TripleA Logo TripleA Forum
    • TripleA Website
    • Categories
    • Recent
    • Popular
    • Users
    • Groups
    • Tags
    • Register
    • Login

    Question About the Battle Screen

    Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Feature Requests & Ideas
    26 Posts 6 Posters 5.7k Views 6 Watching
    Loading More Posts
    • Oldest to Newest
    • Newest to Oldest
    • Most Votes
    Reply
    • Reply as topic
    Log in to reply
    This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
    • LaFayetteL Offline
      LaFayette Admin
      last edited by

      I do think it's a more general solution if a player can either select a default OOL algo to always use without confirmation until change, or to toggle an option to use a default OOL algo unless some condition happens where the player wishes to confirm (ie: accept default algo except when chosen unit is not the least TUV).

      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • SchulzS Offline
        Schulz
        last edited by

        Infantry vs bomber and cruiser ones are very rare situations which almost have no impact to the outcome of games compared to all other aspects.

        If one side need to pick bombers first before other units to protect its capital then it means the fate of game is already sealed. The cruiser one is not even half of important of the infantry vs bomber situation.

        Even if we assume they would be important negative effects, still the benefits of removal of defender's casualty picking phrase would massively outweight of them.

        Really there are too many good opportunities to enhance gameplay in this area.

        LaFayetteL 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • LaFayetteL Offline
          LaFayette Admin @Schulz
          last edited by

          @Schulz said in Question About the Battle Screen:

          If one side need to pick bombers first before other units to protect its capital then it means the fate of game is already sealed.

          Maybe, but as a blanket rule you cannot say that and it could be very wrong (what if both players are on the ropes and are using bombers to defend. What if the stack of 8 bombers is important HP but not worth the attack, pyrhic victory). Very rare does not mean it does not happen and means 'wrong' in those times when it does happen. It can't be mostly right, it needs to be right.

          Being able to turn this on/off dynamically sounds like it gets us the benefit without a good bit of the draw-back.

          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • SchulzS Offline
            Schulz
            last edited by

            I don't even remember what was the last time I saw 8 bombers to defend somewhere. In most cases i see bombers being bought mostly one per 3 rounds which also used to take on enemy fleets and bombing campagins and they hardly be as numerios as fighters. Even if they are present, then they must be in a advantageous position even if not then they deserve to lost their capital due to relying on bombers to defend capital. Simply bad purchasing or something.

            Allowing defenders to pick their casulaties due to this very extreme situation would be huge missing opportunity. Even if its still problem then what prevents map makers to add +1 bonus defense to bombers when they are in capitals?

            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • LaFayetteL Offline
              LaFayette Admin
              last edited by

              I hear ya @Schulz , though are you considering all solutions? You seemed fixated on the XML route, which has a lot of drawbacks. A dynamic toggle would avoid a number of those.

              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
              • SchulzS Offline
                Schulz
                last edited by

                They are all what I coud say about the topic after that its not my business but I would be personally happy to see any kind of improvements in this area.

                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • LaFayetteL Offline
                  LaFayette Admin
                  last edited by

                  I'd really encourage us to explore any/all implications of any suggestion. Coding up such a feature is probably going to require 5-10 hours. It's a waste of valuable time if it turns out something was missed that could have been avoided with a little more design up front.

                  B 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                  • djabwanaD Offline
                    djabwana
                    last edited by djabwana

                    Our map often involves highly dynamic and unusual situations that make casualty selection non-obvious. For example, our Zeppelins cost $12, have zero defense, only 1 offense, BUT can travel 8 spaces and provide +1 support to battleships, cruisers, and artillery (because of recon). Because of this, they are usually chosen early (because they are so weak) but often an attacker or defender will choose to keep them alive because they can project so much support over a wide area and are expensive (and are great for picking off undefended trains to disrupt reinforcements).

                    Also, when I play low luck, I manage my destroyer vs. sub casualties very carefully to preserve "groups" of guaranteed hits for first strike units (since they fire separately even on defense) in a way the default selection wouldn't do for me.

                    Lastly, we have several two hit units (including trenches and emplaced artillery) that require special units to be repaired. So you might actually decide to kill a cheap infantry at $2 (especially if you're managing your railroad network well and can reinforce) if you don't have a repair unit handy for your expensive artillery.

                    All that to say - I get that defender casualties are usually obvious for usual A&A games, but I agree with @LaFayette that we should avoid making it unchangeable for a game (unless it's deliberately part of the game design).

                    1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 2
                    • LaFayetteL Offline
                      LaFayette Admin
                      last edited by

                      One idea is to allow a per-map OOL ordering of specific units, but if a unit is not included then there will be a confirmation prompt.

                      For example, you could say "always take infantry before artillery", but any unit not on that list would require confirmation. To clarify, if a battle had just an infantry and artillery then the OOL ordering specified would be followed and no casualty prompt would appear. But, if any other unit were present (which are not on that simple list of two units), then OOL would be prompted.

                      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                      • B Offline
                        beelee @LaFayette
                        last edited by

                        @LaFayette said in Question About the Battle Screen:

                        ...Coding up such a feature is probably going to require 5-10 hours...

                        Idk seems like a lot of work. Think it works ok the way it is.

                        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0

                        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
                        • 1
                        • 2
                        • 2 / 2
                        • First post
                          Last post
                        Copyright © 2016-2018 TripleA-Devs | Powered by NodeBB Forums