SHQ distance

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

SHQ distance

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Shadow Empire >> SHQ distance

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

SHQ distance - 3/13/2021 11:26:31 PM

shabowie

Posts: 41
Joined: 2/12/2021
Status: offline

What rules help you decide when a new SHQ is needed? I have a big and empire growing on 3 fronts and I'm running into logistics problems.

Not sure if I just need 1 SHQ for each front or what. Advice and manual quotes would really help, I took a look but I didn't notice any mention of particular ranges you should start thinking about adding a new shq.

Post #: 1

RE: SHQ distance - 3/14/2021 8:26:11 AM

zgrssd

Posts: 3385
Joined: 6/9/2020
Status: offline

My rules for extra SHQ's are:
- Never build them, as a 2nd SHQ causes more problems then it solves
- A Empire can never grow to big for one SHQ, only too fractured

Do you have railroads between the SHQ and the cities?
How many cities are we talking about?
Any serious blocks to building raiwlays, like multiple hex deep mountain ranges?

(in reply to shabowie)

Post #: 2

RE: SHQ distance - 3/14/2021 8:33:40 AM

BlueTemplar

Posts: 887
Joined: 4/29/2010
Status: offline

This has very recently been discussed in at least this topic (though your title is better), and I'm sure, many times before ? :
https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4978410

As a general forum netiquette rule : this isn't reddit - you're supposed to use the search function, and necropost if there's a relevant thread. (Generally I would expect to not being able to search for a 3-letter word, but these forums seem to have no issues with that !)

Like this one, which pretty much answers your question ?
https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4937174

(in reply to shabowie)

Post #: 3

RE: SHQ distance - 3/14/2021 12:53:31 PM

Nexira

Posts: 24
Joined: 3/2/2021
Status: offline

Personally i only build an SHQ if there is a blocker that bottelnecks me, AND there is a second front to worry about. EX: if im on a 40% water world in the middle, i may have to build a second SHQ once i push far enough past one of those 1-3 wide land bridges that connect a continent. Sometimes ill split my places up into SHQ super zones once ive already won the game but entirely for fun and personal lore reasons than for any practical purposes.

Basically: if geography forces your logistics to look more like a tree with a bunch of branches, then you might need to use more SHQs to cut the branches. But that should only be an absolute last resort

(in reply to shabowie)

Post #: 4

RE: SHQ distance - 3/14/2021 1:52:00 PM

zgrssd

Posts: 3385
Joined: 6/9/2020
Status: offline

quote:

EX: if im on a 40% water world in the middle, i may have to build a second SHQ once i push far enough past one of those 1-3 wide land bridges that connect a continent.

Why would you add a 2nd SHQ for that?
1 hex width is enough for a full capacity rail line to connect your Operational base (the SHQ) to your strategic base (the city closest to your troops past the chokepoint). And if anything, it is pretty easy to defend.

If the best route was through 3-4 hexes of mountains - wich means a ton of insanely expensive hexes of rail line - that is something that can seperate my logistics networks.
I would still try to create a (at least dirt) road connection across said mountains. Might make the Rail feasible and even if not, it allows some supplies to flow between the two.

(in reply to Nexira)

Post #: 5

RE: SHQ distance - 3/14/2021 2:57:23 PM

Nexira

Posts: 24
Joined: 3/2/2021
Status: offline

Because i play on larger than earth planets, So that one rail line is gonna have to support a hundridish units at least, and at the dead minimum a dozen zones, could be as high as 30 zones per side. This can lead to problems with creating units on one side of the front. The economy isnt optimized, so that means that if i have one zone producing the metal another needs, it could end up sent back to SHQ, and then from their to my heavy industry in the next door zone. Limiting the attached zones with an SHQ minimizes this efficiency, and in the long run saves hundreds of credits per turn on infrastructure maintenance costs, and still allows me to specialize and make use of smaller zones that dont have the population to be self sufficient, which means i can keep creating more zones and expanding them internally when im not making progress on a war front. Rebellions are not an uncommon thing in such an empire when youve got so many leaders to be keeping track of, so if a rebellion on that rail line means my empire gets cut in half for even a single turn, it could mean the end of me. Id much rather a mountain path and wouldnt zone split for that. A thousand IP is easy late game, population and credits is the only real bottleneck.

I developed my strategy and understandings of the economy months ago so it could be my information is outdated on the inoptimal logistics ai, but even then i just cant bring myself to not have redundancies in the logistics network. WITE russian partisans have scarred me for life.

(in reply to zgrssd)

Post #: 6

RE: SHQ distance - 3/14/2021 3:05:19 PM

zgrssd

Posts: 3385
Joined: 6/9/2020
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nexira

Because i play on larger than earth planets, So that one rail line is gonna have to support a hundridish units at least, and at the dead minimum a dozen zones, could be as high as 30 zones per side. This can lead to problems with creating units on one side of the front. The economy isnt optimized, so that means that if i have one zone producing the metal another needs, it could end up sent back to SHQ, and then from their to my heavy industry in the next door zone. Limiting the attached zones with an SHQ minimizes this efficiency, and in the long run saves hundreds of credits per turn on infrastructure maintenance costs, and still allows me to specialize and make use of smaller zones that dont have the population to be self sufficient, which means i can keep creating more zones and expanding them internally when im not making progress on a war front. Rebellions are not an uncommon thing in such an empire when youve got so many leaders to be keeping track of, so if a rebellion on that rail line means my empire gets cut in half for even a single turn, it could mean the end of me. Id much rather a mountain path and wouldnt zone split for that. A thousand IP is easy late game, population and credits is the only real bottleneck.

I developed my strategy and understandings of the economy months ago so it could be my information is outdated on the inoptimal logistics ai, but even then i just cant bring myself to not have redundancies in the logistics network. WITE russian partisans have scarred me for life.

As I thought, this all has nothing to do with there being a 1-3 Hex wide Landbridge. So the conditions you gave for making a 2nd SHQ were not what you are actually using.

(in reply to Nexira)

Post #: 7

RE: SHQ distance - 3/14/2021 5:16:08 PM

Nexira

Posts: 24
Joined: 3/2/2021
Status: offline

If you can have multiple rail points it doesnt make sense. Theres a maximum to the amount of logistics you can have on a rail line. On the usual planet with the usual hexagonalish expanding zone pattern there will always be enough routes that it doesnt actually have a large enough effect and youre going to be building the lines anyways to do it. With the singular landbridge you have to build and expand up several railway hubs past the point of efficient worker use per logistic on a line. The reasoning is because its inefficient to be building up a single rail line to the extent it can do things properly, but when you are expanding wide and have the opportunity the cost is worth it to keep things on a single HQ. Thats why i specified id prefer a mountain path because the IP cost is manageable, and the worker vs the impossibility of a single railline on any terrain being able to sustain so many zones.

Its like this, im already going to be building up the rails and **** for all my zones anyways, im not going to be building them up past t3 and extra supply bases everywhere and ****. I will have to be doing that for a single rail line to be efficient. Saving the extra cost of 10s of thousands of workers to make the rail line work is worth the hassle of a second SHQ. I probably just wasnt clear on that, my bad.

(in reply to zgrssd)

Post #: 8

RE: SHQ distance - 3/14/2021 5:20:52 PM

BlueTemplar

Posts: 887
Joined: 4/29/2010
Status: offline

He could get unlucky, and the rebellion could spawn on that landbridge...

(in reply to zgrssd)

Post #: 9

RE: SHQ distance - 3/14/2021 5:25:44 PM

Nexira

Posts: 24
Joined: 3/2/2021
Status: offline

Yeah i did mention that was a possibility. I shiver in fear just thinking about it.

(in reply to BlueTemplar)

Post #: 10

RE: SHQ distance - 3/14/2021 9:39:37 PM

zgrssd

Posts: 3385
Joined: 6/9/2020
Status: offline

quote:

With the singular landbridge you have to build and expand up several railway hubs past the point of efficient worker use per logistic on a line. The reasoning is because its inefficient to be building up a single rail line to the extent it can do things properly, but when you are expanding wide and have the opportunity the cost is worth it to keep things on a single HQ.

I asume the part where logistics assets get worse with level is a bug and reported it as one.

I try not to include propably buggy behavior in my decision making process and especially not when giving advice. That way my advise keeps valid, even after the problem is fixed.

(in reply to Nexira)

Post #: 11

RE: SHQ distance - 3/15/2021 12:46:32 AM

Nexira

Posts: 24
Joined: 3/2/2021
Status: offline

You mean a bug thats been in the game for since launch, hasnt been fixed or acknowledged as a bug (could be a balancing thing to encourage more zones and different roads, as it effected my playstyle.) and will still be in the game when this guy is playing it? your advice is worthless if its about a game youre imagining will eventually exist.

(in reply to zgrssd)

Post #: 12

RE: SHQ distance - 3/15/2021 3:46:19 AM

shabowie

Posts: 41
Joined: 2/12/2021
Status: offline

I have a really well developed road and rail network. I think I might just be trying to support too large a force.

(in reply to Nexira)

Post #: 13

RE: SHQ distance - 3/15/2021 9:23:03 AM

zgrssd

Posts: 3385
Joined: 6/9/2020
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: shabowie

I have a really well developed road and rail network. I think I might just be trying to support too large a force.

It is hard to say without more information, ideally a savegame.

For all we know, the Logistics issues are on the front side of the connection, meaning the SHQ has nothing to do with any issues.

(in reply to shabowie)

Post #: 14