Logistics (ammo, fuel, electricity, building materials, etc)

Re: Logistics (ammo, fuel, electricity, building materials,

I would say that between a planet and a moon, you should still resort to the same mechanisms as between planets: a magnetic accelerator or mass driver of some sort.

This means that mass-resources arrive in waves (or rather, packages), and energy could be transmitted the same way and/or through satellite networks (maybe a later-game tech).

Each mass driver / receiver pair would be able to send x packages per minute, each package being either a mass/metal bundle or an energy container. A satellite network would be able to do similar, except that the energy influx would be constant.

Enemies could attack packages in-transit, or otherwise destroy them before they arrive. Alternatively, it may be possible for enemy units to hijack packages and deliver them to the enemy instead. As for a satellite network for transmitting energy, the more 'lines' you have, the greater the bandwidth of energy transfer... an enemy can destroy satellites to cut your energy supply as well.

Re: Logistics (ammo, fuel, electricity, building materials,

Looking at the trailer again, it seems like an attacking player going to a moon to expand his economy could gain an advantage just from having another point to build and attack from. Perhaps moons won't have as much economical benefit as going to another planet would, and moon-planet resource sharing wouldn't be as important. I'm not sure what would work out better in the end.

Re: Logistics (ammo, fuel, electricity, building materials,

this is one of those things i would really love to hear the devs about... But they seem to be quite inactive on this forum lately...

Re: Logistics (ammo, fuel, electricity, building materials,

Hopefully working on some goodies to showcase on the kickstarter page

Re: Logistics (ammo, fuel, electricity, building materials,

Would be great! But my theory was that they just enjoyed their well deserved weekend...

Re: Logistics (ammo, fuel, electricity, building materials,

I'm against incorporating a logistics simulation. It might enrich other games, but it would only hinder this one.

This is the future. Everything uses some pan-dimensional quantum power transmsission mechanism to mold energy and matter into whichever state is desirable.

There's no fuel. There's no ammo.

Your logistics are managing your time and flow of mass/energy versus the location and proximity of your units to strategic goals you may have.

Re: Logistics (ammo, fuel, electricity, building materials,

I agree with you for the most part but to me having one economy is driving the simplicity a bit to far. I don't want micro-intensive logistics but having to transport resources between planets sounds like perfectly macro-scaled simple logistics to me

Re: Logistics (ammo, fuel, electricity, building materials,

The problem is that some people like the logistics and the economy ect side of things and want that complexity in the games that they play. Other people see that as an unneeded system which would distract them from what they love eg. blowing things up. So one idea will probably be implemented in game (probably thee logistics less one for needing less money/time) and the other will be left to moddders.

An d I am hoping for the logistics-less side of things

Re: Logistics (ammo, fuel, electricity, building materials,

I have to say that I do agree with some of the arguements both for and against logistics. I personally think it would be amazing if a kind of middle ground was found. Something along the lines of where the units just use mass and energy instead of ammo and fuel, based on what type of weapon is used. Still much would depend on a number of things though. Such as:

• *Will engineers and commanders(sub-commanders?) generate a small amount of resources that can be used to build basic things at least?(very likely)
  
  *Will there be support/supply limits?(Very unlikely based on the people making the game but having the units require mass and energy to even fire at all would mean that unless you kept a sufficient reserve then your army would be wasted. This depends on the units using that at all but if the units have a kind of reserve that they only used if the general supply was too low then it would balance it out a bit. Now commanders could augment this by having a form of bonus recharge/boost aura.)
  
  *Will there be anything like regions, sectors, etc to divide planets or moons(asteroids should be small enough to be at most one small to extra-small map)? Where each would be the size of a map from supcom. One sized always used or varying? I.E one map size for moons one for gas giants another for solid. (depends on overall size and comparison rates. 1 gas giant should be MUCH bigger than regular solid)
  
  *Will there be planetary movement?(Each planet rotates while orbiting stars within the galaxy. Very unlikely from a programming point to balance properly)
  
  *Will each planet have it's own pool of resources unless it's connected to a network of worlds?(Sounds interesting but sounds tricky to make work depending on...)
  
  *How many planets will be in a system, along with the moons for each let alone the asteroids large enough to be used, as either weapons or for resources.(Now asteroids being useful for just harvesting would depend on...)
  
  *Are there different size metal deposits like in TA or one standard like in SupCom? This would lead to differing rates of mining based on size &/or concentration. Making the previously mentioned asteroids very high to compensate for the difficulty of getting to.(Imagine the range goes from 1 to 5 with 4-5 being very rare on regular earth/solid planets with the average being 2's and 3's but asteroids being at least 4's and quite a bit of 5's)

Now looking at just a few of these even, shows that a very robust relatively simple system would need to be used to even come close to being remotely balanced over the scales involved. Now this doesn't mean that the game needs be attack move and forget only, but that the base system should be focused on being simple and clean to use first and foremost. I fell like too many games decide to spend too much time on things other than making the basic game mechanics work and work well(*cough*advent rising*cough*). This is all just my opinion though but I find this game fascinating and I hope it gets done right.

Re: Logistics (ammo, fuel, electricity, building materials,

Requiring resources to only be used locally would be an absolute nightmare. Oh, the idea sounds nice, until you realize you'd need to micromanage not one metal / energy bar on the top of the screen, but 20-30 of them. I can't even begin to picture the nightmare of establishing a beachhead on another planet and trying to juggle all those local resources to do it. And what about large constructions? An Experimental unit that can only be built from the resources of the one mine nearby? Ouch.

Re: Logistics (ammo, fuel, electricity, building materials,

Well it doesn't have to be too bad if there is a simple system to connect a planet, moon asteroid to an overall pool. Something similar to the game SpaceEmpires where you have to build 1 resource link building on any planet in a system to then connect the whole system to the overall empire resource pool. In the kickstarter video, the building that launches the commander to the moon could be said building. Because if PA is even remotely like TA/SupCom then the reason to send the commander as part of a beachhead would be because it has the capacity to build up a simple base relatively quickly, or just making the connector link if need be. Though a moon should be close enough that just having the uplink building on the planet below should allow it to connect. Now the choice comes in building the orbital facilities that would allow that planet to now connect to OTHER planets. This would make it dangerous enough for beachhead situations that making that connector would have to wait till there are enough defenses/forces to protect the commander as it builds it. This would also combine with making the drops so they would cost MUCH more and take longer for more accurate drops(within 3-4 commander distances of the targeted area) and be vastly cheaper and quicker to do very general drops(15-20 CommDist's), along a scale though. This would have to be balanced out with having anti-missile defenses being able to more easily pick off the drops than AA systems but those systems be expensive enough that you couldn't really cover a massive area in them. I'd imagine shields would about 85% chance to destroy(at least dropping the unit into very low hp) droppods(unless it works like the kickstarter video which is a droppod that splits and dropjets down the units, then a shield should destroy the units) but draining the shields for something like 20% more than the damage done.

Re: Logistics (ammo, fuel, electricity, building materials,

I feel that much of this thread has been consolidated into the economy thread "Should resources be tracked per planet/moon".

Re: Logistics (ammo, fuel, electricity, building materials,

Keep in mind what is said before : WE DONT SHOOT FOR REALISM WE ARE SHOOTING FOR AWESOME.

I even dont like it if games are to complicated.For example I take my 10 heavy tanks (50/50Ammo,125/125Fuel) drive the way to enemys base and destroying some scouts wich drive (fly) around there.(38/50Ammo,053/125Fuel) then attacking the base.Destroying some buildings and units.BUT then half of the base is destroyed you get a message pop up from your tanks (00/50Ammo,000/125Fuel) enemy has a base in the back, deploy some units to the first base, and then BUUM! All 10 tanks are gone.YOU lost!
So I say NO to Logistical Resources.

Re: Logistics (ammo, fuel, electricity, building materials,

Funkoff, welcome to the discussion. Please be more specific. :ugeek:

To be honest, I am wondering how much of your post was a troll post and how much was an intentional request to make the game more fun. Please try to describe things with fun and awesome in mind.

Funkoff is a top FA and SC2 player who has been part of the inner circle for both games from what I understand.

Re: Logistics (ammo, fuel, electricity, building materials,

supremevoid, that realism/awesome quote was taken out of context and originally referred to why the game would feature sound in space. I don't think it can be used to shoot down any feature that might contain some realism...

Read the below thread for some more thoughts on realism/awesome
viewtopic.php?f=61&t=36658

Additionally, I would be cautious about just advocating simplicity over complexity. I mainly play SC:FA as the depth makes for an absorbing game that has entertained me for years.

I don't play SC2 for the same reason. It was simplified for the console audience and to address (possibly imaginary) concerns that the original SC1 was 'too difficult'. As a result SC2 is much less popular amongst many RTS communities, including this one.

Re: Logistics (ammo, fuel, electricity, building materials,

I REALLY don't want to play micro logistics manager in this game, ESPECIALLY given the enormous scale it's attempting to achieve.

Would TA or Supcom/FA have been better if I had to constantly maintain the ammo/fuel of all my units? There were some exceptions like fuel for planes in FA, and generally I liked that high-intensity weapons and systems(like cloaking) relied on your global energy reserve, however, intensive logistics would have sucked in those games, and it would suck even harder here(your energy idea is basically StarCraft Pylons which is also unwelcome imo).

It's simply needlessly complex "realism" getting in the way of fun.

Re: Logistics (ammo, fuel, electricity, building materials,

Though I'm not quite sure about logistics in this game (though the ideas involving an area of support and pylons seem interesting). That said, what about a middle ground: units have a basic level of energy/ammo production and storage. The production rate can be improved by being within the supply range (defined by a arbitrary radius). When a unit's supply storage runs out, they suffer reduced ROF and/or movement (instead of an all or nothing system). Basically, you don't HAVE to use a supply grid; if your units stop firing they'll eventually recharge their ammo/energy storage. To add further depth, units could have various levels of internal storage and production (IE a unit could be fast and cheap, but have little internal production, requiring it to return to the grid or wait around a while to recharge storage).

Re: Logistics (ammo, fuel, electricity, building materials,

I really like some of the concepts here, especially the pylon sort of idea. I still would love to see some sort of physical supply chain that actually affected how well your army could fight. Cutting supply lines and starving armies out in the field is a feature I love and think needs to be in more games. Although PA is obviously on an even interstellar scale, I would love to see tactical opportunities, like cutting that supply line to the well defended forward position, and laughing as the whole thing goes Der Kessel on their heads. Also, there is something I find immensely satisfying about even just the thought of besieging a moon or asteroid and watching as they enemy becomes slower, less efficient, and more desperate. Then, when the beleaguered defenders can see a massive siege-breaking force come into view, you swoop down and crush them. :twisted:

Re: Logistics (ammo, fuel, electricity, building materials,

Just remembered the local resources idea. That would fit perfectly, wearing down defenses that eventually can't be repaired or rebuilt, shooting down or otherwise blocking attempted resupplies, would be awesome. Still want to laugh at their pain and struggles, though.

Re: Logistics (ammo, fuel, electricity, building materials,

"We are not shooting for realism... We're shooting for AWESOME"

Micromanaging resources among the universe is not awesome.

This game is about blowing up planets, not about economics.

"We are not shooting for realism... We're shooting for AWESOME"