A Nice Gift

Show us how intelligent you are by discussing the AI in this forum.

Moderators: Balthagor, Legend, Moderators

User avatar
tkobo
Supreme Ruler
Posts: 12397
Joined: Jun 04 2002
Location: In a vast zionist plot ...RIGHT BEHIND YOU ! Oh Noes !

Post by tkobo »

Having the WM transfer units would be a little away from their "impartial" stance presented and would not make sense if they where boycotting you.
Okay,I dont get the first part of the "impartial stance".The World Market itself sells and gives units to regions at war now.

So i dont see how acting as a middleman for another region in the sale of units would be any more or less impartial than thier owns sales.

And the part about boycotting is actually a good point for ,not against ,the solution.
As it stands now, there really doesnt seem to be a measurable downside to be kicked out of the WM or leaving it on your own.
IF they acted as the middleman for such unit sales/trades, and only did so for those regions who were members in good standing it would add a large plus to actually being in the WM (in good standing).
This post approved by Tkobo:Official Rabble Rouser of the United Yahoos
Chuckle TM
ozmono2005
Brigadier Gen.
Posts: 539
Joined: Jun 01 2005
Location: Sydney

Post by ozmono2005 »

Make the unit transfering a WM unit and let the WM have rights of passage everywere

That units orders would be to go to recipent countries capital or the closest point to it, that was applicable even if it meant bouncing its way up the shore line.

EG Ireland hands over it naval units to Poland
Immediately those naval units become WM owned but with only 1 order
Orders are go to capital or nearest possiable space or base(for air)
Once that point is determined the unit starts moving
It passes through the neutral or warring country because no one friges with the WM(maybe latter if some of those book options for WM dip changed this would be reconsidered, and you could attack the WM unit moving through but with consequences)
Once it reaches its point its ownership turns to the country intended to recieve it. Poland
angelsenior
Corporal
Posts: 3
Joined: Nov 16 2005
Location: Belgium

Post by angelsenior »

I dont think its logical that, for selling/giving units from one country to another these units have to physically move to that country on their own, while the units being sold by the world market 'magically' appear at a predetermined base

It is as if a unit sold by the world market is considered as goods like industrial goods and such, while units sold by a country suddenly get a full crew complement in the selling country and immediately act as combat ready unit (meaning they can possibly attack and be attacked).

So, the best possible solution is to consider all sold units just as goods/cargo and these goods can transfer via any country neutral to both the selling and the buying parties, if no such countries are available for the transfer, then the deal is off. this can make surrounding a country very important to prevent them from receiving these reinforcements.

Also, the time of transfer of the goods needs to be taken into account depending on how far a unit has to go.

Another possibility is where the selling country has to deliver the goods himself; so the seller actually can choose himself how to transport the unit, using any transport ship/airplane he has available and via the path of his choosing, the seller only gets his money as soon as the units are delivered to the buyer.

The crew components of the units should be an option; the seller can choose to 'lend/give' some of his own troops together with the military equipment, these men would be deducted from the seller's army staff total and added to the buying party army staff total, these troops accompany the weapons being sold as civilians, and only start acting as soldiers once both the weapons and men arrive at their destination.
Il Duce
Brigadier Gen.
Posts: 577
Joined: Aug 10 2005
Location: Venice - the Doge's palace on the Pacific.

Keep it simple

Post by Il Duce »

There are two points to this thread -

1. How, if at all, should military goods be transferred, and
2. What is the nature of the WM?

I would have preferred to have item two not be a part of the original question, but there it is. So far, all of the user responses seem to me to be incredibly complex, and so far the developer responses have been evasive pending on the second issue.

We transfer goods like crazy. I don't have to build a pipeline to transfer oil, and I can give oil to an embattled and remote ally. But I can't give them equipment. But I can give them the tech and/or the money to build it. hmmm...

The wm is impartial, except it sends military advisors, sometimes even to both parties in a conflict.

I guess we aren't making a lot of progress, and that is o.k. - I can live with the cognitive dissonance. In fact, I've learned a lot about how to be a WM favorite, and so I guess now I would have to redevelop my playing style to deal with the withdrawal of all those wonderful techs that I receive from the impartial WM.

I don't know - I hope that the role and function of the WM becomes more coherent [and as economists and accountants say. 'transparent']. I don't care a lot what that role is. I have come to think of the WM as simply a source of random events, indifferent to the state of affairs on the map. Maybe that's the way. But somehow, I don't care for a high luck factor in a strategy game.
Colorless green ideas sleep furiously [but otherwise, they do not worry and are happy].
User avatar
Balthagor
Supreme Ruler
Posts: 22072
Joined: Jun 04 2002
Human: Yes
Location: BattleGoat Studios

Post by Balthagor »

This was revived in another thread. Here's the latest;
Il Duce wrote:...I posted about this a while ago. It's particularly bad if you give aircraft. they fly to the border, orbit and crash.

I think you should seriously reconsider permitting the WM to transport given goods transparantly.

Anomalously, missiles that you give ARE transported - and not by launching them.

Please.
Missiles are transfered without moving on map because they do not exist on map until deployed. When your missiles are in reserve, they are essentially "nowhere". They are stored in an undisclosed limbo (new tech tree item - limbo storage system :P )

I gave the thread another read since you asked me to reconsider it and I have some further comments...
Il Duce wrote:...Either the WM is impartial [an Honest Broker], or they are impartial, i.e. can boycott you. Seems to me you can't have it both ways. Either they provide the marketplace and facilitate trade - implicitly [to me, anyway], ALL trade - OR they are an omnipotent but biased faction.
tkobo wrote:...Okay,I dont get the first part of the "impartial stance".The World Market itself sells and gives units to regions at war now.


Well, here I get to blame design changes for my inconsistent comments. Tkobo is correct that the WM does sell units but this is based on WM subsidy and WM approval. This would mean that if you had low WM ratings they would not transfer your units safely (or at all...) from a neighboring friendly region. It is true that this would cause a greater impact to nations kicked out but would only make sense when the regions are not adjacent. Had the original WM stuff gone as planned, there would have been options for units to move into WM territory and make their way "home" through 3rd party land, but that all changed.

I'll also dive into some the hidden design ideas buried in my mind... remember, you were warned :D

When I think about the unit trades I tend to think about the MP examples I have seen of this more than the single player. In theory, if it works in MP, it's just a matter of teaching the AI. When playing I often look to trade units. This was one of the reasons I wanted the treaty to allow a player to view your reserve units. It would allow you to act as a weapons dealer where they can request what they would like to buy. A further thought I just had to this was that we could add a flag in all bases for "including in viewing treaty" so that you could hide some units in a specific base. Oh I'm sneaky :P

Once I've completed the trade, I might also find myself with units in isolated areas or on islands. To bring them home I need to use transports, something the AI doesn't do. To me this is a key step towards making the current solution more acceptable. If the unit you just sold to an AI region drove to an airbase and was picked up by it's own cargo plane, I think most of you would be happy with that solution.

Which takes us one step further into the development dreamland. There had been on and off discussion of a "shared transports" treaty. That if I gave an air transport order to a unit and all my aircraft are busy, a "shared transport" partner's aircraft could respond. There had been concern about you using your friends only C-130 to air drop on your enemy/his ally that kept this one from getting completed. If we can iron out solid rules for it, it might still get added.
angelsenior wrote:I dont think its logical that, for selling/giving units from one country to another these units have to physically move to that country on their own, while the units being sold by the world market 'magically' appear at a predetermined base
I agree, but not the way you might think. I had always wanted them to reach their destination by being airlifted/sealifted in. It would be really cool to see a WM AOE type ship sail to an enemy port to unload. You'd know that they were being offered and accepting help and (if we allowed attacking WM) would be a good place to start attacking.

Back to the issue - There is also the question of the AI using these new troops effectively. If you are fully allied, those units might be best to wait one full game day before heading home. In that time, they might get a new order to fortify a position that is within their reach and doesn't require trekking through enemy territory and a drive across a large lake.

I really think this is only an issue because the AI doesn't know what to do with the new units and will accept even if it won't be able to find something for those units to do. I'd also be happy to see the AI so no thanks to offers if it is from an island nation and the AI has no naval or air crago units...

But much of this could als be the rantings of a crazed developer
Il Duce wrote:There are two points to this thread -

1. How, if at all, should military goods be transferred, and
2. What is the nature of the WM?
Both questions are still open to debate, but I continue to support the current system. I'll admit that I was incorrect in calling the WM impartial, but unless we expand in various areas I don't see us changing much of this. I would however like to see us achieve a more transparent and coherent WM if it persists for future versions.
Chris Latour
BattleGoat Studios
chris@battlegoat.com
Il Duce
Brigadier Gen.
Posts: 577
Joined: Aug 10 2005
Location: Venice - the Doge's palace on the Pacific.

Post by Il Duce »

Chris, and goats all;

Thanks for reviving this thread, and sorry I was too lazy/busy to locate it myself. It was an interesting discussion, and sadly inconclusive. Couple more comments, and maybe everyone else will jump in again.

First, some opinion[quoting - or goating]:

"Missiles are transfered without moving on map because they do not exist on map until deployed. When your missiles are in reserve, they are essentially "nowhere". They are stored in an undisclosed limbo"

This seems a sort of technical ducking of the issue, but I'll let it go. I think the question is still valid, and I think that materiel is materiel - the same rules should apply to offering a tank or a plane as applies to a missile - at least in my mind. The two are the same in spirit. Picking nits, what if I transfer only 'reserve' units to my ally - aren't those in limbo too?

Other than that, I'm glad to know that all of these questions are still alive in development. Without necessarily arguing for a specifc point of view, I think my original comments in this thread (and sort of consistently in related threads related to WM and Diplo) have more to do with the establishment of a consistent, though not necessarily simplistic, world view model. Which leads back to the nature of the WM.

The characterization of the WM as 'the invisible hand' of the market place, seems to me, to be a great way to go. It 'might' facilitate all sorts of intrigues as one tries to dominate markets, and it would add a lot of depth to the diplo and econ aspects of the game. In a nuclear world, it seems to me that the only way to truly conquer will be via economics. Just my perspective.

AND - I understand that the original design was very much more towards a strategic/operational wargame with enough econ and internal politics to lend realism to the process of world conquest via primarily military means.

Opinion: on the merits of the previous paragraph, SR2010 is very close to meeting its objectives. And I think if you want to hone that edge further, it might even be time to limit additional enhancements to the diplo/econ/WM aspects for just the points in your last post - they kinda muddy the waters. They take the game into territory where anomalies like this one about trading materiel keep coming up. I believe the term is "scope creep."

On the other hand, some of us prefer the more cerebral war of influence, persuasion, and threats, rather than nuking our opponents into oblivion. Point of fact, I have never built a WMD in this game. I know, I know, I'm missing all the fun. On the other hand, I have been greatly amused by the diplo-style games that I have played, and of course I look for more of that in each upgrade.

In closing, I guess I'd have to say that my vote would be to see the goats do things that maintain the integrity of the game model (since the engine is admittedly limited) - even without some of the enhancements that we clamor for - in preference to incorporating enhancements that add complexities that the AI will never learn. Perhaps it would be a good time to tune the WM and diplo aspects to what the current AI can deal with, and level set there [rather than add features that are another order of magnitude past existing AI capacity]? Hey - somebody's gotta say it.
Colorless green ideas sleep furiously [but otherwise, they do not worry and are happy].
BigStone
General
Posts: 1390
Joined: Dec 22 2004
Location: Holland

Post by BigStone »

Il Duce wrote: I have never built a WMD in this game. I know, I know, I'm missing all the fun.
No you don't... once used nukes and i didn't like it.
Felt like cheating..... especialy because you don't get nuked back... :-?
NO MORE NOISY FISH [unless they are green & furiously]
I HAVE STILL A FISH IN MY EAR
User avatar
George Geczy
General
Posts: 2688
Joined: Jun 04 2002
Location: BattleGoat Studios
Contact:

Post by George Geczy »

Regarding the original question (delivery of traded units), the fact that the WM delivered them 'direct' was, of course, a cop-out (as Chris has mentioned above). But from a gameplay perspective, it does seem to work well. Most people don't really think to themselves 'geez, how did they get 60 45-ton tanks to an inland base so quicky?'

The idea of making player-to-player diplo trades work the same way is not really all that bad, except that it opens up a series of exploits - for example, want to move 20 tank battalions from USA to Europe? Trade them to Germany, then switch your WM receipt point to a US base on the Continent, and have Germany trade them back. Or, just have Germany do your dirty work for you - it would have taken the US a week to get the units there, assuming good transport capacity and no sea blockade.

So, as much as this adds a nice simplicity to the player trades, it creates some messes too.

-- George.
User avatar
tkobo
Supreme Ruler
Posts: 12397
Joined: Jun 04 2002
Location: In a vast zionist plot ...RIGHT BEHIND YOU ! Oh Noes !

Post by tkobo »

You could fix that by simply adding a delay into the units arrival to the seller.
Add in say 1 weeks time- for shipping ,handling,and lost packages :P
This post approved by Tkobo:Official Rabble Rouser of the United Yahoos
Chuckle TM
User avatar
Victarus
Lieutenant
Posts: 69
Joined: May 20 2006

Post by Victarus »

You could fix that by simply adding a delay into the units arrival to the seller.
Add in say 1 weeks time- for shipping ,handling,and lost packages :p
Gah! You took my idea! :D

Anyways, why not have the trade go from the giver's reserve to the reciever's reserve, kind of like the WM units do? First of all, the chance of allowing a foreign, unallied (perhaps even unfriendly - picking the lesser of two evils to support) crew to just hop in a tank on your soil doesn't sound very pleasant. Second, it wouldn't be the World Market transporting it over; it would be, for lack of a better, more well known comparison, a land-lease shipment from one country to another. Just add some time to represent packing the units, shipping them off and preparing the troops to use them and there you go. There isn't a "supply route" to disrupt in game unfortunately, but there isn't really an alternative unless you allow an option to have the unit transported before turning the unit over (I think that if Land-Lease to the Soviets involved the Soviets having to ship the supplies/etc. from the United States to the Soviet Union on their own, most of it wouldn't have gotten there - the Soviets weren't known for their navy at the time. ;) ).

Maybe this would be a single-player only option though, especially if that last option of transport-than-give is added at some point. For multiplayer I'd suggest putting the transported unit (small arms, packed up tank, whatever) into a special transport unit, just so it doesn't go shooting things while it's moving - it's packed up, after all. This would essentially be the only unit that can be on another nation's soil without a pact or declaration of war (although it still can't enter, limiting it to the selling nation or any with said pact while en route). Once it gets to a friendly base, you can assemble the unit - maybe a day or two - and you're ready to go.
User avatar
Balthagor
Supreme Ruler
Posts: 22072
Joined: Jun 04 2002
Human: Yes
Location: BattleGoat Studios

Post by Balthagor »

Victarus wrote:Anyways, why not have the trade go from the giver's reserve to the reciever's reserve, kind of like the WM units do?
If you check the previous posts this was already suggested and is the issue George mentioned as a problem. I’m wholly against this, as a US player I could trade dozens of units to my ally France ignoring the fact that Germany controls the oceans and the airways. I might not even own a single cargo ship/plane so the “delay” idea still doesn’t work.

If the crew that hops into the tank is from a region that does not have transit treaty, the other player cannot control the unit until it has left the territory. It moves on an ‘exit rule’ which, if the player succeeds in overriding causes an incursion (which generally means war). Most of the crews are from friendly or even allied nations.

And to your example of the Soviets, that would support the idea of a shared transports treaty as I suspect US ships were used to move these troops. Even today, when Canada wished to move its DARTs team for tsunami support, we needed to borrow a Russian AN-225 to get them there.
Chris Latour
BattleGoat Studios
chris@battlegoat.com
User avatar
Victarus
Lieutenant
Posts: 69
Joined: May 20 2006

Post by Victarus »

No, I only suggested the semi-instant move for single-player games only - the AI doesn't really work well with moving things like that, but I imagine players can be more innovative. If possible, just have an advanced option in game setup to have traded units go into the other player's reserve a while after a trade. I imagine most players wouldn't use it in a multiplayer game - the example you gave with one nation controlling the seas comes to mind - but the AI just doesn't enjoy armies moving from another nation into itself (understandable, but these are *their* armies now :D ).

As for transports, what about a "non-combat transport" treaty? It allows non-combat transports (naval or land) without active units on board (above I suggested making the sold unit into cargo, unable to attack until "reassembled") to move in your territories - perfect for transporting armies to the wary recipiant since there's pretty much no chance for a sneak attack. I suppose they might be undefended once they leave your nation or international waters, but they should be home free by then, right?
User avatar
Balthagor
Supreme Ruler
Posts: 22072
Joined: Jun 04 2002
Human: Yes
Location: BattleGoat Studios

Post by Balthagor »

having it as a lobby option is in interesting idea, but we already have so many lobby options :-?

how would your non-combat transport treaty be different than the suggested shared transport treaty? How would you define a non-combat transport?
Chris Latour
BattleGoat Studios
chris@battlegoat.com
User avatar
Victarus
Lieutenant
Posts: 69
Joined: May 20 2006

Post by Victarus »

Balthagor wrote:having it as a lobby option is in interesting idea, but we already have so many lobby options :-?
Bah! Customizability always makes for better multiplayer games. (Besides, the game itself isn't exactly simple either - why not go all the way and have a million buttons to set the game up? :D )

Anyways, what I was talking about was allowing a non-combat transport (ie, no attack values or landing capability) to carry a "packed up" unit (a truck sprite representing the trucks/trains/etc carrying the guns, tanks, etc.) into the other region's territory, where the sale takes place (to avoid a "I'll get it to you later" exploit). The sale could also take place from the reserves as it is now, but this would probably be for selling units when the other state would have a better chance to get them there - they remain packed up until "assembled" at a base, though, so you can't use this to give another nation a chance to attack through your nation without having to get the units there first.

How about this: Two examples. A is moving the unit first, B is selling first:

A) Poland is at war with Germany. While France desires that Poland holds up, it's not especially friendly with either power and doesn't desire to join the war itself. It decides to send a tank batallion over and talks with Poland about it - Poland agrees and signs a treaty allowing French transport vessels to drop supplies and weapons off. France packs up the tanks from the reserve screen, resulting in a "carrier" unit with the tanks inside. It moves the unit to a transport and moves the transport to a Polish port, defending it with its navy up to Polish waters where its navy can't follow anymore (transports like this are free game with or without war, so it needs at least one defender). The transport unloads the carrier unit and the sale takes place - a carrier on foreign soil can be sold to whoever's territory it is without being in reserve. Poland takes the carrier and sends it to one of its bases and the tanks are crewed and ready the next day.
B) France is at war with Germany and Poland desires to assist. Since France has a navy to defend any transports with, they agree to get the units out of Poland themselves. Poland sells the unit from their reserves, resulting in a carrier unit being created with the tanks in it, but belonging to France. France moves their transport in, picks up the unit, and takes it home to be assembled.

So? Any thoughts?
User avatar
Balthagor
Supreme Ruler
Posts: 22072
Joined: Jun 04 2002
Human: Yes
Location: BattleGoat Studios

Post by Balthagor »

I think I understand, but I still fail to see how that is much different than what I suggested of having the sale take place immediatly but you then have to use the transports as in your example to get the new units home. I could live with this solution but that is not what ppl have been asking for. Also, it would still end up with "packed as freight" units in your territory that you gave to the AI trying to get home because the AI doesn't bring over a cargo ship and try and sea transport them. Even worse, these "packed as freight" units will drive into enemy territory and be unable to fire. This solution, will interesting, doesn't address the problem.

Even using "non-combat" units as transports for some of these units, we would need to address the question of what if you and I have the treaty and you try and use my C-130 to transport a tank into your territory flying over my enemies territory. C-130s have not attack values so by your rule would be "non-combat" but it would get shot down and we would each loose a unit...
Chris Latour
BattleGoat Studios
chris@battlegoat.com
Post Reply

Return to “AI - Artificial Intelligence”