Query about the Engine


  • Admin

    I know that we have been focusing a great deal of energy on Site development and AI improvements.... just wondering if there is anyone examining or working on engine improvements.

    Just curious. We had a full fledged discussion about possible new features or engine alterations in the previous forum and I wasn't sure if it was even on the radar at this point.


  • Admin

    @Hepps Yes, though you are correct most of the improvements over the last year or 2 have been around AI, website, forum, map downloads, transport loading/unloading, territory name auto-placement, settings window, WaW, and technical changes (moving to github, build automation, refactoring, etc). For reference, the release notes (which definitely don't capture everything) are here: http://www.triplea-game.org/release_notes/

    The "engine" and "features" are pretty broad topics. Are there specific threads you are referring to? Most of the engine work recently has mostly been bug fixes. I think many of the more complex features we already have also don't fully work in many cases.

    I would be interested in what the community would like to see prioritized. Improving some of the existing features? Completely new features? UI improvements? AI improvements? New ladder? Certain bug fixes? Better map making tools?

    We can either use this thread or create a new one to collect ideas then even consider a poll to vote on popularity. This is what I was doing with the AI for a while.


  • Admin

    I went back and looked at the old forum. The 2 main threads I found talking about features/priorities/etc are:
    http://tripleadev.1671093.n2.nabble.com/Development-To-Do-list-tp7582044.html
    http://tripleadev.1671093.n2.nabble.com/Your-Wish-List-for-Top-Two-TripleA-Improvements-tp7588933.html

    Some of those ideas are in the github issues list:
    https://github.com/triplea-game/triplea/issues


  • Admin

    @redrum Yah while there are good ideas sprinkled around. This thread was the one I thought had some really solid suggestions....

    http://tripleadev.1671093.n2.nabble.com/Your-Wish-List-for-Top-Two-TripleA-Improvements-tp7588933.html

    Lots going on in this one with merit.

    I honestly wasn't forcing an agenda... I was just wondering if we had anyone with these types of things on their radar.


  • Admin

    @Hepps Alright. I would say there isn't much being currently pursued in regards to engine/features. I'm primarily following the map development threads and trying to make improvements based on comments/issues reported there.

    I would like to create a better prioritized list of changes folks would like to see.


  • Admin

    My 2 cents on what needs the most work in the engine based on my experience as a player for some years:

    • playing tripleA with other humans can take a lot of effort, it can feel like you have to bend over backwards to get a game going. Whether it is lobby play or PBEM, there are hoops to jump through to find, start, and play a game.

    • actual game play is relatively slow, it's overly time consuming and hard to finish games. To fix this would be a combination of new features and improving existing ones. An example of fixing existing features is to reducing unnecessary clicks and reducing network latency. Examples of new features would be turn planners, better battle calc automation.


  • Admin

    @LaFayette well it was always a board game thus takes time .... but yes you have done an amazing job at speeding things up. my sug as always .... sorry to repeat is a competition module



  • @redrum said in Query about the Engine:

    @Hepps Alright. I would say there isn't much being currently pursued in regards to engine/features. I'm primarily following the map development threads and trying to make improvements based on comments/issues reported there.

    I would like to create a better prioritized list of changes folks would like to see.

    IMO, this is the right course. Right now, players need to become comfortable with and accept the new forum and download method which give weird extraneous information 'to a common downloader' . Get this right first. Then, each version should include 1 prioritized new feature + bug fixes and minor adustments or UI tweaks.


  • Admin

    Well given the spirit of this thread I will chime in with what I think are good avenues for engine development (prioritized from most universally problematic down to my personal wishes)

    1. AI bonus income improvements (since it is already a hot topic :) )

    1.A) Carrier and transport validation improvements.

    1. Land based transport improvements/overhaul.

    2. Development of "When damaged turns into" concept.

    And to my own ends...

    1. To enable map maker to have intercepting capability tied to a unit such as airfields the same as scrambling.

    2. Development of "submerge" (or hide) capability for Land-based units.

    3. Development of "suicide" unit that is only destroyed if it hits an opponent.

    4. Addition of multiple relief layers within a game design.

    Just throwing ideas out there... many of which are roll-overs from the previous forum. This is really just meant to create discussion and keep the brainstorming going as in the past, these types of discussions have lead to so many outstanding improvements to the engine.


  • Admin

    @Hepps Lots of good ideas there. At the moment, I'm planning to focus on:

    • AI bonus income improvements
    • Better 'other-than-PU' resources support

    I strongly agree on "Carrier and transport validation improvements". I've made a few over the past year but still lots of gaps.



  • @redrum I'm not saying... "do what Hepps says". I just wanted to point out that the priorities of map makers like Hepps should have more weight than the priorities of players. The reason is.. the mapmakers will actually use what they are suggesting... whereas a lot of "wish" features made by players are actually useless until a map is made utilizing the new feature.


  • Admin

    @Zim-Xero Totally agree regarding new features/systems. A lot of player feedback tends to be around UI and existing functionality though which is important.


  • Admin

    @redrum Yup... totally understand.

    As I mentioned I am interested in brain storming... I totally respect the fact that certain things will ultimately be worked on in the order the people doing the work decide. Such is the nature of a purely voluntary community.

    I just like threads where open discussion and dialog cultivates new ideas and concepts.


  • Admin

    @Zim-Xero "give weird extraneous information "

    I'm curious what is extraneous (where specifically?). I'd be happy to help get it cleaned up.


  • Moderators

    @redrum said in Query about the Engine:

    I went back and looked at the old forum. The 2 main threads I found talking about features/priorities/etc are:
    http://tripleadev.1671093.n2.nabble.com/Development-To-Do-list-tp7582044.html
    http://tripleadev.1671093.n2.nabble.com/Your-Wish-List-for-Top-Two-TripleA-Improvements-tp7588933.html

    Some of those ideas are in the github issues list:
    https://github.com/triplea-game/triplea/issues

    As partially said in the linked post, my first 3 items I wish some developers would do are:

    1. Allow for deliberate retreating; in that when you win a battle you get asked how much units you want to consolidate and can somewhat retreat all the others (it is dumb that in dice you cannot retreat if you were "too" lucky or in LL you have to pile up exactly that power to get the "hit-all-but-one" result).

    2. Having units that didn't move at all gaining a (settable and unit distinctive on board) defence bonus (related to the above, as it would be silly that if you attack and retreat then all your stack is just as ready to defend as if it stayed there on the ready).

    3. Having ammunition consumption; in that you have a "suicide" unit that can actually attack only as long as there is another unit in the same battle, in a 1:1 or more ratio for suicide:suicidator (shells:artillery) units; this should also work that you may require such a "suicide" unit for AA attacks (like your AA guns fire only as long as they have a "shell" unit to use, that suicides).
      I want to point out that in WW2 the cost of shells was normally much higher than the cost of the artilleries firing them (especially for AA guns) and in medieval times the cost of a warbow was about the same as 24 arrows, which you can loose in a couple minutes.

    But having a way to deliberately surely strafe in great superiority, without having to play Low Luck in order to be safe to do so, is really almost a fix, as Low Luck basically already allows it, and dice should allow it too.

    Also, another item would be fully supporting the ability to have units moving faster during non combat than combat move, as that is very important, for realism (already supported and possible, as you can give bonus movement in non combat, but there are a few issues).


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to TripleA Forum was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.