FreeOrion

Well, as near as I can tell that a purely "realism" argument. Also as near as I can tell it makes no sense game wise. The planet that produces food will not ever *need* the stockpile. Unless you change the primary classification from farming to mining and the planet gets blockaded right after that. How likely is that?

That's exactly why I think we don't need the local pile. If we do have the local pile players will get annoyed if mining worlds starve really quickly once blockaded. I for one would complain about that: "why the heck can't I tell my people where to store food?" Or we will need to allow the player to set a stockpiling policy, which I consider to be really boring and don't want at all.

So a simple solution.

All planets store 5 turns of nutrients. Depending on how large a population is determines how many nutrients are drained from the global stockpile. simple example:

Planet A has 1 pop unit, it gets blockaded. After 5 turns 5 nutrients have been drained from the global stockpile.

Planet B has 20 pop units. After 5 turns 100 units have been drained from the global stockpile.

After the 5 turns starvation begins and its affects are to be decided in time.

_________________
Aquitaine is my Hero....

I am starting too lean towards NightFish and Powercrazy. Its very logical to distribute a resorce based on how much is consumed so that every planet has an enough of that resorces to last an equal amount of time. Ofcorse that amount of time would be dependent on the total quantity of the global stockpile.

I would add one critical bit though. Alow a "granery" building. Basicaly this building would cause that planet to store Extra resorces. Their would be multiple levels of granery, each would add +100% of normal storage.

For example 300 food is in the imperial stockpile and is divided among planets A, B, C and D based on local consumption.

A consumes 15, 18% of total consumption.
B consumes 4, 5% of total consumption
C consumes 39, 46% of total consumption
D consumes 25, 30% of total consumption

A 18% of reserves, 54 food, 3 turns worth
B 5% of reserves, 15 food, 3 turns worth
C 47% of reserves, 141 food, 3 turns worth
D 30% of reserves, 90 food, 3 turns worth (actualy 3.6 for all of them)

Now lets say I add a +100% grannery to planet C (my homeworld)

I now do all the same calculations but I pretend their are 2 planet C's in my empire and then merge them at the end to get double the endurace of the other planets.

A 15 consump, 12%, 36 food (2 turns)
B 4 consump, 3%, 9 food (2 turns)
C1 39 consump, 32%, 96 food
C2 39 consump, 32%, 96 food (96+96 = 192 for 4 turns of food)
D 25 consump, 20%, 60 food ( 2 turns)

The grannery has a mineral equivalent building and the grannery represents not just the physical building but also the reserces, buracracy and money required to so unevenly distribute such a vital resorce. Grannerys are more expensive in FreeMarket type economies then under more "comand" style economies.

_________________
Fear is the Mind Killer - Frank Herbert -Dune

That is pretty much exactly what I've been saying all along.

EDIT: I was replying to a post about a planet producing excesses at the time it was blockaded... Sorry about not quoting. T

And why would they need to stockpile? If their production is greater than their demand they have no reason to keep local stockpiles. Being blockaded shouldn't change their production rate... unless they are receiving Grants from the Empire to pay the workers, which should be very unlikely if the planet is actually producing excesses at the time of the blockade.

On the other hand with the planets loss to the Empire of either Food or Minerals from the planet can seriously harm the Empire's growth and or production.

Stockpiles should be kept by the Empire and only the Empire. To be doled out as necessary by the Empire.

However a planet that is not producing enough Food or Minerals to serve the populous or its industries should keep a one or more turn of whatever they are not producing... consider it an extra large shipment that comes in every three to five turns. TBD by game balancers. It may be that the new shipment arrives at the same time as the blockading fleet and should be considered captured.

One basic flaw in MoO3 is that a Scout with NO weapons can blockade a system!


Thumper




Thumper

Well, thats something I can live with. Its unrealistic (yeah NF, I see you hop for joy about that word REALISM) , but acceptable.

So the formulas you would then use is:

GNS = global nutrition stockpile

LNS = local nutrition stockpile
LNR = local nutrition reduction
LNM = local nutrion multiplier (standard = 1, +1 for each granary stage)

Without granaries:

LNS = GNS * (LNR / SUMM(LNR(x)))

With granaries:

LNS = GNS * (LNR * LNM / SUMM(LNR(x) * LNM(x)))

An example:

Planet A produces 10 N, uses 1 N, and has no granary.
Planet B produces 1 N, uses 5 N and has a stage 2 granary.
GNS is 60

Without granaries:

LNS(A) = 60 * (1 / SUMM(1 + 5)) = 10
LNS(B) = 60 * (5 / SUMM(1 + 5)) = 50

So without granaries planet A can withstand an unlimited amount of time (it produces more food then it uses). Planet B would start to starve after 12 turns (it uses 4 NU more then it produces).

LNS(A) = 60 * (1 * 1 / SUMM((1 * 1) + (5 * 3)) = 3,75
LNS(B) = 60 * (5 * 3 / SUMM((1 * 1) + (5 * 3)) = 56,25

In this case the farm planet has a stockpile of 4 NUs only, thus again will never run out, as it produces more food then it uses. The industry planet has 56 NU in its granary, thus starting to starve after 14 turns. the two granaries allow them to survive for 2 more turns.

Honestly, it doesnt seem worth the aditionell book keeping to have granaries. If my simple formulaes are "too difficult" lets go as simple as possible:


LNS = GNS * (LNR / SUMM(LNR(x)))

So, in plain english the local stockpile is directly proportianal to food consumption, yes? That seems simple enough and is about as complicated as I want to get on something as thrilling as stockpiles. I, too, don't really see the need for granaries.

And yes, I'm really happy whenever I hear the words "realism" or "unrealistic". Almost as happy as I am when I hear "MoO2" and see stuff spelled in caps. On the whole, the FreeOrion board is making me pretty happy of late

HAHA Nightfish you always make me laugh. Anyway, there's no need to complicate stockpiles at all. A planet that produces food will recieve a penalty to represent the constant bombing and raiding a blockading fleet would do. Now while they can still sustain themselves, any excess they produce will not be added to the imperial stockpile, and would be wasted. So while blockading an empires main (food) producing planet would not hurt that planet it would SEVERELY hurt the rest of the empire. And that adds that tactical part of FreeOrion to the mix. And will also make spying useful. Forgive me if i'm rambling. I have a substance in my blood that seems to inhibit rational thinking . (however my typing is mysteriously unaffected )

_________________
Aquitaine is my Hero....

BTW has the topic of intergalactic trade been discussed yet? (I did not participate in the old forum) What about an auctioning system like used in M.U.L.E? A trading centre established by the senate (does the storyline include such a political institution?) or a trade union could alow players to trade stockpiled resources or even heterogenous goods like planets, technologies and ships with other players. Every couple of turns an auction takes place and every member of the senate/trade union could join either as seller or buyer. Instead of some abstracted trade income trading would require some strategic player decisions.

I think storage should be empire-wide. But I do see a problem with an infinite stockpile. We could base the max stockpile on population. So when he loses pop, his maximum storage decreases. We avoid the keeping the stockpile when reduced to one planet problem, and we don't need to calculate how much the player loses. Noo need to have transfer of resources when a planet changes hands. We descide whether to give the conqueror some resources or not as to balance the dillema glass planet/conquer planet.

P.S. Of coure max stockpile could also be modified through tech.

Perhaps the Grannery would set the maximum stockpile amount. We seem to be zeroing in on a workable formula here so lets keep up the good work.

As for trade I belive we need to work out some of the basics of trade as stockpiling has implications for how trade is conducted, will the players trade abstracted "money" (unfavorabel in my view) or units of "goods" such as Grobbnos, Zregfs and Whawaigicatics that perhaps serve some strategic purpose (like alow you to make a Whawaigicatic Gun).

The former works best with a global stockpile "cash reserve" type of system. The latter would be more easily reflected with individual stockpiles of goods and resorces that are planet specific.

_________________
Fear is the Mind Killer - Frank Herbert -Dune

Discussing trade is not the purpose of this thread. Please stay on topic.

So when are we going to have a public review for stockpiles? It seems we have about 3 systems.

1. A flat rate of storage.
2. Stockpile depends on population at a rate to be determined.
3. Stockpile can depend on various economic factors that Bastian-Bux proposed.

Of course all methods can be adjusted via technology

_________________
Aquitaine is my Hero....

yeah yeah

Stockpiles are kinda sorta up for review.

While I like a couple of the ideas for condensing a global stockpile down to local, I figured it best to wait and vote for that stuff when we are worried about raiding, blockading, etc. For the purposes of this review, just going to deal with the very basics of stockpiles (like, whether or not they exist at all).

It just seemed like too much stuff for a single review.

Excess stockpiles should be sold to those with the highest demand or need. So if you have heaps of food and the Klackon forgot how to farm, then you could make billions of $$ selling them your stockpiles of food. The player should be able to set how much excess stockpiles to keep for their own empire and how much to sell to other empires.