AA revised - possible upgrades

[prastle]

@prastle sorry should have said GTO

[redrum]

@prastle I think these are fair suggestions. Obviously the last one would entail a completely different "bot" model but the rest are fair points though most minor IMO.

[LouisXIVXIV]

@prastle Yeah, I wondered about that after I mentioned - So you need 1 of each game open at all times? But then the rest still could be cleared, no?

Anyway, you seem defensive or something. I'm just making observations about things I think would improve the experience. They're not complaints. Isn't that the purpose of this section? And yes, a lot of that is borrowing things GTO had, cause that's what is most obvious to me. If it can't be done, no worries.

[prastle]

@louisxivxiv sorry if I came off defensive. I have just listened to these same issues for a very long time now. Sadly they are not easy to implement and we need more developers. They are very difficult to find as volunteers. Yes all your items have been on the wish list by many for a long time now. Welcome aboard.

[redrum]

I've added this to the feature request list: https://forums.triplea-game.org/topic/182/guidelines-and-feature-request-list

[Deltium]

@LouisXIVXIV - first, I want to say hello, as I remember you well at GTO, where you famously defeated bmaster in the Finals of the Revised tournament that I hosted over there, and in one of the most interesting Revised games that I have seen. As Prastle correctly pointed out, we run a pure-volunteer operation over here, and do not charge our members like we did at GTO to play any of the games, or monthly access as well. All of our developers do so on the personal time, and while we have some good ones, they are naturally constrained, and the "wish list" gets bigger and bigger, while we do our best to simply keep up with the main themes that we are working on. However, all of your points are good ones, and we shall continue to advance on those, over time.

On a separate note, we hope to see you in one of the Revised tournaments that I host periodically, so please keep an eye on the Forum page in the future. We currently have Tournament of Champions 12 running, but would expect ToC13 to launch in several months time. In the interim, you can continue to play live online, or I'd be happy to challenge you to a PBEM game if you are keen !

@Prastle and all - we were all quite spoiled at GTO with an interface there that was quite stable and robust, along with a deep community of players. LouisXIVXIV was clearly one of the very best Revised players, and he is most certainly welcome at TripleA !

[General_Zod]

Just a reminder I do have a new map for revised. I wish I had it ready for your tournament.

https://forums.triplea-game.org/topic/423/wwii-revised-facelift

Suggestions welcome. Also proofing my territories borders for accuracy of connections is welcome.

[LouisXIVXIV]

@deltium said in AA revised - possible upgrades:

• we were all quite spoiled at GTO with an interface there that was quite stable and robust, along with a deep community of players. LouisXIVXIV was clearly one of the very best Revised players, and he is most certainly welcome at TripleA !

Thanks Deltium!! I'll play in tourney 13 - are all the tourneys low luck? Also, happy to play you in a pbem.

@prastle I understand - it's all good. Thanks for the explanation. Unfortunately, I am not a programmer. Though I do want to add one more item (for the big list or whatever)

6. During bombing raids when many bombers are present the total ipc damage is capped at the territory value -- instead the total damage PER die should be capped at the territory value. So, for example, 100 bmrs would reduce a nation's ipc reserve to 0.

Thanks to all the admins for all the feedback.

[redrum]

@louisxivxiv I believe that is how it already works or should work unless their is a bug. Limitation is per bomber not for total of all bombers.

[Cernel]

@louisxivxiv said in AA revised - possible upgrades:

5. In the lobby there are often many "dead" games, with 0 players "waiting". If those got cleared away it would be helpful.

So, here there are a bunch of things in this topic that probably should fit better each one as its own topic, and I believe the number 2 and 6 are invalid bug reports or something bugged off recently. I just don't understand the point 1, but I'm guessing that's invalid as well, or a very weird bug happening recently.
As @prastle says, it would really help if you can be more specific or upload screenshots when those things happen (for example, I've no idea how to verify your point 1; so I doubt any developers will, either).

On point 5:

On this matter, since bots are currently discussed upon other reasons, if it would be easy to do, I think it would be good if the bot would instantly go back having no "Name" (meaning no selected game; like when they are initially created) as soon as 0 Players are inside.
I think the main benefits would be:

• Easy to glance the actual games and the free bots.
• Easy to have an idea of the popular games and what is actually getting played or waited for.

Minor matter, of course, but I think that would clear things up a bit, as per this request.

[Cernel]

Actually, probably better being only a display thing for the lobby (not displaying the game name in lobby if 0 people inside), as keeping it loaded is important for people that disconnect, not to lose their savegames (but they would lose it anyways if someone else go in the bot and load it up).

[prastle]

@cernel I believe 2 is due to the recent changes they made to accommodate @Panther rules clarification.

[Cernel]

@louisxivxiv said in AA revised - possible upgrades:

1. Bombardment should not be able to target air units by the original rules, but it can in game.

Oh, actually, I understand point 1 now. You are talking about naval bombardment.

I just verified it, and number 1 is a valid bug report.

Naval bombardment, in v2 (Revised) not LHTR should be able to hit land units only.

On the other hand, unless I'm missing something, naval bombardment can hit any units in the territory in v1 (Classic) as well as LHTR and following rulesets (v3 etc.).

So this limit (not supported, thus bug) of naval bombardment being able to hit only land units exists only for v2 (Revised), except LHTR, and no other rulesets (v1, v3, etc.).

If anyone can confirm, I think this should be opened in GitHub. Weird that in all these years I never saw anyone bringing up this point (I don't play Revised).

[prastle]

@cernel they never supported that because it would affect all maps for only one maps ruling would be my guess.

[simon33]

Sorry to bump an old thread but I came here from the Feature Request list and felt the need to correct point 2. In fact, this is correct the way that it is, to change it back would be a bug.

Rule, p21, under "Phase 5, Noncombat move":
"In this phase, you can move any of
your units that did not move in the
combat move phase or participate
in combat during your turn."

[ubernaut]

@simon33 the term "or" seems somewhat ambiguous to me i would assume you'd have to move in order to "participate in combat" but as far as i know that has always been the rule you can move in CM or NCM but not both except for air units completing their moves.

[simon33]

Seems clear to me. If they have done either they can't move in NCM.

Although it isn't true that they have to move to conduct combat. Units can be placed in hostile sea zones and then the enemy needs to move if they want to avoid combat. And vice versa. Also submarines can submerge which leaves the sea zone hostile to both sides if that side loses the battle.

[Cernel]

@simon33 said in AA revised - possible upgrades:

Seems clear to me. If they have done either they can't move in NCM.

@ubernaut is right: this phrase is logically wrong, or at least open to multiple interpretations, if the meaning is what you said (and you are correct it is).

Rule, p21, under "Phase 5, Noncombat move":
"In this phase, you can move any of
your units that did not move in the
combat move phase or participate
in combat during your turn."

That is the exactly same thing as saying:

Rule, p21, under "Phase 5, Noncombat move":
"In this phase, you can move any of
your units that did not move in the
combat move phase or did not participate
in combat during your turn."

If you say "you can move any of this that didn't do this or that", what you logically mean is that the requisite for moving is that you didn't make at least one of those two things, as I believe the normal meaning of the English "or" is the same as the ancient Latin "vel".

So, logically, what that phrase means is that you cannot move during non combat move only if you both moved and participated in combat, while you can move if you did only one of those two things, or neither.

How that rule should have been written, as I understand English, is either:

"In this phase, you can move any of
your units that did not move in the
combat move phase nor participate
in combat during your turn."

or

"In this phase, you can move any of
your units that did not move in the
combat move phase and didn't participate
in combat during your turn."

Anyways @ubernaut this is the itended meaning of that (I agree badly worded) rule.

Of course, all air units are exception to this rule and cargo that was already loaded at start turn doesn't count as having moved as long as it didn't offload or attempted to, even if the transport itself moved or offloaded (and, only in Revised OOB, offloading during CM doesn't bar from doing it during NCM too, but only restricts you to the same territory).

Additionally, Revised has also the special rule that ships that took part in a victorious sea battle can either offload or load, during NCM, but not both (so such a cargo may be loaded during CM and offloaded during NCM).

[simon33]

I guess it's not grammatically perfect but I don't find it confusing. Context clarifies sufficiently for me.

[ubernaut]

@Cernel @simon33 also i don't think you are allowed to move transports in your combat move unless they are participating in an amphibious assault, which is also by definition participating in combat. Maybe they just wanted to re-iterate.

Curious if @Panther has anything to say about this.