hitPointsBonus option for techAbilityAttachment

  • Name says it all.


  • Moderators Admin

    @wc_sumpton I actually think that ALL stuff that you can set in the unit attachments you should be able to set in the tech, as well. It is not only for the actual tech, but it would also almost totally remove the need of having those things like germanArmour, italianArmour, etc., that are basically xml workarounds to do stuff that should be better handled by the program. This would, for example, solve some recent stuff related to HoH, in that you would be able to set different bonus movement for different players on the same unit (instead of having to go with rosters TWW style, multiplying units types by the players number).

  • Moderators Admin

    @cernel Even more so now that you can signal techs with units icons.

  • @cernel
    :smiling_face_with_open_mouth: and double thumbs up!!


  • Admin

    IMO, the tech ability attachment system is pretty half baked. I tend to agree with @Cernel that all unit attachment options (probably territory attachment options as well) should be allowed. That leads to probably having techs really just define the path/tree of the technologies to research and use conditions/triggers for the actual unit/territory changes (otherwise you'd essentially end up re-creating the triggers system). I actually think for any map that really wants to use techs that the TWW system is the best way to achieve that and I don't really see a better system.

    Open to ideas though.

  • @redrum, @Cernel
    The TWW system use a separate unitName for each player. In TWW there are over 40 (and counting) different units for each major player (6 plus 3 neutrals). 300+ Units, and their definition/attachments (also the long list of givesMovement under docks and airfields (which could be handled by a movementBonus tech assigned at the beginning of the game)).

    For a complex map like TWW, this maybe the best way to achieve technology gains (although a combination of both may help to reduce some of the duplications). But for a map like @CrazyG HoH, where @CrazyG has expressed his disinterest in this type of technology tree, the expansion of the tech abilities may be useful.

    @CrazyG in HoH as thought about splitting up the 'Navy' unit into two different units. A transport with combat capabilities, the other a warship. If he wanted to add a tech to made the warship a multi-hit unit, his only option now is to go the TWW route, where as a hitPointsBonus tech ability would give him another option.

    TWW is a great map, but to state that its Technology/Research system is the 'best' may only be true for very complex ideas. Simpler systems may want a simpler approach.

    Just thoughts...


  • @Cernel, @redrum
    Another great map that could benefit for the expansion of tech abilities is Iron War by @Frostion. IW is one of the first map to use fuelCost and fuelFlatCost. It is also a great 'Play against the AI' map. But balancing fuelCost/fuelFlatCost with an AI that doesn't use resources as been problematic for both @Black_Elk and @Frostion.

    If a userAction Human Player system like in GrayHawk Wars, that uses a tech. Or I:USA that uses conditions switches, were added. And fuelCost, fuelFlatCost and createsResourcesList were added to tech abilites. Then the techs could be assigned at the game start.

    To implement a system for IW now, triggers would need to be used the change the resources at the beginning of each players turn. Workable, I've made such changes in my copy, but tech abilities IMOP would be a better way of handling this.

    Just another idea.


  • Admin

    @wc_sumpton Agree. Though you somewhat highlight the problem with your example. As now we are looking at 4 more unit options already and I'm sure there are many more other that would be great to be able to change. That is why I think either having separate units for each nation for complex maps or a completely new system is needed. Expanding the tech attachment system is just really painful and every new unit option added takes significant effort.

  • @redrum
    Thank you for the reply and info. It seems like most of the unitAttachments are active/attacking player (fuelCost, fuelFlatCost, createsResourcesList , etc...) and these can be done in the xml by turning off prior to player turn and turning on only if needed, or TWW method.

    Those the affect the non-active/defending player (hitPoints, etc...) can only be done the TWW method. That was the reason for my request for hitPointsBonus.

    Again thanks for the info!


  • Admin

    I am very interested in your custom xml that spares the AI from dealing with resources.

    How do you tell the game that a player is AI and must not use resources. Do you use "actions and operations" and a "I am human" button?

    Could your system be implemented in a way where turning a player's fuel dependency on/off was done by checking boxes in map options? Like if for example all players were listed in map options with the option to check like "Germany will play with unlimited fuel"? (or without fuel)

    If Iron War was to have a way of removing fuel dependency from AI, it would be nice if it was a clean, user friendly way that could also be useful to human players who wanted to play without fuel.

  • @frostion
    The system that I use is the 'I am human' button. But I change it to say 'To begin' and some other information about the beginning of the game after the button. A check box in the map options would also work, but using that system the player would already have to know about that option to use it.

    The AI does not use 'actions and operations' so it skips by the question, thus leaving a 'false' answer to the userAction.

    Because IW already has a userAction section, I added another at the beginning of each players turn with maxRunCount="1" and a condition switch to stop the other actions from displaying. If the player was human then the condition switch was changed to true to allow the other actions to be displayed at the proper time.

    Then its just triggers to adjust fuelCost/createsResourcesList as necessary. I could post that part of the xml if you are interested.


  • Moderators Admin

    @wc_sumpton I wouldn't use the "I am a human" button, based on the fact that currently the AI never does any Actions. That is basically a hack and it has the issue that you never know what is going to be, as you cannot assume that the AI will always behave so. Even if @redrum tells you that, you don't know who's gonna be the AI guy 5 years from now or if he would change his mind. I actually tend to think that the AI should do all user actions 50% of times, if it has no clue about them, as you can have games with useractions you are almost always supposed to do as well as games with useractions you are almost never supposed to do. For example, I understand that the AI would play Civil War better if it would do user actions 100% of times, instead of the current 0%.

    I suggest doing the "Player1 is human" with custom properties or, if you are really so concerned about the user not overlooking it, hack it the same way as Feudal Japan do, but preferably with user actions, instead of purchase and place of utility units, which is safe, and maybe adding a notification right before that, explaining the user that he is supposed to tell what the human players are. You can also have such a setup player hidden and assigned to human default, to be sure the user won't miss selecting it for itself.

  • @cernel
    I understand what you are saying. I would be nice if the selection was read from the player selection menu.

    I know that using the userActions is a 'hack', then again a lot of hacks are used. And in five years, if the AI is changed, another 'hack' may need to be developed. @Frostion asked how I accomplished the task. It just gave him some quick feed-back to his question.

    But then again as you have stated, there are times that I think that the AI should be using the userActions for some things as in IW to give aid to another ally. So I agree and to some point disagree.


Log in to reply