Realistic Scenario Design Contest

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

Re: Aw: Re: Realistic Scenario Design Contest

RogerCooper
My e-mail is RogerCoop@bpm.com (move back by 1 letter in the alphabet to get actual domain).
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Realistic Scenario Design Contest

RogerCooper
In reply to this post by Cernel
Cernel wrote
The main element countering the economic superiority of the U.S.A. is that it takes about 2 years to build a battleship or a carrier, while moving of a couple sea zones would be like 1 week.

Thus, a realistic map should require several tens of turns (somewhere from 20 turns to 100 turns, depending on the map) to build a battleship or a carrier.

However, if submarines are realistically represented, Japan is doomed anyways, because USA can just spam submarines, and there is no way Japan can counter that, nor just give away with merchant shipping, as it needs to import many raw materials.

One way or the other, only Germany can win the war, and only in Russia.
Your message raises many interesting issues such as Time Scale in Axis & Allies. It took about 2 years to build a major ship, but the Pacific could be crossed in 3 weeks. In practice however, the mobility of ships depended on having bases. A fleet operating far from its base could conduct a raid (like Pearl Harbor) but could not control the waters. AAG40 makes good use of Naval bases, the speed differential should probably be even greater.

The build time of major fleet elements is hard to represent in TripleA. You could build an under-construction unit, that automatically upgrades to a finished ship. Perhaps a better solution would be specialized factory type with a low capacity that it the only place large naval units could be built. Another possibility would be using buildcaps and adding new units types as the war continues. Or you could raise the price to compensate for the fast building.

Submarine spamming is problem because of the game system. Submarines should not allowed to attack warships at all (or they could operate something like AA). If submarines can only hit blockade zones, they will naturally reach the point of diminishing returns. You could even reasonably abstract submarines with National Objectives as the possession of bases was vital to their success.

Historically, the US had plenty of subs, but it still took years of hard fighting on sea and land to beat the Japanese and nukes to actually make them surrender. A defensive victory is possible, consider that the Chinese exhausted the Americans in 1953 to the point of a cease-fire, despite America's superior resources. Of course, you are correct in saying the only Germans had a chance of an offensive victory.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Realistic Scenario Design Contest

Zim Xero
I want to illustrate a way to do exactly what you are proposing, using the existing system.  A TripleA update with a production forcast window would be much preferred of course.

Just create visible or invisible units with no mobility to represent the 'purchased' units put into 'production'.   Create a version for each turn it will be developed, until it is ready to mature into a built unit.  This would be a bit time consuming so I would only recommend doing it for select units.  

Example: if you want Battleships to take 4 turns to produce, then you purchase a Battleship-4.  The Battleship 4 is a 0 movement unit, capturable or not as you wish.  Each turn a trigger converts all Battleship-4 units into a Battleship-3 unit, Battleship-3 units into Battleship-2 units, and Battleship-2 units become Battleship units.  The use of visible unit production counters instead of invisible units allows a player to keep track of their location and progress.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

UNIT MAINTENANCE:
This can also be accomplished with the current system.

Do a condition that checks to see if 5 or more of your units are in each territory.  For each territory in which this is true, you are charged 1 PU.   Do this check for 10 units, for 15 units, for 20 units, and for 25 units.  This will give you a maintenance cost of 1 PUs per 5 units.  Your list of all units checked can leave certain unit types out.  You can even do separate checks and maintenance brackets for Air/Naval/Land.
This is pretty simple coding, but will create a long list of triggers which you may prefer to not view.
'thats the way it is' makes it neither desireable nor inevitable
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Aw: Re: Realistic Scenario Design Contest

sneakingcoward
you must also think for an easy programming.
our developers need ages for simple things.
and aaa is not a timeline game, its a turn based game. like chess.
timeline games are enough there, like supreme commander.
 
production more real:
the problem is the one factory philosophy.
1 factory in a territory can produce everything , quantity pu value of the terr.
this can be changed easy.
for each unit type there are different production centers.
for ships shipyard.
for land vehicle.
for planes aircraft.
each type max. the pu value of the territory.
 
then a battleship needs 6 shipyards, a destroyer 2 shipyards, a bomber 3 aircraft, an armour 2 vehicle, etc...
this limits the production per turn of units, so you cant produce endless units of the same type, if you dont have enough suitable production centers.
you can even sbr and destroy them to limit production.
 
but if you even pay the developers they are to lazy.
so its useless to discuss here ideas.
 
 
Gesendet: Dienstag, 14. März 2017 um 23:14 Uhr
Von: "Zim Xero [via tripleadev]" <[hidden email]>
An: sneakingcoward <[hidden email]>
Betreff: Re: Realistic Scenario Design Contest
I want to illustrate a way to do exactly what you are proposing, using the existing system.  An TripleA update with a production forcast window would be much preferred of course.

Just create invisible units with no mobility to represent the 'purchased' unit put into 'production'.  All you need to do is create a version for each unit as it progresses and each turn, replace it with the new one, until it is ready it is ready to mature into the final unit.  This would be a bit time consuming so I would only recommend doing it for naval units.  

Example: if you want Battleships to take 4 turns to produce, then you purchase a Battleship-4.  The Battleship 4 is a 0 movement unit, capturable or not as you wish.  Each turn a trigger converts all Battleship-4 units into a Battleship-3 unit, Battleship-3 units into Battleship-2 units, and Battleship-2 units become Battleship units.  You might even preferr to use visible counters instead of invisible units in order to keep track of their location and progress.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

UNIT MAINTENANCE:
This can also be accomplished with the current system.

Do a condition that checks to see if 5 or more of your units are in each territory.  For each territory in which this is true, you are charged 1 PU.   Do this check for 10 units, for 15 units, for 20 units, and for 25 units.  This will give you a maintenance cost of 1 PUs per 5 units.  Your list of all units checked can leave certain unit types out.  You can even do separate checks and maintenance brackets for Air/Naval/Land.
This is pretty simple coding, but will create a long list of triggers which you may prefer to not view.
'thats the way it is' makes it neither desireable nor inevitable
 
If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the discussion below:
http://tripleadev.1671093.n2.nabble.com/Realistic-Scenario-Design-Contest-tp7591226p7595473.html
To unsubscribe from Realistic Scenario Design Contest, click here.
NAML
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Realistic Scenario Design Contest

RogerCooper
In reply to this post by Zim Xero
You can also handle maintenance by just having a unit produce negative PU's. However a territory-oriented approach allows you to increase maintenance costs as you get further from your home territories. A pure maintenance cost approach tends to make defense harder, although this could be countered with low cost static units.

My experience is that build caps achieve the same effects as maintenance costs without much complexity.

The simplest way to slow the production of naval units would be to require that a shipyard resource be used to build ships, and give the shipyard resource out sparingly. The AI will handle this correctly.
12