Edward Nygma wrote:

I don't know that I understand the widget concept... what drives the widget and who tells it what to do?

Have you read this thread?  

http://www.wargear.net/forum/showthread/1744/To_Widget_or_not_to_Widget

No one knows what a widget is yet, but in the thread I have proposed what it might do.  See post #14

M57 wrote:

Alpha wrote:

The other option is to let negative factories empty a territory

This is already the case with abandon on, right?

Yes, but Nygma and I have several games where we want abandonment off, but also the ability for a factory to kill the last unit in a territory.

I'm guessing that, as tom said, he's got a bunch of safeguards in place to stop this from happening when abandon is on globally via mechanisms known and unknown.  Sounds like anyway he does it, there's a lot of code to go through.

Could be, but that is why it was just a suggestion.  Per territory abandonment would have more uses as I stated, but if allowing a factory to take the last unit was easy, then that would satisfy me.

FWIW, This is a classic example of a territory specific feature that could potentially be altered by a widget mid-game.  I.e., events in the the game actually turn on and off abandon for a given territory.

Now this sounds like a lot of coding ...

Alpha wrote:

Now this sounds like a lot of coding ...

Absolutely; Considerably more, ..but once widgets are in place, designers would be able control ANY territory attribute (not just abandonment) on a territory basis AND in a much more dynamic way. Territory attributes could change mid-game based on any number of game conditions.

Don't get me wrong; I'm not saying I want widgets high on the wish-list if on it at all.  It's just an idea at this point. I'm not even sure it's a good idea, and for all I know, it may not be feasible depending on the existing scaffolding of code.

I'm guessing that, as tom said, he's got a bunch of safeguards in place to stop this from happening when abandon is on globally via mechanisms known and unknown.  Sounds like anyway he does it, there's a lot of code to go through.

Could be, but that is why it was just a suggestion.  Per territory abandonment would have more uses as I stated, but if allowing a factory to take the last unit was easy, then that would satisfy me.

I wonder if it would be easier to set up 2 territory groups and apply the rules universally to both...  If it can already handle a set of territories by a set of universal rules, would it not be pretty simple to have 2 universal sets of rules for 2 separate groups of territories that already operate under the stipulations of the engine?  It would be like having 2 games running simultaneously with borders connecting them... no?

@M57 - I agree it is a good idea and was not trying to negative in any way.

@Nygma - This would work as well and could have other uses as well, like randomly assign to these territories and then to those territories.

Alpha wrote:

The other option is to let negative factories empty a territory which seems to be the underlying need and simpler implementation, but I could be wrong on this.

This would be a lot easier to code - there would be a rule setting for 'allow factories to empty territories' (default to Off so it doesn't affect existing boards). This rule would work even if abandon was off.

Could we also throw in "allow artillery borders to empty territories"  (default to Off so it doesn't affect existing boards)?

I have a board for which I am trying to use artillery borders to break up continents, but having "abandonment on" is negatively effecting the overall game play.

http://www.wargear.net/boards/designer/2703

Artillery borders might change some games in place, and factories allowed to empty doesn't provide all the options that my suggestion would, but it will work for me.

It doesn't prevent "accidental abandonment" which happens a lot and has an impact on limited attack games.  It doesn't allow for an abandonment board with certain territories you can't leave if you take them.  It also makes it all or nothing for factories abandoning, which isn't ideal, but this would be an appropriate fix for a lot of the issues I run into.  If it's incredibly complicated, then stick with this, but if it's possible down the line, I'm still in support of partial abandonment.  It fixes the same and more problems than emptying factories.

I think in the long run it is cleaner and more useful to set these things up as per territory options.   I personally would rather wait for the better solution than have half a solution hacked on.

I agree, but I don't seem to have enough support for the lengthy endeavor.

At the same time as doing per territory abandon it also makes sense to make it more generic - i.e. per territory minimums (M57 requested this one). So you could sit a min and max range for each territory.

Sounds great to me!

I think that's great, but does it go beyond 0 or 1 for a minimum?  Does a minimum of more make sense?

I'm sure somebody will be creative enough to come up with a case that makes sense for larger minimums.   Seems like if Tom is digging into the code to refactor it, better to just go for it and make it general.

Is it possible to give the Growls an audible sound?  This would ideally be an on/off option and maybe have one of several sound options to play when the growl appears.

I'd like an audible sound for when it's my turn in Lightning games.

So, if I have 3 units, can I attack a territory with a minimum of 5?

Edward Nygma wrote:

So, if I have 3 units, can I attack a territory with a minimum of 5?

I don't see why not, but having a territory with a minimum of 5 makes no sense.  What happens once it's down to 5 and it's attacked?  It can't be taken because it can't get down to 2, which is necessary for it to be captured.

The way it could work is that if a territory has a minimum n units, and you have x units on it then..

If  x>n you can attack with either 3 or x-n dice, whichever is smaller.  (which is how it works now with n=0 or 1 depending on abandonment)

If x <= to n you can't attack off of it. (which is how it works now with abandonment off and you have 1 unit)

When fortifying you can fortify at most x-n units when x>n.  If x<= n you can't fortify any off.

So, yes, you can take over a territory and move in less than the minimum, but you can't do anything with them until you place or fortify more units onto it.

btw - I am not necessarily arguing for this, I am not sure I ever have thought of a use for such a thing.  If it was done, though, this is how I see it could work.   

Amidon37 wrote:

So, yes, you can take over a territory and move in less than the minimum, but you can't do anything with them until you place or fortify more units onto it.

Then it's not true minimum.  Regardless, you certainly wouldn't be able to capture a territory with a minimum of 5 units, at least not using the normal dice throwing paradigm.  I suppose you could have a factory that takes out 5, but then there would be no units in the territory, which is not permitted. 

The normal paradigm is that the attacker must attack with one less army that (s)he has to accommodate satisfying the standard one unit minimum.  A minimum of 0 is not a problem for obvious reasons, but I suppose it's possible to have a 2 unit minimum, though even that has a number of potential problems.  For one, the attacker would have to win 2 in the same roll to move in. Winning one would not be permitted because the territory is not allowed to have 1 unit remaining.  

I guess it depends on what you mean by "minimum".  Even now on a map with minimum's of 1, you can have an initial setup where territories have 0, so it's not an absolute 100% all the time minimum. 

It sounds like you maybe have to define minimum as the minimum that a player can leave behind in a territory, so if minimums are 3, and someone has 3 in a territory you could still attack it down to 2 or 1.  And you could still take it with only 1 guy.  But you couldn't move or attack out of the territory unless you had more than the minimum units.   I guess it gets tricky when you think about artillery borders.  Right now they can't attack a territory if it would bring it below the minimum.

Has anyone stated a desire for a minimum besides 1 & 0?