Mega New Elk WIP
-
@black_elk said in Mega New Elk WIP:
Germany production 150 > 75 PUs
Italy 50 > 25 PUs
Japan 80 > 40 PUs etcEven if it was possible to set resource percentage, the "production" values are still displayed in full. But this cannot be set the xml. The territory production would have to be reduced, either by display, or by xml so that the player would receive about half their expected PUs. So, if a territory displays 6 PUs, the xml will give them 3. If production says 150, the xml may give the 75. Here I think we are being false to the player, because were telling them one thing and doing another.
Again, reduce territory values, since this is done with foreach loops it is not a problem, or increase unit prices.
Cheers...
-
This is what I'm seeing:
All 1, 2, 3PUs have be reduced to 1, 4 and 5 to 2 and 6 to 3. Because Russian and British have more territory, their values are still high, while Americans and Germans, with the highest volume of high-count territories have been affected the greatest.Cheers...
-
@wc_sumpton Well let me sit with it a bit more, but just trying to brainstorm and give some of my way of thinking here.
In my view we are being pretty clear to the player, both in what we are showing to them and what we are doing. I mean it's just how income would be collected for the scenario here, so not trying to hide what's going on there from the player or keep that under the hood. Just like stating the rule and showing how it works in the opener. I envision this as like a launch prompt, where I tell the player what they are to expect here.
National Income per turn is calculated as Production total divided by 2.
All Production values are written directly on the map.So there is no need for a complex series of objectives, or a some other means of holding the cash. This way will explain how both the starting PUs and round 1 income collection is being determined. Player can be informed via the game notes, options, and the first launch screen, as well as being reminded how it works during each collect income phase. It has the advantage of being universal and also easy to control at 2:1. Meaning I don't have to redesign the purchase roster or double pricing or things like that to hold the starting cash or recurring income at a given level relative to the board. In the vanilla game income is already sorta decoupled from production, because that game is built around Objectives for maintaining income turn to turn. Here I wanted to build that more into the map itself via the production spread. Somewhat lower than on the other map where the ceiling was at 9 pu.
The reason to do it this way, is to provide full integers for the purposes of quickly scanning and counting up PUs on the map, for what's being contested on the game board in a given turn, while also preserving placement at that level. Here we can give tiles at a base value of some fraction between 0 and 1. Not for the visual board display, but for how they are counted in the income phase.
In G40 there are island territories worth zero, here they are always worth a minimum of 1 if intended as a playable tile with it's own polygon, but with a practical income coming in at 0.5 PUs. Keying it off the infantry replacement analogy, so we ware able to create both a psychological value for trading territory, but also a real value, it's just that instead of 1:1 it's now 2:1 at the low end. Eg player needs to take 2 tiny islands at a value of 1 PU to recoup the 1 PU during income collection. It's only being false to the player if we don't explain what's happening in advance. But here I am planning to build the scenario around this concept, so it will be sorta front and center.
Compare that with a situation where a territory say production value 0, nevertheless grants a +5 bonus in the form of objectives, as it does in the Vanilla game sometimes. Or some alternative but common situation where the player is already decoupling production from income in the normal game (AA50, G40), or through things like warbonds, or just any situation where the income collection totals require the player to track extra information on top of the totals. I just find this simpler. It's an easy calc and relatively easy to explain. I can't reduce a Territories value below 1 except to all the way to zero, I mean without requiring me to put a 0.5 Pu territory graphic on the board, which feels odd, or to double the cost of all units, both things I'd prefer to avoid if I can do it a simpler way.
Would it not be easier to ask the player to make one extra step after counting their totals, as opposed to having to relearn the purchasing count in multiples of 6's instead of 3s? That was my thought anyway. Just seemed like something that would work on the face to face board (even though this is obviously more for computer tripleA play I don't have enough tables to print this map as a physical thing heheh.) Anyway I think it will also make the TUV column in the stats easier to parse. I mean either approach could work, but I was thinking to try this because it seems so straight forward to me and easy to click.
The launch setting Resource Modifier 50% income seemed to be working pretty well.
It just takes the income for everyone and cuts it in half, applying this the same way for all, so just what the player will be experiencing when income collection/purchase comes around. Or do you mean like if the player is saving starting cash? I believe the income bonus is applied after to all PUs held, not just what is collected from income from production, although this is pretty minimal and anyway this is more to create a ballpark. Anyway, I think it's worth a shot. We can also pursue another method if it's not working, but I like it because it allows me to keep the purchase screen as is, rather doing the doubling thing. I think it will be more clear once I get the set up dialed a bit. Currently there is more TUV on the board than I would use for such an idea, about 2-3 times more I'd say than what I think we might target, and the production spread itself still needs a bit of noodling.
Goal would to retain the basic play scale of G40, so ballpark a similar Unit count and total TUV at game's start, at most say doubling the unit count or TUV, but not more more. But I think right now it's quite a lot more than the G40 in terms of starting TUV, so going to pair that back. G40 has pretty streamlined opener. I think a similar basic dynamic for an opener here, could be preserved, despite having a significantly larger board. We will just be distributing the stuff across more tiles, to justify the m3, and the scale.
-
ps. Ah I see, the image came through as I was posting
So my reason for wanting to preserve the higher values on the map Production is twofold, first I want to preserve the placement limitations (this in case of pursuing a single factory concept v3 placement rules instead of the current idea using G40 with different placement restrictions), but also for the reason you mentioned, that Axis because they have fewer starting spots necessitate higher values in their core.
This gives me a way to effectively make some, most territories for say Britain or USSR at a relative income value of .5 whereas for many axis tiles the values will have them closer to 1 there, just on account of more higher valued tiles in their starting neighborhood.
Reason I wanted to not double the purchase price as an alternative was more to do with wanting to preserve the G40 purchase screen. I just worry that someone opens it sees Inf cost 6, and balks at the mental math there, where they are too used to counting up by 3s and such haha.
I do see the merits in trying either way, this just seemed good to me because it's so flexible from the launch. 50% very simple, but just as easy might be 25% as Human vs a 50% machine, or that sort of thing. Or where like maybe 100% is tutorial mode sorta easy, but Ironman Hardcore is 25% or I don't know exactly, but just a quick way to ballpark and work the totals on income, for the desired playpattern to replicate a G40-ish thrust.
-
I really do understand what you are saying. But in the xml, you can set the player's name, capital requirement, starting controller, disabling status and if the player is hidden. Later the alliance can be set. By game property for AI only but this can only be a positive whole number between 1 and 100, no fractions or decimal places allow. There is no way to set the "Resource Modifiers" on the main screen. So, you will have to tell the player to set this, and there is no way to tell if it was set.
So, you are designing the mod, hoping that the player set the first screen for all eight players. Ok, but I think very few players are going to do this. They are going to select the map, set the players to AI/Human and hit play.
In the xml it could be written to simulate the 50%, by counting each territory by half their assigned values. And hope. There is no way to query the PUs that a player has. There is no way to query the amount the player may receive. So, there is no way to divide the players income within the xml. If you want this 50% resource, then the player has to be told to do it prior to launching the map.
This cannot be done with the xml, and there is no developer that is going to do this. Sorry...
Cheers...
-
@wc_sumpton Ah I see, so it's like the dilemma of the other game, where we couldn't get the settings to change there for a FastAI default launch option? Alas. Well then, I guess back to the drawing board a little bit in that case. There are other ways we can get there I'm sure, but I thought that one sounded promising. I agree that it would not be ideal for the player to have to do that much manual entry in the options. Really needs to be more baked-in so that that the player doesn't have to fuss overmuch.
There are other ways to bring down the totals as you mentioned, though I think I would prefer to preserve the purchase screen pricing, so I think will have to explore some other methods. At the very least we can always control a fair bit via the starting income that is assigned, where there is precedent on many boards for lower starting income than starting production might suggest. Though that's more a 1 round thing, we can still use it to bring the ceiling down slightly. Will have to go in search of more tricks.
Good call though, and good looking out. I was all excited and thought I'd found the easy way. I'd have probably gotten a ways along before realizing I was building around a setting that can't be set haha
-
ps. In that case I think returning to the playscale target of the other night, before the resource modifier idea cropped up in my head again hehe. I mean basically it was going to be higher economy regardless either way, so not the end of the world, just a higher TUV sorta gameplan now.
I think there's also something to the idea of taking money away from the player (which they might otherwise have collected) that probably wouldn't sit right with most. I mean nobody likes to see their money disappear, 'like wait, why?!' lol So maybe there is something to not pulling a fast one there. If it's all automated out to the point where the player isn't having to click around and such, but I think you're right that players will want to just click play and go, dive in and not do a bunch of set up. For the most part I think people could get behind a big board with higher production/higher income TUV entering play via purchase. It'd just be nice I think for the first turn, and maybe first round or two, where it's paced in a bit. So perhaps Starting income in the first turn is just at that 1/2 level or something modest. Round 2 they build up from the initial starting deficit, by round 3 sorta collecting in stride, but I think that's enough room for the player to get acclimated. Least it will all calc and look as expected, no extra step at the end.
-
@black_elk said in Mega New Elk WIP:
Ah I see, so it's like the dilemma of the other game, where we couldn't get the settings to change there for a FastAI default launch option?
Programming wise, and I'm taking about the engine, this and setting resources would not be that hard to implement. Problem is getting it accepted. With many thanks to @TheDog, @beelee, you and many others, isAI was finally implemented. 'Baked a cake that day! Sure did! Wife was bemused but also pleasantly surprised, what with our ages and all, "We must watch our sugar intake!". But wow what a great party was had that night in the wc_sumpton household!
Sorry, got diverted there. But yea, getting any real change done right now will take a Herculin effort!
Still, we can dream! Visions of "hasResource" dancing in his head.
Cheers...
-
Was wondering if Americans should be split like British, UK_Pacific into USA_Pacific with San Francisco as the capital. It's already a capitolCity.
Cheers...
-
@wc_sumpton said in Mega New Elk WIP:
Programming wise, and I'm taking about the engine, this and setting resources would not be that hard to implement. Problem is getting it accepted
Maybe it's time fork off a "tripleB" lol
jk
kinda
-
@wc_sumpton
saidProgramming wise, and I'm taking about the engine, this and setting resources would not be that hard to implement. Problem is getting it accepted. With many thanks to @TheDog, @beelee, you and many others, isAI was finally implemented. 'Baked a cake that day! Sure did! Wife was bemused but also pleasantly surprised, what with our ages and all, "We must watch our sugar intake!". But wow what a great party was had that night in the wc_sumpton household!
isAI is so
It makes games so playable, as the player does not have to tick/match/think about their AI opponents, just select them once and go.If only wc_sumpton (he did isAI) could be made a Dev, Devs?
@frigoref
@LaFayette
@Myrd
Pretty please
I know Im such a pleader
-
I have no formal training. Self-taught, I do this for fun.
Cheers...
P.S I would submit 20 changes the first week.
Cheers...
-
@wc_sumpton
and I would help you test them. -
@wc_sumpton said in Mega New Elk WIP:
I would submit 20 changes the first week.
pretty sure that's what Dan did when we switched to git lol
Hope his bike ride going ok. I don't get the update things anymore
-
I'm all for the self taught! Some autodidact wizardry, might be just what the doctor ordered here.
I had forgotten LaFayette was on that big trek. Would be cool to have some redundancy in the chain of command, though I'm of zero use in figuring that all out. WC's got my vote though for sure!
To the Q about whether to split USA, I'm a little reluctant, because while I think approach could be very easy to parse on a physical board, here the map wrap can be a little strange since the board meets at the Rockies there. I think also, I have a little frustration from the vanilla handling of Britain, as having more to do with fact that G40 is built by combining two games meant to function independently of each other (though honestly I think most combine the two theaters and just play global if they're going to go through the effort that is hehe.) On the one hand I'd like to simplify the global game and only bring over what we really need, on the other hand I think it's helpful if whatever is the expectation from G40, that this one would sorta meet the player where they're at, and crib the basic flavor/structure.
For this game, just to further explain some of the rationale here, what I'd like to do is sorta invert the standard approach taken in A&A, for how to deal with production, specifically when adding new territories/polygons to the map. I mean the approach that we inherited from Revised, AA50, G40 etc when compared to the first board Classic. There the approach taken was basically keep the total production values fixed (whether by individual game tile, or by some larger region) and so most of the TTs added will either split up an existing tile and shift it's production values around to keep the same overall totals, or (often) adding/changing the value of designated tile at Zero PUs. Larrry very reluctant to add production under the million man hours scheme, so there we have these ceilings on Production, and instead the starting Units TUV is treated very flexibly in the A&A as a way to balance that. Examples would be like Tourney rules adding unit/TUV as a standard bid. What you don't see much is a dramatic rework of the production spread at the base.
Basically that approach, it will create a larger board, but with many more low/no value territories, and lower PU value generally (all the things designed to keep the set up, and the number of sculpts required at a bare minimum). Then to balance the board by side, Objectives are introduced as a way of adding money back into that spread in a somewhat asymmetrical way under that methodology.
Here I want to basically do the mirror image, or the opposite of that approach. Essentially I want to add new territories or polygons at a base 1 PU value, and raise the ceilings from there.
The challenge of course is that this board is very very subdivided, hence pretty high Production totals overall and the desire to mitigate that in some way so it's not just an ultra stackfest map. In the GCD situation was different, because there we get a sort of equilibrium between unit count, maintenance, PU generating infrastructure and other things to keep the pot of gold from running away from us, like to lift/lower the thresholds by individual nation/team. For this version I'm trying to get at what I suppose would be a bare minimum for the production spread to justify this sort of sub-dividing to begin with.
I think we can get there though. There will be a little bit of a balancing act for sure, since I moved the goal post for the production spread. Down from 9 PUs to 6 PUs at the high end for the most productive spots, but then still higher at the low end which is now 1 rather than 0. To me this an abstraction of course, PUs become something more like a generic strategy point. In the vanilla IPCs have the connection to 'industry' but here I'm pursuing something more catch-all and a bit more flexible. Values may vary depending on the locale, so that 1 PU in one region of the map might be weighted slightly differently than some other region. Example a 1 PU territory in a highly industrialized region of Europe, compared to 1 PU for some central Pacific island atoll or whatever. Meaning there's no real parity for example between Japan's production and USA's, or Italy's and Britain's, but instead these may be artificially inflated or lowered, to match the playscale of the board.
It's a fair bit of work to puzzle out, but I think I'm getting a closer with each iteration here. For me the starting idea would be to just graft the core of the G40 ruleset onto the larger board, key up the production spread at the base to work a bit more readily at that scale, then tinker using some of the familiar solutions, though I'm trying to hold off on using Objectives as the primary mechanism for balancing, because I want to first see what I can achieve with the production spread by itself.
The reason for all this is in part, to get around the problem which the computer has, and which you noted in that other thread, of not being able to transport effectively or efficiently.
I think there are a couple kinds of A&A players, there are players who like to build out infrastructure on front line production, and then there are players who delight at playing the game with a very long but efficient logistics line, say moving units from the core to the front as USA via transports. Something very satisfying in the latter about using the transports just so, to max the efficiency, but it's something that the computer in particular struggles with mightily. The computer is basically the first sort of A&A player. Meaning I think it plays better under those conditions buys and moves well when it has a frontline production pocket to build from, but it's being asked to play more like the second sort of player in most cases. Just comparing say, what USA will do vs what Japan will do generally to push their fronts. If USA can get a toehold going in Africa or some production capacity in the Central Pacific then they reorient a bit and we see less floaters and such. But then on the normal board production along those paths isn't really an option. Here I'd like it to be, but in a way that's more limited like scaled at the level of the minors basically.
For the computer, it tends to work much better if they can lily pad their placement hubs in some way, or resupply more front line and be less transport dependent if that makes sense. This can work, but it also requires that the map's production spread be handled somewhat differently to allow for more Production=Placement capacity type stuff. G40 also uses a different scheme for Major/Minor where the placement is decoupled from Production as some fixed amount on the high end, so there's that too. Say Majors producing 10 units, on a starting TT worth 3 PUs, whereas in the smaller boards almost always you got the Placement limit reflected by the TT value at the cap. I tend to prefer the simpler system from say Revised or v5, but I think either could work, though it does have an effect on the necessary values at the high end cap per tile.
As I get my head around it hopefully, I can find some form of happy medium here. That's the aim at least, still early days though
-
Few other thoughts, not specifically to do with production, but more general.
If a 1940 scenario, Declaration of War (politics) and Objectives can be problematic, esp if trying to design with the computer behavior in mind. Computer will do quite random things there, say trying to Neutral crush, Japan deciding to invade Russia immediately that sort of thing. In part I think A&A services the 'what if' fantasy of Japan and Russia tending to end up at war, and the whole center crush Axis convergence plan. I think better to not be over-reliant on the computer triggering the Declare War stuff for a map set in 40 to still function though. Instead, unit pre-positioning and things like distance to that particular front could be used instead as the delay. This works say for setting up a G1 press vs France rather than USSR, or to allow Japan to do a big J1 burst that doesn't involve sacking into Soviet Far east insta style, but I think it would be harder in a 41 or 42 to create a satisfying play pattern there without at least some form of Non Aggression Pact. I mean a lot can be done with China as a counterweight for Japan, but sorta need something there for a NAP, a bit more than the Mongolia approach, or way more of a Mongolia approach maybe, or just something that would keep Japan and USSR honest vs one another haha.
Second dilemma would be how to handle the center of the gameboard and USSR itself. In most games they are designed to be relatively weak and propped up by defensive air from their teammates. So the standard has Allies like bouncing air between say Soviet Capital or the India VC depending on where Axis are pressing harder. But I think in a game which features higher cash/higher economy, the whole defensive fighters for teammate's fronts, becomes a bit over pronounced. I mean we typically think of USA and Britain working together in tandem, or German and Italy, or All 3 allies trying to work together to keep Russia/India alive, but it also works this way for say Japan or really any nation that can shoot fighters over to a teammates front. It's just a very powerful move, and the same will happen on the water with carrier decks.
One approach might be to borrow from A&AO's early implementation which restricts fighters landing on friendly decks. The computer will frequently try to land on a friendly's carrier deck, so it creates a dynamic where everyone had their carriers with their teammate's fighters on them. Those A&AO rules sorta kept things more on the player's own deck only.
Potentially something similar, which prevents fighters or other units from ending their turn in Soviets starting TTs, or vice versa. Japan and Germany/Italy have a similar thing going on with their air, in typical boards I mean. Some slightly more simplistic handling for that, may prevent the situation where tiles become overstacked with multinational forces, requiring another placement queue spot and all the rest. I think to work and meet expectations, USA and UK need to be able to co-locate. But I'm not sure USA and UK, need to be able to co-locate with USSR. For Axis it's tougher because not allowing Japan a way to prop up Germany or Italy, severely limits the ways they can impact the broader war. Also I think there is a sort of fantasy one could indulge of maybe pilots and such being trained or experimental aircraft exchanges or whatever. The joint Axis what ifs, if they'd managed to meet in the middle for real. But I think for USSR and the other Allies it might come a bit more naturally. Reason being that the Soviet Union will have a lot more operating cash here, so the need to peg them to defensive only, or requiring USA/UK to send fighters so they don't get flattened, will be much less pronounced here. Or one would hope at least, we added many tiles at 1 PU to bolster what's happening and many more zones on the Eastern Front between them to trade back and forth. I think if the theme is to have USA/UK or Japans units operating in the USSR backfield, that would be sorta traditional, but I think it is not the most satisfying handling. Like it requires a lot of the player suspending disbelief and making the USA/UK units into like a lend lease analogy, but I think it would be easier to just limit the ability of USA or UK to operate within the USSR, or least within USSR starting 'home' territories. This would be a departure from the norm, but I think to support stuff like that it helps if other things are somewhat more familiar. So still trying to determine how much I want to bite off, before chewing it I guess haha.
Anyhow, just some quick thoughts there. NAP handling will change whether we need USSR starting TUV to actually defend the far east, or just be more of a delay on arrival at the Eastern Front, so sort of a factor there for starting TUV position. Similarly, the distance for air transits if including USSR flyovers vs if we dont for team Allies. Alternatively we might restrict the colocation thing in USSR home territories to only ground, but that still encourages allies to send as many fighters as possible to their teammates at the middle, so sorta same dilemma there. There's also the question mark on whether the computer can really understand the limitations on their actual movements, or if they will just get stuck trying to make moves that have become say illegal or against the politics/rules or the like. I think if we build around the idea of multi-nation defense/attack the Computer also will struggle a fair bit with that. It just can't plan out as far as the regular player would or max the defense or attack power over the whole round instead of just the current turn. I think would be nice if we can get the basic framework to still play to the computer's strengths where possible, and to sorta build around it's deficiencies for the starting TUV, or opening turn attacks at least.
