CrazyG's Big World War One

redrum

@CrazyG Yeah, I think for TWW air transports they really should just be "isInfra" all the time but I think there is some reason that they then don't work right for transporting units or something. As you really want them to never have HP (always be destroyed or captured and they would never attack alone).

Missle/munition/etc are a bit different since you want them to have HP when attacking so they can attack by themselves but infra that are capturable or destroyable on defense.

My thought is really we need say an 'isMunition' or 'isInfraForDefense' property that makes units act like non-infra during their turn for attacks but act like infra during other players' turns for defense.

Hepps

@redrum The reason the Air Transports are combat units is that we could not find a way to allow Paratroopers to exclusively receive a bonus while para-dropping into battle without using the Air Transport as a way of "force feeding" the bonus using the Air Transport itself.

Hepps

@CrazyG Missing connection between Turkey 01 <---> SZ 191

redrum

@Hepps Ok. I would think you could still make the air transports "isInfra" and have it provide support to paratroopers. Did you try that and it didn't work? I think the one other issue is I'm not sure that AA guns would get to shoot at air transports if we made them "isInfra".

CrazyG

IsInfra can support other units.

IDK if AA guns can shoot at them.

Hepps

@redrum 2 issues... AA become impotent against them.... 2nd if the attack fails the Air Tranny automatically dies.

redrum

@Hepps What do you mean by the 2nd point? Doesn't it die currently if the attacker fails to win?

Hepps

@redrum No it can retreat. Unless of course you press the attack without any ground forces. There may be the possibility of it having to be taken as a casualty if you sustain more hits than you have (legitimate) attackers... but technically that is also an illegal play. Doesn't come up much as people rarely try suicide attacks with air trannies. (And by not much I mean it has never been brought up by a player in a match, I have only come across it in my personal exhaustive tests)

But perhaps this is a conversation for a different thread. Hy-jacking @CrazyG thread seems all kinds of dirty and wrong.

redrum

@Hepps Fair point. Moved discussion here: https://forums.triplea-game.org/topic/1145/expand-isinfra-functionality

redrum

@CrazyG To come back to the original issue with gas not doing anything at the moment, to make them work with the current engine I think you'd need to make them "isInfra" and remove "isSuicide". That way they survive the 1 round of combat but I think they will die after that battle (some what questionable behavior that might change in the future).

Hepps

@redrum I'm not sure that is correct. The "isInfratructure" only creates an outcome after the possession of the territory is determined following the conclusion of a battle.

redrum

@Hepps I haven't tested it but it was the best idea I could come up with at the moment. Otherwise you instead could just trigger to remove any gas that are located in enemy territories or captured territories I guess.

CrazyG

Planned changes-
Major repositioning in Serbia, Italy and Austria
Ottomans begin with fewer trains
UK gets +30 PUs if it controls Suez
Gas is removed, will be added again later
A single Recon Plane will support up to 1,000 artillery or barrages (so basically all of them)
Cruisers get +1/+1
Move End of Turn Phase to beginning of turn. It changes income and heavy artillery functions more easily

redrum

@CrazyG Did you want to continue our game or call it with all the planned changes?

Hepps

@CrazyG Like the plans... but what I would say is that you have an opportunity to make better use of some of the peripheries of the map to add some other dimensions....thus giving the Axis a reason to pursue a naval strategy.

Suez... +10 Australia & India (to Britain)
SZ 93... +5 Caribbean & Colonial West & Central Africa (to Britain)
SZ 77... +10 America (to Britain)
SZ 78 ... +5 America (to France)
SZ 89... +5 America (to France)
SZ 66 ... +3 Canada (to Britain)

Very general and unscientific suggestions.... just some idea's to give Germany a reason to try some naval maneuvers... since currently the Atlantic has little role in the overall game.

redrum

@Hepps I do agree trying to add more value to peripheries and naval. Though I think there are plans to add in more minor nations joining that could help some with that as well.

One other thing I'll mention is I think you need to have a bit more unit strength if you are going to stick with 1 combat round as right now the battles aren't quite decisive enough. Alternatively, you could consider moving to 2 combat rounds.

CrazyG

@redrum
2 combat rounds leads to strafing attacks, which I'm trying to stop.

I'm going to try and see if I can get artillery to do enough damage through support from other units. Long term, I might add technology that would increase damage output (to help end the war).

Hepps

@CrazyG I honestly like the single round of combat for the first time in my life.

My only desire is to also see the "attacker" in a contested territory be able to build a trench if they survive the first (current) round of combat.

Right now it feels weird that the original territory owner can build a trench in a contested territory... but that an attacker who has been there over a round cannot.

CrazyG

@Hepps
I'd like to block placing any units in contested territories. If not possible, I agree with your approach.

Hepps

@CrazyG Yes either would seem more balanced... but it feels more WWI-ish if the opposing sides became entrenched in close quarters.