Domination 1914 No Man's Land - Official Thread
-
Would be great to see this fixed as I'm pretty sure most players do not even know that they have the choice to edit such situations when it arises.
It would be good to see a generalized rule as well considering TripleA allows for a variety of rule-sets with many options for units.
To clarify:
there is never a situation in which an attack 0 group should be denied the option to retreat.
We are considering only cases of stalemate? IE: a battle initiated with a non-zero attack but winds up being a 0 vs 0 attack with all defending and attacking units that had an attack/defense being taken as casualties, on the same round?
The update to the rule does allow for more option to teleport, but it is not quite as much as one would think.
Consider a transport and a cruiser vs the same. The percentages are:
A) 25% both miss
\B) 25% both hit
C) 25% attacker hits, defender misses
D) 25% defender hits and attacker missesToday, you'd have a 25% chance to execute a teleport, as you are relying on outcome A, any other outcome ends the battle. With the fix in place, you'd have a 50% chance to execute the teleport, as the transport could retreat in option B.
I want to clarify we are considering the stalemate option where there was originally an attacker with non-zero attack. If we make it more general so any time a zero vs zero battle happens, we open up a new teleport option, where transports can attack another transport and now be granted a retreat option, which is a fully deterministic and guaranteed teleport opportunity.
-
If the attacker has 0 firepower, the attacker should be forced to retreat at the end of the combat round. (To prevent conscripts and enemy trenches hanging out in the same territory as is currently the case.)
For this map that makes sense, as a generalized rule we would actually be breaking the v3 rules that does grant the option. It could be a tricky set of rules to encode, perhaps map/rule specific.
-
@redrum said in Domination 1914 No Man's Land - Official Thread:
@Cernel @KurtGodel7 @Hepps Given that in A&A v3+ rules when each side only has transports left which have no attack/defense value they are allowed to retreat, I think that should probably extend to any "stalemate" situation where both sides have no attack/defense power left. So I think the minimum change here is instead of forcing them to stay in the territory they should be offered the choice to retreat this also makes the behavior more consistent for the other scenarios discussed around using retreat to move units (which while gamey is how things work).
Would you agree with that and are there any situations you can think of that a group attackers with 0 attack power against a group of defenders with 0 attack power should not be offered the choice to retreat?
The change to TripleA would just be to add a retreat option if the stalemate is detected and if there are valid retreat paths then the user can retreat otherwise they will just stay in the territory like they do today.
If you mean that, then, you would be able to send only conscripts into a territory with only trenches, to make a strafe, I completely disagree with that, on multiple levels, namely:
- You can never do that with v3 transports.
- You cannot strafe trenches only with 1 infantry unit and 1 conscript unit, as all trenches are automatically destroyed, so I think having 0 attack power should not give you options that are denied to 1 attack power (this would be fine, instead, if infantry would be allowed to strafe trenches alone as long as not killing them all in 1 combat round).
- If you automatically extend the v3 stalemate rule of transport, then it makes the only sense extending the v3 transport inability to attack alone, thus you could never send conscript alone against anything, unless you have the option to ignore that anything (substantially a no-retreat stalemate, like now).
More in general, I think this stalemate thing should not automatically apply generally. Not a player of this one, but I personally would have stalemate never happening on land in this game at all, keeping it as a transport-only special rule. It's just weird and borderline, and also doesn't make sense that defenceless units cannot avoid you staying in a territory but they can avoid you conquering that same territory.
For what @KurtGodel7 said (0 v 0 battle, must retreat, and so on). I believe me and him agree on everything, on this matter, except that I believe that conscripts alone should not be able to attack. But I also believe that there should be a property for that, and that, then, this map could have that property false, if preferred letting conscript strafe alone, so no real disagreement, game-wise.
-
You bring up a good point with respect to transports and transport teleports. I've played at least 50 games of this map, and don't recall seeing potential transport teleport situations arise in any of those 50 games. On the other hand I wasn't really looking for such situations either! I don't have a strong preference for how the issue of transport teleporting is resolved, because I believe such situations are extremely rare.
The way I see it there are three changes being discussed: two minor and one major.
Minor change 1: Allow the attacker the option of retreating when it's 0 firepower attacking 0 firepower (at least for land attacks).
Minor change 2: Forcing the attacker to retreat after the end of the combat round when it's 0 firepower attacking 0 firepower (at least for land attacks). Units which cannot retreat are destroyed.
Major change 1: Forbidding conscript-only attacks.I think you and I are in agreement on the two minor changes but disagreement about the major change. As there appears to be a consensus (more or less) on the two minor changes it would make sense to move forward with them. Before making a decision about the major change it would make sense to see how many of the Domination 1914 NML community feel it would make the game better, or who (like me) feel it would make the game strictly and significantly worse.
-
@KurtGodel7 Well, if I understand correctly what we are talking about, the change is not that minor.
Currently, if you have a territory with only trenches in it, you can never strafe it, because if you attack with positive power, you instantly destroy all trenches and take the territory, while if you attack it with only conscripts, you instantly stalemate.
What I understand @redrum is pushing for, instead, is that the case of positive power unable to strafe remains the same, while you can attack the only-trench territory with conscripts only and decide whether to strafe or stalemate.
Is this really that minor, and does it make sense that 1 infantry and 1 conscript cannot strafe 100 trenches while 100 conscripts can strafe 1 trench?
-
@Cernel Really the question should be is why does an a trench defend at all? The ditch somehow has the ability to thwart an invasion at all if undefended? The concept itself is asinine.
The problem here is really about how these were designed in the first place.
-
Hmm, the rule change that sparked this latest topic of conversation is over retreat during stalemate. That implies an initial battle has taken place. Now, for example, if a transport attacks another transport, no battle takes place. In that example there is no battle, no retreat option. Changing it so a battle does occur would be quite significant as it would violate existing rules of most other maps.
-
@LaFayette Yep, there are no cases in any rulesets in which you can attack since start in a 0 vs 0 situation, then retreat, after one round of "no-rolling" combat. The transport retreating before stalemate can only happen at the end of a round where dice were rolled, on both sides, and all those units were mutually destroyed, leaving transports alone. This is reinforced by the prohibition on transports to actually move to attack alone, ever, that is not a v3 invention either, but existed already in Classic (v1). Yes, in Classic it is illegal sending transports alone in a battle (likely, to strafe), despite the fact that TripleA lets you do it.
-
@Cernel said in Domination 1914 No Man's Land - Official Thread:
@KurtGodel7 Well, if I understand correctly what we are talking about, the change is not that minor.
Currently, if you have a territory with only trenches in it, you can never strafe it, because if you attack with positive power, you instantly destroy all trenches and take the territory, while if you attack it with only conscripts, you instantly stalemate.
What I understand @redrum is pushing for, instead, is that the case of positive power unable to strafe remains the same, while you can attack the only-trench territory with conscripts only and decide whether to strafe or stalemate.
Is this really that minor, and does it make sense that 1 infantry and 1 conscript cannot strafe 100 trenches while 100 conscripts can strafe 1 trench?
Whether a change is minor or major depends on two factors: 1) The percentage of games in which the change will have an impact, and 2) The extent of the impact said change will have.
Suppose that Russia has conscripts in Volgograd and Moscow. It wants to teleport all conscripts to Volgograd. Germany has 1 trench in Don, and Russia would like to use the trench to accomplish the teleport. Under current rules Russia cannot accomplish the teleport--not unless Germany has discovered bunkers tech. (If Germany has bunkers tech Russia can teleport under current rules.) But if Germany lacks that tech Russia cannot accomplish the teleport under current rules, but could achieve it under the rules I'm proposing.
The question is: how often would the following all be true:
- Russia desires a conscript teleport
- There is a lone Central trench potentially available for teleporting through
- The Central power owning the trench does not yet have bunkers tech
I'm guessing that the above-described situation would occur maybe once every 35 - 40 games or so. Allowing the conscript teleport could make a moderately impactful difference in that rare game. I classified my two favored changes as "minor" because they will have no impact at all on the vast majority of games played.
A conscript and a transport are not the same thing. Conscripts can and should be taken as casualties ahead of other units, which of course cannot be done for transports. Rules which make sense for conscripts do not necessarily make sense for transports, and vice versa. After reading recent comments, I've decided there is not a compelling need to change transport retreat rules at this time. The proposed minor changes are strictly to eliminate the problem of land stalemates. Those rules changes should be applied to land units only, both to minimize the extend of the change, and to maintain consistency between transport behavior in this map and transport behavior in other maps using the same rules set.
-
I'm leaning towards believing that the best solution is letting conscripts alone attack basic (defence 0) trenches alone and, in any case you have conscripts alone against trenches alone, conscripts can never retreat, but automatically conquer the territory and destroy all trenches.
Practically, having conscripts alone against trenches alone working exactly like infantry alone against trenches alone.
Only talking about the defence 0 trenches. Defence 1 trenches would remain working exactly as they have always been.
-
-
2.0 has a new XML option
canRetreatOnStalemate. We can use that to explicitly allow conscripts an option to retreat on stalemate. Is there consensus to enable it, or just leave be? -
@LaFayette said in Domination 1914 No Man's Land - Official Thread:
2.0 has a new XML option
canRetreatOnStalemate. We can use that to explicitly allow conscripts an option to retreat on stalemate. Is there consensus to enable it, or just leave be?I'm fine with enabling it.
-
The latest version of this map has a fix for 'victory bonds' and that should work again.
-
I've enhanced the flags please consider to add them;
-
Hello,
Where can I find national objectives and triggers for Dommination? I saw reference to a set of rules but haven't been able to find them. -
@majesticfeet The game has no national objectives and its triggers are all related with techs.
-
@schulz Thank you, I appreciate it!
-
Schulz's post is accurate. In addition to what he wrote, I recommend reading the game notes. Some units are a little different in this map than in any other map.
-
@kurtgodel7 Thank you, though I am always suspect when the message comes from the KGD (Close enough, trying to work a joke in there about 7....007 but haven't figured out how to make it work). I have seen the 'Features' section when you are looking at the map, is that what you are talking about?
I am still just playing against the AI. For me it is difficult....probably due to distractions that cause me to miss moves. What is the general consensus, on how it plays out.
Does the Entente usually win or does the Central Powers over whelm the ground forces in the middle first?
I understand the huge a-historical German navy and subs are meant to balance the game but how does it play without them?
So far it seems the best strategy I have come up with for the Entente is take over neutrals (Baluchistan and possibly Ethiopia) to deal with Germany in Africa and the expansion of Turkey.
I think I have figured out how to nullify the Germans in the Pacific but not how to knock out their base (usually).
The next question would be, is it better to leave the base in Africa and the Pacific to draw income out of Germany to keep it from the large fronts?
John
