[KISS - keep it simple ...]

(nod) Yeah, I started out with a vision to create a good, simple game (but not too simple). I've already added more complexity to it than I had originally intended, so I'm not eager to add more to it. If I were to add freighters back into the mix, I would be careful not to add obligations to the player. (For example, I could have freighters automatically do their own thing. I wouldn't want to burden the player with the need to build freighters, give them orders, setup supply routes, or stuff like that.)

Its obvious that I misunderstood which level of complexity you

aimed for.

(I thought it was at least Civ 3 level.)

Anyway I wish you good luck with your project.

Good bye.

Best Regards

Rocoteh

[Comparison with CIV?]

Goodaye,

I like Rocotech's idea better than mine. Simpler yet does the job.

If all the resources had to be auto-shipped/trucked back to your Capitol then the player wouldn't even have to set the destination.

Perhaps there could be a setting in the options that lets the player set the amount of resources generated at source before a ship /truck is generated. Do I go with regular smaller shipments or perodical bigger ones?

If the ship / truck was generated at the source a turn before initiating movement it could give the player an opportunity to provide it with an escort.

If you wanted to get fancy you could let the player click on an automoving ship / truck and then give their own orders. This could allow them to reroute a convoy past a dangerous situation or to stockpile a few trucks before running them up the road in one lot along with an escort.

Part of setting the difficulty level for the player could be in choosing the intial pool of resources that you and your opponents start with.

So you have shipments that are auto-generated and auto-moved requiring no micro-management yet still providing opportunites to wage economic war, both on land and sea.

There's also the possibility to let players who are so inclined micro-manage the logistics so it would be scaleable (eg. simple option with none of the above, standard option as above and advanced option where players can manually intervene.)

Cheers,

Plugger

Maybe a nation should start with only 1 city (and 2-3 reserve cities) that can receive

resources.

The British Empire for example:

London, Halifax in Canada and Sydney in Australia.

Thus if Germany conquers the British homeland the British Empire

still can continue to fight. In this example Halifax would be activated as a "can receive resources" city

after the fall of London.

As you say I think its important that one should be able to assign escorts

to freighters in a easy way.

I really hope there will a strategic warfare system in Empires of Steel.

During more then five years I have made scenarios for Civ 3 so I think

I can well evaluate what the lack of strategic warfare will lead to.

In fact one must regard the naval system in Civ 3 as a total failure.

Thus a typical WW-2 scenario will open like this:

The first 4-5 turns AI will throw 80-90% of its naval forces against

the human player.

After that one side will control the oceans and can move its transports

as it wants.

For sure not realistic!

The naval aspects will in this way this fast become uninteresting.

There is no way to simulate strategic warfare no matter how you

use the editor.

What Firaxis think about this no one knows since its many years

since they had any interest to communicate with their customers.

Rocoteh

[Comparison with CIV?]

My initial thought was to just have holding pools to which freighters and convoy protection vessels/air are assigned. Both players can also assign assets - naval to corresponding attack pools.

However the knock on here is that within say 10 hexes of known enemy bases you cannot use convoys /abstracted forces. Supply would have to be by destroyer etc.

The abstracted pools effect supply throughout the Empire and therefore production rates decrease. I would like the concept of supply routes however I am wondering if the complexity in play is getting too high.

I have recently started playing CIV3 and that does flounder on so many levels. As I was saying to a fellow player - if you view it as a puzzle game it works. As a recreation of civilisations and warfare it sucks mightily. I do wonder if because it has no randomisation in production values etc the entire game has been analysed to death as a game. I hope EoS does not suffer the same fate.

I recommend you to test one of the many very good mods or scenarios

that have been produced.

For example: The Age of Imperialism by El Justo.

The unmodded epic Civ 3 is outdated and boring to play.

Rocoteh

[Comparison with CIV?]

Yeah, I had some thoughts about putting freighters into the game - specifically to give submarines a larger role. (In fact, there are probably some old screenshots of freighters.) I could add them back in as a game variant - though, I'd have to rethink their role in the game.

That sounds very good.

What do you think about this system:

All players start the game with a given number of raw material

stockpiled in pools.

Every time a unit is created in a production-city a number of

points is deducted from the pool.

When new raw material is produced at a resource square it will

be represented with a truck (if its inland) or a freighter

(if its coastal).

A truck will auto-convert to a freighter if its moved to a

coastal resource.

Then an oil resource produced at for example Kuweit (represented

by a freighter) could be set with a "move to London order".

When it reaches london it will auto-add to the resource-pool.

Such a system should add minimum of bookkeeping for players

but it would make play much more interesting.

Rocoteh

[Comparison with CIV?]

I would almost urge you to reconsider. I have always disliked teleporting resources, be they raw goods/ores or finished supply materials. I fully understand that this kind of thing can be a royal pain to implement in a way which will not bog the game down, but the alternative may take away too much of the "flavor" of early-mid 20th century combat, from subs attacking ocean commerce to cutting off enemy land units from supply, that it would be a simulation of such warfare in name only. Your game likely would be very lively and enjoyable anyway, and these are certainly virtues to shoot for, but it wouldn't really resemble the combat of the period much at all without the player having to consider and plan out his shipping & logistics needs. There are likely ways to do it which wouldn't involve a huge amount of micromanagement, perhaps by instituting automatic "shipping" orders which will send a convoy (sea or land) on its way every so often without repeated player input.

I second that.

Considering the great importance of strategic warfare during both

WW1 and WW2 it should mean problems to exclude it from the game.

In such a case submarines will just be combat unit among others

and the Battle for the Atlantic will be pointless.

Rocoteh

[Comparison with CIV?]

Assume you want to make a WW1 or WW2 scenario for

Empires of Steel.

Can you then have some nations starting in locked alliances

and other nations joining an alliance after x number of turns?

The latter is not possible in Civ 3 and that creates severe problems.

Rocoteh

[Comparison with CIV?]

Hmmm. I'll have to double-check the Civ 3 map size in order to do a comparison, but the map size in EOS is upto 3200x3200 pixels.

There is no absolute limit, but players have to supply their military with oil and food.

Yup, as Moon mentioned, there's a map/scenario editor and a rules editor. (The difference between maps and scenarios is this: maps contain geography, cities, resources, airfields, and start points. But, scenarios allow you to define which nations are on the map, what they control at the beginning of the game (i.e. cities, resources, units), and which technologies each player begins the game with.)

There's also a built-in system for sharing your maps/scenarios/rules with other people (they get uploaded to our server).

Sounds very good.

Thank you for the info.

There are many "homeless" Civ 3 players frustrated with Civ 4.

I think these people will be interested in Empires of Steel.

Rocoteh

[Comparison with CIV?]

I'll leave the first two questions to Brit when he's around, but regarding the last one: yes, there is an editor, and not only that - user created content is encouraged not only for maps but for complete unit sets, and there is an in-game mod download facility where people can share (upload/download/rate) their stuff without even leaving the game.

Sounds great.

Thank you for the info.

Rocoteh

[Comparison with CIV?]

This game really looks great.

Will for sure buy it when its released!

During 2003-2008 I made some scenarios for Civ 3

including World War 2 Global.

My questions are:

How large maps will there be in Empires of Steel compared to Civ 3?

What will be the maximum number of units one can have in play at

a given time?

Will there be an editor?

Rocoteh