Navigation

    TripleA Logo

    TripleA Forum

    • Register
    • Login
    • Search
    • TripleA Website
    • Categories
    • Recent
    • Popular
    • Users
    • Groups
    • Tags

    A suggestion about upkeep

    Feature Requests & Ideas
    5
    10
    1658
    Loading More Posts
    • Oldest to Newest
    • Newest to Oldest
    • Most Votes
    Reply
    • Reply as topic
    Log in to reply
    This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
    • Schulz
      Schulz last edited by

      The upkeep codes are already exist and -1 upkeep is minimum number for every unit. But sometimes especially in small/medium maps even -1 upkeep is so high for such as conscripts or infantries. This method is great at preventing stack problems but it also force players to buy expensive units. So what about adding fractionel numbers for upkeep? Wouldn't -0.5 more realistic upkeep for cheap units rather than -1?

      General_Zod 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
      • General_Zod
        General_Zod Moderators @Schulz last edited by

        @schulz As is you have to increase the economies overall production so 1pu isn't so much as compared to a 3 pu infantry.

        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • Schulz
          Schulz last edited by Schulz

          1 Pu is too high for infantries, not all units should have the same upkeep. Upkeep has to be related with unit costs. For example let determine 0.25 as coefficient and give every upkeep to units. In this situation infantry upkeep will be 0.75 and armour upkeep 1.25. It is much more better.

          General_Zod redrum 2 Replies Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • General_Zod
            General_Zod Moderators @Schulz last edited by General_Zod

            @schulz I agree, that is why if I suggest increasing economies size. But that is only if the request is not implement of course. Oh and btw with increase in economy you can increase cost of units as needed, so it's not so high a percentage when using whole numbers for upkeep.

            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • redrum
              redrum Admin @Schulz last edited by

              @schulz As @General_Zod mentions, you could consider just increasing the cost of units and income so you have more flexibility. Alternatively, you could consider triggers that charge maintenance for say every 5, 10, 15, 20 units, etc. Total Ancient War has a system that does this per territory to avoid large stacks: https://github.com/triplea-maps/total_ancient_war/blob/master/map/games/Total_Ancient_War.xml

              C 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
              • C
                Cernel Moderators @redrum last edited by

                @redrum There are two problems with this:

                1. You cannot test for total units, as I believe this was the intent here (only per territory).

                2. There is not an "each" condition for such a test (meaning you cannot say that something triggers per every 5 units, but you need to make as many triggers and conditions as the times you want to cover, thus have to stop at some point (in your example, if I stop my triggering at 20, it would make really no sense that my costs increase when I go from 5 to 20, but remain the same when I go from 20 to 100)).

                redrum 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • redrum
                  redrum Admin @Cernel last edited by

                  @cernel Yes, those are the existing limitations of it. Point being its an option and there is more likelihood of addressing those limitations than allowing decimal values.

                  C 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                  • C
                    Cernel Moderators @redrum last edited by

                    @redrum Keeping an eye on the matter being useful for a number of other items, such solutions may be:

                    Adding support of "each" for unitPresence, and generally expanding each as to be able to define how much of each (currently it is only 1), in that you could code:
                    <option name="directPresenceTerritories" value="map" count="each:1"/>
                    <option name="unitPresence" value="infantry" count="each:5"/>
                    Tho, this would mean that, for example, if you have 8 in a territory and 7 in another one, you will get twice the amount of whatever the related trigger is giving (resource, placement, purchase...) (2 valid territories with 1 count each), while if you have 15 in a territory, you will get thrice the amount (1 valid territory with 3 counts).
                    Probably it would make more sense to be, then, able to test for the total units in the map (a condition option that would be anyways generally good to have), regardless of how they are stacked, and this would need to be added, as well.

                    alkexr 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                    • alkexr
                      alkexr @Cernel last edited by

                      @cernel Variables would solve everything. Eaches are already too confusing, no need to make it worse.

                      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 3
                      • redrum
                        redrum Admin last edited by

                        Yeah, the whole "each" functionality is pretty funky. I'd like to implement some sort of variable/tag/etc system where you can define essentially a list of values at least to start. I think probably units, territories, and numerical lists would be the ones most useful. Something like:

                        <variable name="landUnits" value="infantry:artillery:tank"/>
                        <variable name="capitals" value="moscow:berlin:london:toyko:washington"/>
                        <variable name="every5" value="5x[0-100]"/>
                        
                        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 3
                        • 1 / 1
                        • First post
                          Last post
                        Copyright © 2016-2018 TripleA-Devs | Powered by NodeBB Forums