Sick of the Sliders...

[unmerged(20208)]

Ok, I'm actually a game designer myself, with over 20 years of experience going back the board game industry. I don't normally discuss anything related to game design, because I've got to be the most plagurized person in the history of the industry and I long ago tired of the soulless, talentless hacks always waiting for me to speak so they can run off make another decent game instead of using their own worthless ideas. But I can't stop playing this game, because of what it could be it interests me greatly. But I've about had it with the sliders so I am going to break my usual silence and offer some rare advice.

You are only a few steps away from solving your micromagement problem with the sliders. This is a "band aid and string" solution, but the whole game is held together with band aids and string, so it fits right in

Step 1: Combine the "Supply" slider with the "Consumer Goods" slider.

Step 2: Add checkboxes next to all sliders except the consumer goods slider (do not add a checkbox to the Consumer Goods slider, if you think you should you aren't getting it). These checkboxes "auto-balance" the checked slider, and all excess IC is always directed to Consumer Goods where, at the very least, your unused IC is producing supplys, money, and reducing dissent. You can still uncheck the production slider to waste IC (and save resources) if you want. Nothing is lost, there is one less slider, and the sliders now mostly take care of themselves. It's not perfect, but it eliminates 90% of the endless fiddling with sliders. In fact, if the producton slider were checked, you wouldn't even need to adjust it yourself when you added new builds, it would happen all by itself!

Step 3: Problem solved, never tinker with sliders again unless you need to change them for a reason.

 

[unmerged(37820)]

So whats the problem with a fixed IC checkbox (only for production)?

Well, it might not work the way you want it to in all cases. Let's say I have 240 IC. It's allocated 40/150/40/0/10. Then, I go attack someone and after a short campaign I annex and end up with 300 IC. Where do the extra 60 IC go?

CG should remain at the same relative level, so it's increased to 50 IC.

Production is locked at a fixed 150 IC, and therefore remain at 150 IC.

The other sliders should increase proportionally, so I expect they'd end up with 80 supplies (from 40), 0 reinforcements and 20 upgrades. Is that really how you'd want then distributed?

Another example: suppose you have the same starting position but then lose 60 IC. CG would drop proportionally, now requiring only 30 IC. Production would still get the previous 150 IC.

This leaves you with a 50 IC loss, which is all of your supplies and upgrades! Again, maybe not quite what you want. The reason why it gets problematic to have a fixed level for production is that production usually makes up a very large part of your available IC. Supplies, reinforcements and upgrades are just getting whatever is left, and if you try to use them to balance your production you run into problems pretty quickly.

 

[unmerged(15260)]

Well, it might not work the way you want it to in all cases. Let's say I have 240 IC. It's allocated 40/150/40/0/10. Then, I go attack someone and after a short campaign I annex and end up with 300 IC. Where do the extra 60 IC go?

CG should remain at the same relative level, so it's increased to 50 IC.

Production is locked at a fixed 150 IC, and therefore remain at 150 IC.

The other sliders should increase proportionally, so I expect they'd end up with 80 supplies (from 40), 0 reinforcements and 20 upgrades. Is that really how you'd want then distributed?

Another example: suppose you have the same starting position but then lose 60 IC. CG would drop proportionally, now requiring only 30 IC. Production would still get the previous 150 IC.

This leaves you with a 50 IC loss, which is all of your supplies and upgrades! Again, maybe not quite what you want. The reason why it gets problematic to have a fixed level for production is that production usually makes up a very large part of your available IC. Supplies, reinforcements and upgrades are just getting whatever is left, and if you try to use them to balance your production you run into problems pretty quickly.

Well thats EXACTLY how i want it to work!
The current way things work in your example i would end up with my CAREFULLY adjusted slider for production being at the same relative point-> i would have unused IC in production, forcing me to reset it if i dont want unused IC (this would actually not show up until midnight so potentially IC is lost for up to 23 hours).
Also reinforcement/upgrades might get over what i need, wasting even more IC.
My alternative would use those extra IC to produce supplies, which are not lost and later could be used to ofset a temp higher production. So annexing 60 IC would not REQUIRE an immidiate adjustment.
And in most cases who gets an xtra 60 IC???
If i did get 60 IC i would start xtra production so i would need to readjust. Easily done start xtra prod, click fix ammount, instead of doing the slider jiggle again, again.
Small changes like 2 or 5 in IC are easily handled by this system(I for one hate red numbers in IC)

 

[unmerged(37820)]

Well thats EXACTLY how i want it to work!
The current way things work in your example i would end up with my CAREFULLY adjusted slider for production being at the same relative point-> i would have unused IC in production, forcing me to reset it if i dont want unused IC (this would actually not show up until midnight so potentially IC is lost for up to 23 hours).

I see. May I suggest that you might want to change your play style a little bit?

You can queue things to be produced for "when you happen to get some extra IC". So, why not throw some extra stuff in your build queue? Having a Rocket facility sitting at the bottom is a good way to absorb that extra production, or you could have other low-priority stuff. I usually toss a bunch of infra upgrades there as well, but you can use anything you want.

EDIT: this also allows you to keep on playing when units are finished, no need to go rearrange your production just because your carrier was just finished and your demand dropped by X IC.

Really - I NEVER need to worry about the production slider since I do this. I can't see a reason why you'd not want to either, since there is absolutely NO downside to it. All it does is allow you to set up a production plan and then production is taken care of for you without the need to monitor it like a hawk.

My alternative would use those extra IC to produce supplies, which are not lost and later could be used to ofset a temp higher production. So annexing 60 IC would not REQUIRE an immidiate adjustment.

Sure, but is the reverse all that good: killing the production of supplies because your production slider won't budge? It works both ways.

And in most cases who gets an xtra 60 IC???

Barbarossa tends to give you a nice increase in IC, though I am not sure if the proportion is 100% realistic.

 

[unmerged(15260)]

I see. May I suggest that you might want to change your play style a little bit?

You can queue things to be produced for "when you happen to get some extra IC". So, why not throw some extra stuff in your build queue? Having a Rocket facility sitting at the bottom is a good way to absorb that extra production, or you could have other low-priority stuff. I usually toss a bunch of infra upgrades there as well, but you can use anything you want.

1. I already do this... This has been the way to do things since HOI1...
2. This is exactly what i mean. U are using a workaround to avoid that game mechanics will hurt you. I propose a SOLUTION.

Regarding suplies:
Well this is the way most ppl use them. They are the only way that u can put IC "in the bank".
B4 an offensive u produce a lot of suplies allowing u to later crank reinforcement really high and living of ur supply stockpile...
Don't u do this? ;-)

Another reason to avoid having to put a few airbase/AA on the bottom is that this will not let you get gearing bonus. But if u dont put some at the bottom, u will suffer hard if u just one moment forget to make sure that the last geared production gets 100%.
I had an inciddent where i had 5 IC buffer at the bottom to take care of that, then i liberated SCA and whoops suddenly my PZIII was only at 99.7%, gearing lost...

So yes i think its sensible to have a fixed amount.THE EXACT AMOUNT I NEED NOT A BUFFER...
And doing Barbarossa won't get u 60 IC overnight since the industries are damaged and only gradually will get up to full speed...

 

[Bullfrog]

I agree fully with a production checkbox to ensure maintaining your gearing bonus. It's not a big leap to do so- remember HOI before you could even lock your sliders? talk about lost IC. But on the other hand you would have to come in and manually change production after every unit was finished, serial or not -if you wanted to keep making more units. sometimes I like to just put a crap unit or several in production at the bottom of the list so I dont have to go in and change things every few days. I dont know if I would use a checkbox but it should be there.

 

[unmerged(37820)]

1. I already do this... This has been the way to do things since HOI1...

Well, you said you'd end up with unused IC if your IC incresed a bit. Sorry if I misinterpreted that to mean you didn't have anything queued.

If you do, I don't see why you need to spend lots of time managing the production slider, though. I try to have at least 50-100 IC worth of production in my queue above my current capacity, and that is plenty to buffer any IC swings.

2. This is exactly what i mean. U are using a workaround to avoid that game mechanics will hurt you. I propose a SOLUTION.

Not at all. My style is different from yours, so this is all a non-problem for me.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not opposed to setting the slider to a fixed amount - as long as it is optional. I probably wouldn't ever use it, though. I want increases in IC to go to production. That's why I set up a queue to avoid having to manage my production when I gain IC or when units are finished. I'm much more interested in what happens when my IC increases than how to manage a drop in IC (the latter is much more common for me).

The one thing that makes your suggestion less likely to be implemented is that it is more difficult to implement, but if we can both get what we want that's fine by me.

Regarding suplies:
Well this is the way most ppl use them. They are the only way that u can put IC "in the bank".
B4 an offensive u produce a lot of suplies allowing u to later crank reinforcement really high and living of ur supply stockpile...
Don't u do this? ;-)

Not really. I usually have enough captured supplies that I don't have to ever crank up production and produce a surplus.

Another reason to avoid having to put a few airbase/AA on the bottom is that this will not let you get gearing bonus. But if u dont put some at the bottom, u will suffer hard if u just one moment forget to make sure that the last geared production gets 100%.
I had an inciddent where i had 5 IC buffer at the bottom to take care of that, then i liberated SCA and whoops suddenly my PZIII was only at 99.7%, gearing lost...

This is something I admittedly have never run into. Basically, I don't have such a huge proportion of my production devoted to serial builds. I mean, it seems like you have nothing but serial builds in your build queue. I never relied on serial builds to that extent. Of course I do use them, but not exclusively - perhaps 50% or so, and those get prioritized at the top to avoid losing the gearing bonus.

Maybe this would be different if playing the USA/USSR since they are more "geared" to mass production. As Germany, I don't have the MANPOWER to churn out large quantities of cheap units (which is where gearing is important). Serial building Pz III's? Sure you could do it to save some IC, but seeing as how Pz III's take 180 days to build you'll hardly be able to build more than 3 before you have research the next model and want to abort the series. Not exactly something I'd lose any sleep over.

So yes i think its sensible to have a fixed amount.THE EXACT AMOUNT I NEED NOT A BUFFER...
And doing Barbarossa won't get u 60 IC overnight since the industries are damaged and only gradually will get up to full speed...

Well, yes, but... That's the whole point, really - I don't fiddle with the production slider for months of game time, so my IC may have improved quite a bit from one time to another. That's the whole point of automating the sliders: to avoid having to adjust them all the time.

No offense, but I think you're obsessing a little too much about the gearing bonus and managing your production. It's perfectly possible to manage your production slider with a minimum of effort with the current game. The reinforcement/upgrade sliders, on the other hand... Those are the ones that can drive you nuts.

 

[unmerged(20208)]

I had thought that I had an "elegantly perfect" solution where nothing was actually changed. Since I was two minor issues away, it turns it into a debate that I don't personally want to have. But I'd encourage others to offer their ideas. I did want to mention the simplest fix for the problem, though, because this they will definately do if nothing else because it is so simple and definatly changes nothing.

The simplest fix is to simply put a button next to every slider. Pressing the button auto-balances that one slider, sending all excess to Supply. This is essentially the "manually operated" version of my original suggestion. The biggest problem with the sliders are the plus/minus arrows, and this pretty much eliminates the need to use those.

And to the guy who still didn't see a reason for combining Supply/CG for the automated system, you still don't understand if you don't get that it wouldn't work at without combining those two sliders. It doesn't work unless their is only one choice for excess IC. I would still automate them, but you do lose the ability to burn supplys as a form of reserve IC if you do it.

 

[Makeyourownmind]

Thanks for all your effort, Kavik Kang
You did well in your solution. But I think, one thing is playstyle. I never have problems with my Consumer Goods EXCEPT a politics slider changes and I get a greater consumption of CG. Next day, I have dissent, regardless what I do. I hate it. But all in all, thats a minor problem.

I never give excess CG (except for dissent changes), and I never allow dissent (even not if I know an event that drops dissent).
I don't need money, since money is cheap in trade and I need my capacity for production. The time war starts, all my needs are fitted (research, diplomacie) and I have a surplus of about 5,000 money or so.
If I ever have to trade something away what is self produced, I trade supplies, never money.

So, I don't feel the urge to combine the sliders. I have reserves of money and supplies, and even if I don't have supplies (what means: it is peace), I think the first thing that goes down is the org, not the strength, am I rigth? If my IC drops that much that I can't handle my CG and supplies both, something is fishy anyway.

The problems I have are: IC loss for production (gearing bonus) and need drops for reinforcement and upgrade..
The problems are twofold:

- First, the amount needed is not always what is shown at the sliders, and IF it is shown, adjusting the sliders doesn't change anything, because the need is ALREADY not fitted the time it shows up.

- Second, if new IC come in (new factorys build, a constant conquering of territory) or maybe if I lose ground in the opposite, I have to readjust them daily, if I don't want to lose anything. And upgrades or reinforcement drop in small amounts, too, so I have to adjust them the same way.

So, a solution has to take care of these two problems: need shown is not the real need (one day delay; a minor problem, but nasty) and adjusting the sliders acording to the needs.

- Reinforcemnet and upgrade do not need more than 100%. Thats the best solution; i don't need an "adjust" button, or something that balances them out. Only let them have a maximum of 100% need.

- CG and supplies CAN have a need of more than 100%. So, they must be allowed to take the full amount of IC available. Supplies isn't that much of a problem, since it doesn't hurt if it goes down or up a bit, but an "adjust at 100% need"-button would be fine. CG is a bit more complex, since you can want to decrease dissent or make money, and I don't know if the AI can guess (may be possible, but I don't want to take word for the programmers.) An "adjust at 100% need"-button would be a fine solution. If someone wants to give more CG, he has to take care of it himself.
If you have more need of both CG and supplies than your IC can provide, the human has to be notified; thats nothing the AI can handle.

- Producrion is another slider that doesn't need more than 100%, but you may want to save ressources.
My solution: give production a maximum of 100% and some other valve for saving IC; my queue is sometimes that great that I can't save IC that way anyway. And another button to fix my production at exact that amount of IC would be nice, too.

If there are excess IC, give them first to reinforce, then to upgrade (both if not locked) and then to supplies. Production is something the human has to take care of.

If there are IC missing, take them from upgrade, then reinforcement. If this is not enough, notify the player and take it from supplies. Do NOT take away IC from production, because gearing is that fragile the way it is now.

---------------------------------------
Shortform:

- Upgrade, reinforcement and production have a maximum of 100% of need.

- CG and and supplies have a button "autobalance".

- Production has a lock that locks an amount, not a portion.

- excess IC: reinforcement (if not locked) -> upgrade (if not locked) -> production (if not locked at amount) -> supplies

- less IC (ignore locks): upgrade -> reinforcement -> notify player -> supplies -> production -> CG

- there is a valve where you can save ressources


I hope that fits the needs of all playstyles.

 

[unmerged(37820)]

I had thought that I had an "elegantly perfect" solution where nothing was actually changed. Since I was two minor issues away, it turns it into a debate that I don't personally want to have. But I'd encourage others to offer their ideas. I did want to mention the simplest fix for the problem, though, because this they will definately do if nothing else because it is so simple and definatly changes nothing.

I'd have to disagree about these issues being minor. They're not, IMHO. Also, I disagree tha the solution is "elegantly perfect" or the simplest possible. It involves combining two sliders and adding a few buttons. Not much, but changing nothing at all in the interface is simpler yet. Hence, my suggestion on how to fix this without any interface changes.

Sorry if this has turned into a lengthy debate, but that's the risk you take when you post in a forum.

And to the guy who still didn't see a reason for combining Supply/CG for the automated system, you still don't understand if you don't get that it wouldn't work at without combining those two sliders. It doesn't work unless their is only one choice for excess IC. I would still automate them, but you do lose the ability to burn supplys as a form of reserve IC if you do it.

I think you're showing a lack of understanding for how HoI works here.

1. You do need to pick a slider to balance the variations of the others. However, it doesn't follow that you have to combine sliders to do it.

2. The CG slider is very stable, and the supply slider can vary a lot. Given this, combining them is a bad choice.

3. Your suggestion only works well if there is a surplus of IC to redirect to whichever slider is nominated. It doesn't work well at all when demand is higher than your available IC, and that is the norm in HoI.

 

[unmerged(37820)]

The problems I have are: IC loss for production (gearing bonus) and need drops for reinforcement and upgrade..

That's spot on, IMHO, and pretty much what I've been saying. You have to take into the account that the sliders are different and behave differently, leading to different problems for each.

Note the difference between the two problems, however. The production issues you as a player can develop a strategy to handle quite smoothly. The constant drop in reinforcements and upgrades is something you can't affect, OTOH. Thus, this is the most important thing to address with any fix. Production may be a problem too, but should be secondary since you can adapt to it.

- Reinforcemnet and upgrade do not need more than 100%. Thats the best solution; i don't need an "adjust" button, or something that balances them out. Only let them have a maximum of 100% need.

I think this would be a mistake. That 100% setting might suddenly be more than your total IC (not to mention that it would make reading the sliders very confusing). Better to keep the slider scale like it is and assign any surplus to another slider to make sure you never produce too much.

EXAMPLE: I set my reinforcement slider to 20 IC. That means the game should adjust the IC for reinforcement to anywhere between 0-20 IC and send the rest to whereever extra IC go. If the need for reinforcements spike to 300 IC, the slider is set to 20 IC to avoid taking too many IC from production, supplies or anything else. When the demand falls, I don't have to adjust the slider every day as demand falls below 20 IC. It handles well whether demand is increasing or decreasing.

- Producrion is another slider that doesn't need more than 100%, but you may want to save ressources.
My solution: give production a maximum of 100% and some other valve for saving IC; my queue is sometimes that great that I can't save IC that way anyway. And another button to fix my production at exact that amount of IC would be nice, too.

I definitely question the need for a "set to 100%" button. I mean, who's playing this game thinking "Naah, I don't need to build any more units."?
The "Set to exact amount" is cool, though, even if I've argued against it being as important as fixing the problem with adjusting replacements/upgrades.

If there are excess IC, give them first to reinforce, then to upgrade (both if not locked) and then to supplies. Production is something the human has to take care of.

Seems there's a lot of opinions on where excess IC should go. Kavik Kang thinks CG is good, I favor productions and POJC wants them directed to supplies. Now you want the priority to be reinforcements? :rofl:

I started out by suggesting you could select which slider receives excess IC, and it seems that was a pretty good suggestion!

 

[Makeyourownmind]

I think this would be a mistake. That 100% setting might suddenly be more than your total IC (not to mention that it would make reading the sliders very confusing). Better to keep the slider scale like it is and assign any surplus to another slider to make sure you never produce too much.

EXAMPLE: I set my reinforcement slider to 20 IC. That means the game should adjust the IC for reinforcement to anywhere between 0-20 IC and send the rest to whereever extra IC go. If the need for reinforcements spike to 300 IC, the slider is set to 20 IC to avoid taking too many IC from production, supplies or anything else. When the demand falls, I don't have to adjust the slider every day as demand falls below 20 IC. It handles well whether demand is increasing or decreasing.

I definitely question the need for a "set to 100%" button. I mean, who's playing this game thinking "Naah, I don't need to build any more units."?
The "Set to exact amount" is cool, though, even if I've argued against it being as important as fixing the problem with adjusting replacements/upgrades.

That's not a button, that is a second maximum. The slider can't go over your IC you produce, that's perfectly clear. But I suggest it can't go over 100% need, too.
You don't need this "Set to exact amount" if it cannot go over this exact amount at all.

 

[unmerged(20208)]

I didn't say it was "elgantly perfect", I said I had thought it was until someone pointed out that you would lose the ability to burn supplies for IC. It's just a game design term, at least among us pariahs who are actually educated game and simulation designers, meaning a solution that doesn't actually change anything about the simulation.

To the other poster, I understand what you are saying, but it misses the point. The problem is the endless need to adjust the sliders yourself, especially always having to use the +/- signs. Combining Supply and CG would be necessary to automate the sliders because the AI can't make the decision of where any excess should go or any needed should be taken from. With seperate sliders, the AI would have a choice to make and therefore the whole thing wouldn't work. The only reason to combine them would be to automate them... well, mostly automate them, since you'd still need to monitor and adjust them but it would be 100 times easier.

Since it does actually change something, which means an endless debate, I just dropped that and made another suggestion which absolutely definately doesn't change anything. Buttons that balance individual sliders (a one time thing) using Supply as the location to put excess in or take needed IC out. That definately doesn't change anything and eliminates the need to ever use the +/- signs ever again (but leave them there anyway), since the +/- signs are the main source of the slider nightmare.

I still think they should automate them, but I was a part of the group that invented this process of soliciting player input for game design (we were doing this on GEnie in 1980, long before internet was even public) and just don't have any desire get into all of that again. I already know where the conversation will go. I also don't really play this game, I just mess around with it. It's a great big mess, but it's based on good ideas which makes it interesting to tinker with. So I'd like to see the sliders toned down in some way because they are so annoying, but I don't really care all that much

 

[unmerged(17139)]

haven't read all the replies, but here's a pretty good way to solve the slider problem

1. keep the 5 sliders, but allow priorities to be set. for example, consumer goods 1, production 2, reinforcement 3, upgrade 4, supplies 5. the game will auto adjust to the necessary amount required for 1, then 2, 3, etc.

2. allow manual adjustment and locking, just like the way it is now. so if i want to make more consumer goods to lower dissent, i'll just jack up CG and lock it. when dissent is gone and i want to produce the minimum necessary, i'll just unlock it and the next day game will auto adjust it to the amount needed, as it is priority 1.

i think this is a very elegant way to allow both hands-off slider fiddling, and to allow manual control when needed

 

[Elijah]

I didn't say it was "elgantly perfect", I said I had thought it was until someone pointed out that you would lose the ability to burn supplies for IC. It's just a game design term, at least among us pariahs who are actually educated game and simulation designers, meaning a solution that doesn't actually change anything about the simulation.

To the other poster, I understand what you are saying, but it misses the point. The problem is the endless need to adjust the sliders yourself, especially always having to use the +/- signs. Combining Supply and CG would be necessary to automate the sliders because the AI can't make the decision of where any excess should go or any needed should be taken from. With seperate sliders, the AI would have a choice to make and therefore the whole thing wouldn't work. The only reason to combine them would be to automate them... well, mostly automate them, since you'd still need to monitor and adjust them but it would be 100 times easier.

Since it does actually change something, which means an endless debate, I just dropped that and made another suggestion which absolutely definately doesn't change anything. Buttons that balance individual sliders (a one time thing) using Supply as the location to put excess in or take needed IC out. That definately doesn't change anything and eliminates the need to ever use the +/- signs ever again (but leave them there anyway), since the +/- signs are the main source of the slider nightmare.

I still think they should automate them, but I was a part of the group that invented this process of soliciting player input for game design (we were doing this on GEnie in 1980, long before internet was even public) and just don't have any desire get into all of that again. I already know where the conversation will go. I also don't really play this game, I just mess around with it. It's a great big mess, but it's based on good ideas which makes it interesting to tinker with. So I'd like to see the sliders toned down in some way because they are so annoying, but I don't really care all that much

Its an idea that does seem very good until you actually think it through.

 

[unmerged(37820)]

haven't read all the replies, but here's a pretty good way to solve the slider problem

1. keep the 5 sliders, but allow priorities to be set. for example, consumer goods 1, production 2, reinforcement 3, upgrade 4, supplies 5. the game will auto adjust to the necessary amount required for 1, then 2, 3, etc.

2. allow manual adjustment and locking, just like the way it is now. so if i want to make more consumer goods to lower dissent, i'll just jack up CG and lock it. when dissent is gone and i want to produce the minimum necessary, i'll just unlock it and the next day game will auto adjust it to the amount needed, as it is priority 1.

i think this is a very elegant way to allow both hands-off slider fiddling, and to allow manual control when needed

Please do read the other suggestions; this approach just doesn't solve the problems you run into with the sliders. If you prioritize reinforcements or upgrades over production, they'll spike and kill your production (BAD). If you put production first, on the other hand, you can't queue production or you'll never reinforce/upgrade anything. There's no smooth way to handle reinforcements/upgrades when demand drops to zero, either. It is doable if you set production to your last priority, but then you run the risk of a spike as per above.

 

[unmerged(20208)]

Its an idea that does seem very good until you actually think it through.

No, actually, it would be a vast improvement, but I'm not going to argue about it. You should probably think it through a little more, since the ONLY change other than not having to constantly tinker with sliders is that you would no longer be able to burn supplies as a source of reserve IC. But I really don't care if they do it or not, since I'll probably only be messing with this game for a few more days. I was only trying to be helpful.

 

[unmerged(20208)]

Please do read the other suggestions; this approach just doesn't solve the problems you run into with the sliders. If you prioritize reinforcements or upgrades over production, they'll spike and kill your production (BAD). If you put production first, on the other hand, you can't queue production or you'll never reinforce/upgrade anything. There's no smooth way to handle reinforcements/upgrades when demand drops to zero, either. It is doable if you set production to your last priority, but then you run the risk of a spike as per above.

You can que production if production is first (the only possible priority order), you simply uncheck that slider (or just lock it) if you want to do that. The ONLY thing it would change is that you couldn't burn supplies a source of reserve IC. You simply don't understand. Think it through again, this is all very simple.

I think the point people are missing is that they are thinking in terms of peacetime. Try thinking about when you are at war and how helpful this would be. It is not intended to take the sliders over completely from human control, only to auto-distribute IC when you are too busy to notice. In those cases, all of your excess IC would automatically be on Supply/CG and would at least be providing money, supplies, and dissent reduction instead of simply being wasted. That's the only point of it, well, that and never having to use the +/- signs again...

But they won't do this, because it does change one thing (even though that thing is questionable). Which is why I also mentioned just adding buttons that prevent the need to use the +/- signs since that is the primary issue.

 

[Joshua22]

I had thought of that, it's a "band aid and string" fix, like I said. It's doable in a patch but not simple. The wild fluctuation of the supply value would need to be averaged out so that those "spikes" that you are talking about no longer occur. The Consumer Goods slider can't handle those spikes, as you say. But the only reason those spikes are there is because they didn't have a critical need to eliminate them. It isn't acually all that difficult to average out supply usage and stabilize that value so that those spikes no longer occur.

I haven't actually played this game a lot, it's very interesting because most games made for the last decade suck beyond words. This game does not suck beyond words, it's a big huge mess, but at least there was actual talent behind this game. It's unheard of these days I could drone on and on about how to turn this into Civilization's first true rival, but I don't generally talk about games anymore. All I'm saying is that the sliders have annoyed me enough to make this suggestion. It will work and almost totally automate the sliders.

You're so right about this, Civ's first true rival. This game just has it, only some minor things have to be taken care for. The GUI, one of the things to be improved are the sliders. Double click and the slider will go to 100%, or a check box where it always does 100% (as long as you want it). An other big thing is the graphics. Of the sprites, the resolution, the map.
A more difficult thing would be the AI, then again, the AI is a lot better then most other games. It does do some strange things though... :wacko:

 

[unmerged(17139)]

Please do read the other suggestions; this approach just doesn't solve the problems you run into with the sliders. If you prioritize reinforcements or upgrades over production, they'll spike and kill your production (BAD). If you put production first, on the other hand, you can't queue production or you'll never reinforce/upgrade anything. There's no smooth way to handle reinforcements/upgrades when demand drops to zero, either. It is doable if you set production to your last priority, but then you run the risk of a spike as per above.

actually you can "starve" a slider to feed the next priority by manual adjustment and locking

in your example, if you prioritize reinforcement/upgrades over production, but do not want to go to full R/U, simply adjust them down and lock them, all excess will just flow to the lower priority sliders, in your case production.

same thing if you prioritize production over R/U. if you don't want full production just lower it and lock it, and the lower priorities will get "fed"

if demand for R/U drop to zero, slider will just make these zero, and feed the lower priority sliders. i don't see how that's a problem. it's sensible to leave the supplies slider as the lowest priority, so any excess will be made into supplies instead of being wasted.

 

[unmerged(37820)]

actually you can "starve" a slider to feed the next priority by manual adjustment and locking

Yes, but I thought the point of any change would be to remove the need to constantly tinker with the sliders?

I'd like to be able to set the sliders so I not only don't need to change them every day, but also don't have to check them every day to make sure no catastrophic changes happen. Instead, I'd like to set the sliders and then forget about them for as long as a couple of months of game time.

in your example, if you prioritize reinforcement/upgrades over production, but do not want to go to full R/U, simply adjust them down and lock them, all excess will just flow to the lower priority sliders, in your case production.

That would actually leave no sliders to manipulate or auto-adjust since CG and supplies I always keep locked. Hence, your suggestion would not be useful in this situation.

same thing if you prioritize production over R/U. if you don't want full production just lower it and lock it, and the lower priorities will get "fed"

if demand for R/U drop to zero, slider will just make these zero, and feed the lower priority sliders. i don't see how that's a problem. it's sensible to leave the supplies slider as the lowest priority, so any excess will be made into supplies instead of being wasted.

Simple: It would not be useful since I don't want to keep supplies as my least priority slider!

Keeping supplies the least priority might mean than when I take losses I completely stop producing supplies. It's not as bad as killing the production of units, but still not as useful as it could be.

Consider instead a different solution: a button that would auto-adjust the R/U sliders down, but not up! No problems with them killing anything else, and any adjustment is moved to one of the unlocked sliders to make sure no IC is wasted.

That solution has none of the problems and is as simple to implement as any of the others. It's not that your solution is incredibly bad, only that there are solutions that are even better.