WW2 Oil and Snow (1st ed.) NEW MAP RELEASE

Hepps

@ebbe "The artist alone sees spirits. But after he has told of their appearing to him, everybody sees them."

Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

ebbe

@bel246 Okej here my response.... and thanks again for finding and posting your feedback and bugs:

1: GREECE -SEA ZONE 3: A bug definately... of the more funnier kind..
is solved: I used to have another bug where suddenly ANZAC forces
made a landing in Greece in turn 1... haha... loophole .....
2. PARTISANS: blocking units to leave: hmmm that is indeed TOO much impact, taking away both movement options....
I see what I can do about that... subs and transport may vary in controll areas, not sure if land units may do that....
3.MORE NOTES: Indeed "the Save the motherland" should be added to the game notes. And about the Mongolian Ghost Army: sounds like the trigger doesn't work as it should.. I'll take a look at that....
4. FLYING SEAMINES: haha... naughty naughty seamines: yes I fixed that Planes cannot knock out seamines but the opposite doesn't seem to work yet.. will be on my list....
5. GOD SAVE THE QUEEN: okej I give UK a boost, I allready changed that London is not directly connected anymore to the north sea zone which made it toooo easy target.... but I'll fix some defense forces....
6.BLITZ: okej, it should work like a movement penalty:
so jungle should all 2 movement land units have only 1 movement except trains: I'll check that
7. REPAIRMENT OF 2 HIT UNITS: is allready solved in version 1.9
the choosen way is mentioned in this forum previous....
so you'll see that coming with coming update,... also
the battle ship issue you mention is solved....
I removed the double attack... but the bigger ships have an small
AA against Air units now...
8. FINNISH FORTIFICATIONS: Initially it was indeed my plan that finnish and other incorporated minors cannot build fortifications, thinking they lack the resources and manpower for big projects, same as not being able to build battleships...and so
9. CHANNEL CLARIFICATIONS: yes, another good point: I never worked that out so far... is on my list now...
10. DEFENSIVE LEADERSHIP: the bonus issue is solved in 1.9;
the movement issue with some players ( I think germany was a problem with not moving ) fixed too... but it was not easy implmenetation the whole system.. I double check it...
11. MAX UNIT STACK: that sounds like a very unfair escape indeed concerning Japan... I have to see how to ballance that.... I put it on my test list.....
12.PARTISANS notifications.... okej...I only wanted to silence the failed partisan roll notifications as there can be many for example when germans have taken over west USSR, but; it is still optional in game settings now to do that....

great feedback... I work at very slow pace here now... so takes some time to fix all... now also working on this NOAirLanding case and on Attrition at City Siege.... I 'll do a Github version update somewhere next month ;
if you can't wait I can transfer you the latest version... greetings from the Lowlands...

beelee

@hepps said in WW2 Oil and Snow (1st ed.) NEW MAP RELEASE:

@ebbe "The artist alone sees spirits. But after he has told of their appearing to him, everybody sees them."

Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

Got me thinking again : )

ebbe

@wc_sumpton Hej ...thanks for your nice piece of code...
it is in a "solution-direction" that I tried before too.... ( but your code much more spohisticated and smooth... thanks for teaching )
it seemed the most logical approach too ( with the winter effect reset experiences we had ) :

But: 2 disadvantages:

It doens't work if an Airunit has moved allready on this territory in combat
movement... allthough it is clear in terr. info that reset was done...
then it can simply remain and by this land on a NoLand Terr.effect
-Other disadvantage is an airunit may not move over this terr. when returning to other terr to land.. so: it may block the way and cause mayday mayday out of fuel consequences

so I think my Bombastic Over The Top : temporary change ownership solution still be the closest way to get this done....

I write share the code I used cause I am sure it could be much more simplified

ebbe

@wc_sumption @zodd ** My Bombastic Dinosaur Way of NoAirLanding ** ( following Zodds suggestion of Contesting Terr. )

first make dummy players for each player ingame:
give the same colour as original player colour to avoid colour swaps
in trigger moments....

<player name="NoAirLandingAllowedGER" optional="true" defaultType="AI" isHidden="true"/>
<player name="NoAirLandingAllowedUK" optional="true" defaultType="AI" isHidden="true"/>

Then make for each "No Airfield Terr."and each player that can
occupy it a condition and triggers... wow that is a shtload indeed :(*

( I use it the opposite way: like in my rail-road system: to avoid too many Units in a Terr.. and keep a clear view .. so I only mark the terr.'s that don't have an airfield option, with a No Airfield token....
works fine: example


<attachment name="conditionAttachmentNoLanding" attachTo="British" javaClass="games.strategy.triplea.attachments.RulesAttachment" type="player">
    <option name="players" value="Germans:Italians:Japanese:Vichy-French:Russians:Chinese:British:Canadians:ANZAC:Americans:French"/>
    <option name="switch" value="true"/><option name="directPresenceTerritories" value="East Greenland" count="1"/>
    <option name="unitPresence" value="no_airfield" count="1"/>
</attachment>

<attachment name="triggerAttachmentNoLandingSet" attachTo="Germans" javaClass="games.strategy.triplea.attachments.TriggerAttachment" type="player">
    <option name="conditions" value="conditionAttachmentNoLanding"/>
    <option name="changeOwnership" value="East Greenland:any:NoAirLandingAllowedUK:true"/>
    <option name="when" value="after:germansBattle"/>
</attachment>

<attachment name="triggerAttachmentNoLandingSet" attachTo="British" javaClass="games.strategy.triplea.attachments.TriggerAttachment" type="player">
    <option name="conditions" value="conditionAttachmentNoLanding"/>
    <option name="changeOwnership" value="East Greenland:any:NoAirLandingAllowedUK:true"/>
    <option name="when" value="after:britishBattle"/>
</attachment>

<attachment name="conditionAttachmentEastGreenlandOwnedByNeutralAllies" attachTo="NoAirLandingAllowedUK" javaClass="RulesAttachment" type="player"><option name="directOwnershipTerritories" value="East Greenland" count="1"/></attachment>
<attachment name="triggerAttachmentNoLandingReset" attachTo="NoAirLandingAllowedUK" javaClass="games.strategy.triplea.attachments.TriggerAttachment" type="player">
    <option name="conditions" value="conditionAttachmentNoLanding:conditionAttachmentEastGreenlandOwnedByNeutralAllies"/>
    <option name="changeOwnership" value="East Greenland:NoAirLandingAllowedUK:Neutral_Allies:true"/>
    <option name="when" value="before:britishPlace"/>
</attachment>


<attachment name="conditionAttachmentEastGreenlandOwnedByGermans" attachTo="Germans" javaClass="RulesAttachment" type="player"><option name="directOwnershipTerritories" value="East Greenland" count="1"/></attachment>
<attachment name="triggerAttachmentNoLandingReset" attachTo="Germans" javaClass="games.strategy.triplea.attachments.TriggerAttachment" type="player">
    <option name="conditions" value="conditionAttachmentNoLanding:conditionAttachmentEastGreenlandOwnedByGermans"/>
    <option name="changeOwnership" value="East Greenland:NoAirLandingAllowedUK:Germans:true"/>
    <option name="when" value="before:germansPlace"/>
</attachment>
<attachment name="conditionAttachmentEastGreenlandOwnedByBritish" attachTo="British" javaClass="RulesAttachment" type="player"><option name="directOwnershipTerritories" value="East Greenland" count="1"/></attachment>
<attachment name="triggerAttachmentNoLandingReset" attachTo="British" javaClass="games.strategy.triplea.attachments.TriggerAttachment" type="player">
    <option name="conditions" value="conditionAttachmentNoLanding:conditionAttachmentEastGreenlandOwnedByBritish"/>
    <option name="changeOwnership" value="East Greenland:NoAirLandingAllowedUK:British:true"/>
    <option name="when" value="before:britishPlace"/>
</attachment>

And then it is easy to give a player the option to "build" an airfield...
in purchase , in order to remove the No Airfield -token.

Seems logical to me but I accept that I might sound far from that ....

But : It takes a then:
-11 dummy players ( not a big deal)
-a lot of code to fix this for every possible owner of
every "No Air Landing Terr." like East Greenland
to make the switch back to this owner after Non Landing player trigger
has come by

Could I write this code more simple? less stoneage?
Or is there really another option we missed?

wc_sumpton

@ebbe

Question, if Russia owns East Greenland, what is stopping their allies from landing there during there turn?

You would need to check to see if the territory is allied owned, which ally owns the territory, switch to that owners dummy player, check which dummy player owns the territory and switch back to original owner. (You did say that you like to write xml? :astonished_face: )

Using territoryEffect only check for the presents of the airfield unit and does not care about ownership. Granted there are 2 side effect, being able to land during combat move, (making a non-combat move during combat, which is illegal) and blocking fly-overs during the non-combat move. But the balance between what is trying to be achieved, and the amount of code seems like a fair trade off.

Even though 'changeOwnership' works, it only limits the owner and not their allies.

Cheers...

ebbe

@wc_sumpton yes you are very right.... and making a trigger for every player "visiting "an ally by landing AND for if owning the terr. simply would take too much code....
But when I will use this system in a Eastfront map 2x2 for example it could be workable... thanks for thinking along...
I put my energy now on less head twisting things...

ebbe

@bel246

by the way; for the Seamines attacking Airplanes unacceptable behaviour I will try the : canNotTarget or canNotBeTargetedBy
unit attachment option.... though they seem not listed in
http://www.starlords3k.com/XOB.html overview of usable elements....

wc_sumpton

@ebbe

'canNotTarget' and 'canNotBeTargetedBy' would be placed on the 'seamine's:

   <option name="canNotTarget" value="fighter:bomber"/>
   <option name="canNotBeTargetedBy" value="fighter:bomber"/>

Just remember that ww2v3 rules allow 'isDestroyer' units to cancel 'canNotBeTargetedBy' which would allow 'fighter's and 'bomber's to attack 'seamine's.

Or just use 'canNotTarget' on both 'seamine's and air units. Since 'canNotTarget' is not effected by 'isDestroyer' this would keep both sets of units from attacking each other.

As to your other problem. The best solution would be to expand 'territoryEffect's to include 'airUnitCanNotLand' and would require a feature request.

Cheers...

bel246

@ebbe

I am glad my feedback helped you. I am aware that this is a hobby project and I think you are doing a great job. I don't think I will play another game in the near future, yet I am sure I will play it at some point so I am excited to see how it developed. Greetings from Germany!

General_Zod

@ebbe If no other solutions found, I would consider a simple notification to the player attempting to leave his aircraft in the sudo air-landing restricted territory at the end of noncombat phase. If the player leaves it there you can trigger a chance roll to crashland the air unit(s) at 6/6 or give them a slim chance to succeed a risky landing. Say 1/6 for example. The notification isnt even necesary as long as its clearly stated in game notes.

I may have a few alternate solutions if you really dedicated to initial scheme. But they require some testing on my end to work out potential road blocks.

General_Zod

@wc_sumpton

This would be a worthy feature request. It definitely a shines a light on difficulties what appears to be current shortcomings of code to pull it off easily.

ebbe

@general_zod @wc sumption
feature request made....

Dear Triple-A code Wizards....

For now Air units can land on any given land terr.
It would be very interesting to have limitation on that by
an Air No Landing option in Terrain Effects

by this Air units can be made depended on airfields ,
and one could knock out airfields/damage to influence their
effectiveness and reach.

-on the other side one could have terr.'s where airfield has to be constructed through purchase to make it accesable for air landing...

Especially for more micro size maps it would be very interesting option.

I tried to solve this feature in many other ways, with Wc_sumption and
general Zodd and others ... by changing land ownership, or making terrain effect no air landing with Units not allowed with a switch between a players Combat phaes en Noncombat phase but :
it takes a lot of code...

and 2 undesired , yet unsolvable consequences occured:

An airunit that was flown into a AirNoLanding zone
during CombatMove was not effected by this restriction
-And When flying over to another landing zone this territory cannot be crossed..

Which makes it unusable....

Therefore hereby my request for future implementation...
thanks

ebbe

@ebbe UPDATED to version 2.0 Big list of minor issues fixed ,

- like repair system for 2 hit units ,

"active major minors" (Turkey, Spain, Portugal and Argentina)

and defensive leadership token behaviour.

Hereby I like to invite new players to play this game
for receiving good feedback to continue improvement ....
and implement more fresh ideas....
feel welcome....

ebbe

@ebbe Working out a feature for besieged Cities: wanne get some consequences taken into account...
so after getting isolated from all main upply a besieged city would get a Attrition penalty....
which effects all units infighting capability in this city a negative way...

testing: Stalingrad out of supply and russian airtransport in Kuybishev with new Supplies
for relieve about to be airlifted into the besieged city.

When the siege is not lifted next turn the impact will double...
There will be a way to purchase and transport Food supply to this city by air or by sea.... to get some relieve....
let's see how this will work out...

It would be cool to have also this penalty for each terr.( that gets isolated and under siege) when the number of units exceeds the PU value of this terr. when isolated and besieged.. but that will be too much code... ( and how to count the nr of units in there anyway? ) so I keep it to the victory cities only

ebbe

@ebbe QUESTION So: my issue with solving OUT OF SUPPLY...
the BONUS in SupportAttachment seems not work with
a negative bonus...
too bad cause this would have been the easiest way to solve it...
( plan B via an Out-of-Supply terrain effect -reset is too complex.... in combination with urban and winter effects and switching occupants of an city...)

so I made a workaround giving enemies attacking a besieged city
a bonus... not realisitic but it does the job....

Current implementation:
For now when a city gets isolated/besieged they receive a 1 turn Ration... as a reminder of their situation.....with no impact... but if not solved by either freeing one of the terr's around it OR bringing in Supplies (which can be purchased) by air transport of navy...)
In the next turn ( 2 months in this game ) this ration-reminder will be replaced with an out-of-supply token .. and defenders of the city will be in a less favourable strategic position...

well, should I make a new Feature Request :
for a negative bonus on unit support attachment or do you think that is not so useful or possible?

More practical question on this:
I could I make a trigger occur for everytime a specific situation occurs? I mean:for example: if Stalingrad is isolated , a Ration-token will be placed. But if the enemies do not pursue the attack I want to avoid a extra ration token to be placed there every turn. If I would set <option name="uses" value="1"/> I suppose this trigger will not work again if later in the game a similar situation occurs, in a possible 2nd isolation of Stalingrad... hmmm... another puzzle....

code_text      <attachment name="conditionStalingradBesieged" attachTo="Russians" javaClass="games.strategy.triplea.attachments.RulesAttachment" type="player">
      <option name="enemyPresenceTerritories" value="Rostov:Volgograd:West Kazakhstan" count="3"/><option name="alliedOwnershipTerritories" value="Stalingrad" count="1"/></attachment>

    <attachment name="triggerAttachmentPlaceRationStalingrad" attachTo="Russians" javaClass="TriggerAttachment" type="player">
        <option name="conditions" value="conditionStalingradBesieged"/>
        <option name="placement" value="Stalingrad:ration"/>
        <option name="notification" value="StalingradBesieged"/>
        <option name="when" value="after:russiansNonCombatMove"/>
</attachment>

      <attachment name="conditionStalingradBesieged2" attachTo="Russians" javaClass="games.strategy.triplea.attachments.RulesAttachment" type="player">
          <option name="directPresenceTerritories" value="Stalingrad" count="1"/><option name="unitPresence" value="ration" count="1"/><option name="alliedOwnershipTerritories" value="Stalingrad" count="1"/></attachment>
    
    <attachment name="triggerAttachmentPlaceOut_of_SupplyStalingrad" attachTo="Russians" javaClass="TriggerAttachment" type="player">
        <option name="conditions" value="conditionStalingradBesieged2"/>
        <option name="placement" value="Stalingrad:out_of_supply"/> 	<option name="removeUnits" value="Stalingrad:ration" count="1"/>
        <option name="notification" value="StalingradBesieged2"/>
        <option name="uses" value="1"/>
        <option name="when" value="after:russiansNonCombatMove"/>
</attachment>

General_Zod

@ebbe I'm pretty sure the negative support attachment is quite possible. Definitely allowed if using faction=enemy. But faction =allied should function as well.

Can you post an example of your code.

Anyways, territory effect can be used to give negative support and that's easy peasy.

General_Zod

@ebbe Off the top of my head, I've got some alternate methods of handling out of supply due to encirclement by enemy.

First of all, is it logical to give the encircled army a defensive penalty? Historically Stalingrad and Leningrad held the military lines. In fact they dug in like ticks within the city limits within the rubble.

The out of supply situation was terrible for the denizens however. They were severely rationed on everything.

Anyways this would definitely affect moral of the army. I would go with desertions as the main penalty on the army. Chance roll perhaps that increase chance as long as encircled. The territory economy and production should be slashed though.

So maybe attached convoys routes will function well for this purpose.

<!-- Convoy Routes must be attached to both the Requiring territory and the Required territory. Sea convoys can have income too, and if they do then they operate just like Convoy Centers for the income

They impose the territories economic/production penalty automaticllay too.

Also land blokades might be possible for a increased economic penalty.

ebbe

@general_zod

okej I got it working... sorry for the turmoil and unnecessary post.. sometimes one just has to try a it a bit harder with after more sleep
so .... yes I fully agree with you..... still wanted to have some impact after 4 or more months of being besieged in battle readiness, especially attacking...

This whole idea was one of the meassures I wanted to take , with max.placement and max amount of cheap units , to avoid to massive stacking I often see in human and both AI players in Victory cities.....
sometimes deliberately letting themselves getting encircled...
and still getting the full PU's ...unacceptable .. haha.....

the economic impact is a good one! didn't think about that.....
could also be stimulus to get -PU's for the town being besieged every turn... I'll work that out.... the "ration" token could easily generating -1PU or so per turn.. hmm interesting...
<option name="createsResourcesList" value="-1:PUs"/> when rationing starts and -2 when out of supply... that would hurt a bit more, even mostly psychologically

and yes, via Terr. effect is easy... but my struggle is how to get this trigger working properly after a city has been besieged one time...
-How could I set the trigger again for a second occasion , without it spawns every turn a "Ration"-token in the besieged city.. if the attackers do not conquer the place.... and what if germans in Stalingrad get islotaed themselves as they somehow were... anyway: that is the hard part for me in getting the coding well done..

Schulz

Actually the most interesting and realistic feature to prevent mega stacks would be having increased upkeeps up to the amount of units per territory.

For example Germany should pay more upkeep if its 3 infantries are on Belarus rather than 1 in the Baltics 1 in the Belarus and 1 in the Ukraine.

This could offset typical Axis tendency of rushing Leningrad first which obviosuly the most tempting choice.