Redistribution & Blockades: a simple solution

[Sewercockroach]

As before i'm trying to include the strategic value of supply lines, with an empire in which the shape matters— without including any micro drudgery or mysterious processes that only the AI understands and/or controls.

Attempt #3: Explicit Supply Lines

The player builds the supply lines— not as cargo ships you have to move around, but the routes supplies (fuel, ammo, production resources, whatever) can follow.

* Supplies flow between colonies in adjacent systems (via invisible, instant local shipping).

* To allow supplies to flow between non-adjacet colonies, additional Distribution Hubs can be placed in uncolonized systems:
— * Distribution Hub Outposts (DHO) are cheaper than colonies, but do not grow or produce anything.
— * or possibly Mobile Distribution Hubs (MDH) are large slow ships which if arraigned in a chain can quickly extend the reach of a supply line.

* Supplies do no flow between colonies unless they are connected via supply lines. Players can use their allies supply line systems if they are adjacent.

* Supply lines are indicated by coloring the SLs with the empire's color. (see V.3 demo with colonies in adjacent systems.

* Blockades can occur in a producing system, or by destroying Distribution Hubs (mobile or fixed).


Since the supply lines are explicitly created, the player has some strategic options: a single well-defended supply backbone through his empire, or a redundant web of supply lines.
Supply lines become more obvious and concrete entities without the micro of simulating/controling actual cargo ships.

"The player builds the supply lines"

-I think that this is likely going to become tedious with larger empires. Suppose I start a game with 200 or more stars in a spiral galaxy. I've taken out/over 8 other empires and I have one to go. Do I just forget about making supply lines, or will I lose if I do that? Either it is important enough to still cripple me at the end, or if it's not important then I shouldn't be stuck with it earlier.

"* Supplies flow between colonies in adjacent systems (via invisible, instant local shipping)."

-By this, I assume you mean that two system with a starlane between them don't need shipping lines. But wouldn't that mean that supply lines would only have to be built in systems that are not controlled to connect controlled parts of the galaxy? How does this interact with blockades? If I have two colones, one in system A and another in system B. Then my enemy colonizes a planet in system B. Do I still have free/instant shipping? What if I have no ships in the system and he has 200?





I'd like to add that any sort of centralization of resources or storing of resources seems implausible. Any sufficiently advanced civilization is going to send products from where they are made as directly to where they are needed as it possible. There will not be a continuous stream of resources from frontier planets to the capitol followed by a parallel stream going back to their second nearest neighbour: it will go there directly.

Contrasting that, though, I agree that the population distribution of a civilization should be incorporated into resource distribution.

So here is an amendment that I suggest:
A breakdown of solar systems into three types (as was already suggested) Safe, Uncertain, and Dangerous. Goods travel in packets on (invisible) freighters/merchantmen. If they're lost, the entire freighter/merchantman is lost, but the goods are quantized in this way so that huge swings are not noticable, yet continual losses due to risky behaviour have an effect.

The math works like this: travelling through Safe systems means each freighter has 0% chance to "get lost."
travelling through an uncertain system means a 3% chance to get lost. Another sequential uncertain system means a 4.5% chance, a third uncertain would be 6.75% and so on.
Dangerous system would be:
1st - 6%
2nd - 12%
3rd - 24%
4th - 48%

In other words, on average you are going to lose 1/2 your freighters if your enemy sets up fleets along your supply lines. Going into a safe system would drop your chance of losing a freighter to zero, and it would start over. The math is simplistic. I roughly sketch out a division as follows:

Safe:
Colonized system (no enemy ships)
Colonized system (friendly and enemy ships)
Uncolonized system (friendly ships present)

Uncertain:
Colonized system (neutral ships present?)
Uncolonized system (no enemy ships)
Uncolonized system (friendly and enemy ships)

Dangerous:
Colonized system (enemy ships present)
Uncolonized system (enemy ships present)


This is totally automated, all you have to do is colonize wisely and leave your ships out to defend your lines of transport. no micromanagement at all! The math is also pretty simple. It might not be easy to calculate in your head but it sure isn't hard to program. All it requies is a loop with a counter that resets when it hits a safe spot.

So if you went:
SUUUDUDUUS

You chance to lose a given freighter would be:
S-3-4.5-6.75-13.5-20.25-40.5-60.75-91.125-S

It can be exact numbers as I've done, or it can be cropped, or it can be rounded. The numbers change only slightly. What I've done is for uncertain systems, the first one has a chance of 3% and a 1.5x multiplier ever after, and the Dangerous systems start at 6% and have a 2x multiplier.

Obviously those numbers need tweaking. But heck, if you're sending your freighters through 8 systems that you don't control, you should expect to lose 9 out of 10!

Oh I forgot to mention, the logic behind my choosing this is that the population distribution of your empire is IMPORTANT, but whether it is star shaped, linear, like an hourglass, etc, doesn't matter. You can be the spine of the galaxy and as long as you're connected you're a-okay. Note that if you are just a single line of star systems you are still more vulnerable than in a star formation - your enemy can take over one system and divide your empire in half. That means you immediately lose 6% of your freighters passing though. If you're distributed in a circle/star shape, you will be more resilient to that effect.

[eleazar]

Assume that Mines provide minerals to Factories.

How is that an assumption? It's a game mechanic determined long ago, of course in the abstract form where mineral/inudstrial focus = people working on abstracted mines/factories.

If we asume that the Qew Empire has 2 Mines and 2 Factories in the top empire, and 2 Mines and 2 Factories in the bottom empire, then the Qew Empire should be sweet as the ratios are 1:1 of supply:demand.

In the case that the Qew Empire has 3 Mines and 1 Factory in the top empire, and 1 Mine and 3 Factories in the bottom empire, then the Qew Empire Is in trouble. The top empire has excess excess supply. While the bottom empire has a lack of supply.

Yes, that's what i mean.

"The player builds the supply lines"

-I think that this is likely going to become tedious with larger empires. Suppose I start a game with 200 or more stars in a spiral galaxy. I've taken out/over 8 other empires and I have one to go. Do I just forget about making supply lines, or will I lose if I do that? Either it is important enough to still cripple me at the end, or if it's not important then I shouldn't be stuck with it earlier.

Anything could be considered tedious if you make the galaxy bigger than your patience. But connecting a newly conquered empire would be about the quickest and easiest part of assimilating it. But if your goal was merely galactic conquest, you may already have enough resources to smash the 8th empire without appropriating it's supplies

"* Supplies flow between colonies in adjacent systems (via invisible, instant local shipping)."

-By this, I assume you mean that two system with a starlane between them don't need shipping lines. But wouldn't that mean that supply lines would only have to be built in systems that are not controlled to connect controlled parts of the galaxy? How does this interact with blockades? If I have two colones, one in system A and another in system B. Then my enemy colonizes a planet in system B. Do I still have free/instant shipping? What if I have no ships in the system and he has 200?

I haven't yet taken the time to specify exactly what constitutes a "blockade" but it would be quite similar (without neutral node) to my previous proposals in this thread. For instance, yes, an uncontested enemy fleet certainly constitutes a blockade.



Sewercockroach, please read the rest of the thread, especially Geoff's objection to some of my earlier ideas, based on the fact that my model didn't at all times have an clear optimal distribution. Ideas may have unexpected consequences, and lead to conundrums.

In short for this project we don't favor complicated mechanics which requires the AI to make judgement calls for the player.
* With a varying chance of resources being lost depending on the route, how does the Ai decide between a short Dangerous route, and a longer Uncertain one? Both may have the same total chance of loss, but the Dangerous route (because of fewer "die rolls") would be more likely too loose it all or win it all.
* Resources can be stockpiled for later use. If you have a colony which was separated from the main empire, you could theoretically waste your entire surplus and current production trying to feed a colony with only a 10% chance of food getting through. Maybe that colony is important, and it's worth while. If the AI makes that decision, it's playing the game for you.

[utilae]

One thing I have wondered with this supply system is about your homeworld.

If in an empire, system A feeds system B supply, then what about the homeworld. If you start with just your homeworld, is it self sufficient. And is it possible for it not to be self sufficient.

For example, the homeworld would start with people, so they will need food, which means they must have farms already. The homeworld will need to build colony ships, so they would have factories, which need minerals, so they must also have mines.

And, can we assume that a colony that has developed for long enough will eventually become self sufficient. And when all colonies, become self sufficient, then supply lines will not be needed.


Thoughts?

[eleazar]

One thing I have wondered with this supply system is about your homeworld.

If in an empire, system A feeds system B supply, then what about the homeworld. If you start with just your homeworld, is it self sufficient. And is it possible for it not to be self sufficient.

For example, the homeworld would start with people, so they will need food, which means they must have farms already. The homeworld will need to build colony ships, so they would have factories, which need minerals, so they must also have mines.

And, can we assume that a colony that has developed for long enough will eventually become self sufficient. And when all colonies, become self sufficient, then supply lines will not be needed.


Thoughts?

You are confused about things which were decided and put into the V2,3 reqs long before i knew about FO, particularly the resource meter foci and infrastructure system. Sure it's dry reading, but if you want to help direct FO's future you should put more effort into understanding past decisions.

In brief: The home-world starts out with population, a developed infrastructure, and a balanced focus. (balanced puts equal effort into Farming, Mining, Industry, Science, and Trade.) Early on you'll need some worlds with a farming focus because new colonies (even if they have a farming focus) generally can't produce enough food to feed or increase the population. And food really is all that a planet (currently) needs to flourish.

A new colony may have a special bonus to science. A planet that's focused on science generally won't be able to feed it's self. You could give it (and all additional planets) a balanced focus but you would be wasting the science bonus. In general you get more total resources if you allow planets with advantages to focus on those specialties. There are also projects you can build that provide advantages only if there is a focus on a particular resource.

An empire of mostly interdependent specialized planets has been FO's plan for years. My proposals in this thread don't change that. I'm just adding details to how the interdependence works.

Not coincidentally, that's how our world works too. You would be hard pressed to find a modern, truly self-sufficient city, province, or nation.

[utilae]

You are confused about things which were decided and put into the V2,3 reqs long before i knew about FO, particularly the resource meter foci and infrastructure system. Sure it's dry reading, but if you want to help direct FO's future you should put more effort into understanding past decisions.

I knew about those things, but just haven't read it in a while. Memory refreshed now .

In brief: The home-world starts out with population, a developed infrastructure, and a balanced focus. (balanced puts equal effort into Farming, Mining, Industry, Science, and Trade.) Early on you'll need some worlds with a farming focus because new colonies (even if they have a farming focus) generally can't produce enough food to feed or increase the population. And food really is all that a planet (currently) needs to flourish.

Yes, I remember now. Reading the requirements, the homeworld starts at 75% for population and all other meters. The Homeworld begins the game with Primary set to Balanced and Secondary to Farming.

You could give it (and all additional planets) a balanced focus but you would be wasting the science bonus. In general you get more total resources if you allow planets with advantages to focus on those specialties. There are also projects you can build that provide advantages only if there is a focus on a particular resource.

Ok, now here is where we get to the supply system. If a player has all there planets as balanced focus, regardless of planet specials, then all his players are self sufficient. Therefore, the players empire is immune to supply problems such as blockades.

Is this significant? Would it be advantageous to do this? Is no supply problems a great thing to have vs those extra resource bonuses you could have?

Not coincidentally, that's how our world works too. You would be hard pressed to find a modern, truly self-sufficient city, province, or nation.

Yes, but our planet does not depend on any other planet, so it is self sufficient.

[eleazar]

Ok, now here is where we get to the supply system. If a player has all there planets as balanced focus, regardless of planet specials, then all his players[sic: planets] are self sufficient. Therefore, the players empire is immune to supply problems such as blockades.

Is this significant? Would it be advantageous to do this? Is no supply problems a great thing to have vs those extra resource bonuses you could have?

It would almost certainly be a disadvantageous. More ships, tech, money is always handy but immunity from supply problems is only sometimes beneficial.
But the balance an experienced player strikes between self-sufficiency and extreme-specialization will vary. A balanced focus will sometimes be the right thing for a planet, but a specialized planet will be the right answer more often.

[Sewercockroach]

Actually, a planet which is in the core of your empire (and thus well defended and nested) would have a greater advantage of being specialized where a developing planet on the perimeter of your empire would be benefitted more by being balanced because it is at greater risk of being blockaded. This, of course, assumes supply lines are implemented properly, which is what I think we are all trying to work on.

Please don't confuse though, planets on the interior of the empire should be obvious candidates for specializing whereas those on the perimeter should be in a grey area. This forces the player to choose. Some perimeter planets are more at risk than others... What consitutes interior? Especially when the empire is small and expanding, what is small, what is important? Is the benefit from specializing when small, which is more risking, worth the reward due to exponential gain?

I'm sure we are all asking very similar questions.

[Geoff the Medio]

More ships, tech, money is always handy but immunity from supply problems is only sometimes beneficial.

More industry, mining or farming aren't very helpful if a planet is blockaded, so can't export them or import the others that it is lacking.

[eleazar]

Actually, a planet which is in the core of your empire (and thus well defended and nested) would have a greater advantage of being specialized where a developing planet on the perimeter of your empire would be benefitted more by being balanced because it is at greater risk of being blockaded. This, of course, assumes supply lines are implemented properly, which is what I think we are all trying to work on.

Please don't confuse though, planets on the interior of the empire should be obvious candidates for specializing whereas those on the perimeter should be in a grey area. This forces the player to choose. Some perimeter planets are more at risk than others... What consitutes interior? Especially when the empire is small and expanding, what is small, what is important? Is the benefit from specializing when small, which is more risking, worth the reward due to exponential gain?

Actually unsafe, frontier worlds do not benefit from being balanced, since the only resource they can directly use is Food. (with current rules) Certainly the most dire consequences will occur when a planet is cut off from it's food supply. Replacing "balanced" with "agricultural" and i agree with the above statement. It's possible future changes will make "balanced" a better choice than "agricultural" for systems with fragile supply lines, but that remains to be seen.

More ships, tech, money is always handy but immunity from supply problems is only sometimes beneficial.

More industry, mining or farming aren't very helpful if a planet is blockaded, so can't export them or import the others that it is lacking.

A blockade is bad with either focus. My point is that leaving all your planets (per Utilae's suggestion) on balanced focus is a lousy and probably fatal strategy. Do you disagree?