Non-Combat Movement Bonus Tech



  • This would grant a bonus movement, either positive or negative, to units during the Non Combat movement phase. I have submitted my idea for this on GitHub.

    I have seen this type of request and the only way to do it now it to hack it with triggers. This uses the TechAbilitiyAttachment and would be implemented with tech.

    nonCombatMovementBonus value is the amount of bonus followed by the unit to receive the bonus:

    <attachment name="techAbilityAttachment" attachTo="NonCombatMovementBonus" javaClass="games.strategy.triplea.attachments.TechAbilityAttachment" type="technology">
       <option name="nonCombatMovementBonus" value="1:infantry"/>
    </attachment>
    

    Thoughts, and ideas.

    Cheers...


  • Moderators Admin

    @wc_sumpton For this and anything like this, I generally suggest "tech" being not necessary in order to have the ability. Meaning I rather suggest having a unit option allowing having greater "Non-Combat" mobility, then a technology to modify the option.



  • @Cernel

    Thank you for your comments!!

    That can be an option. But for this I disagree. There is already a "movement" option, adding another seem more confusing. Also if there were a "Non-Combat Movement" there would still be a 'need' to modify that option, with triggers or with 'tech' and all those values would need to be brought together for a single movement value, depending on the phase. This has less overhead and seems simpler, with the amount of code, on the TripleA engine, map creators to implement and for the players of those maps.

    But that's just my opinion. I'm open to how other might view this.

    Cheers...


  • Admin

    @wc_sumpton do you have a map lined up to make use of the new option, or is there an existing one that would benefit?

    Would it ever seem inconsistent if there were not a 'combatMovementBonus' option?


  • Moderators Admin

    @LaFayette I can only say I would almost certainly eventually use this option and I'm fairly certain it will not be long before one or more maps will eventually use it.


  • Moderators Admin

    @wc_sumpton One may want to have units that move faster during Non-Combat without this being player dependent in any ways (comprising games have no technology at all). To clarify, it's the same matter as the current land transport ability, that obliges you having the tech if you want to have land transports.

    I just generally believe it would be better technology being never necessary to have any abilities (I realize this is not the case in many instances), since otherwise mapmakers will just use tech not because wanting to have a proper tech system, but merely because what you want is not supported outside of it (just give the tech to everyone since start game and that's it).


  • Admin

    @Cernel If you give tech at the start to add base abilities, at least for the movement case, why not just set the base movement of the unit directly to begin with?


  • Moderators Admin

    @LaFayette said in Non-Combat Movement Bonus Tech:

    @Cernel If you give tech at the start to add base abilities, at least for the movement case, why not just set the base movement of the unit directly to begin with?

    I don't understand what you mean. The only basic mobility value you can set per unit is the same across phases.


  • Admin

    @Cernel Oh, gotchya, it's not a base ability to have different movement across phases. I'd agree that it should then be a base ability option and a technology would only then be a true bonus to add to that.


  • Moderators Admin

    @LaFayette said in Non-Combat Movement Bonus Tech:

    Would it ever seem inconsistent if there were not a 'combatMovementBonus' option?

    I believe the main problem with having a non-combat mobility lower than the combat mobility is that TripleA currently allows you to make Non-Combat movements during Combat Move (so people would be able to cheat by making Non-Combat movements during Combat Move, to use the higher mobility).

    Therefore, at least until the matter is better handled by the engine, I would suggest hardcoding the options as to have the non-combat mobility necessarily equal or greater than the "movement" value.


    Some other considerations:

    • Be sure that this won't allow AA Guns that fired to move.

    • Be sure that this won't allow ships that offloaded units to move (no matter if the ships were not added to any battle and maybe didn't even move).

    • Be sure that this won't allow ships that naval bombarded to move.

    • Decide and document whether or not air units that combat moved should receive the bonus or not (if they do, then there is the challenge of the validation of their moves, based on the increased remaining mobility, that may give additional landing abilities). On this matter, remember that in Revised fighting air units complete their movement during Conduct Combat, not during Non-Combat Move (even though this is a difference not yet implemented in TripleA). Finally, while currently only air units can split movement between Combat and Non-Combat and retain mobility points after engaging in combat, I think this would be better as an option settable per unit (default being true for air units and false for the rest, of course) (so, for example, you can have "cavalry" units that can fight and move away during the Non-Combat Move phase, like air units, but without having to be air units).

    • Decide and clarify what happens in games in which you have one Non-Combat Move phase before or without a Combat Move phase (for example, Confederate in Civil War, that have a Non-Combat Move phase followed by a Combat Move phase followed by a second Non-Combat Move phase).


  • Moderators Admin

    @LaFayette said in Non-Combat Movement Bonus Tech:

    @Cernel Oh, gotchya, it's not a base ability to have different movement across phases. I'd agree that it should then be a base ability option and a technology would only then be a true bonus to add to that.

    Yes, this is what I was saying, but it's not a big deal. Mostly I feel it is unpolished that, for example, if I want to have a unit that is (always) a land transport, I am forced to give a tech to every player for that. The way @wc_sumpton is doing it is consistent with many other existent items, so my position against such things is general, not specific to this feature (and it's not a big deal just giving everyone the tech).


Log in to reply