Another ways to solve huge stack issue
-
@Schulz Yes. You can give gas AA offensive attack and then make it a suicidal unit with normal attack power 0 (this is a hack to make it die, as you cannot relate the suicidal ability to the AA attack itself). However, the targeting setting of AA attacks are determined with properties, thus all your AA in the game will have to behave the same way, in this respect.
Then, if you also set that gas can AA attack only up to the number of possible targets, keep the AA roll fairly low (like at 1 or 2), while making it very cost efficient (meaning very cheap), you have a very good way to assure constant tuv destruction, that cannot be abused (as gas limit will be given by the amount of available targets, as said).
-
After intensively calculating and trying to figure out the best cost ratio for gases I've finally concluded some stuffs.
Assuming fully researched them (mustard+working women)
6 gas (21 Pus) can kill 5 infantry (15 Pus) but gas performance starts rapidly declining if gas and inf stackt starts equally growing in terms of cost. Even in this case they are not cost effective at melting infantry stacks.
6 gas (21 Pus) can kill max 5 infantry (15 Pus)= 6 Pus defict
12 gas (42 Pus) can kill max 10 inf (30 Pus)=12 Pus defict
18 gas (63 Pus) can kill max 15 inf (45 Pus) =18 Pus defictEven with techs their ineffectiveness is growing and other techs (propaganda+victory bonds+industry) starts to heavily outweight mustard+working women techs. Lets look at them with 3 Pus cost instead of 5.
6 gas (18 Pus) can kill max 5 inf (15 Pus)=3 Pus defict
12 Gas (36 Pus) can kill max 10 inf (30 Pus)=6 defict
18 gas (54 Pus) can kill max 15 inf (45 Pus)=9 pus defictStill not cost effective. Yes they are mobile but you can already start benefiting them after mostly waiting extra 1 more round than as centrals and its enough time for entente to reinforce their key areas.
What if gas cost was 3.75 and infantry one 5? Also removing mustard tech. Lets take a look.
4 gas (15 Pus) has %70 chance to kill 3 inf (15 Pus). At this point they are effective wepon at melting stackt. and not enormously better than infantry considering gas is suicidal and can attack only one time also 3 infanty alsorequires less production capacity than 4 gas
8 gas (30 Pus) has just %35 chance to kill 6 inf (30 Pus). Well they started performing worse which I like it because it proves that even decreasing their relative cost %50 still does not make them broken or something.
As I said after calculating stuffs too much gas cost should be %33 cheaper than infantry. It is the most optimistic cost (alsono additional tech for gases).
-
@Schulz My suggestion would be having regular gas attacking at 3 and mustard gas attacking at 4. Gas cost at 3, down to 2.5 with tech.
This way, with all the tech, 6 gas would cost 15 PUs and kill 4 infantry, worth 12 PUs.
However, I would add the limits that only a number of gas units up to the number of eligible targets can attack, and restrict the eligible targets to infantry, and the like, units only, as this would make gas a little more realistic and provide a limit to it. This way you would be almost assured a quite constant stream of gas production, and continuous grinding of the eligible targets.
Also, should these posts be moved to
https://forums.triplea-game.org/topic/1399/domination-1914-no-man-s-land-official-thread
? -
Finally seems I've detected what I really would like to see:
Gas 3/0/3 3 Pus: Gains nothing via techs. Can be placed to capitals only,no need ground support to kill enemy stack, enemy cannot pick their casualties (I am still failed to find right properies)
Conscript 0/1/1 4 Pus
Infantry 1/2/1 5 Pus
Bunker 0/0/0 5 5 Pus (gains +1 def via techs)
Field 2/2/1 6 Pus (gainst +1 attack via tech)
Cavalry 1/1/2 6 Pus (gainst +1 attack via techs)
Heavy 2/4/1 7 Pus (gaint +1 def via techs) -
@Schulz Maybe that only in case you remove tech completely from the game, cause if a WW1 game has tech, you gotta have the gas as part of it. Side note, it is wrong having gas since the start of the game, if the game starts in 1914. Gas should be unlocked by tech, like tanks. Nobody was using gas in 1914.
-
You are right but also some countries never used gas yet gas is available for all nations except Arabia in the game.
The same applies to zeppelin. Only used by Germany in 1915 if I am not wrong.
-
@Cernel said in Another ways to solve huge stack issue:
@Schulz Maybe that only in case you remove tech completely from the game, cause if a WW1 game has tech, you gotta have the gas as part of it. Side note, it is wrong having gas since the start of the game, if the game starts in 1914. Gas should be unlocked by tech, like tanks. Nobody was using gas in 1914.
During World War I, the French army was the first to employ tear gas, using 26 mm grenades filled with ethyl bromoacetate in August 1914
-
@Hepps I mean, nobody was "seriously" using gas in 1914. Ypres was a surprise for virtually everyone, and I don't think the instances of 1914 rate for anything more than curiosities, or you can really find them even related at all in the main history books on ww1. Aside from this, I'm pretty sure tear gas doesn't count as "gas", as the unit in the game is clearly a short for "poisonous gas" only (you could rename it this way, to be more correct).
-
@Cernel You just made a broad statement... I was simply pointing out that it wasn't an entirely true statement.
I agree that gas should be a researchable tech... it would add historical significance to the game as well as limit the immediate spamming of gas to eliminate some of the smaller nations.
-
Also I like setting gas 4/0/3 with 3.5 cost while conscript 4, infantry 5 and field 6 etc... And no additinal tech for gas. I don't like the idea even fully researched gas is still a lot cost ineffective against infantry stacks. With this case.
3 gas (10.5 Pus) kills 2 inf (10 Pus)
6 gas (21 Pus) kills 4 infantry (20 Pus) etc... -
@Schulz @Schulz While the direct PU comparison might be temping to make... you also have to consider the collateral benefits of utilizing gas while mounting an attack... since Gas has the first strike ability the defender looses his casualties immediately.
Using your example... if you sent those three gas in during a combined attack you would sustain far fewer casualties during the defensive return fire phase over the course of the entire battle... now I'm not about to start running the math on an incomplete example... but I am curious if you factored in the reduced defensive total from an entire battle what the comparable value might turn out to be. (There are far more skilled mathematicians here over me)
Just some food for thought.
-
The bigger difference is the movement. If you make gas have 1 move then some of this math could maybe be justified but with 3 movement that is a huge advantage and allows them to threaten multiple enemy territories and get to the front very quickly.
-
Central Power's biggest production locations (Berlin, Mecklenburg, Vienna,Hungary,Constantinople) are already too far making noticable effect in battles. Entente nations start immiadetaly benefiting inf/conscript spawns because they provides immiadetaly cheap defensive power while gases from these locations don't provide immiadeate benefit.
For example bought 26 gases in round 2 from Berlin-Mecklenburg will be ready attacking Paris in round 4 while paris infantries at the same time provide immiadetaly benefit. In round 4 these gases will only be able to kill roughly 17 inf (it means burning 104 Pus for just taking 51 Entente Pus)
Wile France in round 2 and round 3 will have extra minimum 19 units+6 trences even these purchases are enough to negate all off these gases let alone considering other French units, possible defensive techs and UK+Italian supports.
It it true they can threat multiple targets but also buying more gas also mean less defense, less firepower, less tech etc. Enemy may decide retreaing and hitting back or sacrificing some stuffs. It is still very bad unit.
Without any tech gas is incredibly bad unit. 3 gas (12 Pus) takes on just 2 inf (6 Pus) two times more ineffectiveness!.
The only reason buying some of them is rushing some important locations or minor nations in initial rounds after that there is zero reason buying them if nation is not going to take on a major enemy capital.
Or as France why would I buy gas?
-
@Schulz Well if you made the changes you laid out where gas would cost 3.5 and inf would cost 5 then you'd see all nations including France buy a ton of gas and it would become a battle of giant gas stacks staring at each other. From what I've seen in v1.4, players still are buying gas especially as a way to quickly add attack power and attack areas with lots of trenches and few other units.
TripleA Developer with a Passion for AI: https://forums.triplea-game.org/topic/105/ai-development-discussion-and-feedback
-
@redrum Well, no. I can see that only one of the side (like France, if under pressure) will be almost nothing else than a giant gas stack to deadzone the enemy advance, but, of course, the one trying to advance would buy almost only infantry and few other units, functionally inverting the role of gas from now. Not a player, but this is what happens when the strongest unit is attack oriented or, in an extreme case like this one, can only attack.
-
@Cernel Yeah, fair point. As the one that needs to advance, needs to have enough units to survive the gas stack. But that would definitely not be ideal for this map.
-
France would still almost never buy gases especially in eary stages of war since even with these cost infantries's defensive power slighly outweight gases.
Buying some gases as Central Powrers is somewhat ok in initial rounds but after that really not much reason buying them,
-
@Schulz I actually think France would probably buy all gas and try to dead zone Germany. Regardless, if you made gas that cheap compared to other units probably more than 50% of purchases would be gas.
-
But also I would make gases purchasable from capitals only in this case.
-
Regardless, I saw that in lobby some experienced players are still advocating gas limits (houserules) in the current version, despite the increase of the minimum cost to 3.5.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login