blockades themselves violate the fundamental game mechanic of instant resource distribution.
That's ridiculous. :?

Read the v.04 section on planetary distribution or my proposal on this subject. These two game concepts are not in conflict. There are numerous other ways blockades could be implemented with "instant resource distribution."


To clarify Geoff's statement a little: "Any resources in a connected group of planets that are not connected to the stockpile location, which cannot be used in that group in that turn, are lost."

User avatar
Robbie.Price
Space Kraken
Posts: 161
Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2007 7:00 pm

Re: Planetary Resource Distribution

#47 Post by Robbie.Price »

eleazar wrote:
Robbie.Price wrote:I can't find why planet by planet tracking has been rejected. . . in fact the local stockpile idea is commonly mentioned in one form or another...
Other ideas were considered at one time, and people keep bringing up ideas which have already been chosen. However, i'll quote from the opening of this thread:

"The fundamental game mechanics of global queues / stockpiles, and instant resource distribution are not up for review."

"Multiple stockpiles is not going to happen, most simply because it's definitely not "simple"..."
I disagree, depending on how Multiple stockpiles are implemented, as long as the UI does not have to ever show all the stockpiles, and the user doesn't have to care about all the stock piles, then the fact that under the UI there are multiple stockpiles does not make anything more complex. Infact in many ways it makes things simpler, and more fun.
eleazar wrote:
Robbie.Price wrote:Most of the proposed models involve a single warehouse, without clear indication of how to handle that warehouse being blockaded or worse yet captured.
That's a good question, but pretty easily answered.

An empire's stockpile location is by default it's capitol. We might include a building which allows you to move it to another planet.
• We haven't defined what happens when the capitol is captured— possibly that's the end of the empire, but whatever happens to the empire's other assets should also happen to any stockpiles in this case.
• In case of blockade of the central stockpile planet, obviously the entire rest of the empire is cut off from the stockpile.
I think both of those ideas are definitely unfun, in IMHO. It turns our galactic empires with their multiple victory paths into a giant game of multi team capture the flag. (I'm not even being sarcastic). And what galactic empire is so wise as to keep all their eggs in one basket anyway?? If my entire empire depends on the functioning of one planet, regardless of the strength of my empire, I'm envisioning late game supper runs of 2 or 3 teams against the strongest enemy, doing a Blitzkrieg on a more powerful enemy which then over the course of 4 turns vanishes into a puff vacuum, WTF?!!??!?!, I would like to see a game OPTION where you can play in 'capture the flag mode' because that changes the dynamic entirely . . . but to have capture the flag be the default(and only available) setting ... that's a bit much for me to swallow.

Also what does one do when two empires merge late game?? where is the stockpile now, which place?

And, one might argue that the capital should be a capture the flag event anyway, but what about distributed conscientiousness races, who wouldn't need or have a capital, at least in late game.
eleazar wrote:
Robbie.Price wrote:Having those local stockpiles ever reported in the UI, has been blocked, and quite rightly so...

...When you hover over a planet/region the stockpile available over all connected planets is reported..

...This way you never have to worry about what resources are on what planet...
These statements are very contradictory.

they actually aren't but i can see the confusion, I'll draw something

Letters are planets, things are not linear, just drawn that way, lines are star lanes, ^ beside a planet means blockade, Planets with the same letter are all connected, for simplicity of viewing.
C ------ F^ ----- E
/ / /
A - - - A - - - B^ - - - C - - - -D^ - - - E ---
| \
C E

Clearly this situation should not happen, but this empire has been cut off at two locations, B^,F^ ,and D^.

If the stockpile is all in one place, most everybody's messed. doubly so if it happens to be B^ or D^ or F^

In my Proposed system, when the user clicks on any planet A,(including those not drawn) the UI would show the total resources from all planets labeled A. Simply put all planets labeled A would be treated as one empire, and the same method for reporting resources as always would be used, query all planets Sum what they have what they are making and what they are using. All the other planets would not be included in the calculation since they are not connected, (unless partial blocks are implemented, in which case, any extra from A would *try*[with a known success rate for that turn] to run the blockade to C, [but not D directly])

When the user clicks on a C or E planet it's the same process, they are shown the 'empire' stock holds from all C planets and all E planets respectively. To make things even easier, the same thing ALSO happens when they click on one of the blockaded planets B^, D^, or F^, just in this case the sub-empire is one planet.

The UI doesn't have to change, the only difference is that instead of looking to the empires All Important Flag and asking what the status is, It's calculated on a sub-empire basis, where Normally the sub-empire is the full empire, unless there is a blockade.



I would like to remind us that the reason one puts aside a stock hold, or a treasury, or any form of emergency supplies is for, well , emergencies. Having my empire penetrated to the core by an enemy strike force would qualify as an emergency, and definitely Not the time to have my emergency rations, and stockpiled minerals unavailable.



The user would still only have to interact with one thing at a time, "This sub empires food/materials stockpile, supply and demand". and it would always be in the same place.

Since the values update each turn, the fact that there are planet by planet values is irrelevant.

In the other proposed systems, if my Flag gets blockaded, and I was drawing from or intentionally contributing to those resources, I am obliged to go to my planets and change the way I'm consuming/producing resources to not be waisting, or starving.

IN short Any method which by the very mechanics of the game forces it to function exclusively in Capture the Flag mode, IMHO seriously limits game play style (since to some extent EVERYBODY MUST defend their Flag, or they will be taken out), distracts enormously from the MOO-esque atmosphere of FO, and is unfun(since it forces users to respond disproportionately if their Flag is threatened)

Capture the flag is cool, it's great, it's fun, but only if it's a nice change, If it's all the time and the only option ... not so much.


I'm sorry if I've come across a bit sharp worded, or if i've rambled on a bit long, or basically rolled a natural 1 on my diplomacy check... But i really Really REALLY can not stress enough the fact that forcing FO into a Capture the Flag game irriks me.

Best wishes all, Doubly so to eleazar who in fact I do respect as a source of deep thought into the problems and goals of FO.

Robbie Price.

User avatar
Robbie.Price
Space Kraken
Posts: 161
Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2007 7:00 pm

Re: Planetary Resource Distribution

#48 Post by Robbie.Price »

Goodmorning all again,

sorry for the double post

Krikkitone I really don't think global redistribution and blockades are in conflict. As long as you properly define what is, and what is not part of given sub-empire each sub-empire can continue on regardless of the occasional blockade, with only minor adjustments.


Best wishes again.
Robbie Price

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

Re: Planetary Resource Distribution

#49 Post by eleazar »

Robbie.Price wrote:
eleazar wrote:
Robbie.Price wrote:Most of the proposed models involve a single warehouse, without clear indication of how to handle that warehouse being blockaded or worse yet captured.
That's a good question, but pretty easily answered.

An empire's stockpile location is by default it's capitol. We might include a building which allows you to move it to another planet.
• We haven't defined what happens when the capitol is captured— possibly that's the end of the empire, but whatever happens to the empire's other assets should also happen to any stockpiles in this case.
• In case of blockade of the central stockpile planet, obviously the entire rest of the empire is cut off from the stockpile.
I think both of those ideas are definitely unfun, in IMHO. It turns our galactic empires with their multiple victory paths into a giant game of multi team capture the flag. (I'm not even being sarcastic). And what galactic empire is so wise as to keep all their eggs in one basket anyway?? If my entire empire depends on the functioning of one planet, regardless of the strength of my empire, I'm envisioning late game supper runs of 2 or 3 teams against the strongest enemy, doing a Blitzkrieg on a more powerful enemy which then over the course of 4 turns vanishes into a puff vacuum, WTF?!!??!?!, I would like to see a game OPTION where you can play in 'capture the flag mode' because that changes the dynamic entirely . . . but to have capture the flag be the default(and only available) setting ... that's a bit much for me to swallow.

Also what does one do when two empires merge late game?? where is the stockpile now, which place?

And, one might argue that the capital should be a capture the flag event anyway, but what about distributed conscientiousness races, who wouldn't need or have a capital, at least in late game.
This whole quoted portion is based on an assumption that capture of the capitol ends the game. I clearly said that was a possibility, not that is was the official plan. It hasn't been (to my knowledge) much discussed, so start a new thread if you wish... it's off topic here. Other one-per-empire entities which could be included in the discussion are "Homeworlds" and "Empire Stockpiles".


As for the rest, i will no longer re-explain this topic to people who don't demonstrate an understanding of the major ideas and reasons behind planetary redistribution:
* in the preliminary v 0.4
* in my initial thread on the topic, and
* in this thread, itself.

It's a somewhat complicated topic, but an excessively large portion of the activity has been people repeatedly raising the same ideas and questions— which have already been thoroughly addressed.

User avatar
Krikkitone
Creative Contributor
Posts: 1559
Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2003 6:52 pm

Re: Planetary Resource Distribution

#50 Post by Krikkitone »

eleazar wrote: To clarify Geoff's statement a little: "Any resources in a connected group of planets that are not connected to the stockpile location, which cannot be used in that group in that turn, are lost."
That is the point... you are looking at "that group" a local concept.

The fact is blockades by Definition violate redistribution (otherwise they are not a blockade) The violation may require only minor modifications, but it will still require modifications.

PS So non-connected surplus is lost

As for "simple" I think a single stockpile (especially with a loss of any surplus) is Less simple.. if there is control over it.

For example, we simplified the economy in FO by eliminating control.. the economy grows by a simple function with no "control" input either human or AI. (except in special cases ie buildings on planets)

If the Stockpile is at one Controlable location, would be a potential bit of nearly useless control, micromanagement.

The point is you have a stockpile so that you can consume the material later. So you always want the stockpile available in an area to be based on consumption of the material, in case production changes (ie blockade). So the simpler method, that doesn't have the player trying to "move" their "flag" to the best spot would just be to have the stockpile automatically distributed to the spots where it is best ie where it is being consumed. (This is because the only resources that are often suggested for both Blockades and stockpiles are also the only two that have a relatively fixed consumption Food-> Population and Minerals->Industry)

Stockpiles would still be global in the sense that they are accessed "globally" by all the planets in a connected subgroup. It just means
1. the loss/capture of any planet would result in the loss/capture of some stockpiles
2. In the case of a blockade, the global stockpile would be broken up into multiple All sub-empire stockpiles

Actually, That would be the easiest
1. In the case of planet capture/destruction/collateral damage on a planet's surface, the amount of the Global Stockpile that is captured/lost/vulnerable is
Global Stockpile * Planetary Consumption / Global Consumption

2. In the case of a Blockade, the Initial Stockpile of a sub-empire fragment is
Global Stockpile * Fragment Consumption / Global Consumption
and that Fragment is then Economically the same as an independent empire (that takes its orders from another empire)

When two fragments merge through the removal of a blockade, the new Global Stockpile is
Fragment 1 stockpile + Fragment 2 stockpile


Note: this does depend on whether the global stockpile location is controllable or not (ie if it is just your Oldest planet, then there is no 'useless control' worry because you can't control it). If it is something like "oldest Planet" that would be just as valid for a sub-group as a whole group.
So you could easily have an Instantly determined non controlled stockpile location for any subgroup of planets that had a surplus.

Admittedly, if you have multiple stockpiles, that complexifies the UI a bit (you would need to know that the stockpile being reported here is only for this fragment) However, the UI is Already Complexified by the fact that you have multiple production/consumption rates

Ie Planet/Group of planets A produces 100 food and consumes 50
Planet/Group of planets B produces 50 food and consumes 100

Non blockaded situation, Food production = 0 Food Stockpile =150
If B is Blockaded
Food Production = + 50 OR -50 depending on the planet
so
Food stockpile = 100 OR 50 depending on the planet


The thing is in a programming sense it may (or may not) be easier to do this by dividing the Global Stockpile into Planetary Stockpiles every turn and Report the global Stockpile available

As for the UI Issue I'd say
If you are on Planet A the Food meter reads
+50*, 50* Stockpile the * indicates that there is a blockade and that this is not your whole empire

Perhaps +50 [0] for production, and 50 [150] for the stockpile
ie Available [Imperial]
where [Imperial] is just the sum of all the fragments

The point is you would be doing that type of thing for the surplus/deficit already, why not do it for the stockpile as well.

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

Re: Planetary Resource Distribution

#51 Post by eleazar »

Continuing my points from this post:

Why Planetary Supply lines should be limited to 1 jump, in order to make a comprehensible interface

First of all, what information does the interface need to convey?
  • 1) In what systems can an empire's ships be resupplied?
    2) Where are those supply lines vulnerable to blockades?
    3) By what routes play planets exchange resources?
    4) Where are those routes vulnerable to blockades?
To meet these goals (with either the v.04 preliminary rules or my proposed "1 jump planetary supply range") we need to distinguish between starlanes which connect planets, and starlanes which connect systems where planets may be supplied. Consider this example:

A — e — B

"A" and "B" are planets which can move supplies up to 1 jump away. "e" is an empty system. Obviously either planet could supply a ship at "e", however these planets cannot exchange resources. It would be pointless to try to set up a blockade between "A" & "B" by occupying "e" because "e" is already unused.
Thus in any case we'll need to graphically distinguish:
  • A) supply lanes which connect planets, from
    B) those which potentially can resupply ships, or connect to potential colonies.
Since "A" will always be a subset of "B", we'll actually be showing: "A" one way, and indicating all of "B" that's not part of "A", with a different appearance.

In my examples i'll use solid-colored lines for "A", and dotted lines for "B".

Again, all of this is simply background for the discussion which is equally true with or without my proposed change.


The following is an example of how the starlanes of a small empire would look at the supply distance grows per the current v.0.4. The numbers to the right of the planet name indicate how many jumps out the supply lines can go.

Image
#1 A relatively small empire of 5 planets in early game. Note that "Parr" can't exchange resources, it's too far out. There are quite a few systems where an attacker could place a fleet and divide the empire. Only "Valamar" receives supplies from more than one route.


Image
#2 "Parr is now connected. All planets have at least one alternate route for supplies. The only single system in which an occupation could divide the empire is at "Noxia" the capitol. Ships can be supplied over a larger area.


Image
#3 The area covered by planetary supply lines is now noticeably bigger than the empire. Ships can be supplied significantly beyond the boundaries of this graphic.


Image
#4 Now a blockade of "Noxia" would only separate "Noxia", the rest of the empire could still share resources.


Image
#5 The only possible place for an indirect blockade is at (the star i forgot to name) connecting to "Parr". Otherwise the idea of any sort of indirect blockade is silly... unless you want to divide your forces over a large area to attempt some sort of picket line— which would likely be less useful than simply blockading all 5 planets individually.
However even with this small empire it could take you quite a while to trace out all the lanes to figure that out. And this example is rather moderate... most of the planets can only send supplies 5 jumps, while the max distance will be at least 10, probably more. Nearing that point any empire would be surrounded by a large ball of planetary supply lanes, so that it's not obvious where in the middle of all that the core empire resides, or at what points if any it is susceptible to indirect blockade.


Thus i'm proposing that planets can share resources only at a distance of 1 jump, and that distribution outposts may be built to bridge any gaps. This would have the following advantages:
  • * Indirect blockades are a viable strategy in more situations.
    * It's easier to see where indirect blockades may be possible, and what the shape of an empire is.
    * The empire itself has a more definite shape.
    * The player has control of the shape of his empire via placing hubs, rather than passively waiting for the supply range to grow.

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

Re: Planetary Resource Distribution

#52 Post by eleazar »

Krikkitone wrote:...I think a single stockpile (especially with a loss of any surplus) is Less simple.. if there is control over it.

For example, we simplified the economy in FO by eliminating control.. the economy grows by a simple function with no "control" input either human or AI. (except in special cases ie buildings on planets)

If the Stockpile is at one Controlable location, would be a potential bit of nearly useless control, micromanagement.
I don't know what you mean by "controlling" a stockpile. An empire will use up as much of the stockpiled surplus as it can, every turn... that's what it's for. It also may be tradable with other empires.

User avatar
Geoff the Medio
Programming, Design, Admin
Posts: 13587
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 1:33 am
Location: Munich

Re: Planetary Resource Distribution

#53 Post by Geoff the Medio »

eleazar: You've used as an example a rather small region of space... so it's not really surprising (or objectionable) that there are redundant supply connections between planets after the initial stages of the game. In the mid and late game, I'd expect that an empire would control its neighbourhood, and not just the systems it has actually colonized. The planet supply limits in this case would be to prevent exchanging resources with planets on the other side of the universe, not to make it hard to share within an closely-spaced empire. Rather, an indirect blockade should be silly against a small but advanced empire... that's part of what makes a smaller empires easier to control and defend. And regardless, if you can directly blockade an empire's planets, what difference does it make how difficult indirect blockades are? You don't need to use them anyway.

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

Re: Planetary Resource Distribution

#54 Post by eleazar »

Geoff the Medio wrote:eleazar: You've used as an example a rather small region of space... so it's not really surprising (or objectionable) that there are redundant supply connections between planets after the initial stages of the game.
Of course it's a small region, i don't see that any point i'm trying to make would be more or less supported if i used 100+ stars rather than 30+ stars. But 30 stars are much easier to mock-up and examine.

I'm not complaining that there are redundant connections per se. A well-planned empire will usually have redundant connections in any case. My complaint is that empires would become entangled in an excessive mess of redundant connections to the point where the players can't easily figure out what's going on.

Look at examples #4 or #5. Assume each colony system has formidable protections. How long does it take to (with this rather small 5 planet empire) to discover weather there is any 1 or 2 or 3 system blockade which could succeed in cutting off part of the empire from supplies. Now imaging that process with an empire 10 times bigger in the later game. The time it would take is prohibitive, and it's likely to be error prone. Only the most obvious candidates for indirect blockade would observable.
This is not a very nice interface... I spent several hours at it, and it's the best i can come up with. The clarity you see here is in part due to the fact that i haven't included any other empires in the picture. Representing the overlap of supply lanes from different empires at different diplomatic states can greatly complicate things— but i don't want to get into that until we're more thoroughly into diplomacy, because much depends on the diplomatic states we allow.
Geoff the Medio wrote:In the mid and late game, I'd expect that an empire would control its neighbourhood, and not just the systems it has actually colonized.
I don't know what you mean by "control it's neighborhood"

Geoff the Medio wrote:The planet supply limits in this case would be to prevent exchanging resources with planets on the other side of the universe, not to make it hard to share within an closely-spaced empire. Rather, an indirect blockade should be silly against a small but advanced empire... that's part of what makes a smaller empires easier to control and defend.
The size of the empire is not relevant, but rather the density of colonized systems. It's not my goal that it is "hard to share within an closely-spaced empire"
Geoff the Medio wrote:And regardless, if you can directly blockade an empire's planets, what difference does it make how difficult indirect blockades are? You don't need to use them anyway.
You can attack an empire's planets-- what different does it make how difficult it is to directly blockade them?

The point is that we have introduced an interesting and relatively novel strategy to FO, indirect blockades— partly in an attempt to make "empire shape" strategically significant. This is good.
But then we've defined the rules so that this strategy can seldom be applied, and when it can be applied it's very often in situations when another strategy works just as well. Empire shape has some importance, but that tends to disappear as supply-lines grow

User avatar
Krikkitone
Creative Contributor
Posts: 1559
Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2003 6:52 pm

Re: Planetary Resource Distribution

#55 Post by Krikkitone »

eleazar wrote:
Krikkitone wrote:...I think a single stockpile (especially with a loss of any surplus) is Less simple.. if there is control over it.

For example, we simplified the economy in FO by eliminating control.. the economy grows by a simple function with no "control" input either human or AI. (except in special cases ie buildings on planets)

If the Stockpile is at one Controlable location, would be a potential bit of nearly useless control, micromanagement.
I don't know what you mean by "controlling" a stockpile. An empire will use up as much of the stockpiled surplus as it can, every turn... that's what it's for. It also may be tradable with other empires.
You control the stockpile by controling where it Is.. If it is your capital.. or some "warehouse" building you build.. or anything you can actually change.. then it would be useful to move it around

What if you decide to move your "warehouse" to a system that is not connected to the warehouse? Is there a rule that prevents that? If not what happens

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

Re: Planetary Resource Distribution

#56 Post by eleazar »

Krikkitone wrote:You control the stockpile by controling where it Is.. If it is your capital.. or some "warehouse" building you build.. or anything you can actually change.. then it would be useful to move it around
Probably it's some sort of major building... not the sort of thing you can instantly move all over your empire on a whim.
Krikkitone wrote:What if you decide to move your "warehouse" to a system that is not connected to the warehouse? Is there a rule that prevents that? If not what happens
Good question. There's no rule for this situation yet. Possibilities:
  • 1) All resources are magically transfered to the new Stockpile planet
    2) The new Stockpile won't come "on-line" until it can connect to the old Stockpile planet
    3) All stored resources are lost, if a new stockpile is finished and it can't connect to the old one.
I tend to prefer #2, though it is more complicated.

User avatar
Krikkitone
Creative Contributor
Posts: 1559
Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2003 6:52 pm

Re: Planetary Resource Distribution

#57 Post by Krikkitone »

BTW, I tend to agree that Ship supply should have a variable range while Planetary Supply should not. Otherwise, as pointed out Imperial density (which would probably increase throughout the game as planets got filled in) will become less and less important. I'd say
Resources.. require an "unblockaded" colony/depot at every point along their path
Supply... require an unblockaded path of X distance from the nearest colony/depot

X depending on Techs and some other features of the individual colony/depot.


Still if blockades are going to be in order, I really don't like the idea that a blockaded surplus producing fragment simply loses the surplus... Minerals and Food normally stockpile, and you will have different production rates for each different fragment, so why have only one stockpile for only one fragment.

User avatar
Robbie.Price
Space Kraken
Posts: 161
Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2007 7:00 pm

Re: Planetary Resource Distribution

#58 Post by Robbie.Price »

Goodmorning all;

My applogies for I am about to post, a number, of posts, I've been away for several days, and as I said I am very strongly opinionated about this topic, I shall endeavor however to moderate myself. wish me luck *I'm sure you already have*
eleazar wrote:
Robbie.Price wrote: And, one might argue that the capital should be a capture the flag event anyway, but what about distributed conscientiousness races, who wouldn't need or have a capital, at least in late game.
This whole quoted portion is based on an assumption that capture of the capitol ends the game. I clearly said that was a possibility, not that is was the official plan. It hasn't been (to my knowledge) much discussed, so start a new thread if you wish... it's off topic here. Other one-per-empire entities which could be included in the discussion are "Homeworlds" and "Empire Stockpiles".
First, I was not referring to it necessarily being a 100% capture the flag scenario, although that is a possible interpretation of my words. More simply that having all your eggs in one basket is never a good idea. In the event where that basket gets toppled, or briefly held out of range, your over a barrel. . . even if you don't loose the game RIGHT then, you're really hard pressed to recover from it. So all the arguments Still stand, simply because having flag, even if it's not a 100% instant loss flag, still isn't wise. That was the point i was trying to make, I would appreciate it if you read, rather then dismissed off hand what i wrote, thank you.
eleazar wrote: As for the rest, i will no longer re-explain this topic to people who don't demonstrate an understanding of the major ideas and reasons behind planetary redistribution:
* in the preliminary v 0.4
* in my initial thread on the topic, and
* in this thread, itself.
Thank you once again for dismissing me off hand as an idiot. I'm not, but so be it.

I have re-read, now all off those post, again.

Re the first link, I know where the plan is, I'm disagreeing with the one stockpile rule. That page does not include any explanation, which was what i had asked for.

link 2; I noticed that you yourself dominate that link, which is fine, you started it. but i also noticed A LOT of people bringing up points similar, or even nearly identical to mine. (and that like me you mostly dismissed them out of hand without much thought, or explication, often referring to the link one, as if it were set in stone, and leafed with gold as not to be ever touched lest it's perfection be marred.) Maybe this is true, but i would like to know why it is true, which I've still yet to find an adequate reason.

I manged to find SOME reasoning, Geoff mentioned that
Geoff wrote: This might be too much extra information for players to manage, but it could provide a way to elegantly deal with sub-grids of planets that can share between themselves, but not with the rest of the empire, without needing to throw away any extra stockpilable resources in such situations for no apparently reason.
Which IS a valid reason not to move to Multi stockpiles. But if you read the suggested method, I explicitly handle this objection, I suggest a system where the user never needs to know or see more then one sub-empire stockpile at a time. These sub-empires May be one planet, or several planets disconnected from the capital, but since resources can't move (or if partial blockades are used they can be moved but it done in the same sense being consumed in one, and produced in the other, so as not to be difficult to understand).

You later say
eleazar wrote: If you considered the deliberate simplicity of the core game mechanics, it might become apparent that solidcordon's proposed level of complexity is out of place in a secondary aspect of gamplay.
Referring to a poster whom you managed to bully out of the subject. . . congratulations.
I don't know what his suggestion was, since he removed it after being scared off by you, but if complexity is the issue, I stand by my statement that my proposed system is not significantly more complex in any meaningful way, then yours, Simply that it is de-centralized, and allows rational empire management in times of need.


Quoting the second half of your most resent plan
eleazar wrote: * Excess food in the north is eaten or spoils.

* Excess minerals in the north are wasted. I don't have a plausible explanation for this, except that it prevents the micromanagy badness of mineral stockpiles springing up on various planets.

* Excess industrial production is, of course, wasted if there is not enough things to built in the north.
.

.

.
In short, divide and conquer is a very valid strategy in this proposal. If the Qew cannot reestablish the supply lines between the two halves, the north is vulnerable to conquest and/or rebellion.
The first two are precisely the type of problem I'm trying to avoid. Food is or is not savable from year to year, there is no reason to invoke magic fridges which can only be in one place to save food, If you can save food one place you can save it another,
if you can store minerals one place you can store them in another, This is admittedly a realism argument. . . and i don't put much/ and weight on it. But if your going to break realism you need a reason which remains unsolved, even a small one will do.

You do mention wanting to avoid the micromanagement of stockpiles, this is commendable. Please note that in my suggested method stockpiles are NOT micromanagable.

Re the divide and conquer;
yes, with your suggestion the divide and conquer strategy is stronger then in my *really quite limited* altered proposal. My point is that in your system the divide and conquer strategy is TOO powerful. Sit one blockade on one planet *granted a hard to blockade planet, but still one planet* and everything else is in *the 'vonerable part of the empire' mode since it can't draw from backup supplies.*

Moving on to the third link;

I shall limit myself to one comment, *I'll respond to more recent posts seperately*

one of the opening questions was
"** What share (if any) of the global stockpile does a planet have when a blockade begins?"

Your answer is none, ever, for any planet which is not the main planet, My *and several other people's* response is some. Both may be valid final answers, it would be nice if you acknowledged the possibility that both possibilities are possible, and additionally it would be nice if you provided reasons why your solution is better rather then referring to other documents as if the where final and only answer, simply because they agree with you.
eleazar wrote: It's a somewhat complicated topic, but an excessively large portion of the activity has been people repeatedly raising the same ideas and questions— which have already been thoroughly addressed.
This is a complicated topic, other ideas then yours might also be acceptable, Please keep an open mind...


As you might have noticed, I do feel slightly attacked by your response, an apology would be accepted heartedly. Additionally it would earn you one in turn for my implications that your behaving as an ogre. (although as member of the "Creative Team", you might consider being more open minded; both in this topic and in several others where I have noted you can come across often more forcefully then you perhaps intend. Just a thought.)

Best wishes to all, And hopefully we can achieve some form of mutual understanding and respect.

Robbie Price.

User avatar
Robbie.Price
Space Kraken
Posts: 161
Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2007 7:00 pm

Re: Planetary Resource Distribution

#59 Post by Robbie.Price »

Goodmorning all
Krikkitone wrote:
Stockpiles would still be global in the sense that they are accessed "globally" by all the planets in a connected subgroup. It just means
1. the loss/capture of any planet would result in the loss/capture of some stockpiles
2. In the case of a blockade, the global stockpile would be broken up into multiple All sub-empire stockpiles

Actually, That would be the easiest
1. In the case of planet capture/destruction/collateral damage on a planet's surface, the amount of the Global Stockpile that is captured/lost/vulnerable is
Global Stockpile * Planetary Consumption / Global Consumption

2. In the case of a Blockade, the Initial Stockpile of a sub-empire fragment is
Global Stockpile * Fragment Consumption / Global Consumption
and that Fragment is then Economically the same as an independent empire (that takes its orders from another empire)

When two fragments merge through the removal of a blockade, the new Global Stockpile is
Fragment 1 stockpile + Fragment 2 stockpile

. . .

Admittedly, if you have multiple stockpiles, that complexifies the UI a bit (you would need to know that the stockpile being reported here is only for this fragment) However, the UI is Already Complexified by the fact that you have multiple production/consumption rates


The thing is in a programming sense it may (or may not) be easier to do this by dividing the Global Stockpile into Planetary Stockpiles every turn and Report the global Stockpile available

The point is you would be doing that type of thing for the surplus/deficit already, why not do it for the stockpile as well.
Re the above, this is functionally identical to my suggestion, except it improves on one aspect. The stockpiles in my suggestion were split evenly for each planet, Krikkitone's solution makes more sense, and it allows a meaningful loss of resources when bombed. I approve.

The only real difference between the two is that instead of calculating the amount of stock on either side of the blockade when it begins, you simply have the sub-empires stock calculated each turn from the otherwise invisible local stocks. This way you don't have to worry about floating point food and floating point minerals.

The UI is not more 'complex' in my eye since whatever planet your focusing on is part of a sub-empire and it is that sub-empires 'global' stocks which are presented to you, since that's all that matters. You don't care what resources are on the planet, only those available within the sub empire (which more often then not will be the full empire). Change planet, and the 'Global' stocks change, or don't, depending if the new planet is in a different sub-empire or not.

In short build empire resources from the ground up not the top down.

My best to all of you, and to all a good weekend,

Robbie Price

User avatar
Robbie.Price
Space Kraken
Posts: 161
Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2007 7:00 pm

Re: Planetary Resource Distribution

#60 Post by Robbie.Price »

Hello all again, probably last post, or near last post, hopefully you don't all hate me yet.

Regarding the question of user interface for blockading/trading planets;

Might it be possible to present this data as an optional overlay?

Some form of side bar toggle, or side menu?

most of the time you don't care where your/or your opponents trade lines / supply range is. only when your thinking of expanding, building a colony, attacking do you care, so it might simplify the UI a lot if the trade lines and supply lines are not actively presented when there are not needed. this frees up the inter system connecting lines to be used for other information, or simply ownership indication.

Also we'd no longer have to worry about how to overlay two different empires; their trade roots + ranges. By having the user select from a menu who's supply/exchange situation they want to know about the UI is much less cluttered.

Otherwise the UI as proposed looks good to me, simple enough to understand . . . maybe if we pass to a system where the user actively selects to see trade routes we would have a slight colour overly, indicating the divisibility.

For example the space surrounding a planet could be coloured to indicate approximately how hard it would be to split the empire into two parts using the planet in question as part of the blockade / how susceptible the system is to being indirectly blockaded.

In effect: In eleazar's final image, the space around systems such as Gold, Mecedonia, minbar, mir, and a few others might be tinted yellow when you bring up this information overlay, to indicate that those systems could be indirectly blockaded using only two blockades. The space about the parr5 system would be tainted closer to red because it only would take one system to blockade it, and those systems are buried behind definitive lines. If Perfect where colonized it's space would be tinted the second reddest available because it would only be connected once, and it's connected to Caldrea, a system directly on a boarder to a non controlled system. Planets currently blockaded locally would of course be reddest, and make neighboring planets space redder. Planets closer to the core, Noxia 7, niad, clod, bob, virtue . .. these systems are relatively safe from indirect blockades and so the space around them would be tinted various shades of green.

When calling up an overlay you would be very quickly able to judge good blockade points if any existed by just scanning for red and yellows. This also would give colourful shapes to various empires.

Anyway it's just an idea and we'd have to be willing to have information overlays. which means not all the information will always be available at a glance. The user would sometimes have to request to see this information explicitly (although if they preferred they COULD do it just by looking at the normal map and working it out for themselves.)

Still I generally like where that idea is heading.

Best wishes

Locked