Quantcast

Easy to Implement Suggestions for the Next Release

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
24 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Easy to Implement Suggestions for the Next Release

RogerCooper
1.  Have a control to set all nations to AI. It saves time if you are playing only 1 nation in a big scenario.

2.  In the territory tab, show the unit & player names below the icon. Some icons can look similar on screen and the national symbols can be obscure. This could also be useful in the battle calculator.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Easy to Implement Suggestions for the Next Release

Frostion
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Easy to Implement Suggestions for the Next Release

lordbevan
In reply to this post by RogerCooper
PU should come in 0.1 units. Right now, some maps let you buy 2 units for 7 PU etc.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Easy to Implement Suggestions for the Next Release

crazy_german
This was an explored option, I was told that decimal PU values aren't possible. There was an option added, specifically for NWO and 2 for 7 units, which multiplied all PU values by 10, fixing the problem. No one ever adapted to the changed version though
Correctly crazy, disingenuously German
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Easy to Implement Suggestions for the Next Release

redrum
Administrator
@crazy_german - Its possible to implement but would be a major effort. I think there are many better places to spend our efforts and definitely doesn't qualify IMO as 'easy to implement'.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Easy to Implement Suggestions for the Next Release

crazy_german
The issue is that currently its stored as an integer right? Its certainly not worth the time as multiply PUs can do anything that decimal PUs could (I think)
Correctly crazy, disingenuously German
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Easy to Implement Suggestions for the Next Release

redrum
Administrator
Correct. While multiply does work its kind of off putting to a lot of players.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Easy to Implement Suggestions for the Next Release

Zim Xero
This post was updated on .
If I had only one request for engine improvement... it would be tough, but in the end, my most important upgrade would be one that not many care about:

Allow the AI to move units that have AA capability.  This would allow units with "initiative" fire to exist in regular games.  This would allow a fantasy game to give an archer unit 1d6 AA fire vs dragons, and still be a mobile unit in its own right.  Even though the function is not used in current TripleA games... it is a very important deep strategy upgrade.  Currently any unit with AA attactchments is ignored in the AI movement phase.

*** The following units become viable in singleplayer games, because AI would ignore the AA factor:

Anti-tank  Att=2, Def=1, Mov=1   ---  has 1D6 AA vs tanks on attack, has 2D6 AA vs tanks on defense.

Submarine Att=1, Def=1, Move=2  ---  has 3D6 AA vs transports on attack, has 1D6 AA vs transports, defense

Destroyer  Att=2, Def=2, Move =2  --- has amphibous support, has 2D6 AA vs submarines att/def
'thats the way it is' makes it neither desireable nor inevitable
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Easy to Implement Suggestions for the Next Release

Frostion
@Zim Xero
There is a unit in Age of Tribes called ”Anti-Air”. It is an anti-air and also does normal attack and deffence. That unit type seems to do both noncombat and combat moves. One can see this if running an all Hard-AI game of Age of Tribes: Cold War. First couple of rounds they noncombat move around and when the war is hot, they also join in attacks.

XML wrote
        <attachment name="unitAttachment" attachTo="Anti-Air" javaClass="games.strategy.triplea.attachments.UnitAttachment" type="unitType">
            <option name="attack" value="3"/>
            <option name="defense" value="3"/>
            <option name="movement" value="1"/>
            <option name="offensiveAttackAA" value="4"/>
            <option name="attackAA" value="4"/>
            <option name="offensiveAttackAAmaxDieSides" value="12"/>
            <option name="attackAAmaxDieSides" value="12"/>
            <option name="maxAAattacks" value="1"/>
            <option name="maxRoundsAA" value="-1"/>
            <option name="isAAforCombatOnly" value="true"/>
            <option name="isAAforBombingThisUnitOnly" value="true"/>
            <option name="isAAforFlyOverOnly" value="true"/>
            <option name="transportCost" value="1"/>
            <option name="typeAA" value="anti-air gun"/>
            <option name="mayOverStackAA" value="true"/>
            <option name="targetsAA" value="Attack-Helicopter:Warplane:Fighter:Bomber:Air-Transport:Jet-Fighter:Stealth-Bomber:Attack-Drone"/>
        </attachment>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Easy to Implement Suggestions for the Next Release

redrum
Administrator
@Zim Xero - Those units should function and move around. I think the only limitation is the AI probably wouldn't purchase many of them since it doesn't 'value' the AA capability. If you have examples of them not working then please post.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Easy to Implement Suggestions for the Next Release

RogerCooper
In reply to this post by RogerCooper
For choosing AI's, it would be logical to have the default player type set in the engine settings.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Easy to Implement Suggestions for the Next Release

Cernel
In reply to this post by RogerCooper
RogerCooper wrote
2.  In the territory tab, show the unit & player names below the icon. Some icons can look similar on screen and the national symbols can be obscure. This could also be useful in the battle calculator.
I'm definitively against this, as this would add stuff to the territory tab or the batttlecalculator only for defective maps. A mapmaker should be able to make well distinct units and flags, and I believe the engine should not do what the mapmaker failed to. Even if you have over 20 units and over 20 players it is still possible to have well distinct units and flags, even tho it is sometimes hard to set apart naval units like aa_cruisers, light_cruisers, heavy_cruisers and battleships, while keeping realism, but it should be still up to the mapmaker to find a way.
But all good if it is an additional option off as default, instead.

I'm also not a fan of either the buy X at Y or the 0.X costs; is it really that hard to balance stuff based on integer costs? Comon.
History plays dice
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Easy to Implement Suggestions for the Next Release

Cernel
I meant, with over 20 players is not anymore normally feasible to well distinguish mono-chromatically, obviously, but, in this case, it should be up to the mapmaker to have distinctively enough flags to set units apart, or by other better means than a plain text.
History plays dice
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Easy to Implement Suggestions for the Next Release

RogerCooper
In reply to this post by Cernel
"I'm definitively against this, as this would add stuff to the territory tab or the batttlecalculator only for defective maps. A mapmaker should be able to make well distinct units and flags, and I believe the engine should not do what the mapmaker failed to. Even if you have over 20 units and over 20 players it is still possible to have well distinct units and flags, even tho it is sometimes hard to set apart naval units like aa_cruisers, light_cruisers, heavy_cruisers and battleships, while keeping realism, but it should be still up to the mapmaker to find a way. "

Similar looking units can be a problem even in the physical boardgame. Even if the units are distinct, they may not be obvious. For example, infantry & marines are still just guys holding guns. You are correct in saying that better icons can help, but I can't be assured of better icons. The country icons are small and often ahistorical.

If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the discussion below:
http://tripleadev.1671093.n2.nabble.com/Easy-to-Implement-Suggestions-for-the-Next-Release-tp7593867p7594012.html
To unsubscribe from Easy to Implement Suggestions for the Next Release, click here.
NAML
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Easy to Implement Suggestions for the Next Release

Navalland
In reply to this post by Cernel
preventing huge unit stack should be a option in triplea maps

It's totally annoying in a long time and this property is just providing the feature of hard calculating. So I have a idea and It will solve the problem.

The system of reducing TUV; I will explain with a example; It wil be a limit of tuv (example;1000) total tuv cannot exceed the limit of 1000 throughout the game. If game on the verge of exceeding 1000 tuv, strong side cannt create new unit, but whereas strongest side gain the property of deleting enemy unit (instead of creating new unit). So lets have a look.

round 7; Game has total 950 Tuv. Strong side's turn. Stong side can purchase 100 tuv, in this situation; but strong side cannot create 100 tuv worth unit. Strong side create 50 tuv and delete 50 enemy tuv as desired.

This property will prevent huge unit stacks.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Easy to Implement Suggestions for the Next Release

RogerCooper
Big stacks can already be prevented in 3 ways

1.  You can set actual stacking limits
2.  You can give units a maintenance cost (by having then product negative PU's)
3.  You can set buildcaps for every unit type
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Easy to Implement Suggestions for the Next Release

Navalland
1) This way reduces diversity of strategy
2) This is unjust because under this system, one battleship and one infantry are cause to same decline of pus. And this system can't prevent totally  huge unit stacks.
3) This way also reduces diversity of strategy

The most sensible system is implementing the limit of total tuv. And this system should be editable because of it depends on users and maps, some users might like 1000 tuv limit or 2000,3000 etc..



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Easy to Implement Suggestions for the Next Release

crazy_german
In reply to this post by RogerCooper
I see the solution of upkeep costs posted many times, and its not an easy fix. I have a feeling the people that suggest it haven't actually tried adding it to a map, because there are many obvious problems to doing so. The first is this


And after that, you are fundamentally altering the economy, getting it to work at all will require enormous balancing. You almost certainly have to scale the income, which makes it very unfamiliar to play. You likely need a different factory system, or at least setting unit produciton and produciton different for all territories.

IMO you address stacking by creating a map with constant combat and reasonable incomes. The only popular map I see stacking as a problem is NWO (and the smalls mod fixes that)

If I could ask for an easy suggestion, how about the first line tells us what we actually ended with?
Correctly crazy, disingenuously German
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Easy to Implement Suggestions for the Next Release

Zim Xero
What I did in Pacific Theater is a check for (most unit types, not all) in each territory.  In land territories is charge 1 PUs for any stack exceeding 2x the PUs+1 of the territory.   In addition you can have it look for superstacks of more than 30 units and charge 3 PUs per turn for maintaining them.  The problem with similar systems is that the AI does not understand it, so I would keep it at a non-debilitating upkeep cost.
'thats the way it is' makes it neither desireable nor inevitable
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Easy to Implement Suggestions for the Next Release

RogerCooper
In reply to this post by crazy_german
I have tried both maintenance costs and buildcaps and they work.

Maintenance costs do not have to be the same for each unit. More expensive units should have a higher cost. The message I found to be only a slight annoyance. The only problem I found was that the AI would sometimes find itself with the resources to build new units to deal with a thrust against its capital. It would be a good idea to give some 0 maintenance fortifications in the capital to help the AI out.

I have created scenarios based upon the boardgames, limiting the pieces to what came in the box. It actually encourages diverse strategies, as you can't simply mass infantry or tanks.

I have not tried any scenarios with stacking limits for TripleA. However, stacking limits are routine in boardgames, and they can help play. In A&A, the inability to just build a larger force would give the options of building better quality units or making flanking moves.

If you want to try buildcaps, check out AAR-Build_Caps
12
Loading...