Merchant Marine and traded commodities

[rogerbacon]

I understand the current system does not represent traded commodities on the map in any way. It is an abstraction that was made during game design but I would hope the developers would take another look at it because it is integral to the naval aspect of the game.
I would like to see two changes to make Naval units more useful.

1. There should be a limit on how many merchant marine units can be spawned at once. Merchant marine units should be "built" like any other unit and simply added to an inventory. Then when a unit need to turn into a merchant marine the code checks if one is available in inventory and spawns one and reduces inventory by one. When the unit disembarks the merchant marine is added back into inventory. This should be pretty easy to program and at least this would give more value to sinking a merchant marine unit. It would have the added effect of not having 1000 of your units jump into the sea when you declare war with another country. (Happened to me with Japan declaring war on Australia).

2 Commodities transported over water (and maybe land) should be loaded into merchant marine units, or some equivalent, and slowly move to their destination. This would really make naval units worthwhile. If land units can turn into merchant marine when entering a port. I don't see why the program can't do the same for commodities. When a buy/sell order comes in, simply calculate the nearest port from one country to another and spawn merchant marines.

WW2 was a war of supply and production, much more so than the time periods represented by the other games in this series. I hope the developers take a second look at the system they have in place for commodities and supply to make the naval aspect of this game more interesting.

[Balthagor]

...I don't see why the program can't do the same for commodities....

because the commodities aren't "stored" anywhere. When coal is mined, it goes directly into the global reserve of coal. If it didn't it would need to be "stored" somewhere, to have a fixed location on the map. Then the engine would need to determine if there is a path from the coal mine storage to the coal power plant. Then we would need power lines to the goods plants. We would need a way of seeing how much of each commodities is stored in each location. Merchant marine would only be in play if the locations were separated by water. You're describing supply trucks between every facility on the map essentially.

We have considered extensively how such a system would work and it would at least double the complexity of the game. Players would not understand why they have a production surplus of coal but a coal shortage for power. Suddenly instead of trying to achieve commodity balance or your region you're trying to create commodity balance for all of your regional pockets.

[rogerbacon]

I understand what you are saying and I'm not suggesting any changes to commodities within a country. Let them abstractly just "be" wherever they are needed. All I'm saying is that when traded between countries (especially by sea) it would be nice if they actually moved on the map. Since there isn't a unit type for commodities, I suggested the merchant marine since it already can load units.
Players wouldn't notice any extra complexity other that a delay between purchase of a commodity and its availability when it arrived in their country after traveling there by merchant marine. Even if such a system was only from the port of the selling country to the port of the buying country, I think it would make the game much better. The only complexity it would add is the need to protect the commodities from enemy naval forces. That's 'complexity' that most players would welcome.

[bitterwinterz]

...I don't see why the program can't do the same for commodities....

because the commodities aren't "stored" anywhere. When coal is mined, it goes directly into the global reserve of coal. If it didn't it would need to be "stored" somewhere, to have a fixed location on the map. Then the engine would need to determine if there is a path from the coal mine storage to the coal power plant. Then we would need power lines to the goods plants. We would need a way of seeing how much of each commodities is stored in each location. Merchant marine would only be in play if the locations were separated by water. You're describing supply trucks between every facility on the map essentially.

We have considered extensively how such a system would work and it would at least double the complexity of the game. Players would not understand why they have a production surplus of coal but a coal shortage for power. Suddenly instead of trying to achieve commodity balance or your region you're trying to create commodity balance for all of your regional pockets.

Sorry to see that BG feels that players would not understand a supply system tied to reality.

I don`t know how everyone else feels but for me its just not fun to be able to buy anything I need and have it available to use.. in the very next turn. There is a delay when purchasing and receiving units... (build time) but if I need 2 million barrels of oil... just buy it and its in your stocks the next day.. uh ok.... what else am I suppose to believe?? There is an AI that makes this game fun to play???

[Balthagor]

...Sorry to see that BG feels that players would not understand a supply system tied to reality...

I said no such thing. I don't appreciate you implying that I'm insulting our customers. I go out of my way to monitor the forums and talk with the community.

I said it would make the game more complex. For some people that would increase the fun, for others it would take away from the experience. We judge that it would take away more than it would add. We are already a niche market product, we cannot afford to further narrow our market and reduce sales.

And I'm certainly not going to advocate for it within the team when what's at risk is my ability to earn a living and provide for my family.

[burock82]

well both of point is right it could be very good to implement such a system but at the end of the day it is commercial decision. i understand and respect this. My expectations was for more complex diplomatic system and changing from wwII to CW after 1945 i know i want a lot

for now i am trying to understand why my units start loosing supply rate within national borders and it is normal or not

regards and cheers

Burak

[bitterwinterz]

...Sorry to see that BG feels that players would not understand a supply system tied to reality...

I said no such thing. I don't appreciate you implying that I'm insulting our customers. I go out of my way to monitor the forums and talk with the community.

I said it would make the game more complex. For some people that would increase the fun, for others it would take away from the experience. We judge that it would take away more than it would add. We are already a niche market product, we cannot afford to further narrow our market and reduce sales.

And I'm certainly not going to advocate for it within the team when what's at risk is my ability to earn a living and provide for my family.

Right... so you continue to rewrap SR into new eras.. upgrade the graphics.... and your customers get stuck with the same old AI.... nice business plan if you can keep getting new customers.

Why doesn't BG address the AI. EVERYONE including the "team" knows that is the biggest issue. Your game has so much POTENTIAL to really be special.

BTW I am a customer of yours and feel insulted that you expect me to support your company yet you don`t fix the issue. I will not buy another title until you fix the AI. So the effect is... narrowed market and reduced sales.

[Zuikaku]

I like the above ideas but I'm fully aware they can not be implemented.

But it woul'd really be a great thing if we coul'd in any way disrupt trade of regions we are at war with. So not 100% of traded commodities reach "buyer" but 60% (that woul'd depend of something like numbers of submarines in waters, or aircrafts on patrol).

[Balthagor]

...and your customers get stuck with the same old AI...

The AI has improved notably with every iteration of the game, to say otherwise is to ignore facts. There will always be more than can be done, even if we spent the next 5 years working on it. That's the nature of AI work.

...if we coul'd in any way disrupt trade of regions we are at war with...

George has actually been considering some ideas on this topic, when he has it more locked down we'll share some details.

[dax1]

George has actually been considering some ideas on this topic, when he has it more locked down we'll share some details.

well well well

[number47]

I understand what you are saying and I'm not suggesting any changes to commodities within a country. Let them abstractly just "be" wherever they are needed. All I'm saying is that when traded between countries (especially by sea) it would be nice if they actually moved on the map. Since there isn't a unit type for commodities, I suggested the merchant marine since it already can load units.
Players wouldn't notice any extra complexity other that a delay between purchase of a commodity and its availability when it arrived in their country after traveling there by merchant marine. Even if such a system was only from the port of the selling country to the port of the buying country, I think it would make the game much better. The only complexity it would add is the need to protect the commodities from enemy naval forces. That's 'complexity' that most players would welcome.

:cough: what about landlocked countries? :cough:

Even the existing diplomatic merchant marine option used for units trading isn't functional because of the same "landlocked" issue...

[Aragos]

IMHO, there are a couple of issues here.
1) Making a workable, basic economy for what is essentially an RTS wargame. That isn't easy. You can go the Age of Empires route ( you mine stuff, then you run out), or you can go the Civilization route (once you are iron, you are iron for life!). I think the SR system works, for what it does. However....

2) The SR econ system, because it is generalized/global (e.g., stuff goes into this imaginary global pool where the countries buy from, and is not actually on map anywhere), runs into some issues when you try to replicate history/reality. These are (the examples below are based on a player playing USA):

a) No economic warfare. If you can't embargo sales from the global market, then this is impossible. USA is upset with China and wants to stop all exports of Oil. However, the Oil produced goes into the global pool for sale to allies, neutrals, et al. So unless the player wants to stop all automatic trading of Oil, China can buy all it can afford.
b) No strategic (WWII-style) warfare. Given that resources move invisbility, and there are no marked sea-routes, etc., building a bunch of subs to cut off the UK or Japan is a waste of money. Effectively, submarines in the game are Fleet support warships (as the Japanese visualized their use before 1939, and how modern countries use them today). The sub became one of the decisive weapons of WWII not because it sank battleships, but that it sank tankers. This is impossible in the current game to replicate. Strategic bombing is somewhat better, as a player can order strat bombers to hit factories, etc. and reduce production and supply.
c) Inability to cut supply. Buildings in SR (supply depots, ports, airfields) generate supply, not factories or oil wells. Consequently, there really isn't a global supply tether for armies. If you can build a port or airfield, you can supply your troops anywhere. Again, this is a generalization of how supply actually works in warfare (the big invisible hand-wave approach--'someone somewhere is flying in supplies, et al'). While it works to simplify SR, it also makes it impossible to cut supply to enemy armies. Example: The USA lands a bunch of troops in north Africa. They take a port. The port starts producing supply...ignoring the 20+ German subs outside the port.

When this was in Beta, I suggested that instead of the Strategic Pool of SRCW, that it be replaced with a Strategic Warfare sub-game, where players could allocate escorts, subs, cargo ships, planes, et al, to fight the strategic-level war, based on sea zones and areas. I still think it would work and add a huge amount to the game.