Add mustSubmerge Unit Attribute
-
Add "mustSubmerge" so units must submerge first chance they get.
-
@redrum I would go one step further and create three different abstract properties for not blocking movement, not being blocked, and submerging, not restricted to sea units only. Also add the option to customize the captions appearing on the dialog box asking whether to remain or submerge. Wait, that was like three steps further, never mind. I won't publish my whole wishlist for now, then
-
@alkexr Yeah, that is the eventual vision but given the code complexity around sub logic, the most reasonable approach is to implement one at a time. I figure submerge is probably the most interesting of the sub functions so would start with that.
-
@redrum Baby steps... wins the day!
-
It would be very nice to give the player the option to submerge or surface each submarine during CM or NCM via a prompt, something like.
Issue Orders To This Submarine. "Submerge" or "Surface" (when clicked on the submarine).
Depending on the orders, the submarine behavior could be different. Up until the owners nations next turn.
For instance, if the submarine was given orders to remain on surface. It can block all other surface ships from moving through its sea zone and stop transports from loading or unloading unless it is killed. And actually control a sea zone. Basically if surfaced it would get to act like any other combat surface vessel.
However this would come at the price of losing its 1st strike and stealth abilities, making it vulnerable to all attacks by air and sea, maybe even from land if AOT style mortars (or some other cool land based range weapon). And no destroyer should be needed as well. Perhaps the surfaced submarine could even suffer further attack/defend penalties of -1.
And if orders are to submerge it retains all normal submarine abilities.
This would make submarines more versatile as well as realistic. The extra ability could be offset by a slight cost increase to produce if needed. Or just go with the penalties mentioned as an offset. Depends on the map design ultimately.
While on topic of submarine, the destroyer anti stealth ability should really only work on a 1:1 basis. One destroyer can cancel one submarines stealth. Even if we think of each single submarine or destroyer as a wolf-pack or a task-force of several vessels each. A 1:1 ratio still makes most sense.
I know one of the hurdles is to keep existing maps functional, so maybe simply introducing it as for a new unit. That way can leave all existing maps functional and leave it up to the map makers if they want to recode with the new improved option or keep as is. Just a thought.
Furthermore, what would be really awesome, is if the xml AA options could be expanded, enhanced and used as the foundation of all unit options . Those options could be used much more creatively. That would increase TripleA's potential more than any other single project if done with a master plan for all units. But that's a new topic.
-
@general_zod I'd probably argue that a different mechanic around transforming the unit to a different type is a better fit for something like this instead of a specific submerge/surface function. That way you could have completely different stats and such for when its submerged vs surfaced.
-
Ok , changing the unit into a different unit altogether is reasonable. But then we have to figure out, how the player would be able to initiate the change, between a specific "normal submarine" and "surface submarine" in any given sea zone?
Short of a function per se, it would require some finagling with sea zone design, maybe by creating an area that the player can park his submarine, which is designated as surfaced or submerged sea zone for submarines. I'll have to think this through further, sounds like it can have other implications, if it is even possible to do in a logical design.
-
@redrum Not sure about the applications of this feature request, but I can see it may open some cool combo with some other feature requests (so many possibilities now), but giving some inputs, seeing this is on top list, at the moment.
Even though it is against the rules, one could go ahead submerging every time that you have two groups of units in a battle that they can all submerge and they can all be ignored in movement.
An example is WWIIv3, in which a Russian submarine alone attacks a German submarine alone. By rules, both submarines can decide whether to submerge or not, so the program behaves correctly, currently, but this whole process is straight dumb, as if both players want to fight, then one of the two players must be making the wrong choice, so even only the Russian submarine alone being able to attack the German submarine alone makes no sense, as if the Russian player wants to do that, we should assume that the German player should be wanting to submerge, so there is no point attacking in the first place (you can move there in non combat, which gives you the ability to decide the movement after seeing the Conduct Combat phase).
Another innocuous but silly item is that (as you can test it in World War II v3 1941, sending the Norwegian fighter to attack the Russians submarine) you can choose to attack submarines only with air only, which is pointless, and, then, which is also pointless, another prompt will ask the opposite player if he wants to submerge, but clicking on "Submerge" or on "Remain" is the same, as both units cannot hit each other, thus you'll get stalemated, that makes no difference with submerging, singe the submarine can be ignored. This might have the mild issue of confusing noobs, that sometimes make air attacks only against submarines in v3, maybe because if the program asks you if you want to attack the submarine, it is somewhat logical to assume that is doing something at all (nope).
Finally, I want to remind that here there is that bug that you should be able to submerge the units that you want, not necessarily all or nothing. This seems likely very relevant with this feature request (I assume that if only part of the units able to submerge must submerge, this won't cause them all to submerge).
-
@Cernel Not sure I 100% agree with that. I think there can be situations where both players see benefit in fighting or essentially gambling at killing the other. They may have different strategies or perspectives where each sees killing the other worth losing theirs (this is pretty rare though). Now you might argue theoretically with 2 perfect players that wouldn't happen but not sure that really matters.
Yeah, the whole attack subs with just air in v3 rules doesn't really make sense and should probably just be ignored. But pretty minor as any decent player isn't ever gonna do it.
Yes that bug or limitation still exists.
-
Just my 2 cents, I've observed/played a game with sub vs sub. One is feeling lucky with the dice roll, is behind maybe and wants to get an extra kill. The other player does not value their sub a lot, thinks their opponent is making a mistake, and stays in the battle
-
This topic seems to be devolving into a discussion about units that can submerge verses creating a mechanism where a unit MUST submerge.
