Unit Option Can Submerge/Hide for Land Units (Partisan/Guerrilla/Spy/Diplomat/Munition)

RogerCooper

@hepps Limiting the effect of anti-stealth units can create problems. What if there is more than 1 type of sub?

Hepps

@rogercooper Well the concept I had initially proposed would allow the behavior to be settable like a support attachment. So you would have the ability to choose which units an ability can effect as well as the count.

Cernel

@hepps How about being also able to make them re-emerge, the same way, on any following combat rounds?

redrum

It begins... https://github.com/triplea-game/triplea/pull/4829

I'm focusing on first allowing the existing system to work for land/air units. You can now make land and air units have isSub and isDestroyer...

prastle

@redrum UG! Now he will get his Spies …. sigh wasn't it complex enough yet?

Hepps

@prastle Evil grin spreads over my face... all is coming into focus... dance puppets dance!

Cernel

@redrum I'm guessing the next and soon-to-come step is atomizing the "isSub" option into its 4 components (being able to submerge, being unblockable, denying casualties fireback, being unable to hit air units)?

Also, submarine land units with blitz will be now able to conquer territories with units in them and moving past?

redrum

@Cernel Correct though it might be a few more than 4 components. I'm still thinking a bit about the best way to break it up. Here are the separate functions I've thought of so far and open to input around names and how to break it up:

canHide - submerge
surpriseStrike - roll and take casualties before regular units
cantTarget (or canTarget) - can't target specific units like air units
cantBeTargetedBy (or canBeTargetedBy) - can't be targeted by specific units like air units
canMoveThroughEnemies - unblockable, Treat Hostile Territories as Friendly
doesntBlockEnemies - enemies can move through territories if only these types of units are present (would also need blitz for enemy land territories)

The intention is for land subs to work just as sea subs work for conquering convoy zones. I haven't tested that out so far but I'm guessing there is still some work to do around land sub movement. I've mostly focused on submerging and surprise strikes so far. Fairly certain 1-4 above should work properly for land subs but 5-6 I haven't tested much yet.

Cernel

@redrum Point 4 and 6 are not part of the basic "isSub" option. Those are additional v3 behaviours. So, if done all 6 as options, 1, 2, 3 and 5 would be effective as default (albeit 1 and 2 would be subjected to a number of different behaviours, depending on several properties (for example, with 1 you have the defensive retreat of v1.I/II, the additional defensive submerge ability of v1.III, the overriding offensive/defensive submerge after combat ability of v2, and the once again overriding offensive/defensive submerge before combat ability of v3)).

Also surpriseStrike could be split into surpriseOffence and surpriseDefence.

Also, a thing to keep in mind is that "isDestroyer" negates 1, 2, 5, as well as 4, if it applies (v3), but does not impact on 3, as well as 6, if it applies (v3).

So, I think it is really a very important thing to finally have these behaviours atomized (I recall veqryn had this plan too), also since by now, with all the various rulesets, a ridiculous number of different behaviours are all hard mashed into the "isSub" property, but the challenge would be to make it in a way to minimize confusion.

I think the atomization itself would help so much in making things way more clear, in the moment you have different options, while the "isSub" would just, then, say that it sets these 4~6 options all true.

On the namings, I really don't like "surpriseStrike", as it doesn't clearly hint about what is happening, and it seems like something that the opponent won't see it coming (that is never possible in TripleA, as nothing can be hidden). On this point, also "canHide" can be rather named "canDisengage", as that makes me think that you can hide submarines on the board, the opponent not knowing where they are (something that would be really cool).

beelee

@Cernel ...that you can hide submarines on the board, the opponent not knowing where they are (something that would be really cool).

That would be really cool

redrum

@Cernel Correct but I want to be able to represent isSub across all the various rule sets (v1/v2/v3, etc) so that it can really just become a shortcut option for setting other options like isFactory does. So isSub+ww2v2 would only set options 1/2/3/5 where isSub+ww2v3 would set all 6 options, etc. All of the existing sub properties would continue to work as is and impact land/air subs (I'd like to eventually rework these some as well but that would be later on).

I've updated the first post with the overview of the proposed changes and breakdown of individual sub functions along with naming options. I'm most likely going to start on these changes soon so any suggestions or name preferences should be added to this thread.

Cernel

@redrum But those 2 are already validated by properties, that need to be true. So, if you set those options true only in case ww2v3 or whatever is true, then you put in place a redundant double check, as I see it (you check some property for adding an option that would need to be activated by the same property).

Also, 1, 2, 3 and 5 don't need any ww2v2 or anything to be there; just 1 works different and 2 extends to defence (that is why you could split it between offensive and defensive).

Cernel

Also, I cannot check it in the code, but I recall that ww2v2 is supposed to fully turn the game into Revised, while ww2v3 doesn't turn the game into v3, but just sets some minor things that lack their own property.
It would be really good if everything that ww2v2 and ww2v3 turn true or do would be fully documented in pos2.

redrum

@Cernel They do but if we no longer require using isSub for future maps, how would you signify which units 4 & 6 apply to? You'd have to say tie 4 to units that specify 3 and 6 to units that specify 5 which is kind of messy and there could be times you only want 4/6 but not 3/5. So they need a separate unit option to specify which units would get them and then we potentially can remove the properties if they are a redundant check.

Well, ideally I'd like to do the same thing we are doing here for isSub to ww2v2 and ww2v3 by ensuring they having separate properties for each feature and just act as shortcuts to set those properties.

redrum

I'm looking to move forward with these bolded unit option names for isSub functionality:

canEvade/canHide/canDisengage/canEscape - submerge
isFirstStrike/surpriseStrike/preemptiveStrike - roll and take casualties before regular units
cantTarget (or canTarget) - can't target specific units like air units
cantBeTargetedBy (or canBeTargetedBy) - can't be targeted by specific units like air units
canMoveThroughEnemies - unblockable, Treat Hostile Territories as Friendly
canBeMovedThroughByEnemies/doesntBlockEnemies - enemies can move through territories if only these types of units are present (would also need blitz for enemy land territories)

Sub Properties
The sub properties outlined here will then be tied to the following unit attributes: https://forums.triplea-game.org/topic/355/sub-xml-properties

canEvade
6. Sub Retreat Before Battle
7. Submarines Defending May Submerge Or Retreat

isFirstStrike
_1. Super Sub Defence Bonus - If "true" adds 0-1 to the submarines defensive value if and when SuperSubs tech is activated.
5. Defending Subs Sneak Attack

cantTarget
NONE

cantBeTargetedBy
2. Air Attack Sub Restricted

canMoveThroughEnemies
8. Submersible Subs
10. Subs Can End NonCombat Move With Enemies

canBeMovedThroughByEnemies
3. Submarines Prevent Unescorted Amphibious Assaults
4. Ignore Sub In Movement
9. Sub Control Sea Zone Restricted

Hepps

@redrum The only thing that I see that you are slightly undecided about is whether to go with "canTarget" or "cantTarget"...

I would think making the exceptions for what cannot be hit would be shorter than trying to setup what can be hit. Since, in all likelihood most of the time defining what a unit can't hit would be substantially shorter than what it can.

redrum

@Hepps Agree. I'm actually looking to do both ways but going to start with cantTarget and cantBeTargetedBy. The inverse of those 2 will set the same internal field in the engine of a list that a unit can't hit or be hit by but take all units then remove from it.

cantTarget = all unit types - canTarget
cantBeTargetedBy = all unit types - canBeTargetedBy

redrum

Properties with 'isSub' that set new unit options
2. Air Attack Sub Restricted - if unit has isSub and this is true then set cantBeTargetedBy to all air unit types
4. Ignore Sub In Movement - if unit has isSub and this is true then set canBeMovedThroughEnemies to true
8. Submersible Subs - if unit has isSub and this is true then set canMoveThroughEnemies to true

redrum

PR to divide isSub into attributes: https://github.com/triplea-game/triplea/pull/4831

Cernel

@redrum said in Unit Option Can Submerge/Hide for Land Units (Partisan/Guerrilla/Spy/Diplomat/Munition):

I'm looking to move forward with these bolded unit option names for isSub functionality:

canEvade/canHide/canDisengage/canEscape - submerge

isFirstStrike/surpriseStrike/preemptiveStrike - roll and take casualties before regular units

cantTarget (or canTarget) - can't target specific units like air units

cantBeTargetedBy (or canBeTargetedBy) - can't be targeted by specific units like air units

canMoveThroughEnemies - unblockable, Treat Hostile Territories as Friendly

canBeMovedThroughByEnemies/doesntBlockEnemies - enemies can move through territories if only these types of units are present (would also need blitz for enemy land territories)

Sub Properties
The sub properties outlined here will then be tied to the following unit attributes: https://forums.triplea-game.org/topic/355/sub-xml-properties

canEvade
6. Sub Retreat Before Battle
7. Submarines Defending May Submerge Or Retreat

isFirstStrike
_1. Super Sub Defence Bonus - If "true" adds 0-1 to the submarines defensive value if and when SuperSubs tech is activated.
5. Defending Subs Sneak Attack

cantTarget
NONE

cantBeTargetedBy
2. Air Attack Sub Restricted

canMoveThroughEnemies
8. Submersible Subs
10. Subs Can End NonCombat Move With Enemies

canBeMovedThroughByEnemies
3. Submarines Prevent Unescorted Amphibious Assaults
4. Ignore Sub In Movement
9. Sub Control Sea Zone Restricted

It's not the property that it is redundant, it is the addition of the option, related to that property, via the "isSub" option that is redundant, if I understand that would be created once for all, upon generating the game.

Properties allow easy user customization, also intercourse, if editable, that cannot be achieved otherwise (say, you have a game in which the mapmaker wants to allow the user to decide whether air can always hit submarines, also changing the behaviour mid game), which I don't believe its a very important item (here I'm talking from a consistency standpoint).

On top of that, this would introduce a new process, in that something is created in the unit attachments depending either on the defaults of some properties or on their settings at start game. Am I understanding this point correctly and, if so, what is the case?

If I'm getting it correctly that such unit options creation is going to be made, one way or the other, at start game, once and for all, I think that it is wrong it being dependent on properties, liable to be changed at any point in the game.

Generally speaking, I think that fluid/editable (and currently not even validated!) xml elements, like the properties are, should never be taken as pseudostatic references to define what is ultimately burned into the savegame (if this is the case here).

Again, I want to point out that, not being a developer, if I'm understanding some process wrong, please let me know, as I will have probably to change my views.

So, in keeping close to the proposed method, and as much as it feels rather unpolished to have an option creating a bunch of options, if some of them are active as default and some others are in the opposite condition (but I realize that the only alternative, that would be to have "isSub" creating only the active-as-default options, while updating all v3 Rules games to add the other ones in the attachments is not feasible), I, instead, suggest having the "isSub" option always creating all the other wanted options, also those that are going to be ineffective, for not being activated by the needed (v3 Rules) properties.

Meaning I'm suggesting (amongst other possible things) the following:

Air Attack Sub Restricted - if unit has isSub and this is true then set cantBeTargetedBy to all air unit types

Ignore Sub In Movement - if unit has isSub and this is true then set canBeMovedThroughEnemies to true

Submersible Subs - if unit has isSub and this is true then set canMoveThroughEnemies to true

to be rather just set always true when "isSub" is true (not the cleanest solution, but possibly the cleanest of the feasible ones, at this point).

On the listing:
I have to call out what I fear might be a major oversight here. I see that the "Submersible Subs" property is missing in relation to the "canEvade" option. That is actually a very important (arguably the most important) case of "submerging submarines". The number 6 is the different behaviour of it for v3, while the number 7 is the previous behaviour for the third edition of v1. Meaning that if "Submersible Subs" is false, as well as point 6 and 7 are too, you should still be able to "evade", but only by moving to a friendly adjacent sea zone (as per v1 basic rules).

I want also to point out that submarines, under some rulesets, are able to impede offload of unescorted transports. I see that the intention (I assume owning to its very scarce importance) is to bundle it as an exception of the option that may impede this unit to block other units, but I believe doing it this way is wrong, and likely confusing, as this is an additional and substantially unrelated rule, that should get its own option (the seventh one).

Furthemore, also "Sub Control Sea Zone Restricted" should get its own option, as it really has nothing to do with what is being bundled with (not even related to other units!), that generally makes this unit unable to conquere or liberate territories (not only sea ones), just the same way as it is supposed to currently work for sea units with regard to convoy zones (that are just sea territories).

Going back to the "Submersible Subs", it should be clarified that property also allows submarines to move through hostile sea zones. On this matter, one might even want to split this property in two, as well (the submerge and the move-through abilities).

Finally, since I see no mention about it, I wonder if it is aknowledged that the "Subs Can End NonCombat Move With Enemies" property is v3 only. Moreover, I want to point out that the substantial reason of this property is related to the v3 submersible behaviour, being before each combat round; so this keeps the ability in line with the combat resolution dynamics (in v3, if you would not be able to end non combat move with enemies, you could just send them in battle and submerge them before the first combat round; while in v2 not being able to do that is to oblige you to make at least 1 round of combat, to move into a hostile sea zone).

On the namings:
I don't like "isFirstStrike". The only thing positive about First Strike is that it is sometimes used in other games (Magic the Gathering comes to mind), to mean about the same thing as the rules at hand. However, I feel like that is very unclear, especially in a game like TripleA, in which there is already a "first strike" dynamic, in that the attacker hits first and the defende chooses casualties before getting to roll its own dice (which is a mild advantage for the attacker, as it will get to choose casualties with full informations on the regular rolls and knowing what the defender took as casualties, as well). "preemptiveStrike" has the problem that I think that would fit much better to AA attacks, actually; so not well defining. However, here I don't have any good ideas, at the moment.

I definitely suggest changing all "cant" to "canNot", as that is both clearer and in line with the common option of "canNotMoveDuringCombatMove"; thus "canNotTarget" and "canNotBeTargetedBy".

"canMoveThroughEnemies" makes me think my units are piercing though the live flesh of the enemy units, rather than actially moving through the territories in which such units are being ignored, so I would rather call it "canNotBeBlockedByUnits". Also, I want to point out that, if (I understand correctly that) this option allows to treat hostile territories as friendly, meaning you move past them without capturing them, it is also needed to clarify that I assume this will not happen if the unit has this option and it is able to blitz and the territory is blitzable. Moreover, you need to decide and clearly define (in pos2) what is going to happen when a unit with this option is not able to blitz a territory itself, and tries to move past that same territory, in the case this may be due to the unit itself being always unable to blitz or to the territory housing a hostile infrastructure under v2 or following rules (as, for example, you can blitz through factories in v1, but not in v2 and v3).

Similarly, "canBeMovedThroughByEnemies" makes me think that something nasty is happening to my unit, rather than it being just ignored, so I would go with "canNotBlockUnits".

p.s.: I want to say that I'm so hyped about this thing, and the various arguments I'm putting forward are to try to have it as neat as possible.