FUEL consumption - enhancements

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

FUEL consumption - enhancements

sneakingcoward
FUEL consumption - enhancements

regarding the fuelcost...used for "World at War v3variant"

dl link
http://www.sendspace.com/file/sd5gty

---------------------
1. SETUP:
 
resource
<resource name="Fuel"/>
 
at unitattachment
<option name="fuelCost" value="Fuel" count="1"/>
 
created
<attatchment name="unitAttatchment" attatchTo="Refinery" javaClass="games.strategy.triplea.attatchments.UnitAttachment" type="unitType">
<option name="isInfrastructure" value="true"/>
<option name="isConstruction" value="true"/>
<option name="constructionType" value="refinery_structure"/>
<option name="constructionsPerTerrPerTypePerTurn" value="1"/>
<option name="maxConstructionsPerTypePerTerr" value="1"/>
<option name="unitPlacementOnlyAllowedIn" value="Azerbaijan:Iran:N.Arabia:Arabia:Norway:Krakow:Venezuela:Brasil:E.Mexico:Greece:Koeln:Dresden:Venezia:Taranto:Lybia:Helsinki:W.Romania:Akita:Tientsin:Navoiyskaya:Omsk:Iraq:S.Egypt:W.India:Malaya:French Guinea:C.Alger:California:Central U.S:Southeast U.S:Haixi:Australia:Dutch Guinea:W.Borneo:Sarong"/>
<option name="requiresUnits" value="Oilfield:Construction"/>
<option name="createsResourcesList" value="100:Fuel"/>
</attatchment>
-----------------------
 
so fine so good.....the existing features are not fully satisfying.
 
---------------------------
2. problems with fuel:

2a - transported units consume also fuel...
for land, sea and airtransports...also tech mechan.infantry.
solution:
when transported no fuel, when moving themselves fuel...in combat and noncombat.
so loading a transport no fuelcost, when leaving a seatransport in combat or noncombat 1 fuelcost.
should be valid for all kinds of transports, when going into combat the transported unit should consume 1 field of fuelcost, independent if it doesnt move a separate field, e.g. landtransport or airtransport.
 
2b - fighters on carriers also consume fuel...
solution:
fuel for transported fighters should be 0, when they are moved together with carrier.
when moving into combat, then 1 field fuel consumption also for fighters.
when fighters and carrier move separately of course all separate fuel needs
 
2c - when units retreat they need no fuel...
solution:
of course for a retreat also 1 field fuel.
for primary fuel check also for each land unit that can retreat 1 extra field fuel should be considered, if the retreat is then consumed or not, but a retreat should be fuelwise possible.
when a unit is destroyed of course also the fuel for the retreat is destroyed.
e.g. armour moves 2 fields into combat, for primary fuel check 3 fields fuel are considered. when tank is destroyed 3 fields fuel are lost. when tank survives only 2 fields fuel are consumed. when tank retreats 3 fields fuel are used.
 
2d - fuel check for planes only for outbound flight, but not for return flight, can end up as kamikaze...
solution:
tanks of planes should be always full filled, if they move only 1 or 5 fields into combat or noncombat, because you dont know after battle where they will land.
so for primary fuel check for planes the full reaching distance (fighter 4, bomber 6) should be considered...
if plane is killed in combat the remaining tank is lost, so 4 or 6 fields of full tank minus the way into combat...
 
2e - the defender should also have 1 fuelcost.
solution:
in a display he should be asked how many defenders should get fuel, as default all, also with indication how much fuel this would be.
when the defender selects less units, the units not fueled are not partizipating in combat and are lost when combat is lost...
this is also valid for intercepting fighters in bombing raids...

2f - resource fuel is somewhere in space like pu's.
<option name="fuelCost" value="Fuel" count="1"/>

solution:
<option name="fuelCost" value="resource:Fuel" count="1"/>
<option name="fuelCost" value="unit:Fuel" count="1"/>
fuel can be consumed as a resource as existing or as a local unit.

fuel should also be possible as unit which gets consumed for movement.
this implies that the unit fuel has to be there at the movement start point.
when a unit moves e.g. armour it is taking also the unit fuel with him (e.g. 1 barrel stays with the unit as the retreat barrel).
the unit fuel symbolized with a barrel can also be moved in noncombat.
this means that proper organisation of fuel depots are vital and this makes the game realistic, specially for planes.

for land and air units this is clear, unclear for sea units, how many barrels they should take with them, specially for planes on a carrier. this can be solved with a tankship. when leaving a territory or starting movement at sea the ships can be loaded with the unit fuel barrel maybe maximum 4-times the maximum range e.g. 4 x 2. the tankship can be loaded with a bigger amount and refuel the ships at sea.
maybe for seaunits the local unit fuel consumption can be simplified like a resource...to make programming easier.

some things are already possible, that a unit is produced at the end of round, missing is the startpoint movement consumption of a unit.

---------------------

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: FUEL consumption - enhancements

eurofabio
I disagree with this point.

Whats happen if defender has no fuel at all? Is he going to lose all battles automatically? Besides that, if in a pbem game the defender player would be asked before any battle, the game is going to take forever.

sneakingcoward wrote
FUEL consumption - enhancements

---------------------------
2. problems with fuel:

2e - the defender should also have 1 fuelcost.
solution:
in a display he should be asked how many defenders should get fuel, as default all, also with indication how much fuel this would be.
when the defender selects less units, the units not fueled are not partizipating in combat and are lost when combat is lost...
this is also valid for intercepting fighters in bombing raids...

---------------------
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: FUEL consumption - enhancements

HuskerMike
In reply to this post by sneakingcoward
German & Russian armies were horse armies. Germans used 50 wagons for every truck used. Germans did not need fuel for defense. Japanese conquered Singapore by riding bikes through Malaysia and attacking Singapore from behind. Only Americans and some Brits used trucks on a massive scale. Between mud & snow, trucks were useless in Russia half the year. Most armies in WWII rode ships, rode trains, or walked.

Infantry doesn't need fuel.

Artillery was also horse drawn - need ammo, not fuel.

Armor - the only unit that needs fuel. Germans were only army ever limited by fuel at this scale of warfare. (North Africa, Bulge) In Russia, limitation was numbers and rail net.

Aircraft - Aerodromes supplied by ship and rail. No shortages locally, unless shortage is theater-wide, like Japanese. Air Forces usually ran out of pilots before fuel.

Navies - Carried enough fuel for 10-20 turns. Had tankers that could refuel 30-50 ships for another 10-20 turns.
Go Big Red!
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: FUEL consumption - enhancements

sneakingcoward
This post was updated on .
In reply to this post by eurofabio
regarding the fuelcost...used for "World at War v3variant"

dl link
http://www.sendspace.com/file/sd5gty

---------------------
1. regarding fuelCost:
 
at unitattachment not for every unit there is a fuelcost=1, this depends on the unit.....varies from 0 to 6.

for ArmoredCar: <option name="fuelCost" value="Fuel" count="1"/>
for Battleship: <option name="fuelCost" value="Fuel" count="6"/>

-- FUEL / SIZE # ABILITY --
Infantry............. na / S2 # Art supported, Airlifted
Paratrooper........ na / S2 # Art supported, Paratrooper
Artillery............. na / S3 # Supports 2 units
ArmoredCar...... F1 / S3 # Blitz
Halftrack........... F2 / S3 # Blitz, Support, Transp. Inf+Para+Art+AA+Def
Armour............. F3 / S3 # Blitz
BigArmour......... F4 / S5 # Blitz, Two Hit
Katyusha........... F1 / S3 # Supports 2 units, Blitz
LandTransport... F1 / S3 # NonCombat, Transports Landunit+AA
Defense............. na / S2 # No own movement, only transported in NC
AAGun.............. F1 / S3 #
Construction...... F2 / S5 # Place Bunker, Factory and Refinery

DiveFighter......... F3 # Carrierspace 2, Escort/Intercept 1/1
Fighter................ F3 # Carrierspace 2, Escort/Intercept 3/3
RangeFighter....... F3 # Carrierspace 3, Escort/Intercept 2/2
Me262................ F4 # Carrierspace 3, Escort/Intercept 2/3, Two Hit
Bomber............... F5 # Strat.Bomb, Escort 2
BigBomber.......... F5 # Strat.Bomb, Escort 2
AirTransport....... F4 # Transports Inf+Para total S2

TorpedoBoat........ F2 #
Submarine........... F4 #
Super Sub........... F4 # Two Hit
Destroyer............ F4 #
Cruiser................ F5 # Bombard 2, Transport land unit S2
Carrier................. F5 # Carriercapacity 5 (2+2 or 2+3)
BigCarrier............ F6 # Carriercapacity 8 (4x2 or 2+3+3), Two Hit
Battleship............. F6 # Bombard 3, Two Hit
SeaTransport....... F4 # Transport land units total S10 in NC
LandingBoat......... F2 # Transport land units total S5


2. defender needs fuel:
of course a defender needs also fuel for 1 territory field.
the defender has to be asked, because if only 1 tank attacks not all defenders have to be involved and consume fuel, this can be exploited.
in ww2 it was common that when no fuel was there the vehicles had to be destroyed and the people were marching home by feet.


3. regarding fuel shortages during ww2:
before discussion please dl link above and testplay the game.

infantry and artillery needs also in the game no fuel, every motorised unit needs.

that the fuel is locally at the start point of the movement is also a must, not as a free floating resource, because only with this the fuel supply can be interrupted.

and fuel shortage was one of the main problems during the war.
like '44 ardennes offensive, or '43 kursk and general japan, the fishing fleet had to run with sails that the war fleet could have fuel.
the proper access to fuel and logistics was decisive for ww2.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: FUEL consumption - enhancements

eurofabio
What I'm saying is:

- 1 infantry attacks

- defender has 10 tanks but no fuel at all.

Automatic victory of attacker?

I don't think this is realistic or funny or balanced at all.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: FUEL consumption - enhancements

sneakingcoward
no fuel at all is maybe only at the endpoint of the game and very rare.
if only 1 refinery is hold the defender gets fuel.
when then the fuel is not at the right place...the best organised player wins.

realistic...yes, welcome to the real world and history.
funny or balanced...when a player looses he will never find it funny.


1 infantry against 10 armours.
if an armour has no fuel it is helpless. it can even not move its turret.
the infantry goes to its back and mounts the antitank mine.

at the battlefield in history the armour crew destroyed their own tank if out of fuel and marched home.



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: FUEL consumption - enhancements

Veqryn
Administrator
In reply to this post by sneakingcoward
i'll try to do 2a and 2b, but the rest you can probably forget about
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: FUEL consumption - enhancements

sneakingcoward
the minimum would be 2a, 2b and 2d.
for 2d at least the primary fuel check that planes are not ending as kamikaze.

thank you.


2a - transported units consume also fuel...
for land, sea and airtransports...also tech mechan.infantry.
solution:
when transported no fuel, when moving themselves fuel...in combat and noncombat.
so loading a transport no fuelcost, when leaving a seatransport in combat or noncombat 1 fuelcost.
should be valid for all kinds of transports, when going into combat the transported unit should consume 1 field of fuelcost, independent if it doesnt move a separate field, e.g. landtransport or airtransport.
 
2b - fighters on carriers also consume fuel...
solution:
fuel for transported fighters should be 0, when they are moved together with carrier.
when moving into combat, then 1 field fuel consumption also for fighters.
when fighters and carrier move separately of course all separate fuel needs
 
2d - fuel check for planes only for outbound flight, but not for return flight, can end up as kamikaze...
solution:
tanks of planes should be always full filled, if they move only 1 or 5 fields into combat or noncombat, because you dont know after battle where they will land.
so for primary fuel check for planes the full reaching distance (fighter 4, bomber 6) should be considered...
if plane is killed in combat the remaining tank is lost, so 4 or 6 fields of full tank minus the way into combat...
 
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: FUEL consumption - enhancements

eurofabio
In reply to this post by sneakingcoward
sneakingcoward wrote
funny or balanced...when a player looses he will never find it funny.
I disagree...I lost many games that I had lots of fun

sneakingcoward wrote
1 infantry against 10 armours.
if an armour has no fuel it is helpless. it can even not move its turret.
I might be wrong but I believe that it takes much more fuel to attack then to defend. Maybe they save fuel at least to defend yourself?
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: FUEL consumption - enhancements

SuperNova
How about if the 10 defending Armour units had no fuel, then they recieved a -1 attack bonus?  Defending on a 2 instead of a 3?

I honestly think that this whole fuel thing would simply complicate the game to the point of losing some of it's charm.  It is technically a game, not a simulation.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: FUEL consumption - enhancements

hepster
Wouldn't that depend on what level of detail or options you are looking for in a game?  Just because the idea might not be popular for a some of the maps... it could be a nice option for those looking for a more detailed game.  Personally I'd think it'd be kind of cool so long as it were fairly simple to manage.  It could be a defining factor in how a nation might have to limit some unit production due to limited oil or oil reserves.

SuperNova wrote
 ...some of it's charm.  It is technically a game, not a simulation.
I've never really understood this statement.  Just because something is a game doesn't mean you can't introduce game options that add realism.   At the end of the day anything can be a valuable addition if it is manageable, fair and if there are people interested in playing with it as a rule set.  Development of new and different ideas in any form is progress IMO.  The only bad idea is no idea at all.  So many times things are created that are either new and revolutionary in their own right,  or spawn others to take the idea in a different direction that ends up leading to a new and revolutionary concept that becomes the bench mark of a game.
“A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition”― Rudyard Kipling
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: FUEL consumption - enhancements

Zim Xero
In reply to this post by SuperNova
Negative modifiers to attack or defense will require an AI and combat interface check to prevent getting locked into a zero chance-to-hit combat loop.

Personally, I like the idea of "out of fuel" only preventing combat movement.  Units almost always represent stacks of real units.  Not all will run out of gas simultaneously.  Combat and combat movement consume more fuel than other actions.  
'thats the way it is' makes it neither desireable nor inevitable