Another ways to solve huge stack issue
-
@SilverBullet I have been working on a mod for AA50 that uses upkeep costs. AA50-41-Maintenance.xml
All units cost 1 per turn except battleships costs 2 while transports, factories and AA guns are free. I gave each player 15 extra PU's/turn & 1 tech token/turn. The US gets an additional bonus = to the turn#. The Chinese get random units.
I find that the game does work. The flat extra income makes Russia less vulnerable to being steamrolled. Upkeep can be useful in game, but you need to balance it with income.
One surprising effect for upkeep costs is the defeated powers can bounce back more quickly. When I last played as Russia, Moscow fell after a tough struggle with the Germans. The British will able to retake it and without any units to pay for and flat extra income I was able to build units more quickly than the Axis.
-
@RogerCooper i am used to "upkeep" in Magic: the Gathering, but not this game! i am willing to try it, just gonna take time to get used to it.
-
@Schulz
I have up to 2000 units on my NWO map (4 Nations).
And there is only one thing i would ever consider to use against too much units, which is subjective, its upkeep.
Works like a charm.
My problem atm is not about the upkeep relationship within the units, but the upkeep in relation to the construction costs. But thats another story.
Furthermore i tend to see attack potential more valuable then defensive passive approach like bunkers. To give more potential to a defensive strategy, i came up to my following rough system of upkeep:
A totally defensive unit like a bunker (2HP!) costs 1 upkeep, and therefore is the cheapest upkeep but is not as cheap to construct.
Bunker (2HP) = 1 upkeep = 0.5 upkeep/hp
A unit like my Entrenched Infantry can move but only in noncombat. So its less passive, hence more upkeep.
Entrechend Inf = 1 upkeep = 1 upkeep/hp
Normal units, which can combat move are the most expensive ones.
Any normal unit = 2 upkeep (4 if 2 HP) = 2 upkeep/hpIn short:
Attacking is more expensive than defending, because attacking is more difficult (in reality) hence more demanding.
Defensive strategie is then a good way to save money. Moving needs more energy, sitting not.As Germany on a NWO map, you have sometimes alot of ground to cover, at least in my mod, so you have a real option of going bunkers and Entrechnments to save money, to get enough hp to cover all directions.
Another big plus of upkeep is the fact that if one side looses a huge army stack (in my case i lost around 140 hp in one battle), it frees up alot of upkeep. In my case around 250 worth of production. That means that games are much more intresting and not over in one big decicive battle. Helps alot for AI btw, it recoveres so to speak. Therefore one tend to play more aggressive in a way, whether its on the defensive side or the attackers. Yes, you can play a from rushing to a passive aggressive strategy lol.
Blitz and then dig in and Bunker (Atlantic Wall) -
@TorpedoA I would want to try these games with upkeep as well especially wondering how would these high upkeep rates work.
Its dubious for me how could 1 upkeep work for infantry in NWO when infantry cost is already 2. It would be perfectly fine for me if infantry and armour had the same upkeep since NWO unit set up is already more defensive oriented than A&A series. Otherwise I can see a major rebalance would be needed if upkeep was added to NWO as optional rule.
So I would favour of either increasing base incomes or folding in ten unit prices and territory values then assigning upkeeps. Factories definitely do not need upkeep. AAguns might have lower upkeep per cost than air units similar to the bunker situation. I would prefer higher upkeep rates as much as possible without decreasing tactical options since higher reversibility is great thing which makes games more interesting.
-
@Schulz I would keep Upkeep very simple and not worry about the ratio of the purchase price to Upkeep.
I think of Upkeep as the supply of POL (petrol, oil, lubricants), ammunition and food and water, each turn.
An Elite infantry unit will consume the same Upkeep as a Raw Infantry unit.
Generalising I would advise 1 Upkeep per Hit Point per unit, so usually 1 per unit.
In designing my games almost no rebalancing was done because of the addition of Upkeep, so give it a try.
The best thing about Upkeep is its just a one liner in the xml for each unit.
Adding Upkeep gives extra dimensions to the game;
- Super stacks of units consume a lot of PU in Upkeep for the gain of just one territory, so is that worth it?
- Do I delay buying units as I will save PU?
- If I commit many units to a battle front overall I will have less PU to commit to another front.
- The more I defend, the less PU I have to to spend, so it encourages aggressive play.
- In one game I was so defensive I had too many units consuming Upkeep I could not buy any more units.
-
It would be fine for me 1 upkeep per hp if the game achieved decent balance among sides and units. I even prefer any kind of upkeep to no upkeep at all.
My concern for 1 upkeep per HP is its really high upkeep especially for cheapest cannon fodders. It may be not problem at all for maps which logictic and base productions are less important. USA might be really crippled too in some WWII maps since it would mean losing 33%-50% value of infantries before even moving them somewhere assuming USA is incapable of crossing Atlantic in 1 round.
-
Im sure this has been said before, but just in case.
"The gross national product of the U.S., as measured in constant dollars, grew from $88.6 billion in 1939 — while the country was still suffering from the depression — to $135 billion in 1944. War-related production skyrocketed from just two percent of GNP to 40 percent in 1943 (Milward, 63)"
Taken from here.
https://eh.net/encyclopedia/the-american-economy-during-world-war-ii/#:~:text=The gross national product of,1943 (Milward%2C 63).So thats a 50%-ish increase in PU from 1939 to 1944 should be factored if using historical figures.
This can be coded as a National bonus, a few maps have done this, including my Settler maps.
-
@Schulz
Short view of some unit costs i have which are considered by the AI balanced, proven by the purchase by AI itself. Means, that close to all of my priced units are being actually purchased by AI.
Because if the AI doesnt buy it. There is something wrong with the cost. Thats my approach to pricing, because i play only AI games, shame on me.
One thing to note here is that i have exessive amount of support attachments. Like really exessive. All units have multiple strenghts and weaknesses additional to the base values. Bare that in mind. Thats because the costs below, are only consistent and balanced around that fact above.
It would be too much to talk about it now, but i tried a heavy Rock Scissor Paper to implement into it.
Here we go: (att/def/mov/cost)(unit names are generalized, i have most of them with unique names like Ju87, P-47, Matilda etc)Infantry 1 2 1 = 4 PU
Elite 1 3 1 = 5 PU
Stormtrooper 2 3 1 = 6 PU
Hvy Infantry 2 4 1 = 7 PUMot Inf 1 2 2 = 6 PU
Mot Elite 1 3 2 = 7 PU
Mech Inf 2 3 2 = 8 PUArty 3 1 1 = 5 PU
Katyusha 3 1 2 = 7 PU
Mech Arty 3 2 2 = 8 PU
Light Tank slow 2 2 1 = 5 PU
Light Tank fast 2 2 2 = 7 PU
Medium Tank slow = 7 PU
Medium Tank fast = 9 PU(below i only view the normal combat values, because air att/def is not recognized by AI purchase, btw aircraft costs are the most difficult ones to set right for AI)
Fighter short 2 2 4 = 11
Fighter medium 2 2 5 = 13
Fighter long 2 2 6 = 16Attack aircraft and Hvy Fighter
short 3 3 4 = 15
long 3 3 5 = 18Heavy Bomber medium 4 1 5 = 19
Heavy Bomber long 4 1 6 = 23From another post i made, yet got no answer but ingame there is a function which could be more insightfull about unit costs i guess.
Ingame: Debug -> Hard AI Settings -> AI Logging
->Efficieny values !?Gathered data from different basic unit example variations out of AI Logging to help reading:
Example land units (movement ignored: doesnt change Efficiency)A/D @ PUs = hitPointEfficiency - attackEfficiency - defenseEffieciency
1/1 @ 1 PU = 1.4 ---------------- 5.0 --------------- 5.0
1/1 @ 2 PU = 0.7 ---------------- 2.5 --------------- 2.52/2 @ 1 PU = 1.8 ---------------- 8.0 --------------- 8.0
2/2 @ 2 PU = 0.9 ---------------- 4.0 --------------- 4.01/2 @ 1 PU = 1.6 ---------------- 6.0 --------------- 7.0
1/1 @ 4 PU = 0.35 --------------- 1.25 ------------- 1.25
1/2 @ 4 PU = 0.4 ---------------- 1.5 --------------- 1.75I see a pattern, but........math is not my strength
-
@TorpedoA which nwo mod
-
@beelee its the NWO 5 Nations map, modded by myself over the past 2 years.
-
@beelee
outdated and not ready in any terms to be dowloaded or played by player vs player, just a personal creation of mine with hundreds of hours playtime and modding to my likings:
this is a topic i created time ago about it. But the mod is already different.
https://forums.triplea-game.org/topic/2153/i-like-to-share-a-nwo-mod-of-mine-in-a-fast-simple-way-but-how -
@TorpedoA Sounds way sweet. Bet you have a lot of good ideas. I'll try and check it out soon.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login