Poll: Improving the Autolink for Retail Stores

[Yimmy]

The Autolink function frequently chooses suppliers that are contrary to the style of the players choices. For example, competitor suppliers instead of player suppliers, non-local instead of local suppliers, and factories instead of the warehouse those factories supply. Autolink often chooses to overload smaller factories when factories with greater capacity exist.

Providing an option for setting multi-level policies for the Autolink function on retail stores would be helpful. Players who are satisfied with the existing Autolink choices would not need to set policies. A player could quide Autolink to choose 1) internal suppliers before external suppliers, 2) local suppliers before non-local suppliers, 3) warehouses before factories, and 4) suppliers with closest distance or greatest available supply. For example, my preference would be to always choose internal suppliers, second priority would be choose local suppliers, third priority would be warehouse suppliers. For exceptions, a player would avoid choosing Autolink when selecting links for the specific retail store.

[mrgarrettscott]

This is a great suggestion! I don't use autolink supplier because I have little control as to how the feature decides how to choose a supplier. I can make a better decision 100 percent of the time a few more keystrokes.

[Lerura]

Yup, Autolink needs improvement.
Just like mrgarrettscott I don't use Autolink.
You might produce the required input yourself, but many times it chooses to buy from a competitor, even if your own product is both better, cheaper and with a better supply.

It would make sense if the supplier was chosen because it was either best, cheapest, or the best supply, or a combination thereof, but that is not the case, as sometimes the worst combination of the factors are chosen.

It is the same problem for factories, so the need an opdate too

[David]

Any suggestions on where the new Autolink options should be displayed? Do you prefer displaying them in the existing Options menu (the menu that is opened by pressing 'O' key) or creating a new menu for them?

If we were to add a new menu, we would also need to add a new icon for opening that menu. In this case, where should the new icon be displayed?

[Yimmy]

David wrote:

Any suggestions on where the new Autolink options should be displayed? Do you prefer displaying them in the existing Options menu (the menu that is opened by pressing 'O' key) or creating a new menu for them?

Personally, I prefer the "O" Options menu. It allows players who wish to alter Autolink choices the choice to do so,while allowing players who don't wish to alter autolink the choice of doing nothing.

[David]

Personally, I prefer the "O" Options menu. It allows players who wish to alter Autolink choices the choice to do so,while allowing players who don't wish to alter autolink the choice of doing nothing.

This single setting would apply to all Purchasing units in all firms. Do you see any circumstances where you need to use different Autolink policies for different firms?

[Yimmy]

David wrote

This single setting would apply to all Purchasing units in all firms. Do you see any circumstances where you need to use different Autolink policies for different firms?

I would only use the autolink function for purchasing units of factories and retail firms. My choice of input links for warehouses use different criteria and I wouldn't use autolink for warehouses. As long as the player could choose to not use autolink for occasional exceptions and also not be required to set policies in the options menu if they happen to be satisfied with the default autolink selections as they currently exist, then, I think it would be okay for the policies to apply to all purchasing units. I do think the player should still be able to choose whether to use autolink each time, and for each firm, when they wish autolink to select the purchasing unit(s).

I know the AI often chooses different sources for purchasing units that have templates with dual inputs for the same product. Although I always use a single provider in these circumstances, other players might use different providers. This could be an example of a different autolink policy for different firms.

[David]

1) internal suppliers before external suppliers,
2) local suppliers before non-local suppliers,
3) warehouses before factories,
and 4) suppliers with closest distance or greatest available supply.

I talked to the programmer regarding the above suggested autolink policies, there are some technical nuances that need to be considered. Currently the game uses a combination of factors to determine the best choice among the available suppliers, including overall rating, price, freight and supply/demand.

Let's take "3) warehouses before factories" for example, should this policy force purchasing units to source from warehouses regardless of the prices and quality of the supply? Let's say that there is a factory offering prices that are 50% lower compared with a warehouse with similar product quality, should it still buy from the warehouse, which can be a competing company's warehouse, if the "internal suppliers before external suppliers" option is not checked.

Alternatively, should the game system just add a weight favoring warehouses when comparing supply from warehouses and factories. If this sounds like a good approach, how much of the weight should be assigned? And would players mistake it as a bug when they see a purchasing unit still sourcing from a factory instead of a warehouse?

[Yimmy]

David:

Would it be possible to allow a player to choose the weight factor for each of the four choices (plus a few more that I forgot about) on a weight scale from 1-10? For example, I, personally would give internal a value of 10, local a value of 10, warehouses a value of 10, available supply a value of 6, closest a value of 6, price a value of 5 and quality a value of 6. The options would be added to provide a total value range from 1 - 70. The final choice being the firm with the highest value.

I suspect this solution would put a drag on performance, if so, perhaps others have ideas that might provide better solutions.