quote:

ORIGINAL: Atlanton

I'm really confused about the claim that the pull-system removed strategic decision making.

In practice, there are no decisions to be made with the push system; just a solution to the problem of "send the logi points to everywhere it's needed". Traffic signs can be changed and adjusted turn by turn, so there's really no consequences nor difficulty for your management of the push systems. That's why other posters have called in a puzzle: it's not hard to fit the jigsaw puzzles together, you just have to sit down and spend the time doing it.

Meanwhile, all the decisions that affect logistics that actually require thought, are still in the pull-system. You still have to build truck stations, you still need to be mindful of where you build your roads and where you invest the IP in sealed roads, you still have to defend your supply lines, you still have to use rails so your cities can transfer goods without overloading your network... Those are strategic decisions. Decisions that have long lasting-implications, that take time to take effect, and cost resources that could be used elsewhere. The traffic sign system is just a pass/fail test of whether you remembered to do the busywork.

quote:

ORIGINAL: zgrssd

quote:

ORIGINAL: Atlanton

I'm really confused about the claim that the pull-system removed strategic decision making.

In practice, there are no decisions to be made with the push system; just a solution to the problem of "send the logi points to everywhere it's needed". Traffic signs can be changed and adjusted turn by turn, so there's really no consequences nor difficulty for your management of the push systems. That's why other posters have called in a puzzle: it's not hard to fit the jigsaw puzzles together, you just have to sit down and spend the time doing it.

Meanwhile, all the decisions that affect logistics that actually require thought, are still in the pull-system. You still have to build truck stations, you still need to be mindful of where you build your roads and where you invest the IP in sealed roads, you still have to defend your supply lines, you still have to use rails so your cities can transfer goods without overloading your network... Those are strategic decisions. Decisions that have long lasting-implications, that take time to take effect, and cost resources that could be used elsewhere. The traffic sign system is just a pass/fail test of whether you remembered to do the busywork.

Agreed. I never understand why some people think "building a Maze of Trafficsigns" was a good game mechanic.
Mostly I ignored it anyway, just solving the issue on the strategic level.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jwarrenw13

quote:

ORIGINAL: Vic

quote:

I'm pleased that in single player at least we'll be able to choose to turn the automation off and if that wasn't the case I'd be pretty pissed off about this change. This will most affect multiplayer games I think.

Each player can choose his own settings.

And if you turn it off everything stays exactly as it was before. :)

best wishes,
Vic

Thank you, Vic. I am good with this. Choices are good. Refine the new system. Keep refining the "old" system. You rule.

My great concern was that for the first time I encountered a game that modeled in many ways the real life problem of establishing main supply routes and traffic control points and everything associated with real logistics operations. And I was concerned that was going to be swept away simply because it wasn't easy.

At the same time I was confused by those who said that managing the logistics system was a study in intense micromanagement every turn with dozens of roadblocks with various percentages of closure determined apparently by the player doing higher order mathematics. I still haven't encountered that. I look at the bottleneck overlay, look at the colors, close off roads to nowhere, build up truck and rail capacity, and I have no real problems except when I am advancing in major offensive operations, which is exactly where the most problems would arise in real life operations. That is where I have to take a close look at the overlay every 3 turns or so. And usually my problems are more with lack of capacity than lack of roadblocks.

I was concerned that the feeling of realism and satisfaction in establishing successful MSRs was going to be taken away. Apparently it isn't, even with the new system, based on what I've been reading. And with the option to keep the old system, I think we have a problem and division solved.

As for those saying we have to bow to the wishes of the masses on Steam. This is a complex turn based, hex based, 2D game. We don't have 3D tanks and soldiers running across the map and pew-pewing and dying and engaging in hand to hand combat. Simplifying the logistics system some is not going to satisfy the people who will take one look at the game and write a negative review because they can't git gud and grok the game in 20 minutes. Of course there are also gamers on Steam who look for games just like this, but they are not the most vocal ones.

I wish Vic the greatest success with one of the finest games I've ever played. But it isn't a game for the cancel culture element of Steam who enjoy their feeling of power.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rwbrown

It was a good change. It’s about automating away tedious tasks to focus on fun. The game isn’t train simulator 2020. Logistics is a component of a war game, logistics must serve the warfare element. Previously it was doing so poorly. Shadow Empire is a great game, but not because of its logistics system. It was great in spite of it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rwbrown

It was a good change. It’s about automating away tedious tasks to focus on fun. The game isn’t train simulator 2020. Logistics is a component of a war game, logistics must serve the warfare element. Previously it was doing so poorly. Shadow Empire is a great game, but not because of its logistics system. It was great in spite of it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jwarrenw13

quote:

ORIGINAL: rwbrown

It was a good change. It’s about automating away tedious tasks to focus on fun. The game isn’t train simulator 2020. Logistics is a component of a war game, logistics must serve the warfare element. Previously it was doing so poorly. Shadow Empire is a great game, but not because of its logistics system. It was great in spite of it.

Again, I disagree on "poorly" and "tedious." Yours is an opinion. So is mine. What Vic has now done is to give us choices based on his last post:

"Each player can choose his own settings.
And if you turn it off everything stays exactly as it was before. :)"

I will try the new version when it comes out in a full update. If I like it better than the current version, I will go with it. If I think it is just dumbed down, I will stay with the "tedious" version.

And I appreciate Vic for offering the choices while working to improve the game.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Vic

We are stil finetuning the new Pull Point system. Please read my posts on the Open Beta thread.

best wishes,
Vic

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sieppo

I also know there are good arguments into automating things but if everything in games was automated, how and what would you "play" in it?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Vic

quote:

I'm pleased that in single player at least we'll be able to choose to turn the automation off and if that wasn't the case I'd be pretty pissed off about this change. This will most affect multiplayer games I think.

Each player can choose his own settings.

And if you turn it off everything stays exactly as it was before. :)

best wishes,
Vic

quote:

I am playing the Supreme Commander of [Insert Regime Name]. A guy to wich the SHQ Commanders, Governors and the entire Cabinet report to.

Managing Logistics is something for the "Quartermasters Office", wich is a element of a healthy SHQ. If even that much - sounds more like any Logistics Dispatcher in any truck stop can do that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PyrrhicDefeat

quote:

I am playing the Supreme Commander of [Insert Regime Name]. A guy to wich the SHQ Commanders, Governors and the entire Cabinet report to.

Managing Logistics is something for the "Quartermasters Office", wich is a element of a healthy SHQ. If even that much - sounds more like any Logistics Dispatcher in any truck stop can do that.

Well in that case you shouldn't be giving move orders to individual units, or deciding when to upgrade a hospital in one of your cities, or whether to cut another three hexes of dirt road somewhere. All way beneath you. Maybe those can be automated too?

quote:

Fleet ADM Ernest J. King
Heinz Guderian
Dwight D. Eisenhower
Omar N. Bradley
Tom Clancy
Sun Tzu
Napoleon Bonaparte

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tomn

I think there's some confusion of terms going on here. Everyone agrees that logistics is important and should be modeled, but I feel like there's some unstated differences over what, exactly, logistics actually IS and should be in gameplay terms.

For those who welcome the new pull system, logistics means establishing logistical routes and bases, ensuring that infrastructure keeps up with logistical requirements in whichever direction is deemed vital for an offensive push, defending your logistical links from enemy action and acting to cut the enemy's own links where possible. In other words, logistics is mostly about setting up the infrastructure, with meaningful gameplay decisions coming in terms of where and when to establish that infrastructure, and how to protect it - that's the stuff that really matters to them, and to them the pull system doesn't affect what's important, and in fact makes it easier to focus on what matters.

Those who are opposed to the new system, on the other hand, seem to define logistics more broadly - it's not just establishing the infrastructure, but actively managing the daily traffic flow of logistics that constitutes logistics and logistical gameplay. For them, traffic management is so integral to their concept of gameplay that the automation of such would be like having a FPS server where everyone uses aimbots - there are still decisions and tactics to be made, but the heart of the gameplay has been removed for them.

It's not really a case of one side or another wanting the "better" game per se, it's just a case of different priorities that's been tangled up in argument since the word "logistics" is used to define two different concepts. "I want to do this thing you find boring" vs "I don't want to do this thing you find interesting" is what it boils down to. Frankly, both sides are free to want what they want - trying to find a compromise between that is Vic's headache as a game designer. If that compromise happens to displease someone - well, that's practically inevitable for anyone designing a game that appeals on as many layers as Shadow Empire does.

As an aside, can I just say that folks here seem to have some really skewed views about Steam? We're not all unwashed barbarians who scream in primal monkey rage every time more than four numbers come up on the screen, you know. Just take a look at the reviews for Decisive Campaigns: Barbarossa - the vast majority of front page reviews are positive and praise its depth, with the one negative review complaining that the Soviet campaign wasn't as in-depth as the German campaign. Steam generally tries to recommend games based on what you already have and enjoy, and folks who come across Shadow Empire are mostly going to be fans of other complex strategy games including other grog games, of which there are many on Steam these days. Sure, folks are more likely to hold the game up to wider industry standards of UI design and such, but extra diversity of thoughts and experience is hardly the worst thing for a designer to take on board.

Besides, looking down on Steam gamers for being somehow intellectually inferior is kinda hilarious given that Steam gamers tend to bemoan PC games getting "dumbed down" for console kiddies, while Playstation and Xbox fans are united in their contempt for childlike Nintendo fans, while everybody turns their noses up at mobile casual gamers, and on and on it goes. Let's not think grogs are immune either - I guarantee there's chess players out there who sniff about how no video game can ever capture the elegance of strategy in chess, while Go players chortle about the need for representational pieces instead of pure, abstract strategy, and so it goes, same as it ever was, tale as old as time.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tomn

As an aside, can I just say that folks here seem to have some really skewed views about Steam?

Besides, looking down on Steam gamers for being somehow intellectually inferior

quote:

ORIGINAL: PyrrhicDefeat

quote:

I am playing the Supreme Commander of [Insert Regime Name]. A guy to wich the SHQ Commanders, Governors and the entire Cabinet report to.

Managing Logistics is something for the "Quartermasters Office", wich is a element of a healthy SHQ. If even that much - sounds more like any Logistics Dispatcher in any truck stop can do that.

Well in that case you shouldn't be giving move orders to individual units, or deciding when to upgrade a hospital in one of your cities, or whether to cut another three hexes of dirt road somewhere. All way beneath you. Maybe those can be automated too?