Quote:Original post by Sandman
With the suggestion I was making, a building takes a different amount of time to build depending on how far away it is to the nearest supply building

You seem to be assuming that players aren't going to optimize the location of these buildings, or that the designer isn't going to create a mass-carry unit. These are simple, obvious things that ARE going to happen. Once the build location is optimized, the change becomes flat. It may look like something else, but it is, in the final play scenario, still going to amount to the same thing.

I don't mean to be tangential, but what about using supply lines directly instead of a cache system?

Is there a powerful gameplay abstraction available with direct manipulation of supply lines? I take my inspiration here from turn-based systems, many of which have a concept of being "out of supply", with consequences to the unit's fighting capability. The original Homeworld also used this to good effect when fighters had to return to supply/repair ships after a foray into battle to "restock".

However, I'm thinking more directly - what if instead of all this building, the player simply designates an actual line of supply, which is bandwidth-throttled but not necessarily capacity-limited (although there is no reason why there couldn't simply be a more or less simple resource limit to avoid stalemates), and all units are forced to grab directly from the closest supply point. Get rid of the mine altogether, but keep the resources in the game, and moreover they become localized as is being suggested here, without increasing the level of micromanagement required.

Ergo, the player can choose to dedicate a great deal of supply to their army or to their peons, and the affected units will be able to govern themselves accordingly.

Of course, the enemy then should be able to attack the line of supply directly, but I'll leave the start of that discussion for others.

Even if gatherers automatically went to where a building is being constructed, it would be hell to build away from your base, where your stream of gatherers going to and from your new expansion will need to be gaurded the entire way. It would remove the expansion element from the game.

It could be a good system but as sandman said automated supply routes are a must. Either by the playing placing waypoints to determine the route between supply depots or having the computer determine them. Of course then you need a simple way to for the player to assign which depots get what. One way you could do this would be to click on a supply depot and under each resource is two slide bars or buttons which you can use alter the export and import settings, but at the same time keeping it simple, such as having export > need + 50%. Which would export the resource only when you more then 150% of what the settlement needs. So if the settlement need 50 food per cycle, then it would export food when it had more 75 food. In this way you can seperate your resource camps from your miltary fronts.

Also key I think, would be a resource distrubtion map, in which a player can quickly and easily see what amount of each resource is where and what the consumption, production, import, and export of each resource is.

Quote:Original post by liquiddark
You seem to be assuming that players aren't going to optimize the location of these buildings, or that the designer isn't going to create a mass-carry unit. These are simple, obvious things that ARE going to happen. Once the build location is optimized, the change becomes flat. It may look like something else, but it is, in the final play scenario, still going to amount to the same thing.

I don't quite understand what you mean by 'once the build location is optimized'. Assuming you can't stack buildings on top of one another, there's no single 'optimum' location for all of your buildings. This would definitely have an effect on expansion, although whether it's a desirable effect is another matter...

Quote:Original post by thedevdan
Even if gatherers automatically went to where a building is being constructed, it would be hell to build away from your base, where your stream of gatherers going to and from your new expansion will need to be gaurded the entire way. It would remove the expansion element from the game.

I don't think it would necessarily remove it, but it would force it to take a more incremental form - your base would tend to grow gradually rather than several bases springing up haphazardly across the map. The need to attack and defend the streams of builders going back and forth might add a strategic element to the game.

Quote:Original post by liquiddark
However, I'm thinking more directly - what if instead of all this building, the player simply designates an actual line of supply, which is bandwidth-throttled but not necessarily capacity-limited (although there is no reason why there couldn't simply be a more or less simple resource limit to avoid stalemates), and all units are forced to grab directly from the closest supply point. Get rid of the mine altogether, but keep the resources in the game, and moreover they become localized as is being suggested here, without increasing the level of micromanagement required.

Ergo, the player can choose to dedicate a great deal of supply to their army or to their peons, and the affected units will be able to govern themselves accordingly.

Of course, the enemy then should be able to attack the line of supply directly, but I'll leave the start of that discussion for others.

So if I understand you correctly, each 'supply point' can maintain a certain number of units at a time. Supply lines confer the ability to transfer one supply point's maintenance to another supply point. In order to keep your forces in supply, they'd need to be distributed fairly evenly around your supply points, or you need very good connectivity to be able to concentrate them.

I quite like this, as it discourages amorphous masses of units - the more concentrated your units become, the more vulnerable they are to being crippled by a single attack on a supply point on the other side of the map...

Sorry to be delayed in response, RL taking over my ability to form coherent thought lately.

Quote:Original post by Sandman
I don't quite understand what you mean by 'once the build location is optimized'. Assuming you can't stack buildings on top of one another, there's no single 'optimum' location for all of your buildings. This would definitely have an effect on expansion, although whether it's a desirable effect is another matter...

My contention is that it wouldn't have much of an effect. I look to starcraft for my evidence - once the player has played a few games, they have an optimized base location with respect to minerals and gas, and they don't deviate from it. You could easily have had much the same effect without requiring peons to do the work, although of course there are elements of depth associated with the multi-role peons in and of themselves. All the same, I would contend that their effect on strategy and tactics is extremely limited, and a simple expandable-capacity line would be similar in its effect - again, as long as the player can extend the supply in the manner they choose, and as long as the supply line is vulnerable to direct assault and/or siege.

My belief is that the cost/benefit of adding another of these high-maintenance, low-impact lines of supply wouldn't be worth it without a significant amount of supporting material, as mentioned in my original post. This is one case where synergy is only achieved when the entire focus shifts well and truly to a whole new location in the possibility space.

Quote:I don't think it would necessarily remove it, but it would force it to take a more incremental form - your base would tend to grow gradually rather than several bases springing up haphazardly across the map. The need to attack and defend the streams of builders going back and forth might add a strategic element to the game.

Or it would just add a required line of supply, which is how most RTSes actually handle the problem.

Quote:So if I understand you correctly, each 'supply point' can maintain a certain number of units at a time. Supply lines confer the ability to transfer one supply point's maintenance to another supply point. In order to keep your forces in supply, they'd need to be distributed fairly evenly around your supply points, or you need very good connectivity to be able to concentrate them.
(...)
the more concentrated your units become, the more vulnerable they are to being crippled by a single attack on a supply point on the other side of the map...

That's exactly what I mean, yes.

I'm creating something akin to a local and global resource system. I have it in the sense that goods are contained locally, must be transported to another group and then shipped off to another destination. At any link in the chain, it is vulnerable to attack. Also, I differentiate between resource types.

First off, I seperate Resources into two groups:
Raw- Naturally occurring resources that must be collected. One form of Raw goods are people themselves
Refined- Raw resources + Refineries = Refined goods. Think of this as turning oil into gas or plastic, or turning arable land into food and water systems to support the population. People (raw resource) + Training (Refinery) = Skilled Force. Skilled workforces are required to operate your armies and to maintain the infrastructure. Different units will require varying amounts and types of refined and raw resources to manufacture.

The concept of resources is pretty well understood by most players, but my Refineries probably are not. Refineries are not Manufacturing centers. Refineries produce intermediate goods which are in turn used by the Manufacturing centers to produce the end battle units. Why the multi-layered system? To introduce another vulnerability in the strategy chain. If you want to stop the supply of fuel to your opponent, you can either take out his oil wells (the raw resource) or you can take out his oil refineries. Ditto with stopping your opponent from manufacturing new things. Eliminate the refineries and the manufacturing plants don't have anything to work with and the troops won't have any ammo to fight with. Learning how to distribute your War Machine so that you don't put all your eggs in one basket is crucial.

Now, I also have a Distribution Network envision. All these raw materials, refined goods and final products need to get to one another (raw goods to refineries, refined goods to manufacturing centers, final goods to the front lines). Much like how networks work, you have an analogous component to the TCP layer (get the goods to the destination) and an IP layer (how does it know how to get there, and ensure that it does indeed get there). Being able to cut off the supply chain or otherwise interdict, harrass or otherwise screw up the logistics chain will be a beneficial strategic move.

Now, must of this stuff is abstracted out of the game and the player really simply makes some selections in a UI of the game. In my game, the scale is such that if you fought in a city, the city would take up the entire screen and then some (this is actually a serious technical problem I need to tackle...I've gotten some suggestions before on how to deal with the immense maps I'd have to use). What this means is that the distribution lines (or mediums as I call them) are selected and Transport Agent objects (a derived vehicle class) deliver the stream of goods from one place to the next. Most of this is done transparently. When you the player select that you request so many replacement units, a central Factory Manager recursively assesses what dependancies exist (what amount and types of refined goods does it need as well as what kind(s) of manufacturing centers actually build it) and calls the various class objects to do what they need to do to build these replacement forces. For example, if building a tank requires 5units of Steel, 3Units of Mechanical Engineering, and 2 Units of Skilled Crew, then calls to a Metal refinery, a Mechanical Engineering Center, and a Ground Vehicle School will be made.

But there now exists a seperate opportunity to indirectly or directly attack the manufacturing and/or supply chain to affect the availability of reinforcements, replacements or necessary goods to the front lines. So in essence there are several vulnerability points (Raw Resources -> Refineries -> Manufacturing Centers -> Distribution Hubs -> Front Lines) with each point storing its work locally within itself, and then transporting its good via the Distribution Network to the other class objects. In a way, it's sort of a fancy callback system, but you have the chance to intercept the "events" or "messages" that are occurring between the class objects.

First up, I've seen systems approaching the kind of system you desire in a game called "Alien Nations" (cutesy graphic RTS) - not only did they have to transport materials to a store, they then had to take materials from it to use for other purposes. They also had intermediate-stage goods, which were made from smaller goods and needed themselves to be made into other goods for actual use.

And yes, "Black & White", though not an RTS, required goods to be delivered to construction sites - villagers did this, but you could lend a helping-hand of god.

Also, I believe there was a game with a name like "Three Kingdoms: Fate of the Dragon", an RTS game similar with elements from the Age of Empires series, in which units outside of their own city needed a supply camp to resture their strength, which detiorated gradually outside of their home city.

Some people like fast, action-based strategy games where at most you have to collect a few resources (providing vulnerable supply lines) and don't much bother after that. I guess the rest of the carrying is done by unskilled members of society.

Still, there are some people who like in-depth, detailed systems, and I imagine they would find a game like hard to put down... I know I'd be interested in it. (I fall into both camps, depending on my mood...)

Somebody mentioned that expantion becomes a problem if supply lines are weak, but if you implemented a system in which the majority of the supply took place first, followed by a whole construction phase, you could make it harder for your enemy to find an opportunity to attack you (of course, this would depend on the skill of the player to organise). It would also be nice to be able to chop down a forest and use the wood right there, without having to take it back to a store miles away before use. I believe this is where those baskets had their uses.

What would be nice is if unguarded baskets could be stolen or destroyed by other players.

And somebody mentioned needing hammers in Settlers? Please, god, tell me he was kidding! Actually, in all honesty I see that this concept could be taken really far - the baskets, hammers, saws and the like all need to be produced (or traded for) before they can be used :) Hell, not having a basket could severely restrict a unit's carrying capacity, whilst pack-horses would be an improvement on the normal.

Hell, if you do build a more advanced system than is typically found, I imagine some people will start questioning this :p

I for one would like to see a game that went into this kind of depth. Perhaps one of the biggest enhancements I would like to see, in fact, is the inclusion of ammo limits and the necessity of resupplying. This allows more effort in seiges - both for the seiger and the beseiged. It might be possible to have ammo trucks that deliver ammo to untis near the front, which can be ambushed and destroyed or captured, leaving the alternative that units must return to base to resupply...

Some interesting ideas in this thread, definitely :)