This is a question for Tom, but it would be great if others could weigh in on the issue.

 Is there any chance that you could create either a Max Neutral Count by territory, or even better, a Max unit count by factory in the designer?

Such a feature would at least partially address the neutral wall problem by letting territories regenerate to a specific number.  I'd be happy with a Max neutral count, but I believe it was btilly that suggested the broader Max count by factory, regardless of recipient.  Settng it up the latter way clearly would give it much broader functionality, but it seems to me that it might be tougher to implement.

I think we've pretty much eliminated the possibility of creating a fancy factory conga line to do the job. The ones we've been able to construct are messy and have severe enough limitations as to make them all but unusable.

Would just setting a Max Unit Count on the Territory not work? That coupled with Transfer To Any Connected would essentially allow for unit push through (ie to the Top or end of a line), although that does have other gameplay effects too.

I want large forces  to be able to move through without destroying the terrain feature.  Typically, I see a cap on neutrals between 1 and 3 units.

either a Max Neutral Count by territory, or even better, a Max unit count by factory in the designer?

+1 for max unit count by factory.  That sounds like it could have a lot of uses. 

Does this mean:

if (factoryBonus + territoryUnits) > factoryMax:

   factoryBonus = max(factoryMax-territoryUnits,0)

Not sure what that says Ozyman..  The best I can do is describe it in action. 

"By Factory" would work this way..

Given a territory that has no cap. I.e., it's size is "unlimited."  Currently, any  continent that points to this territory as the factory will add to it (or subtract from it) every turn so long as the that continent is controlled, and the target territory is eligible.

The proposed Factory Limit would let the designer cap the total amount of troops that can be in the continent as a result of factory allocation. 

A designer might not want a certain factory to fill the territory beyond 5 units, but he may be willing to let a different factory fill the territory until it reaches 10. As he makes each continent, she sets that limit independently for each territory the factory targets. Interestingly enough, the order the factories allocate might make a difference. 

Say Continent A  and B make factories that point to the same territory

Continent A has a +2 factory with a cap of 5

Continent B has a +1 factory with a cap of 10

If the territory has 3 units on it, and continent A fills first, that would push it up to 5, then Continent B could bring it to 6.

If the factories fill in the opposite order.  B would bring it to 4, then A would either fill it to 5 or not be able to fill it at all because adding two would bring the total to 6.

Ozyman wrote:

either a Max Neutral Count by territory, or even better, a Max unit count by factory in the designer?

+1 for max unit count by factory.  That sounds like it could have a lot of uses. 

Does this mean:

if (factoryBonus + territoryUnits) > factoryMax:

   factoryBonus = max(factoryMax-territoryUnits,0)

Yes.

btilly wrote:

Ozyman wrote:

Does this mean:

if (factoryBonus + territoryUnits) > factoryMax:

   factoryBonus = max(factoryMax-territoryUnits,0)

Yes.

I don't know what this means, so I don't know what yes means..

Is it agreed that facteory order would impact the resolution of multiple factories with caps (per my last post)?

Would orders fill to the best of their ability, or would they be cancelled if they can't fill in full?  For instance, If a factory with a cap of 5 is set to +3 units on a territory, and that territory already has 3 units on it, will it fill the territory to 5, not use the remainder?  Or will it not fill at all.  I would hope it should be the former.

M57 wrote:

btilly wrote:

Ozyman wrote:

Does this mean:

if (factoryBonus + territoryUnits) > factoryMax:

   factoryBonus = max(factoryMax-territoryUnits,0)

Yes.

I don't know what this means, so I don't know what yes means..

Is it agreed that facteory order would impact the resolution of multiple factories with caps (per my last post)?

Would orders fill to the best of their ability, or would they be cancelled if they can't fill in full?  For instance, If a factory with a cap of 5 is set to +3 units on a territory, and that territory already has 3 units on it, will it fill the territory to 5, not use the remainder?  Or will it not fill at all.  I would hope it should be the former.

It means this.

The normal bonus is calculated for the factory.  If applying that bonus to the territory would leave you over the limit, then you set the bonus to the larger of the amount needed to leave you at the limit, and 0.  Then (presumably) that factory bonus is added to the territory, and you move on to the next.

So if the cap is 5, the factory gives +3 and the territory has 3 units, then the factoryBonus is set to 3.  But because 5 < 3 + 3 it is reduced to max(5 - 3, 0) which is 2.  And then 2 units are added to that territory, leaving it at 5 troops, and you move on to the next factory.

The only case of potential interest which is not addressed is the case of a negative factory with a cap.  The intent if someone tries that is presumably to drain troops until you hit the cap.  However the mechanic being offered here will always work out to a factory bonus of 0.  Whether that somewhat separate mechanic should be covered by this feature is a decision that should be made.

It would be more intuitive if the negative factory went down to the cap.

Korrun wrote:

It would be more intuitive if the negative factory went down to the cap.

How would that work?  My current understanding is that if a territory has 1 unit on it, and it receives two factory bonuses or -3 and + 3 respectively, it will still end up with 1 unit, regardless of the order of the factories.  -3 + 3 = 0; for a net nothing.

In my mind if you could tell the engine that the lowest number it could deal with is 0, then order would be important.  If the -3 came first, that would bring the stack to 0, then the +3 would bring it to +3.

Is this what you have in mind?

M57 wrote:

Korrun wrote:

It would be more intuitive if the negative factory went down to the cap.

How would that work?  My current understanding is that if a territory has 1 unit on it, and it receives two factory bonuses or -3 and + 3 respectively, it will still end up with 1 unit, regardless of the order of the factories.  -3 + 3 = 0; for a net nothing.

In my mind if you could tell the engine that the lowest number it could deal with is 0, then order would be important.  If the -3 came first, that would bring the stack to 0, then the +3 would bring it to +3.

Is this what you have in mind?

That is what I was suggesting.

And order already is important if you have a territory cap.

btilly wrote:

M57 wrote:

Korrun wrote:

It would be more intuitive if the negative factory went down to the cap.

How would that work?  My current understanding is that if a territory has 1 unit on it, and it receives two factory bonuses or -3 and + 3 respectively, it will still end up with 1 unit, regardless of the order of the factories.  -3 + 3 = 0; for a net nothing.

In my mind if you could tell the engine that the lowest number it could deal with is 0, then order would be important.  If the -3 came first, that would bring the stack to 0, then the +3 would bring it to +3.

Is this what you have in mind?

That is what I was suggesting.

And order already is important if you have a territory cap.

But what is the advantage of a min over a max cap?  Don't get me wrong, I could work with either.  Although using minimum caps, how would you make it such that a factory placed a single unit on a given territory ..until (or unless) that territory's unit count has reached a certain number?

M57 wrote:

btilly wrote:

M57 wrote:

Korrun wrote:

It would be more intuitive if the negative factory went down to the cap.

How would that work?  My current understanding is that if a territory has 1 unit on it, and it receives two factory bonuses or -3 and + 3 respectively, it will still end up with 1 unit, regardless of the order of the factories.  -3 + 3 = 0; for a net nothing.

In my mind if you could tell the engine that the lowest number it could deal with is 0, then order would be important.  If the -3 came first, that would bring the stack to 0, then the +3 would bring it to +3.

Is this what you have in mind?

That is what I was suggesting.

And order already is important if you have a territory cap.

But what is the advantage of a min over a max cap?  Don't get me wrong, I could work with either.  Although using minimum caps, how would you make it such that a factory placed a single unit on a given territory ..until (or unless) that territory's unit count has reached a certain number?

There is no advantage.  It is just a different board effect that could be specified with the same mechanism.  Your terrain walls would use a growing factory up to a certain cap.  Someone else could implement a tower which, if owned, starts killing attackers down to a limit of 2.

The way that they fit together in this proposal is that the factory cap is the point at which the factory stops adjusting troops in the direction it adjusts them.  If the factory has a positive troop count, the cap is a max.  If the factory has a negative troop count, the cap is a min.

Very cool.  Might there be circumstances where you would want a negative cap?  For instance, where a series of factories could still produce a positive outcome?

M57 wrote:

Very cool.  Might there be circumstances where you would want a negative cap?  For instance, where a series of factories could still produce a positive outcome?

I could dream some up.  But I'm not sure they would make sense in practice.

However negative caps should not be a special case in the code, so if you wanted to use them, then you could.

With the proposed "smart caps,"  what would happen where multiple thresholds collide?

In other words, what if the implied floor cap for one factory was higher than the ceiling cap of a competing factory?

Would each factory simply work independently (as its turn comes), and spit out a number based on the currently modified territory value.

Also what would happen when the territory value is below the floor or above the factory ceiling? 

Yes, some weird things can happen if the caps collide. How it has been discussed so far is that the factories are always triggered, but they will not go past their cap.

e.g. Territory A has a +2 factory with a cap of 12, a -1 factory with a cap of 10, and a -2 factory with a cap of 14 (with the factory names in alphabetic order)

Situation 1: Player captures Territory A with 7 units. The next turn the +2 factory raises it to 9 units, the next turn the +2 factory raises it to 11 units and the -1 factory lowers it back to 10 (this would not happen if the -1 factory was alphabetically first). The next turn the +2 factory and -1 factory increase Territory A to 11 units. When starting with 11 units the +2 only raises it to 12 then the -1 lowers it back to 11.

Situation 2: Player captures Territory A with 16 units. The next turn the -1 factory will bring it down to 15 and then the -2 factory will only bring it down to the cap of 14. The next turn the -1 factory will bring it down to 13, then 12 the 11. Once it is down it is down to 11 the +2 factory will kick back in keeping it at 11.

Korrun wrote:

Yes, some weird things can happen if the caps collide. How it has been discussed so far is that the factories are always triggered, but they will not go past their cap.

It is a matter of perspective whether you think of it as "weird things can happen" or "interesting board effects can be created". :-)

btilly wrote:

Korrun wrote:

Yes, some weird things can happen if the caps collide. How it has been discussed so far is that the factories are always triggered, but they will not go past their cap.

It is a matter of perspective whether you think of it as "weird things can happen" or "interesting board effects can be created". :-)

Just as long as they are understood, agreed upon, and predictable.

btilly wrote:

Korrun wrote:

Yes, some weird things can happen if the caps collide. How it has been discussed so far is that the factories are always triggered, but they will not go past their cap.

It is a matter of perspective whether you think of it as "weird things can happen" or "interesting board effects can be created". :-)

I find weird things to be very interesting. :)

And yes, I think some great board effects could be created.