Jump to content
Rolling Thunder Forums

RC Centers


General Miles Avatar
 Share

Recommended Posts

Pete,

Considering your message about potential losses while using planetary uniersal gates, I'm not sure why anyone would use them. If your warp route is secure, why take the risk?

The loss code has been removed for a while now, and if it is added back in the losses will be very low. The choice comes down to no losses, low losses, or a very harsh cap on action points that can be expended in a convoy route. I avoid intervening with a passion, but excessive processing time caused by this issue would scream for a very harsh cap. When it comes down to efficient turn processing versus some players squeezing out some extra cargo ship efficiency with a massive impact on processing time, turn processing speed trumps all.

I am still reluctant to build a bunch these if there is a chance of the loss being added back in the future. Why take the risk? It is true that freighters can be destroyed, but they are also a hell of a lot cheaper and more flexible as they can haul freight everywhere, not just where there is a gate.

 

I tossed out a thread to discuss this very topic, claiming Planetary Cargo Gates are useless. Here's the link.

 

Cargo Gate Thread

 

After some responses, I've come to the conclusion that the planetary cargo gate is useful, but in specific conditions. For example, you ICE a planet with Hydro or Geothermal, so it has lots of cheap power for the gate. But in most other cases, on basic colonies that haven't been significantly boosted by ICE or DCS, you waste a whole lot of material compared to a simple 200 AP cargo ship.

 

And there's the rub with cargo gates. With all of the required cost to build them and power them, building cargo ships will always be way cheaper and provide all the benefits for a very low cost. With convoy rules any convoy will run over and over plenty of times. So the way the game is designed, people looking to maximize their resource usage will opt for convoys over gates.

 

What needs to be done is to significantly lower the cost of gates. As I pointed out in the thread, you can power a wormhole generator that sends billion ton fleets across the stars with only 100,000 Caldaran crystals. But a gate costs 500,000 power per turn for intrasystem transport only. The wormhole generator also costs 5,000,000 ACM to build, and can handle those billion ton ships with ease. So why does the intrasystem only gate require the same amount of material? I would suggest cutting the planetary cargo gate costs down, maybe to 1,000,000 ACM to build, and 100,000 to power. That, along with NO LOSSES ever, would get people to switch from the cargo routes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 46
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I still cant figure out why a convoy route didnt initiate. I should have at least gotten an error message saying that the fleet wasnt at the right location etc etc.

Be sure to include at least one order that burns an action point from the fleet running the convoy route. Otherwise, it would trigger an infinite loop route which would never end. Speed 100+ fleets running convoy routes severely slow down processing as it is (for cargo transfer routes, it's much, much better to use planetary/universal gates)....infinite loop ones would be worse :beer:

 

Hi :thumbsup:

 

This is probably going to be a stupid idea and really difficult to code and Im sure there are lots of problems with the idea... however I thought Id write anyway...

 

To combat the hip AP fleets doing a convoy routes hundreds of times, Before a convoy route is run could the program compare the AP needed for the route with the AP for the fleet and then just multiply the size of the ships? I know a similar thing is done for battles when there are so many screen ships. e.g.

 

A simple in system convyy route of

LC

NM

OC

NM

system calculates that it takes 2AP to complete.

 

It compares that with the fleet runnig the route (e.g. a 20Ap ship with 100K cargo capacity) so can do the route 10 times, instead of running it 10 times it multiplys the ship size by 10. so instead of carrying 100,000 cargo ten times it would carry 1,000,000 once.

 

If for instance the route was 4AP and it was a 2AP ship it would always default to 1 if the figure is lower then 1 so it would run as normal only completing half of the route.

 

Infact I guess all decimals would have to be rounded down... but who runs a route one and a half times right? :}

 

Its just a idea....

 

One problem with this is fuel - an interstallar convoy route will presumably refuel at least once in each run and it will need to be checked as the refuling station(s) may run short. But it looks good for in-system convoy routes. The code could check each route and flag it as "local" (ie no WARP orders) or "interstallar" and process local routes quckly.

 

One way to cut down printing space (though not processing time) would be to print convoy MOVE, NM or WARP orders only if they result in an error eg Insufficient fuel.

 

And I really like the suggested SKIMAX order. A minimal change to cause minimal disruption, but it can kill off all the fuel convoys.

 

 

 

Well, I will continue to hold off on adding any upper limit on the number of action points that can be expended during the convoy route phase, because I dislike interfering, but as with anything else if it takes an unacceptable amount of time to run end turn adjustments because of high speed fleets running convoys, my hand will be forced. If you can come up with better transport methods, it's in your best interest to do so. Though I would absolutely not want to intervene, and have avoided doing so for years, any cap I put in place would definitely be very, very low. I just want to get the turns out in a reasonable amount of time, and not have the program run for hours just trying to get through one or two empires running ridiculously long convoy routes. Squeezing out some extra efficiency by building crazy fast ships with a relatively low number of cargo bays instead of much larger ships causes significant, unacceptable delays in turn processing time.

 

 

Pete,

Considering your message about potential losses while using planetary uniersal gates, I'm not sure why anyone would use them. If your warp route is secure, why take the risk?

The loss code has been removed for a while now, and if it is added back in the losses will be very low. The choice comes down to no losses, low losses, or a very harsh cap on action points that can be expended in a convoy route. I avoid intervening with a passion, but excessive processing time caused by this issue would scream for a very harsh cap. When it comes down to efficient turn processing versus some players squeezing out some extra cargo ship efficiency with a massive impact on processing time, turn processing speed trumps all.

 

If the worst comes to the worst and you have to nobble the size of convoy routes, how about changing convoy routies so each can only run one fleet through a turn? Whilst it would hurt, players who have invested in very fast engines could still derive the benefit by amalgamating all fleets that run that convoy. You would still have 200+ convoy routes running, but there would be less of them. Of course, its tricky to know how much this would matter without any statistics on how people use convoy routes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Convoy routes are the path of least resistance. It takes a significant amount of time and dedicated research to get to the Gates. And with all the other needs and priorities concerning research, stuff like Worm Holes and Gates are quickly relegated to the luxury items category.

 

Multiple weapons, multiple defenses, armor, shields, advanced industries, engines, transwarp drives, jump drives, improved and advanced items to build improved and advanced weapons and defenses and industries. And lets not forget the elusive Flag Bridge with it's daunting amount of required research. This is not just a priority but a must have item, for without it, the game will collapse under the weight of all the screens. Then there's ground combat to consider. Remember, successful ground combat is all about combined arms. What this means is, there are no fewer than 35 categories in which you are trying to achieve dominance - 35 categories that demand the attetion of your research centers.

 

All of this can easily take priority over Worm Holes and Gates.

 

The effects on game mechanics aside, I think the intended benefit of Gates (and thus the justification for their cost in research, materials, and power) is the ability to transport cargo with little fear of enemy interference. And I agree with this. "Immunity" to enemy interference should come at a high cost. The problem is, the overriding factor now seems to be the effect on game mechanics, not whether or not Gates would be useful to your empire based on your empire's specific situation or chosen path of empire development. The impact of convoy routes on turn processing has now put Gates in the same category as Flag Bridges -- which is the Must Have category.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If there's no chance of loss from Gate use, we propose that the ANZ information be changed to reflect this. Also, a GM's Note should be placed at the beginning of the next turn report so people who don't read these boards get the info. Perhaps a line could also be added so that people know they need to email the GM once they learn Gate technology? Or the switch could be set to automagically flip once the requisite tech is learned...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pete,

Considering your message about potential losses while using planetary uniersal gates, I'm not sure why anyone would use them. If your warp route is secure, why take the risk?

The loss code has been removed for a while now, and if it is added back in the losses will be very low. The choice comes down to no losses, low losses, or a very harsh cap on action points that can be expended in a convoy route. I avoid intervening with a passion, but excessive processing time caused by this issue would scream for a very harsh cap. When it comes down to efficient turn processing versus some players squeezing out some extra cargo ship efficiency with a massive impact on processing time, turn processing speed trumps all.

I am still reluctant to build a bunch these if there is a chance of the loss being added back in the future. Why take the risk? It is true that freighters can be destroyed, but they are also a hell of a lot cheaper and more flexible as they can haul freight everywhere, not just where there is a gate.

 

I tossed out a thread to discuss this very topic, claiming Planetary Cargo Gates are useless. Here's the link.

 

Cargo Gate Thread

 

After some responses, I've come to the conclusion that the planetary cargo gate is useful, but in specific conditions. For example, you ICE a planet with Hydro or Geothermal, so it has lots of cheap power for the gate. But in most other cases, on basic colonies that haven't been significantly boosted by ICE or DCS, you waste a whole lot of material compared to a simple 200 AP cargo ship.

 

And there's the rub with cargo gates. With all of the required cost to build them and power them, building cargo ships will always be way cheaper and provide all the benefits for a very low cost. With convoy rules any convoy will run over and over plenty of times. So the way the game is designed, people looking to maximize their resource usage will opt for convoys over gates.

 

What needs to be done is to significantly lower the cost of gates. As I pointed out in the thread, you can power a wormhole generator that sends billion ton fleets across the stars with only 100,000 Caldaran crystals. But a gate costs 500,000 power per turn for intrasystem transport only. The wormhole generator also costs 5,000,000 ACM to build, and can handle those billion ton ships with ease. So why does the intrasystem only gate require the same amount of material? I would suggest cutting the planetary cargo gate costs down, maybe to 1,000,000 ACM to build, and 100,000 to power. That, along with NO LOSSES ever, would get people to switch from the cargo routes.

 

Dont know about anyone else but this idea will defintely sell me onto cargo gates. :beer:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still cant figure out why a convoy route didnt initiate. I should have at least gotten an error message saying that the fleet wasnt at the right location etc etc.

Be sure to include at least one order that burns an action point from the fleet running the convoy route. Otherwise, it would trigger an infinite loop route which would never end. Speed 100+ fleets running convoy routes severely slow down processing as it is (for cargo transfer routes, it's much, much better to use planetary/universal gates)....infinite loop ones would be worse :thumbsup:

 

Hi :cheers:

 

This is probably going to be a stupid idea and really difficult to code and Im sure there are lots of problems with the idea... however I thought Id write anyway...

 

To combat the hip AP fleets doing a convoy routes hundreds of times, Before a convoy route is run could the program compare the AP needed for the route with the AP for the fleet and then just multiply the size of the ships? I know a similar thing is done for battles when there are so many screen ships. e.g.

 

A simple in system convyy route of

LC

NM

OC

NM

system calculates that it takes 2AP to complete.

 

It compares that with the fleet runnig the route (e.g. a 20Ap ship with 100K cargo capacity) so can do the route 10 times, instead of running it 10 times it multiplys the ship size by 10. so instead of carrying 100,000 cargo ten times it would carry 1,000,000 once.

 

If for instance the route was 4AP and it was a 2AP ship it would always default to 1 if the figure is lower then 1 so it would run as normal only completing half of the route.

 

Infact I guess all decimals would have to be rounded down... but who runs a route one and a half times right? :}

 

Its just a idea....

 

 

Back in the old days I would design fleets for specific amounts of AP so my CR's would always end at one end or the other. As we got older and wiser it became apparent that this was inefficient as it required many new ship designs and limited the use of ones fleets. Now we just build 200 - 500 AP fleets and send them off. They end where they end. Having taken this step I see no advantage to going back to the old method. So there is at least one person who will get 8.6 trips accomplished, on average.

:thumbsup::beer:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will make an effort to explain the use of high AP convoy routes since I use them quite a bit and having talked to Pete about this issues on numerous occasions I would also be one of the bigger users.

 

The basic reason for running high AP convoy routes is purely economical. Once you have invested the research to get to higher end engines it becomes cheaper to build smaller faster ships as opposed to bigger slower ships

 

Compare these examples of ships that could be built for an in system cargo run.

 

Small ship

 

10,000 cargo

100 Mk III Fusion engines for 20 AP for a total cargo movement of 100,000

 

Large ship

 

100,000 cargo

Mk I nuclear Engine - 2 AP (default) and a total cargo move of 100,000

 

So you can either build a 20,000 ton ship to move your cargo or you can build a 100,100 ton ship to move the same cargo.

 

Now if you move along further you may get to Mk II Gravitic Thrusters. With those engines you can build the same small ship but it will have an AP of 1280 and will move 6.4M tons of cargo a turn. The alternative is to build a big ship that is 6,400,100 tons so you can move it all in one move.

 

For interstellar routes the benefit is much the same. I currently use a 200 AP ship that moves 6M cargo which gives me the ability to move just about 50M cargo a turn. There is no way that I could ever afford to build individual ships of 50M cargo to move the cargo.

 

All of this is rather pointless unless you are a colonizer or you have added some extra HW's to your empire. But everybody should be able to see that high AP ships provide a much large bang for the buck. For war ships you can easily get by with 8AP for your main battle fleets.

 

I look forward to the completion of Universal Gates just as much as Pete does. Once that happens I should be able to trim 1200 pages off of my turn and reduce turn processing overall by an hour or more. Until then the only alternative is the convoy route.

 

I should also point out that if you take the time to develop your worlds using ICE and/or DCS's you will have to move to gates as even high AP fleets won't do the job for you in the end.

 

 

Good luck on your cargo movements...

:beer::cheers::thumbsup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would like to point out that whenever the loss code was removed from gate technology, I missed that. I know there was that one blurb about changes on one turn .. but quite frankly I do not remember seeing that losses no longer existed.

 

Since I have universal gates developed, I just may build a few on my homeworlds, to start trading more directly. The reported losses prior to this were just ridiculous in my opion, even for short 7 or 8 star system hops. So I never built any Universal gates as it seemed silly given the coding. I merely depended on high AP ships with TWD's to ply the stars back and forth. It's amazing the AP you can put into a cargo ship with some Mk I Total Conversion engines. But with no losses, well, transfers seem like the way to go, especially since my HW's all are well blessed in large amounts of power.

 

There ARE no losses on gates now, right??? Because if the Universal gates are still losing cargo, even small amounts, then screw it, I'll keep the cargo routes up. I'll just keep material in stock to build the gates if needed in a military emergency.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We've had PCGs operating in our home system for some time now and have never seen loss. We just completed the universal gate this turn, but have no extra-system colonies worth building one on, especially not for that power consumption. *waves antennae*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now for an alternative opinion about high AP cargo runs.

 

Let's look realistically at transportation in the current, real world environment and apply it to the game, no matter how much it hurts. Where do cargo and container ships spend significant amounts of time? In ports, being loaded, unloaded, serviced, repaired and upgraded. Yes, the companies that own such ships want them sailing from port to port, so the wise port owners have accumulated tax breaks from local governments so they can move cargo efficiently (on/off ships, in/out of the port), minimizing the amount of time in the port. But they must port to perform their goal of delivering the goods. They are not allowed to run their engines while in port for economical and environmental reasons.

 

Apply this to the high AP cargo ships and runs. Where is their port time? Shouldn't it be rate limiting in some way? Why do we assume (or perhaps we don't) that they are running their engines full speed all the time? Do they parachute their cargo onto a world and use the old railroad mail hook to pick it up cargo as the wiz by? How unrealistic. (But it is a game, so realism is suspended for most of us.)

 

What's my point? Justification for limits on the number of cargo runs per turn cycle. Not only does it speed up processing (a secondary consideration since more processing power is a simple minded solution), but it would also more realistically represent the time sinks required for loading and unloading cargo. What that limit would be, I leave open for discussion.

 

And now at least one counter argument. Disruptive technologies. Say you had a maxed out cargo ship with advanced gravitic or total conversion engines that happened to have a cargo bay sized teleporter like the Star Trek series. Port time would be much reduced. Hmm, perhaps that technology is likely to be researched about the time gates are researched? Decisions, decisions.

 

My personal opinion and preference is solve the huge AP convoy run issue with a number of run limit. An empire still gets use from advanaced engines (fewer resources needed to get to the max run limit, better defense in space combat from fighters, drones, missiles and torps) and bragging rights on the boards.

 

Octus

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you let them do the same work, just by using even more fleets ...

 

No real point in reducing printouts for people who want to have hauling cargo accross the universe.

 

The two often suggested code tweaks would solve all this without imposing AP restrictions.

 

1) A new SKIMMAX command, that eliminates the need for Skimming convoy routes.

2) Process one run and multiply the results due to AP present. This one is tricky, but would reduce output and processing time considerably.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's my point? Justification for limits on the number of cargo runs per turn cycle. Not only does it speed up processing (a secondary consideration since more processing power is a simple minded solution), but it would also more realistically represent the time sinks required for loading and unloading cargo. What that limit would be, I leave open for discussion.

 

Octus

 

I can guarantee that would make some players that have invested heavily in lots of complex high AP convoy routes and freighters extremely unhappy. It would be obviously unfair to an empire that went that route when it was perfectly legal within the rules, vs an empire that decided to invest in gates.

 

Besides, there is no time scale to the game. For all we know the time to load and unload cargo is negligible compared to the time it takes to move.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Besides, there is no time scale to the game. For all we know the time to load and unload cargo is negligible compared to the time it takes to move.

Which is why NM, MOVE, etc. cost an AP and OC and LC do not. :beer:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And now at least one counter argument. Disruptive technologies. Say you had a maxed out cargo ship with advanced gravitic or total conversion engines that happened to have a cargo bay sized teleporter like the Star Trek series. Port time would be much reduced. Hmm, perhaps that technology is likely to be researched about the time gates are researched? Decisions, decisions.

 

Using a combination of cloning center technologies, holographic display technology, and advanced tractor / pressor beam technology, we have created a work force of Re-pete-bots to do all of our loading, unloading, and transfers of materials. Basically we found creature, took it's brain, cloned it, placed it in mobile support unit with holographic processors and other systems (and fail safes of course), and trained it to work for us. The creators though re-pete-bots was funny for some reason as they do the same work over and over and over, never tiring, never changing, always the same thing. :beer:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...