Differentiation of TUV-presentation



  • I’d like to see a differentiation in the presentation of the TUV into three categories, namely units, structural and total.

    I do this accounting myself, but it’s tedious and prone to mistakes. What’s most interesting regarding this information is the amount if fighting power on the board, which is somewhat clouded by structures of factories and bases.

    The Allies are usually ahead Axis on TUV on the board (G40), but also has 2-400 more TUV in structures.


  • Moderators Admin

    @trulpen I'm not sure what you mean by "structural", so I think you should clarify that (I mean, that may be clear enough for "G40" (structural=factories and bases), but TripleA is not only about that game), but this would not work very well in general. For example, if you meant units that have no value in battles, you can have a unit that costs more than its battle value, and maybe the majority of its cost is not battle related. For example, you can have a "castle" unit that is a factory and also a battle unit, at the same time, and maybe the battle element is minor (look at the factory units of Age of Tribes). Talking about Global, then how about transports? If transports are not "structural", then why to include them in the TUV but not units that add mobility to other units, since, after all, this is what transports do too, in a way, and they are useless in battle, as well.


  • Moderators Admin

    Another easy example is that you may have slow units combined with "structures" that make them faster, maybe a lot faster, or mobile "structures", like trains, that move units around without having any battle value (conceptually similar to v3+ transports for land), and, at the same time, you may have units that are themselves faster, and cost more because of that (look at the grenadiers and cuirassiers of Napoleonic Empires). So, why to discount those units that have the movement aid separated into another unit (a base giving a movement bonus or whatever (and remember that in TripleA this bonus can be infinitely bigger than the basic movement of the unit itself, which might also be 0)) and not those that have it as part of themselves? I'm not seeing much of a reason to it.

    At most, one could agree to discount the units that are purely present for "production" purposes (so, in G40, discounting the factories, but still accounting the bases giving bonus movement), but this will stop working well as soon as you have a game in which a same unit has a mix of battle and production abilities (and a cost covering both).



  • Thanks for the feedback.

    The TUV-summary is pretty blunt, but I don't aspire to sharpen it much. It's based on unit cost. That's ok. An idea of revaluing units will be unsurmountably complex, likely undoable, since true value is very much situational.

    A transport is very much battle related since it projects power on the board. A base does give the same effect to some extent, but is not mobile. Especially scramble is a strong defensive function of ab's.

    A structure is an immobile object. Simple as that.

    In A&A G40 it's factories and air- and navalbases.

    Anyhow, in that particular game it would give a much better view of the different sides strength. The instance when an opponent who says "but my Allies have 500 more TUV than you, you're screwed", while in reality the fighting power is more or less equal and Axis actually has a more central position, is pretty silly.


  • Moderators Admin

    @trulpen said in Differentiation of TUV-presentation:

    A structure is an immobile object. Simple as that.

    Ok. So you would include the trains of TWW and exclude the bunkers of WAW? For Napoleonic Empires, the generals would be included, but not the encampments and capitals? How about units that have mobility 0 but can be transported by other units or receive movement bouses, making them mobile (in TripleA, actually, you can have a movement 0 unit that gives movement bonus to itself)? Would a unit having mobility value 0, but able to be transported or receive movement bonuses, be a mobile or immobile unit?

    In particular, mobile factories are present in a few TripleA games.


  • Admin

    @trulpen To @Cernel's point, we would first need to clearly define what you are referring to as "structure" for all types of maps. Is it that they are immobile? Is it that they don't have hit points? Is it they don't have any combat value? Or some combination of these things?



  • @Cernel said in Differentiation of TUV-presentation:

    @trulpen said in Differentiation of TUV-presentation:

    A structure is an immobile object. Simple as that.

    Ok. So you would include the trains of TWW and exclude the bunkers of WAW? For Napoleonic Empires, the generals would be included, but not the encampments and capitals? How about units that have mobility 0 but can be transported by other units or receive movement bouses, making them mobile (in TripleA, actually, you can have a movement 0 unit that gives movement bonus to itself)? Would a unit having mobility value 0, but able to be transported or receive movement bonuses, be a mobile or immobile unit?

    In particular, mobile factories are present in a few TripleA games.

    Regarding the questions presented, all mobile.

    Most important is to be able to recognize attack potential. Strictly defensive aspects are not as interesting.

    Therefore I'd say even a unit that has a defence-value, but is immobile, is a structure. If it can shoot rockets or something, it's not only a structure, but should be included in the unit-TUV.



  • A unit without any battle-values, but being able to move other units with battle-values, is projecting the other units battle-power and should thus be included in unit-TUV.

    Now you guys give me some reputation so I don't have to wait 2 min to make silly posts!



  • A factory that carry no battle-value is structural whether it's mobile or not.


Log in to reply
 

39433
1881
2189
Who's Online
Visitors Today