Land units with strategic bombing?
-
Am I to understand that strategic bombing can now be done by land units, not only air units?
https://github.com/triplea-game/triplea/pull/4804If so, should it be possible to make a unit (like a trebuchet) that can join in on a land attack alongside infantry, attack a factory unit (like a castle) alongside infantry units. And then the “strategic bombing” of the castle HP should be done at the start of the normal land battle?
So it could be like this: Combat move attack force into enemy castle/infantry territory -> Strategic bombing -> The normal combat rounds.
If so, how must the units be coded? I have tried to make a castle like this:
<option name="isInfrastructure" value="true"/> <option name="canBeDamaged" value="true"/> <option name="maxDamage" value="10"/> <option name="canDieFromReachingMaxDamage" value="true"/> <option name="canProduceUnits" value="true"/> <option name="canProduceXUnits" value="1"/> <option name="isConstruction" value="true"/> <option name="constructionType" value="Defensive building"/> <option name="constructionsPerTerrPerTypePerTurn" value="1"/> <option name="maxConstructionsPerTypePerTerr" value="1"/>And a bombing trebuchet with these codes:
<option name="attack" value="2"/> <option name="defense" value="2"/> <option name="isStrategicBomber" value="true"/> <option name="bombingMaxDieSides" value="8"/>But there is no bombing in the start of the battle
Are there other codes in the XML that needs to be adjusted to allow land unit bombardment?closed Remove strategic bombing land unit limitation #4804
-
@Frostion That's not currently possible. Right now just like air units, land units can only participate in either SBR or the attack not both. You should get a prompt just like air units to choose which when you move into a territory with valid SBR targets.
-
@redrum How would that work if a land unit only had one Mvt? Would they then be prompted to withdraw after a bombing run?
-
@Hepps Currently, land units can't withdraw/retreat after SBR. They are essentially left in that enemy territory just like when you have limited combat rounds and both sides have remaining units.
-
OK. I got it to work.
But what is the idea behind not letting the land units retreat after a failed attack? This leads to some strange situations and problems, but maybe they can be dealt with if the units by rule is just killed or taken over by enemy if the territory is still enemy after the attack?
-
@Frostion Well the idea is mostly that if you are using land units as SBR that they are probably some form of rebellion/revolt/etc that are damaging buildings and that the owner of the territory would need to then attack to remove them.
The functionality that you described around trebuchets would probably fit better as a trebuchet generating a projectile unit each turn that can move 1 and SBR while the trebuchet itself can be used for normal combat. So if you moved both of them to a territory the projectile would SBR first then the trebuchet would attack with the rest of the units.
-
I have a question about the dice displayed.
What png files / pictures am I missing since the engine displays these thin lined default dice instead of my custom made dice?
-
@Frostion Do you have dice sides set to the max number in the XML? Other than that I'd guess you have a zipped and unzipped version in your map folder and its pulling from the wrong one.
If that doesn't fix it then if you can send me the zip, I'll take a look.
-
@Frostion It is curious and I wonder if you have something wrong in the XML... since in your battle window the total highest die roll is only 10. Normally if you have set it properly the battle window should display the columns for all available die sides.
-
@redrum said in Land units with strategic bombing?:
@Frostion Well the idea is mostly that if you are using land units as SBR that they are probably some form of rebellion/revolt/etc that are damaging buildings and that the owner of the territory would need to then attack to remove them.
This has nothing to do with mixing regular battles and raids, or any retreats, but I suggest the behaviour that conducting a SBR never blocks the units involved in it from being able to move during a subsequent phase, if having any movement left (units not supposed to get out of the raided territory may have only movement 1, to make sure of that). However, as this would be an exception to the general (silly or not) rule that only air units can move on multiple phases, I agree that, on its own, the current behaviour makes the only sense as default, thus having a "raider" like "hit-and-run" ability for land units conducting raids would necessitate some additional options, likely a general option for a unit to be able to move over multiple phases (default true for air units and false for the rest), like the one I've described here (that, if true, would also allow land units to use any movement left after having raided a territory, alike to how air SBR works):
https://forums.triplea-game.org/topic/301/no-unit-except-air-units-should-be-allowed-to-move-during-both-cm-and-ncm-during-the-same-turn/29an option for define if each unit is able to still move during non combat movement if moved during combat movement or participated in a battle (default true if the unit is air, of course)
For an historical example of land raiding:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevauchée -
@Cernel Yeah, from a raiding standpoint, I think that makes sense. If someone is gonna create a map that would look to use that functionality then I think that would be a good feature request that shouldn't be too difficult to implement.
-
@redrum said "The functionality that you described around trebuchets would probably fit better as a trebuchet generating a projectile unit each turn that can move 1 and SBR while the trebuchet itself can be used for normal combat."
Like this?
I am still messing around and trying to find a decent artillery-factory-HP system. I have yet another question.
PoS2.xml says about maxOperationalDamage “A disabled unit will not participate in combat or be able to move.” But the units do in fact still participate in combat as both its AA attacks as well as support attachments are still active. Is this an error in the engine?
-
@Frostion Nice. Love the unit images. @Hepps Is going to have a lot to live up to
I would love to see a map have a balanced combat system around having artillery/ammo as I think it would add more depth to the overall game. I think to have such a system succeed, you either need limited combat rounds or units have much higher defense than attack values in order to promote using the ammo and not just smashing 2 stacks together like most games.
That's a good question. I thought that the engine is supposed to be filtering out any 'disabled' units from participating in combat but not sure anyone has actually implemented a map doing that. I'll need to take a look at the engine code to see what its actually doing later this afternoon.
-
@Frostion I looked at the engine and it should be removing any disabled units from combat. If you aren't seeing that happen then I'd be interested in seeing a save game showing it.
EDIT: Actually I think the issue is that the disabled units aren't removed until after first round of combat AA rolls. Is that what you are seeing as well?
-
@redrum Well the red arrow ammo unit is actually inspires by a unit I have seen in @Hepps map
I hope to get a nice system up that really motivates players to use bombardment as the factories/bases should be really defensive and it would be a bloodbath to attack them without bombing the fortifications first. But at the moment I just want to prioritize map construction before I go into details, and the map is still a work in progress. There is a lot still to do.
Right now I have tested two basic dydtems for fortifications/bases. When they are fully operational they have either been giving defensive support to a number of troops (which is kind of boring, and I have used this in other maps), or in my current version the fortifications/bases have its own defensive AA firing …. Right now it is called “wall archers” and shoots AA attacks at every attacking unit. I like this version the best.
The problem is just, that only the bases that are totally killed can actually be deactivated by bombardment. Units that are not killed but should go non-operational just keep supporting, even though they have all the HP damaged. So it would be great if units that are disabled also loose their AA and support capabilities.
@redrum said "EDIT: Actually I think the issue is that the disabled units aren't removed until after combat AA rolls. Is that what you are seeing as well?" My units have had unlimited rounds of AA so I don’t know. But my experience is that even though the unit has reached max damaged, it just keeps supporting/firing AA as long as the battle lasts.
-
@Frostion Ok. What you describe is how it should work so if units are disabled they don't fire AA or provide support. Looking at the code, I would think disabled units should be removed after that first round of combat so surprised you are seeing them fire even after round 1 of combat.
To test and fix it, I need to be able to recreate an example. If you can message me a working map and save that would probably be easiest.
-
To test and fix it, I need to be able to recreate an example. If you can message me a working map and save that would probably be easiest.
@redrum will say anything to get an advanced look at any map in development.
Well the red arrow ammo unit is actually inspires by a unit I have seen in @Hepps map
@Frostion You could have said nothing and got away with it.
I would have known... but I would have said nothing. -
@Frostion There is of course not an official nomenclature, and this is fantasy, but "trebuchet" usually defines engines directly using dead weight or manpower to throw the projectile.
The main issue I have with something like artillery creating self-moving shells, assuming the artillery cannot move during combat move (to avoid sending that one into a battle and the shell into another one, which would be clearly absurd) is that you can move the mortar wherever you want, after having moved the shell into some combat; it would seem logical to me that artillery used to throw shells should be unable to move on a following phase. Secondarily, depending on real territory size and artillery range, it may make the only sense that the artillery has to go into the embattled territory, together with the shell.
-
@Cernel I see what you mean and that it is kind of strange that the ammo can shoot from one territory to another, plus that fact that the ammo can go one way and the siege engine another way. I can see the possibilities in having just an ammo-free unit, like a stand alone siege engine with its own strategic bombardment capability, that can join in an attack along side infantry. If the attacking force's first attack round (including strategic bombing) goes badly, forces could withdraw, leaving behind the siege engines to the enemy.
But when it comes down to it, it is also fun hurling ammo towards enemy units from a safe distance
not engaging them in battle. And also having the freedom of using the artillery shells as either normal suicide battle units or suicide strategic bomber units is nice.I guess it is a matter of gameplay, realism, fun and also a of how the intire unit set works as a whole, that will determine how the bombing and siege engines will ultimately work.
(But either way, it is in this map a MUST that the advantages of the fortifications get disabled when the fortification is kaput. Otherwise I have to rethink my concept. @redrum I will send you a playable map and recreation instructions in a few days from now.)
-
