Improve Route Finder to Consider Territory Effects
-
@cernel Actually I think I have a much simpler example of your first point (which is way more common than the contested territories as very few maps allow that).
- Skip to Parthia
- Edit out units in Seleucia and Hatra
- Try moving Horse Archer in Ctesiphon to Amida
It should favor going Ctesiphon -> Seleucia -> Hatra -> Amida as that is a legal move that you can make using waypoints. But it tries to move through Ninive because that is shorter even though there are units blocking.
-
@redrum Right, and what I understand is that, now, if Ninive would have a territory effect impeding access to horsearchers, the router finder would work fine, instead. So now the routerfinder behaves differently (better) for territory effects than for the rest, and I think this is not really good. Either the router finder for the territory effects should be dumbed down to behave like the rest or the rest should be made to behave like it, is my suggestion.
-
Another unsupported item is canals. For example, open World At War and edit a German battleship in 116 Sea Zone and try to move to 109 Sea Zone: it will try to go there directly, getting blocked by the canal, while it should select the path through 104 Sea Zone (if we edited a submarine in, also going through 115 Sea Zone would be valid, but I think 104 Sea Zone should be preferred anyways, as friendly).
-
@cernel correct as right now impassible, restricted, and terrain are treated as more hard stops then reduce number of moves then enemy units, AA, etc. I'm guessing this was designed primarily for 1-2 move units not 3+.
-
@redrum Yep what I'm saying is that even having all supporting only 2 movement units might be better than having some supporting infinite and some other supporting only 2. Otherwise having the routefinder behaving one way when I deal with impassable territory effects and another way when I deal with regular impassable or blockers may be just confusing. Of course, the best would be having all supporting infinite, tho really the only added item is movement 3, as movement 4 land units are almost inexistent.
-
@cernel said in Improve Route Finder to Consider Territory Effects:
@Panther Since I see you around right now, question:
I know that it is not possible to go from A to B if A is hostile and B is enemy owned (the case of contested territories in Axis & Allies 1914).
But is it possible to go from A to C through B (A->B->C) if A is hostile, C is enemy owned and B is friendly?
Currently, the engine allows you to do so in two steps, but disallows you to do so in a single step, using Ctrl, and I'm wondering about the intended behaviour, reinterpreting the rules for multiple movement units.
EDIT: What I meant is if you have a unit that can move 2 during Combat Move, would such a unit starting in a hostile land territory be able to move 2 spaces first into a friendly land territory and then into an enemy owned land territory? Or is this just a case not covered by any rulesets?
@Cernel Though I am focussed on wwII and not really a wwI expert, I think I can answer your question:
In AA1914 OOB land units can only move one space. From the rules: "Land units that begin the turn in contested territories can only be moved to territories that at the beginning of the turn were either controlled by your power or contained units belonging to your power."
In Larry Harris' 1914 "Potential Tournament Rules" land units usualy may move two spaces. But as the rules say: "Land units that begin their turn in contested territories can only be moved to an adjacent territory. That territory must have at the beginning of the turn either been controlled by the moving power or contained units belonging to that power. Such land units can also be moved by transport, in which case they may either be transported to a territory within range that meets those same requirements or remain at sea."
So it looks like your scenario is not possible in AA1914. -
@panther Yeah I know that the situation never happens. The question was rather what you think would be the case if, like:
-
I would take WWII Global and add the possibility of having an allied power, having units in my territories, that becomes enemy, thus I may start a turn of mine with hostile units in a land territory of mine.
-
I would take WWI 1914 and, for example, add a "cavalry" unit that moves 2 during combat move (not necessarily a bad decision).
I guess this is a blind spot that should be decided by TripleA, and documented, as it actually already matters for quite a number of games, so the rules should be defined.
-
-
@cernel Ah, ok, couldn't have guessed that from your initial question that I read as rules question.
Searching for sort of analogies in the rules we have the "Sea Units starting in hostile seazones" rules, that allow to move from a hostile seazone, simply to escape combat or to initiate combat elsewhere.So concerning land units I would tend to let the player decide to let them either stay and engage the enemy troops or to move to an adjacent territory during combat move phase.
In case the territory has become hostile due to the player's proximate action, I would allow two steps. (Analogy: Load transport in hostile seazone exception, when the seazone has just become hostile due to proximate DOW by the transport's owning power).
In case the territory has become hostile at some time between the power's turns, I would only allow one step in analogy to the 1914 rules.Just some ideas of course.
