Development To-Do list

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
106 messages Options
123456
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Development To-Do list

wirkey
Great work once again!
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Development To-Do list

Veqryn
Administrator
In reply to this post by Veqryn
Possible ideas for TripleA 1.8

* Let non-PU resources also be shown per territory on the map
* Chip counters under units for number of units in a stack
* Trigger for playing sounds, or notifications with sounds linked
* Music playing engine (we will need a default set of WW2 era music though for ww2 games, and maybe some generic classical music for non-ww2 games or something...)
* Find a way to highlight "host bots" in the lobby screen, so that people know they are bots.
* Make is so that people can use the choosegame/loadgame buttons when clients in bots, instead of having to use the network button.
* Allow changing game properties in a bot.
* Allow full RISK games to be played.
* Create a "card" engine, for dealing cards to players, and for 'using' of cards, etc.
* Add an ability to give resources to other players through user actions delegate/attachments.
* Fix symptoms and causes behind games crashing, freezing, hanging, or ghosting, while hosting online.



I am interested to do the "card" engine first, and want to brainstorm it a little bit.


I need to re-read the rules, but my understanding is this:
1. There are 4 card types: x, y, and z, and wildcard (which counts as any of those first 3).
2. When you win a territory, you get a random card.
3. When you have 3 cards of the same type, or 1 of each card, you can change them in for units.
4. The number of units you get starts at a certain number and increases in a scripted way up to a max number each time someone uses up their cards.
5. You can have a maximum of 5 cards in your "hand", and if you have 5 you are forced to use some of them up.
6. If you conquer the last territory of a nation, you get any cards they have.
7. If you ever go over 5 cards, you must use some up immediately until you go under 5 again.
8. The cards also have a territory name on them, and when you use them up if you also control that territory you get 1 unit in that territory.


I am still not sure how to code this in a flexible manner.  The weird rules really lend themselves to being hard-coded unfortunately.  

Here is my thought so far:

From an xml perspective:

You will have a named cards list, and a named deck list.

Cards will ideally be a subset of resources, so that you can use them to pay for things like units, etc.

You can define how many of each card type, is in each deck.

Cards will keep track of which deck they were drawn from, and who their current owner is.

Decks will have attachments that define properties such as what happens when a card drawn from that deck is used or discarded (does it go to another deck, like a "trash" deck, or does it return to the bottom of this deck?  what happens when this deck is out of cards?)

You can have attachments for cards, which detail things such as: does the card use itself up immediately when drawn, or does it wait for a user action phase?  any actions (triggers) it would fire on being drawn, being used up?

New conditions for presence of cards, number of cards of certain type(s)

New triggers to remove cards, or improve existing resource change triggers.



Basically I want this to cover the whole Risk usage case for cards, while doing it in a flexible way that allows other games as well.

If anyone has any other games out there that use cards in similar ways, it would be great to let me know the differences so i can see how to generalize this whole thing.

Like they say, "the only thing worse than generalizing from one example, is generalizing from none".

thx,
veqryn
Please contribute to the TripleA 2013 donation drive:
http://tripleadev.1671093.n2.nabble.com/2013-TripleA-Donation-Drive-tp7583455.html
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Development To-Do list

ubernaut
i think you have the basic risk card rules covered there. think there are additional features cards can have for the risk 2010 and other variants but yeah the regular risk rules you have them all there i believe.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Development To-Do list

yeklef
In reply to this post by Veqryn
I am guess that not all of this is actually possible, I am just trying to give you ideas to implement, and maybe help you generalize instead of hard code.  So feel free to ignore any or all of the following.

Possible properties of cards, or attachments for cards

type (one or more)
ownership
visibility to different players
can cards be in play and have an effect? (i.e. similar to the AI advantages, like adding one to dice rolls)
when you can use it(immediately, certain phase, at any time)
does the card do anything when you use it (if I remember correctly, in Risk, if you own the territory that is on the card, you got armies on those territories)
you could have cards that force yourself or other people to do things (i.e. cede resources, a territory, or armies to another, or them give something to you)


These would probably be Additions to the core game, or settings in the core game, instead of being an attachment or property of a card

how can you get a card (taking a territory in Risk; additional options, buying, automatically, traded)
when you can get it
Hand (ownership) size
how you can use it (3 at a time in Risk, either all matching or all different; additional options -- spend like resources; giving away or trading)
when you can use it(immediately, certain phase, at any time)


Would also have decks, which of course would be collections of cards
pre-built or randomly generated (either at start, or as you need more)
ownership (all cards in deck would have same ownership; using Risk as the example again, you could maybe have a "hand size" of one deck instead of 5 cards, and then transfer a card from the pile to player A's deck?)
thinking of ideas from playing card games
visibility (the top card could be visible, or the bottom could be, or all of them, or none of them)
order of cards

If it is actually possible to generalize all of the above, I could easily see someone using the TripleA engine to do something as totally different as playing "Texas hold'em" Poker, or BlackJack (aka 21)
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Development To-Do list

eurofabio
This post was updated on .
In reply to this post by Veqryn
Some ideas about cards engine:

- initial hand size
- hand size limit and what's happen when I reach this limit: lets say my hand limit size is 3 cards and I already have 3 cards in my hands (cards A,B and C). If is my time to get new cards, should I get none or get one and decide between this 4 which one to discard?
- conditions to get cards: in some games you just get cards does not matter whats happens. In Nexus Ops, a player who lost a battle gets a card
- how many cards can a player play in 1 turn?
- card action: look the hand of other player
- card action: steal X card(s) from other player
- card action: give some bonus to x number of units in a specific battle (to be played before the battle starts of course)
- card action: give penalties to to x number of units in a specific battle (to be played before the battle starts)
- card action: steal resources from player
- card action: prevent (all?) units from some territory to move/attack (this one should be used of course in the other player's turn, and before he move units of course)
- card action: cancel another card played
- in the cases where you can play more than 1 card, same cards double the effect or not?

Still on the cards engine, I know that is going to be very hard, but for pbem games, and sometimes even for online games, would be nice if a player could set a card to be played in the future. Like the card to prevent units to be moved.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

for engine v1.8 --> Development To-Do list

sneakingcoward
This post was updated on .
In reply to this post by Veqryn
* Let non-PU resources also be shown per territory on the map
* Add an ability to give resources to other players through user actions delegate/attachments.

this would be perfect.....


following items are mainly to straightline and to rectify existing properties....

1. battle rounds:
proposal:
for the battle window it would be nice to get a counter for the actual battle rounds number, for all kind of battles...

2. air battle before normal battle:
existing:
for air raids the defending planes can be selected by a popup.
for air battles defending planes can retreat after 1st round, but the 1st round they have to fight.

proposal:
similar also for air battles the defender gets a popup, where he can select which planes (or maybe none of them) should participate.
of course planes not involved in air battle are also not taking place in following normal battle, they stay grounded and get lost if ground battle is lost.

3. seaunits:
3.a. subs retreat
existing v3:
when no destroyer is present subs can retreat before battle.
when only 1 destroyer is present, all units can attack or defend against subs. subs can't retreat as long as only 1 destroyer is present.

proposal:
1 destroyer can only pin down 1 sub, 2 des 2 sub etc...
the other subs can retreat before each battle round starts.

3.b. subs battle
existing v3:
subs are defending or attacking separate from other ships.

proposal:
we have now air battle, why not also sub battle ?
subs have already their own combat phase.
for each unit (ship or plane) a subAttack or -Defense can be additional to Attack or Defense.
<!option name="subDefense" value="2"/>
<!option name="subAttack" value="2"/>
e.g. destroyer gets 3, cruiser gets 1, all other ships none. a plane can also get a value.

then the battle goes as follows:
1air - at first air battle (selected attacking and defending planes are involved)

2sub - next is sub battle (only destroyers pin down subs, remaining subs can retreat, only the ships/planes which have the subAttack or -Defense can make hits).
two phases...attacking subs versus ALL defending ships/planes and defending subs versus ALL attacking ships/planes.
also ships without subAttack or -Defense (they make no hits) are involved and can get hits...

3ship - then the normal ship battle where all SURFACE ships and planes are involved as usual.
after this 2sub-3ship-2sub....so for e.g. 4 battle rounds, 2sub and 3ship each 4 times alternating.

so general the total ship mode is the same as existing, subs before ships, the only difference is that subs can get only hits from ships/planes with the subAttack or -Defence ability in a separate alternating battle round.
subs can make hits on all ships.

3.c. transports
existing v3:
transports are not involved in combat as losses and killed completely when no defending unit is left.
<!property name="Transport Casualties Restricted" value="true" editable="false">
<!property name="Unescorted Transport Dies" value="true" editable="false">
although the second "Unescorted Transport Dies" shows no effect, its only about the first one "Transport Casualties Restricted".

proposal:
the second property "Unescorted Transport Dies" should get a meaning.

the first property "Transport Casualties Restricted" is FALSE:
transports are losses and second parameter has no meaning.

the first property "Transport Casualties Restricted" is TRUE:
transports are NO losses, when a defending unit is there.
when no defending unit is left the second parameter defines, if transports are losses or removed at once.
due that we have battle round numbers now, this would limit the transports losses.

till now its very unreal, only 1 surviving attacking unit can kill unlimited transports...
with the proposal, according the battle rounds number some transports will survive. this would be more real.

4. transport engine:
4.a. mechanizedInfantry, renaming:
existing:
technology <!option name="mechanizedInfantry" value="true"/>

<!option name="isInfantry" value="true"/>
<!option name="isLandTransport" value="true"/>

proposal:
technology <!option name="mechanizedInfantry" value="true"/>

<!option name="isInfantry" value="true"/>
<!option name="isInfantryTransport" value="true"/>

so summary, renaming from "isLandTransport" to "isInfantryTransport".

4.b. landtransport: 4.a. is a precondition
existing:
the mechanizedInfantry technology has to be misused. the biggest disadvantage is that there is no transport capacity.

proposal:

for transported unit...
<!option name="transportCost" value="2"/>
<!option name="isLandTransportable" value="true"/>
for landtransport...
<!option name="isLandTransport" value="true"/>
<!option name="transportCapacity" value="2"/>

4.c. land-, sea- and air transport.
existing:
transported units can be transported without separation of combat or noncombat.
but this would be useful, e.g. paratroopers in both phases and infantry only in noncombat.

proposal:
for transported unit ---> split into 2 options....
<!option name="isLandTransportableCombat" value="true"/>
<!option name="isLandTransportableNonCombat" value="true"/>
if one option not set then its by default false..

same for airtransport......
<!option name="isAirTransportableCombat" value="true"/>
<!option name="isAirTransportableNonCombat" value="true"/>

in the bottom line an info message is showing when selected unit cant be transported.
ideal of course would also be for seatransport....

5. enhancements for planes:
5.a. produce new fighters on old carriers:
<!property name="Produce new fighters on old carriers" value="true" editable="false">
existing:
when new fighters are placed at the factory, they can NOT be taken over to old carriers, when
<!option name="requiresUnits" value="Airfield"/>
is set. this means when a plane is requiring also another unit, the placement on old carriers is NOT working.

proposal:
its mainly a bug. also when the option "requiresUnits" is necessary for a plane, it should be possible to place them on old carriers.

5.b. airtransport can continue their way after loading:
existing:
seatransports can continue to move after loading, airtransports not.
they can move after unload but NO move after load.
so a seatransport can collect and return, an airtransport not

proposal:
in the same way as seatransport also an airtransport can load and continue its flight.
of course only for units which havent been in combat or no movement left.

6. automatic loss selection
existing:
an ool (order of losses) is available.
but its very unrealistic that at first all cheap units are losses....
when units are in combat all acting units should have losses.

proposal:
this should be possible to select with a property.
<!property name="Automatic Loss Selection" value="true" editable="true">

according to the split of the involved units the losses are distributed automatically, so no player interaction necessary.
and this for all kind of units...in all kind of battles....

example:
30 armours and 20 inf attack. they get 20 hits from defender.
with ool the 20 inf are removed first.
with automatic ... armourhits = 20 hits x 30/50 = 12
                 ... infhits        = 20 hits x 20/50 = 8

if there is an remainder by this division then this unit is taken as loss, which has the highest one, to fit the total number of losses.
if more remaining losses and remainders, then the unit types with the highest remainders, to fit the total losses.

7. multiple factories (general structural units):
existing:
one factory can be placed per territory and you can produce up to the territory value, if factory is repaired.
but it cant be really destroyed, because repair before production.
the maximum bombing damage till now existing is only a multiple of the territory pu value.
this is quite unfair, a factory costs the same and for a smaller pu value it can be destroyed easier.
and with <!option name="requiresUnits" value="Barracks"/> more units can be produced with only 1 barrack.

proposal:
- up to the territory value factories can be built and placed.
- one factory costs 6 pus.
- each factory can produce one unit.
ideal would be that a unit can also need more factories, e.g. battleship 4 facs, inf 1 fac.
- if factories are bombed they show the damage (up to 6), if damage higher than 6 then 1 factory is destroyed and the next will be damaged...
- factories can be produced and rebuilt.
- with this an effective interruption of the production process is possible.
also the max bombing damage is clearly defined, each factory 6 pus.

- general the option <!option name="requiresUnits" value="Barracks"/> for a unit should mean that every unit will need a SEPARATE barrack or factory and that it can need also more than 1 unit to be placed, e.g. battleship 4 factories and docks, inf 1 fac and barrack.
dont know if this will work ... <!option name="requiresUnits" value="Factory:Factory:Factory:Barrack:Barrack:Barrack"/>

8. pending fuel issues:
8.a. landtransported units:
existing:
transported landunits (till now with mechinfantry) consume fuel.

proposal:
transported units should consume NO fuel, only the landtransports.

8.b. planes fuel:
existing:
planes on the way to combat consume only their way to combat fuel, but there is no check, that in noncombat there is enough fuel for movement left.

proposal:
when planes move to combat their full movement range is deducted from resource fuel.

one possible solution, because fuel is treated as a resource not a unit:
when they survive combat then at the end of the combat phase the remaining fuel is rebooked.
and in noncombat the planes are consuming for their left movement fuel as usual.

a second and better solution that will also allow consuming fuel as an unit:
when a plane starts in combat not only the remaining movement is stored, also the remaining fuel in the plane tank, which is full when plane starts.
after landing in noncombat and at the end of noncombat the fuel is rebooked.

9. units with zero "0" movement:
existing:
there is a parameter "zero movement unit selectable".
but thats all, a zero move unit cant be transported...

proposal:
structural units like factory, etc... get as default a movement of "-1".
normal units can then get a "0" movement. with this they can be handled as a normal unit and transported by sea, air and land.

10. demolition:
existing:
no feature yet, has to be done manually with edit.

proposal:
it should be possible, maybe before purchase phase, to have also a demolition phase.
e.g. demolition - repair - purchase.
the demolition should be for structural units (or also normal units if for example they have no fuel), to leave nothing behind at a retreat at combat or noncombat.


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: for engine v1.8 --> Development To-Do list

Veqryn
Administrator
@sneakingcoward

1. put number of battle rounds somewhere on battle screen
= can do it

2. popup for deciding on defending air in normal airbattles
= should be able to do

3.a. 1 destroyer blocks 1 sub, 2 destroyers block 2 subs
= probably can not do

3.b. subs get their own special battle
= i do not plan on adding battles for all sorts of different things.  if this gets done, it would be a fully extensible battle delegate who's properties are fully determined in the xml.  this would take months to do, and i'm probably not going to attempt it, so no.

3.c. i don't actually understand what you want here.

4.a. rename abilities
= no, i will not be renaming anything

4.b. transport capacity for land transports
= the entire transportation code (for carriers, sea transports, air transports, land transports, etc) needs to be completely re-written to be fully extensible and defined by the xml.  this would take months, and i am not going to attempt it any time soon. so no.

4.c. I am not totally sure what you mean, but I think this goes back to previous point: transportation needs to be fully extensible, and i am not willing to put in 6 months of work recoding it right now.

5.a. requires units ability should work for planes placed on carriers
= should be able to do

5.b. air transports can move then load
= back to point in 4, I do not plan on doing the months of work for this right now.

6. I do not understand what you want here

7. stacking factories
= might be able to do

8.a. transports determine whether fuel is used
= back to point 4 above, all transportation related code needs to be extensible, and i'm not going to put in the time for it

8.b. air units use up all their fuel at start of move, then give whatever is left when back when they land
= too confusing.  what happens when you don't have enough fuel for all your planes?  i have to make some UI element to go around choosing where you want the fuel to go.  way too confusing and way too much work.

9. zero movement units transportable
= don't we already have this?  you can use land transports to move zero move units i think.

10. disband unit
= might be able to do


Please contribute to the TripleA 2013 donation drive:
http://tripleadev.1671093.n2.nabble.com/2013-TripleA-Donation-Drive-tp7583455.html
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: for engine v1.8 --> Development To-Do list

Rolf Larsson
Lately I thought about unittypes, just like those AA types.
Would be very useful to be able to address more units at once, like unittype=infantry. For support, territoryeffects, limits, placements, targets etc.

Givemovement limits, just like maxscramble=x would be good too.

As an addition to those transportrequests, maybe allow for a number of x units to affected by the mechInf tech without any capacity values would be enough to extend landtransports, if possible and not require too much work as already mentioned.
We now have custom dice!
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: for engine v1.8 --> Development To-Do list

sneakingcoward
This post was updated on .
In reply to this post by Veqryn
1. ok
2. ok
3.a. subs retreat
when subs attack or defend, they cant retreat when even only 1 enemy destroyer is present.
so as long this destroyer is not taken as loss subs cant retreat.
and this independent how many subs are there.
its is obvious that 1 destroyer cant prevent e.g. 30 subs from submerging/escaping.

this makes a proper sub war impossible.
for example you send only 1 destroyer in and a big number of planes or other ships which have nothing to do with a sub war (like a battleship) and can make endless hits, although only 1 destroyer is here for detecting a sub.

so the game goes as follows till now:
at first question for subs, is a destroyer present ?
if true, no submerge
if false, submerge.

and here, if true, you add that only this amount of sub cant submerge which are balanced by "isDestroyer" units from the enemy. the remaining subs can submerge every battle round.
so the code requirement should be small.

3.b. subs get only selected hits
<!option name="subDefense" value="2"/>
<!option name="subAttack" value="2"/>

ships are getting this 2 new options.
and subs can only get hits from ships with this options.

this means not every ship can fight a sub, e.g. carrier, battleship.

subs have already their own mode, at first attacking sub, then defending subs, then other surface ships aso.

now you insert only 1 new mode.
attacking subs fire
defending ships with above options fire (although also all other ships can get sub hits)
defending subs fire
attacking ships with above options fire (all other ships can get sub hits)
then all surface ships and planes fire

so the ships with above options will fire two times, once with the option value and once with the normal attack/defense value.
like airbattle, but in a lite version....already existing battle sequence.
so the coding should be not to difficult...its already existing, only 2 new steps have to be inserted in the battle sequence.

3.c. transport with v3 rule.

IN SIMPLE WORDS:
as long as a defending fighting unit is present, transports cant be taken as losses. when the last defending unit has died or none is present, transports CAN be taken as losses !!!
due that we have battle rounds number now this would be necessary...

this should be possible with the 2 parameters
<!property name="Transport Casualties Restricted" value="true" editable="false">
<!property name="Unescorted Transport Dies" value="true" editable="false">
till now the second parameter shows no effect at all....
existing is when no fighting unit is here all transports die at once.

4.a. and 4.b. transport capacity
they belong together.
IN SIMPLE WORDS:
we need a transport capacity for landtransports...
we need a way to separate what unittype and what amount a halftrack or a truck can transport, however this is done.
airtransport has also a transport capacity, so for mechInfantry this should also work...

4.c. any transport in combat or noncombat:
IN SIMPLE WORDS:
it should be possible to define if a transported unit can go into combat or only in noncombat.

for example airtransport should transport paras in combat and noncombat, but inf only in noncombat.
or other examples, landtransport should transport heavy tanks only in noncombat but inf in combat..

so with the splitting up of
<!option name="isLandTransportable" value="true"/>
which allows transport in combat and noncombat
with 2 parameters
<!option name="isLandTransportable" value="true"/> ...transport in combat allowed
<!option name="isLandTransportableNonCombat" value="true"/> ... transport in noncombat allowed
<!option name="isAirTransportable" value="true"/>
<!option name="isAirTransportableNonCombat" value="true"/>
the transport can be restricted in this 2 modes.
if both true then combat and noncombat.

the code is a simple if statement...

5. requires units ability should work for planes placed on OLD carriers
ok

6. automatic casualties selection:
IN SIMPLE WORDS:
the engine is calculating alone without user selection, the amount of casualties each unittype will have.
the user cant select which casualties he WANTS to have, the CASUALTIES are calculated according the balance of the unittypes, the higher the number of a unittype compared to the total amount of units of a player in a battle, the more casualties it will also have.

7. factories...
ok

8. transported units need no fuel:
for seatransports and airtransports it was done.
also for landtransport (in our pain with technology "mech.Infantry") also NO fuel for transported units, so a unit with "isInfantry" going with a "isLandtransport" should consume NO fuel.
a simple code statement...

9. zero movement units
zero movement units cant even be selected.
there is a separate parameter to enable this and then also factories and structures can be selected, but only units should be possible with movement 0 to select and transport by sea, air, land.

10. demolition structures
best done as described before purchase
demolition - repair - purchase
ok

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Development To-Do list

Zim Xero
This post was updated on .
In reply to this post by Veqryn
I think it would be a huge boost to  Weather and Cards to do the following:

Program terrain effects to be ON or OFF.

add an EFECTS tab in with the economy tabs
... it will only show up if an effects tab file exists.
It will show:

Yes or No, Picture, Terrain Name, Description.

All terrain effects we currently use would be "Yes" ... always in effect.
Allow terrain effects to be canceled "No" using triggers.

Function:
(1) Cards can be used to trigger "In-Play" map effects via terrain effect.
(2) Weather can be programmed.  "Russian Winter" could be a terrain attached to applicable territories and it can go in and out of effect on certain turns, under condition, or even randomly.
(3) Cyclic effects can be programmed using the terrain system.  If "night" and "day" are used as terrain and applied to every territory... they would alternate "On" and "Off" to create effect.
'thats the way it is' makes it neither desireable nor inevitable
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: for engine v1.8 --> Development To-Do list

sneakingcoward
This post was updated on .
In reply to this post by Veqryn
AT VEQRYN...

simplified, specially fuel check 7.b.
most things are now a blink.
transport engine no change.
THANK YOU.


1. improvements of existing features:
1.a. battle rounds number indicator:
proposal:
for the battle window it would be nice to get a counter for the actual battle rounds number, for all kind of battles...
-----------------------------
1.b. produce new fighters on old carriers:
<!property name="Produce new fighters on old carriers" value="true" editable="false">
existing:
when new fighters are placed at the factory, they can NOT be taken over to old carriers, when
<!option name="requiresUnits" value="Airfield"/>
is set. this means when a plane is requiring also another unit, the placement on old carriers is NOT working.

proposal:
its mainly a bug. also when the option "requiresUnits" is necessary for a plane, it should be possible to place them on old carriers.
-----------------------------
1.c. air battle before normal battle:
existing:
for air battles, planes can NOT retreat in the last round (if it is the only one or the tenth..), although property "Air Battle Attackers/Defenders Can Retreat" is true.

proposal:
planes in airbattle should also be able to retreat in the last round independent of round number (if 1 or 10..).
reason is, even when airbattle is over after the last round, then the players should not be forced to continue the normal battle with the planes.
-----------------------------
1.d. units with zero "0" movement:
existing:
there is a parameter "zero movement unit selectable".
but thats all, a zero move unit cant be transported...

proposal:
structural units like factory, etc... get as default a movement of "-1".
normal units can then get a "0" movement. with this they can be handled as a normal unit and transported by sea, air and land.
-----------------------------
1.e. combination of <!option name="isInfantry" value="true"/> and <!option name="isLandTransport" value="true"/>
existing:
if a unit has both options, the movement gets unlimited.
if 2 units have both options and go together 1 additional unit is carried.

proposal:
for both options set, movement has to be rectified.
if 2 units with both options go together, the unit with the bigger movement wins and no additional unit is carried.
-----------------------------
1.f. airtransport with carriage is blocked:
existing:
if airtransport moves with carriage through a channel (e.g. suez), which is blocked, the movement is blocked.
proposal:
the feature of the carriage for channel blocking has to be disabled when carried with airtransport.
-----------------------------

2. sea transports:
existing v3:
transports are not involved in combat as casualties and killed completely when no defending unit is left.
<!property name="Transport Casualties Restricted" value="true" editable="false">
<!property name="Unescorted Transport Dies" value="true" editable="false">
although the second "Unescorted Transport Dies" shows no effect, its only about the first one "Transport Casualties Restricted".

proposal:
the second property "Unescorted Transport Dies" should get a meaning.

the first property "Transport Casualties Restricted" is FALSE:
transports are casualties and second parameter has no meaning.

the first property "Transport Casualties Restricted" is TRUE:
transports are NO casualties, when a defending unit is there.
when no defending unit is left the second parameter defines, if transports are casualties or removed at once.
due that we have battle round numbers now, this would limit the transports casualties.

till now its very unreal, only 1 surviving attacking unit can kill unlimited transports...
with the proposal, according the battle rounds number some transports will survive. this would be more real.
-----------------------------

3. sub units:
3.a. subs retreat
existing v3:
when no destroyer is present subs can retreat before battle.
when only 1 destroyer is present, all units can attack or defend against subs. subs can't retreat as long as only 1 destroyer is present.

proposal:
1 destroyer can only prevent 1 sub from retreat, 2 des 2 sub etc...
the other subs can retreat before each battle round starts.
-----------------------------
3.b. subs battle
existing v3:
subs are defending or attacking separate from other ships.

proposal:
we have now air battle, why not also sub battle ?
subs have already their own combat phase.
for each unit (ship or plane) a subAttack or -Defense can be additional to Attack or Defense.
<!option name="subDefense" value="2"/>
<!option name="subAttack" value="2"/>
e.g. destroyer gets 3, cruiser gets 1, all other ships none. a plane can also get a value.

then the battle goes as follows:
1air - at first air battle (selected attacking and defending planes are involved)

2sub - next is sub battle (only destroyers prevent subs from retreat, remaining subs can retreat, only the ships/planes which have the subAttack or -Defense can make hits on subs).
two additional steps in the battle sequence...attacking subs versus ALL defending ships/planes and defending subs versus ALL attacking ships/planes.
also ships without subAttack or -Defense (they make no hits) are involved and can get hits...

3ship - then the normal ship battle where all SURFACE ships and planes are involved as usual.
after this 2sub-3ship-2sub....so for e.g. 4 battle rounds, 2sub and 3ship each 4 times alternating.

IN SHORT WORDS:
so general the total ship mode is the same as existing, subs before ships, the only difference is that subs can get only hits from ships/planes with the subAttack or -Defence ability in a separate alternating battle step.
subs can make hits on all ships.
-----------------------------

4. transport parameters:
4.a. separate transport for combat and noncombat
existing:
transported units can be transported without separation of combat or noncombat.
but this would be useful, e.g. paratroopers in both phases and infantry only in noncombat.

proposal:
for transported unit ---> split into 2 options....
<!option name="isLandTransportableCombat" value="true"/>
<!option name="isLandTransportableNonCombat" value="true"/>
if one option not set then its by default false..

same for airtransport......
<!option name="isAirTransportableCombat" value="true"/>
<!option name="isAirTransportableNonCombat" value="true"/>

same for seatransport......

in the bottom line an info message is showing when selected unit cant be transported.

IN SHORT WORDS:
<!option name="isLandTransportable" value="true"/> is already existing. to make it easier for programming, this parameter stays for combat and noncombat transport.
only the new one <!option name="isAirTransportableNonCombat" value="true"/> defines then if a unit only transported in noncombat.
because if transport possible in combat implies also noncombat, but if allowed in noncombat doesnt imply combat.
-----------------------------
4.b. landtransport only in territories owned at turn start
existing:
landtransport can always take place, combat or noncombat, independent if the territory was owned at turn start.
so also for just captured territories move-in or move-through is possible.

proposal:
with an option <!option name="MoveOnlyTerritoryOwnedAtTurnstart" value="true"/> at the unit attachment just after "isLandTransport".
a landtransport moves then only in territories which have been already owned before turnstart.
in just captured territories move-in or move-through is not possible. would be needed for a train.
-----------------------------

5. automatic casualties calculation and preselection:
existing:
an ool (order of losses) is available.
preselection is done according lowest attack/defend value and purchase value.
the player can change this preselection.
but its very unrealistic that at first all cheap units are casualties....it helps the attacker.
when units are in combat all acting units should have casualties.

proposal:
this should be possible to select with a property.
<!property name="Automatic Casualties Calculation" value="true" editable="true">

according to the split of the involved units the casualties are distributed automatically, so no player selection POSSIBLE, only the retreat can be selected.
and this for all kind of units...in all kind of battles....

example:
30 armours and 20 infantry attack. they get 19 hits from defender.
existing with ool the 19 inf would be removed first.
with automatic ... armourhits = 19 hits x 30/50 = 11,4 gives 11 FIXED hits for this unittype.
                    ... infantryhits = 19 hits x 20/50 = 7,6 gives 7 FIXED hits for this unittype.

19 hits total minus the 11+7=18 FIXED hits gives 1 hits left to distribute.
this can be done by the player manually as already existing.
so 18 hits are FIXED unchangeable preselected and only 1 hit the player can choose.
if of course more types of units are involved the remaining casualties to manually distribute can be more than 1, depends on the remainders.
for 2-hit units as existing, at first 2-hits then casualties.
e.g. not as existing ool all hits at first 2-hits, only the hits for this unittype are 2-hits first as existing.
-----------------------------

6. multiple factories and for each unit <!option name="requiresUnits" value="Barracks"/>:
6.a. factories:
existing:
one factory can be placed per territory and you can produce up to the territory value, if factory is repaired.
but it cant be really destroyed, because repair before production.
the maximum bombing damage till now existing is only a multiple of the territory pu value.
this is quite unfair, a factory costs the same and for a smaller pu value it can be destroyed easier.

proposal:
up to the territory value factories can be built and placed.
one factory costs e.g. 6 pus, cost can be set.
each factory can produce maximum one unit and it can be defined, how much factories are required to build one unit.
e.g. battleships need 4, or armour needs 2.
if factories are bombed they show the damage (up to 6), if damage higher than 6 then 1 factory is destroyed and the next will be damaged...
factories can be produced and rebuilt.
with this an effective interruption of the production process is possible.
also the max bombing damage is clearly defined, each factory 6 pus.
-----------------------------
6.b. <!option name="requiresUnits"...
existing:
with <!option name="requiresUnits" value="Barracks"/> more units require ONLY 1 barrack.

proposal:
also the option <!option name="requiresUnits" value="Barracks"/> for a unit should mean that EACH unit will need 1 or more separate barracks.
each <!"requiresUnits" value="Barracks"> for maximum one unit and it can be defined, how much "Barracks or Docks or Airfield" are required for one unit, same as for factory above.
-----------------------------

7. pending fuel issues:
7.a. landtransported units:
existing:
transported landunits (till now with mechinfantry) consume fuel.

proposal:
transported units should consume NO fuel, only the landtransports.
-----------------------------
7.b. planes fuel:
existing:
planes on the way to combat consume only their way to combat fuel, but there is no check, that in noncombat there is enough fuel for movement left.
only a check for zero fuel is done with bottom line:
"Not enough resources to perform this move, you need: xx Fuel for this move"

proposal:
to make it simple. the fuel check is now not done with ZERO fuel left, it is done with the fuel required for the planes actual in combat to continue in noncombat.
the minimum of the move into combat and the rest moves for maximum range is taken for fuel reserve.
e.g. bomber 6 max range.
- 1 move into combat, 5 move for max range left. the MIN(1:5) is 1.
so only fuel for 1 move has to be reserved.
- 3 move into combat, 3 move for max range left. the MIN(3:3) is 3.
so only fuel for 3 move has to be reserved.
- 4 move into combat, 2 move for max range left. the MIN(4:2) is 2.
so only fuel for 2 move has to be reserved.

so for the available fuel yy (calculated: yy = "physically existing fuel, see economy tab" minus "fuel needs for combat planes to continue in noncombat").
where "fuel needs for combat planes to continue in noncombat" = MIN("move into combat":"rest moves for max range").

the bottom ERROR line should be changed to:
"Not enough Fuel to perform this move, you need xx Fuel for this move and yy Fuel available (returning planes fuel considered)"
where xx is the fuel requirement of the actual unit to move and yy is the fuel available.
-----------------------------
7.c. fuel indication at combat/noncombat:
existing:
economy tab is the only indication of the physically existing fuel.

proposal:
at the bottom line, right side would be free, the available fuel yy (see 7.b.) is shown.
Text: "Available Fuel (returning planes fuel considered): yy"

and the bottom warning (see 7.b.) could be minimised to
"Not enough Fuel to perform this move, you need xx Fuel for this move."
-----------------------------
7.d. fuel indication at purchase:
existing:
the physically existing fuel from the economy tab is shown.

proposal:
if 7.b. is realized, then here also yy should be indicated.
because for some maps the combat move is before purchase...
-----------------------------
7.e. fuel consumption for defender:
existing:
a defender needs no fuel at all.

proposal:
when defender is attacked, the casualties of the defender need for 1 movement fuel, e.g. 20 defender armour lost is for 20 moves fuel lost, valid for all units also planes.
maybe with <!property name="Defender casualties consume Fuel" value="true" editable="false">
-----------------------------
7.f. capture fuel when capital captured:
existing:
for PUs ...
<!option name="destroysPUs" value="true"/>
<!option name="retainCapitalNumber" value="1"/>
<!option name="retainCapitalProduceNumber" value="1"/>

proposal:
also for Fuel...
<!option name="destroysFuel" value="true"/>
"retainCapitalNumber" and "retainCapitalProduceNumber" should have the same meaning as for PUs.
-----------------------------
7.g. property "Use Fuel Cost":
existing:
<-- Do we charge for fuel when we move units? -->
<property name="Use Fuel Cost" value="true" editable="false">
here only the fuel for movement is controlled.

proposal:
<-- Do we charge a resource for movement? -->
<property name="Use movementCost" value="true" editable="false">
there should be a renaming from fuelCost to more common movementCost, because not only fuel can be taken for movement.

for all costs (see below) used in production, movement, combat, defender casualties (7.e.), the fuel is controlled with this property, not only movement.
<cost resource="Fuel" quantity="1"/>
<-- "movementCost" allows the unit to consume "Fuel" per field count, if you have the property "Use movementCost" true -->
<option name="movementCost" value="Fuel" count="1"/>
<option name="combatCost" value="Fuel" count="1"/> ... see item 8.
......
-----------------------------

8. new resource type for combat:
existing:
we have now for purchase the resource PUs.
for movement Fuel.

proposal:
also for the combat phase a resource is created.
<resource name="Ammo"/> or whatever.
<-- "combatCost" allows the unit to consume "Ammo" for combat, if you have the property "Use combatCost" true -->
<option name="combatCost" value="Ammo" count="1"/>
and a new property....
<-- Do we charge a resource for combat? -->
<property name="Use combatCost" value="true" editable="false">
and also here for this property LIKE FOR FUEL, the property controls Ammo cost for production, movement, combat and defender casualties (7.e.).
-----------------------------

9. demolition:
existing:
no feature yet, has to be done manually with edit.

proposal:
it should be possible, maybe before purchase phase, to have also a demolition phase.
e.g. demolition - repair - purchase.
the demolition should be for structural units (or also normal units if for example they have no fuel), to leave nothing behind at a retreat.
-----------------------------
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Development To-Do list

Elcayon
In reply to this post by Veqryn
I'm new so sorry in case of "stupid" adds.

1. Computer ai

I cannot see the advantage of the us building 18 transporters in lake Michigan

2. submarines

should be able to select in Option Menu if super subs can be seen by enemy

3. politics

Option should be available to declare war and to make peace with certain countries. In Real: bulgaria wasn't at war with russia until the end of the war when russia declared war to bulgaria in Order to move in. Rumänische and italy changed sides.

4. Factories

In Germany we called that Strategy "Burned ground". I want to be able to destroy MY Factories in Order Not to Leave it in enemies hands
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Development To-Do list

eurofabio
Hi Elcayon, welcome!

About your requests:

1 - I agree that this should be fixed. This happened with you recently? If yes, which map?

2 - not sure exactly what you want

3 - already possible but depends on the map you are playing

4 - as above, already possible but depends on the map you are playing



Elcayon wrote
I'm new so sorry in case of "stupid" adds.

1. Computer ai

I cannot see the advantage of the us building 18 transporters in lake Michigan

2. submarines

should be able to select in Option Menu if super subs can be seen by enemy

3. politics

Option should be available to declare war and to make peace with certain countries. In Real: bulgaria wasn't at war with russia until the end of the war when russia declared war to bulgaria in Order to move in. Rumänische and italy changed sides.

4. Factories

In Germany we called that Strategy "Burned ground". I want to be able to destroy MY Factories in Order Not to Leave it in enemies hands
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Development To-Do list

Elcayon
Thanks,

to 1. transporters in "Lake Michigan"

Unfortunately yesterday my computer broke down and with it my entire save-files were deleted, so I can`t find out the name :-( It was one of the bigger world maps in time area WW2 map including Italy as axies member). If I find it again, I will post the map name.

to 2. submarines

On the maps you are able to see your own submarines (of course) as well as those of your enemies. It is a pitty that there is no option implanted to change this. The "gag" about submarines in real life is that they are invisible and you never know when and where they appear (unless there is a destroyer around). The submarines in the game would take a very different role if such an option would be available (and also would underline the existance of destroyers). At least subersubs should have such an option.

Until now the role of submarines compared to the historic part is inadequate. Thinking of the "wolf packs" of german submarines who even sunk ships in british harbours or in the mexican gulf, the subs are nearly (= except for the 1st attack) ordinary ships, which have to be afraid of airplanes (which are situated in 90%on main land 2 map zones [= thousands of miles] away lol).

I`m even not able to dive with the subs below a pair of boats to the next seazone to attack there: no I have to fight when going through this sea-zone :-(

I even can send a transporter convoy from Washington to France without escort and I don`t have to fear something lurking in the water, because I know where enemy subs on the map are located.

The sub is not really a strategic weapon in the game. Actually in my opion the subs were implemented in the game only because they are well known and they were given two little special options (1st attack and submerge), but unfortunately their role and especially the strategic options and possibilities to the game play are far below their historical role.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Development To-Do list

sneakingcoward
please look at sneakingcoward above
3. sub units:

the hidden subs feature is a further step which needs also a password to enter the turn, otherwise the enemy can open and have a look.

one by one...auf deutsch...eins nach dem anderen.

übrigens...lust auf ein pbem ?
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Development To-Do list

eurofabio
In reply to this post by Elcayon
I agree, but to implement the "fog of war" would need lots of changes in the engine.

If you think about is not just submarines that you do not know where is. Unless you have spies in some way, you just know the position of the troops that you are fighting. Everything behind the enemy lines is often unknown.

As I said, I do agree with you, and I'm sure that if Veq would add this, would make a big difference, however is not in the development to-do-list, so don't get high hopes.

Elcayon wrote
Thanks,

to 2. submarines

On the maps you are able to see your own submarines (of course) as well as those of your enemies. It is a pitty that there is no option implanted to change this. The "gag" about submarines in real life is that they are invisible and you never know when and where they appear (unless there is a destroyer around). The submarines in the game would take a very different role if such an option would be available (and also would underline the existance of destroyers). At least subersubs should have such an option.

Until now the role of submarines compared to the historic part is inadequate. Thinking of the "wolf packs" of german submarines who even sunk ships in british harbours or in the mexican gulf, the subs are nearly (= except for the 1st attack) ordinary ships, which have to be afraid of airplanes (which are situated in 90%on main land 2 map zones [= thousands of miles] away lol).

I`m even not able to dive with the subs below a pair of boats to the next seazone to attack there: no I have to fight when going through this sea-zone :-(

I even can send a transporter convoy from Washington to France without escort and I don`t have to fear something lurking in the water, because I know where enemy subs on the map are located.

The sub is not really a strategic weapon in the game. Actually in my opion the subs were implemented in the game only because they are well known and they were given two little special options (1st attack and submerge), but unfortunately their role and especially the strategic options and possibilities to the game play are far below their historical role.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Development To-Do list

RogerCooper
The best submarine rules were in the original (Nova Games version). Submarines did not fire in regular combat and could not be attacked in regular combat. Instead, they attacked during enemy movement and then surviving enemies could shoot back. If the submarines did not initiate combat, they were invulnerable. They were more expensive than the current rules (8 IPC).

The end effect was that submarines were big nuisance, but you could stop them by escorting your ships properly.

It might be tricky to implement combat during movement, but prohibiting initiating combat against submarines as an option would be sufficient to make subs useful.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Development To-Do list

Rainer
This post was updated on .
@ eurofabio: spys are a nice idea, but normally with planes you can see big troop movements pretty well. On the water it is slightly different. But the folk of war aspect seems a good idea. It might be dificult to implement in the game this option, but especially with bigger maps and smaller sea-zones (why do they always have to be so big?) this would add a different strategic note to the game. Thinking of building trapps: tanks can go for 2 territories while army-men can only move one: you cold play a little "Rommel in the dessert" when sending a few cannon fodders to the front and wait the enemy to attack while he doesn`t see the tanks lurking for a leathal attack in the second round. Also great - and easy to implement - would be "dummy armys". While 2nd World war both sides used dummy tanks and dummy ships to make the other side think that there is much army preparing, while in reality it was only a show. Such armies might be usefull for Germans at the "Atlantic Wall". Attack and Defending could be "0" while movement could be as the real armys (costs: 1 p). It could prevent other armys to attack because they belief that it doesn`t make sence to attack which gives real troops time to move aaway or to get enough troops together.

@ Roger: yes those rules for subs sound reasonable. Especially the fact that it would be to dangerous to send transporters without company would make the battle a little more realistic. It would also be more easy to implement into the game. Difference should be made: Destroyers should be able to attack subs (but only them).

@ all: neutral states

When attacking neutral states like Spain is often attacked by Italians or Turkey by the Russians and the British, it is bad that it is only a battle for each and every territory of that state. It would be more realistic if Axis or Allies attack a neutral country, that from this time the "sleeping lion" enters with all its territories into war on the opposite site (British attacks Turkey, Turkey becomes a "minor allie of the Axis powers" with all its territories and Armies.

@ all: territory specials

As all territories are defined, there should be some extras implemented: bonus and malus system. Which means in jungle areas your attack strengh for tanks goes down by 1 when attacking into such a zone. Or alternatively: 4 seasons: problems to blitz in Russia in the winter.

@ thanks for asking to play, but I`m new and would like to come back to that offer after having collected a little experience offline. I`m still in the "trial and error phase" of that´game :-)
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Development To-Do list

wirkey
Rainer wrote

@ all: neutral states

When attacking neutral states like Spain is often attacked by Italians or Turkey by the Russians and the British, it is bad that it is only a battle for each and every territory of that state. It would be more realistic if Axis or Allies attack a neutral country, that from this time the "sleeping lion" enters with all its territories into war on the opposite site (British attacks Turkey, Turkey becomes a "minor allie of the Axis powers" with all its territories and Armies.
That is already possible, sobody would have to code it in the maps, though

Rainer wrote
@ all: territory specials

As all territories are defined, there should be some extras implemented: bonus and malus system. Which means in jungle areas your attack strengh for tanks goes down by 1 when attacking into such a zone. Or alternatively: 4 seasons: problems to blitz in Russia in the winter.
same, possible, but someone to code the map needed
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Development To-Do list

WrathofGod
In reply to this post by Veqryn
Hi,
lately i found tripleA and the engine has amazing possibilities but the ai needs a buildover. The most annoying thing is that a transport is built for every land unit build and the old ones are for waste(i played the napolonic wars, well uknow), as far as i understand the engine it is possible to add a "new" ai to the existing 3, lets call it sea power and the base is the ex. mnable, in the unit build routine u need 2 modifications,
1) limit the number of transports points to a %value of the current income, e.g. 70% that would mean when the uk stacks at 60 income, 42 tpoints are the max = 14 Transports and combine ist with a check to existing land forces, if land force tvalue < ex. tfleet NO build
2) as a sea power u should battle for naval supremacy so the engine should try to achieve a %advantage over the rivals so check the add def+att naval values against the ai values, a goal of 130-150% should do it, combine it with a 2nd check, if we are under the red line of 100% then put in lets say at least 70% of the income in warships, are we beyond 100% cut it down to 40% and 0% after reaching 150%

this should improve the building sequence and now we need additional improvement for the use of the new sea units.

as far as i understand the ai it builds units+tpoints equal, ships out, land and do this with the units on board as long as they live, the dead ones leave their now useless transports behind und that crap force grows from turn to turn, additional the ai tend to big out the "main" fleet

if the "old" ai is build up relative equal to the dyna(land) try then it build task and assigns forces as long as forces are available for new tasks, but and this is the point what works "relative" well for land forces the "big" army is contra productive at sea so the task planning needs an adjustment

1)every transport that has NO load current trn heads back to the home port
2)assign landings only for transports NO warships at this point
3)assign sea battles, everything in range with a chance of 60%+ is a target, add att units til 80% max. chance, the order is save the 1hit bombard capable ships and put them last to the task, first non bombard att, then battleships(for the 2point ability), last 1hit bombard ships(save them for land support)
4)cut the bombard support to number of att land units remainig big ships head back to the prod zone as long as rule 5 is not fullfilled
5) if NO enemy vessel within a 2rnd movement radius is spotted then all warships head towards the predefined "hot" spots(victory points on water i guess ) for the napolonic scenario that would mean enemy convoy zones(nice idea for the napolonic scenario but the ai ignores them completly) and enemy naval prod area and first of all farther away enemy warships. I am not quite sure how the task routine works, my guess is that with new turns all tasks will be new calculated and this would make it virtually impossible to build huntings groups for farther away targets the only solution seems to be to allow task building for targets with greater range, on water this could work cause of the limited number of units,
in reality it should work after this schedule, cleaning of the home zone, then hunting small groups outside home zone, all not needed stacked at prod zone, the ai builds warships to the 150% value so after a while the uk should have outnumbered even the swe home force and then with a small edge they sail towards scandinavia, problem is if swe build new warships and the % fell under the required they would head back to their prod zone, the only solution seem to be to define different %Goals for the home zone and the free Ocean, lets say 80% vic chance within those 2trns(4 from home port) and 30% outside, this way should give the fleet some trns before the % cut is reached.
As said before this depends on how the ai works tasks out on water, if the standard mnable works completly different then a modification of the dynamix for sea powers is needed.
I am no specialist for the needed modifications but i guess it is the best way to modify the existing ones instead of build it from the scratch.
just my 2 cents
wrath
         
123456