The Future of RTS...& the 7 Deadly Sins

[whippersnapper]

.

- Why ? Why what ? Why this... why any of it ?

- Short answer - unforgettable conversation. In 21st century
parlance you may relate it to memes or memetics and their
viral manifestations.

- Where ? Here ?

- More than you would imagine at first blush.

- But also elsewhere with passing it on here as part of a process.

- What process ? A process that garners & gleans strength after strength,
fortifies audacity and feeds a spirit that brings generative value to the table
to benefit, to propel, noble acts and ends (nobility of spirit itself being
something of a forgotten ideal leaving a vacuum to be filled by brutality or
the banality of mob-think or just plain wrongheaded narrow scope).

- Next to "unforgettable conversations" are unforgettable letters.

- Some 500 years ago Niccolo Machiavelli (he of "The Prince" fame, that classic
tome on the nuances and efficacy of high command) wrote in a letter to his friend
(& perhaps future patron) Francesco Vettori detailing how he spent his evenings in
exile after the fall of the Florentine Republican government that he had served
for so long. This is what he wrote

10 December 1513..........


"On the coming of evening, I return to my house and enter my study; and at the door I take off the day's clothing, covered with mud and dust, and put on garments regal and courtly; and reclothed appropriately, I enter the ancient courts of ancient men, where, received by them with affection, I feed on that food which only is mine and which I was born for, where I am not ashamed to speak with them and to ask them the reason for their actions; and they in their kindness answer me; and for four hours of time I do not feel boredom, I forget every trouble, I do not dread poverty, I am not frightened by death; entirely I give myself over to them."

"And because Dante says it does not produce knowledge when we hear but do not remember, I have noted everything in their conversation which has profited me, and have composed a little work On Princedoms, where I go as deeply as I can into considerations on this subject, debating what a princedom is, of what kinds they are, how they are gained, how they are kept, why they are lost."

- Nothing is wasted.... Nothing is done in vain, however it may appear on the surface of things.
You are what you fully engage, not what you walk away from out of whatever you rationalize.
.

[whippersnapper]

.

- The quote that follows I posted a short time ago in the "Wish List" thread which mainly hopes to catch the attention
of some dev or modder on the off chance they will be fired-up to make it reality. In hind sight I realized I probably
should have not posted it there since that is not where I'm coming from because if I'm really hot to see an idea
made real I can do it myself, which is how I normally roll.

- This thread is a better fit. Here I propose to explore the pros and cons of doing multiple constructor types.. perhaps
in WZ, perhaps in another strategy game.

- So I'll kick off that disposition on my part by quoting my initial post on the subject and then going from there in follow-up
posts.

.

.... A not so rambling muse...

- The way trucks are implemented in WZ is an example of K.I.S.S game design like having only one resource, oil. If there are no substantive trade-offs then the design is elegant. If there are valuable trade-offs in K.I.S.S.-ing then there's room to re-think what is.

- Construction types, aka Trucks, must be second in the category of "least variations" (ECM's are first; Repair & Commanders are third).

- The question becomes are the trade-offs really more a loss of valuable tac & strat opportunities than elegant K.I.S.S. in the service of reduced complexity as manifested in minimal micro-management.

- I'm not sure what the answer is but here is an alternative outside the current box.

- There are basically four elements to a construction unit:

- Cost: How much time & energy is required to make the constructor ?
- Weight: How much does it weigh the unit down ?
- Durability: How much damage can it sustain ?
- Efficiency: How quickly does it build stuff ?

- Let's look at a handful of possible new construction units in this thought experiment..

* Group Constructor - This baby is cheap, very fast, and can make a great scout unit. Moderately durable, but suffers from some efficiency problems; it works best in groups.

* Defense Constructor - Blindingly efficient; capable of perfmorning a workload equivalent to 3 standard trucks. However, it's somewhat costlier, noticeably heavier, and not as durable; these guys are best used in your own base, safe from attack and where distances are short.

* Army Constructor - A great thing to take along for your away missions. Noticeably more durable than typical trucks, but its also costlier.

* Pre-Fab Constructor - Basically, a "defense Constructor Mk3"; its strengths are better but its weaknesses are worse.

* Blitz Constructor - Carries raw, pre-fabricated materials to its site for near-instantaneous construction rates. Both fast and efficient, but is a bit fragile and carries a high price.

.

.... to be continued...
.

[themousemaster]

For the record, I'm not ignoring this thread, it's just that your extreme verbosity is sometimes hard to wade through, and as my time to "wade through" it is at work, and work has been insane as of late...


Nice article on the game costs. I wonder though, the article seems to be making a way-too-broad statement... that "video games need to be lower quality, but come out faster and in greater numbers, with cheaper price tags" (obviously, lower quality does not mean garbage, but rather just not top-of-the-line graphics and musical scores with 100-hour storylines)


The reason this is too broad is because it overlooks game genres, and what is necessary for them to be successful. Take Mario Galaxy for the Wii. It had fanciful graphics, and a somewhat basic input-output system (jump, fly, stomp on things, grab and shoot stars). It just figured out 1 million ways to use its basic system to keep itself "original" (there is no difference between a world with quicksand, lava, or bottomless pits. they all kill you. They just look different).

This is fine for MG, because it's an action platformer. that is what it is DESIGNED to do, and doesn't need $40million to do it.

But on the other end of the spectrum, we have MMORPGs. These games by definition have to be MASSIVELY huge, so as to keep people paying a monthly subscription. If you make a system where, despite the "number of variations", it is still simple enough to only have 4 or 5 actions one can do, then no significant number of players is going to play it for longer than 2 months before becoming bored. Really, who (besides an obsessive who wants to get EVERY DAMN PURPLE STAR) played MG for more than a month?


What I'm getting at is, the theory of a "flagship series" and a bunch of "smaller time-passers" sounds great, and to be sure, Nintendo seems to know how to run with it. But game genre really needs to be identified along with this; last I recall, an average of just under 2 MMOs have come out per month over the last 3 years. How many of them have you even heard of, and how many fewer than THAT are still in non-opensource operation?




Also, something important to note, coming from Basic Economic Theory 101: If there are 10 game developer/publishers, 9 of which make a lot of "average, low cost" games, and 1 makes a single, high-budget supergame, guess where all those "independant out-sourced" companies are going to flock to for their publishing. That article has the definitive ring of all those times in history where a charismatic figure got an "oppressed" group to oppose the current government and start a Communism for "the good of the people rather than the few", only to then himself lead it, thereby assuming the desired position of power, essentially having "won the political game" by violating the very premise he garnered all his support from... and like the communisms of the past (sans current China, anyway), once the people realize it... well, it usually doesn't end well. For the power-usurper, possibly his descendants, OR everyone else.

Don't get me wrong. In addition to LoM, I've been getting my hands on some smaller name titles lately (Disciples 2 and Echelon Book I), games with simpler graphics and playstyles than one expects these days, and I certainly like them. But to say that everyone should start doing this...

[whippersnapper]

.....

- What I got from the article was that such projects as GTA 4 are unsustainable capitalist models to the extent that they
drive their parent companies toward the brink of insolvency or bankruptcy (and even when they "succeed" lead to a lot of unemployed game talent). This business model can be traced clearly in the Hollywood movie industry over the last 70 years which the game industry has tried to emulate with varying degrees of success. The Indie game industry will evolve to rival such projects as GTA4 at a fraction of the overhead - 40 million bucks, a thousand peeps and 4 years to produce. - just as the movie Indies can now effectively compete as money makers (with an even higher quality in some cases) than the mega cinema blockbusters that suck-up resources like gargantuan money pits. A good recent example of this in the movie biz would be "Slumdog Millionaire" vs. the remake of "The Day the Earth Stood Still"... Or in the game biz, the aforementioned GTA 4 vs. "World of Goo" or "Mount & Blade" indie productions.

- "Extreme verbosity".... I try to condense my prose as much as I can and still present my thoughts coherently (10 years ago my posts were generally 75% longer than they are today. In some quarters it was a running joke with peeps making fun of me mercilessly which I didn't mind at all.). I could, I suppose, go the "People" magazine route and use more pictures with terse captions or employ poetic vernacular and restrict all my posts to 50 words or less... sort of a Haiku approach to posting. But I suspect those strategies will have their detractors as well - "Too ambiguous !"... "Not enough supporting details !"... "Those are declarations, not reasoning.".... "Answer me this and that and the other , would ya." Could very well be one of those common place instances Abraham Lincoln spoke to: "You can satisfy all of the people some of the time, some of people all of the time, but never all of the people all of the time."

- In any case, I'll speak to the Pros and Cons of Multiple Constructor Types next..... perhaps with a concision to rival Haiku.

- Regards, whipper.

[themousemaster]

.....

- "Extreme verbosity".... I try to condense my prose as much as I can and still present my thoughts coherently (10 years ago my posts were generally 75% longer than they are today. In some quarters it was a running joke with peeps making fun of me mercilessly which I didn't mind at all.). I could, I suppose, go the "People" magazine route and use more pictures with terse captions or employ poetic vernacular and restrict all my posts to 50 words or less... sort of a Haiku approach to posting. But I suspect those strategies will have their detractors as well - "Too ambiguous !"... "Not enough supporting details !"... "Those are declarations, not reasoning.".... "Answer me this and that and the other , would ya." Could very well be one of those common place instances Abraham Lincoln spoke to: "You can satisfy all of the people some of the time, some of people all of the time, but never all of the people all of the time."

I have nothing against using too many words, so long as they are not in WALL OF TEXT format. The extreme verbosity I refer to is the use of uncommon words in large quantities that, while being 100% accurate as to conveying your intentions, makes it far more difficult to digest in whole chunks to understand what ideals are being... well, conveyed.

And I played the early-beta version of Mount & Blade. Is fun to play, but.. unless they added something beyond just the "enjoyable game physics", I'm not sure I'd pay $30 for it. If it were a $19.99 title, or if I found that they have embellished the storyline somewhat, I might, but otherwise it's a bit high for only an excellent medieval fighting engine.

[whippersnapper]

I have nothing against using too many words, so long as they are not in WALL OF TEXT format. The extreme verbosity I refer to is the use of uncommon words in large quantities that, while being 100% accurate as to conveying your intentions, makes it far more difficult to digest in whole chunks to understand what ideals are being... well, conveyed.

And I played the early-beta version of Mount & Blade. Is fun to play, but.. unless they added something beyond just the "enjoyable game physics", I'm not sure I'd pay $30 for it. If it were a $19.99 title, or if I found that they have embellished the storyline somewhat, I might, but otherwise it's a bit high for only an excellent medieval fighting engine.

- Ah, I see what you mean now. I'll keep it in mind and try a more Hemingway prose style, which I like too.

- Agree on "Mount and Blade"..... $ 19.95 is a better price point and I think they'd make more money in the end too. (We've
already decided that as our price point too.)

- Regards, whipper.

[r1ky]

7 Deadly Sins article is bull.

Just because some loser internet writer decides to post crap about what stuff strategy games must have (although it was probably written by a biased idiot who knows jack about coding) doesn't mean Warzone is a bad strategy game.

Screw that guy

[lav_coyote25]

carefull grasshopper - one needs to know the way of the jedi before embarking on such inflaming content... xD

[whippersnapper]

.

7 Deadly Sins article is bull.

Just because some loser internet writer decides to post crap about what stuff strategy games must have (although it was probably written by a biased idiot who knows jack about coding) doesn't mean Warzone is a bad strategy game.

Screw that guy

- Yo man, that's pretty harsh even for ad hominem.

carefull grasshopper - one needs to know the way of the jedi before embarking on such inflaming content... xD

- Haha.... good one.

------------------------------------------------->


- Here's the thing. I was far from agreeing 100% with the author but
still found his argument cogent and even tasty food for thought. You
don't need to able to code to have a grasp of what works in an RTS
and what falls short. Having a grasp of coding does help when it comes
to really knowing the work involved in making a game from scratch.

- When I started this thread I thought I knew a lot about RTS and
what goes into a good one. Afterall I'd been playing 'em since 1992
and working on mods and maps since 1997.

- Over the course of time it became a genuine learning journey. I know much
more now than I did a few months ago and still am on that journey of learning
(with the additional responsibility of settling on design decisions and then helping
implement them..). That is - what I've learned throughout is helping to shape and build
from scratch a strat game I'm working on in collaboration with other like minded folk..

- All comp strat games have certain dynamic interacting structures in common -
research, tech tree, an economy, base-building, factions, ground-air-water units,
healing units, constructor units, offensive and defensive weaps, etc..

- How these structures are implemented and how they relate to each other vary
from game to game as do the GFX and backstories..

- My guiding principle in this complex matrix is fairly simple: it all has to serve
the battlefield MP experience such that the diversity of winning strats & tacs is
more infinite than finite. For example: if the research mechanic is adversely effecting
battlefield command and control mechanics then the research mechanic has to be
redesigned. Same goes for any other non-martial mechanic. You also need to define
your ideal for battlefield mechanics which we do like so: effective command and control
over multiple combat groupings of mixed arms, from multiple vectors at varying velocities.
A kwel tech tree (among many other things) MUST support that ideal - not the other
way around, by freely thought-out and tested design standards.... a reflection no doubt,
of personal tastes and emphasis on what flows with great satisfaction.

- As for WZ 2100..

- I've been engaging it since before retail release when I beta-tested it and ever since..
You gotta love a game to be so active for so long. The author was not suggesting WZ
is a bad strat game, nor obviously do I hold that opinion. I have also always held that
as good as WZ was at v.1.10 it also fell short of greatness. However, though it fell short
it still had the promise, the seeds of potential greatness..... just needed more work...
Work that WZs original Creators, Pumpkin, were barred from continuing but who charged
the community of fans with the explicit challenge and mission to continue that work
towards fullmillment and perhaps greatness. And that is how it has proceeded for well
nigh 10 years now... And I think it's getting there..In a couple years all those scores of lists
over the years about the greatest RTS games of all times (that not a one list WZ, btw) will
have to be re-assessed.

- regards, whipper.
.

[whippersnapper]

.

- As a prelude to getting back to the proposition and viability of multiple constructor types...

- First, this basic concept is not thoroughly original. It's been around since at least since 1997 and one of the classic RTSs of all time,
In Total Annihilation each class has its own construction unit, which in turn can build advanced level 1 defenses and the Advanced Factory for each class. All units built by these factories are classified as "Level 2" tech by TA vets, and have the cooler, more powerful and expensive units like the dreaded Core Behemoth, . The Advanced facilities also produce the Advanced construction unit: a unit that can build Level 2 buildings like Nukes, Anti-nukes and extreme-range artillery emplacements.

- Our proposition is a variation on TA's mechanic.... but even more fundamentally, Constructor Units in an RTS embody "supply line chains" while minimizing micro-management.

- The impulse behind the variation of the Multiple Constructor Types is to expand the strat and tacs surrounding "supply lines".

- Dr. Cliff Welborn in an article for the "Army Logician" (Professional Bulletin for US Army Logistics) did a great job of putting this in
historical context so I'm just gonna quote:

Supply Line Warfare

November-December 2008 issue

A soldier fighting in a war today has many of the same basic needs that a soldier had thousands of years ago. Meals, medicines, and munitions are just a few of the fundamental supplies that are needed to keep a military unit operating at full capacity. Soldiers require the same basic life necessities as civilians: nutrition, shelter, and medical supplies to maintain good health. But soldiers must also have weapons and the consumables that weapons need to function, such as ammunition, repair parts, and fuel. So, not surprisingly, great warriors throughout history have carefully planned their strategies around logistics.

Logistics Strategies in History

In his book, Alexander the Great and the Logistics of the Macedonian Army, Donald W. Engels describes many of the techniques Alexander the Great used to supply food, water, and equipment to his traveling army. In 320 B.C., Alexander’s 35,000-man army traveled with no more than a 10-day supply of food. Alexander also incorporated supply chain logistics into his overall military strategy.

Jonathan Roth provides insight to the supply chain strategy of the Roman army in his book, The Logistics of the Roman Army at War (264 B.C.–A.D. 235). Roth describes tactics used by the Roman Army to both defend their own supply lines and attack their enemies’ supply lines.

Napoleon Bonaparte once said, “An army marches on its stomach.” His army lost more soldiers because of spoiled food than from battle. In 1795, Napoleon offered a prize of 12,000 francs to anyone who could devise a reliable method of food preservation for his army. This effort resulted in the first attempts to store food for extended periods of time in cans and ultimately led to modern food canning methods.

Early in the history of the United States, military leaders focused on maintaining an efficient supply chain. The position of Quartermaster General was created the day after George Washington accepted command of the Continental Army in June 1775. The Quartermaster General was responsible for acquiring provisions and distributing them to the troops. His major concerns were finances and logistics.

The U.S. military has also disrupted the enemy’s supply chain to weaken its fighting capabilities. When we think of a military supply line, we often think of the logistics considerations necessary to keep our own supply chain flowing. However, just as important to military success are tactics for disrupting the enemy supply line. A defensive strategy is to protect our own supply chain; an offensive strategy is to inhibit the supply chain of our enemy. The United States has used both offensive and defensive strategies in many wars, including the Revolutionary War in the 1770s and 1780s, the Civil War in the 1860s, the Plains Indian Wars in the late 19th century, World War II in the 1940s, and the Vietnam War in the 1960s and 1970s.

Revolutionary War (1775–1783)

Although the British had a larger and better trained army than the Americans, they had to transport soldiers and supplies across the Atlantic Ocean. George Washington, as well as other military leaders in the Continental Army, recognized that disrupting the flow of supplies to the British soldiers would destroy their ability to fight effectively.

In the Carolinas, Major General Nathanael Greene developed a strategy of harassing the British supply lines. He enlisted the help of local patriots like Francis Marion, also known as “Swamp Fox,” who led guerrilla-style raids on British supply lines. Marion concentrated his attacks on British supply camps and was able to cut the supply lines linking several British-occupied cities.

During the war, General George Washington also relied on a French fleet under the command of Admiral François de Grasse to establish a blockade in the Chesapeake Bay. This blockade cut off the supply line to General Lord Charles Cornwallis’ British troops at Yorktown, Virginia. The British were cut off from rescue or resupply, while the Continental Army and their French allies benefited from plenty of troops and supplies. This led to the Battle of Yorktown, the surrender of Cornwallis’s army, and the ultimate defeat of the British forces in America.

Civil War (1861–1865)

Before the Civil War, the economies of most southern states primarily relied on exporting cotton and tobacco to Europe and the northern U.S. states. The Confederacy did not have the factories, machinery, or skilled labor needed to establish a large manufacturing base. From the onset of the war, the Confederacy looked to Europe to supply many of their military needs.

At the beginning of the Civil War, Union Commanding General Winfield Scott presented President Abraham Lincoln with a nonaggressive strategy to bring rebellious Confederate States back into the Union. The plan would exploit the South’s reliance on exporting cash crops and importing manufactured goods by instituting a naval blockade of more than 3,500 miles of coast from Virginia to Mexico. By choking off the supply chain of inbound and outbound goods, the Union hoped to limit the South’s ability to supply its army with goods. This plan became known as the Anaconda Plan. Later in the war, the Union Army also destroyed farms and businesses in the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia. Lieutenant General Ulysses S. Grant ordered Major General Philip H. Sheridan to render the valley so barren that a crow flying over it would have to pack its own lunch.

Major General William T. Sherman’s march from Atlanta to Savannah, Georgia, in 1864, which is called Sherman’s March to the Sea, was characterized by a scorched earth policy. Advancing Union troops were ordered to burn crops, kill livestock, consume supplies, and destroy railroads and manufacturing capabilities to keep goods from falling into Confederate hands. This tactic rendered the Confederate economy incapable of resupplying its soldiers.

Certainly, the Union’s defeat of the Confederacy depended on many factors. One of those factors was the South’s dwindling supply of battlefield provisions. With limited internal manufacturing resources and a reduction of imported goods, the Confederacy found it difficult to supply its soldiers with necessary supplies. The Union army was able to drastically reduce the effectiveness of the Confederate forces by disrupting or destroying parts of their supply chain.

Plains Indian Wars

After the Civil War, white American settlers began to spread west at an increased rate. This expansion led to conflicts between settlers and the indigenous Plains Indians. The Plains Indians roamed a geographic region from Texas to Canada and from the Mississippi River to the Rocky Mountains. They included the Sioux, Comanche, Cheyenne, Blackfeet, Crow, and other tribes.

These tribes relied on the buffalo for almost every aspect of their existence. They used every part of the buffalo. The meat was roasted and eaten fresh or was dried into a kind of jerky for long-term storage. The hides were used for tipi covers, robes, blankets, containers, and drums. Muscles were used for bow strings and sewing thread. Bones were used for tools, knives, pipes, and arrowheads. Horns were used for spoons, cups, bowls, containers, and arrowheads. The buffalo’s fat was used to make hair grease, candles, and soap, and its dung was used for fuel in fires. The stomach and bladder were used for water containers and cooking pots, and the skull was used for religious ceremonies and decoration. The buffalo represented the Plains Indians’ entire supply chain. As long as the buffalo were plentiful, the Indians could lead a nomadic, independent lifestyle.

Many Plains Indian tribes were reluctant to give up their nomadic ways to settle on reservation land set aside by the U.S. Government. Although it is debatable whether the U.S. Government had an official policy concerning extermination of the buffalo, it is clear that key individuals encouraged buffalo hunting. General Sheridan and General Sherman recognized the Indian’s dependence on the buffalo. When asked about the buffalo hunters, Sheridan summarized the situation as follows—

These men have done more in the last two years, and will do more in the next year, to settle the vexed Indian question, than the entire regular army has done in the last forty years. They are destroying the Indians’ commissary. And it is a well known fact that an army losing its base of supplies is placed at a great disadvantage. Send them powder and lead, if you will; but for a lasting peace, let them kill, skin, and sell until the buffaloes are exterminated. Then your prairies can be covered with speckled cattle.

Without the buffalo, the Plains Indians could not maintain their self-sufficient, nomadic lifestyle. The buffalo was their entire supply line. In 1860, about 13 million buffalo roamed the plains. By 1890, this number was reduced to about 1,000. Ultimately, all Plains Indian tribes were either defeated in battle or accepted life on Government reservations.

World War II (1941–1945)

During World War II, Japan was a nation that depended on imports across the Pacific Ocean to fulfill its supply lines. Japan had a limited number of ships, and the ability to import goods depended on having ships available. So, Allied navies waged a tonnage war to limit the volume of supplies reaching military operations. A tonnage war is a naval strategy designed to disrupt the enemy’s economic supply chain by destroying merchant shipping.

Allied navies sank 1,178 Japanese merchant ships compared to 214 Japanese naval ships. The U.S. Navy sank over 4.8 million tons of Japanese merchant ships. By the end of the war, Japan had only 12 percent of its merchant shipping fleet operable and a minimal fuel supply available to operate the ships. Without merchant ships to import supplies for Japan’s military needs, its navy and air force became ineffective. Because of the lack of fuel, naval ships were confined to ports and air force planes were grounded.

Vietnam War (1960–1975)

In 1954, the country of Vietnam was separated into two distinct sections: Communist North Vietnam and democratic South Vietnam. The North Vietnamese Communist Party formed the National Liberation Front with the goal of unifying North and South Vietnam under communist rule. Fearing the spread of communism, President John F. Kennedy pledged support to the democratic government of South Vietnam.

The conflict was primarily fought in South Vietnam. The Ho Chi Minh Trail was a series of truck and foot paths used by the northern Communist troops to transport materiel to the south during the war. Supplies in North Vietnam were transported through the neutral countries of Laos and Cambodia to troops in South Vietnam. The trail was not a single road, but a network of primitive roads, jungle paths, and waterways extending over 1,500 miles of terrain. Supplies were transported by truck, bicycle, boat, and foot. Although no exact figures for the volume of traffic along the Ho Chi Minh Trail exist, estimates are that over 1 million tons of supplies and 2 million troops traveled from North Vietnam to South Vietnam along this trail.

The Ho Chi Minh Trail became a target for U.S. bombing missions in an effort to disrupt the Communists’ supply chain. The United States also released defoliants to expose the trail. During the Lyndon B. Johnson administration, the bombing activity along the Ho Chi Minh Trail reached a level of 900 bombs per day. Operations Barrel Roll and Steel Tiger were designed to reduce the traffic to such an extent that the enemy could not get enough supplies for sustained operations. U.S. bombing targets included truck convoys on the trail, bridges, and the roads themselves. Throughout the war, the Ho Chi Minh Trail remained a constant target of U.S. bombing missions. The trail was so important to the North Vietnamese strategy that construction crews repaired the damage after each bombing raid. So ultimately, the bombing missions had a limited effect on the overall flow of supplies along the trail.

Supply chain management is, and always has been, an important characteristic of any military organization. Soldiers must have food, water, shelter, and medicine to sustain life. They must have a supply of weapons and a means of transporting those weapons. Since ancient times, successful military leaders have recognized the importance of maintaining a supply line to keep their troops equipped. Legendary German Field Marshal Erwin Rommel is credited with saying, “The battle is fought and decided by the quartermasters before the shooting begins.”

The U.S. military has recognized this concept since the Revolutionary War and General Washington’s request to create the Quartermaster General position. Enemy forces have the same supply needs as U.S. forces. If an enemy can be cut off from its supply line, its ability to fight is quickly compromised. In some cases, the enemy’s ability even to survive is compromised. The U.S. strategy of attacking enemy supply lines has been repeated throughout history. Although this aspect of military strategy may not be as exciting as battlefield tactics, it is no less critical to success. The strategy for defeating an enemy force can take the shape of many varied objectives. Disrupting our enemy’s supply line has been an effective U.S. military strategy to weaken those opponents. Without meals, medicines, and munitions, a military force is incapable of sustaining operations.

- Source Page HERE.....
.

[whippersnapper]

.

The Paradox of Trucks..

- I'll get to the paradox in a sec.

- Because Trucks can build repair stations I was led to an oversight. Let me correct that quick like. Repair Turret Units
can also be considered an embedded supply line.

- K, now the Paradox.

- Trucks convert energy to matter, a mighty impressive technology, god-like even. Reminds you of the "Replicator" Tech
in Star Trek just writ even grander. We will grant all the inconsistencies this raises, set 'em aside, for the sake of preserving
the rest of the game play mechanics and KISS design. Instead we will focus on the one paradox that is explicitly this:
Trucks are treated as disposable in game play. There is but one rule attached to Trucks - you can only have 15
of them at any time. It would seem that is not enough to make their value in game play commensurate with with their god-like
power of converting energy into matter. If there is any merit to that contention what is a possible remedy that would add value
to game play (as in expanding Strat & Tac opportunities) and not invoke that bogyman of RTS - undo, no fun, micromanagement ?

- Regards, whipper
.

[themousemaster]

I don't think the trucks are actually converting energy into matter.

The way I has always explained this to myself, was taht due to this being post-apocolyptia, there is scrap metal *Everywhere*. What the derricks do is just power your refining operations to turn them into raw materials for constructions.

[EvilGuru]

However Pumpkin envisioned them working it is not by converting energy to matter.

First let us postulate that a factory weights in at 5,000 metric tonnes. While I am unsure how close this is to the actual value you'll soon see that the magnitude is kind of irrelevant.

Einstein's famous equation, E = mc^2, can be used to convert mass to energy and vice versa; E is the energy in Joules, m is the mass in kg and c is the speed of light in metres per second. Since 5,000 tonnes = 5,000,000kg the energy required to produce just the matter is: 5,000,000 * (3*10^8) ^2 = 4.5 * 10^23J.

Power in Warzone comes in the form of oil, which is burnt. Let us assume that the oil is actually methane (CH4) and that it undergoes complete combustion with 100% efficiency. From this we have: E = 980kJ per mole * n; where n is the number of moles. Solving this for the number of moles gives (4.5 * 10^23) / (980 * 10^3) = 4.6 x 10^17 moles. As 1 mole of methane weighs 12 + 4*1 = 16 grams this gives us: 7.3 * 10^18 grams or 7.3 * 10^15kg of oil needing to be burnt to create one factory.

This is a huge number, and an impossible amount.

Regards, Freddie.

[whippersnapper]

.

- I see what you guys are saying and it makes total sense.

- A better expression of what is happening would be that energy is used to reassemble matter with nano tech.
'Course I'm merely borrowing the nano-lathing of the Commander Unit from 1997's TA. (Though matter in TA
is clearly harvested and in WZ it is left to "magic" to lessen microing..)

- Following up on EG's "However Pumpkin envisioned them working it is not by converting energy to matter" ....
Pumpkin was using a literary trope dubbed Applied phlebotinum which is defined like so:

In essence, it is the stuff that makes the plot go. Without it, the story would grind to an abrupt halt. It's science, it's magic, it's strange things unknown to science - the reader does not know how Phlebotinum work and the creators hope he doesn't care.

- That said - this aspect of my post was something of a self-created "red herring" on my part. Meaning that the heart of it for
me was the "disposable" treatment of Trucks in game play.

- After reading your responses, though, I realized what the source of my discomfort was with treating Trucks as disposable units.
No matter how their power is explained it is awesome and of great value and, I believe, should not be synonymous with "sacrificial lambs" or cannon fodder. Reversing that dynamic, in some way, would change game play fundamentally. The question is, could it
be done for the better ? That is - making Truck preservation of value because that would more effectively invoke the crucial nature of supply-line protection.

- Regards, whipper.
.
- Cold Fusion... an interesting side note:.... Introduced to the world as Cold Fusion in 1989 it was soon debunked as "junk science"... Fast forward 20 years.. It is now called the Nuclear Effect and it turns out NOT to be "junk science"... Simply amazing.... And D.A.R.P.A. is all over the possibilities in military terms...

- Cold Fusion Is Hot Again

- World's First Cold Nuclear Fusion Reactor Demonstrated Last Week - The science community now awaits duplication..

- And getting back specially to Nanotechnology there is this which dovetails neatly with our postulation from the outset of this post:

- US Army Prepares for Wars of the Future - Army scientists think wars will be dominated by nanotechnology
.

[themousemaster]

qutoing from TVTropes eh? ;p

The thing is, I don't think the existing system is "applied Phlebotinum". Generally, when that term is used, there is some specific "thing" that is given in-game, but then not explained how it works; for example, in the Stargate universe, there is "Naqwadah" (if I spelled that right), For star Trek, it's "dilithium" (which could technically exist, but doesn't do anything nearly like StarTrek says it does)...

If there was some "substance" in warzone that was described and not explained, then I'd go with the Phlebotinum explanation... but as it seems like they are using standard "real" methods in the game, it's just an exercise for the user, rather than a special, undefined effect of fictional origin.


And as such, I don't think the trucks are doing anything "spectacular", warranting them any more special treatment than, say, the Peasants in warcraft.


In fact, going off the model that the trucks are just using the raw materials that the generators are powering the processing of... if anything, it's the combination of refinery and generators that are the "amazing" feature, and the trucks are just the WZ equivalent of the Army Corp of Engineers (not that that isn't a worthwhile job mind you, to any RL ones out there )