Just a mild moderator note: The discussion in this thread has gone completely off topic. Originally this thread was about specific questions on problems with scripting the original supply ship idea. Which apparently got dropped somewhere down the road, and the discussion transformed into a mixture of a discussion about the design of an actually completely different concept/game mechanic and a discussion about implementation questions. Either of these aren't even in the right subforum anymore (this is the "Scripting & Balancing" forum!) - the first belongs on the Other Game Design forum, probably even the Top Priority Game Design forum (given the severity of the proposed changes to fundamental game mechanics), the second on the Programming forum (given that the implementation has to be done mostly in the backend C++ code).
Just saying. While we certainly don't need to be overly restrictive when discussions don't stay strictly on topic all the time, and allow them to stray quite far from the original topic on occasion, we need to draw the line somewhere, otherwise using subforums and thread subjects becomes pointless. And an important design discussion like this becoming buried deep in a thread that actually is about something completely different is definitely a bad thing.
But nevermind. I don't have the nerve to (once again) disect a thread, especially one that has grown as large as this one, and move its parts to the places they actually belong. So I'm responding here, but please, in the future, be a bit more disciplined about this...
Sorry for getting back to this only now, I probably should have been following this discussion more closely (especially since I have some pretty strong reservations to the direction the whole thing has taken), but I've been occupied with other things, so please bear with me.
As I said, I have some strong reservation about what the original idea has turned into - that said, I also want to note that several statements I read in this thread might alleviate my major concerns, it's just that it's not entirely clear to me how exactly this new mechanic is supposed to work in the end.
The main issue I have with the currently proposed ideas is this: the original idea (supply ships "carrying" limited amounts of PP to disconnected colonies/outposts) was a potentially interesting extension to the current PP distribution mechanic. I'm still of the opinion that this could have worked and wouldn't have created too much micromanagement, as it would have been used only in uncommon edge cases. We could at least have given it a try before dismissing it.
But that's of course your decision, if you're not happy with how the whole thing seemed to work out anymore, I understand perfectly fine that you don't want to waste any more effort for it.
However, the idea you finally came up with to replace the supply ships is a fundamental change to a key game mechanic, as this fundamentally changes how PP are distributed, at least potentially so - depending on what/how exactly you intend to do/have things work. Restricting distribution of PP to supply connected systems is a key mechanic, and requiring the player to establish supply connection to outposts/colonies to be able to do any reasonable building there is specifically intended and wanted that way. Also, the ability to cut enemy supply connections by blockading certain key systems is an essential key strategy.
By being able to transfer excess PP to a global stockpile and subsequently retrieving them from there as currently proposed, without the partaking supply groups having to be supply connected, these key mechanics/strategies are more or less nullified. And that's what I have strong objections against.
(Sidenote: This is a change to the way the game works on a whole different level which usually requires a thorough design discussion, careful consideration and reaching a general consensus. Hence my complaint at the start of this post, because that thing is actually important enough to warrant a thread on the Top Priority Game Design board, not to be buried in a thread about scripting problems of a game element that has already been given up.)
That all said, now the big "but" to my reservations/objections. I am well aware that there already exists a similar drastic change to a key game mechanic which becomes accessible through research: stargates. And ships only being able to travel along starlanes is a probably even more fundamental concept of the basic game design than PP only being distributable along established supply connections.
Stargates change that mechanic on a fundamental level, however
, this comes with some important restrictions, which make the whole thing reasonable and not game-breaking: You need quite some research to unlock the feature, then you need an expensive building in every system you want to connect to the stargate network, and this building can only be built at colonies, not outposts. Which means, you can't just sneak a high stealth outpost ship behind enemy lines, secretly create an outpost in some corner and establish a stargate there, which subsequently can be used to send your invasion fleet right into the backyard of your enemy.
If you want to use stargates to connect disconnected parts of your empire, this is only possible if the disconnected part is large enough to sustain the production of a stargate.
So the way this mechanic-changing feature is designed and implemented makes sure that while it's certainly quite powerful, it still has its limitations.
Which brings me back to the proposed idea of a global PP pool: if you intend to design and implement it in a way that this feature also has its proper costs and limitations, similar to how stargates have their price and are limited (and from what I've read and understood so far, it looks like you do), then
you have my full attention, I'm all ears!
Next I want to specifically reply to some of the discussion, but in order to avoid this post becoming even longer than it already is, I'll do that in subsequent replies.