Mixed Questions
-
Can the current engine handle having 33 nations proplerly? (Only 2-4 selectable combatants, some of them aren't even present in the set up)
-
I have 18 on my current map, and besides my coding errors, it has worked fine. My guess is that it would work fine. i see another one with 26.
-
@Schulz
Frostions Warcraft Heroes has ~36? different players, 8 main and the rest are in the background so it should probably be ok in your case as well. -
I have issues to launch Warcraft thinking is has something to do with the heavy game.
-
-
-
-
-
So how could we give reasons to seemingly losing side to continue to fight? Any good ideas? Maybe giving an income bonus only once if their income significantly lowered and introducing draw option other than losing or winning?
-
@Schulz what would your goal with this be?
-
@Schulz so people won't quit as soon as things go bad ? If so, I'd have a tiered victory system. TKO. Major, Minor, Draw. It would work best in a league system or tournament. Deciding what the requirements of each are would be the challenge. Could go by X rounds and X territories controlled, number of PUs or resources. etc...
You still need to crunch that all out. Lots of test games or just games in general would be the way to go. You should be able to start out with something basic and adjust accordingly.
You could also give a Mulligan of one redo of a battle. Or 3 rerolls per game. I'd say only one reroll per battle though. I've seen people who play that way, or something similar, but don't remember who. Personally when things go bad, I look at it as a challenge.
I may have misunderstood you though
-
The purpose is preventing anti climatic ends because currently even if losing side lost slighly it momemtum it becomes clear that nothing can turn the tide of war. Even a few mistake in initial rounds can lead unavoidable defeat it may be good for people expecting the course of war decided in a few rounds but I wouldn't want it.
-
@Schulz
I think an aspect that might help is high maintenance costs, something like 50% of the cost to build. I also don't like how often a single loss in a large battle of just one theater decides a long game on a very large board.Maintenance costs would make losing units less bad. Like if someone killed 10 of my fighters while losing 5, on a typical map that's a 50 TUV loss for me. But with 50% maintenance costs, I would save 25 PUs by the next turn, it could help a nation recover after a serious loss.
-
@Schulz You could have the territories commonly under contention not be worth nearly as much (or zero). Then you could take the time to fall back and regroup without it costing that much.
-
I've decided to implement a few things actually to achieve that but they are still not enough.
-No building new factory
-No using captured factory
-Even if nations lost their capital, they still continue to collect incomes and mobilize units as long as they are still controlling their original factories.Its good idea keeping values low as much as possible in battle fronts to flexibilty but everything still revolving around incomes. I like maintenance too but not really higher than %10 to achieve that we need fractional numbers.
By simplifying, for example in a WWII scenario Axis has no chance to avoid total defeat ( I emphasize avoiding total defeat not pursuing total victory) if they are pushed back Jun41/Dec41 borders even if they start exactly with the same position.
I am going to agree that triggering a bonus incomes for nations once or twice depends on their positions and differet results like total victory/lose conditional victory/surrender and draw. I am welcome to more idea.
-
@Schulz I am not really sure what your goal is with this. If I were playing against the axis and pushed them back, i wouldn't want them to suddenly get some boost or other that might let them get back into that game. The whole goal of the game is to do just that too them. Just having the game balanced well at the start is probably the best way to build the game. I could see higher maintenance costs relative to unit cost maybe helping, as if you lose a bad fight, you would be able to build back relatively quickly.
-
If I would want to create a Falkland War scenario, should Argentina really has to invade Britain to end the war?
-
@Schulz I would try victory conditions then. There is a civil war map that has some different style victory conditions, that might work well.
-
I wonder what should be the correct costings between naval and air units for medium sized WWII maps that using v3 rules?
Basically should fighters be more cost efficient at destroying cruisers, carrier/fighters and battleships or not?
In Anniversary edition, I feel cruiser's and battleship's naval bombardment abilities no not outweight destroyer/carrier/fighter combo, the naval bombardment even became less effective if bunkers are exist.
-
@Schulz I have been giving some thought to unit interactions now that have "cannot target" as an option. I was thinking that we could use this to have more realistic interactions at sea. My idea is:
- Bombers can't target ships except for transports and can't target air units
- Fighters can only target destroyers, transports and other aircraft
- Tactical Bombers can target everything except fighters
- Subs can't target or be targeted by air units.
- Destroyers have an AA like capability against subs. Destroyers can't target bombers
- Cruisers/Battleships/Carriers can't target fighters or subs
Note not targeting can be advantage in some circumstances. Bombers are perfect for destroying transports and are otherwise useless at sea.
I am suggesting that only destroyers can target subs because the specialized ASW aircraft were not suitable for other combat purposes, so they can be included in the capability of the destroyers.
