A new option for factories

Schulz

Factories can be captured by enemy but never be used by enemies. Is there ay specific code for this kind of feature?

Hepps

@Schulz You could just have the unit set to change upon capture into an "enemy Factory" (which of course isn't a factory at all). Then you could set that unit to turn into a normal factory when captured by the original team.

Schulz

I really didn't understand you mean manually editing?

Hepps

@Schulz Ok.

So you set up your Factory unit as you normally would... But in the attachments you add...

whenCapturedChangesInto values: allows a unit to change into a different unit when captured from a specific player to a specific player. "fromPlayer:toPlayer:transferAttributes:unitType:numberOfUnits". accepts "any" instead of a player name. allows multiple.
examples: <option name="whenCapturedChangesInto" value="any:any:true:Minor_Factory:1"/> and <option name="whenCapturedChangesInto" value="Russians:Germans:false:gold:3:lumber:1"/>

For your purposes the attachment would be something like this...

However the unit "Enemy_Factory" would actually just be set up as an infrastructure unit with no production abilities at all.

Additionally the "Enemy_Factory" would have the same attachment added to it as above but in reverse... changing back to a normal Factory when it is captured by the original alliance.

It means each Nation on either side of the conflict would need both units in their Unit list.

Schulz

Looks way too complex for me. Anyway I find another way. Making every units separate for countries like germanInfantry or britishInfantry than setting up placement rules.

Hepps

@Schulz That actually WAYYYYY more work. But whatever floats your boat.

Schulz

Or could it work something like this: Making destroyable factory cost 0 with construction rules. Player can rebuild it after retaking territories.

Hepps

@Schulz So is a captured factory supposed to build nothing at all?

prastle

@Hepps Cor. He wants Slash and Burn but amazingly rebuilt if recaptured?

Schulz

My aim is just at least partly representing of logisics and increasing other strategies by decreasing stacking around factories. Capturing enemy factory is huge deal and impossible to recapture them in current engine.

Yes definitely you should unable to purchase any unit from captured factories.

Hepps

@Schulz Well differences in views aside. The mechanic would be pretty easy to make.

Then you could have something like this to distinguish the 2

Function vs not.png

Frostion

@Schulz
I can give you yet an example of the whenCapturedChangesInto feature that @Hepps has presented. Maybe you will find it useful.

In my new WoW map I use buildings that change type depending on who owns/captures them. One of them is an “Alliance-Stronghold”. Basically it is a city with Alliance supporters that only the Alliance players that can make good use of by getting free units every turn.

If enemy players capture the building called “Alliance-Stronghold” it turns into a “Suppressed-Alliance-Stronghold”, another unit type with different properties. If the building is again liberated, it turns back into the useful Alliance building again.

The unit(s) can look like this:

    <attachment name="unitAttachment" attachTo="Alliance-Stronghold" javaClass="games.strategy.triplea.attachments.UnitAttachment" type="unitType">
        <option name="isInfrastructure" value="true"/>
        <option name="createsUnitsList" value="1:Alliance-Footmen"/>
        <option name="whenCapturedChangesInto" value="any:Orcs:false:Suppressed-Alliance-Stronghold:1"/>
        <option name="whenCapturedChangesInto" value="any:Tauren:false:Suppressed-Alliance-Stronghold:1"/>
        <option name="whenCapturedChangesInto" value="any:Trolls:false:Suppressed-Alliance-Stronghold:1"/>
        <option name="whenCapturedChangesInto" value="any:Undead:false:Suppressed-Alliance-Stronghold:1"/>
    </attachment>


    <attachment name="unitAttachment" attachTo="Suppressed-Alliance-Stronghold" javaClass="games.strategy.triplea.attachments.UnitAttachment" type="unitType">
        <option name="isInfrastructure" value="true"/>
        <option name="createsResourcesList" value="3:PUs"/>
        <option name="whenCapturedChangesInto" value="any:Dwarves:false:Alliance-Stronghold:1"/>
        <option name="whenCapturedChangesInto" value="any:Gnomes:false:Alliance-Stronghold:1"/>
        <option name="whenCapturedChangesInto" value="any:Humans:false:Alliance-Stronghold:1"/>
        <option name="whenCapturedChangesInto" value="any:Night-Elves:false:Alliance-Stronghold:1"/>
    </attachment>

Hepps

@Frostion A better example could nary be found!

Schulz

Lets assume using v341 map its default factory:

Should I create 2 separate type factories for both axis and allies or need separate factories for each nations?

Axis Factory example;

also need any property (boolean)?

Thanks for good explanation.

Hepps

@Schulz I think for your purposes each nation would simply need a Factory and a Suppressed_Factory. I don't think you need to create the extra details since nothing in V3 is that complex.

The other thing is you should only need...

and for the other...

The second qualifying component (which you have defined as different units) is not a unit type that is capturing the territory, but rather a faction or nation... so unless you want a factory which is captured by say... Russia to have some other result other than creating a
suppressed_factory... then the above will work perfectly.

Schulz

In v3 map every nation have the same units but I need to customize them for apply this feature. I've copied NML's purchase model but it didn't work.

Any way to implement this feature by just one factory? Ex: One factory and one supressed factory?

Schulz

It gives this error when I tried to set up factories:

Unexpected Exception while setting values for attachmentUnitAttachment attached to:UnitType{name=factory} with name:unitAttachment

Probably need additional property.

Hepps

@Schulz If you send me the map package... knowing what you want... I can most likely get you to the finish line.

Schulz

https://www.sendspace.com/file/6w0okc

Hepps

@Schulz Will look at it at the first opportunity.