Support for AA Attacks

Cernel

@redrum If it is a problem for LL only, then dice should not be impacted too (the limit should exist only when LL is true). Anyways, of course, better solving it for both dice and LL.
One thing I can say is that I tried having AA autohits (roll = dicesides) and it worked. I wanted to ask if this was intended, as I wanted to have AA autohits, and it currently works. So, if that was intended because of the remainder, pos2 should have been clearer in telling that autohits were allowed too, not only half or less the dice side.

redrum

@cernel I think the only way that should work looking at the code is to set the dice sides = 1 and then the AA attack = 1. Otherwise I think the engine would prevent it.

Cernel

@redrum Correct, that way. Of course, setting it via the "attackAAmaxDieSides" for that unit. Well, I was saying that is not in line with the explanation. If this matter would not be solved, can you confirm that I'm fine using it (autohit at 1 diceside is meant to be supported)? Whatever ways this thing go, I suppose pos2 will need updating.

redrum

@cernel Yeah, that's fine and should continue to work regardless. For now there is gonna be no check on AA attack limit so anything should at least be able to be tested and creating some crazy map with lots of different AA units and units to fire at would be an interesting test to see if you can find situations where the remainder breaks something.

If we do find issues with LL and remainders that can't be easily resolved then I'll add a check back in that instead of checking:

attack > dice_sides / 2 && dice_sides > 1 (this is really an incomplete check probably based on only 6 sided dice and even then 6d6 should be allowed)

To something like:

dice_sides % attack > 0 (% is the remainder operation that divides the numbers and the result is any remainder)

Frostion

@redrum I am creating a new map and had planned to use AA extensively. But atm. units are limited to just being able to possess and use only 1 kind of AA attack? Right? And no plans to support support positive and negative support?

alkexr

When I created LME, I wanted formation to reduce/negate charge. Instead now we have a counter-aa-attack against charging units, because AA support isn't possible. It would also be interesting if horsearchers could flank and have anti-air attack at the same time.

I think the question is not if, but when all this will be possible. The two points against implementing these systems is that it's a lot of work, and that it would probably break compatibility (which equals a lot of work plus a lot of work for RogerCooper).

redrum

@frostion @alkexr I think both are good ideas but also fairly involved so hard to say if/when.

Multiple AA attacks per unit type would mean having separate aaAttachments similar to supportAttachments. Then either having to convert existing AA unit options to generate an aaAttachment in the engine (like isArtillery generates a supportAttachment) or having to mass convert maps so that the existing AA unit options could be removed. Both of these options are pretty painful.
AA support is probably a bit simpler and would just need some options in the support attachment to indicate its for AA instead of normal attack. Then logic added to check and apply support attachments to AA attacks. I don't think this change would impact compatibility since they would just be new options.

I don't think it matters that much the order they are implemented in as you could come back to add a supportAttachment option later on to indicate which AA attack per unit type if you did #2 first. I definitely lean towards tackling #2 first as its significantly easier (probably days vs weeks).

These also probably initially would not be taken into account by the default battle calc casualty selection though it already doesn't handle AA attacks and limited handling of support attachments.

redrum

So coming back to this.

Should support for AA attacks only be able to affect the strength or also the number of rolls?

@Frostion's example looks to re-use the dice parameter to specify it influences AA strength rather than regular strength or rolls.

<option name="dice" value="AA"/>

Should we consider allowing it to change the rolls as well? So something like:

<option name="dice" value="AAstrength"/>
<option name="dice" value="AAroll"/>

Frostion

Would the answer to the question not be a matter of "the more options the merrier"? I think that I initially just thought about strength to the dice, but adding dice could of course also be wanted in some situations.

If a unit was to have more than one AA attachment, then of course it would also be necessary to specify what AA type should be boosted/nerfed.

redrum

@frostion Probably. Just wondering if map makers would want to change number of rolls for AA attacks but generally its probably a good option to have.

I'm planning to bundle the type of AA with the addition of multiple AA attack per unit with the other feature request. Figure no need to put it in prematurely.

redrum

Here is the PR: https://github.com/triplea-game/triplea/pull/4350

AT Support

    <attachment name="supportAttachmentATSupportgerman" attachTo="germanATSupport" javaClass="games.strategy.triplea.attachments.UnitSupportAttachment" type="unitType">
      <option name="unitType" value="germanAntiTankGun"/>
      <option name="faction" value="allied"/>
      <option name="side" value="defence"/>
      <option name="dice" value="AAstrength"/>
      <option name="bonus" value="2"/>
      <option name="number" value="3"/>
      <option name="bonusType" value="ATBonus"/>
      <option name="impArtTech" value="false"/>
      <option name="players" value="Germany"/>
    </attachment>

AT Counter Support

    <attachment name="supportAttachmentATCounterAmerican" attachTo="americanATCounter" javaClass="games.strategy.triplea.attachments.UnitSupportAttachment" type="unitType">
      <option name="unitType" value="germanAntiTankGun"/>
      <option name="faction" value="enemy"/>
      <option name="side" value="offence"/>
      <option name="dice" value="AAstrength"/>
      <option name="bonus" value="-10"/>
      <option name="number" value="3"/>
      <option name="bonusType" value="ATBonus"/>
      <option name="impArtTech" value="false"/>
      <option name="players" value="Usa"/>
    </attachment>

Cernel

If the other thing of allowing multiple AA attacks per unit can be done fast (I can help with the conversion of existing maps), wouldn't be better to keep this frozen until that is done first, so this can be tailored on that done?

redrum

@Cernel Shouldn't matter much since only a few advanced maps will consider using this so would be easy to update them if necessary. I also have no idea if or when I'll add multiple AA attacks per unit.

Cernel

@redrum Ok. Seemed to me that multiple was way more important than support, but I guess also the complexity is bigger.

Frostion

My new Warcraft map will make use of the AA support feature, and also the multiple AA if it becomes available But testing is a bit difficult right now as I am still building the map.

redrum

This is now merged into the latest pre-release and can be tested: https://github.com/triplea-game/triplea/releases/tag/1.10.0.0.13130

redrum

Added info and example to POS2: https://github.com/triplea-maps/the_pact_of_steel/pull/23/files

beelee

@redrum thank you