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?

Balesir · Jan 8, 2008

GoldenPanda said:
should we rename TC's to "land convoys"? Yes the routes should be attackable over both land and sea.

I don't see why we need to - land supply does not run in convoys, and 'Transport Capacity' is a good name for something that includes trains, trucks, mules, carts, elephants... Maybe 'Transport Units (TUs) instead, if it's confusing you?

GoldenPanda said:
I started with wanting to have player built SC's too. But we need to prevent the player from somehow building "too many" of them, making it unmanageable and unfun. My impression from the first post was the SC's would come fixed in the game, with the exception of "artificial harbor" units which degrade and die after some time. I think that could actually make it a more elegant mechanism. Remember the game needs prepositioned SC's ANYWAY to keep the starting armies supplied.

If you can't build them yourself, how can you build up for an offensive? How can you allow for the direction of advance if the SC is fixed inside the region? Doing this just removes an interesting and important decision and forces the 'organic supply' (i.e. the transport unit(s) attached to each division that handles supply from the last SC to the unit itself) to have a longer - unrealistically long IMO - range.

I don't really see the problem with having a large number of SCs, subject to a few 'rules':

Any route that passes through an SC's province must connect to it - so you can't have a 'cat's cradle' of muddled routes criss-crossing over SCs.
It should be possible to 'close down' SCs in return for a boost - in supplies at connected SCs, maybe? - to represent the recovery of assets.

Too many SCs will just result in supplies and oil being stocked all over the place with no need, so the best approach is to 'keep it simple and straightforward' (KISS).

GoldenPanda said:
Can you say again why two target stocks are needed? I think it works with just one:

will always ship any available supply to units

OK - this is first priority, I agree, but add 'or ICs' for resource supply.

GoldenPanda said:
will never ship to another SC if below target stock

So if a key feeder SC drops below target it will just stop feeding front-line SCs? I don't think so.

GoldenPanda said:
will always ask for shipments from other SC's if below target stock

Here is the bind. If your target stock includes accounting for indirect demand (from other SCs), then feeder SCs will hold on to stock instead of feeding it forward. But if your target stock does not account for indirect demand (i.e. is based on direct demand from units and ICs only), then the feeder SC will have zero target stock and so will not ask for any supply to itself - meanwhile telling the fron-line SCs it has nothing to give them!

To automate supply reasonably, you need to tie target stocks to demand. Imagine you have a big 'feeder' SC supplying a few smaller ones at the front line. Now, demand on that feeder is going to be higher than on the final, front-line SCs - it will be the sum of all of them, in fact, but it will be 'indirect' demand. If you have just one target stock, it means that the feeder SC will have a high target relative to the front-line SCs, which means all stock will be held at the feeder, not passed on to the front. If front usage is heavy and supply is limited, it may even result in supplies being drawn back from the front to the feeder SC!!

Having two targets fixes this. Relative to the original supply sources, the feeder SC has a high target stock based on the indirect demand it needs to fulfil. Relative to the front SCs, however, the target comparison is judged on direct demand so that the flow is to the front.

The logic is (a) compare target stock % based on direct demand to get direction of flow, if this gives no clear answer then (b) compare on indirect demand plus direct demand, subject to the minimum target stock (10% full?) or the full SC capacity if set to 'fill', or zero if set to 'empty', and if still no answer (c) set flow at zero. The share of the capacity of the route used for each commodity is then based on relative levels compared to the second target stock (i.e. in ratio to target stock in units divided by percent of target stock held subject to minimum 1%).

This sort of scheme - which develops 'naturally' in a crude form if people through the system are just reacting to local circumstances - ensures that goods flow toward the places they are needed, that direct demand (i.e. actual end use) gets priority and that any excess supply is distributed around the system reasonably 'fairly'. It is handled automatically by the computer and so needs no micromanagement by the player. The scheme is based loosely on how modern supply chain planning software works - I used to do supply chain planning as a job

.

GoldenPanda said:
I don't particularly see anything wrong with setting every SC on high targets. Perhap maximum target should be 80% of maximum capacity so there is room for accumulating supplies and transporting them away.

True, 'full' should perhaps be a target of 80% of capacity to allow for movements. The problem with setting everything at 'fill' is that supplies just get pulled around between SCs without getting to where they are actually needed. This isn't just a game artefact - it's a real-life problem, usually caused by inexperienced supply managers...

unmerged(7970) · Jan 9, 2008

Balesir said:
I don't see why we need to - land supply does not run in convoys, and 'Transport Capacity' is a good name for something that includes trains, trucks, mules, carts, elephants... Maybe 'Transport Units (TUs) instead, if it's confusing you?

I'd really look to unify the sea and land system. I think when they shipped over the burma road they actually called it "convoys". you could call trains convoys of freight cars too

If you can't build them yourself, how can you build up for an offensive? How can you allow for the direction of advance if the SC is fixed inside the region? Doing this just removes an interesting and important decision and forces the 'organic supply' (i.e. the transport unit(s) attached to each division that handles supply from the last SC to the unit itself) to have a longer - unrealistically long IMO - range.

There would be enough prepositioned SC's around that you could focus on the ones nearest to your front. Build up means upping their level and/or target stocks.

Too many SCs will just result in supplies and oil being stocked all over the place with no need, so the best approach is to 'keep it simple and straightforward' (KISS).

It will have to depend on how the rest of the supply system is implemented, but I can think of many perversive incentives to add to density of SC's. For example it can shorten the back and forward trip between IC, SC, and units.

So if a key feeder SC drops below target it will just stop feeding front-line SCs? I don't think so.
...
Here is the bind. If your target stock includes accounting for indirect demand (from other SCs), then feeder SCs will hold on to stock instead of feeding it forward. But if your target stock does not account for indirect demand (i.e. is based on direct demand from units and ICs only), then the feeder SC will have zero target stock and so will not ask for any supply to itself - meanwhile telling the fron-line SCs it has nothing to give them!

I had to read several times to understand what you mean by feeders. I think it's taking too much from real life example where we need a distribution center to sort and collate numerous categories of goods and forward them. In HOI there's no real need for this. What's wrong with having the SC's that collected the supplies/resources forward them directly to the destination SC where they will be used?

Doing this could result in SC's which you've invested in heavily to sit unused as the front moves forward. But I think it's an acceptable situation. Your convoy units will move with the front, but the SC investment will stay where they are. You can't move a warehouse after all.

Perhaps units can search outside their regional SC if it's unable to meet demand?

True, 'full' should perhaps be a target of 80% of capacity to allow for movements. The problem with setting everything at 'fill' is that supplies just get pulled around between SCs without getting to where they are actually needed. This isn't just a game artefact - it's a real-life problem, usually caused by inexperienced supply managers...

An SC is in one of two states

above target stock. will only send to, not receive from other SC's
below target stock. will only receive from, not send to other SC's

We may need to leave a +-10% margin around the target value to prevent boundary cases where one SC going above target causes the sender to go below target, and vice versa the next cycle. However this will be a rare, unstable situation since supplies are being dynamically produced and consumed.

We really need to put the proposals side by side and spell out their exact mechanisms along with the side effects.

Balesir · Jan 9, 2008

GoldenPanda said:
I'd really look to unify the sea and land system. I think when they shipped over the burma road they actually called it "convoys". you could call trains convoys of freight cars too

Well, okay - how about 'truck convoys' or 'train convoys' - which I'll just abbreviate as 'TCs'?

GoldenPanda said:
There would be enough prepositioned SC's around that you could focus on the ones nearest to your front. Build up means upping their level and/or target stocks.

Getting SCs with a spacing of one every 2-3 provinces is gonna be a lot of SCs! I still think the positioning of SCs is too important a thing to leave to a standard setup (or the AI, but that option is needed for AI nations and is available for those who don't want to worry about supply).

GoldenPanda said:
It will have to depend on how the rest of the supply system is implemented, but I can think of many perversive incentives to add to density of SC's. For example it can shorten the back and forward trip between IC, SC, and units.

Absolutely - it is the tension between the desire to have loads of SCs and the need to keep things simple that provides the scope for thoughtful and clever positioning.

GoldenPanda said:
I had to read several times to understand what you mean by feeders. I think it's taking too much from real life example where we need a distribution center to sort and collate numerous categories of goods and forward them. In HOI there's no real need for this. What's wrong with having the SC's that collected the supplies/resources forward them directly to the destination SC where they will be used?

There will always be some feeders. The allies supplying Europe after D-Day, for example, need to transship to sea convoys and land at a port SC in Normandy before shipping to the front. You might get the landing port kept up with the front-line, but inland troops will still need a further SC fed by the port-SC feeder...

Even within a continent it might be that you want a single route up to close behind the front-line so that you can protect it better and manage it more easily - then split the supply route from there to two or three, small front-line SCs.

GoldenPanda said:
Doing this could result in SC's which you've invested in heavily to sit unused as the front moves forward. But I think it's an acceptable situation. Your convoy units will move with the front, but the SC investment will stay where they are. You can't move a warehouse after all.

Low level SCs are (or should be) cheap. They are basically a field and a logistics detatchment with some goods-handling gear.

High level SCs are a different kettle of fish, being warehouses, lifting gear, repacking sheds, vehicle maintenance shops, rail sidings, fuel tanks, etc., etc. You won't want to build too many high level SCs, but low level ones will spring up wherever there's fighting...

GoldenPanda said:
Perhaps units can search outside their regional SC if it's unable to meet demand?

This would be desirable, but might be tricky to code. Just 'use closest' has the benefit of simplicity, and in wartime conditions casting around for a backup would take time, in any case. Supply officers in WWII didn't have real-time networked updates on how much stock was where!

GoldenPanda said:
An SC is in one of two states

above target stock. will only send to, not receive from other SC's

below target stock. will only receive from, not send to other SC's

So, a feeder (port of ingress, or whatever) will not import anything unless it is below its target stock, but will only supply the inland SCs if it has more than its target stock? I can see that AI system being really popular...

unmerged(7970) · Jan 10, 2008

Well, okay - how about 'truck convoys' or 'train convoys' - which I'll just abbreviate as 'TCs'?

...but..but then "sea convoys" or "ship convoys" bring us back to SC's! Please stop the spin in my head...

About the need for feeders, there'd be a route between any pair of SC's, including oceanic portions of the route. If you absolutely want the supplies to flow in a chain, we could just merge some routes with existing sea routes. For example, Paris SC has a good port and sea route to London. Stuttgart SC instead of looking for its own sea route to London will have its route go through paris (the algorithm prefers hopping on an SC with an existing sea connection; but Berlin SC will probably use a sea port closer to itself) .

But it seems mostly a stylistic concern. What is the real play value to give players total control over how supplies flow?

To do what you propose with feeders we need an easy and reliable interface that players can use to direct supplies, not the "indirect demand" setting which is confusing even to me. I'm thinking about creating trunk lines between SC's but I'm not sure what it buys for gameplay exactly. We don't want the trunk lines to mess up the player's supply if he forgets that the supply situation has changed.

unmerged(7970) · Jan 10, 2008

About trade deals, there is a simple way and a hard way.

Simple Way. Just snip them off evenly among your SC's. Take the amount you're trading away, hop around every SC in your system and remove a proportion to the total amount of resource that you have, such that you fill your trade agreement by the sum of the SC contributions.

Hard Way. SC to SC deliveries. Deliveries will be between the two closests SC's of the two countries. The source SC will have a target stock value that's reserved specificly for trade.

This scheme can look really inefficient if we apply it to a far sprung empire like Britain. But if we let players choose the SC's, now he has to learn about the other countries resource distribution as well as his own? Just seems too much!

Vladek · Jan 10, 2008

Balesir said:
Well, okay - how about 'truck convoys' or 'train convoys' - which I'll just abbreviate as 'TCs'?

Getting SCs with a spacing of one every 2-3 provinces is gonna be a lot of SCs! I still think the positioning of SCs is too important a thing to leave to a standard setup (or the AI, but that option is needed for AI nations and is available for those who don't want to worry about supply).

Couldn't SC's be automatically generated when necessary ? For example, one could have "suply officers" or "quartermasters", call them what you like for that puropose. Each nation has a pool of officers that handle logistical issues - more experienced ones will do better with the same tools, naturally. A division carries its one SC with it, but its "quartermaster" decides when and if an additional SC needs to be built if the division is getting too far from sources of supply. Thus, player does not have to worry about building SC's all over the map - the AI does this for him. Sure, for those wanting they can tweak the SC's settings. The divisional SC draws supplies from the "main depot", back at home, accordingly with the means at his disposal (infrastructure, numbers of planes, trucks, trains, mules available).

Once the division is on the move, the SC is disbanded than rebuilt automatically. Same principle could apply to corps as well, on SC for all divisions.

Balesir said:
Low level SCs are (or should be) cheap. They are basically a field and a logistics detatchment with some goods-handling gear.

High level SCs are a different kettle of fish, being warehouses, lifting gear, repacking sheds, vehicle maintenance shops, rail sidings, fuel tanks, etc., etc. You won't want to build too many high level SCs, but low level ones will spring up wherever there's fighting...

Agree, but low-level SC's should suffice only for the needs of infantry or cavalry divisions. Armored or mechanized divisions should require (as they did historically) advanced SC's, thus adding a new challenge to the game. Same for aircraft. You cannot keep squadrons of bombers operational in the field if your logistics consists of horse-drawn carts.

Lennartos · Jan 10, 2008

Sadly im a little short on time lately, so its hard to write a post.. a few day back i tried from work, but it would work... when i send message, i got a wrong forum specified and the post was gone...

So instead of rewriting what i wrote then, lets make this one shorter.

Lets divide the game in layers:

Strategic Layer
Planning Layer
Execution Layer

Strategic Layer
Production of SCs and TCs
Placing of SCs

Planning Layer
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*

Execution Layer
From where should i take my demand?
Where should i send surplus?
what SC should "I" ("I" beeing an SC) tranport goods to.
How much should be send from A->B and B->C?
Assigning of TCs to SCs*

* = Can be both places depending on implementation

From my perspective, the strategic and planning layer are important to control.
However the Execution layer(or micro-manegment layer

)
should be entirely handled by the game. ( i wont refer to it as an AI as that gives bad vibes on this forum

)
Witch i also believe is what goldenPanda tries to tell us...

Trade:
If the game automatically handles on land transprtation(and a diplomatic option gives access to another countrys TC for money), then all we need is to improve the AI that automatically assigns convoys.
When i make a trade agreement from the US to england it should automatically make a convoy from a Harbour in the US to a harbour in UK.

Balesir · Jan 11, 2008

GoldenPanda said:
...but..but then "sea convoys" or "ship convoys" bring us back to SC's! Please stop the spin in my head...

Now you're getting the idea!

GoldenPanda said:
About the need for feeders, there'd be a route between any pair of SC's, including oceanic portions of the route. If you absolutely want the supplies to flow in a chain, we could just merge some routes with existing sea routes. For example, Paris SC has a good port and sea route to London. Stuttgart SC instead of looking for its own sea route to London will have its route go through paris (the algorithm prefers hopping on an SC with an existing sea connection; but Berlin SC will probably use a sea port closer to itself) .

If you are asking the computer to assess all possible routes from SC to SC, regardless of geography over both land and sea (or a combination) I think you are making a big job - probably too big. I think the practical option must be to have just some specified routes (like convoy routes are now, but each route may be either land or sea - but not a combination of both).

GoldenPanda said:
But it seems mostly a stylistic concern. What is the real play value to give players total control over how supplies flow?

While I think it would be good for players who want to have the ultimate level of control to be able to have it, for most players the control will be strategic only.

Consider, though, that certain cities and towns - especially ports - were of strategic value because a supply centre could be set up there. Tobruk, Benghazi and Cherbourg spring immediately to mind, even though the Allies managed without Cherbourg for some time... If capturing such an objective does not allow you to exploit it in such a way, what would be the point of fighting for it?

GoldenPanda said:
To do what you propose with feeders we need an easy and reliable interface that players can use to direct supplies, not the "indirect demand" setting which is confusing even to me. I'm thinking about creating trunk lines between SC's but I'm not sure what it buys for gameplay exactly. We don't want the trunk lines to mess up the player's supply if he forgets that the supply situation has changed.

Whoa - just a minute! 'Indirect demand' and so on is not at all intended as something the player would need to mess with! The demand-driven mechanism is just a way to ensure that supplies are routed to where they are needed without intervention from the player for most purposes. It is transparent to the player and happens at the 'mechanical movement' level in the running of the program. What it aims to do is make sure that supplies, oil and resources flow towards where the primary or 'direct' demand for them is - and as units move about the supplies automagically follow them without input from the player for most 'normal' situations.

The only 'target stock' settings the player has to worry about would be 'fill' (meaning "get stuff into this baby regardless of where you think I need it"), 'empty' (meaning "close this place down for this material and get rid of it all") and 'normal' (meaning "pull in supplies as needed to meet current demand as per the default, demand-driven supply algorithm"). The algorithm itself is run by the computer and invisible to the player.

Balesir · Jan 11, 2008

GoldenPanda said:
About trade deals, there is a simple way and a hard way.

Simple Way. Just snip them off evenly among your SC's. Take the amount you're trading away, hop around every SC in your system and remove a proportion to the total amount of resource that you have, such that you fill your trade agreement by the sum of the SC contributions.

If I want to attack the enemy's trade, then, where do I strike? Without specific routes there's nowhere for the U-boats or bombers to find the convoys.

GoldenPanda said:
Hard Way. SC to SC deliveries. Deliveries will be between the two closests SC's of the two countries. The source SC will have a target stock value that's reserved specificly for trade.

I don't think you need to run this off target stock - it's a special case that runs at a fixed transfer rate. The key points are that (a) you have to identify where in the trade partner's country you are delivering to and taking from, and (b) who provides the transport, be it ships or trucks/trains. This allows neutral nations to ship goods to warring nations, thus arguably compromising their neutrality. It allows 'unrestricted U-boat warfare'. It allows a route to be selected such that protection of it should be easier (e.g. the Arctic convoys to USSR). It allows trade over a land border, even during wartime. It means traded goods don't get 'free transport'.

Oh, and it was, incidentally, done somewhat similarly in HoI1...

GoldenPanda said:
This scheme can look really inefficient if we apply it to a far sprung empire like Britain. But if we let players choose the SC's, now he has to learn about the other countries resource distribution as well as his own? Just seems too much!

You don't need to know all about the other trade partner's resource distribution - just what border SCs are available to ship from/to. Sure, Britain might find proposals for rares export from Singapore mor attractive than such export from Portsmouth, but either would be viable.

Oh, and trade deals would count as 'direct demand', and so would attract supply from wherever available.

Balesir · Jan 11, 2008

Vladek said:
Couldn't SC's be automatically generated when necessary?

Sure! The AI nations will need a mechanism to do this anyway, and it would be a natural choice to have the possibility for players who don't want to bother with logistics considerations to have the same mechanism cover their own supply.

Vladek said:
For example, one could have "suply officers" or "quartermasters", call them what you like for that puropose. Each nation has a pool of officers that handle logistical issues - more experienced ones will do better with the same tools, naturally. A division carries its one SC with it, but its "quartermaster" decides when and if an additional SC needs to be built if the division is getting too far from sources of supply. Thus, player does not have to worry about building SC's all over the map - the AI does this for him.

While some might see the computer handling the placement of SCs as desirable, some (myself included) would regard this as too critical a decision area to leave to the AI. Automated SC placement will do just fine to put them where it turns out you need them after the fact. I would be placing them where I know I will need them based on my strategic intentions. No AI mechanism will posess the prescience or mind-reading capability needed to do this...

As the old saw goes, "Amateurs talk of tactics - professionals talk of logistics!"

Vladek said:
Sure, for those wanting they can tweak the SC's settings. The divisional SC draws supplies from the "main depot", back at home, accordingly with the means at his disposal (infrastructure, numbers of planes, trucks, trains, mules available).

Once the division is on the move, the SC is disbanded than rebuilt automatically. Same principle could apply to corps as well, on SC for all divisions.

As I see it units themselves do not have SCs, as such. they have supply and transportation elements that deliver supply to the unit's constituents from the nearest SC. This is basically a sub-unit of the division (or air group, or naval flotilla).

Vladek said:
Agree, but low-level SC's should suffice only for the needs of infantry or cavalry divisions. Armored or mechanized divisions should require (as they did historically) advanced SC's, thus adding a new challenge to the game. Same for aircraft. You cannot keep squadrons of bombers operational in the field if your logistics consists of horse-drawn carts.

Agreed - the supply elements needed by armoured divisions, strategic bomber groups and the like will be bigger and more expensive than those needed by infantry divisions. Too many armoured divisions, with their high supply and oil demands, trying to live off a single level 1 SC would also be a problem, obviously.

Balesir · Jan 11, 2008

Lennartos said:
Sadly im a little short on time lately, so its hard to write a post.. a few day back i tried from work, but it would work... when i send message, i got a wrong forum specified and the post was gone...

So instead of rewriting what i wrote then, lets make this one shorter.

Well, it may have been short, but it was good! I agree with all of what you said, basically. I would just add that some players might want the 'planning layer' to be automatable, as an option. In other words, your three layers nicely correspond to strategic = stuff the player really ought to control (although some might still like it automatable), planning = stuff the player might want to contol but might want automated, and execution = stuff that should really happen automatically.

Hmm, and I think I would add 'specifying valid routes between SCs' (~'what SC should "I" ("I" beeing an SC) tranport goods to') as Planning layer, too.

Lennartos · Jan 11, 2008

again a little break...

Hmm, and I think I would add 'specifying valid routes between SCs' (~'what SC should "I" ("I" beeing an SC) tranport goods to') as Planning layer, too.

I know you do.....

That however is a boundary that i wouldnt want to cross personally...
When i plan: i want to build up supplies in these three front SCs...
then there should come supplies... i dont really care if they come from berlin, studetenland or france, as long as they have supplies to spare(above minimum) or have a lower priority than the SCs i want supplies to appear at.

Lennartos · Jan 12, 2008

now, for anyone who hasnt seen the good news: Paradox opening older games to interested coders

Next patch for EU3 will propably be out last januart or early february.
Armageddon patch 1.2 propably early-medio march.

after the 1.2 patch we can propably assume that HOI2 will be opened as HOI2 has the biggest fanbase and potential.(and thats what counts)

So who will join the project for creating a better HOI2?
PM me if you are interested in cooperating

Shadow Master · Jan 14, 2008

Not strictly on topic, but check out my Oil thread and let me know what you think, ok?

Lennartos · Jan 14, 2008

Shadow Master said:
Not strictly on topic, but check out my Oil thread and let me know what you think, ok?

maybe add a link?
EDIT: ahh.. you hadnt posted it yet: Link

Shadow Master · Jan 14, 2008

Lennartos said:
maybe add a link?
EDIT: ahh.. you hadn't posted it yet: Link

Yep, I got called away and just got a chance too at least make the first part of the post. I hate it when real life intrudes on my day off, lol.

Lennartos · Jan 15, 2008

Edited the first post with discussed information...

Anything i missed?

Balesir · Jan 15, 2008

First off, Lennartos - thanks for updating the header post! Very useful to get an overview of what we have so far.

Now, also, we can comment on it...

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

Good move!

Lennartos said:
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).
Resources will not be send to and distributed from the capital alone, but from and to each SC.

As I understand it, EU CoTs have areas of influence that depend not only on proximity but also on the size/power of the CoT and/or it's associated polity. Should SC size affect the area of 'influence'? I'm not sure. If it is assumed that 'satellite' supply dumps/depots exist around the big ones, then arguably big SCs should have bigger areas of influence (AoIs?) and make getting supplies/resources from them easier. Dunno - just a point for discussion. It would make big SCs more 'worthwhile', especially if they cost a lot.

Lennartos said:
To simulate the importance 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.

Are TCs not assigned to 'land convoy routes', too? It seems to me that the ability to prioritise and set the capacity for specific routes is an important strategic consideration.

Lennartos said:
Each SC has its own TC burden. It will distribute to all provinces in its vicinity, 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.

Also they will need to collect resources generated in their area, won't they? Resources will flow in to their 'local' SC, between SCs as needed and out to ICs in the SC's area of influence, correct?

As an aside, I also favour changing the methodology for production so that military units must be allocated to a 'base' that is in the same province as an SC when building starts (as opposed to when building finishes, as happens now). In this case, the SC could/would need to collect the 'IC days' from nearby ICs for the construction, as well...

Lennartos said:
gameplay and rules:

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

A minor nitpick, but I would say that the usable infrastructure is limited by technology in logistics. Taking over a higher infrastructure province would not destroy the infrastructure (beyond the drop due to the takeover battle itself), but the effective infra will be capped for a low-tech nation.

Infrastructure building and repair would also (obviously) be capped.

Lennartos said:
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.

This would also require specifying a supply centre at each end of the route to be used, would it not? I guess a default could be offered (as is effectively done now - you just don't get the opportunity to change it).

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

Planning Layer(things that could be automated)
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*
what SC should "I" ("I" beeing an SC) tranport goods to.*

Maybe the last one could be split down to make it clearer? How about:

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

Of these, I think the first should really be in the planning layer, but the other two are really suited to the execution layer.

'Assigning of TCs to SCs' I think should be 'Assigning of TCs to SCs and routes', but I sense you are proposing some sort of 'averaging function' with TCs at the SCs distributing to all borders of the Area of Influence? I think this makes it too diffuse (not enough real player choices and too hard to attack effectively), but it would require minimal player attention, I suppose.

Lennartos said:
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*
what SC should "I" ("I" beeing an SC) tranport goods to.*

* = Can be both places depending on implementation

Given that planning layer stuff 'could be automated' and execution layer stuff 'should be automated' isn't execution layer stuff that might be planning layer stuff actually planning layer stuff? Or am I just confused?

Lennartos said:
current example topics:
How to model the transition of steam / oil based infrastructure.

A slider seemed to be pretty well accepted, no?

Lennartos said:
How to make optimal routing mechinisms?
How do we mimize micromanegment?
How do we balancing the game?

All in discussion, agreed, although I think 'How do we mimize micromanegment?' is a thread that runs through all other considerations, not a separate thing that we 'bolt on'. Minor point, tho'.

Balesir · Jan 15, 2008

Lennartos said:
I know you do.....
That however is a boundary that i wouldnt want to cross personally...
When i plan: i want to build up supplies in these three front SCs...
then there should come supplies... i dont really care if they come from berlin, studetenland or france, as long as they have supplies to spare(above minimum) or have a lower priority than the SCs i want supplies to appear at.

Hmm, OK, let me see if I can give an explanation/example of why I think this is important.

What this boils down to is 'are there strategic reasons, outside of the simple supply chain considerations of 'where is there stock?', that affect the way I route goods? Off the top of my head I can think of three:

Some routes may be too dangerous to use. The route from Paris to Essen may be within the range of Allied bombers, the route through the Western Mediterranean may be too vulnerable to U-boats, etc.
Some routes may suck up too many TCs. Low Infra routes you may not want to use at all because the TC load they use is too high/you consider it a waste of TCs for the tiny flow they manage.
You want to run down an SC or let it build up because of some future plans you have - maybe you want to build a new IC near it, or maybe you plan to move a force there to board assault vessels prior to a seaborne invasion...

Without some basic control over routings, many real-world dilemmas just don't signify.

One that springs to mind is the trade of metal ores from Sweden to Germany. The metals in Sweden arose in the North of the country, so Sweden's preferred source SC was in the North (where the mines were). The ores might be traded from Stockholm, say, but (a) Sweden would want more in return, since they have to use TCs moving the stuff south overland and (b) it would be vulnerable to USSR submarines crossing to Germany.

To get the best deal, Germany can accept the ores in occupied Noway (which is in fact what they did), at Narvik SC. This is a short hop from the Swedish mines, so few TCs are needed for the transfer and Sweden may well be happy to provide them as part of the deal.

So now Germany has metal ores in Narvik and needs to get them to where the ICs are - Germany. There are two options - overland down the rough country of Norway, or by sea. Overland is poor infrastructure country and quite a long way - it would hoover up lots of TCs to be effective or use valuable local TCs for little effect. The sea route, on the other hand, is vulnerable to the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force - but is close enough to Norway's coast to be defensible by the Kriegsmarine based in fijords and the Luftwaffe based on Norwegian airfields.

This was in actual history a major issue that demanded a good deal of German high command staff time. Without the ability to define 'valid routes', how do I assign TCs to Narvik to collect local resources and service the Sweden trade route, and yet not see those TCs drained off to ship ore by rail down country?

The choice of oil routes from the Caucasus or the Middle East I see as also possibly quite critical. In a German invasion of the USSR, does oil get passed along from one front-line SC to another to feed the tanks before Moscow, or does it get fed back to a behind-the-lines distribution point to be passed forwards, minimising exposure to Soviet raids and bombers? For goods generated in British Empire provinces in southern Africa, how do I prevent them wastefully being moved overland around Africa rather than funnelled to the nearest port for outward shipment?

More generically, how do I stop stuff moving all over the map and arrange for it to be collected together regionally and shipped down one, big, transport route? Say I, as USSR, take Germany and France. How do I stop a 'wide, shallow river' of supplies, oil and resources flowing accross the whole of Europe, and arrange for all French resources to be collected in Lorraine (say) and shipped through Germany along a big, heavily defended supply corridor?

I understand people who don't want to bother with this aspect of strategy - I support having an AI-driven alternative for them - but I think that this is an important aspect of World War strategy that needs to be available for player consideration in the HoI'N' game.

Lennartos · Jan 15, 2008

ahhh.. finally some forum action again

"As an aside, I also favour changing the methodology for production so that military units must be allocated to a 'base' that is in the same province as an SC when building starts (as opposed to when building finishes, as happens now). In this case, the SC could/would need to collect the 'IC days' from nearby ICs for the construction, as well..."
Lets not take this now but in the "how to simulate production correctly"(TM) that soon will appear

"This would also require specifying a supply centre at each end of the route to be used, would it not? I guess a default could be offered (as is effectively done now - you just don't get the opportunity to change it)."
It just depends on so many factors... so im thinking it should automatically slect a route that fits both barts best.(and if a SC along the way is overburdenet, it should not stop the trade, but just select a new route).

'Assigning of TCs to SCs' I think should be 'Assigning of TCs to SCs and routes', but I sense you are proposing some sort of 'averaging function' with TCs at the SCs distributing to all borders of the Area of Influence? I think this makes it too diffuse (not enough real player choices and too hard to attack effectively), but it would require minimal player attention, I suppose.
There will still be routes, but they wont be permanent routes as convoys are.
When there is a need, that need will be filled, until there are no more TCs and no more routes. ( if the best route is cogged up, it will just use the next-best route, and so on)

... first post updated....

How to simulate Sypply routes / TC correctly

BL-Logic

AoD's Old Geezer

Sergeant

AoD's Old Geezer

Sergeant

Sergeant

Private

BL-Logic

AoD's Old Geezer

AoD's Old Geezer

AoD's Old Geezer

AoD's Old Geezer

BL-Logic

BL-Logic

Master of Shadows.

BL-Logic

Master of Shadows.

BL-Logic

AoD's Old Geezer

AoD's Old Geezer

BL-Logic