FreeOrion

Forums for the FreeOrion project
It is currently Wed Oct 18, 2017 12:21 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 21 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat May 24, 2008 3:56 am 
Offline
Design & Graphics Lead Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 7:09 pm
Posts: 3858
Location: USA — midwest
The following has nothing do do with my proposal here, except both involve supply lines. In my proposal that distinguishes between Ship supply lines and Planetary supply lines, the following refers to the Ship supply lines.

One of the things that's bugged me for quite a while about the supply lines concept we've developed is how lines from different empires should overlap/interact. That question isn't addressed in the preliminary v.0.4. Today i took a notepad to the Doctor's waiting room and thought it through, and i have something that works and meshed nicely with some other stuff. It also touches upon issues of diplomacy and vision.

Proposal on How Supply Lines Interact

In this proposal, the supply lines are considered to delineate an empire's area of influence, and envelope of space that extends outwards from your actual colonies, and is considered the territory of that empire. The empire will generally be able to "see" anything within this area (assuming it's not stealthed). The length of the supply lines a particular colony can project is (per the v.0.4) dependent on the development of the colony.

However when supply lines from multiple empires could overlap, the result is determined by the empire's diplomatic status as follows. (This does not mean that there may not be other intermediate diplomatic statuses, but they don't have a unique effect on supply lines.)

War:
• Supply lines don't overlap
• Non-blockaded planets block lines
• Military ships block enemy supply lines

Closed Borders:
• Supply lines don't overlap
• Non-blockaded planets block lines
• Ships don't block lines, but trespassing ships (if caught) are sent outside the borders

Open Borders:
• Supply lines freely overlap
• Neither planets nor fleets block the other's supply lines

Alliance:
• The supply networks effectively merge so the ships of either empire are can use the other's supply network.
• Vision is shared

Attachment:
borders.jpg
borders.jpg [ 40.64 KiB | Viewed 1442 times ]


Mechanics
So if two planets from different conflicting empires have potential to cast supply lines over the same area how is it decided which controls how much?:

(A) - - - - (1) - - - (2) - - - - - - (3) - - - - (B)

Planet A and B (respectively of empires Red and Blue) both potentially could project supply lines into the 3 empty systems between them. As usual, the length of the lane does not matter, only the number of jumps. If both have the potential to projects lines and equal distance (assuming that distance is at least 2 jumps) each will solely supply the empty system nearest, and both will supply and be able to see system #2. If however, Planet B had the potential to project supply 1 jump further than A, system #2, would be solely inside it's lines. If B had a supply potential 2 jumps greater than A, then #1 would be on the border and both empires could see into the system and supply ships there.

I realize there's probably a very simple mathematical way to explain what i'm trying to say, but it doesn't occur to me. Hopefully the examples make the rather simple relationship i'm trying to illustrate rather plain.


Rational

I suppose the concept is somewhat inspired by the cultural borders of Civ4. I like the way the borders can push against each other. Turning the supply range into a sort of Imperial Border suddenly made it a more concrete and interesting thing, and associating it with an Empire's vision make a separate GUI indicator for the range of vision unnecessary. Player's are bound to feel a sense of ownership over the systems in their immediate area. This gives a natural form to that sense of ownership.

This isn't much of an explanation, but i think i can defend it better in the face of actual questions/objections, than guessing what you might think or understand.

_________________
—• Read this First before posting Game Design Ideas!
—• Design Philosophy

—•— My Ideas, Organized —•— Get an Avatar —•— Acronyms —•—


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 24, 2008 4:25 am 
Offline
Programming, Design, Admin
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 1:33 am
Posts: 11999
Location: Munich
A few questions...

What if a system is shared by two empires? How will supply lines between that system and adjacent systems be shown? It may be impractical to have different connectors for allied and open borders or other variations on "supply from this empire can pass to between these two systems" if there can be different relationship between empires within the same system and adjacent systems.

What is meant by "not stealthed"? We have stealth and detection meters that interact with distance to determine whether an object can be seen... Would supply range be an additional limit on what can be detected? Or perhaps there would be an "objects in systems this empire can supply" condition that allows bonuses or penalties to detection or stealth? For example, if you had a "civilian paranoia" perk, then any system where you can supply would give a -5 penalty to stealth to enemy ships.

Thinking of, or formalizing, supply lines as borders might be a bit misleading... If we allow ships to blockade supply lines, then that would be like an enemy unit in civ stepping into your territory immediately taking away ownership of that territory from you, due to it blockading the supply line into that system. "Ownership" of systems that aren't actually colonized might be better if left to the diplomacy system, or just might makes right where it's yours if you have a fleet there or blocking others' access. In the case borders, supply lines would stop because you're abiding by the agreed-upon borders, not because of a competition between supply ranges and pushing eachother back, and there could still be neutral territory between owned systems where both empires' supply overlap.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 24, 2008 4:23 pm 
Offline
Design & Graphics Lead Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 7:09 pm
Posts: 3858
Location: USA — midwest
Geoff the Medio wrote:
What if a system is shared by two empires? How will supply lines between that system and adjacent systems be shown? It may be impractical to have different connectors for allied and open borders or other variations on "supply from this empire can pass to between these two systems" if there can be different relationship between empires within the same system and adjacent systems.

Ah, yes there's an important one i forgot.

There would be no issues i can see with sharing planets in a system under "open borders" or an alliance. And it is possible, but awkward to "share" planets in the same system in a state of "war" or "closed borders" as you might expect. Naturally it's expected in a state of war that empires would fight for control of a system where both own planets.

The quirk is the one special rule i forgot to mention is for a "closed borders", system-sharing situation. Basically that system would be exempt from the "closed border" status i.e. it is not considered a hostile act to have ships in such a system, if you own a planet there. However access from the outside to such a system is not guaranteed. It's possible for one empire's supply-line-borders to surround and cut off access and supply lines to such a system. I think that's sorta cool. However it's equally possible if the shared system is approximately equidistant from approximately equally developed sources of supply that both empires retain access to the system indefinitely.


Geoff the Medio wrote:
What is meant by "not stealthed"?

Basically i'm suggesting that you can see whatever is in your supply range that is within your detection level.
Of course there would be other sources of vision outside of the supply range, fleets and spies, and maybe other things.
This is opposed to a system where you can see into external systems at various radii from various special objects and fleets with various equipment.

It's not intended to be the complete and final word on fog-of-war or vision, but it makes a lot of sense to me to combine supply and borders and vision into roughly a unified entity since they generally correspond, than to treat them totally separately.


Geoff the Medio wrote:
Thinking of, or formalizing, supply lines as borders might be a bit misleading... If we allow ships to blockade supply lines, then that would be like an enemy unit in civ stepping into your territory immediately taking away ownership of that territory from you, due to it blockading the supply line into that system.

Yes, that's exactly what happens. During a state of war, in no practical sense can you claim to "own" a system that the enemy controls. The "border" aspect isn't important in war, just the supply and vision aspect.


Geoff the Medio wrote:
"Ownership" of systems that aren't actually colonized might be better if left to the diplomacy system, or just might makes right where it's yours if you have a fleet there or blocking others' access. In the case borders, supply lines would stop because you're abiding by the agreed-upon borders, not because of a competition between supply ranges and pushing eachother back, and there could still be neutral territory between owned systems where both empires' supply overlap.

Obviously in a state of war "might does make right."
But for everything else i don't see the benefit in a diplomatic system where you can "claim" arbitrary planets, or set up arbitrary borders. The high number of possible iterations seems guaranteed to make evaluating such treaties and coming to an agreement tedious. I don't expect it to be easy at all to teach an AI how to sensibly deal with such treaties either.

I am not suggesting (as it is in Civ4) that borders can overwhelm and take over a colony. In all diplomatic states colonies are the fixed points from which supply/borders radiate. In a sense these areas are the buffer space between empires, since it is space that is currently not being used by either side. What is the point in "sharing" some of that space with an unfriendly empire? The added complexity to the galaxy map and diplomacy don't seem to earn much.

_________________
—• Read this First before posting Game Design Ideas!
—• Design Philosophy

—•— My Ideas, Organized —•— Get an Avatar —•— Acronyms —•—


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 24, 2008 4:40 pm 
Offline
Space Kraken
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2007 7:00 pm
Posts: 161
Another set of small questions:

How would this system cover de-militarized zones, Neutral zones, and the like?

A de-militarized zone would could still have colonies from either or both of the two empires. . . .

I think the easiest thing would be to not have supply lines define 'ownership', but have them be defined by what is possible . ..

I've got another suggestion,

What if you had it so that supply lines can always overlap, but that the effective number of star lanes changed if there is the supply rout of another empire using the same star lane?

Example

Open boarders: all star lanes have length "One", just as in free space, empires ignore each others supply ranges.

Closed boarders: Shared star lanes have length 2, or 1.5(rounded up). (2 if opponent supplies both sides, 1.5 if opponent only supplies 'far' side), Opposing Planet would not effect supply length in any additional way (for shared systems)
[IE, A --1 --2-- 3-- B, A has 5 jumps and B has 5 jumps. Both would be able to supply all three middle planets A-1 cost 1, 1-2 cost 2, 2-3 costs 2 = 5 (or other way around), both would need 7 to supply ships at the far planet. with both having 4, they can only reach 2. and stop there. If A had 3, and B 4, A would 'stop' B from supplying 1.]
Fleets would also not effect the system

War: Fleets would add ~2 - ~3(depending on size) to the supply length, or simply cut entirely. supply lengths would be calculated 2 jumps and 2.5 jumps / jump.

Alliance: Same all shared.


I like the idea of some level of stealth on the global map: Each planet [1,2,3 could have a 'Supply length' number, the length beyond which the supply line would normally project if projecting into unclaimed territory]. Stealth-ed ships would have a stealth strength value, if the supply value is greater(or equal to?/slightly differnt behavior when =?) then the stealth value, your spotted.

Supply lines would stop abruptly at neutral and de-militarized zones.

The basic idea is that even in war you can supply somewhat into opposing space. . . just the risks grow and the precautions you must take become larger, so the distance you can penetrate and supply diminishes more quickly. The supply lengths are more like the theoretical/practical limits on the distance you could safely supply your ships to me. Even with a 'politically closed' boarder you COULD supply to the far side of the border, if you where staging a sneak attack with a stealthed first wave, for example.

Anyway that's just how I'm seeing it
Best wishes.
Robbie Price.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 24, 2008 4:47 pm 
Offline
Space Kraken
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2007 7:00 pm
Posts: 161
Goodmorning all;

Sorry, didn't see this when i posted just moments ago.

eleazar wrote:
Obviously in a state of war "might does make right."
But for everything else i don't see the benefit in a diplomatic system where you can "claim" arbitrary planets, or set up arbitrary borders. The high number of possible iterations seems guaranteed to make evaluating such treaties and coming to an agreement tedious. I don't expect it to be easy at all to teach an AI how to sensibly deal with such treaties either.


If we limit the definition such that there are no possible iterations this should be fine.

have two levels neutral and de-militarized (for lack of better names). one of them would be Supply lines stopped where they currently have a supply length value of ~3,5 or less. and have the other have a supply length value of 7,9.

If the supply ability on one side changes the political border would not, unless it was re-negotiated, Planets 'caught' in the zone would not be able to supply any ships not in the same system as them. (and those ships would cause diplomatic problems if they were to be detected). The 'detection' ability would remain constant however. Since the detection ability is only piggy-backing on the supply range anyway.

Best wishes again

Robbie


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 24, 2008 5:45 pm 
Offline
Design & Graphics Lead Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 7:09 pm
Posts: 3858
Location: USA — midwest
Robbie.Price wrote:
How would this system cover de-militarized zones, Neutral zones, and the like?

A de-militarized zone would could still have colonies from either or both of the two empires. . .

It doesn't.
What purpose do "neutral" and "de-militarized zones" serve in the game?


Robbie.Price wrote:
I've got another suggestion,

Closed boarders: Shared star lanes have length 2, or 1.5(rounded up). (2 if opponent supplies both sides, 1.5 if opponent only supplies 'far' side), Opposing Planet would not effect supply length in any additional way (for shared systems)...

It what sense are the borders "closed" if both sides are sharing the middle ground? Why is this better?

I'm trying to make it visually obvious from the way the borders/supply-lines act what is going on between the empires. I think the difference between a closed border situation and an open on is clearly and intuitively shown in my proposal. In your proposal we have instead of "closed borders" "partly closed borders", but i don't see any advantage in blurring the difference with "open borders".


Robbie.Price wrote:
War: Fleets would add ~2 - ~3(depending on size) to the supply length, or simply cut entirely. supply lengths would be calculated 2 jumps and 2.5 jumps / jump.

In a state of war, an unopposed fleet entirely blocks enemy supply from using that system. This in the v.0.4. We also want to stick with whole numbers for supply distances.


Robbie.Price wrote:
Each planet [1,2,3 could have a 'Supply length' number, the length beyond which the supply line would normally project if projecting into unclaimed territory]

They do have a supply length number. You might want to read the relevant portions of the v.0.4 design document.


Robbie.Price wrote:
Sorry, didn't see this when i posted just moments ago.
eleazar wrote:
Obviously in a state of war "might does make right."
But for everything else i don't see the benefit in a diplomatic system where you can "claim" arbitrary planets, or set up arbitrary borders. The high number of possible iterations seems guaranteed to make evaluating such treaties and coming to an agreement tedious. I don't expect it to be easy at all to teach an AI how to sensibly deal with such treaties either.

If we limit the definition such that there are no possible iterations this should be fine.

How could there be no iterations? What are you suggesting?

_________________
—• Read this First before posting Game Design Ideas!
—• Design Philosophy

—•— My Ideas, Organized —•— Get an Avatar —•— Acronyms —•—


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 24, 2008 6:54 pm 
Offline
Space Kraken
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2007 7:00 pm
Posts: 161
Goodmoring all,

eleazar wrote:
What purpose do "neutral" and "de-militarized zones" serve in the game?

They serve as post war regions, allow for a lot of extra spy/covert missions. . . most space TV shows have such zones in space between empires, because they allow for a lot of politics, subterfuge, and diplomatic tensions. semi-illegal rebel factions ... lots of cool stuff. and or all of which would be addable. as we like.

eleazar wrote:

It what sense are the borders "closed" if both sides are sharing the middle ground? Why is this better?

I'm trying to make it visually obvious from the way the borders/supply-lines act what is going on between the empires. I think the difference between a closed border situation and an open on is clearly and intuitively shown in my proposal. In your proposal we have instead of "closed borders" "partly closed borders", but i don't see any advantage in blurring the difference with "open borders".

See I'm seeing Open vs closed borders as where can practically supply, and where you have permission to supply.

Just because I don't have explicate agreements allowing me to supply a ship in your territory(default is closed borders till they are opened politically no?) doesn't mean I can't do it. It just means I have to be more careful, more sly (therefore i can't supply as far, but i can still do it). With a neutral zone or equivalent, I've agreed politically NOT to and therefor don't. *ships can still fly into neutral areas, it's against the rules, but it's not a brick wall, supply ships don't because we don't let them. [technobable re supply-ships being too clumsy for good stealth needed to not be caught or some nonsense, or pirate activity increases due to un-police-able space . . . who cares]*

eleazar wrote:
In a state of war, an unopposed fleet entirely blocks enemy supply from using that system. This in the v.0.4. We also want to stick with whole numbers for supply distances.

Re: using that system: supply can still go around, this could lead to my ships in your territory being cutoff from my supply routs before i would have the being cut off.
in your system there is a line in the sand, space, beyond which we can't supply on the other side. this line may be at a planet, in which case we can both supply at the point, or it may be between two planets, and which point on my side of the jump lane i can, on your side you can.

In my system my line in the sand doesn't have to be the same as your line in the sand. I can get my supply ships some distance into your space, and you can get your ships some distance into mine. It's a question of practically possible, vs defined as being politically impossible.

Fair enough the numbers were only suggestions,

eleazar wrote:
They do have a supply length number. You might want to read the relevant portions of the v.0.4 design document.

That's what i thought, but i was no longer 100% sure, since Geoff's comments seamed to contradict that . . . or at least i thought. I didn't want to go re-look it up. I just phrased it in terms of a possibility, on the of chance that it wasn't actually still a reality and had changed since the last time I read the design doc.

eleazar wrote:
Robbie.Price wrote:
If we limit the definition such that there are no possible iterations this should be fine.

How could there be no iterations? What are you suggesting?


I'm suggesting a system with only two preset definitions of neutral zones and de-militarized zones, as described above. You would never sit down with the AI, or another player and draw lines on the map, or give star names for which stars where in and outside of the zones. The definition of the type of zone 'two aught be enough' would define where the boarders are. Don't like the position of the boarders, try the other pact, still not good enough, tuff. At the uppermost limit we would allow the pact to definable in star jumps, or star jump equivalents, But that would really be pushing it. *unless we went for a diplomatic agreement method such as the one I suggested in <<http://www.freeorion.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=2040&hilit=&start=105>>, where you would define the general size you want, and it would negotiate a settlement point and that would be the only 'real' option unless you changed offered something substantial to change the balance of diplomatic equations.*


Anyway, best wishes again
Hopefully i made my points clearer.

Robbie Price


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 26, 2008 2:34 am 
Offline
Design & Graphics Lead Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 7:09 pm
Posts: 3858
Location: USA — midwest
Robbie.Price wrote:
eleazar wrote:
What purpose do "neutral" and "de-militarized zones" serve in the game?

They serve as post war regions, allow for a lot of extra spy/covert missions. . . most space TV shows have such zones in space between empires, because they allow for a lot of politics, subterfuge, and diplomatic tensions. semi-illegal rebel factions ... lots of cool stuff. and or all of which would be addable. as we like.

If you consider "most space TV shows" to have the words "Star Trek" somewhere in the name, then yes, these ideas are common on sci-fi TV. But then so is secular moralizing, and single ships which somehow survive no matter how outnumbered they are. My point is not to start a debate on the merits of Star Trek (which is not on topic here), but to say that just because something was interesting in a TV show does not make it a good mechanic for a game.

FO is already planned to have politics, factions, and espionage. I don't think we need the complications of "de-militarized zones", for these things to be as big a part of the game as we want them to be.


Robbie.Price wrote:
eleazar wrote:
It what sense are the borders "closed" if both sides are sharing the middle ground? Why is this better?

I'm trying to make it visually obvious from the way the borders/supply-lines act what is going on between the empires. I think the difference between a closed border situation and an open on is clearly and intuitively shown in my proposal. In your proposal we have instead of "closed borders" "partly closed borders", but i don't see any advantage in blurring the difference with "open borders".

See I'm seeing Open vs closed borders as where can practically supply, and where you have permission to supply.

Just because I don't have explicate agreements allowing me to supply a ship in your territory(default is closed borders till they are opened politically no?) doesn't mean I can't do it. It just means I have to be more careful, more sly (therefore i can't supply as far, but i can still do it). With a neutral zone or equivalent, I've agreed politically NOT to and therefor don't. *ships can still fly into neutral areas, it's against the rules, but it's not a brick wall, supply ships don't because we don't let them. [technobable re supply-ships being too clumsy for good stealth needed to not be caught or some nonsense, or pirate activity increases due to un-police-able space . . . who cares]*

Yes, i'm assuming that "closed borders" is the default diplomatic status.

I'm not really interested in incorporating a lot of ambiguous diplomatic circumstances. Sure if you have sufficient stealth you can violate a closed border. But that's the player's choice to violate the border. With your proposal supply ships are constantly violating closed borders, no matter what intentions the players has, and there's nothing the violated can do about it. You can't "catch" our virtual supply ships.

It seems very natural that a spy ship behind closed borders should have to operate without benefit of resupply. Generally for that ship to get anywhere interesting, it would have to go past colonies and fleets which would block supply anyway. It also deflates the drama of sneaking around in someone else's turf it your ships easily supplied, at least on the edges.
Why do we need to mess with the additional complexity. As i asked previously, "why is this better?"


Robbie.Price wrote:
eleazar wrote:
In a state of war, an unopposed fleet entirely blocks enemy supply from using that system. This in the v.0.4.

Re: using that system: supply can still go around, this could lead to my ships in your territory being cutoff from my supply routs before i would have the being cut off.
in your system there is a line in the sand, space, beyond which we can't supply on the other side. this line may be at a planet, in which case we can both supply at the point, or it may be between two planets, and which point on my side of the jump lane i can, on your side you can.

I don't think you understand how i've built my proposal on the previous discussion of ship supply.
The only hard and fast limit for a supply line is determined by the development of the planet that's projecting the supply. If supply lines are being stopped short of their potential, then the player can extend them by:
* occupying empty systems with ships
* blockading/conquering/destroying enemy planets
* defeating enemy fleets that are blocking their lines

The interaction between opposed supply lines only occurs when there aren't colonies or fleets to more definitely define who controls what.


Robbie.Price wrote:
eleazar wrote:
Robbie.Price wrote:
If we limit the definition such that there are no possible iterations this should be fine.

How could there be no iterations? What are you suggesting?

I'm suggesting a system with only two preset definitions of neutral zones and de-militarized zones, as described above....

I'm sorry, i've read it several times and i still don't understand how you intended these zones to be defined, or in a lot of ways what effect they would have, or why a player would want them.

_________________
—• Read this First before posting Game Design Ideas!
—• Design Philosophy

—•— My Ideas, Organized —•— Get an Avatar —•— Acronyms —•—


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 26, 2008 6:12 am 
Offline
Pupating Mass
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2004 10:06 pm
Posts: 93
Actually demilitarised zones would be great way to deal with backstabbers, basicly late game when u have fast ships and you send all your fleet near 1 neighbor whos fleet is distributed equally near empires borders doesnt stand a chance against surprise attack like that. So there are 4 ways to deal with it:

1. People are against such surprise attacks and get mad. It seems restricting and strange to me, there could be race of backstabbers out there (darloks).

2. No fog of war. Boring imho.

3. theres some artificial stopper that doesnt let you attack before certain turns have passed after declaring war.

4. You can negotiate demilitarised zones where other empire shouldnt colonise or send cruiser or bigger ships. So if empire 1 is in system A and other in D and they declare B,C in between demilitarised, then empires would have time to react to surprise attack. And well if you didnt have any demilitarised systems between you and enemy and you kept too less ships there... well shame on you for being too trustful.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 26, 2008 8:26 pm 
Offline
Design & Graphics Lead Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 7:09 pm
Posts: 3858
Location: USA — midwest
On reflection, while diplomatically-defined "demilitarized zones" are not part of this proposal, there's nothing it it inherently opposed to the concept. While i still think it's a bad idea, there would be no great difficulty in adding another rule for how supply lines would act in such zones.

So weather or not we have such zones is not relevant to this topic, unless you will argue that all borders should be wholly defined by diplomacy.


Which (if i understand him) is an entirely different idea from this:
Geoff the Medio wrote:
... and there could still be neutral territory between owned systems where both empires' supply overlap.

Which i take to mean in either or both states of War and Closed Borders, instead of dividing the systems between two empires where supply lines overlap, Borders could be drawn instead in the space where an empire (or it's allies) are the only ones who have supply lines.

From the standpoint of abstracted rules this seems just as reasonable as what i've proposed, and would make moot most of the elaborations that Robbie has proposed. But my ideas in this thread were formed with one eye on the way things would look in the galaxy map. I wanted to avoid the clutter and ambiguity or a bunch of empire-colored supply lines on the same lane — unless it was actually meaningful, i.e. indicating the cooperation of an open borders situation.

_________________
—• Read this First before posting Game Design Ideas!
—• Design Philosophy

—•— My Ideas, Organized —•— Get an Avatar —•— Acronyms —•—


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 27, 2008 10:44 am 
Offline
Space Squid
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 10:15 am
Posts: 60
It seems somewhat counterintuitive to let a planet by itself block military supply transports, but it's probably a safe assumption that there are sufficient in-system ships to block star-lane points in the general keeping of things. Any real military presence from the invaders in the system could suppress this ability, though that could bring up the annoying micro element of splitting off a ship each jump to maintain lines of supply.

Solution: Non-blockaded planets block supply lines unless the enemy contests the system by taking over one of the worlds in the system. In such areas neither planet blocks supply. Models invasions properly to some degree while staying uncomplicated, easy to understand, and useful.
Alternatively, use the combined defense meter values of all planets in a system: Empire A has 2 relatively undeveloped planets with 10 each vs Empire B with 1 developed world with 35. 20 < 35, so Empire B interdicts Empire A's supply lines. If the totals are within 5 of one another, nobody blocks anyone. Easy to implement, intuitive to grasp, and sensible.

A couple of minor refinements to suggest...
1. Option at galaxy screen to cause systems to become closed even if you are at "open borders" as a defensive measure. I've played around with several ideas but allowing a small number of systems within a short radius (1 jump, perhaps 2?) of your empire seat-of-government (or stockpile location) seems most logical. No species is going to let anyone but close allies drop a war fleet into their home system. Of course, part of this stems from the AI being so fickle in MoO/SMAC etc and randomly breaking alliance and attacking, and part of it comes from knowing that in human vs human games there will always be the guy who decides to go for personal glory and screw someone. Not that it shouldn't be allowed, but there should be a counter for it.

2. Add the ability to either design (I favor this, but I love ship design) or abstract supply ships as something that can be added to a fleet to enable it to operate behind enemy lines for a time. There would naturally need to be costs and consequences or everyone would just use them all the time, which is why I favor making it an actual ship so players must directly pay for them, and risk them in combat. Once re-connected to a supply line, they would gradually* re-fill with supplies and consume resources to do so. Perhaps if they visited a friendly world with a shipyard or other significant infrastructure re-supply could be 1 turn.
*Gradual is important for balance.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 27, 2008 4:47 pm 
Offline
Space Kraken
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2007 7:00 pm
Posts: 161
Goodmorning all;

I've not got time to elaborate, so i won't go into all the topics i would otherwise but.

two quick things.

To me supply lines are not always active. Just because there is a supply line someplace doesn't mean there are any ships flying around there. When a military ship or a colony exists then ships are traveling along the lines, otherwise they remain potential lines. This illuminates the worry that your breaking closed border policies on account of supply ships. They aren't there unless the is a military ship already breaking the rules.

2. The reason i want to have such a system is when i go to war with somebody, i want my ship to be re-suppy-able somewhat inside their zone of influence. It allows me to set up a forward post, without having to deploy some ships at every jump lane.


3. how my suggestion works


Unowned planets: U
Team A planets: A# where # is strenght
Team B planets B#


A7 -- U -- U -- U-- U--- U-- U-- B5
| | | | | | | |
A5 -- U -- A2 U U U B6 U

A3 -- A3 U U U U B4 U

U U U U U U B6 U


neutral zones would come in two sizes, say 3 and 6. If we look at what A can supply we get

A7 -- U6 -- U5 -- U4-- U3--- U2-- U1 -- B5
| | | | | | | |
A8 -- U7 -- A2(6) U5 U4 U3 B6(2) U1

A9 -- A3(8) U7 U6 U5 U4 B4(3) U2

U8 U7 U6 U5 U4 U3 B6(2) U1

And for B

A7 -- U6 -- U1 -- U2-- U3--- U4-- U5 -- B5
| | | | | | | |
A8 -- U1 --A2(2) U3 U4 U5 B6 U5

A9 -- A3 U1 U2 U3 U4 B4(5) U4

U U1 U2 U3 U4 U5 B6 U5

My apologies for the less the pretty picture.

But, the neutral zone would be defined as Any area your opponent would normally be able to supply, The borders of the zone are defined by having a supply strength of equal to or less then (3 or 6) [each side defining the 'far' side of the boarder]. The zone is only set at the time of signing the agreement, and does not move.

In this case for 3 the zone would be

A -- U -- U -- U-- Z--- U-- U-- B5
| | | | | | | |
A -- U -- A U Z Z B U

A -- A U U Z Z BZ U

U U U Z Z Z B U

Note that one of the B planets is inside the neutral zone. IF the agreement where the larger 6 then all but the left most planets and the A3 would be inside the de-militarized zone.

In math terms the neutral zone border is defined :

Planet supply -3 or 6; jumps away from any colony which can provide more then 3, or 6 supply jumps.



Best wishes all.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 27, 2008 5:46 pm 
Offline
Design & Graphics Lead Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 7:09 pm
Posts: 3858
Location: USA — midwest
Robbie.Price wrote:
A7 -- U -- U -- U-- U--- U-- U-- B5
| | | | | | | |
A5 -- U -- A2 U U U B6 U

A3 -- A3 U U U U B4 U

U U U U U U B6 U


If you are trying to do what i think you might be, you need to put these things in [code] tags for them to be even slightly readable.

_________________
—• Read this First before posting Game Design Ideas!
—• Design Philosophy

—•— My Ideas, Organized —•— Get an Avatar —•— Acronyms —•—


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 27, 2008 9:03 pm 
Offline
Space Kraken
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2007 7:00 pm
Posts: 161
ya the spaces got killed.

Code:
A7 -- U -- U -- U-- U--- U-- U-- B5

A5 -- U -- A2   U    U     U    B6   U

A3 -- A3   U     U    U     U   B4   U

 U     U     U     U    U    U    B6   U



neutral zones would come in two sizes, say 3 and 6. If we look at what A can supply we get
Code:
A7 -- U6 -- U5 -- U4-- U3--- U2-- U1 -- B5

A8 -- U7 -- A2(6)- U5   U4     U3   B6(2) U1

A9 -- A3(8) U7     U6    U5     U4    B4(3) U2

U8   U7     U6     U5    U4    U3    B6(2)  U1


And for B

Code:
A7 -- U6 -- U1 -- U2-- U3--- U4-- U5 -- B5

A8 -- U1 --A2(2)  U3    U4     U5    B6    U5

A9 -- A3    U1     U2    U3     U4   B4(5) U4

 U     U1     U2     U3    U4    U5    B6   U5

My apologies for the less the pretty picture.

In this case for 3 the zone would be
Code:
A -- U -- U -- U-- Z--- U-- U-- B5

A -- U -- A     U    Z    Z    B    U

A -- A    U      U    Z    Z   BZ   U

U    U     U     Z   Z     Z    B    U


Hopefully those are more visible.

In short, the stronger the supply ability of your planet the further away the no fly zone starts for your opponent, and if your strong enough in supply your opponents planets can become cutoff in the neutral zone raising unhappiness and lowering productivity.

Best wishes.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 28, 2008 3:45 am 
Offline
Space Squid
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 10:15 am
Posts: 60
The main issue I have with DMZs is that it will be very challenging to write an AI that uses them effectively, or knows how to bargain properly so that players cannot exploit them.

DMZs could be an automatically created status shown on the galaxy map representing contested areas. A DMZ would act like a miniature empire that both involved empires are at closed borders with. Any military ship detected moving through would be automatically routed back to the nearest friendly non-DMZ'd world. In this example:
Attachment:
FO DMZ.GIF
FO DMZ.GIF [ 4.04 KiB | Viewed 1201 times ]

Empire A and Empire B were at war, but have agreed to a ceasefire. During the ceasfire the DMZ (in grey) ceases to provide supply lines and is impassible to them to represent the De-militarized part, and espionage would be altered somewhat within DMZs. The exact effects I have not yet considered. Thoughts?


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 21 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group