How to simulate Sypply routes / TC correctly

Lennartos · Nov 24, 2007

This thread is for suggestions regarding the TC usage and supply system of the HOI series.

According to the suggestions this first post will be edited, and the armageddon improvement thread will be updated with the "conclusion" (best solution?) reached here.

It seems that we have found a good solution:
(i count all silent lukers as silent accepts of the idea

)

General discription:
We need logistical nodes, wich we here will call Supply Centers or SC in short.
All provinces will belong to the nearest SC,therby defining that supplycenters distribution area. (like the Area of influence from trade centers in EU2).
Like EU2/3 that area is flexible and will vary depending on the relative SCs free TC capacity.
Resources will not be send to and distributed from the capital alone, but from and to each SC.
To simulate the inportance of the infrastructure, each resource/supply movement costs TC according to distance and infrastructure.
The general TC linked to IC will be removed and replaced by a system of buildable and assignable(to SCs) TCs.

Each SC has its own TC burden. It will distribute and collect to and from all provinces in its assigned area, and freight resources to other SCs. SCs capabilitys can be improved by upgrading the SC level or improving infrastructure.

Supply centers also limit the stockpile allowed.

Picture of germany with 4 SCs:

gameplay and rules:

Max SC size and max infrastructure level buildable is limited by techlevel.
When occupying an SC it will downgrade permanently.

Trade: trade will go through the SC/convoy system just as every other resource. A new diplomatic option will be added: "Trade agreement", where a cost / TC value can be agreed upon. This allows transporting through neutral land.

The transition from steam/oil based will be made posible with a slider(?).
A steam based infrastructure will use energy(coal) as primary TC cost source.
A Oil based infrastructure will have added oil cost, but have a much lower TC usage cost in low infra provinces.

Gameplay Actions:
Strategic Layer(things that the player should do)
Production of SCs and TCs.
Placing of SCs

Planning Layer(optional automatation)
Prioritys of SCs
Should SC build up the supplies/oil storage?(if yes maybe a desired value)
Should supplies and oil be prioritized over resources?
Should this SC be shut down and/or dismantled?
Should i make a shortcut with convoys over water?
Assigning of TCs to SCs*
Specifying which SC-to-SC routes are valid/possible for each commodity*

Execution Layer (things that should be automated)
From where should i take my demand?
Where should i send surplus?
How much should be send from A->B and B->C?
Assigning of TCs to SCs*
Specifying which SC-to-SC routes are valid/possible for each commodity*
Specifying in which direction goods should flow along these routes
Specifying what order of priority should the different routes have

* = Can be both places depending on implementation

current example topics:
How to model the transition of steam / oil based infrastructure.
How to make optimal routing mechinisms?
How do we balancing the game?

Lennartos · Nov 29, 2007

I think the key here, as with real life supply chains, is to calculate the correct target stock and have a single route taking flow in both directions. Basically, you call one direction 'positive' and the other 'negative' and calculate the flow (for each material) once for each two-way route. That prevents 'round robin' routes nicely.

hmm... i dont think this is as easy in a multidirectional routing system...
Its quite late, and i dont really see it in my head, but i think if we allow routing through the entire network each day, we can avoid the round robin problem.

and here is another little problem:
A-B-C-D
B and D needs X
A and D deliver X
B is calculated first... closest is C, so B takes C's X.
next is D.. C is now empty, so nearest is A...
now that was not optimal....

How is that done right?

Well, if the maximum nubmer of effective TCs is unlimited there is no real point, but if it is limited (and I still think it should be) then yes, transferring TCs should take time - like redeployment.

TC should be limited,yes!
but lets make it simple by saying max TC = SC size, or something like that... the maximum amount of resources tranported is a factor of TC assigned and their effectivity... if 10 trains share a single track bridge 50% of their time is just used waiting for their turn

....

hmmm... maybe the route value should also incorporate TCs assigned?
... nah now its getting a little too complicated i thinkkk... going to sleep....

Balesir · Nov 30, 2007

Lennartos said:
hmm... i dont think this is as easy in a multidirectional routing system...
Its quite late, and i dont really see it in my head, but i think if we allow routing through the entire network each day, we can avoid the round robin problem.

It's quite possible, yes - although it will not be very efficient - but then, they weren't in practice, either!

and here is another little problem:
A-B-C-D
B and D needs X
A and D deliver X
B is calculated first... closest is C, so B takes C's X.
next is D.. C is now empty, so nearest is A...
now that was not optimal....
How is that done right?

The driving force for movement is not distance but stock relative to target, if we are talking about routes between SCs. Stock is measured after production but before demand; i.e. you compute production first, then compare stocks and enact transfers, then take demand. With 'A' on the end there making X it will tend to have decent stock, so B will get X from there. D will make its own, but when/if it gets lots of stock it may send some to C - even though C will have a very low target since it needs none. Only rarely would C supply B - and if it was a problem for a manual planner you could just set C to neither accept nor send X...

TC should be limited,yes!
but lets make it simple by saying max TC = SC size, or something like that... the maximum amount of resources tranported is a factor of TC assigned and their effectivity... if 10 trains share a single track bridge 50% of their time is just used waiting for their turn ....

Exactly - the rate of supply down that track is limited to as many trains in both directions as will fit down the track - no matter how many trains there are. A single train operating the same route would not need to wait at all!

Lennartos · Nov 30, 2007

Exactly - the rate of supply down that track is limited to as many trains in both directions as will fit down the track - no matter how many trains there are. A single train operating the same route would not need to wait at all!

But this problem only appears in sudden single track situations...
And even in that situation where many trains have to wait for a single track bride, if there only was only 1 train, it would be idle 99% of the time. wasting capacity.

hmm..
ok, then lets add a stack penality to the calculation based on avg infra.
40% infra = 10% stack penality (per train above 1 per 100km) divided by track length(basic single track operation)
50% = 7,5%
60% = 5% (dual track most of the time)
70% = 2,5%
80% = 0% (dual track over all... including bridges)
90 and 100% are just to add speed to the trains.(reducing amount of trains used).

but i still think this may be too much here... Its getting pretty complicated...
The limiting factor would propably still be load/unload/storage rather than getting more trains from from A->B.

so if we want that we should at least have 3 TC rules settings:
simple(old)
normal(with SCs, and resource usage)
advanced(with stack penality)

By D-Day the Germans had 1.5 million railway workers operating 988,000 freight cars per day

thats a lot....

Lennartos · Dec 3, 2007

Still thinking about the stacking penality for trains...

By implementing stacking penality one might improve the TC simulation a little further.
But as i said before the calculation is getting quite complicated...

First, how would that be implemented?...
As there are no definite railways defined, only supply centers (destinations).
The route is NOT absolute.(each province is a possible route)
So the limit must be province based, not route based.
Then, if the limit is reached on one province, it should use the next province beside it to route.( a bridge is filled)
Lets say we route from essen to berlin... and erfurt&schwinfurt are 40% infra province(rest 100%)
The limit in erfurt is reached, now we switch to schweinfurt.
The game has now reduce the effect of the stacking penality to a minimal, even if fully utilized.
That would always be true, unless there is only one 40% route.(in wich case no further routing can be done).

What is the meaning of implementing a stacking penality?
1) limit the amount of resources going from a->b depending on infra
2) make infrastructure a vital part of the game.

These two requirements are already fulfilled by the SC + dynamic routing.
To calculate the routing multiple times each day, just to simulate one provinces limit is again waste, so to implement the stacking penality we would need to abandon the tracing altogether and make it a general calculation, for the entire region->region transport.
Resulting in pretty much the same output as before.

conclusion:
While stacking penality is a good idea, it is too fine-scale to be implemented in this system as there are no railwais, or permanent routes.
implementing it in a "fluid" supply tracing does not make any sense as the tracing will always try to calcel the effect out.
Resulting in a lot of calculation for very little gain.

unmerged(85765) · Dec 4, 2007

Just some input:
For trains, have different car lenghts upgradeable by tech-
For example:
1 car equals 1 supply object.
So in 1936 Ger would start out with a 10 car train
1939-20 car train
and so on. It would just meen that researching more pwerful trains would matter.
10 car train would include a locomotive and the ten cars.
So a ten car train would cost something like 1 IC and 0.5 manpower because of the need for maintainers.
A 20 car train would cost 2 IC and 1 manpower.
And so on.
Does anyone think that could be a idea or too much micromangaement?
I was thinking along the lines of a convoy pool. But instead being a train pool.

David

unmerged(78917) · Dec 4, 2007

Guys,

This discussion is going great. This is a subject near and dear to my heart as Balesir will attest. There are two questions I'm thinking of that might cause some changes in what has been discussed.

First: What about a landlocked nation (like Luxembourg) trying to sell resources? They have an abundance of metal but none of their neighboring nations really need the metal so they would like to trade their metal to Japan (which is giving them better terms). How do the supply centers link up to do the trade when there is no direct path?

Second: The size of the supply centers will put a limit on resource stockpiling, we agreed on that. But how are you thinking of the mechanics of this? One of the stratigic reasons to build more SC is to allow yourself a greater stockpiling ability. Also your discussions about spreading resources seems to assume there is allways enough to go around, what happens when the need is greater then the income? How would a shortage of rares get spread out in your SC network?

I don't mean to throw wrenches, because I truely would like to see this type of system as part of any future HOI game. Keep it going and I'll try to add my two cents.

Lennartos · Dec 4, 2007

Tarawa565 said:
Just some input:
For trains, have different car lenghts upgradeable by tech-
For example:
1 car equals 1 supply object.
So in 1936 Ger would start out with a 10 car train
1939-20 car train
and so on. It would just meen that researching more pwerful trains would matter.
10 car train would include a locomotive and the ten cars.
So a ten car train would cost something like 1 IC and 0.5 manpower because of the need for maintainers.
A 20 car train would cost 2 IC and 1 manpower.
And so on.
Does anyone think that could be a idea or too much micromangaement?
I was thinking along the lines of a convoy pool. But instead being a train pool.

David

Yes there should be a train pool of some sort...
while having a pool of individual trains(each with individual TC cpacity), would be possible, but not very user friendly as there will be thousands

...
So it would propably be more like 1 train = 10 TC, and only having one value for steam trains.

Researching better trains could increase the train->TC factor.(I would like a system that requires you to pay upgrade IC cost)

Steam and oil(diesel) should be totally seperated, because they work totally different. Steam engines are very poor in low infra provinces (they are allergic to steep slopes and so forth), while diesel is more effective in all disciplines.(while using precius oil)

How that switch is done is still pretty unclear...
there has been a idea of implementing it like a slider for steam /oil usage.. but that still doesnt suit me quite right.
I would rather have a counter for each: Steam train/Diesel Train/Convoys

Lennartos · Dec 4, 2007

TonRich said:
Guys,

This discussion is going great. This is a subject near and dear to my heart as Balesir will attest. There are two questions I'm thinking of that might cause some changes in what has been discussed.

First: What about a landlocked nation (like Luxembourg) trying to sell resources? They have an abundance of metal but none of their neighboring nations really need the metal so they would like to trade their metal to Japan (which is giving them better terms). How do the supply centers link up to do the trade when there is no direct path?

Second: The size of the supply centers will put a limit on resource stockpiling, we agreed on that. But how are you thinking of the mechanics of this? One of the stratigic reasons to build more SC is to allow yourself a greater stockpiling ability. Also your discussions about spreading resources seems to assume there is allways enough to go around, what happens when the need is greater then the income? How would a shortage of rares get spread out in your SC network?

I don't mean to throw wrenches, because I truely would like to see this type of system as part of any future HOI game. Keep it going and I'll try to add my two cents.

1) very interesting subject... as actually we havent covered trade yet.
a) Luxemburg would need to have a trade agreement to trace through for example france (or make it the other way around where you can embargo a nation.)
b) As luxemburg is using frances SCs and trains.. should they have to pay for the service?
c) Who should supply luxemburg the convoys... japan or france? And if france (as luxemborg was asking) should they pay again?
d) what should payment be? $??

2) On the max stock subject:
a) One rule could be that each level of SC will give you 1K of each resource in stock capacity.
b) when demand is settled ( first pass) excess resources can be distributed with excess TC to the low resources SCs
c) if a reource is getting sparse that propably means that the travel distance increases as it emptys SCs further and further away, until all resources are emptyd.

unmerged(85765) · Dec 5, 2007

Maybe have the trains just be upgradadeable throught the standard upgrade slider. What about maintaining costs. For steam engines what would coal be most like? Diesel engines should use up oil at a good rate but also pay higher dividends.
David

Lennartos · Dec 5, 2007

Tarawa565 said:
Maybe have the trains just be upgradadeable throught the standard upgrade slider. What about maintaining costs. For steam engines what would coal be most like? Diesel engines should use up oil at a good rate but also pay higher dividends.
David

How would you know how many lv1 or 2 or 3 steam trains you have?
was there really that much development giong on steam trains for that matter?... and by development i dont mean adding a bigger boiler...

i have been trying to read up, and it seems that maintenance is a great factor between oil and steam. read: manpower usage per train.
Steam trains:
10 base TC each
0.1 Energy per used TC
900 IC Days
1MP
Diesel-electric trains:
15 base TC
0.25 energy per TC + 0.05Oil
800 IC Days
0.5 MP

Research will upgrade base TC by a small amount and maybe decrease oil/coal usage. (availible after research)
how is that for an example?

unmerged(85765) · Dec 5, 2007

For trains I was thinking:
1936 Steam-10 TC
1939 Steam-20 TC
1941 Steam-25 TC=Diesel Tech=1942 Diesel-30 TC
1943 Steam-30 TC ------ 1943 Diesel-40 TC
1945 Steam-40 TC ------ 1945 Diesel-50 TC
----------------------- 1947 Diesel-60 TC
--------------------------- 1951 Diesel-70 TC=Electric Tech=1951 Elect

Researching the electric tech would allow for maybe a 5% increase in TC or lower maintance costs?
I think there should be a whole new Supply and TC Research Menu.
Any suggestions?
I was also thinking of a new resource "coal"
'36 Steam would require only 0.1 coal with each level of steam progressing 0.1
'42 Diesel would require 1 energy and one oil per day with every other level progressing 0.1 each.
Electric tech would have -0.5 energy and 0.2 oil per day/train.
I think this might be too much focusing on trains, If it is the idae mentioned above sounds fine too. By development, increasing effiencey and figuring out how to maximize the load carrier/trip.
David

unmerged(85765) · Dec 5, 2007

The above listings need way higher maintaining costs.
David

unmerged(78917) · Dec 6, 2007

Tarawa565, I think you’re getting too specific in what the TC is about. My impression of what Balesir was describing was Land TC and ocean TC. The game today deals with ocean TC as you can build convoy ships, however it doesn't deal with land TC very well. I view Land TC as whatever method works in a given province. It can be trains, trucks, barge, horses or sled dogs, they're all methods to move material from point A to point B. You're focusing on trains but in the Amazon River basin barges would be much more efficient as well as cheaper. I just think you're getting to narrow in your thoughts on land based TC.

I agree that the land based TC should have two parts, the infrastructure of the province and also the manufactured TC land unit. The infrastructure of the province will determine how effective the TC unit operates (speed) and how costly (fuel usage) it is to move the material. The TC unit itself will determine how much it can carry per unit. Based on these criteria there may be raw materials in places that is too costly to transport to your factories. In that case you need to improve the infrastructure in that province in order to get the material. This would put a whole new strategic level of use for improving infra.

I like your idea of having a tech based research that improves your TC capacity. I think that's needed as many countries spent much on improving their infrastructure.

Lennartos · Dec 9, 2007

TonRich said:
Tarawa565, I think you’re getting too specific in what the TC is about. My impression of what Balesir was describing was Land TC and ocean TC. The game today deals with ocean TC as you can build convoy ships, however it doesn't deal with land TC very well. I view Land TC as whatever method works in a given province. It can be trains, trucks, barge, horses or sled dogs, they're all methods to move material from point A to point B. You're focusing on trains but in the Amazon River basin barges would be much more efficient as well as cheaper. I just think you're getting to narrow in your thoughts on land based TC.

I agree that the land based TC should have two parts, the infrastructure of the province and also the manufactured TC land unit. The infrastructure of the province will determine how effective the TC unit operates (speed) and how costly (fuel usage) it is to move the material. The TC unit itself will determine how much it can carry per unit. Based on these criteria there may be raw materials in places that is too costly to transport to your factories. In that case you need to improve the infrastructure in that province in order to get the material. This would put a whole new strategic level of use for improving infra.

I like your idea of having a tech based research that improves your TC capacity. I think that's needed as many countries spent much on improving their infrastructure.

quite correct... we should have a land and a sea TC.
sea TC would be convoys
land TC would be trains (or some other form of TC unit?)
however.. trains != trains.
there is a great strategic difference between dieselelectric and steam... enough, i think, to warrant a simulation of the difference... whether that only is a slider/research or a 3rd buildable TC unit, no one apparently dares to answer

but apart from that.. im quite interested in hearing thoughts of how that will affect trade?
please everyone look at post #28 (aswer to TonRichs post), and give me your thoughts about trade.

Lennartos · Dec 9, 2007

I am also beginning to think that the SCs capacity should be further discussed.

while answering the last post i thought of the low infra provinces, where no railroads exist.
maybe trains should be a SC to SC feature, and SC capacity a simulation of how much of the resources can be distributed to the provinces "attached".
If a level 1 SC has 100TC capacity, it can collect/distribute 100TC worth of resources from the attached provinces.(cost of transport increases with distance and infra)
so bombing a SC, will decrease the amount collectable/distributable, resulting in shortages.. a resource not collected cannot be transported by train to other SCs, and SCs recieving resources cannot distribute to the provinces that are needy.
So trains are not used to simulate transport to each and every province, but just used for SC to SC transport.
Trains are now the same as convoys used to transport from one stock to another...

again... its getting late... any comments?

Balesir · Dec 10, 2007

Sorry to be only semi-engaged - I'm very busy at work...

First point is I think land TCs are not just trains - they represent a mixture of 'appropriate technologies' that most assuredly are mostly trains in several places but we can abstract things to just 'TCs'.

For international trade, as I have said elsewhere, I think trades should have a route specifed between SCs of the two trade partners. Who provides the shipping (which might be either land or sea TCs) would be part of the agreement, but the default would be the trade proposer. This route would be vulnerable to intediction/raiding/etc. just as any other, but hitting neutral nations' shipping might cause 'issues'!

On the other hand, supplying a nation at war with your own ships might gain Belligerence (slowly)...

Thirdly, I definitely see the TCs used to move materials from resource sources to SCs and between SCs and ICs as the same as those used for 'land convoys'. This is just the way logistics works. TCs could be assigned either to routes or to SCs. Those assigned to routes determine the flow between SCs and count toward the TC limit of the SCs at both ends. TCs assigned to the SC itself determine the efficiency of the resource supplies and ICs attached to the SC; the total TCs attached to the SC and in connected routes is subject to a cap dependent on the SC size.

On the train technology thing I still think a slider for 'Energy using <--> Oil using TCs' with technologies that boost the ends of the continuum. So, one end of the slider might be 'use 100% energy' while the other is 'use 100% oil' but how much oil or energy is '100%' depends on research techs. Likewise for the costs of TCs and Infra, which would both be affected by the slider and by techs for logistics/transport.

All IMO, obviously.

unmerged(78917) · Dec 11, 2007

Ok, I’m trying to think all these things through and connect them. I’m not trying to be condescending or anything I’m just trying to organize my thoughts, so please don’t take offense. Maybe we could sort of work off this as a template.

We have;

• Infrastructure
• Transportation Units or TC’s
• Supply Centers or SC’s
• Industrial Centers or IC’s

1. The Infrastructure determines what type of TC unit is used and the efficiency of that unit. Infra can be improved (constructed) by initiating improvement through the use of IC’s (this is in the game already). The base question of Infra is “what is in the province that allows the transport of things”. Lack of Infra will limit the things that can happen in that province.

So a chart would look like this;

• At 0% to 20% this is basically horse and mule paths. No rivers or roads that can be used effectively to move material. (Fuel use = 1) Will only support level 1 TC.

• At 30% to 40% there are roads for carts, trucks or small rivers that allow for more bulk movement of things. (Fuel use = .5) Will support level 1 and 2 TC.

• At 50% to 60% there are decent roads and railroads or major rivers allowing large bulk shipments of things. At this point the province is capable of supporting SC’s and/or IC’s. (Fuel use = .25) Will support level 1 and 2 TC.

• At 70% to 80% there is a network of roads and railroads or major rivers allowing sustained shipments of things in the province as well as things passing through the province. (Fuel use = .1) Will support level 1, 2 and 3 TC.

• At 90% to 100% the province has everything needed to move material at peak efficiency. SC’s and IC’s can also operate at peak efficiency. (Fuel use = .05) Will support level 1, 2 and 3 TC.

2. Transportation Units are next. There are convoys for ocean (same as in game) and Land TC units. I propose that the land TC’s mirror the ocean TC’s in relation to cost and time from a production standpoint. The levels would be addressed through technology upgrades like Tarawa565 suggested.

• At level 1 you have horses, small steam trains and small to mid size ocean ships available. (1 TC can move 3 units 1 province) (Fuel use = 1.2)

• At level 2 you have motorized transport, medium steam trains and mid to large size ocean ships available. (1 TC can move 7 units 1 province) (Fuel use = 1.25)

• At level 3 you have larger more efficient motorized transport, large steam or diesel trains and large to super size ocean ships available. (1 TC can move 20 units 1 province) (Fuel use = 1.33)

The fuel/energy used to operate the TC unit would be a formula based on the province terrain, the infra level in that terrain and the TC unit type that is used. (I still haven't worked out how to toggle between energy and oil) So here is my thought of what this might look like:

***One note: I had to assign a value to each province terrain type so Plains and Urban = 1, Hills and Forest = 2, Mud and Swamp = 3 and Mountain = 4.

If we are moving material in a plains province with an 80% Infra using a level 2 TC the formula would be this (((1 x Infra) x Province type) x TC use) or (((1 x .1) x 1) x1.25) = 0.125

{So if you had 8 TC’s moving material through this one province for 56 units (level 2 = 7 units per TC) it would cost you 1 unit of energy.}

If we were trying to move material in a mountain province with 20% Infra using a level 1 TC the formula would be: (((1 x Infra) x Province type) x TC use) or (((1 x 1) x 4) x1.2) = 4.8.

So by trying to move material in a mountain province with basically no Infra it would cost you more then what you’re trying to move. Now in a supply situation you might be willing to do this, but if you’re pulling metal out of a mountain and it costs you 4.8 energy to get the 3 metal it’s not very cost effective, so I don’t think you would do it. It forces you to improve your Infra in your resource areas.

3. Supply Centers are the accumulation centers of the logistics network. They can be ordered and built like shipyards or airfields. My preference would be 10 IC at 5 months for cost/time. They must have an Infra level of 50% or better in the province. If the Infra drops below 50% they will stop functioning so they must be protected.

• At Level 1 they have the ability to store 2,000 of each raw material and 5,000 supplies. They are protected by a 3 level of AA and a ground defense of 15. (Minimum of 50% Infra)

• At Level 2 they have the ability to store 5,000 of each raw material and 10,000 supplies. They are protected by a 6 level AA and a ground defense of 25. (Minimum of 70% Infra)

• At level 3 they have huge capacity reserves, 10,000 of each raw material, 25,000 supplies. They are well protected with a 10 AA and a ground defense of 40. (Minimum of 80% Infra)
(The ground defense I equated to a HQ unit)

4. Industrial Centers are manufacturing industries that both receive and ship out product. They must have a minimum of 50% Infra to operate.

I hope this is a good start and we can sort of add on or change around our thoughts. I didn’t get into trading yet because I wanted to define how the system would work first. We can tackle the “other” things after we sort of put the basics in place.

Lennartos · Dec 12, 2007

Nice to see that the discussion moves on

This almost requires a poll:

SC includes own TC pool, containing trucks, horse carts and boats to supply provinces.
So as global TC is not used to province supply it becomes:
TC = big haulers of material from SC to SC.. trains and trucks.Divided in steam/oil TC.
Pros:
Consistent TC usage.
SCs TC cannot be used elsewhere if SC is bombed.
Cons:
inflexible TC usage(TC is locked on SCs, even if they are not used anymore)

SC only a dropoff point, global TC is used for everything.
So TC = abstract unit... includes horse carts and boats
Pros:
flexible TC usage( it is used where it is nedded)
Cons:
TC usage fluctuates wildly depending on a lot of factors. ( if you are bombed in africa, you lack TCs for barbarossa).

Of course there can be a "middle ground"...
SCs only a dropoff point, with attached global TCs.
TCs can be assigned to SCs to increase SCs TC.
(it takes a week for changes to take effect)
discussion point:
should global still be used SC to SC transport, or should SCs TC handle everything(global TC = surplus)?
Pros:
flexible TC usage( it is used where it is nedded)
Consistent TC usage, as TC is assigned to SCs.
Cons:
a little more manegment required, as TC needs to be attached to new SCs and so forth.

@Tonrich:
3 points struck me immediatly:
1) Where is the limit on TC usage? you only have a cost usage... but unlimited amount of TC can be assigned anywhere on the network.
One of the things needed to simulate is that there is a limited amount of resources that can be transported from A->B depending on infrastructure and SCs...
2)

• At 0% to 20% this is basically horse and mule paths. No rivers or roads that can be used effectively to move material. (Fuel use = 1) Will only support level 1 TC.

If we were trying to move material in a mountain province with 20% Infra using a level 1 TC the formula would be: (((1 x Infra) x Province type) x TC use) or (((1 x 1) x 4) x1.2) = 4.8.

:rofl:
i can see it vividly:
former train driver with steel transport caravan almost on top of mountain, talking to himself:
"brrr...damn its cold...
i just dont know what i did wrong..
i have already used more than half our assigned coal reserve,but no matter how much coal i throw into this mules mouth,it just wont budge anymore!...
the least thing it could do was to swallow it itself...brrr..."
3) SCs are a province structure, not a division.. therefore they dont have any Air attack or ground defence or strength.

Other than that we are all pretty much agree on that moving resources should cost TC, but before we go too much into TC calculation lets all agree on one basic system.

Balesir · Dec 12, 2007

Hi, TonRich:

Land TCs are like convoys, I think, and as such should not have 'versions' and so on. Just keep them as abstract collections of various transport assets (with an emphasis on rail for this period). Several Siberian provinces, after all, have quite low Infra but still have the trans-Siberian railway...

This means that Infrastructure need not affect the types of TC usable - although it might influence the quantity, forcing some routes to use parallel provinces and making them more vulnerable to attack (or even limiting total capacity where natural bottlenecks exist).

Energy or fuel usage - you have the right general idea, but I think it would be easier to say TCs cost so much per day to run, and then have the effective distances (and therefore the capacity of the routes) affected by Infra etc.

Having terrain affect the effective distance was my first thought, also, but Lennartos has what I think is a better idea, which is to have the effective distances affected only by province size and Infrastructure, but have Infrastructure build cost be affected by terrain. This means that supplies run as well through 100% Infra mountains as they do through 100% Infra plains - but getting to 100% Infra mountains will cost the earth and take most of the game timeline to achieve! "Just one more mountain to flatten, sir, and I think we're done. If you could sign, please, for these last few thousand shipments of TNT..."

Supply Centres should not take long to set up; they will be needed to support long-term advances and they are really only a pile of equipment and some organisation at their most basic level , anyway. Think how quickly supply dumps were established after the D-Day landings! Increasing level should not be linear, however...

Supply centres should not include integral stuff like AA - if you want your SCs protected, well, you'll have to build stuff to protect them (or station troops there)!

Lennartos:

I am firmly with having both Land and Sea TCs 'posted' to SCs or to convoy routes. This gives good flexibility and allows the 'too flexible' issue to be dealt with by saying TCs move between SCs using strategic redeployment, the same as land and air units do. Just have them use up zero TCs for land movement (or for sea movement if sea TCs, which should be incapable of land redeployment!). TCs taken out of convoy routes just appear instantly at the SCs at each end of the route and may be Strat.Redeployed from there.

Oh, and bombing SCs and provinces that convoy routes pass through should do damage to both TCs (whether land or sea) and the goods they are carrying, including any units Strat.Redeploying on the route at the time.

Lennartos · Dec 12, 2007

Balesir said:
I am firmly with having both Land and Sea TCs 'posted' to SCs or to convoy routes. This gives good flexibility and allows the 'too flexible' issue to be dealt with...

im also for the assign TC method...
posters not commented on selection:
Tarawa565
TonRich

Balesir said:
...TCs move between SCs using strategic redeployment, the same as land and air units do. ... TCs taken out of convoy routes just appear instantly at the SCs at each end of the route and may be Strat.Redeployed from there...

hum?
you want them simulated as real units???
i can see the value of using the time by strategic redeployment.... but ... but.... noooo.....

im for the glabal TC = surplus TC value.
when you remove TC from a SC, it will take a week for it to return to the global TC counter. When you assign it will take a week to work.
its ok if they are stuck in the deployment window... but i would rather have a global counter rather than having 200+ extra units to take care of

Balesir said:
Oh, and bombing SCs and provinces that convoy routes pass through should do damage to both TCs (whether land or sea) and the goods they are carrying...

Thats a given

Balesir said:
...including any units Strat.Redeploying on the route at the time.

that is a entirely different matter, that has been adressed in the grand thread.(strat deploying units should not become immaterial..)

How to simulate Sypply routes / TC correctly

BL-Logic

BL-Logic

AoD's Old Geezer

BL-Logic

BL-Logic

Sergeant

First Lieutenant

BL-Logic

BL-Logic

Sergeant

BL-Logic

Sergeant

Sergeant

First Lieutenant

BL-Logic

BL-Logic

AoD's Old Geezer

First Lieutenant

BL-Logic

AoD's Old Geezer

BL-Logic