Feature requests for TripleA

@Veqryn:

@P@nther:

@Veqryn:

…
So, please list any feature requests here.

(there are feature requests for the ENGINE.  if you want to mod a map, that is something different, and you can probably do it right now without changing the engine at all.)

If you guys have any cool, and hopefully simple, ideas on how to improve the triplea experience, then I am all ears.

I don’t know whether this is engine- or map-related (or maybe both):

I would like some options allowing to use the rule-improvements of G40/1941/1942-2ndEd. in other (older) AA-games:

Basically

• Tanks cost 6
• the “new” AA-Guns
• the new submarine rule (Transports are not allowed to unload in SZ containing an enemy sub, unless escorted by a warship)

in AA50 and Spring1942.

ya, those are map related

you could easily do them yourself with the xml file and notepad++ or any other text or xml editor

Ah ok. Good to know, thanks.

@Veqryn:

i may be able to record dice in some way,

however, i doubt we would be able to run battle calcs after battles, and I don’t think I’d want it to anyway…

the possible solutions are:

1. We simply record all “combat” related dice, per player.  Maybe we have a “current round” and “total”, and once the round is over, the current round gets reset.  It would simply be a list of things like, you got six 1s, three 2s, etc.

2. Or, depending on the complexity involved, maybe we can record what the dice was rolled at as well.  So, for example, you have rolled 20 @ 1 so far, and gotten a total of 3 hits.

3. Or, maybe we do both.  But of course, the more info recorded, the bigger savegames, the more memory used, the more exponentially increasing in size of both each round, etc.

I’ll let you guys debate what you want to see, but keep it simple.

#2 is preferable to #1, but having access to both sets of data would be sweet (memory permitting, of course).

I would love to see #2.

yes option #2 would be good.

If that simply means a tally of the number of ones, twos, threes, fours, fives, and sixes, I doubt that will reflect discrepancies in luck.

If my infantry are rolling 4s and my bombers are rolling 2s, it’s way different than if my bombers are rolling 4s and my infantry are rolling 2s.

Damn…

*Knowing overall how many times your -should have hit-, versus, -how many times you actually hit- was the key point I was looking for…

But per V’s comments it doesn’t sound like that’s possible.

What V is suggessting is helpful though… in the sense that you’ll be able to see how often you’re rolling high dice as oppossed to low dice, and how often?  13.7% being perfect average.  If you’ve got more than 60% of your dice rolls in the 4, 5, 6, range… that’s going to HURT.

Veq I REALLY like that report.

You’ve managed to pull of -basically- what I was hoping for.

LOL 13 5’s for france vs 2 2’s says alot.

An -Ambigious- look at the dice is helpful, because then you can’t claim -oh this battle, that battle, etc- you get an overall look at ALL of your dice. Period.  Either they are average, really hot, or total garbage, and you can see.

EXCELLENT WORK.

V, can you include your NOTES on that spread sheet?

So people understand the deviations, and how to read it properly. :P

Basically the addage that in Axis and allies, if you’re roll average is less than 3.5, they are with you,  if they are greater than 3.5  they are against you.

OK its starting to get pretty nerdy in here……

Once you know the means and standard deviation of all dice rolled by both sides, you could use a t test to definitively test whether the difference in dice rolls between the two sides is statistically significant.  The t test is empirically robust with violations of its assumptions, but in this case the sampling distribution will be approximately normal with a mean about 3.5 so the test is very appropriate to this situation.  It will tell you the likelihood of the difference between all dice rolled by the axis side versus the allies side.  If t is equal to or greater than 1.645 then the someone got diced, which will happen about 1 in 10 games.

See formulas in the “Unequal sample sizes, equal variance” section of “Independent two-sample t-test” about halfway down this wikipedia post: 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Student’s_t-test

Ok, so for all the stoopid folks.  How can we get somekind of simple reading, which uses the math, and seperates the dice 50/50, 60/40, 70/30 etc.

IE, based off the average rolling, and the standard deviation etc, OVERALL, the dice are rolling lower for -this- side, than -that side.

A simple Dice Gauge, that rolls from Even, to troublesome, to massacre based on the T calculations, and the reality that in axis and allies lower dice are better.

A simple way to do it would be for TripleA to calculate the t statistic using the formulas on that wikipedia post or any stats textbook and if it comes out to 1.645 or greater, then a little notice could come up saying something like “the allies have had significantly lower dice rolls than the axis so far in this game”.  If its not 1.645 then the two are not significantly different from one another and there is justification for dice whining.

I think for the non-mathematically able, they could just read the “average” dice number.

Agreed.

We could probably even do without the deviations… is it too much info?

Honestly… you have included so many awesome features already, it’s hard to think of anything else lol…  I just ran through ALL of tripleA, and -looked- for anything else I could think of.

It’s all there, zooming, history, editing… stats

Perhaps being able to editing/add damaged ships, and factories… and a back/forward feature during a countries turn, that’s it. or more end of turn/game reporting (Builds, losses, all stuff that’s in history anyways - but now compiled into a reprot)  I assume this hasn’t been done already though, because it would be a pain in the ass.

I owe you some $ for this dice feature V, I’ll get it to you shortly.

Okay, I have some suggestions. These are not bugs, they are merely ideas to help improve the whole experience - and I would be very grateful if they could be considered. Here goes:

1 - When viewing all of the combatants in a given embattled game space using the ‘Territory’ tab, would it be possible to line up each faction’s units side by side instead of underneath each other? My reason being is that the vertical list of units is sometimes so long that it goes off the bottom of the screen. This in effect creates a scroll bar which would be fine except that you can’t manipulate/interact with it (in other words, you can’t scroll down the list). There is plenty of room in the pane to list all of the combatants side by side, and even type by type e.g.

France        Germany

6 Infantry      3 Infantry
2 Artillery            - 
3 Tanks          6 Tanks

In my example above, Germany has no Artillery units in the battle and so only a ‘dash’ is displayed (-). My idea would capture all of the required data on the screen without having to scroll down.

2 - Would it please be possible to allow players to manage the size of the combat screen window? It is expandable, but seems to re-size itself every time it appears. This is a hassle because it often means that all the units that fire @ 4 are concealed by the ‘casualties’ section of the window. It would be great if players could re-size the window as required and then freeze it so that it reappears in the desired size every time. Again, this idea is simply to allow more information to be viewed with minimal fuss.

3 - Scenario: I have 1 sea unit to place and I click on an eligible sea zone to place it during the MNU phase. Can the ‘place unit’ interface please be amended so that 1 unit is automatically selected instead of having to click the ‘up’ arrow to select 1 unit manunally? Or even better, if the unit could just be dropped straight into the sea zone (without the interface having to appear)? This is intuitive and would save players a little bit of time and hassle. And I think it could be aaplied to all units; not just sea.

Thanks very much for reading.

Hi boys,

First of all, congrats to Veqryn and all the other developers, TripleA rules! I’ve been playing on ABattlemap since so many years, I can’t believe I’ve just started using TripleA yesterday!

My suggestions are probably already implemented in TripleA, but I’ve looked through the forums and didn’t find anything about it.

-When playing Low Luck, would it be possible to have an option to merge the Offshore Bombardment and the Subs rolls (when possible and adequate) with the other rolls? Like if you attack a cruiser with a Sub and a Bmb, I’d like to have the possibility to have a sure hit instead of the 1@2 suprise strike + the 1@4 bomber roll. I surrender my surprise strike in exchange of the sure hit. Of course when air units are present, it’s a bit more complicated. For the Offshore Bombardment, it would be perfect! I think most editions have the unit hit by the bombardment roll for defense, so why separate the attacking rolls? It would be nice to have this option.

-In Anniversary, is there a way to see the National Objectives? I’m guessing there’s an option for that and I’ve just not discovered it yet, but if there isn’t, it would be nice to have it. I have to open ABattlemap just to remember them. (OK I haven’t played an AA50 game in more than a year, it’s probably why I don’t remember them ;))

Thanks! And sorry if these options/features are already implemented!