increase production queue limit

[raymond]

I think it is time that the queue limit from 16 to 24 should be increased (add a third producion queue line).

Hope for more supporters: http://trac.wildfiregames.com/ticket/2608

Edited January 28, 2015 by raymond

[Lion.Kanzen]

I think that is not only a feature is design desition may be that is the cause wasn't before.

[WhiteTreePaladin]

Unless you need every unit trained individually (which would require a ton of clicking), then batch training should work. You can have as many units queued as you want, no arbitrary limit of 24, etc.

Just hold shift and each additional click on the unit icon will increase the count by five units. Let go of shift and the batch will begin to train.

[iNcog]

Queuing more than two batches in a go is a mistake either way.

[Lion.Kanzen]

Queuing more than two batches in a go is a mistake either way.

why?

[iNcog]

Idle resources.

Essentially in an Rts you want to spend resources as fast as possible into something useful. So by queuing units, some of those resources aren't being used and are just sitting there doing nothing for the time it takes for the first batch to finish.

It's inefficient.

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

The current limit is good enough.

[WhiteTreePaladin]

Queuing more than two batches in a go is a mistake either way.

It's great for death match mode. Really just depends on whether saving resources or saving time (to manage a battle, etc.) is more urgent.

[agentx]

When I reach pop max, I pile resources and prepare for combat. Then I put the rally point of all trainers to somewhere close to the selected battle field and order another 100 units in batches of 5 or 10, ignoring blinking pop counter. Each unit lost in the battle is then auto replaced and appears where needed. 3 barracks * 3 lines * 8 batches * 10 units sounds epic.

[Alekusu]

Queuing more than two batches in a go is a mistake either way.

Agreed, only usefull when fighting and you can't manage everything at the same time. But still the best way is not to queue.

[Zeta1127]

The only enhancement I can think of is the option to repeat the current production queue.

[raymond]

The only enhancement I can think of is the option to repeat the current production queue.

Would be also nice to repeat the production queue with just one click.

[auron2401]

Queuing more than two batches in a go is a mistake either way.

I understand that "wasted time is wasted" (my philosophy, thief!) But sometimes, Time is of the essence, you need 20 spearmen NOW, and then you need to train the last 80, because 20 will hold off the enemy cav rush.

It's situational, don't just say "ITS A BAD THING DON'T DO IT EVER EVER", generally i agree with you, but i find that a small batch before a big batch if i need troops IMMEDIATELY is good.

Just saying.

[Zeta1127]

That mindset expressed by iNcog comes from StarCraft, at least that is where I first noticed it, and I have never understood it.

[HeroesGrave]

It's great for death match mode. Really just depends on whether saving resources or saving time (to manage a battle, etc.) is more urgent.

In deathmatch mode you'd be better off building a few extra barracks and spreading the queue across them.

[FeXoR]

That mindset expressed by iNcog comes from StarCraft, at least that is where I first noticed it, and I have never understood it.

Resources (like today money) have no direct value on their own. The values are defined in each individuals mind. Resources have an indirect value in a society in which most individuals share about the same set of values (especially resources/money) so one can give things that have a direct value an indirect value (e.g the price).

In a game of warfare like 0 A.D. the highest direct value is the capability to fight. Resources don't grant that but can be used to get it.

So it's like: Gather resources (generate indirect value), train/build/research (convert indirect to direct value specifically the strength to fight).

Resources are mainly that successful in human history because many direct value items are not likely to last long (especially food). So it does only make sense to generate overproduction to a limited extent. After that (to generate further safety of supply) other longer lasting items have to be considered (that's where resources for later production and money come into play).

In short:

Having many resources in a real-time strategy is bad because they don't have any direct value on their own - it's only a potential one.

So using your resources in the most efficient way and ASAP is the winning "strategy" - not saving them.

And I have to strongly disagree that this mindset comes from Starcraft.

IMO it's very sad and the other way around in the present days:

- PPL have widely lost their self-confidence/sense for own values and fuse into society with the given "values"

- "Value" and "price" got nearly indistinguishable by that

- That way "value" can be generated by simply adding new "values" to the mindset - without the originally needed individual and direct value

- The "health" of an economy is now (more or less) defined by it's over all net worth and it's rate of growth (though actually no real value has to be produced for that "growth")

(That doesn't mean that no actual "values" can be added to an economy these days - but it's not needed to increase the net worth of an economy - and that's quite sad, misleading and can be - and IMO is - misused)

- On the other hand things that are actually valued alot by many PPL (like e.g. the access to knowledge like in Wikipedia) add very little (if anything at all) to the net worth of an economy (and so is vastly underestimated by economically oriented PPL)

In Short:

In realtime strategy games the relationship between resources (prize) and strength to fight (value) is roughly conserved (though in a very simplified way).

It's our everyday life in an economically oriented society that obfuscates the relation.

It's like changing an inequation to an equation: The outcome is simply wrong

Edit.: And by the way, I agree with your repeat production queue idea!

Edited February 14, 2015 by FeXoR

[raymond]

Edit.: And by the way, I agree with your repeat production queue idea!

New ticket for repeat the production queue with just one click?

[iNcog]

That mindset expressed by iNcog comes from StarCraft, at least that is where I first noticed it, and I have never understood it.

it comes from any economy based rts

i like starcraft because it's a pretty good rts but in reality i've played a lot more aoe3

it's just common sense. the more you queue, the more the resources you've gathered are sitting idle doing nothing. it slows down your economic or military expansion, which in turns leaves you behind

[Lion.Kanzen]

New ticket for repeat the production queue with just one click?

A shorcut key+click production queue 1+ repeat 2+ queue to infinite.

[Zeta1127]

My approach has always been to get the most out of the least amount of units and structures, so that mindset doesn't work for me very well. Which is why I don't like building a lot of production structures, because I simply don't need them.

[Alekusu]

My approach has always been to get the most out of the least amount of units and structures, so that mindset doesn't work for me very well. Which is why I don't like building a lot of production structures, because I simply don't need them.

Multiple production structures are good for a few reasons:

- obviously making 30 cavalry from 3 barracks (3 batches of 10) is better than making 30 cavalry from 1 barrack (1 batch of 30)

- when you lose a barrack ingame, I can assure you you'd be happy to have other barracks...

- on late game when you reach the pop limit, if you have 2 barracks against someone that have 10 barracks you'll lose because during the battle you need to remake your army and of course it is faster with 10 barracks.

The number of structures will depends on each game but I think that saying you "don't need" lots of production structures is too general...I mean if you have the resources, even if you don't "need" it, you should make additional structures imo.

EDIT: another reason, your first production structures are far from the enemy, you expand and build extra production structures to be closer. You don't "need" it but it's a good thing to do (again, if you have the resources)

In general I'd say that if you have the resources to produce non stop from 3 barracks, you should have 4 (because in-game when you manage many things, sometimes you don't produce non stop...and if you lose a barrack you can still produce non-stop)

Edited February 16, 2015 by Alekusu

[iNcog]

when you differentiate units produced by time, you come to realize that the more barracks, the better

[Zeta1127]

I didn't say I don't build more production structures. I just don't build very many, usually 2 to at most 4 barracks and at least 2 structures for champions, and of course I will build barracks in a forward base. I don't build a massive army, to the point I can rebuild my army with no more than two to three production cycles. I have a really bad tendency to just out last the AI with strategically placed garrisoned fortresses, which would be compounded with walls. I barely even reach the population cap, and I don't play multiplayer, so my mindset works just fine for that. With the proper use of formations, my small army should be able to take on a much larger force and win.

[Alekusu]

Ah ok, I didn't know you were talking about single player games only. Actually when I play against AI i do the same, usually 3 barracks and never reached the pop cap. (it's a better challenge)
My previous post was about multiplayer games.

[Lion.Kanzen]

Ah ok, I didn't know you were talking about single player games only. Actually when I play against AI i do the same, usually 3 barracks and never reached the pop cap. (it's a better challenge)

My previous post was about multiplayer games.

try to play 50-150 pop max, the challenge is different is more easy but you need manage best your units, the Ai can't handle low pop very well