A new option for factories

Frostion

@Schulz
I can give you yet an example of the whenCapturedChangesInto feature that @Hepps has presented. Maybe you will find it useful.

In my new WoW map I use buildings that change type depending on who owns/captures them. One of them is an “Alliance-Stronghold”. Basically it is a city with Alliance supporters that only the Alliance players that can make good use of by getting free units every turn.

If enemy players capture the building called “Alliance-Stronghold” it turns into a “Suppressed-Alliance-Stronghold”, another unit type with different properties. If the building is again liberated, it turns back into the useful Alliance building again.

The unit(s) can look like this:

    <attachment name="unitAttachment" attachTo="Alliance-Stronghold" javaClass="games.strategy.triplea.attachments.UnitAttachment" type="unitType">
        <option name="isInfrastructure" value="true"/>
        <option name="createsUnitsList" value="1:Alliance-Footmen"/>
        <option name="whenCapturedChangesInto" value="any:Orcs:false:Suppressed-Alliance-Stronghold:1"/>
        <option name="whenCapturedChangesInto" value="any:Tauren:false:Suppressed-Alliance-Stronghold:1"/>
        <option name="whenCapturedChangesInto" value="any:Trolls:false:Suppressed-Alliance-Stronghold:1"/>
        <option name="whenCapturedChangesInto" value="any:Undead:false:Suppressed-Alliance-Stronghold:1"/>
    </attachment>


    <attachment name="unitAttachment" attachTo="Suppressed-Alliance-Stronghold" javaClass="games.strategy.triplea.attachments.UnitAttachment" type="unitType">
        <option name="isInfrastructure" value="true"/>
        <option name="createsResourcesList" value="3:PUs"/>
        <option name="whenCapturedChangesInto" value="any:Dwarves:false:Alliance-Stronghold:1"/>
        <option name="whenCapturedChangesInto" value="any:Gnomes:false:Alliance-Stronghold:1"/>
        <option name="whenCapturedChangesInto" value="any:Humans:false:Alliance-Stronghold:1"/>
        <option name="whenCapturedChangesInto" value="any:Night-Elves:false:Alliance-Stronghold:1"/>
    </attachment>

Hepps

@Frostion A better example could nary be found!

Schulz

Lets assume using v341 map its default factory:

Should I create 2 separate type factories for both axis and allies or need separate factories for each nations?

Axis Factory example;

also need any property (boolean)?

Thanks for good explanation.

Hepps

@Schulz I think for your purposes each nation would simply need a Factory and a Suppressed_Factory. I don't think you need to create the extra details since nothing in V3 is that complex.

The other thing is you should only need...

and for the other...

The second qualifying component (which you have defined as different units) is not a unit type that is capturing the territory, but rather a faction or nation... so unless you want a factory which is captured by say... Russia to have some other result other than creating a
suppressed_factory... then the above will work perfectly.

Schulz

In v3 map every nation have the same units but I need to customize them for apply this feature. I've copied NML's purchase model but it didn't work.

Any way to implement this feature by just one factory? Ex: One factory and one supressed factory?

Schulz

It gives this error when I tried to set up factories:

Unexpected Exception while setting values for attachmentUnitAttachment attached to:UnitType{name=factory} with name:unitAttachment

Probably need additional property.

Hepps

@Schulz If you send me the map package... knowing what you want... I can most likely get you to the finish line.

Schulz

https://www.sendspace.com/file/6w0okc

Hepps

@Schulz Will look at it at the first opportunity.

redrum

@Schulz Here is a working map zip that adds "suppressed_factory" when factories are captured by enemies so that they then can't produce: https://www.sendspace.com/file/34rky2

Here is the XML change:

    <attachment name="unitAttachment" attachTo="factory" javaClass="games.strategy.triplea.attachments.UnitAttachment" type="unitType">
      <option name="isFactory" value="true"/>
      <option name="whenCapturedChangesInto" value="any:any:true:suppressed_factory:1"/>
    </attachment>
    <attachment name="unitAttachment" attachTo="suppressed_factory" javaClass="games.strategy.triplea.attachments.UnitAttachment" type="unitType">
      <option name="isInfrastructure" value="true"/>
      <option name="canBeDamaged" value="true"/>
      <option name="whenCapturedChangesInto" value="any:any:true:factory:1"/>
    </attachment>

I also added it to the unitlist in the XML and copied the factory images so it has an image.

Schulz

Thank you so much I am going to looking immiadetaly.

I have an another question. Air battles do exist as I want but after air battles, land battles occur. Is there any way to set up air battles even in non factory zones also avoiding land fight?

For example Germany has 2 fighters n Libya and wats to shot down British fighter in Egypt. they shot down it but then Germany lost their fighters against British ground forces.

Cernel

@Schulz said in A new option for factories:

Air battles do exist as I want but after air battles, land battles occur. Is there any way to set up air battles even in non factory zones also avoiding land fight?

I considered this several times, especially relatively to the American air offensive on Germany directed at destroying the Luftwaffe, or the recurring American air attacks, often from carriers, on many Japanese possessions, to destroy the land based air forces, especially on islands. On the other side, maybe the most famous case is the attack on the Pear Harbour airfields. Anyways, currently TripleA doesn't support ending the attack immediately after the air attack (meaning you will have to do that round of combat).

A way to do something like that, currently, is to make air units into possible bombing targets, but I feel that very clumsy, especially in the moment of selecting targets with considerable stacks.

The other side of the coin is that air only can normally attack land only, that doesn't make sense, as for real you cannot destroy infantry (and such) armies with aeroplanes only, no matter how many (in the traditional games, this is tempered by the fact that air tends to cost a lot more than land, so you rarely want to do it).

Anyways, if you open a feature request, I'll probably upvote.

Hepps

@Cernel and @Schulz This feature already exists in the engine. You can do air battles independently already.

redrum

@Hepps I think they mean they want to be able to have an air battle and no land battle following it.

Its technically possible in a few ways but none of them are great solutions:

You could turn off ground battles all together but then you'd have no ground battles so probably not a workable solution.
You could make it so all land units can't attack air units and all air units can't attack ground units using AA attacks instead of regular attacks.
As @Cernel mentions you could allow air to SBR other air units (this is possible in TWW by bombers being able to target transport planes). This is a bit different then an actual air battle but could be an interesting approach.

I think the main challenge is you most likely need a way for players to determine whether they want remaining units after an air battle to then create a land battle. As if I also say move land units to that territory then I probably want surviving air units to participate in that battle.

Here are a few ways something like this could be added to the engine:

Property that if true only creates a land battle (possibly sea battles as well) after an air battle if there are non-air attacking units.
Have a sort of sub like functionality where air units could "submerge/hide/withdraw" at the start of land battle just like subs can avoid sea battles in v3+ rules by submerging at the start.

Hepps

@redrum I was going to say... if you gave aircraft the ability to withdraw before land battles...

Schulz

@Cernel Air warfare is really must and literally no reason to exclude it because air units are the only one that enemy cannot destroy due to hit and run and lack of this feature. The same thing also applies to bombing. Enemy can constantly bomb factories and players can do nothing against this besides putting aaGun.

These air fighters were CAS (Close air support) some of them were carrier based, Triplea fighter is just combine of fighter and CAS. Air units should definitely help land battles too as historically on the other hand air units have lack of efficiency based on distance.

For Example bombing Moscow from Berlin should not be as efficient as bombing it from Belarus. The same also applies to CAS. Plus if you care history than better to make CAS as separate unit with shorter range.

Cernel

@Schulz Realistically, it does't matter how much ground attack oriented your air force might be: if you attack with only air (and without paratroopers or such), you will inflict virtually no damage to any enemy land forces, or anyways much less that your costs. Attacking land forces with air only is such a waste that could be very well approximated by making it outright impossible. The basic games sort of do it by just making air units a lot more expensive than the cheapest land units, but this is just limiting the nonsense.

I suggest opening a feature request about this. I would then move all these posts in there.

Schulz

@Cernel

You sure CAS or medium bombers cannot harm enemy ground forces even without AA? I don't know. But its true it will never be cost efficient assuming enemy ground forces have aaGun.

It is already possible to prevent air units to damage enemy land forces if you adjust air units like gas.

Yes I am considering to open some feature request if I can't find another way.

Schulz

@redrum

I think air battles could be possible in non-factory territories without land battle. Wouldn't adding invisible infastructure to every territory bring this feature?

redrum

@Schulz I believe you can have air battles without infrastructure.