Attack behavior if target owner changed

[Kroah]

if i send ships to strengthen one of my (attacked) countries and i lose that country in the army battle before the ships arrive, they don't seem to attack the freshly lost country so it can't be regained instantly. instead the fleet seems to return completely to its homebase. this is a real bug i think. in the original coco the ships would have attacked the country and with chance they would have reconquered it. that could be seen by the fortification symbol which is gone when this has happened but the country is still in my colors.

[Kroah]

It's by design.

I had 3 choices:

1) Like ST, always attack the destination, even if another country conquered the area just before. I dislike this one because war was unintentionally declared to friendly major.

2) Like the current implementation, never attack the destination area if the owner is not the same than the one when the move order was given. So no surprise here, the effective order is the same than the given one.

3) Like the previous, but attack if the new owner is an enemy.

I bet for the third choice. What do you think?

[Kroah]

definitely the 3rd one! or maybe you can make it selectable?
have to think further about it. It's important.

[Kroah]

3) Like the previous, but attack if the new owner is an enemy.

In the engine, I distinguish 4 types of relation between 2 majors:

Code: Select all

You attack him   He attacks you   Relation type
      No               No            Friend
     Yes               No            Enemy 1
      No              Yes            Enemy 2
     Yes              Yes            Enemy 3

And a variable holds the number of turns an enemy doesn’t attack someone anymore. When this variable reaches 5, the enemy becomes a friend.
So I can filter an enemy by its relation type and by the number of turns you (or he) haven’t attacked.

Finally the question is:
Which kind of enemy should a move order attack if the targeted area owner has changed?

[Monty]

I must say I liked the 1st "always-attack" solution.
Why ? Because not attacking a country that has a new owner will be a huge penalty for the last playing country when there are 6 players. This means the country would see its orders cancelled everywhere a battle took place and someone won. Compared to the 1st playing country, which will ALWAYS be able to attack, isn't this unfair ?

My vote would go for: always attack, but don't declare war if the owner is not the same than the one when the move order was given.
Imagine, at start there is no war at all:
- England attacks France
- England wins - France and England are at war
- Japan attacks the same territory, thinking it attacks France, but then attacks England
- Japan wins - but is not at war with UK. Any human playing UK wille be able to decide by himself is he wants revenge from Japan, knowing that he wasn't the initial target...

I totally agree that sending reinforcements by boat and having them returning home was not a nice surprise
Ideally this could be a parameter for each player, choosing between "brutally attack anyone" or "don't mess with other countries", but of course this wouldn't really be the game we all know !

Just my 2 cents

[Monty]

I must say I liked the 1st "always-attack" solution.
Why ? Because not attacking a country that has a new owner will be a huge penalty for the last playing country when there are 6 players. This means the country would see its orders cancelled everywhere a battle took place and someone won. Compared to the 1st playing country, which will ALWAYS be able to attack, isn't this unfair ?

actually it's not, because the strict playing order doesn't exist anymore. attacks are THEORETICALLY executed at the same time (if they come off from within the same region), but PRACTICALLY arranged by a random factor. so it's not always the same player who has the last turn.
But nonetheless it stays a bit unfair and your suggestion...

My vote would go for: always attack, but don't declare war if the owner is not the same than the one when the move order was given

...is like an eye-opener for me. so simple but yet so clever!
if this would be a possibility i think i would vote for this too.

in this case the last player can have both, luck and bad luck.
bad luck: if he attacks a country thinking there were very few defenders and when the battle starts he has to face a much bigger army of another major.
luck: if two other powers have mutually minimized their armies in a battle and he can then conquer the country easily against the weakened winner of the first battle. but this can't be planned strategically because of the random order, which is good.

ideally i would like to have all things that were changed from the original gameplay to be selectable in the server setup at the start of a new game. but maybe pascal is throwing his hands up in horror when he reads this

[Symoon]

Glad you liked it, Monty

There might be a flaw in my example, though

My vote would go for: always attack, but don't declare war if the owner is not the same than the one when the move order was given.
Imagine, at start there is no war at all:
- England attacks France
- England wins - France and England are at war
- Japan attacks the same territory, thinking it attacks France, but then attacks England
- Japan wins - but is not at war with UK. Any human playing UK wille be able to decide by himself is he wants revenge from Japan, knowing that he wasn't the initial target...

The flaw is: with this example, France lost a country, Japan won it, and as a result, France is at war with UK, not with Japan.
This could seem strange to the France player !

[Monty]

damn, that's true, thanks for pointing that out.

i think it runs into some kind of philosophical discussion: when does a war begin?
does it begin with the real killing of men (A) or is already the sending of troups into a foreign country, with the intention to conquer it, (B) an act of war?

(A) is how it's handled at the moment.
but the longer i think about it i begin to favor the point of view labeled with (B).

reason: in the original coco, if japan attacks france and does not win the country, both majors are in war with each other, even though france did not lose a country. so the france-player could be also irritated at this point if he hadn't watched the combat phase closely enough to see that battle.
but with the help of the war table he knows that japan has bad intentions against him.

in (B) it's the same although japan didn't kill any frenchmen. but the japan-player sent his troups to france and at this point he accepted to be in war with france in the future. the same goes for england and so they both should be in war with france, but not with each other, because that wasn't their intention.

in the example that you described it would be pure luck, who's at war with whom. the last player in the playing order (here: japan) would be benefitting from his position because he would get a territory of a foreign major without being in war with anyone afterwards.

to sum it up:
i would suggest that the declaration of war should be based on the attack-orders everyone gave and not on the real battle-scenario.
as in your suggestion, symoon, attack orders should be executed even if the target country is in other hands meanwhile (no turning home).
but again, this has not to lead to war with the new owner (no war intention).

i don't know if it's "playable" though or too "far away". maybe i will say that this is totally unlogic and shit when i'm playing it one day...it would need of course a little time to reorientate...

plus, it doesn't seem to be extremely easy to implement...

[Kroah]

Wow, nice feedbacks!

ideally i would like to have all things that were changed from the original gameplay to be selectable in the server setup at the start of a new game. but maybe pascal is throwing his hands up in horror when he reads this

Yep, maybe in few years
I'll add it in the todo list.

Concerning "when a war is declared", i think that when someone gives an order to attack a friendly major, if no battle occurs, the war must NEVER be declared. The main reason is that the move orders are kept secret and no-one know you wanted to attack someone else until the battle really takes place and some men were killed.

Concerning "when to attack or return at home without attacking", i think:
- if the owner is the same as when the order is given -> attack.
- if the owner isn't the same:
* the war must never be declared if the NEW owner is a friendly major -> go home (obvious according to me).
* the new owner is an enemy major -> attack

Example 1: in the case France attacks an english area. France and England are in peace.
round 1: Japan conquers the english area.
round 2: England conquers the previously japan conquered area.
round 3: France attacks the area, England owns it, same as when the move order was given -> attack.

Example 2: in the case France attacks an english area. France and England are in peace. France is in war with Japan.
round 1: Japan conquers the english area.
round 3: France attacks the area, Japan owns it, different from the owner when the move order was given but France is in war with Japan -> attack.

I really don't understand what bother you in those rules. Can you explain me again please?

However, with these rules, i've still a problem (when the owner isn't the same):
- what is an enemy?

Like i said you previously:

In the engine, I distinguish 4 types of relation between 2 majors:

Code: Select all

You attack him   He attacks you   Relation type
1)      No               No            Friend
2)     Yes               No            Enemy type 1
3)      No              Yes            Enemy type 2
4)     Yes              Yes            Enemy type 3

And a variable holds the number of turns an enemy doesn’t attack someone anymore. When this variable reaches 5, the enemy becomes a friend.

You understand, someone (major A) may want the attack to be done if he already attacked the new owner (major B) even if the new owner (major B) never attacked him (major A) (case 2) Enemy type 1). But major A may want not to attack major B if he (major A) never attacked him (major B) even if major B already attacked major A (case 3) Enemy type 2).
Of course, case 1) (friend) leads to a go home and case 4) (enemy type 3) leads to an attack.

So, should the attack be done for case 2) or 3) or both 2) and 3)?

[Monty]

just a quick thought:


i know it doesn't fit exactly for your question but you can of course add checkboxes for every case...

[Symoon]

Concerning "when to attack or return at home without attacking", i think:
- if the owner is the same as when the order is given -> attack.
- if the owner isn't the same:
* the war must never be declared if the NEW owner is a friendly major -> go home (obvious according to me).
* the new owner is an enemy major -> attack
(...)

I really don't understand what bother you in those rules. Can you explain me again please?

What bothers me here is the "go home" decision.
I sometimes want, or even desperatly NEED, to attack a location whoever owns it. Even if it must declare a war between me and a new country ! Profblem is that if the owner changes, my troops won't attack.

Who thought we'd meet so many subtile situations

[Kroah]

What bothers me here is the "go home" decision.
I sometimes want, or even desperatly NEED, to attack a location whoever owns it. Even if it must declare a war between me and a new country ! Profblem is that if the owner changes, my troops won't attack.

Who thought we'd meet so many subtile situations

After many thoughts, i agree with you. Even if it's not a common situation, when it occurs, it's annoying.

The game must not prevent somebody to attack a country, whoever owns it.

I'll try to implement it in the futur.

Thank you,
Pascal