Pie in the sky idea


  • Donators Moderators Admin

    I am going to make a suggestion that may sound really really strange... but I think it may be an easy solution for a challenge I am facing that otherwise requires an elaborate work around to solve.

    Would there be a way to implement as new step in the combat window that would give the combatants the option to "Forgo Battle" when the engine detects a situation where neither unit (in the battle) has a attack or defense value?

    Just curious. Since this would solve what is otherwise a very complex problem.


  • Admin

    @Hepps I think that generally if both attacker and defender have 0 strength and battles have unlimited rounds then the attacker should be forced to retreat any units it can and any other units die.


  • Moderators

    @redrum Actually, in Axis&Allies 2nd Edition (Classic), you must retreat if remaining with attack 0 units only, no matter what's on the defence. Keeping attacking is not only idiotic, but also a violation of the rules.

    That doesn't really matter, as you want to retreat anyways, but a closely related matter is that you can send only attack 0 units in the battle. That might have a ratio into it, as you could do this to teleport/strafe your transports in a location you couldn't reach.

    Of course, A&A rules refer only to transports, as being the only attack 0 units. So, you could say it would not apply to attack 0 land units (if they would exist), or that depends on the fact that the unit is a transport, not the fact that has attack 0. This is all debatable.

    Reportedly:
    https://www.axisandallies.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Axis-Allies-2nd-Edition.pdf
    "If the zone is NOT cleared, you cannot continue the assault and must retreat any surviving transports."
    "If you moved a transport alone into battle, it cannot attack and must endure one round of enemy fire from the defending enemy before you can retreat it"

    Obviously, I assume that if the rules say that you can move a transport alone into battle, that means you can also move two or more transports alone into battle, possibly creating multiple retreat options. Not sure if there is a clarification somewhere about this, but I wouldn't need it.


  • Moderators

    @Cernel To be clear, here I'm talking about what it is. I'm favourable having a property, or maybe an exception, that allows what at this feature request. I can see that if you would have a game in which transports are 0/0, but can be taken as casualties normally, it would make the most sense that you are not forbidden from leaving them alone in a sea zone with enemy transports only, if you so happen to hit this situation, at some point during combat (instead of being obliged to retreat, in the face of a 0 defence opposition, that would be silly).


  • Moderators

    @redrum
    I have come across a legitimate situation where both attacker and defender would have 0 attack.

    I was making air battles a thing, and I had zeppelins having 0 air attack and 0 air defense. Obviously, other units had higher values. Anyways, it did occur to me that if a zeppelin attacked a territory with a zeppelin, you would have to sit through 3 rounds of a pointless battle.

    Now this isn't a huge problem, and I wouldn't make a feature request from it, but I would guess from Hepps's limited information that its resulting from an unusual situation. Perhaps the diplomatic units in his new ww1 map?


  • Donators Moderators Admin

    I am not really overly concerned with the Global rules or what they say.

    It was simply a request. A transport may not be the only unit in a design that has no attack or defense.


  • Donators Moderators Admin

    @Hepps So beyond the senselessness of a defenseless transport some how blocking an enemy transport from moving or unloading, the other half of what I am thinking about as it pertains to this suggestion, would be to have the ability to make a unit that has no defense value to be potentially capturable by another unit(s).

    So using the Sea Transport as an example (though this is not my intended use for this at this point)... you can retain it as an active combat unit that has 0 ATT. and 0 DEF. while at the same time having it receive a defensive support from an escorting ship. In the absence of an escort, the tranny could then be set to be capturable. Which of course could be a situation that arises if say you have an attacking ship that has "Targeted Attack" capabilities that are set to random casualty selection. So say you have a Destroyer and a Sea Transport defending against an attacking Sub... and the sub scores a hit with its AA Attack roll.... if the game is set to "Random Casualty Selection" then there is a 50-50 chance that the destroyer could be the casualty... there-by leaving the Transport defenseless and potentially capturable.


  • Moderators

    @Hepps If I understand correctly, what you mean is making the transport an "infrastructure". If so, the battle will already successfully end when the transport only is defending, no matter if having 0 or more defence power. However, you don't capture infrastructures directly; you capture the territory they are in (that doesn't exist, in case of regular sea zones).


  • Donators Moderators Admin

    @Cernel The whole point is not having the unit set up as an infrastructure unit.

    And remember... I just explicitly specified that I was using the example of a Sea Transport even though it is not my intended use for this idea.


  • Moderators

    @Hepps Ah ok. No idea, then, how the transports would be captured. I guess you are thinking about another feature for that.

    Actually, in pre-industrial times all kind of ships were usually captured, more or less damaged, and rarely sunk, even after the advent of firepower. A marginal exception would be a limited timeline in Greek history, were ramming was especially effective.

    Anyways, regarding what I said before, I would have to test the case of infrastructure transports against infrastructure transports only. In land territories, what happens in the case of infrastructures vs infrastructures only is that the attacking infrastructures conquer the territory (and any defending infrastructures (that are not defending alone)), if the battle would start with infrastructures only in defence (but what happens is that TripleA incorrectly captures the territory during Combat Movement). On the other hand, the attacking infrastructures are conquered, if the battle starts with some non infrastructures in defence (and, at some point, during the battle, only attacking infrastructures are left, no matter if the defender got nothing or only infrastructures too, at this point). This appears to be self inconsistent and contradictory (under substantially the same situation, of infrastructures vs infrastructures only, the defender is captured if combat didn't start, while the attacker is captured if this same condition happens at the end of some combat round).


  • Donators Moderators Admin

    @Cernel Pretty sure that cannot be done since an infrastructure unit cannot be utilized during combat moves and is automatically ignored during combat resolution. But knock yourself out.


  • Moderators

    @Hepps You can have attacking infrastructures (and there is at least 1 map that use them for the actual combat). The option that poses the limits you describe is the inability to move during combat move (that since WW2v5 is not anymore bundled with being an infrastructure too, also in the basic games). I believe the first map in TripleA having combat-moving infrastructures was Feudal Japan.


  • Moderators

    @Hepps
    Cannons in House of Hasburg are technically infrastructure. They can fight, but they can't fight by themselves.


  • Donators Moderators Admin

    @CrazyG Yes awesome! I will look at how you made that work. Thanks


  • Moderators

    @CrazyG So, off topic, but did you notice that you can use a cannon to take an empty (or with infrastructures only) territory, while if an attacking cannon remains alone at the end of a combat round, in a now empty (or with infrastructure only) territory, then the opposite happens, the attacking cannon getting captured (so, destroyed). Are you okay with this?


  • Moderators

    @Cernel
    I don't really like that behavior, but its what the engine does. I would really like some sort of option to just have 0 HP combat units (but not defenseless transports), rather than make them infrastructure.

    I would prefer if attacking infrastructure units could just retreat rather than be killed.



  • @Cernel said in Pie in the sky idea:

    Of course, A&A rules refer only to transports, as being the only attack 0 units. So, you could say it would not apply to attack 0 land units (if they would exist),

    Attack zero units exist, for example, in LotR. Hobbits are 0/1, supportable. Shooters are 0/2, giving support. You can send them into battle by themselves, although I don't know what happens if they alone remain.