Capture vs. Destroy?
Just an idea.... thought... random tangent.
Since there are games where transports are not part of combat and are near non-existent in a game.
Figured since they are then ignored and already have their own mechanism within the engine to auto-destroy.... could we not add an option to either capture or destroy? The idea would then be that if the attacker chooses the capture option... he gets 1 roll at a settable value... and if he misses... then the battle ends and the transport survives.
Seems like it would add a nice option to the existing system where they are simply lemming being led to the slaughter.
Sold! Brilliant as usual! Great Idea!
@hepps It is hard to see how that would be realistic on a game like TripleA. The only time you have mass captures of ships is when they are in port.
@rogercooper Well the capture feature could be scaled to a 1:1 basis and confined to certiain attacking vessels.... so you could tailor the feature to be more realistic. But the idea is no less nonsensical than the idea that an attacking unit or units could just slaughter an infinite number of transports.
@hepps Interesting idea. Though as @RogerCooper points out, ship capture in the open seas is pretty minimal. I think actually having something more along the lines of if only transports left, then the attacker gets only 1 last roll of hits to see how many they can destroy then the rest escape (or do a 1:1 that each attacking ship can only kill 1 transport). That way if you have a large attack navy remaining then you should kill off lots of transports but if you only have a few ships left then you can't wipe out say 10 transports.
@redrum That's kinda what I was saying. The entire capture thing was just an idea to have some fun with the impotent transport set up. Since they have 0 combat value it'd be kinda fun to see a nation swoop in and snag a free tranny if they thought they could get it safely under cover of a fleet.
But yes... the meat & potato's of the idea was really having the 1 round limit on unprotected transports.... if you have a serious attack differential then a great deal of the time it would mean the demise of the remaining transports regardless... but if you are running a tight attack... then you risk at least some of the trannies surviving.
I don't know how much extra work is involved but maybe something that also works for any unit would be worth it. Being restricted to just transports seems like a waste of a cool feature. And also break it down into separate attributes.
I don't have a specific other examples for usage in mind at the moment. However it would not only address the example of this topic, but have many other possible uses.
Perhaps something along the lines of the below suggestion.
Four seperate new unitAttachments. In conjunction with some of the existing unitAttachments.
Existing related unitAttachments:
d. "isInfrastructure" - This one has other implications, but does allow capture.
Four new unitAttachments.
For below, "unitA" is the unit for which this is attached and "unitB" can be any unit attacking it, and "ratioA:ratioB" = "1:1" or whatever ratio is desired for units A & B.
e. <option name="ifOnlyThisDefendingUnitRemainsDuringCombat" value="numberOfDefendingUnits:remainingCombatRounds"/>
This defines the number of remaining combat rounds and number of defending units that must be reached, for the unit that this attribute is attached.
Maybe separate the above one into 3 separate attributes as well.
f. <option name="defensiveGeneralCombatRatio" value="unitA:unitB:ratioA:ratioB"/>
This defines the ratio at which the unit with this attribute, will handle general combat if defending.
g. <option name="defensiveCaptureRatio" value="unitA:unitB:ratioA:ratioB"/>
This defines the ratio at which the unit with this attribute, will handle being captured if defending.
h. <option name="defensiveGetDestroyedRatio" value="unitA:unitB:ratioA:ratioB"/>
This defines the ratio at which the unit with this attribute will handle getting destroyed without any further rolls if defending.
i. Current sea transport problematic behaviors with v3 rules:
All transports get auto destroyed if they are the final defending unit type remaining in a battle, and attacker has at least one offensive unit. eg. Can kill a 1000 transports with 1 submarine in 1 turn.
j. Above suggestions can resolve this problem and do much more.
Although the "isInfrastructure" allows capture, it has some side effects for transports in particular. The main one that I've noticed is when performing amphibious landings. The transport can unload whether the sea zone is cleared or not. In fact the transport can even die if using "destroyedWhenCapturedBy" and the amphibious unit(s) it unloaded will not be affected. I guess the engine considers the unload action completed and no "if" function is involved.
So unless you like this behavior, will still need a "canBeCaptured" unitAttachment.
@general_zod yes I think you nailed all the issues many have discussed over the years! Great stuff!
@general_zod The ability for units to survive during an amphibious assault regardless of the transport' status is connected to a separate global property that will govern whether or not they can survive.
Here's another related territoryAttachment,
"captureUnitOnEnteringBy". It can be used with
"canBeCapturedOnEnteringBy"unitAttachment. So maybe this is all you really need.
@hepps Do you now offhand , which global property controls it?
Not off hand. I can check tonight when I get back home.
@hepps It would be nice to include a note in pos2 xml, near the attachment if a global property is also needed ,or if it can be altered further.
@general_zod Now that I think on it... this behavior is related only to games set up where the transports are lemmings. Meaning that if the transports are ignored in battle then you can land amphibious assaults and loose the transports.... but your guys still land. However... if your transports are combat units... then the units will die before landing if the transport is lost.