Trade network link mechanics - odd no-squares effect reply-explained

Hi,

Is the trade network, the auto linking of worlds to form a chain, known to be buggy?  Or does it have some odd undocumented mechanic where one must take care to extend the endpoints of the existing initial chain?

 

I played a FFA on Small map Balance of Power against x2 Hard (on the latest Entrench patch), and not yet being one of the ancient worthies of legend, had to scrape and finesse for every tidbit I could snag as a Sins novice, and so after stabalizing early rush I made a trade network, which is a modest thing on that 3 player 12 node map, but helped me tip.

 

mid-game it was linking 3 instead of 4 nodes, and later game (well after tipping point), despite having what seemingly should have been a link network of 7, it arbitrary path linked only 5.  (I assume here that when I mouse over income and it pops up a hover and lights the map with a bright white line between nodes, that said bright white line is illustrating the connected worlds.)

-?-

 

Interestingly, to experiment I scuttled a trade point midchain to break the 5, and with that node inelgible it repathed a 6 (instead of a still seemingly eligible 7 via a different but clear routing).  Wondering if that reset anything, I readded the trade port, and it reverted to it's former 5 path, making me think it's a fixed algorithmic method of some kind.

 

Except that is a little weird, as I program by dayjob and would have thought the algorithm to work out longest paths is a well-known piece of logic from the standard programming literature, and not that computation intensive.  Though I suppose any code can have bugs.

 

I DID have, for context on this setup, both the star and an asteroid, at the late game point, supposedly eligible via starbase with trade module constructed.  So perhaps that is a factor.  Except that I've seen it route using SB trade nodes before.

 

On the other hand, in the early game, when I had a trade route of 3, and should have had 4, no starbase were in the picture.  4 that was not in route's white highlight was my homeworld, for the lol of it's sake, although in retrospect, that did have the mild twist that the trade port was a late addition there after scuttling other structures.  And yes, the structure was built, not queued or building.  Seemed a legitimate / eligible trade port.

 

Very puzzled.  Will probably experiment some more with the save.  Advice, however, is welcome.

 

-evoke

24,757 views 14 replies
Reply #1 Top

Trade chains will not go in squares...  I'll try a little ASCII...

X is a planet with a trade port.

O is a planet without one.

== or || is a trade route.

-- or | is a phase lane

 

Intended trade route: 5 planet chain

X==X
||   ||
X---X ==X

What actually happens: 3 planet chain

X----X
|     |
X==X==X

Why?  The chain will not go to a planet if there is a planet it has already gone through one phase jump away.  Why?  I don't know, but its always been like this and people know about it...

 

But you are correct, one would think that it would go for the longest route possible, but I suppose the reason is realism...  Trade chains have plenty of little branches and tend not to double-back.  I think this program is designed to show that..

Reply #2 Top

Thank you!

 

It makes as much mechanics sense as ewoks on endor and is completely undocumented, but now that I have the verbal lore, I'll pass it on to the next forum peeps inevitably asking.  Much appreciate you taking the time to reply.

 

-evoke

 

Misc: I would agree with you about the realism were it not for the fact that removing a trade port from the empire made the chain longer.  I struggle to think of real examples of that.  I see where the feature justification angle is nevertheless attempting to go though.  Imho, it's enough for devs to just say - it's a given way for mechanics/game balance.  Thanks again.

Reply #3 Top

No problem, its always nice to find another programmer out there...

Reply #4 Top

It's undocumented and slightly difficult to express how it works (perhaps that's why...).  Also, Volt's example there is incorrect.  You will actually get a 4-planet trade lane with that setup. The best way to describe the longest trade route is to call it the "longest shortcut".

Imagine that we're a trading company in this trade route. We only travel in planets with trade ports, and when going from point A to point B we will always take the shortest path.  So, we can bring up volt's example:

A==B
||   ||
C==D ==E

Suppose we want to go from planet C to planet E.  The shortest route is CDE.  We won't artificially lengthen this route by meandering through planets A and B.  This is why "CABDE" isn't your longest trade route; there is a shorter way to get from point C to point E.  However, suppose we want to travel from point A to point E.  We have two choices of path, ABDE, and ACDE, both of which are four planets long.  There are no shorter paths to get from A to E.  This makes the chain from A to E your longest trade chain.

Always remember that: what is the SHORTEST way to get from opposite ends of my trade route.  Whatever that path is, that will be your longest trade route.

Reply #5 Top

Ah... I was just going from the bottom left hand corner, but Darvin is correct...  Sorry about that...

Reply #6 Top

I immediately saw it.  After playing the game for a year, I just automatically look at a layout and figure out the optimum trade route I can fit on it.  I just looked at your's and said "four planets" instantly.

Reply #7 Top

there are other times too when there will be absolutely no reason why the optimum trade route wont go one planet longer... i once had a big long map where the optimum trade lane went almost in a figure 8 shape, but for some reason it stops 2 planets short of the nearest included planet instead of one which makes more sense...

Reply #8 Top

 

One potential area of confusion is whether trade routes jump across dead asteroids, asteroid belts, and other empty gravity wells.

I think they do in regular Sins but not Entrenchment (where you can put a starbase in those wells and give them a trade port upgrade).

Reply #9 Top

In vanilla sins, trade routes will jump over uncolonizable gravity wells (magnetic clouds, plasma storms, asteroid belts, space junk, gas giants, stars, wormholes).  They would not jump over dead asteroids or pirate bases (so only TEC could form connections over these).  In Entrenchment, they won't skip any gravity wells and you need trade ports there.

Reply #10 Top

they really should jump magnetic clouds... seeing as you cant put starbases in those grav wells it becomes rather annoying...

Reply #11 Top

I basically can't use random uncolonizable in galaxyforge maps because of it.  It's definitely an issue.

Reply #12 Top

i suppose it was a good idea to have a place in the map that is entirely dead... like completely unuseful etc... but in this case it sucks and i doubt the devs will do anything about it... im not even sure if they can... mag clouds mag be indistinguishable from other UCGW's so it may not even be possible for trade routes to jump JUST mag clouds...

here's hoping

Reply #13 Top

I think it would be possible for them to add in a "random uncolonizable non-magnetic" setting, but that's pure speculation.  It's on my wishlist, though.

I've been using magnetics in some of my more recent galaxyforge works as "dead space" as you call it.  I find them useful for two purposes.  The first is if the map has a lot of uncolonizable wells already, and I'm afraid of making a Vasari advantage.  Make one of them a magnetic, and I even things out a bit.  The other reason is to create a buffer space which is of no strategic importance expect as a junction between the gravity wells it connects.  This creates ideal buffer spaces between players, which is a key part of my design philosophy.

Reply #14 Top

yeah, i like that idea... its one thing Sins is missing: there is no feel to the Distances you are playing...

the Celestial Bodies (i think) and definitly the Distant Stars mods have UCGW's call Deep Space Sectors that are just big empty grav wells... i think those would be better than mag clouds (or at least a mix...) so you can put some SB's down...

i mean, i dont use the TEC ship building upgrade siply because its just as easy to put 2 frig factories on a nearby planet...

but if i had massively long supply lines because i had to travel through a bunch of Deep Space sectors and UCGW's, id definitly use it...