Question: erasing disband function for a Mod

[Aryaman]

I am thinking about making an historical mod and I wonder, Will it be easy to have the disband function disabled?

[xriz]

Hard to say, I'd be reluctant to mess with the function its self, I would suggest trying to disable the button in the ui, so it can't be selected.

Try the "Data/Scripts/ui/main_panel.lua" about 1/2 way down there is a "disband_button" entry of lines, there's even an "enable = 1" line. Try changing it to "0" or just delete all the lines associated with "disband_button" , between the main { }.

Good luck.

[Aryaman]

Thanks for the advice!

[stockwellpete]

I am thinking about making an historical mod and I wonder, Will it be easy to have the disband function disabled?

I am very interested in this idea - I am playing some games without disbanding units and there doesn't seem to be any particular problem associated with it (apart from the fact that if one is disbanding and the other is not, then the disbanding player can have a very big advantage in certainsituations).

[Aryaman]

My idea would be to make the game work in a way that disbanding is no longer an advantage, but a disadvantage, but I want to cover all posibilities

[stockwellpete]

My idea would be to make the game work in a way that disbanding is no longer an advantage, but a disadvantage, but I want to cover all posibilities

A 1% drop in NM each time a unit (not naval unit) was disbanded might work (if you cannot actually disable the disband function) - to represent badly handled recruitment/conscription process for that power. In Britain married men were sometimes conscripted before single men and this caused a lot of anger and resentment.

[avoran]

In this case it might be more useful to think of it as a stream of wounded undermining morale - logical if a unit has been heavily damaged

[stockwellpete]

In this case it might be more useful to think of it as a stream of wounded undermining morale - logical if a unit has been heavily damaged

Yes, that would work too.

[Umeu]

disbanding is fine imo (atleast as long as there is no option to merge), there just shouldnt be a refund.

[stockwellpete]

disbanding is fine imo (atleast as long as there is no option to merge), there just shouldnt be a refund.

I think there are two equally valid ways of looking at the issue. There is my way that thinks it is odd that you can scrap a battleship at Riga and immediately give all your troops in the Caucasus machine guns - or there is your way which I presume says that such is the level of abstraction in the game that an infantry unit or two disappearing here and a new unit or equipment appearing two hundred miles away is neither here nor there in terms of the overall scale of the game. I can understand that viewpoint too. I just think it is unfortunate that if one player is scrapping and the other is not then the scrapping player has quite a big advantage (often a decisive one) in the game.

I have just surrendered in my game against you because I knew by mid 1915 that the Central Powers were beaten. Because you scrapped a number of your fleet units right at the start you were able to build more British and Russian infantry units to reinforce Serbia and overrun me in Prussia. There is no way back for the CP's in that situation.

I have already said, I think, that I just don't agree with the scrapping of fleets, full stop. Fleets were very important statements of national power and to stand down/scuttle your own fleet at the start of the war would have been politically disastrous - governments would have fallen over the issue. To continue to allow scrapping of fleets (even with a penalty in NM) is to distort the historical reality in a ridiculous fashion, in my opinion. Deleting units is not a "crime" of the same magnitude but it is possible to play the game without disbanding units and it is more realistic. Ideally there would be a way of merging badly damaged land units - perhaps this will be possible in future?

I think what MP probably needs eventually is a small tick box menu at the start where players can agree whether things like scrapping units are going to be allowed or not.

[Umeu]

disbanding is fine imo (atleast as long as there is no option to merge), there just shouldnt be a refund.

I think there are two equally valid ways of looking at the issue. There is my way that thinks it is odd that you can scrap a battleship at Riga and immediately give all your troops in the Caucasus machine guns - or there is your way which I presume says that such is the level of abstraction in the game that an infantry unit or two disappearing here and a new unit or equipment appearing two hundred miles away is neither here nor there in terms of the overall scale of the game. I can understand that viewpoint too. I just think it is unfortunate that if one player is scrapping and the other is not then the scrapping player has quite a big advantage (often a decisive one) in the game.

I have just surrendered in my game against you because I knew by mid 1915 that the Central Powers were beaten. Because you scrapped a number of your fleet units right at the start you were able to build more British and Russian infantry units to reinforce Serbia and overrun me in Prussia. There is no way back for the CP's in that situation.

I have already said, I think, that I just don't agree with the scrapping of fleets, full stop. Fleets were very important statements of national power and to stand down/scuttle your own fleet at the start of the war would have been politically disastrous - governments would have fallen over the issue. To continue to allow scrapping of fleets (even with a penalty in NM) is to distort the historical reality in a ridiculous fashion, in my opinion. Deleting units is not a "crime" of the same magnitude but it is possible to play the game without disbanding units and it is more realistic. Ideally there would be a way of merging badly damaged land units - perhaps this will be possible in future?

I think what MP probably needs eventually is a small tick box menu at the start where players can agree whether things like scrapping units are going to be allowed or not.

no, i agree with you about the part of allocating funds, thats why i say there shouldnt be a refund. now if you scrap a unit you get half back of what its worth, that should be removed from the game. however you should still have the option imo to scrap useless units or units that you do not wish to use. I know it is a historical game, but it is still a game and if a player wants to focus all his efforts on land or all his efforts on water, he should have that option and therefore he should be able to scrap units that he will not use so he no longer has to pay upkeep for them. or sometimes you lose a city, or lose pp on a city and you will not be able to afford certain units any longer and will go into red, in that case you should also be able to disband units to make sure you do not take a nm hit every turn.

and if players are to be prevented from scrapping their fleets (and i would think this would make for a better game too) then the naval aspect of the game should be improved to the point where if you scrap the fleet, you will risk losing the game. I scrapped my russian cruiser, naturally, because there is simply nothing i can really do with it, the way naval landings and supply work landing a unit in istanbul is pretty much useless. however when i scrapped my russian battleship you exploited that fact very well and it actually hurt me more than the benefit i got from not paying the upkeep because you pretty much reduced petrograd to a pile of rubble and i had no answer to it. so the next time i would play you, i would most likely not scrap my battleship just to avoid that.

in the end there still is a clash of thoughts on how to play the game, you play it from an historical reenactment point of view where you enjoy the game the most when it sticks closest to history, where i play it from a strategical/tactical point of view where i enjoy the game the most if i make the best and most optimal decisions.

you havent resigned the game we played, but if you are sure you do not wish to play any further ill end the game. just let me know. if you want we can play a new one, and decide on some houserules that are agreable to the both of us.

[stockwellpete]

no, i agree with you about the part of allocating funds, thats why i say there shouldnt be a refund. now if you scrap a unit you get half back of what its worth, that should be removed from the game. however you should still have the option imo to scrap useless units or units that you do not wish to use. I know it is a historical game, but it is still a game and if a player wants to focus all his efforts on land or all his efforts on water, he should have that option and therefore he should be able to scrap units that he will not use so he no longer has to pay upkeep for them. or sometimes you lose a city, or lose pp on a city and you will not be able to afford certain units any longer and will go into red, in that case you should also be able to disband units to make sure you do not take a nm hit every turn.

Yes, I think the "no refund" idea is a very good one and maybe the developers will give it some consideration. Of course, players are entitled to play the game in the way that suits them - really the issue is allowing players to agree on the same conditions at the start so that they both have the same chance to win. From now I will have to arrange my games by PM so the "house rules" (if any) are agreed in advance. If there was a "tick-box" menu then I could go back to using the open challenge system.

and if players are to be prevented from scrapping their fleets (and i would think this would make for a better game too) then the naval aspect of the game should be improved to the point where if you scrap the fleet, you will risk losing the game. I scrapped my russian cruiser, naturally, because there is simply nothing i can really do with it, the way naval landings and supply work landing a unit in istanbul is pretty much useless. however when i scrapped my russian battleship you exploited that fact very well and it actually hurt me more than the benefit i got from not paying the upkeep because you pretty much reduced petrograd to a pile of rubble and i had no answer to it. so the next time i would play you, i would most likely not scrap my battleship just to avoid that.

Yes, I agree with your first point. Scrapping a fleet should be a massive hit in NM, maybe 25% (that's if it is an option that is to be kept in the game).

in the end there still is a clash of thoughts on how to play the game, you play it from an historical reenactment point of view where you enjoy the game the most when it sticks closest to history, where i play it from a strategical/tactical point of view where i enjoy the game the most if i make the best and most optimal decisions.

Yes, and both ways of playing are equally valid, in my opinion.

you havent resigned the game we played, but if you are sure you do not wish to play any further ill end the game. just let me know. if you want we can play a new one, and decide on some houserules that are agreable to the both of us.

I have actually asked to surrender and I only partially completed my move before doing so. My eastern front will collapse completely in a few turns. I didn't want to hit the "Surrender" button without explaining - it just seems a bit rude as the game ends so abruptly. Maybe we can play a new game with just a "no scrapping fleets" rule?

[Umeu]

well there shouldnt just be a penalty for scrapping fleets, there should also be a reason to keep the fleets around for other than historical roleplaying reasons. but ye, i doubt 10% is really big enough, if i would want to win then i would probably still take the 10% hit if its a choice between taking some morale hit and winning most likely or losing for sure.

and ok, we can play a new one with the rule of not disbanding fleets, but i wish to add another rule, if you do a naval landing on a hex that is not of your own alliance you have to post a warning in the chat, which says where you will land. because now there is a bug that makes such units shrouded in FoW and sometimes im not paying that much attention to the replay and i dont notice it.

we switch sides now? me CP and u allies?

[stockwellpete]

and ok, we can play a new one with the rule of not disbanding fleets, but i wish to add another rule, if you do a naval landing on a hex that is not of your own alliance you have to post a warning in the chat, which says where you will land. because now there is a bug that makes such units shrouded in FoW and sometimes im not paying that much attention to the replay and i dont notice it.

we switch sides now? me CP and u allies?

Ok then, swap sides. Challenge going on shortly, password "newgame".