How do you make a unit autodestroyed if alone without being an infrastructure or a transport

redrum

@Cernel That seems correct. Should be able to do a quick test to validate it.

Cernel

I've also tested the offence 0 case.

In "Lord of the Rings: Middle Earth", if I send hobbits only in attack, they will not automatically die.

In the same map, if I add this property (and remove all transport capacity options):

                <property name="Transport Casualties Restricted" value="true" editable="false">
                        <boolean/>
                </property>

They still not automatically die.

So, I've tried giving hobbits both attack and defence value of 0 (previously they have attack 0 and defence 1).

They still not automatically die.

So, I've removed from the hobbits the artillery supportable option (even though I was sending hobbits alone, so that didn't matter).

They still not automatically die.

So, I've removed all options from the hobbits (this way they are attack, defence and movement all 0), and edited them into the enemy territory to attack. So now the hobbits are this:

    <attachment name="unitAttachment" attachTo="hobbits" javaClass="games.strategy.triplea.attachments.UnitAttachment" type="unitType">
    </attachment>

The program is not accepting that I want all default. So I have to have at least 1 option, it seems. So this:

    <attachment name="unitAttachment" attachTo="hobbits" javaClass="games.strategy.triplea.attachments.UnitAttachment" type="unitType">
      <option name="attack" value="0"/>
    </attachment>

Now the hobbits are all destroyed automatically while attacking.

So, wondering this was maybe because of having no retreat zones, I've changed the hobbits to this:

    <attachment name="unitAttachment" attachTo="hobbits" javaClass="games.strategy.triplea.attachments.UnitAttachment" type="unitType">
      <option name="movement" value="1"/>
      <option name="attack" value="0"/>
      <option name="defense" value="0"/>
    </attachment>

But, instead of moving anything, I edited all the hobbits in the enemy territory to attack, so to have no retreat choices (the hobbits all attacking without using their movement 1).

Now the hobbits are all destroyed automatically while attacking, as well.

So, with the same coded game (xml) file, I, again, attacked by moving into, thus having the retreat option.

Again, in this case, they don't automatically die.

So now I've set the "Transport Casualties Restricted" option false, and edited all the hobbits inside the enemy territory to attack, so to have no retreat choices.

Now, instead, the hobbits don't automatically die (I have no choices, having no retreat abilities, but I must make all combat rounds needed for the enemy to kills all my hobbits).

So, it seems that the program behaves the following way:

Non infrastructure land units are automatically destroyed in attack, against defending units, only if all these conditions are verified:

The "Transport Casualties Restricted" property is true.
All attacking land units have "attack" value 0.
The attacking land units have no retreat options.

However, to be sure about this matter, I would need a developer to tell exactly how the attack case work, and under what conditions non-infrastructure and non-transport attacking units are automatically destroyed.

redrum

@Cernel So I'm assuming this works different for attacking transports?

Cernel

@redrum I intend to test the same scenario with "World War II Revised" transports instead of "Lord of the Rings: Middle Earth" hobbitses, making the same steps.

Cernel

In "World War II Revised", if I send transports only in attack, they will not automatically die.

In the same map, if I add this property:

                <property name="Transport Casualties Restricted" value="true" editable="false">
                        <boolean/>
                </property>

and remove all transport capacity options, also setting movement equal to 1, so that now transports are not actually able to transport anything, this being its new attachment:

    <attachment name="unitAttachment" attachTo="transport" javaClass="games.strategy.triplea.attachments.UnitAttachment" type="unitType">
      <option name="movement" value="1"/>
      <option name="isSea" value="true"/>
      <option name="attack" value="0"/>
      <option name="defense" value="1"/>
    </attachment>

They still not automatically die.

So, I've tried giving transports both attack and defence value of 0, this being the new attachment:

    <attachment name="unitAttachment" attachTo="transport" javaClass="games.strategy.triplea.attachments.UnitAttachment" type="unitType">
      <option name="movement" value="1"/>
      <option name="isSea" value="true"/>
      <option name="attack" value="0"/>
      <option name="defense" value="0"/>
    </attachment>

They still not automatically die.

So, I've removed all options from the transports but only the "is sea" one, set at true, and edited them into the hostile sea zone to attack:

    <attachment name="unitAttachment" attachTo="transport" javaClass="games.strategy.triplea.attachments.UnitAttachment" type="unitType">
      <option name="isSea" value="true"/>
    </attachment>

Now the transports are all destroyed automatically while attacking.

So, wondering this was maybe because of having no retreat zones, I've changed the transports to this:

    <attachment name="unitAttachment" attachTo="transport" javaClass="games.strategy.triplea.attachments.UnitAttachment" type="unitType">
      <option name="movement" value="1"/>
      <option name="isSea" value="true"/>
      <option name="attack" value="0"/>
      <option name="defense" value="0"/>
    </attachment>

But, instead of moving anything, I edited all the transports in the hostile sea zone to attack, so to have no retreat choices (the transports all attacking without using their movement 1).

Now the transports are all destroyed automatically while attacking, as well.

So, with the same coded game (xml) file, I, again, attacked by moving into, thus having the retreat option.

Again, in this case, they don't automatically die.

So now I've set the "Transport Casualties Restricted" option false, and edited all the transports inside the enemy territory to attack, so to have no retreat choices.

Now, instead, the transports don't automatically die (I have no choices, having no retreat abilities, but I must make all combat rounds needed for the enemy to kills all my transports).

So, it seems that the program behaves the following way:

Non infrastructure and non transport (I've used the unit called "transport", but without transport capacity assigned, thus they are transports in name only) sea units are automatically destroyed in attack, against defending units, only if all these conditions are verified:

The "Transport Casualties Restricted" property is true.
All attacking land units have "attack" value 0.
The attacking land units have no retreat options.

This means that, as long as they are both non transports, offenceless land and sea units appear behaving the same way.

Of course, actual sea transports under the "Transport Casualties Restricted" property should, instead, behave like "transport" units currently do in "World War II v3 1941".

Cernel

I've tested "World War II v3 1941" transports (no changes made to the game (xml) file), editing 99 Germans transports in 3 Sea Zone and sending them all alone to attack 2 Sea Zone.

The offenceless (actual) transports are never automatically destroyed, but you are kept being presented with the option of retreating or press the attack.

Gameplay wise, this behaviour allows you to "strafe" with only (offenceless) transports, by sending transports from different sea zones, retreating them all into one of them.

I believe this is a rules consistent behaviour, as far as v3 goes, as the only ruleset in which you cannot send transports only in attack is Classic, while from Revised onwards you can do it. And in all rulesets, from Classic to v5, offenceless transports alone are never automatically destroyed, if they can retreat.

@Panther for confirmation.

From the testing, therefore, it seems that offenceless sea units behave the same way, in attack, regardless of having transport capacity or not (and, in turn, they behave the same way as offenceless land units).

Basically here TripleA, with the autodestruction of offenceless, appears doing nothing but saving you time, in the case in which you have no retreat ability, thus you would eventually lose all transports anyways. What is strange (and makes no sense to me), however, is that this autodestruction behaviour is apparently related to a v3 only property, while, per correct intended rules, transports alone and unable to retreat were autodestroyed already back in Classic (and would make sense just to do it in any case, if only since it's just a time saving feature, apparently (I guess one should also test the case of offenceless units having offensive AA attacks)).

Panther

@Cernel
In Anniversary and later rulesets you can't send only transports to a sea battle. By the rules "Transports may not attack in a sea battle without being accompanied by at least one unit with an attack value."

Cernel

@Panther Ah, didn't remember that. I thought that transports were just regular combat units except for taken last and defenceless autoremoval.

So, is it Revised the only ruleset in which you can send transports alone in attack?

Cernel

@Panther said in How do you make a unit autodestroyed if alone without being an infrastructure or a transport:

@Cernel
In Anniversary and later rulesets you can't send only transports to a sea battle. By the rules "Transports may not attack in a sea battle without being accompanied by at least one unit with an attack value."

Anyways, aside from the fact that you cannot send them alone, I believe all the rest is consistent. I mean, once they are alone in offence and they can retreat, you are free to keep having them killed or retreat any time you want right, without any autoremoval? Only Classic you are obliged to retreat them as soon as you can.

Cernel

@Panther said in How do you make a unit autodestroyed if alone without being an infrastructure or a transport:

@Cernel
In Anniversary and later rulesets you can't send only transports to a sea battle. By the rules "Transports may not attack in a sea battle without being accompanied by at least one unit with an attack value."

Can you give the page? I'm not finding it in the Anniversary rulebook hosted at https://www.axisandallies.org/

Panther

@Cernel said in How do you make a unit autodestroyed if alone without being an infrastructure or a transport:

@Panther Ah, didn't remember that. I thought that transports were just regular combat units except for taken last and defenceless autoremoval.

So, is it Revised the only ruleset in which you can send transports alone in attack?

In Revised you can combat move a transport into a hostile space but it can't attack. If it survives the defensive fire step, it can retreat,

From the FAQ:

Q. What happens when two opposing transports are in the same sea zone with no other units?
By itself, a transport may not attack. Is there combat?
A. The moving transport can’t attack. That doesn’t mean it can’t make a combat move by itself into a
hostile space. When it does, if it survives the defensive fire step, then it can retreat. If for some
reason the transport isn’t willing to retreat, then it’s doomed, because eventually the opponent will roll a 1.

Cernel

@Panther said in How do you make a unit autodestroyed if alone without being an infrastructure or a transport:

@Cernel said in How do you make a unit autodestroyed if alone without being an infrastructure or a transport:

@Panther Ah, didn't remember that. I thought that transports were just regular combat units except for taken last and defenceless autoremoval.

So, is it Revised the only ruleset in which you can send transports alone in attack?

In Revised you can combat move a transport into a hostile space but it can't attack. If it survives the defensive fire step, it can retreat,

From the FAQ:

Q. What happens when two opposing transports are in the same sea zone with no other units?
By itself, a transport may not attack. Is there combat?
A. The moving transport can’t attack. That doesn’t mean it can’t make a combat move by itself into a
hostile space. When it does, if it survives the defensive fire step, then it can retreat. If for some
reason the transport isn’t willing to retreat, then it’s doomed, because eventually the opponent will roll a 1.

Yes, that's what I said. So, only Revised, both OOB and LHTR, and not Classic nor Anniversary and later, confirmed (I'm still not finding it in the Anniversary rulebook, but I trust you, just curious to read it)?

Panther

@Cernel said in How do you make a unit autodestroyed if alone without being an infrastructure or a transport:

@Panther said in How do you make a unit autodestroyed if alone without being an infrastructure or a transport:

@Cernel
In Anniversary and later rulesets you can't send only transports to a sea battle. By the rules "Transports may not attack in a sea battle without being accompanied by at least one unit with an attack value."

Can you give the page? I'm not finding it in the Anniversary rulebook hosted at https://www.axisandallies.org/

Page 31, download the latest version including the clarification here:
https://avalonhill.wizards.com/rules

It is a clarification only, no new rule.

Cernel

@Panther said in How do you make a unit autodestroyed if alone without being an infrastructure or a transport:

@Cernel said in How do you make a unit autodestroyed if alone without being an infrastructure or a transport:

@Panther said in How do you make a unit autodestroyed if alone without being an infrastructure or a transport:

@Cernel
In Anniversary and later rulesets you can't send only transports to a sea battle. By the rules "Transports may not attack in a sea battle without being accompanied by at least one unit with an attack value."

Can you give the page? I'm not finding it in the Anniversary rulebook hosted at https://www.axisandallies.org/

Page 31, download the latest version including the clarification here:
https://avalonhill.wizards.com/rules

It is a clarification only, no new rule.

How can it be a clarification only if it is not in the original? You mean it is an "errata", then (a rulebook change after print)?

Panther

@Cernel Because Krieghund stated at the time the reprint had been issued that the rulebook reprint does not contain any new rules but only rewordings and clarifications.
The rulebook reprint includes most of the FAQ and errata, indeed.

Cernel

@Panther said in How do you make a unit autodestroyed if alone without being an infrastructure or a transport:

@Cernel Because Krieghund stated at the time the reprint had been issued that the rulebook reprint does not contain any new rules but only rewordings and clarifications.
The rulebook reprint includes most of the FAQ and errata, indeed.

Well, it can be officially stated so, but in the moment a new rulebook has something like "Transports may not attack in a sea battle without being accompanied by at least one unit with an attack value. ", while the previous one didn't have anything, as far as I can tell, that was telling me that was not allowed, I would call that addition an "errata", or rule change, but, errata or clarifications, that doesn't matter here. So thanks for the clarification or update or whatever it is.

Panther

@Cernel said in How do you make a unit autodestroyed if alone without being an infrastructure or a transport:

I mean, once they are alone in offence and they can retreat, you are free to keep having them killed or retreat any time you want right, without any autoremoval?

Yes. autoremoval applies to defenseless (defending) transports only.

For completeness: In case the battle leaves an attacking transport facing a defending transport only, the option to remain in the contested seazone is given ("transport stalemate").

Cernel

@Panther said in How do you make a unit autodestroyed if alone without being an infrastructure or a transport:

@Cernel said in How do you make a unit autodestroyed if alone without being an infrastructure or a transport:

I mean, once they are alone in offence and they can retreat, you are free to keep having them killed or retreat any time you want right, without any autoremoval?

Yes. autoremoval applies to defenseless (defending) transports only.

For completeness: In case the battle leaves an attacking transport facing a defending transport only, the option to remain in the contested seazone is given ("transport stalemate").

Yeah, and, for what I tested so far, the stalemate between offenceless and defenceless always work (wrongly, when you can retreat, as you are not offered the retreat choice, but this is off topic), not requiring the "Transport Casualties Restricted" v3 property to be true, that is another element of inconsistency with the fact that both offensive and defensive autoremovals work only if that property is true, instead, that is particularly nonsensical in the moment the stalemate exists only since v3, while the offensive autoremoval, if you cannot retreat only, exists in Classic, instead (of course, on defence only since v3 too, as before there were no defence 0 units).

Cernel

I've also tested that, as long as you have the "Transport Casualties Restricted" property true, if you send only these units:

                <attachment name="unitAttachment" attachTo="catapult" javaClass="games.strategy.triplea.attachments.UnitAttachment" type="unitType">
                         <option name="movement" value="1"/>
                         <option name="attack" value="4"/>
                         <option name="attackRolls" value="0"/>
                </attachment>

into a territory with only these units:

                <attachment name="unitAttachment" attachTo="wall" javaClass="games.strategy.triplea.attachments.UnitAttachment" type="unitType">
                         <option name="movement" value="0"/>
                </attachment>

All defending units are immediately destroyed, so there is no stalemate, despite both sides actually having no power (if by power we mean strength multiplied by rolls).

Of course, instead, if these units are sent:

                <attachment name="unitAttachment" attachTo="catapult" javaClass="games.strategy.triplea.attachments.UnitAttachment" type="unitType">
                         <option name="movement" value="1"/>
                         <option name="attack" value="0"/>
                         <option name="attackRolls" value="1"/>
                </attachment>

into a territory with only these units:

                <attachment name="unitAttachment" attachTo="wall" javaClass="games.strategy.triplea.attachments.UnitAttachment" type="unitType">
                         <option name="movement" value="0"/>
                </attachment>

Then, they stalemate.

Instead, sending only these units:

                <attachment name="unitAttachment" attachTo="catapult" javaClass="games.strategy.triplea.attachments.UnitAttachment" type="unitType">
                         <option name="movement" value="1"/>
                         <option name="attack" value="0"/>
                </attachment>

into at territory with only these units:

                <attachment name="unitAttachment" attachTo="wall" javaClass="games.strategy.triplea.attachments.UnitAttachment" type="unitType">
                         <option name="movement" value="0"/>
                         <option name="defense" value="1"/>
                         <option name="defenseRolls" value="0"/>
                </attachment>

has, in fact, a behaviour I see as inconsistent, as:

If the attacking units cannot retreat, they are autodestroyed.
If the attacking units can retreat, they are stalemated, without a chance to retreat (so they cannot actually retreat, but this is the issue of the wrong handling of stalemate).

I think the first case is fine with the rest, but I think that the second case behaves inconsistently, and, to be consistent with looking at attack/defence values, not at rolls, it should never stalemate, but just keep offering me the option to retreat (that I will have eventually to take, to go on with the game).

What I'm guessing is that here there is this inconsistency between the handling of the autodestruction and the handling of the stalemate:

The autodestruction behaviour, that depends on the mentioned property to happen at all, looks only at the attack/defence values, not at the rolls, to determine if anything is going to be autodestroyed. This, in turn, happens always if we have a defenceless against a non-offenceless and happens only if there is no retreat in case we have an offenceless against a non-defenceless.
The stalemate behaviour, that doesn't depend on any properties, looks at the units having no attack/defence value or no related rolls (or both), to decide if the units are actually offenceless/defenceless. It happens immediately, also negating your ability to retreat, in this case (this is wrong).
The autodestruction behaviour is tested, and immediately applied, in case, before the stalemate behaviour, as far as I can tell, thus in a situation in which both the autodestruction and the stalemate behaviours would both happen (due to their inconsistencies), you have the autodestruction behaviour only (I warn you I'm very far from sure on this point, so here I would very much need a developer to confirm or deny this point).

Overall, what I understand, from limited testing, is that the autodestruction and the stalemate behaviours appear like they have been added to the program independently, maybe at different points in time or by different developers, with little concern regarding having them consistent, despite being two highly related matters, clearly. Also pointing out this being merely my higly uninformed judgment (I'm not a developer).

Regarding the fact that the autodestruction behaviour is related to the mentioned property, while the stalemate behaviour is not:

The fact that the autodestruction behaviour is related to the mentioned property (beside the obnoxious facts of not having documented this at all and that the property is only losely related to it, or arguably completely unrelated, as one would think that is a property for sea units only) is wrong, as this is a v3+ property, while autodestruction existed in Classic, albeit only for offensive units, since there were no defenceless ones, though at least having a property dependency may be good (if documented!), as it allows mapmakers to decide whether to have the behaviour or noth, though a dedicated property would be better (with special reference to the case of having AA only units that are not infrastructures (for example, if I make "aaGun" units that are exactly the same as those of the v5 game, except for the fact that they fire each combat round, then one may want avoiding them being autodestroyed if remaining as the only defending units against any attacking composition also comprising air units) (or a mapmaker may just prefer allowing the strafing of defenceless only unit, as a strategy)).
The fact that the stalemate behaviour is (as far as I know) universal, makes sense to me, despite the fact that stalemate exists only from v3 onwards, but this is only because you didn't have both offenceless and defenceless units before then, which cannot be assumed for v1 and v2 custom maps too, of course, in the moment mapmakers can have defenceless units too, if they so wish. However, I would have a custom property for this case too, so that mapmakers may decide the matter sperifically for their games.

Practically, the program only looks at the attack/defence values, not at the actual powerfulness of the units involved, as far as the autodestruction (but not the stalemating) of non-infrastructure units go. I definitely like this particular behaviour, and suggest the stalemate one being harmonized, the same way, as it allows mapmakers to manage the matter as they wish (by making units offenceless/defenceless because of 0 value itself or because of 0 dice, depending if they want stalemate or autodestruction), so I'd like to fully document it in pos2, to make it more of something supported, or even intended, rather than just existent.

Also, I've tested that the autodestruction behaviour happens after AA attacks (this means you cannot retreat from defenceless if all non defenceless were killed by AA offensive attacks, while you can if they were killed normally (though this last behaviour, that I actually like too, is contrary to the intended rules (that open for the, in my opinion, strange possibility of removing your non defenceless units to impede your enemy retreating), as already reported by @Panther in the program's repository)).

Cernel

@Panther said in How do you make a unit autodestroyed if alone without being an infrastructure or a transport:

@Cernel
In Anniversary and later rulesets you can't send only transports to a sea battle. By the rules "Transports may not attack in a sea battle without being accompanied by at least one unit with an attack value."

Also, I find this rule (I'm calling it rule, not clarification, because, if we remove it, I cannot see how it can be inferred in any logical way, from anything else) quite unclear, for a series of reasons, namely:

"attack in a sea battle" makes me think that they can be in that sea battle, also alone (like they can in Revised), just cannot attack, which is already assured by the fact that their attack value is 0.
"with an attack value" is not making sense with the fact that the unit is given as "Attack: 0", meaning "0" is a value too (then, they should have written "Attack: -" or something like that) (how is the number 0 not a value?), mostly meaning they should have said "with a positive attack value".
"accompanied by at least one unit with an attack value" is not clarifying that cargo doesn't count (I know it's realistically obvious, but still).
"accompanied by at least one unit with an attack value" makes me think that the unit must "accompany" the transport in its movement, meaning that they must enter the sea zone together, as a single group of unit (thus from the same sea zone), and it feels like it is excluding the case of units that start the turn already into that sea zone (as they are not moving at all, it is hard to immagine them "accompanying" anything).

This said, I'm fairly certain that what the rule means is that I'm allowed to move any transports into a sea zone with no ignorable units as long as at least one other air or sea units with attack value of 1 or more are ending their movement into or not moving out that same sea zone (no matter if the transport entered from a zone and the other units from some other zones), but just pointing out that I feel this rule is not noob proof, and it is clear only if you are already fairly into the game, in my opinion.