Domination 1914 No Man's Land - Official Thread

Cernel

@Cernel Let me also point out that I dislike the "correct" behaviour of negating the possibility of retreating before auto destroying v3+ transports or v5 AA guns (apparently, all defence 0 units, for TripleA, that is transports and trenches, in this game), and actually prefer the current TripleA bugged behaviour, that doesn't allow you to pull the trick of saving the worst units to impede retreat, as that seems extremely absurd to me, but I didn't write "that" rulebook. So, there, I'm just talking about what is what, not what I prefer.

Schulz

Conscript and trench cannot take on each other alone due to 0/0 stats and stalemate makes sense in game perspective also most likely retreat is blockaded because this battle normally would never end.

Realistically of course the conscript should take on the territory and the trench should not be destroyed instead should turn into invader's trench.

Cernel

@Schulz said in Domination 1914 No Man's Land - Official Thread:

Realistically of course the conscript should take on the territory and the trench should not be destroyed instead should turn into invader's trench.

Capturing trenches is disputable, @Schulz. Since trenches are borderline fortifications, they are realistically really only useful if some enemy is attacking from the same border whence you came, and really only from the same direction, as well, thus you almost never have use for trenches you captured, aside from converting them to face in the opposite direction, and, in this case, they would be defending the territory whence you came, not the one where the trenches were captured.

Hepps

@Cernel That is assuming the trench or fortification is one thing or facing a specific border... however in Triple A these units automatically function regardless of the direction or directions of the attacker... thereby giving the impression that whatever they are they face all directions from a (presumably) highly defensible position within the territory... thus capturing it should make it as useful to the invading army as was to the original owner.

KurtGodel7

@Cernel said in Domination 1914 No Man's Land - Official Thread:

@KurtGodel7 said in Domination 1914 No Man's Land - Official Thread:

If a territory is defended with pure trenches, the above cannot be done. As you pointed out, conscripts only are stranded when attacking trenches only. But there's an easy workaround for someone familiar with how this works: simply attack the trench with conscripts + 1 unit with offensive firepower. You don't have to worry about winning the battle and getting stranded in the territory you're attempting to teleport through, because trenches have two hitpoints.

Actually, no, if by "pure trenches" you mean trenches alone. As you can test, if you attack a territory with 1 trench and no other units using 1 infantry, the trench is immediately removed, and you are unable to retreat. So, either for stalemate, if sending all conscripts, or auto destruction, if sending anything else than conscripts (doesn't matter if together with conscripts), you can never strafe trenches alone.

If the trenches are not alone, then you can strafe with only conscripts, so I don't get where you are getting here. That infantry, or whatever, added to a conscript attacking stack, will avoid you stalemating against only trenches, that's right, but will cause all trenches being instantly removed, instead, so, either ways, you cannot retreat.

So, I'm really not understanding if I'm missing something here, or what?

Anyways, I wonder if the players of this map are also aware that:

The retreat before stalemate is bugged, so, if extending the stalemate to conscripts alone attacking trenches alone, then you should be able to strafe, in this case (the bug is that the engine stalemates you before giving you the option to retreat).

The retreat before auto removal units is bugged, if it happens after the first round of combat, so, if extending the auto removal to anything but conscripts alone attacking trenches alone, the defender should be able to assign hits so to leave only trenches surviving, and, this way, negating the attacker the option to retreat (the bug is that TripleA doesn't allow you pulling this tactic, or should I say trick, offering retreat in face of only trenches, as long as it is not going to be a stalemate and it happens after the first round of combat).

This game really needs having all the matters involving offence or defence 0, or both, units fully clarified in its notes, as I guess right now its players are just going with what the engine does (are they?), which also means they are going with a couple bugs at least. I believe all matters that need to be clarified, and documented in this game's notes (because the referring rulebook is just talking about transports, that are the only offence or defence 0 units, there), are the following ones:

Is the transport rule that defence 0 units alone are auto destroyed applying to trenches alone too? If yes, then the notes should better inform the players that they can never retreat against trenches alone, hence the trick of taking out the other units to avoid your opponent being able to retreat (the engine is bugged here, so they may need to edit).

Is the transport rule that offence 0 alone against defence 0 alone allows stalemating applying to conscripts alone against trenches alone too? If yes, the notes should better inform the player that they can always retreat before stalemating, for example you can strafe trenches only with conscripts only, while the program doesn't allow you to, forcing stalemate (the engine is bugged here, so they may need to edit).

If stalemated, should the territory be conquered by the attacking units? The behaviour of the program here is that the territory isn't conquered, but I don't believe anybody can know about this aside from testing, so that's just a thing that needs to be decided. While it would be weird having a territory belonging to a different owner then the owner of the trenches in it, I tend to think that if something cannot stop you from staying in a territory, it should not stop you from conquering the same (also think about convoy centres, even though this is not the case of this game).

Is the transport rule that offence 0 cannot attack alone applying to conscripts too? If yes, then the notes should better inform the player that this rules exist both for transport and conscripts, the same way, because this is a totally unsupported element.

I was tired when I wrote my earlier post, and therefore made an error. It's true that if 1 infantry attacks a lone trench, the outcome is an automatic win for the infantry (no option to retreat). But, if the owner of the trench has discovered bunkers tech, that trench now defends on a 1. This means that the attacker no longer gets an automatic victory against a lone trench, but instead must fight the lone trench until it is destroyed or until the attacker retreats or is destroyed. The "retreats" part of that means that lone enemy trenches can be used to teleport infantry--once the enemy has discovered bunkers tech, that is.

An argument could be made that an attacker with zero firepower should be treated differently than a defender with zero firepower. (In fact, that's how the engine is currently set up.) The argument here being that if the defender has zero firepower, and if an attacker with at least a little offensive firepower shows up, there is nothing the defender can do to prevent all his units from being killed eventually. So, you may as well hurry that process along and count all defender units automatically destroyed. But, if I as the attacker show up with zero firepower, there is something I can do to keep all my units from being killed: I can retreat. It would not make sense for the engine to automatically kill off all my units in that instance, because the underlying assumption being made is that I, as the attacker, would want to keep attacking the territory until all my units were dead. That assumption is not logical. I can't think of any circumstance in which an attacker, while making a good faith effort to win the game, would want his firepower 0 units to keep attacking until they were all dead.

Bearing the above in mind, I'd like to reiterate my earlier suggestion. If at the end of a combat round the attacker has no offensive firepower, the attacker should be forced to retreat. Any units which cannot retreat are automatically killed.

redrum

@Cernel @KurtGodel7 @Hepps Given that in A&A v3+ rules when each side only has transports left which have no attack/defense value they are allowed to retreat, I think that should probably extend to any "stalemate" situation where both sides have no attack/defense power left. So I think the minimum change here is instead of forcing them to stay in the territory they should be offered the choice to retreat this also makes the behavior more consistent for the other scenarios discussed around using retreat to move units (which while gamey is how things work).

Would you agree with that and are there any situations you can think of that a group attackers with 0 attack power against a group of defenders with 0 attack power should not be offered the choice to retreat?

The change to TripleA would just be to add a retreat option if the stalemate is detected and if there are valid retreat paths then the user can retreat otherwise they will just stay in the territory like they do today.

KurtGodel7

@redrum said in Domination 1914 No Man's Land - Official Thread:

Would you agree with that and are there any situations you can think of that a group attackers with 0 attack power against a group of defenders with 0 attack power should not be offered the choice to retreat?

There are two rules changes WRT this issue that I'd like to see.

If there is an attacker (0 firepower) and a defender (0 firepower), the attacker should be allowed the option to retreat.
If the attacker has 0 firepower, the attacker should be forced to retreat at the end of the combat round. (To prevent conscripts and enemy trenches hanging out in the same territory as is currently the case.)

If you want to make one or the other of these changes that's 100% fine with me. Both changes together would be ideal, but either change alone would be an improvement. In answer to your question, there is never a situation in which an attack 0 group should be denied the option to retreat.

Hepps

@redrum Makes sense.

Since almost everything is on the attacker it makes sense that the prompt would be immediate and mandatory for the attacker as soon as there is no offensive capability left in an attacking force.

LaFayette

Would be great to see this fixed as I'm pretty sure most players do not even know that they have the choice to edit such situations when it arises.

It would be good to see a generalized rule as well considering TripleA allows for a variety of rule-sets with many options for units.

To clarify:

there is never a situation in which an attack 0 group should be denied the option to retreat.

We are considering only cases of stalemate? IE: a battle initiated with a non-zero attack but winds up being a 0 vs 0 attack with all defending and attacking units that had an attack/defense being taken as casualties, on the same round?

The update to the rule does allow for more option to teleport, but it is not quite as much as one would think.

Consider a transport and a cruiser vs the same. The percentages are:
A) 25% both miss
\B) 25% both hit
C) 25% attacker hits, defender misses
D) 25% defender hits and attacker misses

Today, you'd have a 25% chance to execute a teleport, as you are relying on outcome A, any other outcome ends the battle. With the fix in place, you'd have a 50% chance to execute the teleport, as the transport could retreat in option B.

I want to clarify we are considering the stalemate option where there was originally an attacker with non-zero attack. If we make it more general so any time a zero vs zero battle happens, we open up a new teleport option, where transports can attack another transport and now be granted a retreat option, which is a fully deterministic and guaranteed teleport opportunity.

LaFayette

If the attacker has 0 firepower, the attacker should be forced to retreat at the end of the combat round. (To prevent conscripts and enemy trenches hanging out in the same territory as is currently the case.)

For this map that makes sense, as a generalized rule we would actually be breaking the v3 rules that does grant the option. It could be a tricky set of rules to encode, perhaps map/rule specific.

Cernel

@redrum said in Domination 1914 No Man's Land - Official Thread:

@Cernel @KurtGodel7 @Hepps Given that in A&A v3+ rules when each side only has transports left which have no attack/defense value they are allowed to retreat, I think that should probably extend to any "stalemate" situation where both sides have no attack/defense power left. So I think the minimum change here is instead of forcing them to stay in the territory they should be offered the choice to retreat this also makes the behavior more consistent for the other scenarios discussed around using retreat to move units (which while gamey is how things work).

Would you agree with that and are there any situations you can think of that a group attackers with 0 attack power against a group of defenders with 0 attack power should not be offered the choice to retreat?

The change to TripleA would just be to add a retreat option if the stalemate is detected and if there are valid retreat paths then the user can retreat otherwise they will just stay in the territory like they do today.

If you mean that, then, you would be able to send only conscripts into a territory with only trenches, to make a strafe, I completely disagree with that, on multiple levels, namely:

You can never do that with v3 transports.
You cannot strafe trenches only with 1 infantry unit and 1 conscript unit, as all trenches are automatically destroyed, so I think having 0 attack power should not give you options that are denied to 1 attack power (this would be fine, instead, if infantry would be allowed to strafe trenches alone as long as not killing them all in 1 combat round).
If you automatically extend the v3 stalemate rule of transport, then it makes the only sense extending the v3 transport inability to attack alone, thus you could never send conscript alone against anything, unless you have the option to ignore that anything (substantially a no-retreat stalemate, like now).

More in general, I think this stalemate thing should not automatically apply generally. Not a player of this one, but I personally would have stalemate never happening on land in this game at all, keeping it as a transport-only special rule. It's just weird and borderline, and also doesn't make sense that defenceless units cannot avoid you staying in a territory but they can avoid you conquering that same territory.

For what @KurtGodel7 said (0 v 0 battle, must retreat, and so on). I believe me and him agree on everything, on this matter, except that I believe that conscripts alone should not be able to attack. But I also believe that there should be a property for that, and that, then, this map could have that property false, if preferred letting conscript strafe alone, so no real disagreement, game-wise.

KurtGodel7

@LaFayette

You bring up a good point with respect to transports and transport teleports. I've played at least 50 games of this map, and don't recall seeing potential transport teleport situations arise in any of those 50 games. On the other hand I wasn't really looking for such situations either! I don't have a strong preference for how the issue of transport teleporting is resolved, because I believe such situations are extremely rare.

@Cernel

The way I see it there are three changes being discussed: two minor and one major.

Minor change 1: Allow the attacker the option of retreating when it's 0 firepower attacking 0 firepower (at least for land attacks).
Minor change 2: Forcing the attacker to retreat after the end of the combat round when it's 0 firepower attacking 0 firepower (at least for land attacks). Units which cannot retreat are destroyed.
Major change 1: Forbidding conscript-only attacks.

I think you and I are in agreement on the two minor changes but disagreement about the major change. As there appears to be a consensus (more or less) on the two minor changes it would make sense to move forward with them. Before making a decision about the major change it would make sense to see how many of the Domination 1914 NML community feel it would make the game better, or who (like me) feel it would make the game strictly and significantly worse.

Cernel

@KurtGodel7 Well, if I understand correctly what we are talking about, the change is not that minor.

Currently, if you have a territory with only trenches in it, you can never strafe it, because if you attack with positive power, you instantly destroy all trenches and take the territory, while if you attack it with only conscripts, you instantly stalemate.

What I understand @redrum is pushing for, instead, is that the case of positive power unable to strafe remains the same, while you can attack the only-trench territory with conscripts only and decide whether to strafe or stalemate.

Is this really that minor, and does it make sense that 1 infantry and 1 conscript cannot strafe 100 trenches while 100 conscripts can strafe 1 trench?

Hepps

@Cernel Really the question should be is why does an a trench defend at all? The ditch somehow has the ability to thwart an invasion at all if undefended? The concept itself is asinine.

The problem here is really about how these were designed in the first place.

LaFayette

Hmm, the rule change that sparked this latest topic of conversation is over retreat during stalemate. That implies an initial battle has taken place. Now, for example, if a transport attacks another transport, no battle takes place. In that example there is no battle, no retreat option. Changing it so a battle does occur would be quite significant as it would violate existing rules of most other maps.

Cernel

@LaFayette Yep, there are no cases in any rulesets in which you can attack since start in a 0 vs 0 situation, then retreat, after one round of "no-rolling" combat. The transport retreating before stalemate can only happen at the end of a round where dice were rolled, on both sides, and all those units were mutually destroyed, leaving transports alone. This is reinforced by the prohibition on transports to actually move to attack alone, ever, that is not a v3 invention either, but existed already in Classic (v1). Yes, in Classic it is illegal sending transports alone in a battle (likely, to strafe), despite the fact that TripleA lets you do it.

KurtGodel7

@Cernel said in Domination 1914 No Man's Land - Official Thread:

@KurtGodel7 Well, if I understand correctly what we are talking about, the change is not that minor.

Currently, if you have a territory with only trenches in it, you can never strafe it, because if you attack with positive power, you instantly destroy all trenches and take the territory, while if you attack it with only conscripts, you instantly stalemate.

What I understand @redrum is pushing for, instead, is that the case of positive power unable to strafe remains the same, while you can attack the only-trench territory with conscripts only and decide whether to strafe or stalemate.

Is this really that minor, and does it make sense that 1 infantry and 1 conscript cannot strafe 100 trenches while 100 conscripts can strafe 1 trench?

Whether a change is minor or major depends on two factors: 1) The percentage of games in which the change will have an impact, and 2) The extent of the impact said change will have.

Suppose that Russia has conscripts in Volgograd and Moscow. It wants to teleport all conscripts to Volgograd. Germany has 1 trench in Don, and Russia would like to use the trench to accomplish the teleport. Under current rules Russia cannot accomplish the teleport--not unless Germany has discovered bunkers tech. (If Germany has bunkers tech Russia can teleport under current rules.) But if Germany lacks that tech Russia cannot accomplish the teleport under current rules, but could achieve it under the rules I'm proposing.

The question is: how often would the following all be true:

Russia desires a conscript teleport
There is a lone Central trench potentially available for teleporting through
The Central power owning the trench does not yet have bunkers tech

I'm guessing that the above-described situation would occur maybe once every 35 - 40 games or so. Allowing the conscript teleport could make a moderately impactful difference in that rare game. I classified my two favored changes as "minor" because they will have no impact at all on the vast majority of games played.

A conscript and a transport are not the same thing. Conscripts can and should be taken as casualties ahead of other units, which of course cannot be done for transports. Rules which make sense for conscripts do not necessarily make sense for transports, and vice versa. After reading recent comments, I've decided there is not a compelling need to change transport retreat rules at this time. The proposed minor changes are strictly to eliminate the problem of land stalemates. Those rules changes should be applied to land units only, both to minimize the extend of the change, and to maintain consistency between transport behavior in this map and transport behavior in other maps using the same rules set.

Cernel

I'm leaning towards believing that the best solution is letting conscripts alone attack basic (defence 0) trenches alone and, in any case you have conscripts alone against trenches alone, conscripts can never retreat, but automatically conquer the territory and destroy all trenches.

Practically, having conscripts alone against trenches alone working exactly like infantry alone against trenches alone.

Only talking about the defence 0 trenches. Defence 1 trenches would remain working exactly as they have always been.

Schulz

LaFayette

2.0 has a new XML option canRetreatOnStalemate. We can use that to explicitly allow conscripts an option to retreat on stalemate. Is there consensus to enable it, or just leave be?