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

Cernel

@redrum I suggest providing full info, and I'll see to review that, but, if you refer to v3 anywhere, then there is also the issue that it is not known what the general v3 property is actually doing, as I understand that is somehow marginal, differently from the v2 one, that is actually intended to fully convert the game to v2 rules, from the v1 default.

Cernel

I have this unit:

                <attachment name="unitAttachment" attachTo="horsearcher" javaClass="games.strategy.triplea.attachments.UnitAttachment" type="unitType">
                         <option name="movement" value="3"/>
                         <option name="transportCost" value="3"/>
                         <option name="canBlitz" value="true"/>
                         <option name="canMoveThroughEnemies" value="true"/>
                         <option name="attack" value="3"/>
                         <option name="defense" value="2"/>
                         <option name="isAAforCombatOnly" value="true"/>
                         <option name="AttackAA" value="1"/>
                         <option name="AttackAAmaxDieSides" value="1"/>
                         <option name="offensiveAttackAA" value="1"/>
                         <option name="offensiveAttackAAmaxDieSides" value="1"/>
                         <option name="maxAAattacks" value="-1"/>
                         <option name="maxRoundsAA" value="-1"/>
                         <option name="damageableAA" value="false"/>
                         <option name="typeAA" value="besiege"/>
                         <option name="targetsAA" value="fort:wall"/>
                         <option name="willNotFireIfPresent" value="archer:axeman:ballista:cataphract:chariot:horsearcher:horseman:legionary:levis:onager:phalangite:psilos:spearman:swordman:warelephant"/>
                         <option name="requiresUnits" value="city"/>
                </attachment>

And these properties:

                <property name="WW2V2" value="true" editable="false">
                        <boolean/>
                </property>
                
                <property name="Submersible Subs" value="true" editable="false">
                        <boolean/>
                </property>
                
                <property name="Defending Subs Sneak Attack" value="true" editable="false">
                        <boolean/>
                </property>

But it is not working: the "horsarcher" units are not moving through any enemies. Am I missing something?

Cernel

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

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

There is a problem this property. It doesn't work if the unit is a sea transport with regular cargo (apparently, if the cargo cannot end combat move with enemies, the transporting ship cannot too).

I'm generally testing this new feature, hoping that whatever issues I might find may be fixed.

Cernel

@Cernel A similar problem also exists in case of setting "canBeMovedThroughByEnemies" true for a sea transport. If the sea transport has normal cargo loaded, other ships cannot enter its sea zone during Non Combat Movement.

I suggest generally to review all such matters, assuring that the presence of any cargo will just never influence of any such options. I assume such issues would be the same for land transports.

Cernel

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

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

I highly suggest changing the name of this option from "canBeMovedThroughByEnemies" to something like "canBeIgnored" (which would also clearly hint a relation with "Ignore Sub In Movement"), as its function is not only to allow the opted ships to be moved through (that is, make them unable to block enemy units), but also giving the enemy the option of not creating a battle against them (something that can also be generally set, for all ships, by the property "Sea Battles May Be Ignored" (I've tested that there is no redundancy of asking it twice)) and allowing enemy ships ending non combat move with them. This is also opportune on the account that this property is not really the opposite of "canMoveThroughEnemies", since that one, instead, grants nothing about avoiding battle and doesn't allow ending non combat move with enemies as default (but as an additional ability granted by a specific property), so I think the current name (I'm suggesting changing) is going to be very confusing, as inexperienced mapmakers will likely expect something called "canBeMovedThroughByEnemies" to be just the opposite of "canMoveThroughEnemies" (for example, expecting the same results if giving one or the other option to all sea units in the game, which is not the case).

Also the pos2 description, namely:
canBeMovedThroughByEnemies values: whether enemies can move through territories if only these types of units are present (would also need blitz for enemy land territories)

Should be updated, as to mention the other two behaviours I detailed (I can do it, if you prefer).

Cernel

@Cernel Actually, there is also a fourth behaviour set by this option, namely the fact that such sea units are unable to impede enemy ships from loading land units (this one also generally achieved by the property "Units Can Load In Hostile Sea Zone").

So, yeah, the option "canBeMovedThroughByEnemies" is doing 4 different things, namely:

disabling the ability to block moving through;
disabling the ability to impede loading;
disabling the ability to impede entering during Non Combat Movement;
allowing the enemy not to create a battle, and, in this case, completely ignoring the ships (also for offloading).

So, yeah, I strongly suggest renaming this option, if not splitting it into its 4 components.

Cernel

In a game I'm playing a lot and hope to upload to the repository after the next release, I have this unit:

                <attachment name="unitAttachment" attachTo="catapult" javaClass="games.strategy.triplea.attachments.UnitAttachment" type="unitType">
                         <option name="movement" value="1"/>
                         <option name="transportCost" value="2"/>
                         <option name="attack" value="4"/>
                         <option name="defense" value="4"/>
                         <option name="attackRolls" value="0"/>
                         <option name="defenseRolls" value="0"/>
                         <option name="isAAforCombatOnly" value="true"/>
                         <option name="AttackAA" value="4"/>
                         <option name="AttackAAmaxDieSides" value="6"/>
                         <option name="offensiveAttackAA" value="4"/>
                         <option name="offensiveAttackAAmaxDieSides" value="6"/>
                         <option name="maxAAattacks" value="1"/>
                         <option name="mayOverStackAA" value="true"/>
                         <option name="maxRoundsAA" value="-1"/>
                         <option name="damageableAA" value="false"/>
                         <option name="typeAA" value="Artillery"/>
                         <option name="targetsAA" value="archer:ballista:cataphract:catapult:chariot:fort:horsearcher:horseman:irregular:legionary:phalangite:skirmisher:spearman:swordman:warelephant"/>
                         <option name="requiresUnits" value="metropolis"/>
                </attachment>

I would rather like doing it with first strike, especially since AA attacks are not accounted by the autoselect, so that this unit is practically offered as first casualty after any offenceless, while it usually should be the very last unit in the game that you want to take out, which also hampers the usability of the battlecalculator, as you need to manually imput casualties priorities all time, that I assume most people won't even realize they can do.

Once the option "canNotTarget" would be fully supported, I could, then, have the same behaviour with this code:

                <attachment name="unitAttachment" attachTo="catapult" javaClass="games.strategy.triplea.attachments.UnitAttachment" type="unitType">
                         <option name="movement" value="1"/>
                         <option name="transportCost" value="2"/>
                         <option name="attack" value="4"/>
                         <option name="defense" value="4"/>
                         <option name="isFirstStrike" value="true"/>
                         <option name="canNotTarget" value="wall"/>
                         <option name="requiresUnits" value="metropolis"/>
                </attachment>

However, here I'm still missing two things:

I would need an option to say these units insta-kills enemy units regardless of hitpoints (as done by the "damageableAA" option, though, of course, the default will have to be the opposite), as I don't want forts and warelephants to use their free hitpoint to take hits from these units.
I would need the bug about being able to retreat in the face of defenceless units being fixed, as with AA the program disallows me to retreat in the face of only wall units left, while it allows me to do so with first strike, because the check for autodestroying defenceless happen after AA attacks but before first srike attacks (very strange behaviour here).

Cernel

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

canMoveThroughEnemies - unblockable, Treat Hostile Territories as Friendly

@redrum So, as I said, this doesn't work for me, for land units. It works if the land unit is moving through a non enemy territory with enemy units in it (these units not blocking). However the unit is stopped in any case both the land territory and any units in it are enemies, while, on the other hand, the unit can still normally blitz an enemy land territory with no enemy units in it. Meaning I have these 3 cases:

The land territory is enemy and has enemy non infrastructure units in it: the unit is blocked.
The land territory is enemy but has no enemy units in it: the unit is not blocked, and captures the territory by blitzing.
The land territory is friendly but has enemy units in it: the unit is not blocked (and the territory not captured, of course).

So, I have two question:

Is this a still unimplemented item, or is there anything I'm missing, to make it work.
What does "Treat Hostile Territories as Friendly" exactly means? In particular, does it mean that these units cannot blitz or otherwise conquer enemy territories (I assume they still fully can, while ignoring the units inside, but want to make sure)?

On regard of point number 2, I've a request for a different behaviour to make, but first I need to be sure about what is the current actual or intended behaviour, or both, if they differ.

redrum

@Cernel We could eventually consider allowing some form of damageableAA for firstStrike and even standard rolls though I'm not sure how much effort that would be to add in. Though I also eventually want to enhance the battle calc to better handle AA values as well as a few other things.

Retreating has a lot of edge cases that aren't well supported and probably needs some updates. If there are some maps that have cases that don't seem to work well then I'll probably look to update it.

So generally I tested that the new properties didn't break existing functionality more than I tested whether they fully work for new cases like air/land subs though I tested some of the basic things. For canMoveThroughEnemies:

I wasn't aware of any issues but it hasn't been tested much for non-sea units.
Its meant to essentially mean that enemy units don't block movement. So if you have a land unit that has blitz and this property then it should be able to move through an enemy owned territory with enemy units. I generally want "blitz" to mean a unit can move through empty enemy territories, "canMoveThroughEnemies" to mean is can move through enemy units, and the combination of the 2 mean it can move through both enemy territories and enemy units.

The land territory is enemy and has enemy non infrastructure units in it: the unit is blocked.

The land territory is enemy but has no enemy units in it: the unit is not blocked, and captures the territory by blitzing.

The land territory is friendly but has enemy units in it: the unit is not blocked (and the territory not captured, of course).

2&3 are correct but 1 isn't so probably needs some fixes.

Cernel

@Hepps Is this new feature allowing for blocking movement of air units? For example, can I specify that a fighter or a bomber have to end Combat Movement when entering a territory with a fighter in it?

I guess not, but wondering if the matter has been refactored as to generally set whatever blocks whatever (with air units default being blocked by none). If not, I tend to think this would be the way to go.

Actually @redrum.

redrum

@Cernel So the goal is that isDestroyer units should cancel out canMoveThroughEnemies for sea/land/air units. I don't think most of the movement functionality has been extended to work fully with air units yet but it could probably fairly easily be added in now.

Cernel

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

@Cernel So the goal is that isDestroyer units should cancel out canMoveThroughEnemies for sea/land/air units.

Ok, but in the moment air units can always move though, I suppose/assume that all these properties are completely pointless if assigned to air units (beside only making air units able to block non-air units).

The other item I wanted to discuss also with @Hepps, as being the original proponent of the feature, is what should happen when units get ignored in movement through land or sea territories. Should the territory be conquered by the units moving through or not? My preference is that a territory with a not capturable unit on blitz should never be captured by moving past it. How I see it is that if you are ignoring units in a territory, you are hiding from them while moving, so you should not take the territory they are defending under their nose.

For example, let's say that I make infantry/trenches ignorable by cavalry if alone, so that a cavalry can move through a territory with only infantry/trenches. Should the territory be conquered, while the infantry/trenches remain to the same ownership?

?

redrum

@Cernel Land territory capture when moving through would only happen if the territory is empty and the unit has blitz. So the cavalry in your example wouldn't capture the territory but could move through the territory with infantry/trenches to attack another territory. In theory, you could use this to create more of a defense in depth system.

Cernel

@redrum Cool, and I agree. How about if in the territory there is an infrastructure that can be ignored in movement under a ruleset by which infrastructures block blitz. I assume, in this case, I should be able to move through the enemy infrastructure, when alone in an enemy territory, but, if doing so, the territory would not be captured (while both the infrastructure and the territory are captured if I switch to the v1 property allowing me to capture infrastructures by blitzing). Though this would also be related to the fact that, currently, if you just end combat movement into such a territory, you instantly capture it, while, by intended rules, it should be captured only during Conduct Combat (also relevant if that infrastructure is an AA gun, especially in case I'm moving one land unit into it and paratrooping the rest (which I may actually want to do in v3, since that game forbids me to paratroop during non combat movement)).

Cernel

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

@Cernel Land territory capture when moving through would only happen if the territory is empty and the unit has blitz.

I'm assuming here you mean by v2+ rules, as in v1 (that is the default) you also capture territories with infrastructures only, not just empty ones (just making sure).

redrum

@Cernel Yeah, I mostly ignore the v1 rules as they are poor in general. But yes, we'd have to consider if only infrastructures. I tend to agree that I'd try to have it align to the existing rule set and how blitz works.

Cernel

@redrum I disagree here. I'm mixed about the AA gun case, but never liked that a factory alone blocks movement of armoured formations, or whatever: definitely prefer the v1 behaviour of not blocking by units that are supposed to be useless for combat (there is also the edge case that you might place a factory just to block some blitzing, though this is practically not really happening).

Hepps

@Cernel There are all kinds of issues one could argue are either right or wrong as they stand.

I think I would prefer if the mechanics being established did not interfere with existing established rules, but rather worked consistently with them. Then, looking down the road as how to circumvent those (perceived) deficiencies as a matter of an addition to the code as a separate idea.