A Solution for stack issue
-
If we limit attack and defence capacities for stacks it will solve calculatin troubles.For example we order 50 single stack to attack another 50 stacks, in this circumstance (example) only our 5 units will be able to participate the battle then they will fight only 5 enemy units.
-
@Schulz There are number of A&A style games that limit the number of dice rolled in battle, often by unit type. This tends to result in battles of even attrition, which is realistic for the Gunpowder era. Much the same effect could be achieved in the current engine by using stacking limits.
-
Stacking limits a bit different thing. In this way you can lose your territory in a round while defending whereas in my proposal it won't happen but still great feature.
-
There is a way to do what you are suggesting.
It sounds like you are looking to create a rather complex map. I think the best path is to start testing unit and support attachments on your own, to see what creative ways you can find to implement some of your desired features.
-
I am interested in that stack limit idea,
but before discussing this, I want to know this may work:- correct codes
I find:
<option name='placementLimit' value='allied' count='10'/>
ist this the correct one to maximize the number of units in a territory?
- unit definition
do all units count to that limit or is it possible to exclude some units, like AA Gun or Bunkers?
what is with transports? - do they count as one sea unit or as 3 unit in total when they transport 2 ground units - same question to carriers.
And if - is there a way to manipulate this?
- steps/fight
Do I understand correctly, that the limit is calculated every step
so combat: move units into a country until the max of 10 (just an example) is reached. Then there is a combat, 6 units remain.
Then next step is the non-combat phase:
here up to 4 units can move into that conquered territory to fill to the maximum of 10 units
Have I understood all this correctly?
- producing:
let's say in Russia there are already 5 units, Russia is e.g. a 6 IPC country, but the stack limits allows to place only 5 of the new built units. the unit left has to be placed in another factory( if possible of course)
Would it be that way ?
-
If the main goal is preventing mega stacks really no solution is as good as upkeep.
-
It is more realistic than stack limits and provides more tactical options.
-
It can be optional.
-
Upkeep rates can be vary.
-
It adds another dimension to units.
-
It makes games more reversible and less luck dependent since losing units would be less bad.
-
-
I know. However, to compare both solutions, I want to understand how such a limit will work in detail
And the Germans won't mind any upkeep if the big stack will next round invade Russia and capture the Russian capital. A stack limit can stop this.
Maybe both - stack limit and upkeep - can be a solution too
e.g. upkeep starts with more than 8 units, while 15 is max or so. -
if you guys want maps that avoid stacking issues thats all well and good, but some players, me included, like giant stacks in "NWO" for example. so good luck with your projects just dont change anything that would upset players, thanks.
-
you shouldn't be afraid,
it's like all the stuff - it should be chooseable.Some players like tech, so they choose it, same with NOs or low luck or all the other stuff. That's why game options exist.
Then the players decide how they play the game.
-
@numetalfan i have seen enough "improvements", not just at tripleA but in life, to be very afraid!!!
-
@numetalfan
placementLimit only affects placement, ie you may not be able to place your purchased units in a territory.<option name="placementLimit" value="owned:Battleship:Battlecruiser:Cruiser:Destroyer:Submarine:Transport" count="4"/>Other limits can be used:
<option name="movementLimit" value="owned:Battleship:Battlecruiser:Cruiser:Destroyer:Submarine:Transport" count="4"/> <option name="attackingLimit" value="owned:Battleship:Battlecruiser:Cruiser:Destroyer:Submarine:Transport" count="4"/> -
@silverbullet said in A Solution for stack issue:
@numetalfan i have seen enough "improvements", not just at tripleA but in life, to be very afraid!!!
I'm not afraid. I'm just scared : )
-
@silverbullet When did you see the last time that a random player will be able to change all map mechanics?
I think there is a misunderstanding going on. Even if the majority of players don't like upkeep it doesn't mean that the huge stack maps like NWO or WaW won't be played if they were originally released with upkeep because we cannot measure how many potential players are turn off Triplea because of very slow pace of some of the very popular maps.
When I check some popular games similar to TripleA they have either simultaneous rounds, fog of war or upkeep which TripleA lacks all of them.
Likes the smartphones. Introduction of them was obviously nothing to do with other phones but they totally changed the trend.
-
@schulz There is room for many types of scenarios. I have been experimenting with upkeep in standard scenarios and the results are interesting.
The problem with stacking limits is the lack of AI support not the concept itself. Stacking limits are the norm in board wargames and make for better and more realistic play.
Other solutions are
Unit tiers: There is a limited supply of cheap units, then you have to pay more.
Multiple Attacks: Have units that fight like AA guns, making shots against all enemies.
-
@rogercooper The problem is mods are unfortunately almost never played no matter how improved they are people who like upkeep will already prefer upkeep version of any maps and I don't think it is easy to change people's opinions about upkeep.
I agree if rushing Russia is the only viable Axis strategy then there is a problem. I'am not sure if I would prefer stack limit over upkeep.
NWO and WaW seems already solved the issue by making defense way too strong in this case Axis has no luxury rushing Russia and weakley defend all other areas.
-
Any approach to limit stacking changes the game and it's balance. The "maxBuiltPerPlayer" option seems to be handled OK by the AI.
Once the custom limits have been implemented, unitAttachment options are displayed in the unit tooltips. For other options (ex: playerAttachment) it's possible to add hardcoded text by creating a tooltips.properties file:
tooltip.unit.armour.Russians.append=Unseen<br/>Prefers SettlementsWith regard to upkeep, the PU cost has to be integer, how do you handle it for infantry (Cost 3) ?
With the basic option, the cost doesn't depend on stack size, it's just a per unit cost per turn. On an existing map, you would likely have to provide a PU bonus to offset the extra cost when this option is added.<option name="createsResourcesList" value="-1:PUs"/>EDIT: It was suggested by Schulz to multiply PUs
<property name="Multiply PUs" value="10" min="1" max="10" editable="false"/>- You would need to manually change starting PUs and costs of units in xml and give a small PU bonus to each player every turn (Either through Resource Modifier at game load or with a trigger in xml).
-
@butterw said
With regard to upkeep, the PU cost has to be integer, how do you handle it for infantry (Cost 3) ?Keeping it simple all combat units should cost 1 or more ie. -1:PUs
Transports and Personalities should have no upkeep cost.Upkeep also makes you think twice about producing. As delaying producing units saves you PU.
Im my own Settlers games
https://forums.triplea-game.org/topic/2399/settlers-age-of-tribes-official-thread
https://forums.triplea-game.org/topic/2467/settlers-fallen-empire-official-threadI have produced too many units that the Upkeep was so much that I could not buy any more units, to me this is as it should be. You cannot turtle and build massive defensive stacks.
-
@butterw Unfortunately TripleA does not recognize fractional numbers therefore multiplying everything by 10 then keeping unit cost/upkeep ratio between 5%-10% seems the only viable option as far as I researched.
Keeping upkeeps below 5% does barely prevent stack issues and higher upkeeps might force players not to spend all remaining moneys for tactical issues which AI cannot handle that plus it can be seen as unneeded complexity.
5%-10% upkeep just do really fine. But even it would break balance of exising maps of course.
Stack limit is unrealistic feature because supply is nothing to do with front lengt. Really it would be awkward to see if nations could place more troops to Lybian-Egyptian border than for example German-French border just because German-French border is shorter. I've never heard something like a nation couldn't reinforce an area more inensively because of short frontline.
-
@butterw Territory values should be multiplied by 10 too along with starting incomes, unit costs and repair costs.
Unit production capacities in contrast will be 1/10 of the territory values. For example 20 Pu value territory can only able to produce 2 units per round not 20. After that no additinal feature is really needed.
Multiplying everything by 10 have also another benefits like you cannot buy 1 unit if its cost is fractional like 3.5 but with that its possible because it will be represented by 35 Pu cost.
Also it becomes possible to value territories and upkeeps with better variety.
-
@butterw I have been experimenting with upkeep on existing maps. I add bonus income equal to total starting income divided by 2, and then split the bonus between the Axis & Allies. I don't charge upkeep for infrastructure or transports. I charge 2 for 2-hit units.
This seems to work well. The bonus income makes it harder to knock out Russia. It only takes few minutes to modify the map (unlike multiplying the production values). I have the file for World War II v4 below. This will soon be added to downloadable files.
