Currently Online

Latest Posts

Topic: Garrison on attackables

raistware
Joined: 2009-09-07, 17:31
Posts: 71
Ranking
Likes to be here
Posted at: 2010-03-30, 23:21

This is the forum thread for the feature proposal GarrisonOnAttackables

Explain here your point of view!


Top Quote
Nasenbaer
Avatar
Joined: 2009-02-21, 18:17
Posts: 829
Ranking
One Elder of Players
Location: Germany
Posted at: 2010-03-30, 23:55

Sounds good with me, as long, as the headquarters are not included in the last point -> so if the HQs have 0 soldiers they wil still keep military influence until end.


Top Quote
Dwarik
Joined: 2009-05-11, 17:50
Posts: 42
Ranking
Pry about Widelands
Posted at: 2010-03-31, 01:05

maybe set the garrison value of the HQ to -1. since even with 0 soldiers the HQ will conquer and keep the land


Top Quote
raistware
Joined: 2009-09-07, 17:31
Posts: 71
Ranking
Likes to be here
Posted at: 2010-03-31, 08:52

I think that I misexplained myself.

Garrison is only a tribe load configuration value.

You will not be allowed to change his value on game.

Headquarters by default will have 0 on garrison, so only if someone edit tribe config file and add this var setting to other number, the behavior will change and HQ can lose influence.

Garrison is also the minimum number of soldiers on a site, you never will be able to set capacity lower than garrison value, so HQ with a garrison greater than 0 will allways have some soldiers inside.

Dwarik: Having a -1 value makes a nonsense, 0 value is just the correct value: no soldiers on garrison, so never loses influence on land.

EDIT: I have updated wiki page to clarify concepts.

Edited: 2010-03-31, 09:07
Top Quote
SirVer
Joined: 2009-02-19, 15:18
Posts: 1438
Ranking
One Elder of Players
Location: Germany - Munich
Posted at: 2010-03-31, 10:22

I dislike the proposal. We already had the discussion before that you should not loose land if noone takes it from you. I do not see many benefits in changing the current state. En plus, this adds one more military feature to the game, and as you know, I don't want to embolish this feature even more.


Top Quote
raistware
Joined: 2009-09-07, 17:31
Posts: 71
Ranking
Likes to be here
Posted at: 2010-03-31, 10:51

SirVer you do not lose land if no soldiers inside!

The only situation that you can lose land with this feature is that: you and other player ovelap influences (he builds a ms near your frontier) and there are not enough garrison soldiers on military site to keep control for land for a long period of time.

If you has not enough garrison soldiers for long period of time BUT noones reclaims your land, you should not lose any land.


Top Quote
SirVer
Joined: 2009-02-19, 15:18
Posts: 1438
Ranking
One Elder of Players
Location: Germany - Munich
Posted at: 2010-03-31, 11:24

I understood that. But what is wrong with a garrision of 1? I think this adds unneeded complexity, the current solution is very straightforward and intuitive in my opinion.


Top Quote
raistware
Joined: 2009-09-07, 17:31
Posts: 71
Ranking
Likes to be here
Posted at: 2010-03-31, 11:45

This mainly is because I am shocked that with the same soldier a very different bunch of land is conquered, only because of the militarysite. So for me is reasonable that big sites need more soldiers for mantainment. I think of this only for Big military sites, like Fortresses and Castles. I think that giving a garrison of 2 or even 3 could be good. I think that ideally little military sites need one garrison soldier, medium two garrison soldiers and big even 3 garrison soldiers. But may be this is a lot of soldiers needed so, most little and medium military sites should be one garrison soldier, some medium (like high tower) two garrison soldiers, and big military sites should have two. For advanced big military sites we may put higher garrison, like 3 to represent that this is a very advanced building that need lots of maintenance to work.

Also introducing this concept helps with a feature-bug-fix I am working on : give control of how many soldiers can garrison on Headquarters. Capacity value do not help me there because capacity is a very different think here: HQ has unlimited capacity, but it supply soldiers until the garrison minimum is acheived. So playing with capacity do not helps me there.

Edit: I have updated wiki page with future work.

A bit off topic: This can be even used to make a difference between empire Barracks and Sentry, the barracks could have a garrison of 2 (could not attack) and Sentry a garrison of 1.

Edited: 2010-03-31, 11:45
Top Quote
SirVer
Joined: 2009-02-19, 15:18
Posts: 1438
Ranking
One Elder of Players
Location: Germany - Munich
Posted at: 2010-03-31, 16:26

The price for a big military building is already the build cost. I still do not see how this guarisions benefits gameplay.

The problem with the HQ is quite a different one. But I would suggest adding a new feature that let's the user choose which soldier he wants to keep in the HQ from the list. And make this a HQ only feature.


Top Quote
Astuur
Avatar
Joined: 2009-02-28, 10:08
Posts: 733
Ranking
One Elder of Players
Location: Frankfurt / Germany
Posted at: 2010-03-31, 18:55

There is one thing that is not really clear to me in the blueprint:

The interaction between the new garrison value and upgrading military sites.

If an upgradable military site is upgraded, this will trigger the timer. (All soldiers out) In contrast to how the game behaves now,(see https://bugs.launchpad.net/widelands/+bug/550761) the influence on the terrain will not be lost immediately, even if there are other enemy miltary building claiming the terrain, as long as the timer runs.

Within this time the new (upgraded) building must be erected and manned with the minimum garrison value for the new building (or the old, because the value was set for the old one?).

I hope I got that right so far.

I think you did not primarily have the upgrading process in mind, but if I understand correctly it would be influenced.

In effect that would mean, that a player must estimate the building time for his upgrading military sites, and whether the enemy might draw near meanwhile. He must also check if all the building materials are existent in the desired quantity and of course avoid traffic jams at all costs. Hopefully there are enough soldiers available at the time of upgrade finish.

Upgrading a military building will become a very risky business then, but it might be a nice challenge, though I doubt that a normal player will like it. To be honest, I was always furious when a manned enemy barrack burnt down my castle construction site just before it finished (in Settlers) face-smile.png

Also: Upgrading barracks to sentry is different from upgrading a fortress to a castle. Since construction times depend on the type of building - would you establish different times for different buildings then?

Or would you want the timer to start once the new building is finished but still unmanned, to avoid all of these problems?


Being no programmer, I apologize for all my suggestions that imply undue workload and for other misjudgements due to lack of expertise or relevant skills.
I am on Win32, have no means to compile, and rely on prefabricated distributions (Thanks to Tino).

Top Quote