storage

Storage is not just kept in the ether that doesn't make sense. I don't mind removing seperate storage structures(if the storage is in the production facilities), but then you need a greater variety of power and mass structures to fill this gap, or maybe upgrading said structures.
it does not make sense to allow the use of power or mass anywhere in the galaxy if the resource was generated in another placeor planet.

upgraded gateways could be the answer to moving mass power and even mobile units.

mobile storage facilities through a gateway would be nice.

If that is a galatic war question then I don't think you will have to worry.

The only confimed thing that goes between solar systems is the commanders, no resources or units.

You will however be getting and 'egg' whos yoke can be used to speed up the early game by providing extra resources or somthing.

As with the other thread of this, I would like an intergrated storage system (Collectors provide storage), but a non-intergrated one (Storage buildings) would also be fine.

right i've got it you can send tech four and mobile storage but you need to trianglulate with three solar systems and then tear a worm hole. Plus you need the power of three systems to open this tear. three or thirty systems depending on the game options.

Whats the point of being able to go on a new planet if you cant use the resources you already have. You'd just have to build a new base and that would take the same amount of time as it did for your first base and there would be no accelerated expansion, causing the game to take ages and increase the boredom of having to rebuild multiple times.

There will probably be a mod for supply lines

I don't think uber ever comfirmed the economy being seperate per world or across the solar system or not.

But if you are refering to the galatic war, that will be across a series of maps that cannot shre forces or resources with one another.

You know what's even faster than a supply line? Not needing a supply line at all.

Resource spending is already limited by the total lathe power of factories and workers on site. There's no need to double limit it.

there are other functional elements of logistics supply lines.
E.g., it offers an additional strategic dimension (something to protect/destroy).
Somewhere there was already a lengthy thread on logistics.

But just to be fair, if you already plan for an economy with production and explicit storage buildings, it makes sense that the location of the storage building has an influence on it's accessibility. Otherwise you kind of shot yourself in the foot.

There's no shortage of things to destroy in a world of huge robot battles.

Logistic platforms tie down the attacker more than the defender. It practically comes with the definition. A player who wants to attack should not be limited by resources, and should have an easy time getting his base ready for war. Otherwise the game stalls into a turtle fest.

Besides, logistics already exist. There could be a hundred factories spread across a dozen worlds. Getting robots to the front line is going to be a problem all its own. There's no need to burden it yet again.

with that argument we also could leave out air combat, there would be still no shortage of things to destroy in a world of huge robot battles.
My point was, using local storage as economic element as well as additional strategic option. (option diversity is always good)

there is no doubt, that there are some huge balancing issues in the economic area in terms of resource production and storage. But addressing is always part of the developing process.
If a certain logistics system favors attacker or defender depends on its implementation.
For example in a resource local model, when attacking a small base cutting supply lines/local energy production would be an effective means to incapacitate base defenses (favoring the attacker). Same situation with global resources, it would be near to irrelevant what you do to that bases resource producing capabilities (removing an option for the attacker, favoring the defender). Obviously, it also depends a bit of the situation.

Bobucles, you couldn't be more wrong about logistics only limiting an attacker. A historical example would be siege warfare.

Besieging a medieval castle only works because of limited logistics. Even if the attacker lacks the forces to straight up break an entrenched position, encircling it or otherwise cutting off its resupply and reinforcements will eventually weaken it enough that it can be taken. This doesn't work if those units have unlimited independence, such as unlimited fuel and ammo. Siege weapons in the classical sense only have a meaning because of logistics.

Many RTS games without logistics systems have co-opted "siege" to mean either a heavy assault role, or a long range artillery role. Both these roles can exist alongside a true siege role, if logistics are a factor.

In sum, logistics opens up a realm of possibilities for both attackers and defenders. Decisive sweeping attacks, surgical strikes to disrupt enemy operations, forward outposts, etc., are the product of logistical concerns.

But in a map set across multiple words, this turns into a sim-city style game where you spend all your time micromanaging supplies. There's enough to worry about already; even games of TA and supreme commander tied up the player most of the time, and they didn't have logistics to worry about.

the amount of micro depends heavily on the implementation.
You could get nice results with a mix of explicit and implicit measures.

base resource exchange:
- building: logistics post
- explicit transports (possible to attack and defend)
- automatic routes (with assigned transports) between posts
-> after set up automatic run (automatic route suggestions, addable waypoints)
-> posts can show incoming/outgoing mass/power rates depending on current routes
-> if transports are built inside the post, automatic restock route strength if reduced by attacks

units:
- limited range (implicit logistics dependency without the explicit ammo/fuel load)
-> measured to next logistics post
-> utility units (e.g., supply trucks, aircraft carrier etc) ,
-->range extender between a unit and its next base (require protection)

with that you can create a relative easy to maintain logistics system which still leaves options to attack a target economically without falling into much micro.
A nice side effect, navy units gain utility, since they would usually have a higher viable range (which is a factor missed in most RTS with a mix of land and sea, a reason it is often dificult to balance ships in that context).

Sure any economic dependency and ranges on units (which would add to the unit as a characteristic besides damage and health) require a balance to fit together, but that holds for almost anything.

That actually sounds really, really complicated for a game like this. A lot of time needs to be spent setting that kind of thing up, and that's not time you're likely to have.

If you want to run with logistics, I wouldn't make it more complicated than building a transmitter structure that projects power to other objects in a radius around it, and expanding the network is about building more of those transmitters, and raiding supplies is about taking out those transmitters.

And even that might be too much.

It might be.

I feel like testing will be the best answer to this.

that would work too, you would avoid the explicit transport medium, which in case of inter planetary exchange would happen anyhow.

that's a bit a matter of taste
also, with the intended option to share control for some game modes, a bit more complexity (from the general type) wouldn't be a bad thing.

Medieval castle? Yeah. You should stop. This isn't a remake of TA: Kingdoms.

Siege weapons already excel at performing a siege. Holding more map than your opponent already gives superior resources to crush him. Energy is a remarkable resource that can handle all sorts of attacker or defender advantage. Workers and factories provide all the build power a location has or needs, and make key targets to choke out a defense. Advanced logistics don't need to be touched, like, at all.

Logistics are a complex system, it doesn't add anything that doesn't already exist, and it's a complete distraction for what really matters. That's not even counting the thousands of workers performing billions of resource checks on the hundreds of logistic nodes that are all trying to balance loads with each other. Talk about a colossal waste of CPU time.

Shared control should be a cool optional feature, not a requirement. At best, that means mods built for controlling a faction with multiple players. But you shouldn't include in the base game any options that only really work if you have a dedicated handler for them.

I support the idea of automatic logistics. It will make wider variety of strategies.