"Object orinted" rule systems?

[snowblizz]

Didn't quite know how to phrase the topic, and I feel like it might have come up before, but I was again struck by an "idea" having read the july issue of WD and thinking about default points schemes. Though this really hasn't anything to do with those, enough rambling though. Basically what I was thinking about was the new Planetstrike supplement which once again introduces the concept of "attacker" and "defender". This IMHO in AB and for the 40k files was hugely cumbersome and took for ever to load, as each variant army was a seperate army entry and you then picked "mission variants".
Now 40k has 2 different "sub-systems" Planetstrike and Apocalypse each working slightly differently. Planetstrike is probably easier as it mostly messes with the Force organisation chart slots. However Apocalypse usesa cmbination of regular 40k units plus all the funky Apocalypse units and Apocalypse "formations" (though technically GW seems them as the same). The formations consisting of regular40k units in a certain available configuration.
Now I was thinking that making a roster for Apocalypse would be a lot easier if the "Apocalypse module" can inherit the whole (almost) 40k rules, so if I want to make "Valkyrie assault group" with mixed content it just picks them in from the existing 40k database complete with options. Of course since you are also allowed to pick units from any army it is all an utter "mess".

[IBBoard]

I was thinking recently about thinks like Planetstrike and the altered roster charts. My initial idea was that we could have "rulesets" for game systems, possibly as extra files that could be added later so that games masters could make their own campaign set, and to generally have them as a set of "requirements", but requirements that can add to the base number of units allowed (for example). That would let you pull it in when needed, let them be customisable, and let them work without requiring completely new army lists.

As for your second point, it's not one I'd thought about but it'd definitely be something that would be useful. I'd just call it "inherited races" where one army says "I inherit from and extend from this other main race". We'd have to take in to account file load order (to make sure that we didn't require the parent to be loaded first, which could end up messy), a potentially (although never literally) infinite number of inherits, and the possibility of cyclic inheritance (which is obviously a mistake) but the idea is good

And the final idea: Apocalypse "formations". We've not got a way of loading a fixed "formation" at the moment, but the "unit containership" that I have planned to handle things like Champions should also handle formations. What you'd end up with is a "Valkyrie assault group" that then contains a number of Valkyries and other bits. The Assault Group would then have requirements on it that would say (for example) "contains max 3 Valkyries" to validate the unit. If it is a fixed cost per unit then the container unit could contain the cost and the contained units could be free. If it was "50pts + cost of Valkyries" then the container unit would cost the 50pts, and so on.

I'm not quite sure how we'd handle the "utter mess of any army" part, though

Hopefully that makes sense

[snowblizz]

It does make sense, it was pretty much how I figured it would be. As Apocalypse formations are usually exactly of the type where Formation costs 100 + cost of say vehicles. So the unit containership probably works well and was something I was thinking that could be used.

Basically I was thinking about saving up on typing, as Apocalypse mostly uses "existing" units.

Allowing other armies, in Apocalypse I don't know how tricky that is. Is there some kind of ally system to "abuse"? I guess some kind of filtering could be used, say on army e.g. show only IG units.

But that's a game system issue I guess? I'm mainly trying to bounce of idea before it's too late!

[IBBoard]

There isn't an allies system at the moment, but there is a vague plan for it. I've got to iron out the details, though, because old-style Warhammer allies had their own category where as I think 40K and newer Warhammer allies would be in the appropriate category for their type.

Filtering would certainly help if you wanted only a specific sub-set of an army's possible ally units, and it makes me more inclined to use some kind of "tagging" system similar to what Army Builder has. That way you'd be able to do a search for "Imperial Guard" and "Troops" or potentially something even more detailed and just find what you want/need.

As for ideas and lateness, this is an open-source project so there's not generally a "too late". Apps like this will (hopefully) keep going on and on with various features that take people's interest

[IBBoard]

I did just think of another way of handling the mess that is Apocalypse armies today - if we're going to have army inheritance, we could always make it multiple inheritance and then an Apocalypse army (or a special campaign army of mixed races) could just inherit from all of the other races it needs to

Now to add a few tickets about these suggestions of yours I think we're quickly going to need some extra developers, if anyone has any ideas on how to find them

[snowblizz]

Now to add a few tickets about these suggestions of yours I think we're quickly going to need some extra developers, if anyone has any ideas on how to find them

Beyond the old and tried method used by the Royal Navy (here have a drink, good you are now volounteered) I don't know.

[IBBoard]

Yes, alcohol has amazing recruiting powers. Unfortunately, unless someone can give me free beer for the "free as in beer as well as in speech" project then I can't afford that one That plus I don't think beer emails too well

And now I might actually get to put those tickets in. I didn't get a chance last time I was online.

[IBBoard]

Gah, I'm useless. Tickets for these points are now in the system If you think I missed anything then please either comment on a ticket or add a new one.