new unit with special rules - is it possible?

Numetalfan

I am planning to introduce a new unit into my game,
the anti-tank-gun, ATG.

the unit is similar to an infantry:
1 movement, 4 IPC costs, attack 1, defense 2. transportable with an infantry like a tank.

the more complicated issue is its special attack/defense against tanks.
in an 1:1 duell with a tank its defense and attack is increased by one

example:

1 infantry and 1 tank attack 2 ATGs
in this case 1 ATG still has defense 2 as it fights with an infantry, but the other ATG gets defense 3 because there is an 1:1 duell with a tank

vice versa, when the 2 ATGs would attack, one would attack with 1 against the infantry, but the second one with a 2 against the tank.

yet, the 1:1 relation will never break.
3 ATGS attack 1 infantry and 1 tank, here 2 ATGs attack with 1 and one with a 2, this one has the 1:1 relation.

how to programm such special rules for ATG? - if this is possible at all.

Zaroph

This would be achievable by using support attachments but I dont think theirs an easy way of doing this for 2 problems:

Support attachments have no option to limit stacking. So, suppose that youve made a support attachment that does what you want it to do, if in a battle you have 10 "ATGs" and 1 "tank", every single one of the "ATG" will have their support attachment active instead of just 1.
I dont think support attachments can have a IF condition in them (But I suppose they already have a intrinsic IF condition because they only apply IF the required unit is present) By this I mean in your case, you cant make a support attachment that is "1 ATG gives 1 ally (or self) ATG support IF 1 enemy tank in battle", it could only do "1 ATG gives 1 ally (or self) ATG support" or "1 ATG gives 1 enemy tank -support"

Perhaps triggers can do this but I cant give advice on that and its more complicated anyway.

The closest way I can see what you want being achieved is by making the "ATG" give negative support to a enemy tank, but again this would have issues with stacking and with enough "ATG" you would be able to give tanks 0 strength.

wc_sumpton

@Numetalfan

@Zaroph is almost right. A tank would give a bonus to 1 enemy ATG:

<attachment name="supportAttachmentTankATG" attachTo="armour" javaClass="games.strategy.triplea.attachments.UnitSupportAttachment" type="unitType">
   <option name="unitType" value="antiTankGun"/>
   <option name="faction" value="enemy"/>
   <option name="side" value="offence:defence"/>
   <option name="dice" value="strength"/>
   <option name="bonus" value="1"/>
   <option name="number" value="1"/>
   <option name="bonusType" value="AntiTankSupport"/>
</attachment>

Cheers...

TorpedoA

@wc_sumpton
i made exessive use of the supportAttachment options
just if you are curious look here
https://forums.triplea-game.org/topic/2153/i-like-to-share-a-nwo-mod-of-mine-in-a-fast-simple-way-but-how/12
i actually try to upload this experimental mod around NWO map which i want to share where i really heavy going with alot of supportAttachments, up to 3 for one unit.
My main aim was to get something like the famous scissor stone paper game element into TripleA. Because without it its most of the time a HP/cost thing and doesnt allow to build a variety of unit types which would be efficient. So most of the units have kinda counterpart.
To evade a problem concerning a units Attack or Defense value droppin to 0, i just turn it around and let the unit with low value give more power to the opponent instead.

TorpedoA

@wc_sumpton sorry, was not meant to reply to u actually

Zaroph

Thats interesting I never even considered the use a unit increasing enemy strength as a way of making it work in this type of scenario. The only issue I see is that is the over stacking issue still, but in this case since ATG are cheaper and presumably more abundent then tanks, then it will be rare for them to be out numbered making this an issue in fringe cases.

wc_sumpton

@Zaroph

I don't understand your stacking issue. If there is 3 ATG vs 1 Tanks, then the Tank will only increase the value of 1 ATG ("number" value="1"), the rest will attack at their base value. If its 1 ATG vs 3 Tanks then the ATG will receive an increase from only 1 tank ("bonusType" value="AntiTankSupport"), since bonusType's do not stack unless count is added:

   <option name="bounsType" value="AntiTankSupport" count="2"/>

Then 1 ATG vs 3 Tanks would receive the bonus from 2 Tanks. Now if 3 ATGs vs 3 Tanks 1 ATG could receive the bonus for 2 Tanks, 1 ATG would receive the last Tank bonus, and the last ATG would attack at base value.

@TorpedoA

Rocks vs Scissors, to increase the value of Rock, then replace armour with Scissors and antiTankGun with Rock. To decrease the value of Scissors, replace armour with Rock and antiTankGun with Scissors then change "bonus" value="-1". As long as you have a "bonusType" then the supports will not stack and the units base value should never increase/ decrease more then 1 no matter how many Rocks are beating up on the Scissors.

Hopefully Helpful.

Cheers...

Zaroph

@wc_sumpton

I don't understand your stacking issue. If there is 3 ATG vs 1 Tanks, then the Tank will only increase the value of 1 ATG ("number" value="1"), the rest will attack at their base value. If its 1 ATG vs 3 Tanks then the ATG will receive an increase from only 1 tank ("bonusType" value="AntiTankSupport"), since bonusType's do not stack unless count is added:
   <option name="bounsType" value="AntiTankSupport" count="2"/>

I was unaware of the count=x option as its not on the starlords xml option browser site. As I havent experimented around, I just assumed that with no option related to stacking, multiple copies of it would stack together, i.e with 5 tanks vs 1 ATG. the 5 tanks would give a bonus of +5 to the 1 ATG. Thank you for correcting me and making me aware of that.

wc_sumpton

@Zaroph
You are very welcome. The use of "bonusType" is very helpful. Now multiple unit can be used to give support. So if @Numetalfan wanted to add Self-Propelled Artillery and have the ATG treat it like a Tank then using:

<attachment name="supportAttachmentSPA_ATG" attachTo="selfPropelledArtillery" javaClass="games.strategy.triplea.attachments.UnitSupportAttachment" type="unitType">
   <option name="unitType" value="antiTankGun"/>
   <option name="faction" value="enemy"/>
   <option name="side" value="offence:defence"/>
   <option name="dice" value="strength"/>
   <option name="bonus" value="1"/>
   <option name="number" value="1"/>
   <!-- If not stated count default value is 1 -->
   <option name="bonusType" value="AntiTankSupport"/>
</attachment>

Now with both SPA and Tanks having the same "bonusType" the ATG will only receive a bonus from one unit and not one from each.

Cheers...

Numetalfan

The ATG seem to work,

but If I want to start the game I get an error:

Jul 29, 2020 8:48:38 PM games.strategy.engine.framework.startup.launcher.LocalLauncher loadGame
SCHWERWIEGEND: Failed to start game
java.lang.StringIndexOutOfBoundsException: String index out of range: -1
at java.lang.String.substring(Unknown Source)
at games.strategy.util.PointFileReaderWriter.readMultiple(PointFileReaderWriter.java:244)
at games.strategy.util.PointFileReaderWriter.lambda$readOneToManyPlacements$6(PointFileReaderWriter.java:199)
at java.util.stream.ForEachOps$ForEachOp$OfRef.accept(Unknown Source)
at java.util.stream.ReferencePipeline$2$1.accept(Unknown Source)
at java.util.Iterator.forEachRemaining(Unknown Source)
at java.util.Spliterators$IteratorSpliterator.forEachRemaining(Unknown Source)
at java.util.stream.AbstractPipeline.copyInto(Unknown Source)
at java.util.stream.AbstractPipeline.wrapAndCopyInto(Unknown Source)
at java.util.stream.ForEachOps$ForEachOp.evaluateSequential(Unknown Source)
at java.util.stream.ForEachOps$ForEachOp$OfRef.evaluateSequential(Unknown Source)
at java.util.stream.AbstractPipeline.evaluate(Unknown Source)
at java.util.stream.ReferencePipeline.forEachOrdered(Unknown Source)
at games.strategy.util.PointFileReaderWriter.readStream(PointFileReaderWriter.java:263)
at games.strategy.util.PointFileReaderWriter.readOneToManyPlacements(PointFileReaderWriter.java:197)
at games.strategy.triplea.ui.mapdata.MapData.runWithInputStream(MapData.java:225)
at games.strategy.triplea.ui.mapdata.MapData.readPlacementsOneToMany(MapData.java:212)
at games.strategy.triplea.ui.mapdata.MapData.<init>(MapData.java:159)
at games.strategy.triplea.ui.HeadedUiContext.internalSetMapDir(HeadedUiContext.java:79)
at games.strategy.triplea.ui.AbstractUiContext.setDefaultMapDir(AbstractUiContext.java:107)
at games.strategy.triplea.ui.TripleAFrame.create(TripleAFrame.java:232)
at games.strategy.triplea.TripleA.startGame(TripleA.java:105)
at games.strategy.engine.framework.startup.launcher.LocalLauncher.loadGame(LocalLauncher.java:60)
at games.strategy.engine.framework.startup.launcher.LocalLauncher.launchInNewThread(LocalLauncher.java:39)
at games.strategy.engine.framework.startup.launcher.AbstractLauncher.lambda$launch$0(AbstractLauncher.java:51)
at java.lang.Thread.run(Unknown Source)

what does that mean?

Numetalfan

WW2v4-1941.xml

is the xml file that causes that error

beelee

@Numetalfan seems as if it has something to do with placement. Maybe check and make sure you don't have two of something.

wc_sumpton

@Numetalfan

Here I think @beelee is right. You have made a lot of map changes since the last time I looked at the xml. Take things slow. Lots of changes causes errors. I'm the "King of Errors"! I think I have learned more about xml scripting, and coding, by fixing all the errors I have made.

So lets debug! First run the 'Map Creator' and double check your centers. When checking the with the "Polygons Grabber" insure that the 'old' territories do not include the new. Reselect the old territories, then select the new, to insure each is as you want. Next would be the "Placement Picker". Select the old territories and remove all the placements. Then reset the old territory. After that setup your new territory placements.

Last is the minimap, or smallMap.jpeg. This needs to be the same as the base map, only smaller. The "Map Creator" can reduce your main map, but for better quality it is better to use a outside editor, the same one that you used to edit the base map. If the smallMap.jpeg does not match, the game can error on overlapping placements.

I will continue to review you xml.

Cheers...

Numetalfan

@wc_sumpton

thx. I will do all this later, when back at home

Numetalfan

all problems fixed - the game runs!
thanks alot @ all

Brent Stoudt

@Zaroph

I would like to have an new Variant of Global 1940 made.
Does anyone hire to do this ....?
I have an Excel Spreadsheet of the changes / Variant I would like to make.

wc_sumpton

@Brent-Stoudt

Welcome. If you would like to make changes to Global 1940 for you own use, then I would suggest that you start a new topic about it. Post some of you ideas so that the board may discuss them. Editing the xml may seem daunting, so we are here to help.

Cheers...

Numetalfan

what has to be done, to enable the ATG, the new unit, to give +1 Attack to an infantry
like the artillery does? This case will be more complicated than artillery support, as this happens always,
but I want to link the ATG-Infantry attack bonus to an event where a tank and an ATG also participate in that batlle

where do I find the artillery coding in the xml file?

beelee

Add this in unitAttachment to ATG

Then in "Support Attachments" make an attachment like "artillery" has and give it to ATG. If you don't want inf to get a bonus from artillery at same time as ATG, then "bonusType" has to be the same as the artillery one. I think. I could have that backwards.

Cernel

@beelee said in new unit with special rules - is it possible?:

Add this in unitAttachment to ATG



Then in "Support Attachments" make an attachment like "artillery" has and give it to ATG. If you don't want inf to get a bonus from artillery at same time as ATG, then "bonusType" has to be the same as the artillery one. I think. I could have that backwards.

If he gives both the (uncommented) option to the unit and makes a support attachment for the same, then that unit will have two
support abilities (and the "artillery" option is deprecated).