MaxUnitCount(for units)

[RealtimeFreak]

Hi Guys,
now i have a little time,
I have a idee, Megaglest, has a feature named MaxUnitCount,

it would be nice if GAE this feature would help, too?
by MegaGlest works this, by Human Players, and the AI.
i think thats a good feature for GAE ;)



regards RealtimeFreak,

[John.d.h]

This is already possible using static resources.

[RealtimeFreak]

yes , i know

I mean something different /:

[John.d.h]

I can see wanting to do it for the sake of keeping consistent methods between the two engines, but I think that's a lost cause if the other side isn't interested in making an effort.  Then there's the issue of allowing GAE to still play MG mods, but I think compatibility is going to break sooner or later anyway.  Maybe worth it, maybe not.

I'm not entirely sure what this feature does, though.  Is it a limit on one unit type, or on total units?

[RealtimeFreak]

its for total units what i mean,

hm..
i think the possible its , can control the AI a bit, with this feature.
I thought it was just a great thing for MG,because you can adjust, example:
depending on the unit, first unit = max10, max 10 = second unit third unit = max15

[hailstone]

Do you mean a population limit where units cost a certain amount of population then you can't build anymore units once you reach that limit? Perhaps you could link to an MG page or a commit log.

[Zoythrus]

Do you mean a population limit where units cost a certain amount of population then you can't build anymore units once you reach that limit? Perhaps you could link to an MG page or a commit log.

in short, "popcap." nearly every RTS has one...

[-Archmage-]

What's the point of this? The food system provides a generally realistic and dynamic popcap. How is adding an aritificial, unrealistic, and static one going to do any good?

[ultifd]

Actually, if you have tons of resources there is kinda no limit...

[-Archmage-]

Actually, if you have tons of resources there is kinda no limit...

It's a dynamic limit as I said, can be high low, anywhere. But really what is the point of a limit. Can't handle the units? If so an optional/editable popcap should be added, and default to off.

[ultifd]

It's a dynamic limit as I said, can be high low, anywhere.

Oh, I didn't see that for some reason. True, but still; it is not really a true limit...

Anyways I suppose the code could be used from MG or new code...but personally I don't think it is needed...

[Omega]

I don't want to see a population limit. It might work fine with a game that can be played financially (ie: stronghold), but Glest is all military and a population limit is a negative. I simply don't see it making gameplay any better for us.

[will]

Surely, it might not suit the limits of everyone's imagination but as long as it can be turned off it seems a very good thing?

(I like to play mg mods in gae)

[-Archmage-]

(I like to play mg mods in gae)

How does that make a difference?

True, but still; it is not really a true limit...

A realistic one, that works well.

I don't want to see a population limit. It might work fine with a game that can be played financially (ie: stronghold), but Glest is all military and a population limit is a negative. I simply don't see it making gameplay any better for us.

Agreed.

[Gabbe]

population limit is often what i dont like about games, especially when it doesn`t fit. I think of Glest more as of a game were you build colonies and try to remove the enemy colony if yuou get what i mean. And there pop cap is just sad and tragic. The only thing i hates about AOE1/2/3 was the pop cap. But in the settlers, pop cap makes the game more fun. Talking about the realistic one, not the other kid TS.

[-Archmage-]

population limit is often what i dont like about games, especially when it doesn`t fit. I think of Glest more as of a game were you build colonies and try to remove the enemy colony if yuou get what i mean. And there pop cap is just sad and tragic. The only thing i hates about AOE1/2/3 was the pop cap. But in the settlers, pop cap makes the game more fun. Talking about the realistic one, not the other kid TS.

:thumbup:

In Praetorians, the popcap always annoyed me, because I couldn't have a massive army, I was forced to limit which made it hard to set up huge battles.  :swordman: :swordman: :archer: :archer:

[RealtimeFreak]

hi all, thx for the many answer,

but i mean no generally popcap limit.
what i mean its , that exactly self MaxUnitCount system , from MG
(is advantageous that one unit each, so each file xml, which can adapt limit at MG)
so like a example: archer limit = 10, guard limit = 10, swordman = 10, worker = 20,
(from the Unit.XML <max-unit-count value=""/> )

to popcap limit:
it its quite feasible, with static ressources, like the housing system from MG
a problem its, the AI build max 11-13 houses (tents),
but i think, the poplimit, with this housing system, works really good.
so is the unit count, depends from the houses.

[will]

it might be quite convienient for a middle earth faction - how many ring wraiths can you be allowed to build?

[titi]

Initially this was made for heroes and gods! My sons always wanted to do something like this. Basically they always use it set to 1 .
But of course you can also set it to another number  ;D .

For the basic heroes idea:
For example if you want to add a chieftain to the indians which is very powerful and you want only 1 chieftain in the game you set it to 1. Of course you can get the same effect by adding a resource "chieftain" or something like this. But beside that this looks ugly it will look even more ugly if you decide to limit some more like only allow one totem and maybe one commandable firelike god in addition. Then you would already have new fake ressources. This looks bad and thats basically why i decided to add this feature in MG.

Now where I see this feature beeing discussed again I think about the way I have implemented it.... Maybe it would have been better to add a special "unit_limit_resource" that is not displayed the normal way, but inside the units stats display in the game. On the other hand its an attribute of the unit type and it should be defined there.....

[John.d.h]

MaxUnitCount would certainly be more convenient in some cases.  Using resources (which can be hidden, by the way) is a bit more flexible, though.  For example, if you have more than one kind of hero, then you could have each cost one "hero point" and give the faction only one hero point, so they can pick either a warrior hero or a wizard hero, but not both.

[silnarm]

This will happen eventually, but it's one of those things that I feel needs to well thought about beforehand.

This will be an expanded unit-requirements system, and will somehow be made generic enough to do far more than simply limit the maximum number of a unit type you can have at any one time. You might want the limit to be only 1 X for every 5 Y, or maybe the limit would be at most 2 of X, Y or Z. etc etc etc.

[Omega]

As another note, I think that if this is ever implimented, modders will need to take into aspect the thoughts and opinions of the other players as well, particularily their opinions on limit caps. For example, I wouldn't want a limit on archers or guards. A god unit or hero, is understandable (though, like John, I prefer a hidden resource for that).

This will be an expanded unit-requirements system, and will somehow be made generic enough to do far more than simply limit the maximum number of a unit type you can have at any one time. You might want the limit to be only 1 X for every 5 Y, or maybe the limit would be at most 2 of X, Y or Z. etc etc etc.

Wouldn't that be better done with a hidden resource though? For example, "hidden_resource1" has a supply of 5, and units A, B, and C all use one of that resource. Thus, we can only build 5 of those 3 units, in any combination, and simpler than having to impliment a new feature.

Just my 2 bits.

[silnarm]

This will be an expanded unit-requirements system, and will somehow be made generic enough to do far more than simply limit the maximum number of a unit type you can have at any one time. You might want the limit to be only 1 X for every 5 Y, or maybe the limit would be at most 2 of X, Y or Z. etc etc etc.

Wouldn't that be better done with a hidden resource though? For example, "hidden_resource1" has a supply of 5, and units A, B, and C all use one of that resource. Thus, we can only build 5 of those 3 units, in any combination, and simpler than having to impliment a new feature.

You may have me here... I thought I'd be able to invent a scenario that it couldn't handle easily enough, but it passes them all with flying colours so far.  I'll talk to my people ;)

[hailstone]

What about if you wanted to treat the limit as separate for each unit of that type? For example if you have a aircraft carrier or a pupput master that can only "manage" (ie produce) a certain amount. When one of them dies it recycles the cost allowing for another unit to take its place. These cases will be handled with the already ticketed local resources.

[titi]

Yes all good points. Simply saying "hidden resources" is too simple in my opinion. Even hidden resources must be displayed in any way to tell the player about them in a way he knows how it is meant. If you have a good solution for this its maybe better than what I did.

@silnarm: An expanded unit-requirements system is what I had intentionally in mind. I just made this simple case to get an idea of how it works at the moment ( and because my kids wanted it ... )