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

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

Have you ever heard of Wireless electricity?

Why the hell do we need fuel for units if they run on electricity.

Why the hell do we need ammunition if you know about caseless ammo.


These "Logistics" don't seem logical to me.

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

The concept of logistics doesn't necessarily need to be restricted to the modern needs of an army when considering futuristic robots. However, the fact is that you can't make something out of nothing, and it's always faster to have external supplies coming in rather than having to acquire the supplies yourself, especially if your area of focus isn't on making them. (ie. A soldier that is hungry won't stop fighting and hunt for food. They'll rely on someone else to do it for them unless it's a desperate situation.)
The reason people like this concept in strategy games is that it adds a lot of depth to the strategies one can employ. Here's some more reading on the topic:
http://unityofcommand.net/blog/2011/11/ ... of-supply/

(Now whether the ideas suggested in this thread are the best way to go about implementing it ingame is another idea entirely.)

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

Ye, it's extremely inefficient, not to mention at usably quantities over distance it would fry anything getting between the transmitter and receiver.

Caseless ammunition is still ammunition, it's just a different kind of round design.

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

I always assumed that tanks had some kind of generate to keep them running, and also had scoops on their under side to scoop up mass to be made into new shells on the fly.

So really a logistical paradise.

However the type of logistics that we have always had is the logistics in moving new tanks to where they need to be, so a more efficient way of handling transport aircraft (Transport boats?) would be awesome!

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

Yes. The Monkeylord was the result of numerous failed experiments to deliver lots of energy through wireless transmission. It turns out that it's only effective for making GIGANTIC DEATH LASERS. :lol:

A unit may not be capable of constructing its own ammo. Such a problem only matters in extreme situations, where the system is too large, heavy, and demanding for the unit at hand. A bomber for example would favor dropping as much death as physically possible, and not clutter its hull with bomb construction systems. It would simply return to base(a bit faster now that its cargo is gone), rearm, and fly back for another pass.

Ammo may be just another term for a unit that uses energy to attack. An energy based weapon means you need extra generators to use the unit, so it would be terrible to have on mobile things. It is effective for base defense, where a cheap death emitter can rely on an external generator for the rare times it has to fire. There's no point wasting money on an inefficient small reactor for a small gun, when a large reactor can easily feed a large gun.

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

"Logistics is something that nearly every RTS game ever made has utterly ignored: Units have unlimited fuel, unlimited ammunition, electricity may be required but is transmitted wirelessly over infinite distance, as are building materials.

-Building Materials: Alright, this one, if done in a realistic way, is about the most technically complicated piece of logistics to implement and I have NEVER seen it implemented in an RTS game. Basically, it's the process of moving materials from a mine to a storage area, then a storage area to a construction/production site. It might be unreasonable to render this in-game, but at the very least, production/construction should be limited to the amount of building material available on that planet... unless there is a specific mechanism of transferring materials between planets, such as via rocket."

^OP.
I don't have time to read all the posts, just joined up to the forums (I missed kick-starter on this game, so badly wanted the $1000)

@OP. You obviously haven't played Cossacks or Stronghold
Cossacks:
No food ... Famine all your units slowly die a horrid death
No wood / stone, cant build anything
No Coal / Iron cannot fire units that have muskets / cannons, these units just run unless they have bayonets
No Gold? Mutiny, any unit that costs a lot of gold becomes a mutineer and murders the rest of your team

Of coarse there is no real ammo count on your units, that would be a pain in the rear, they use the global economy.

Stronghold:
You harvest material, it gets sent to the stockpile then the worker that uses that material collects it and takes it to his building to work it then it goes to where it needs to go.

For example: Bread production. Wheat farm takes wheat bundles to the stockpile, the millers then take the wheat to the mill then process flower, that is then taken to the stockpile where Mr Baker comes along and bakes the flower to make bread. The finished bread is then taken to the granary where it is stored for people to eat.

Cossacks, Stronghold, and the TA / supcom / FA were my most favourite RTS games why? unit cap mostly. None of this silly 200 units where your strong guys cost 4 units each ... pfft army of 10 go away I want my 2000 strong army to reek havoc on all foes.

As to ammo in this game, I would prefer not to have it. Air units have fuel is fine, it limits them to an extent. To deal with multiple foes from multiple directions with multiple unit types (air, ground, naval and arty) as well as the economy and keeping control of my mexes is more then enough for my brain to handle then worrying which units on which front have no ammo left (usually getting steam rolled)

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

Are we seriously discussing this? In the game where matter and energy is transmitted across the battlefield from extractors and generators directly to units?

What you might consider is that units would require energy to run, but that could become unmanagable real quicklike.

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

Units already provide their own energy source. The exceptions would include high power systems like radar/stealth/Comm stuff/etc., guns too big to contain their power source like artillery, or dirt cheap units that directly trust the grid, like a turret.

Fuel has not been successful in Supcom for leashing aircraft power. Ammo is a more directly successful system that is more easily justified (air units are lighter, dropping bigger payloads, and don't have full size ammo generators). For a decent example, check out the Command&Conquer series for ammo based aircraft.

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

Where does it say or indicate that units supply their own power source?

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

The part where they work without any umbilical cords of power?

It's pretty much a staple of TA and Supcom. In the former game, microfusion plants fueled their armor and weapon systems, and justifies them going boom. In the latter, things just work and energy is irrelevant to their function.

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

That's just an abstraction for the sake of gameplay because managing the individual power and mass requirements of each unit would be insanity.

Or would it? Spamming tons of shielded units isn't too tough on the management....

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

We will see. Mods ftw.

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

the only facet of gameplay that should be affected by logistics is air - air without some tether or necessity to be near an airbase/carrier is bad.

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

So air has fuel but nothing else has fuel? That's just inconsistent and crazy. I don't think air necessarily should have any special logistics that don't apply to normal units. Is the point of vtol not exactly to make air independent of logistics in the first place?

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

i mean it doesnt have be fuel, the cannon could be explained in a variety of ways but let me elaborate with an example:

-air units like all units have a core that powers them
-when air units fly they expend a lot of "power" not only flying but navigating their local air space
-airbase units like the carrier offload this burden by doing the navigation for nearby air units with a range, much like modern day control towers
-outside of airbase range air units expend much more "power" because they're each doing their own navigation
-when they run out of "power" they must recharge either by landing or automatically returning back to base range (toggleable)
-whether this "power" is automatically refilled in airbase airspace, regens quickly in airbase airspace or requires actual staging on the airbase is a matter of gameplay

this is a contrived system but it would still allow players to send air units on missions to behind enemy lines while mitigating the ability to concentrate aerial force over enemy airspace for a prolonged period. in this way the game wouldn't be about denying your opponent air space by building AA or making your own fighters but it would be about establishing airspace for your own airforce by building, positioning and defending airbases and carriers. losing air supremacy also wouldn't be immediate GG.

is this all entirely realistic? probably not but it is somewhat inspired by realism and it is true that aerial siege without central coordination, either through an airbase control tower or carrier control tower is impossible. so in this way the mechanic would be rooted in realism but fundamentally a fun way to balance what is also the strongest mechanic in the game: aerial concentration of force. i would like to stress that adding tedium to the game is a bad idea and i dont think this would.

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

Fusion plants last for years, so any aircraft using a half decent power supply is never going to run out. However, it is very easy for a bomber to use all its ammo at once. That's sort of how bombers work. There's nothing else to do after a bombing run until more ammo is ready (kind of difficult to find raw materials in the atmosphere) or it returns home to rearm.

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

I'd still like to know where you get the idea that all units have nuclear reactors. Only the commander melts down.

The duration of a fusion plant isn't known either as one has never been constructed.

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

PLEASE Stop to justify Gameplay relevant mechanics with lore.

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

Did you know that our sun, Sol, is a naturally occurring fusion reactor?

Sol is currently sitting pretty at 4.57 billion years old and is likely to continue to produce monumental amounts of power for a further 5.4 billion years.

I'd say the duration of not only theoretical Fusion Reactors... but FICTIONAL ONES could last quite some time bmb.
Scientific research is a wonderful thing. You should try it sometime.
Imagination is a wonderful thing too. It's a shame you show no signs of possessing any.

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

But why not? Fuel is already proven to be awful at anything it claims to do. The only thing left is to attack the lore.

Most of my references come from TA, a game that PA is completely rippi---- wonderfully inspired by. It's time to go back and do your homework. Merry Christmas.

The Commander does not melt down. The Commander goes critical, which is a feature of its highly unstable power supply (TA used antimatter). Nuclear plants, no matter their design, do not approach a tenth of that destructive force when they fail. They might go pop, and they might sizzle for a while, but they won't cause half an island to disappear.