Navigation

    TripleA Logo

    TripleA Forum

    • Register
    • Login
    • Search
    • TripleA Website
    • Categories
    • Recent
    • Popular
    • Users
    • Groups
    • Tags
    1. Home
    2. TorpedoA
    • Profile
    • Following
    • Followers
    • Topics
    • Posts
    • Best
    • Groups
    • Invitations

    TorpedoA

    @TorpedoA

    19
    Reputation
    69
    Posts
    38
    Profile views
    0
    Followers
    0
    Following
    Joined Last Online
    Location Germany

    TorpedoA Follow

    Best posts made by TorpedoA

    • RE: Another ways to solve huge stack issue

      @Schulz
      I have up to 2000 units on my NWO map (4 Nations).
      And there is only one thing i would ever consider to use against too much units, which is subjective, its upkeep.
      Works like a charm.
      My problem atm is not about the upkeep relationship within the units, but the upkeep in relation to the construction costs. But thats another story.
      Furthermore i tend to see attack potential more valuable then defensive passive approach like bunkers. To give more potential to a defensive strategy, i came up to my following rough system of upkeep:
      A totally defensive unit like a bunker (2HP!) costs 1 upkeep, and therefore is the cheapest upkeep but is not as cheap to construct.
      Bunker (2HP) = 1 upkeep = 0.5 upkeep/hp
      A unit like my Entrenched Infantry can move but only in noncombat. So its less passive, hence more upkeep.
      Entrechend Inf = 1 upkeep = 1 upkeep/hp
      Normal units, which can combat move are the most expensive ones.
      Any normal unit = 2 upkeep (4 if 2 HP) = 2 upkeep/hp

      In short:
      Attacking is more expensive than defending, because attacking is more difficult (in reality) hence more demanding.
      Defensive strategie is then a good way to save money. Moving needs more energy, sitting not.

      As Germany on a NWO map, you have sometimes alot of ground to cover, at least in my mod, so you have a real option of going bunkers and Entrechnments to save money, to get enough hp to cover all directions.

      Another big plus of upkeep is the fact that if one side looses a huge army stack (in my case i lost around 140 hp in one battle), it frees up alot of upkeep. In my case around 250 worth of production. That means that games are much more intresting and not over in one big decicive battle. Helps alot for AI btw, it recoveres so to speak. Therefore one tend to play more aggressive in a way, whether its on the defensive side or the attackers. Yes, you can play a from rushing to a passive aggressive strategy lol.
      Blitz and then dig in and Bunker (Atlantic Wall)

      posted in Map Making
      TorpedoA
      TorpedoA
    • Funny Trigger to help/trick the AI to amphibiously noncombat-move isAA units

      I try to be as short as possible to describe this phenomenon in regard to a specific unit attachment option called canNotMoveDuringCombatMove.
      All isAA units that dont set that option false are subject to this.

      The problem of that option is that the AI never use that kind of unit in a amphibious noncombat movement, even if it is technically possible. Because the human player can do it without any problem.

      If you have a unit with isAA property, which by standard contains the above mentioned unit option at true, and you want to have the AI to use this isAA unit in a noncombat phase by amphibious transport to strengthen an already conquered territory (same round or the later), then you have to make the following pair of triggers for each nation with a always-true-condition:

      <attachment name="triggerAttachmentAmphibiousNonCombatTransport" attachTo="Nation" javaClass="games.strategy.triplea.attachments.TriggerAttachment" type="player">
      <option name="conditions" value="conditionAttachmentAlwaysTrueCondition"/>
      <option name="when" value="before:NationNonCombatMove"/>
      <option name="unitType" value="isAA-unit"/>
      <option name="unitProperty" value="canNotMoveDuringCombatMove" count="false"/>
      

      The second trigger just changes:

      <option name="when" value="after:NationNonCombatMove"/>
      <option name="unitProperty" value="canNotMoveDuringCombatMove" count="true"/>
      

      This is funny because i just allowed a noncombatmovement unit to combatmove in a noncombatmove phase to be able to be transported and unloaded by amphibious transport by the AI.
      And it works. Without problems so far.

      posted in Map Making
      TorpedoA
      TorpedoA
    • RE: Limited battle round

      @Simon-Westerlund
      in every maps xml you find the following lines to determine the rounds for sea, air, land each:

      	<property name="Land Battle Rounds" value="2" editable="true">
      		<number min="-1" max="100"/>
      	</property>
      
      	<!-- Sea Battle Rounds means the number of rounds that a normal Battle goes on for (sea). Default is -1, and if negative, the battle continues forever until 1 side is eliminated. -->
      	<property name="Sea Battle Rounds" value="2" editable="true">
      		<number min="-1" max="100"/>
      	</property>
      
      	<property name="Air Battle Rounds" value="2" editable="true">
      		<number min="-1" max="100"/>
      	</property>
      posted in Player Help
      TorpedoA
      TorpedoA
    • I like to share a NWO mod of mine in a fast simple way, but how?

      I have modded NWO 5 Nations map over 2 years now. Its not meant to be a full balanced mod for player vs player unfortunately, because i always played it vs AI. But i was constantly developing it to something i would not have thought to be possible in this little game. Although its not meant to be a player vs player in the first place, i really just like to share this. Just for curious players who wanna have some inspiriation or whatever they like to take out of it.

      How and where should i post a short introduction to concept and features and what do i have to do to make it available to everyone asap who is curious about such thing?

      I dont know how the update thing about maps works, but i didnt have to do anything last engine update and it runs fine.

      posted in Map Making
      TorpedoA
      TorpedoA
    • RE: I like to share a NWO mod of mine in a fast simple way, but how?

      @LaFayette said in I like to share a NWO mod of mine in a fast simple way, but how?:

      NWO is pretty old/set, so creating a new map with the new mod inside of it is perhaps the way to go.

      Well, looks like its the original map that i used, opposed to 5 Nations which i have told. But now i think i remember that i used the NWO_5_Nations.xml with the orginal map. This was very early, at least one year ago.
      Because the game shows the orginal map, NOT the 5_Nation variant, BUT my xml is NWO_5_Nations.xml !
      I am now confused how to preoceed in the easiest way.

      Edit:
      I just did a copy of my exessive modded NWO_5_Nations.xml and renamed it to SilentSentinels.xml and changed the game info name within.
      Furthermore i dont remember exactly why i did use 5 Nations.xml with orginal map. I just cant remember. But i hope thats no problem.

      posted in Map Making
      TorpedoA
      TorpedoA
    • RE: isAAforFlyOverOnly for Air units and Low Luck

      @beelee
      this is now working for me

      <attachment name="unitAttachment" attachTo="Spitfire" javaClass="games.strategy.triplea.attachments.UnitAttachment" type="unitType">
      <option name="movement" value="5"/>
      <option name="carrierCost" value="3"/>
      <option name="isAir" value="true"/>
      <option name="attack" value="2"/>
      <option name="defense" value="2"/>
      <option name="canScramble" value="true"/>
      <option name="maxScrambleDistance" value="1"/>
      <option name="canAirBattle" value="true"/>
      <option name="airDefense" value="5"/>
      <option name="airAttack" value="5"/>
      <option name="isAirBase" value="true"/>
      <option name="canIntercept" value="true"/>
      <option name="canEscort" value="true"/>
      <option name="createsResourcesList" value="-1:PUs"/>
      <option name="attackAA" value="2"/>
      <option name="isAAforFlyOverOnly" value="true"/>
      <option name="maxAAattacks" value="1"/>
      <option name="typeAA" value="AA"/>
      <option name="mayOverStackAA" value="true"/>
      </attachment>

      3 Spitfires killing 1 enemy flyover air unit everytime one is flying over.
      Works well.

      posted in Map Making
      TorpedoA
      TorpedoA
    • RE: isAAforFlyOverOnly for Air units and Low Luck

      @beelee
      Now i think about Arty having isFirstStrike , like AA but against anything.
      I didnt notice those isSub-options exists till today.
      Awesome.

      posted in Map Making
      TorpedoA
      TorpedoA
    • RE: isAAforFlyOverOnly for Air units and Low Luck

      @beelee
      Wow
      thats quite a nice idea you got there, Destroyers as AA vs Subs. Incredible.
      Another dimension opens up now. This game gets more complex everytime.

      About isAirbase and trouble, what do you mean by that?
      I know its wierd to give isAirbase to air units itselft but now they can freely roam, even though its not realistic. And i am quite unsure if i keep it like that.

      But for now i am happy that you shared your idea about AA for Destroyer. Exciting.

      posted in Map Making
      TorpedoA
      TorpedoA
    • RE: Bunker, 1 round battle, stalemate, offense participation next round

      @Cernel
      ok then, does that mean that with option cannotattackduringmovement, the bunker would not participate at all yes? That is quite dumb of me not to have guessed that. It seams 3 hours of sleep is not good for my brain.

      posted in Map Making
      TorpedoA
      TorpedoA
    • About AI purchase behavior and unit costs

      Hi there
      As i have alot of different units, i try to observe AI purchase after setting my unit costs by running a couple of rounds, sometimes even hours to look if AI will actually buy a unit or not at all. There are a couple of things i noticed and things i just dont understand how the AI evaluate the purchase in terms of unit values and specifically movement.
      As most of you know a 2/2 unit is not as valuable then a 1/3 or 3/1 unit.
      I claim the AI doesnt recognize this at all, which is fine i think.

      One thing i noticed: There is a tipping point when the AI decides to go for another typ of air unit if i lower or higher the cost by 1 and ignores the other air unit for the most time which were bought the most time before i changed the cost value. There is a tipping point. There must be a formula which the AI derives for its purchase.
      And somehow this is related to the movement value i have the feeling.
      Also there is the AI log screen where all unit purchase options are listed with cost efficiency values.

      Q1: Does the AI use any cost efficiency maths to decide the best option?

      Almost all units in my game are being purchased by the AI regularely so i am happy for the most part. But when it comes to air units, i have some problems to track down the best costs per unit.

      Q2: How do you set your costs for air units with different combat and movement values and in regard to sea and land units?

      Also it seems there is a exponential thing going about attack and movement. A bomber with 4 attack and 6 movement or a fighter with 2 and 4 seems not of linear value to the AI.

      Q3: Is there anything like that going on there?

      Sorry, but i am totally obsessed about playing against AI which i want to purchase all my units regularely, which makes unit cost evaluation so much of a important thing. Because the AI does decide whether or not a purchase is worth it or not. So i have to know how the AI is doing its math.

      Thanks for any response

      Edit:
      When i talk about tipping point, it doesnt mean that the AI stopps purchasing a specific unit completely in all cases if i change the cost by 1, it just does then favour another air unit more after the change of cost.

      posted in Map Making
      TorpedoA
      TorpedoA

    Latest posts made by TorpedoA

    • RE: Unit characteristics, unit options, support attachments in non-modern scenarios

      @beelee I never considered going with 12 die.
      I would feel lost how to put my unit values.
      6 is not that much but it serves well enough for me.

      posted in Map Making
      TorpedoA
      TorpedoA
    • Kamikaze land scrambler with 1 movement theorie

      Theorie:
      I want the following isAir unit to behave as land unit most of the time. Also you could turn around the logic: I want a land unit that functions as isAir scramble kamikaze unit for a specific phase. This unit only will have 1 movement.
      This is the reason why i have to use isKamikaze to allow my unit to paticipate in battle because at 1 movement there is no way back. But then it should be able to function as Land unit again immediately after battle, which should lead to the possibiltiy that this unit can "land" on that territory where it scrambled to.
      In short: Air > Land > Air > Land in regard to specific phases.

      <attachment name="unitAttachment" attachTo="Scrambler" javaClass="games.strategy.triplea.attachments.UnitAttachment" type="unitType">
      <option name="attack" value="1"/>
      <option name="defense" value="1"/>
      <option name="movement" value="1"/>
      <option name="isAir" value="true"/>
      <option name="airAttack" value="1"/>
      <option name="airDefense" value="1"/>
      <option name="isAirBase" value="true"/>
      <option name="isKamikaze" value="true"/>
      <option name="canScramble" value="true"/>
      <option name="canAirBattle" value="true"/>
      <option name="maxScrambleDistance" value="1"/>
      </attachment>
      

      And then i use a trigger to strip off all related properties until the next phase when another trigger will undo it.

      <attachment name="triggerAttachmentScramble" attachTo="Nation" javaClass="games.strategy.triplea.attachments.TriggerAttachment" type="player">
      <option name="conditions" value="conditionAttachmentAnyAlwaysTrue"/>
      <option name="when" value="after:NationCombatMove"/>
      <option name="unitType" value="Scrambler"/>
      <option name="unitProperty" value="allRelatedProperties"count="false/true"/>
      

      So that i have a unit which is most of the time a normal infantry-like unit but when enemy is attacking a territory in scramble-range, i should be able to scramble while only having 1 movement AND stay there like a normal land unit.

      The only theoretical problem that i dont know how to solve, is the scramble to amphibious assaults, which i have to prevent.
      Is there any chance i can prevent that?
      Or worse, is there anything wrong about the theorie?
      I could imagine that there is more problems i now can think of.

      Thanks for reading.

      posted in Map Making
      TorpedoA
      TorpedoA
    • RE: Unit characteristics, unit options, support attachments in non-modern scenarios

      @alkexr said in Unit characteristics, unit options, support attachments in non-modern scenarios:

      I see you want to be historical

      At least somehow yes. Even semi is enough for me. Some historical touch is a must for me.

      @alkexr said in Unit characteristics, unit options, support attachments in non-modern scenarios:

      I should be clear enough at this point why I believe trying to be historical in a classical setting is a mistake.

      So you wanted to say that its better in a non-classical setting? I just want not missread you.
      By classical you think of antiquity/medieval right?

      @alkexr said in Unit characteristics, unit options, support attachments in non-modern scenarios:

      drop the constraint of trying to reflect historical reality.

      If there is a good way to reflect or simulate history somehow, i try it. If not then yes, it must be dropped then.

      posted in Map Making
      TorpedoA
      TorpedoA
    • RE: Unit characteristics, unit options, support attachments in non-modern scenarios

      @alkexr said in Unit characteristics, unit options, support attachments in non-modern scenarios:

      Sword and shield does beat spear and shield, but only in an extremely unrealistic situation: one on one, both highly trained, single weapon only. In an actual battle, a spearman would be part of a huge formation

      Oh yes. That was not in my mind then. You are right.

      posted in Map Making
      TorpedoA
      TorpedoA
    • RE: Unit characteristics, unit options, support attachments in non-modern scenarios

      @TheDog said in Unit characteristics, unit options, support attachments in non-modern scenarios:

      If you have not already take a look at my map, as I went through the same thought processes as you.

      Well, i am aware of that map, but didnt look at it or read or played. Shame on me.
      Thank you, that will help me alot. I will read through and have a deep look.

      posted in Map Making
      TorpedoA
      TorpedoA
    • RE: Unit characteristics, unit options, support attachments in non-modern scenarios

      So much elaborate thoughts. Thats awesome.
      Thank you all thousand times.

      posted in Map Making
      TorpedoA
      TorpedoA
    • RE: Unit characteristics, unit options, support attachments in non-modern scenarios

      Here you can see some images to get some impressions of units i want to use.
      https://forums.triplea-game.org/topic/2574/how-to-properly-scale-unit-images-with-high-and-different-resolutions

      posted in Map Making
      TorpedoA
      TorpedoA
    • Unit characteristics, unit options, support attachments in non-modern scenarios

      Sorry for this clunky title, and beware of Atlantic Wall of text.

      I am absolutely proud of my personal mod ww2 scenario, specifically my unit roster which contains up to dozens of different, unique unit types which not only have different values but also have alot specialized support attachments, which ended up in a scissor-rock-paper element, which itself is one really good way to balance out the hitpoint/cost efficiency problem of units if they reach higher combat values and movement.
      This i can say because its tested out extensively vs AI, in regard of AI purchase, which i claim is one indicator of a reasonable cost structure, and furthermore in combat, which can be more interesting because its not only about stacking hp, but also significantly about unit composition, ally AND enemy.

      That approach means that as you get higher tier units, which most of the time means higher combat values, you will gain not only att/def/mov for some more PUs, which in general is rarely really worth it normally, but also some/alot "hidden" support attachments which at the end leads to a more balanced outcome.
      (One thing to mention here is that i always limit support attachments to exactly 3 for every unit as a maximum allowed, because the game cannot show more on tooltip. And 3 is more than enough.)

      Example (att/def/mov):
      My Battleships 4/4/2 (2hp) have the potential of 6/6 att/def if they are supported by air (recon) and destroyer (escort) and can weaken (-1AD) all other main combat naval vessels like e.g. Battlecruisers or Cruisers.
      My cheap slow coastal submersibles 2/2/1 on the other hand can reach up to 5/5 att/def if they have also air recon and are confronting only sluggish Battleships escorting convoys (transporters) without presence of enemy air and destroyers.

      This makes every unit type to have a different ideal encounter strength. So you will not only look for the rough amount of hp of an enemy army, but also about the compositions.
      Not all encounters will be like that for sure, but enough to be exiting if you can beat the enemy army even if the hp ratio is not that much favorable at the first glance, because you exploited that composition.

      Another easy example from my game (att/def/mov/cost):
      Light Tank 2 2 2 = 7 PU
      Medium Tank 3 3 2 = 9 PU
      Above cost values are exchangeable, the prinicple of hp/cost problem still exists, no matter how high you go with base costs, it only diminishes, but doesnt change the picture more or less. Although it could be done by setting costs in really high numbers i guess.

      But if you pack in enough reasonable special support attachmants, it will come much closer to a good buy.
      So in this case for example, only the MT will benefit from air recon (for long range weapon combat) while also be able to weaken other LTs and furthermore is more suited to attack fortifications of all kinds. With the right support (air, and mobile infantry in my case) and enemy composition, the MT will end up at 5/4 att/def while weaken a enemy LT and Trenches or similar stuff.

      zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

      Now to my actual problem and start of my brainstorm:

      In my ww2 scenario, i have plenty of reasonable unit combination support options in my head, either through some reading about warfare history or documentations. WW2 military history is huge.

      But now i want to make a scenario in the world of Rome and the Barbarians (around 190 BC or so), which i was very exited about till i thought about unit roster, compositions, supports and variety.
      And then it struck me. I will eventually end up in a much less complex structure because some mechanics are really hard to reason to use in such a scenario and the unit variation therefore is much smaller. I really want to use all possible mechanics in the game, even if its tricky.

      Obvious:
      no Air units -> no scramble, and i love the scramble mechanic!
      How to implement scramble in a non-aircraft evironment?
      I would miss that part really.

      Still Reasonable:
      Land units with the ability to evade (or first strike?)

      Another one is how would you characterize a berserker like unit?
      isSuicide with high combat values?

      Or how would you generally reason about whether a unit is a offensive one, and which a defensive one?
      Are spearmen is a defensive unit because they have a shield? Or because they have a spear? Or because they have both?
      There could be a phalanx support attachment for greek hoplites for example. And of course, they are good vs horsemen.

      Cavalry as a shock unit sounds reasonable. So they are the offensive combat power then right? Right i guess.

      Archers on the other hand are defensive specialists?
      I am already thinking of a support attachment too boost the defence of archers if they are behind any allied unit which is wearing a shield. If they loose the blocking melee unit infront of them and get attacked by enemy melee. And therefore are more likely to die next. But only on defense, because in offence, the melee are eventually approaching the enemy lines... and so on and so on.

      Does armor make a unit have more hp or does it only get higher combat values? Is armor hindering offence capability or even increase it?
      At wich level of armor equipment (helmet, body armor, shield) you would consider a unit not be in disadvantage over bowmen?
      Can land units on foot be considered fast (2movement) but only if they wear no body armor? (Cav could be then 3 movement)

      Recently i was reading and watching about sword vs shield combat. Result: Sword and shield beats spear and shield.

      War-axes are good vs armor, swords are not.

      Can horsemen be transports? (i know at least germanic tribes were doing it.)
      Which units are able to be transported?

      I always try to visualize the combat situation and its potential outcome. Which gave me solid results in building up my huge rock-paper-scissor based ww2 unit structure.

      So here i am, and my brain goes nuts.

      I like to read about any of your ideas if you are spending time playing such non-modern scenarios or fantasy, medieval themed ones (most know spear,sword,shield,bow) on how you would reason about different unit values, characteristics and possible support attachments in any form you can think of.
      Especially scramble, def/att alignment and allied/enemy support attachments.

      Thanks for reading. At ease.

      posted in Map Making
      TorpedoA
      TorpedoA
    • RE: How to properly scale unit images with high and different resolutions?

      @Hepps
      I feel like an idiot but, what is the better approach:
      To scale up to the biggest unit images oder down to the smallest ones? I guess it does matter?

      posted in Map Making
      TorpedoA
      TorpedoA
    • RE: How to properly scale unit images with high and different resolutions?

      @Hepps And after the rescale of the unit image itself by the layer thechnique you then go image -> change size, to downscale resolution right? If yes, which values you would aim for? 1600x1753 -> 52x52 (as example)? Because thats the only method that i was using till now, and would have used untill you told me a better solution.
      Or i am wrong here? Because those resolution numbers are so much larger then common ones throughout most games.
      I am quite noobish when it comes to unit images and resolutions.

      posted in Map Making
      TorpedoA
      TorpedoA