You must be logged in to post messages.
Please login or register

General and Strategy Discussions
Moderated by GoSailing

Hop to:    
loginhomeregisterhelprules
Bottom
Topic Subject: supply and trade??
« Previous Page  1 2 3  Next Page »
posted 02-10-04 01:16 AM EDT (US)   
It would add quite an interresting dimension to the game if you had to supply your forces in the field and your towns/cities/bases (you could have supply centers or depots and trains and trucks/carts to distribute), and if you could trade w/ other players or w/in your own civ (kinda like Rise of Nations, but more extensive perhaps). What do ppl. think?
Replies:
posted 02-10-04 05:38 AM EDT (US)     1 / 73  
I don't think you'd want to drag-select your army and find out that half of it is supply-trucks

Bad idea. It would just clutter the map, and even though it's realistic, it's a boring part of realism.

Would you want your character to have to walk the half a kilometer from one hole to the other in a golf computer game?


Proud member of the Lonely Knights
Confucius says: "War not decide who right, war decide who left."
BE KOOL GO2SKOOL!!111
posted 02-10-04 06:50 AM EDT (US)     2 / 73  
that sort of idea would go great with RoN imo, but not E: DMW, sorry.

Well Lois, I tried finding my creativity like you said. First I tried an art class..Am I-Am I supposed to draw the penis? Then I tried sculpting..Am I-Am I supposed to sculpt the penis? Then i tried music..Am I-Am I supposed to conduct with my penis? Then I realised that this is it, Lois, my penis belongs on stage! ---Family Guy
posted 02-10-04 11:20 AM EDT (US)     3 / 73  
what about trade, though? remember AoE II?
you could get gold, you could trade resources, any number of things, except that it would all be carried in some land or sea unit. you could set what you're trading kinda like in Zeus, the city-building game:

Just select the requisite building (be it dock, trading post, whaterver - if units and trade are too much for one building, you could just have a "shipyard" building), and set the amt. to be trade, which is taken from your stockpiles when the trading unit comes by

I really miss how in AoE you could trade for a resource you were very short on or needed some of quickly. The only problem I can forsee is that it wouldn't be used too much, b/c gold mines are good on their own, and it would be quite possible to either a)limit the amt. of gold available or b)make it harder to mine gold (time, etc.)

posted 02-10-04 11:24 AM EDT (US)     4 / 73  
also, when I said "supply towns/cities/bases", I was talking food, like you have to have farms or some such thing reasonably nearish to keep making units: buildings not 'hooked into' the supply don't have access to your resource stockpiles

this would be kinda extraneous, I know, but it would be a boon to underdogs, I should think.

posted 02-10-04 02:20 PM EDT (US)     5 / 73  
Supply routes would make this game distinctive. Not even Close Combat, the most realistic computer representation of battle I've played, was able to model this crucial aspect of warfare.

Idea - Don't have multiple supply wagons/trucks as active "selectable" units - simply have one unit (like the sergeant, or a Kommissar, or some new Supply unit) be the focus point for shipments from your closest town center or granary. Use the existing model in the Patton campaign, whereby supply trucks must reach your troops - but instead of gas, have it be food/shells/material. These supply trucks are automatic; you don't need to do anything for them to set out on their merry way to the focal point of each formation. If your troops run out of supply, they first lose morale, then can't replenish special power abilities, then attrition sets in (e.g., lose 5% of troops/equipment each 2 minutes not supplied).

This would alleviate one of the big problems with all historical based RTS games I've seen - I can send massive armies to any location on the map without concern for keeping them fed or in ammunition. The strategies that would come from this - keeping your supply routes defended, trying to envelope enemy forces, blockades, raids on enemy supply lines. Circle around your enemy to attack that undefended granary your enemy build just to supply his massive army decimating your city, then starve out his army with your much smaller force. Set up snipers or bazookas (when the game has them) in the hills above your enemies supply routes, picking off enemy supply trucks one by one. No more just build a huge army and attack anything in your path.

I don't want to make this so complicated that you have to micromanage how much food or equipment for each formation, but do think a simple supply route system would make the game a lot more fun and open up strategic possibilities exponentially.

[This message has been edited by billiard (edited 02-10-2004 @ 02:22 PM).]

posted 02-10-04 02:52 PM EDT (US)     6 / 73  
that would be great!!

what about water, too, as far as settlements, farms, etc. go: you can't live w/o it!

posted 02-10-04 03:03 PM EDT (US)     7 / 73  
Supply and Trade doesn't work with empires.. trade maybe supply hell no.

Cheers - DL
Empires Rank:
[DoJo]_XLith1umX
yvan eht nioj
posted 02-10-04 05:41 PM EDT (US)     8 / 73  
I tend to agree. The problem lies in over-realising one aspect of the game compared to the others.

There are too few units, too basic formations, too few resources to gather in too few ways. Integrating supply lines just doesn't go with that. Next you'll want gunpowder units to sit in ranks 3 men deep, and as the first rank fires, it drops to its knees to reload, then the second fires...

Your idea is nice, but it doesn't go with Empire: DMW.


Proud member of the Lonely Knights
Confucius says: "War not decide who right, war decide who left."
BE KOOL GO2SKOOL!!111
posted 02-10-04 07:20 PM EDT (US)     9 / 73  
Quote:

"Your idea is nice, but it doesn't go with Empire: DMW."

Unfortunately this is true. I first thought of these ideas of trade and supply routes when I first starting playing Empires. However it doesn't fit with the fast paced of multiplayer action mode that most people play online. I think your ideas are great but they fit into what inevitably will be a new genre of gaming which is real-time empire gaming. similiar to RoN, but still more emphasis on real historical strategy in which factors such as fuel, food and stamina come into play. Sort of a CivilizationIII game only Realtime.

posted 02-10-04 07:46 PM EDT (US)     10 / 73  
I don't think it has to be complicated - see the Patton campaign for a version that is already extant. Patton's tanks run out of fuel if the automatically generated supply trucks don't make it to him. Not very realistic, in that even if I don't move my tanks, they still run out of fuel, but hey, it was a nice start. My proposal is, instead of fuel, it is generic "supplies". These don't even have to be deducted from your food or gold stockpiles, although that would be more realistic - just think, you'd have to prepare to invade your neighbor by building up stockpiles of materiel to supply your army! Instead, what I'd like to see is just a simple series of unit "penalties" when the automatically generated supply trucks don't make it to your remotely posted army. Some units "special ability" could be the lack of need of a "supply officer" when more than X tiles away from your nearest granary or town center - commandos, snipers, freedom fighters, partisans could have this special ability. But tanks and regular infantry would need supply if more than "X" units away from your home base. While safely in your territory, next to your granaries and TC's, no supply needed. Outside of that range, if not one of the aforementioned special units, then you better have a supply officer (truck?) with the troops, or they'll be sitting ducks. Maybe a "pillage" ability that, while reducing the need for supply, decreases morale and battle readiness (e.g., no formations possible) and increases the risk of spontaneously generated "freedom fighters" attacking your troops.

Irregardless, all of you are probably right, in that it won't happen in Empires. But just think of it - you notice that your seemingly peaceful neighbor is building up huge stockpiles of tanks, and his villies are working feverishly on the goldmines - do you stage a preemptive strike? Hope he hits someone else? Offer him a tribute so as not to attack you? Think of the killer Gustavus Adolphus campaign - deciding when to pillage and when to retreat back in to your supply lines. It would be something no other RTS, or any warfare game for that matter, has really done well. The "strategy" in RTS would really mean that, and not "tactics".

posted 02-10-04 10:07 PM EDT (US)     11 / 73  
it wouldnt work... it sounds good on paper but when u actruiely played with it in game urd be complaining about it

Mokon | | | AoE3 Rate 2200~ | | |
  • To check out my Age of Empires III Strategy Guide click here!
  • The price of my guide has been reduced! Check it out!
  • New TWC Recorded Games Posted on my Media Page!
  • posted 02-11-04 01:37 AM EDT (US)     12 / 73  
    problem: your idea changes the "balance" of the game too much

    maybe in another game it would be nice but not for empires. and for all you who complain about gold: you got outplayed


    Completed: CTF 2v2
    Working on: Battle of Cambrai, CTF 4v4, and more.
    Future campaign: Dawn of the Modern World.
    Member of the AIrBoRnE Global Gaming Community, Proudly sponsered by sys-techs
    primary target
    esgameservers
    posted 02-11-04 04:18 AM EDT (US)     13 / 73  
    I would like to see a market... some means of exchanging surpluse resources, at a loss, of course, so that it would only be used in emergencies. I remember my favorite game of AoC... it was with two friends of mine on a Black Forest map... there was one path through the woods between their two start positions and the dang program put me on that path... needless to say I got nailed from two directions at once... held for awhile, but had to slink away with my empire in flames. Since they smacked into each other in the middle of my base the promptly forgot me and began duking it out. I managed to find a spot in a corner of the map, a clearing through a narrow passage in the forest, one way in. I was able to plop down and rebuild, despite the lack of a gold or stone mine, because of the market and whole load of woodchoppers. Ended up coming in second place, despite my earlier setbacks, purely because of the market.

    Now, I know that the possibilities of an epic retreat and return to glory are pretty much nil in rapid Action Mode play, but for those of us who prefer slower and longer Empire Builder games, the inclusion of a market would be a godsend. I'd go so far as to say it should be included only in Empire builder, as something to make that variation more distinctive rather than just "Action Mode slow style."

    posted 02-11-04 11:45 AM EDT (US)     14 / 73  
    I think jimmy jim is on to something. RTS games have to start adding new dimensions to the gameplay if they're going to survive.

    Quote:

    that sort of idea would go great with RoN imo, but not E: DMW, sorry.

    Right. But let's not lose sight of the fact that in terms of sales and overall popularity, RoN has so far proven to be a much more successful game than EDMW. Is it possible we can learn some things from them to make the next EDMW even better?

    I know it strikes many of you as unwieldy, but adding a more challenging economic component to the game could have the same effect as adding national borders had in RoN --- shaking up our basic concepts of tactical strategy, and adding a stronger sense of grand strategy to the game.

    And be sure to keep this in mind: Even if an econimc component were added, there's no reason why you couldn't choose a multiplayer game style that didn't use it! In other words, the option of playing w/out the economic component could still exist for adrenalin junkies!

    As far as implementing this idea, I do think it's important to distinguish between trade and supply, as they would entail entirely different sets of problems. I think the place to start is developing a more challenging trade component first.

    A system (for example) in which you have to build trade posts or markets in other people's territory in order to generate gold would be a very intriguing alternative to the way-too-overused system of chipping away at yellow rocks on the map.

    In such a system, you'd value your allies a lot more, and you'd really have to calculate what you'll lose by declaring war on them... because of course only allies are going to allow each other to maintain markets in each other's territory.

    And let me repeat: Of course you'd only have to do this in Empire Builder mode, not in any of the fast-paced modes.

    posted 02-11-04 12:30 PM EDT (US)     15 / 73  
    there would still be some yellow rocks to chip though, right?

    yeah, but in eb mode, I really miss trade
    so here we are, all walled in, the ai is having a hard time cracking the nut that we were at the time and we have 0 (yes, 0!) gold because we exhausted it three hours before in an attempt to drive the enemy back and capture some more gold mines...
    this is that 7-hour game kor and I played in the demo against a level 8

    but anyway, how would the game differentiate between player territories? boundaries like ron, or would the market have to be within x tiles of a settlement or tc?


    Bah.
    posted 02-11-04 03:17 PM EDT (US)     16 / 73  
    the reason ron had better sales than edomw was cause it had micrsoft behind it and cause EE stunk...... EDoMw is a billion times better

    Mokon | | | AoE3 Rate 2200~ | | |
  • To check out my Age of Empires III Strategy Guide click here!
  • The price of my guide has been reduced! Check it out!
  • New TWC Recorded Games Posted on my Media Page!
  • posted 02-11-04 05:06 PM EDT (US)     17 / 73  
    off topic, Mokon!

    What Gordon Farrell is saying sounds really cool, an interesting (not to mention more realistic) aspect to the game. I mean, on of the reasons the Spanish parts of the new world were so valuable was because they had accessable and already-developed (by the locals) sources of specie (gold, silver, etc. for those non-history junkies), and one of the big factors in the collapse of spain was that it just kept importing all this specie to sustain their economy (small tax base), and the combo of its devaluation and other econ preassures really did a number on the spanish crown's treasury.
    Thus, gold (in-game) is turned back into what it really was: an extremely valuable and extremely limited source of currency. wealth was, and still is, primarilly generated through commerce (trade, manufacture, etc.) and not through yellow bumps on the map!

    As far as gameplay goes, think of the dimension it would add to the game, especially if there were controllable, tradeble rare resources on the map (although not necessarilly). You could kill your enemy's economy with raids on their commerce, and you could get $ from that. You could actually have a reason to fight your neighbor, aside from "he's there": s/he might not be letting you trade with them or with someone else (they sit on a trade route, for example). you could tax imports/exports in the form of a percentage of the wealth carried by a travling merchant/caravan thing (read: the economic base of the medieval kingdoms of Mali, Ghana, Songhi).
    Also, as Gordon Farrell points out, allies become wayyyy more important. for example, the suport they give you would be conditional on more than how they like you as a person.

    This also brings in the whole commerce protection thing (convoys, caravans, etc.).

    posted 02-12-04 09:58 AM EDT (US)     18 / 73  
    I think the way to make this work in an RTS environment is not to make it complex and require the player to make lots of small adjustments. I'm not sure setting tax rates or even trade routes would be a lot of fun in the fast+furious world of RTS.

    I think the way to make this work is to make it something that's easily implemented and essentially self-managing, like national borders in RoN.

    Maybe marketplaces (to be replaced with "trade centers" or "corporations" in more advanced eras?) have Trade Zones that automatically appear on the map as a dotted line. These dotted lines extend beyond your national borders (if national borders in fact are implemented in the game) into other players' territories, enemy and friendly. Marketplaces or TCs owned by other players that fall within your marketplace's Trade Zone generate money for you. Thus, you can even make money off people who are your enemies --- wouldn't that be a neat coup to pull off? And alternately, imagine how pissed you'd get to find enemy marketplaces extending their Trade Zones into your territory that you didn't know about? It'd be realistic, too, since businessmen have a way of doing business with each other despite the wishes of their governments...

    posted 02-12-04 03:06 PM EDT (US)     19 / 73  
    it would still be good to have a physical unit required for some trade. this way, you could interdict trade (embargo, anyone?) and/or cut off your enemy's major sources of revenue, in addition to the 'trade centers' and such that Gordon Farrell was just talking about.
    posted 02-12-04 03:12 PM EDT (US)     20 / 73  

    Quote:

    EE stunk

    Wrong. So wrong. Beyond wrong. To the point of heresy.

    Anyway, I think they should implement either in a patch (very unlikely, but possible) or in an expansion pack (most likely) a market trade system exactly like how they have it in AoK. Easy fo sheezy, and it would solve the problem of having gold running out, and you could do raids on the trade carts etc...


    http://www.dojoclan.net
    Well I was talking to Kman, and he was like "what do you do?" and I was like "Oh, I act, go to school, dance, sing, play soccer and stuff. What do you do?" and he was like "AntiAmi." so I figured hey, it's an occupation. - Ultima_Knight
    posted 02-12-04 05:22 PM EDT (US)     21 / 73  
    It took quite some time for a VIP to admit at least in writing anyway that hammering away on a pile of stone or gold in the 20th century is a bit unrealistic. I understand that this was a successful formula for most RTS games but as Gordan says these games must evolve or perish. I like Empires but without more strategic depth behind it, eventually it will be replaced with another game. The whole concept behind RTS games is replayability. I play these games mostly for that reason but Jimmy's ideas have been stated before and they are good ideas. Lets just hope a developer is brave enough to start the new Real-Time Genre beyond RoN. If reality is what some gamers are craving, lets give it to them. Have minor civilizations incorporated into the game to give a sense of world domination. These minor civs could be traded with, conquered or taken on as a province of your civilization. Sort of like Germany taking over Poland or Belgium during the initial stages of World War two. I don't know but it is worth thinking about.
    posted 02-12-04 05:27 PM EDT (US)     22 / 73  

    Quote:

    Anyway, I think they should implement either in a patch (very unlikely, but possible) or in an expansion pack (most likely) a market trade system exactly like how they have it in AoK. Easy fo sheezy, and it would solve the problem of having gold running out, and you could do raids on the trade carts etc...

    Correct..... However another way would be to make the gold mines like the ves gys in sc


    Mokon | | | AoE3 Rate 2200~ | | |
  • To check out my Age of Empires III Strategy Guide click here!
  • The price of my guide has been reduced! Check it out!
  • New TWC Recorded Games Posted on my Media Page!
  • posted 02-12-04 06:48 PM EDT (US)     23 / 73  
    Idea: (maybe someone is listening)

    Resource site: occuring on the edge of the map called a Trade Route. It would mark a point where trade carts or ships could "connect" with the outside world.

    Building: Market. Origin point of trade carts, from which they travel to a designated trade route. This building could not be built within a certain distance of its designated trade route on the map, so that you could build one right beside a route, but not send trade to that route. Reason being to make convoys necessary so that they are risky and can be raided.

    Process: This wouldn't be an automatic resource generator, but rather you would purchase resources with other resources at the market, such as in AoK, but rather than recieve them automatically, the convoy would have to walk/sail the route, perhaps several trips in order to carry out the transfer. Likewise, if the trade carts/ships are destroyed enroute you lose that shipment.

    What this would do: By having designated trade routes, there are definate places to raid, known to your enemy, but you would be able in theory to build these routes deep in your territory, and so make raiding them more difficult. Having the delay in the trading of resources also makes the trade carts something very important to protect, rather than just some easily replaceable unit, and it prevents a player from immediately making up for a shortfall that they should have seen coming.

    I think my idea strikes a good balance between risk and ease of use. So, any thoughts? And developers willing to pay me loads of cash for my idea, or at least send me a free tee-shirt?...j/k :-) Seriously though, good idea or bad idea?

    posted 02-12-04 07:35 PM EDT (US)     24 / 73  
    Supply and trade is a must for long action games.

    This is a family forum -- I doubt GillB would approve of me saying such things as "thrust deeply while rubbing hands passionately". -Obese
    posted 02-12-04 09:09 PM EDT (US)     25 / 73  
    yeah i was thinkin along the same lines, ibeezbec.

    this games has a lot of potential when i comes to adding new things..


    Well Lois, I tried finding my creativity like you said. First I tried an art class..Am I-Am I supposed to draw the penis? Then I tried sculpting..Am I-Am I supposed to sculpt the penis? Then i tried music..Am I-Am I supposed to conduct with my penis? Then I realised that this is it, Lois, my penis belongs on stage! ---Family Guy
    « Previous Page  1 2 3  Next Page »
    Empires Heaven » Forums » General and Strategy Discussions » supply and trade??
    Top
    You must be logged in to post messages.
    Please login or register
    Hop to:    
    Empires Heaven | HeavenGames