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

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

@ledarsi adding more and more length to your post wont help you. I for instance start to skipping them.

Also endless repetition wont help your arguments.

@discussion: if you want to change the energy gain vs energy spend ratio from 100/100 to 1/1. That is one thing we can talk about. Though it is the same imo.

But i am against a strict mass energy buildtime ratio. Because:
1. It just looks silly:
mex:
x mass
x energy
x buildtime
Generator:
Y mass
Y energy
Y buildtime
Unit A:
Z mass
Z energy
Z buildtime

2.
Sure you mentioned your idea of nanogel, but then you lose the ability to balance stuff by alterating the mass energy buildtime ratio.
And there wont be a possibility to alterating your unit composition ingame based on the current metal to energy income ratio. And thats a hughe blow to the depth of the game.

3. I think we should not discuss this in this thread. Because its irrelevant if you transport 1nanogel or 1mass and 1energy.
What is relevant is:
*if there will be storage or not
*does count storage global or local or every storage itself
* will all, some or none units/factories have an usage of energy, mass
*if, will it drain automatically (from global) or do have units internal storage or is there some kind of AoE distribution
*will there be conversions f.i. mass to energy
*Unit transports
Etc.

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

You can simply write buildcost.
mex:
x buildcost
Generator:
Y buildcost
Unit A:
Z buildcost

Yes. You lose some depth for balancing the game like having airplane units require more infrastructure because they take more buildtime and energy to construct. Zero-K "solves" this by forcing airplanes to rearm on airpads because they have limited payload while dedicated AA have long range to cover larger areas from gunships that don't need to rearm.

That is actually reduced complexity rather than reduced depth. If the there is fixed ratio of metal, energy and buildtime, consequently it is much more simple to balance income and buildpower and there won't be a need to alternate between units that require high or low amount of power.

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

Yes, it does.

Not true. You've already admitted that it creates an economy where infrastructure has no consequence. Simplifying one area means that complexity has to be added elsewhere.

Debatable. It works for basic units, which only care about pure efficiency. We saw this in Zero-K with the design of the tech tree. Its multiple factories had a series of basic units that, despite their numbers, were fairly equal across the board. Factories had no explicit place or time in the game, so they had to be viable against all other factories at all other points in time. This led to a huge number of generic units meant to be fairly equal against other generic units.

Is it any surprise that a generic economy worked for a game flooded by generic units? Not really.

~~~~~~~~~~
That same economic model falls apart with advanced units. An advanced unit makes some kind of tactical sacrifice, losing ease of use to gain some kind of niche. The benefit is not one of pure stats, and as such its value can not be captured as a single number.

Take for example 2 tanks, one basic and one is amphibious. By all rights the amphibious tank should be more expensive, right? There are two types of taxes that can be used here: A unit tax, where every amphibious vehicle simply costs more, or an infrastructure tax, where access to amphibious units must be paid for. Doing the former with a single resource gives a tank that is always inferior to its land counterpart. Doing the latter gives a tank that remains fairly equal in battle, but demands a down payment to get an extra perk.

Zero-K does this for its advanced units. Every bonus perk and special unit is accessed by purchasing an extra factory. The simplicity of its resources is paid for by creating a dozen different factories that only differ by the few perks unique to each facility.

The alternative is to unlock the options with a simple infrastructure. Double the energy cost, and the player needs a few more generators to crank out amphibious tanks. In doing so he also gains access to units from every other factory with a similar restriction. Double the build time (half the assist), and the player needs more factory power to access a different kind of specialty unit. In effect it creates a series of common(generic), uncommon(specialty), and rare units(like superweapons). Despite paying extra for the unlock, the unit's true "raw number" strength can still be balanced around a single resource- metal.

Either way you crack it, the price for technology is infrastructure. The difference is that Zero-K unlocks many options with a simple resource and an obscene amount of production facilities. The reverse is also possible, where a more complex resource opens up options on a simple number of facilities.

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

My last posts were split into two topics. The first is the idea that the "unit size" of resources is arbitrary. As a result, reducing the output of all energy sources by a factor of 10, and reducing all energy costs by a factor of 10, has no gameplay effect. Essentially recalibrating the value of 1 energy to be the same "size" as 1 metal. This is purely cosmetic, has no gameplay effects whatsoever, and is simpler. This change seems like an obvious, strict improvement.

The second point actually affects unit costs in a gameplay-significant way. And that is to assign metal=energy=build time for all units and structures, and seems to be what you are actually objecting to, and I agree is debatable.

I also suspect you are using a different understanding of "infrastructure" than I am. It appears to me you are thinking Starcraft style infrastructure, where a tech structure (with a cost) gives you access to a unit. Infrastructure as I see it is all sorts of stuff, from factories to economy to logistics and intel structures. The primary argument is to create very important infrastructure, not to make infrastructure useless (it will never be built then).

This is, in my opinion, the biggest innovation of Zero-K. It turns out that you can, in fact, capture this kind of diversity using only a single cost number. Units have other properties that define them, not just their strength and cost. Having differing ratios of metal/energy forces you to lean your economy towards one or the other to optimize production. And having different cost/build time ratios forces you to micromanage your production using differing amounts of build power. Which is really annoying if you are using a fairly common build queue, or construction queue for a group of engineers. But there really isn't a strategy here, so much as optimization.

In fact, if you do have this kind of unitary cost setup, then it makes the game very modular and easy to balance. It naturally tends to encourage making all units viable at all points in time, and encourages role differentiation instead of rock-paper-scissors counter relationships.

I understand your point about unlocking perks or other advantages behind infrastructure. However A) that is entirely compatible with assigning uniform build costs. And B) having an upfront investment unlock better units for the same cost is not good. The more time passes after that infrastructure is available, the more efficient it is to use only the infrastructure-based units, as the infrastructure upfront cost is amortized over more units produced of that type.

To cite your amphibious tank example, the amphibious tank should cost more. It should be weaker for cost than the same tank without amphibious capability, even if its absolute stats might be similar. Regardless of whether there is an infrastructure cost to acquire the amphibious version. Being amphibious may not be a combat stat feature- but it is a powerful ability that should cost.

The infrastructure cost delays when the unit can be acquired, but should not be a tool used to balance the unit's fundamental properties, because then in the late game these units will be superior to units with less infrastructure cost. In the late game, with tons of infrastructure, if I can get a normal tank or an amphibious tank with the same combat performance for the same cost, I will always choose the amphibious one.

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

Updates on what I think.

Ammo
- Infinite, except for super weapons which need to be build on a per use basis

Fuel
- Infinite, unless a much better refuelling system than previous games is used

Electricity (aka Energy) *See "Should resources be tracked per planet/moon?
- Local resource to planets (shared with moons)
- Can be sent to other places using relays / energy teleporters
- No proximity requirements

Building Materials (aka Mass) *See link above
- Same as electricity

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

ledarsi, you really need to take the 1:1:1 resource argument over to the thread discussing it - your logistics ideas are good enough to discuss here without getting them lost in a mess about unit costings!

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

I agree I would rather be discussing the logistics stuff. But everyone is harping on about all the "issues" of having metal=energy=buildtime, and it's linked.

The reason why it is relevant is having internal metal and energy counts, or a hybrid of having internal metal and using global energy, to build structures or units, is unnecessarily complex, especially for building things with arbitrary metal/energy costs. And having a separate logistics system, or charging metal/energy to do the same work, adds further complexity. A universal logistics/resourcing system is vastly better.

The "nanogel" idea is that the player manufactures nanogel for a fixed cost of metal and energy, and then uses nanogel to build structures, units, or anything really. Naturally this fixes the ratio of metal to energy for construction purposes to whatever the cost of nanogel is, unless you also charge metal and/or energy to use nanogel to build. Which sort of defeats the point.

Using supplies to build also affects where you can create buildings and units in interesting ways, not just where you can give your units fuel or ammo. And it guarantees you will simply and easily always have logistics capability (the question is where, and in what density), and they will always be useful; no single-function "this unit gives bullets" nonsense.

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

But the amphibious tank IS more expensive. The number of tanks on the field stays the same, but the access to the tanks is what changes. The risk of using the amphibious tank is greater. It is not the same thing as a price tag. It is not the same type of expense. And I'm fairly certain that PA is not going to have only 2 types of tank.

I applaud Zero-K for simplifying its resource system. However, I also think it went too far. It tries to box Energy and Metal into a single role, when they have never shared the same purpose across games. If you think that a singular price tag is going to cover all concerns with construction and unit balance, we'll just have to disagree. IMO, thinking of energy and metal as two different flavors of one resource is a mistake.

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

I have always seen the resources as:

Energy: Easy to get, quick to spend, runs stuff.

Metal: Hard to get, resource of territory control, builds stuff.

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

Getting a small number of these tanks, or getting them fast is extra expensive. However, as the game gets longer, the cost per tank drops. The more amphibious tanks you build, effectively the cheaper each one is, as you paid the tech/infrastructure cost upfront to be able to build them. So, after an hour, the cost for an amphibious tank is whatever its cost to build is. Which, if it is the same as for a basic tank with the same combat performance, isn't really a choice. Always choose the amphibious one.

But.... they're completely different, and you need BOTH to build stuff. One is generated by controlling mexes, and the other by constructing energy generating structures. I don't understand how you can't see this. They aren't "different flavors of one resource" because the way they are acquired is COMPLETELY different.

If having the same quantity be consumed is enough to make them "one resource" in your eyes, then you are simply wrong.

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

The one important thing why Zero-K's system is good is that now, you know that a given unit will always consume X amount of resource per second.
Have a factory? It always consumes 10 metal and 10 energy per second, regardless of what it builds. Have an engineer? It consumes 5 metal and 5 energy, regardless of what it builds/assists. The only exception is when repairing instead of assisting, then it will consume energy only.
Having to balance your economy in SupCom requires you to always keep in mind that X unit in Y factory will consume 2 more metal than Z unit in the same factory, so in 18s you will have -2metal/s. Once you tried Zero-K, you see how bad this really is.

So maybe different factories could have different ratios. For example, maybe air factories consume twice more energy. Then, your economy don't suddenly fluctuate randomly when building the varied units of your build-order.
There is still the problem of assist, though. An engineer assisting an air factory won't consume the same rate when assisting a land factory. That's why having all units with buildpower=metal=unit would be the best. But at least, having factories being coherent, as well as engineers when building stuff, would avoid most of this needless complexity.

Zero-K removes a big chunk of complexity for little depth loss, it's more than worth it.

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

Have you ever played Total annihilation, Supreme Commander or SpringRTS(on a total annihilation mod) before? Because if not i would suggest that you do before making suggestions, because doing what you suggest would completely ruin the gameplay of the current style.

SpringRTS is free and you can get many Total Annihilation style mods for it and if you want to practice for PA i would suggest playing that or supreme commander so you can get a hold of the resource and building system, which i'm guessing is going to be the same in PA.

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

I would like to point out that really old RTS games tried this, i.e. units running out of ammo.. games like Earth 2150 or WW3 black gold.... and it really turned into a pain

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

The supplies via rocket is a good idea, same with the fuel and electricity. Although we have to watch out to what extent these things are implemented as what some people have pointed out before. It would just loose its novelty.

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

ammo is not good in a rts this is not an fps fuel no this is not to be extremely realistic and it would break game play electricity yes and mass yes

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

ammo is not good in a rts this is not an fps fuel no this is not to be extremely realistic and it would break game play electricity yes and mass yes

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

Doesn't this whole subject get back to micro that Uber is trying to avoid?

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

true so very true. it amazes me how many people want logistics though, the different energy and metal pools for each planet is cool though. and using the launcher to send metal seems awesome.

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

That statement is completely incomprehensible. One second you are agreeing with eyecu247, the next you ponder the "awesome" factor of having logistsics. Get your head straight.

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

I'm sure all these things would be great fun and very cool in some advanced game type, but they have no place in core game play. Maybe that's also what he's saying?