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

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

Ok-ok. I do agree, special energy-hungry turret may prove itself handy in some cases if balanced properly. But original talk was about all units/turrets whatever, which is weird, IMO.

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

I like how the pure mention of such a system leads to indepth discusions about tactics and stuff. I also like the ideas and mentioning to the maybe needable outposts or storage facilitys. Does it lead to not only thinking about weaponranges (artillerie nukes missiles) and save places, but also movement routes ? Or otherwise: does something like this really effect the way we build our bases aka play the game?

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

Thats because many of the naysayers (not all mind you) seem to think that such a system is meant as a chore unto itself. Maybe its the modern MMO gamer who has learned that game design is one which seeks to build obstacles to steal your time lest you realize you have nothing more to accomplish, either way, all game features must serve a broader purpose.

If it fleshes out the thinking aspect of the game, gives players choice and ideas, and most importantly creates a fluid dynamic system that frees us as much as possible from the boring stalemate of setpiece strategies then its a good system. It may mean learning new concepts but I thought we were here because we wanted a different game than what was being constantly rehashed.

If the system is just there to be an obstacle then its boring. If it creates depth then its good. All things should limit the nagging need to constantly micro manage them (unless you're a Korean who measures his peen by APM).

My volatile rejection of the arguments of opponents is based on the fact that those who live in a binary world who see everything as some extreme of "including this will lead to me opening Excel for every new round!" will rob me and many others of wonderful new exciting ideas and depth of gameplay over irrational fears.

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

Logistics has endless gameplay effects. So many, in fact, that it's impossible to explain even the major ones without writing a novel. However the two absolutely indispensable ones are distributing/limiting mobility and firepower of units. I'll just delve a little bit into the possibilities regarding mobility, such as with a fuel limitation.

Suppose a unit has a fuel limitation that governs how long it can operate independently. Suppose we have some kind of quite strong, heavy tank that guzzles fuel.

Ignoring ammunition for the moment, the fuel limitation massively changes how you can use this unit. You can only safely use a large quantity of this type of unit in locations where you have access to fuel. This makes it an excellent mobile defender, or assault unit on the front lines. It makes a poor raider, even if it's fast and has a powerful weapon; properties that would otherwise make it an excellent raider.

Now consider the effects of logistics on the enemy. They know that you are using heavy tanks. Which means your bases don't have much reach, but if you manage to get one close enough, the army you can bring to bear will be very strong. They may not actually be able to beat a massive heavy tank army. But unless you manage to facilitate your tanks driving somewhere relevant, the fact that your army is unstoppable is irrelevant. You can't just up and motor all the way across the map- your beast tanks wouldn't make it the whole distance. You have to gain map control, build supply bases, select where on the map you want to be able to project power. Or pay for a lot of logistical support units to carry extra fuel when you are on the move long-distance (resources which would presumably have otherwise gone into more tanks, or something else).

If the tanks were free to drive anywhere- you could just build a big army and A-move over and end the game. This possibility limits the design of the game's units. An army like this has to be expensive. You can't have a CHEAP unstoppable army- that is madness! I mean these heavy tanks are fast, well-armored, and have excellent firepower, and are CHEAP! Total insanity! Except it works. That cheap, unstoppable army has a critical weakness- it is logistically demanding.


Consider a unit that does not have this fuel limitation, or has much better fuel usage. This lighter unit has greater reach than the heavy tank. Suppose there's a light tank, which costs about the same, but trades most of its armor for much better fuel efficiency. To someone who is unfamiliar with how logistics plays- selecting the light tank seems totally insane. But I for one think it is a much stronger unit. The light tank can operate independently with less frequent resupply.

Electing to use the light tank gives you strategic and tactical options, but less raw combat power. You become able to attack more distant enemy targets. This means if you're clever with your base positioning, you can stay out of the operational range of the enemy's heavy tanks. Meanwhile, your light tanks can drive out from one of your bases and attack the enemy. They have a flatly stronger army, and are in a defensive posture anyway- how about that?

Your more logistically independent units can then try and disrupt enemy logistics to stop the enemy heavy army from rolling over your territory. If they manage to get enough supply close to a base of yours, it will soon fall. However you can act to prevent this by attacking supply outposts, destroying metal extractors, cutting off their supply lines, etc. Attacking behind their lines will diminish their ability to support a large army on the front. Note that "behind their lines" actually becomes an interesting concept when there are logistics involved which determine where troops might most effectively be placed. Most of the time, troops stuck behind enemy lines are unable to be resupplied, which is normally not good unless you planned ahead. Instead of mere presence or absence of enemy troops, the ability to access the area actually becomes important.

When using armies of light tanks, you could potentially opt to build more expensive and more convenient forms of resupply, since you won't need to resupply as frequently. You don't need as much bandwidth of supply quantity- so you can instead pay for range, speed, safety, or other features. This means you might switch from dependence on bases to more mobile trucks, or perhaps helicopters, or even orbital supply drops. Possibly even expensive mobile supply factories to allow true field independence, at a cost (and populating the board with an asset which can be destroyed). Each option has advantages and disadvantages, and interacts differently with enemy units. A whole category of logistics units to choose from that would otherwise not exist. And a whole category of valuable enemy targets to destroy while protecting your own.

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

Tiger Tank versus T-34 anyone?

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

wow nice thoughts. But after reading all that. I wonder if such a system will work with a TA ScFa like game?

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

Ledarsi paints a good picture. And if simplicity is desired, it doesn't need to be a separate fuel/ammo stat, but an extension of the energy resource. It could work something like ZK's power grid, meaning that resource intensive units must operate within that area, or have some connection to that area. (This is only one method though. There are plenty of other ways to achieve a similar logistics model.)

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

Totally agree with you Mike, I love logistics, and just the little transport "logistic" we had in supcom was really fun, but when it get more complex like Anno and sim city you would end up using more time managing your production lines and infrastructure than actually fighting and smashing planets into each other.

But for transporting units, I would love having visible units in transport like in supcom FA, and not like supcom 2 looks more awesome when the ships go down and you can see the units being dropped.

¨~ Chris

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

@ledarsi

Problem with your point is simple - it's too abstract. In real game you don't have "a tank army" - you have dozen tanks, some are brand new and some are rolling around for a half-hour already. They have different current fuel level and you need to replenish them. It's like a repair - this leads to requirement of some auto resupply mechanic so you don't need to distract too much on such routine task.

All this auto-things (no matter how exactly implemented) are working like "area coverage". If your tanks are within some area or patrolling though that area, you could be sure that they are more or less fueled up and ready to go.

Mobile supply bases are same area coverage, but generally smaller and... well... mobile.

So, all this "fuel" thing are about what? It's about area control. If you do control area - temporarily (via mobile bases) or more permanently (via static bases) - then you got fuel. If you don't control area you got some reserves, but your units are lost in vain.

So, well: we don't need special "resource" (fuel) to account. We already have energy that works more or less the same and pgens require protection, leading to area control thing.

So it's like "tanks that require energy to fire and tanks that do not require energy to fire". Just a little bit more provision by enemy required to make it same.

And as with turret thing it could be useful in very particular example, like you've given. You are not going to make all units in two variants - energy-hungry, but strong/cheap and not-energy-hungry but weak/expensive. You are going to make only very particular units in such way. And as non-shooting/moving army stuck in place is very bad thing, you are going to limit units that run out of "fuel/ammo", not completely disable them.

So it leads to same old special abilities thing, which were proven to be not very strategic in FA. In SupCom scale you just select all your "stealth" units and click "cloak up". If you run out of energy, you select them all and click "cloak down".

You may argue that fuel != energy, but if implemented particularly like you say it will lead to positional war. Like turret rush, but easier - you take your uber-tanks, move them as far as reserves allow, crushing any opposition using superior force, than build a base, resupply and forward again. Raiding won't be efficient against such moves as you don't have "supply chains". And if you do implement supply chains in full (i.e. you have some new "fuel" resource deposit you are sitting on and you need to distribute it along supply bases) - well, it wouldn't be a TA/FA spiritual successor anymore.

For "full supply chains" implementation I suggest you to look on Perimeter RTS - it got very interesting power supply grid networks you need to keep operational. It will clearly show you that TA/FA/(and most probably PA) spirit is just too much far away of such things. It's completely different direction. It's fun too, but it's more like Planetary Tycoon with tanks instead of trains.

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

All units in a Commander's army have on board microfusion. If that is not sufficient, they may also directly link to the faction energy supply. They don't need fuel.

The only potential "fuel" issue is one of mass, used by engines for space travel.

The whole point of using hyperfuturistic killbots is that a great deal of real war issues can be abstracted away as "solved". They're not a problem anymore because [space tech] takes care of it. Fuel? Space tech. Ammo? Space tech. Wing dynamics in a vacuum? You bet that's space tech.

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

@ nightnord

You call Ledarsi's idea bad because it's 'too abstract'? As far as I know, in game design, fun and interesting game mechanics beats realism any day. Btw, isn't power teleported from generators even more abstract?
The point with an abstract supply system is to give players a sense of working for their map control. Powergenerators will only matter as map control from point A to B (your base to the enemy base), and units buffed straight by an area of effect (compared to being recharged while idle inside AoE) would make the units feel like RC cars.
If the units ability was an all or nothing based on an 'ammo/fuel-bar' it would become a chore, but having it as an buff that made the difference in engagements between similar sized armies would easily lead to some very interesting engagements.
Also to point out would be that not all units should have the same buff when having a filled 'supply bar' it should work as a way to make the units feel unique possibly even against itself between filled and empty 'supply bar'.

Example on buffs to make units unique and diversifies them:
*Raider units that with 'supply' can outrun almost any units but when empty have slightly less speed than standard units.
*lowtier mobile arty which has boosted firespeed with 'supply'
*high tier mobile/stationary arty which only can shoot when supplied (meaning sustained range control dependent on steady 'supplies')
*hightier units (heavy tanks?) which uses 'supplies' as shield points (or simply higher damage), meaning that simply sending engineers won't heal them for full but sending in supply units in could drain them out for a quick recharge.
*Units that gain an extra unique attack/ability that consumes 'supply'

The thing is, it would be awesome if the game drove you naturally into building strategically emplaced strongpoints, and had transports ferrying supplies up to these outposts or the frontline. Also to be able to raid and strike these supply chains so as to slowly starve the opposing army would be extremely fun playstyles. Although not disadvantageous for the enemy initially, as the enemy army would still have most (if not all) units filled with supplies, but then it becomes a game of trying to force him to waste those precious supplies until his army is weakened by prolonged harass.

Having a supply system that isn't more button pressing than a ferry line + building an outpost, can't have much more than ~5-10 clicks more during that single minute you decide building it and even less if you want the transports to go directly to the front.

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

Folks, a logistics system doesn't need to be overly complicated, like in Sim City. That's why I mentioned Unity of Command, since it has a very easy to understand logistics.
http://unityofcommand.net/blog/2011/11/ ... of-supply/

As you can see, the logistics model is fairly simple, but provides a deeper level of gameplay. Of course, this is a turn-based game with a completely different battlefield scope, so I'm not suggesting this is a model that should be considered for PA, but it does go to show that a proper model doesn't need to be complicated. It's similar to the TA style of streaming economy, which more accurately models the resource use of a group at war, but is very simple to understand.

All that being said, I did do some thinking, and as much as I'd like to see a good logistics model implemented, the fact that PA is already in unknown gameplay territory (such as with regards to multi-planet RTS), there's already going to need to be a good amount of testing to make sure this new idea works and is fun to play. Tossing in a logistics model would be even more to balance for fun, and may not be as popular with backers who just like plain old TA. However, I would like to see something like this pop up in a mod one day. Perhaps I'll even work on it, provided I have the time.

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

Actually I would argue that the multi-planet design goal, and the desire to have arbitrary scalability together mean PA really must have a logistics system in some capacity. This is actually quite related to localization creating positional play, and not necessarily the fuel/ammo issue.

Suppose there is a simple 1v1 game with three bodies players can build on, with each player spawning on different planets/moons/asteroids, and with a third planet/moon/asteroid to which either or both players may expand. Suppose the players each start on smaller moons in orbit around a larger planet. Both players build large, well-industrialized bases and economies, with defenses to protect them, on their home moon.

The critical question is how the game plays as the players contest the third planet. Do both players get to use the full extent of their main base economies to build on the planet? If so, what advantage is there to being spread out? Why not build all your valuable assets (like large energy generators) on the moon, where it will be most economical to defend? Should there not be an incentive to build on the planet, such as by not having a universal economy, but rather a localized one?

I would argue that having completely universally available resources greatly detracts from gameplay as the map (number of planets in this case) becomes large. There is no downside to having exactly one "real" base, and the rest of the board being resource outposts that feed your one base resources. There is no disadvantage to picking the safest, most secure spot, and putting all your energy there. And then defending the CRAP out of it. And then you extend out from this megabase to any other location using an army of constructors that have unlimited resources from distant sources, and can build anything in seconds, no matter where they are.

This is far less dynamic, and less interesting than having many important bases in different locations, which each have separate little wars fought to attack or defend them. Each base should need its own power generation, its own production, its own facilities of all kinds defining its capabilities. One of your little bases and an enemy base might be going at it with all they've got, although the resources and units involved are trivial compared to the full might of your huge empires. As those bases get more developed, or as more bases are built nearby, the scale of war in the area gets larger.

The advantage you should gain from having a large economy on a different planet is the ability to send reinforcements. Not to stream unlimited resources which can be instantly used to build hardware by constructors anywhere. This also means you have to pay for a method of transporting those reinforcements, and those reinforcements take time to arrive.

At the very least, metal and energy resources should be localized to each planet/moon/asteroid. This would be very simple, and in my opinion PA really does need to have such a system in order for multiple-planet warfare to be interesting. Each planet would have its own income/expense numbers for metal and energy. Simple.

A more complex approach which would also geographically localize resources within one planet might be too ambitious. This type of system would be necessary if PA were to have extremely large planet maps, to create an incentive for a player to build valuable assets all over the map.

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

They have full supply chains. It's not "complex", it's "necessary minimum" to call it game mechanic.

Please read the post in full before replying to it.

It's a wrong thread. Local/global eco is an another thread and it's quite discussed through already, too.

Full supply chains make sense and could be cool strategic feature, BUT you can't push everything inside one game, at least with limited resources. If you add one feature, you lose another.

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

So why not step by step? In SupCom allready where units that had energy drain. Why not extend this to all units? Thats not that hard to add to the game. Would only need to add the Value of the drain per sec per unit to the game.

Or to have a more logistic like feel: give the units an ammount of energy and mass (for projectiles) they can carry (would be max 4 values: max energy, max mass, current energy, current mass) and give the enginers the ability to recharge. That would be a thing easy to test in alpha, easy to implement. Most work would be the gfx for the bars. If that works as expected, or is fun to have, then AoE towers can be added if needed. If it sucks its also easy to remove again.

And if that works it is only one little step more to say: hey why should enginers not also have a ammount of energy and mass they can carry and they use for recharging and abilities, but then they should be able to recharge themself. And why not after this say: hey if engeniers can carry m&e why not add units that can carry lots of m&e where engeniers can recharge themself and call them trucks?

Or now just exclude the enginer of the chain and let the trucks directly recharge the units?

If you follow my thoughts you see, that it is not that much work to add logistics. If you do it step by step. And you can every time stop at a given step or undo one.

And btw: i would be total fine with the first possibility that units just drain the stuff they need. But all the other thoughts of logistics made me do the other thinking.

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

Syox has got it. The system he describes is very good.

I personally would prefer units having ammo/energy numbers, rather than an internal metal count. Having 4 missiles is a lot more intuitive than a unit carrying 100 metal, where each missile costs 25 internal metal to fire, but it boils down to the same thing- just a different representation to the player.

The major functional difference is for units with multiple weapons. A unit with a cannon with 1000 rounds and 4 missiles cannot use its entire metal reserves to fire missiles, as it would have a fixed count of each instead. This unit would need to sit in range of resupply to continuously fire many missiles (at considerable supply cost), but could roam afield and use its cannon extensively with infrequent resupply.

Setting the cost/value of supply with respect to a resource cost is also an excellent idea, and simplifies logistics further. Suppose we set 1 supply point at a value equal to 1 metal and 1 energy. A unit that builds supplies at 4 supplies per second thus costs 4 metal and 4 energy per second to increase its internal supply count by 4 per second. Suppose a combat unit is within resupply range of a supply unit. If the combat unit's missiles costs 4 supply each (in unit profile), then replenishing one missile reduces the resupplying unit's count by 4 supply, and the unit being resupplied gets a missile.

A full truck should be able to resupply a full load to quite a few units, with a depot providing many trucks' worth of storage, and also manufacturing supplies by spending resources. The basic idea would be you build supply depots in a secure area which create and store large amounts of supplies. You then use supply units like trucks or helicopters, etc. to move the supplies from the base to wherever they are needed, such as at an offensive forward position. Expensive mobile supply factories might also be available.

Having engineers use supplies to build would is an interesting idea. Now that I think about it, it might also be excellent. This building costs X supplies to construct. X supplies costs X metal and X energy to manufacture. The raw resources might even be global, but your local production would still be limited by your local supply manufacturing/transport. Actually, the more I think about this idea, the more elegant it is. It's actually beautiful. I'll think about this some more.


I do agree that the local/global economy is not exactly the same thing as units having ammo/fuel counts. But they are thematically related, and act in similar gameplay directions. I think syox may have cooked up a very elegant system that merges the two in a very simple, but very deep way with a great deal of strategic impact and potential.

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

Nooooooooo Please don't turn this into Earth 2142 worst game I have ever played for that fact and yeah it was RTS.

Now imagine you have nearly got your tanks near the enemies base and you have just run out of fuel?

Do you know how annoying it is having to fly a unit or drive a unit to them to refuel them?

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

Yeah thats the point.
1. If we have a automaticaly drain m&e system there is no need for any supply unit.
2. If we have enginers to refill. In supcom i normaly always have enginers mixed in my army. Because of repair and reclaim.
3. There is a learning curve to every game. If you constantly have a big dry armyball. Maybe the problem is not the game but how you play it.

Edit: btw i loved battle isle 3, sure it was not RTS but RbS. The difference is in RbS you have the time to micro your units properly. But as i mentioned in an earlier post, i dont want this to be micromanagment of units. most should happen automaticaly. Therefor smart units could be used, or the suggested autodrain system. Or AoE stuff.

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

It's a bad idea because "realistic, futuristic robot space economy" was never part of the sale's pitch.

There's nothing wrong with units demanding extra resources as part of their function. However they only have 2 resources draw from: Metal or energy. Choose.

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

Thanks *blush*

That would be nearly the same as what i said. With one major difference:
Your system would have a fixed ratio of metal to energy, for everything.
But if we would have both, we can have different cost for different weapons, abilities.
Why should a laser consume Metal?
Why should driving consume Metal?
Why should firing a Gun only consume Metal?

I am currently thinking much about this too. And i think i am gonna decide to like it, under the circumstance, that the enginers automatically recharge their Energy (maybe at Energyplants, Storages or the Commander) and Mass (maybe at the Extraktors, Storages or the Commander).
Imagine a factory surrounded by some enginers that support the factory, if empty (the enginers) turn around head for the nearest Storage, refill themselfes and haste back to the Factory to support it again.
What would that add to the game?
My answer: Life.
If i could chose between watching at 50 engines just sitting there an beamlight a factory or look at an ant-like populated Base, i would take the second, even more if it is not only GFX but also really importent for the game.