Territory Naval Base and Air Base Info
-
@redrum I'll test it on one of the maps that are available for download and fine, just to double check.
-
@redrum I confirm that at least in "Global War 2" (gettable in Experimental) this feature appears working as I believe it always did.
This doesn't necessarily mean that this feature works fine, as it (still) presents a behaviour that may or may not be an issue, and doesn't appear reasonably intended.
The matter is that when you have movement 0, you can still move 1 if the conditions at this option are satisfied, which I think it is a cool option itself, as, this way, your can have movement 0 rafts, or something, that need naval bases to move at all.
The problem is that you can still move 1 more if you reach movement 0 after having used the additional 1 movement for this option, potentially allowing infinite movement, for as long as you have nearby naval bases.
Assuming this is not intended, as I can't see it is, my suggestion is to rework this feature as giving the bonus only once per phase.You can easily test this by launching "Global War 2" and skipping till "Japanese Non Combat Move".
Then, moving the Japanese Cruiser to 64.
You can do this, as it is a movement 2 move.
Then, you can move it to 65 (so, total 3 moves).
You can do this, as you have a naval base there (the anchors display the naval bases).
However, then you can see you can keep moving back and fort between 64 and 65, endlessly, as both having naval bases.
This means that, if you have a chain of naval bases, you can move through the whole chain (by making subsequent 1 movements at the price of 0).
What reinforces me in the belief this is unintended is that this works also in case of naval bases touching multiple sea zones (you can get more than a +1 movement, from a single final-destination naval base).This is actually a cool option, and one that I considered using, by making each and all land territories into naval bases, so to represent the fact that it is easier to move when aided by a coastline you own (think especially to galleys), but gave up since this limit appears to make this option sensibly workable only in case all naval bases on the map never touch a sea connected to another sea touched by another naval base and they all touch no more than 1 sea zone each (huge limitations).
However, I never filed anything about this, as I was not sure I wanted to use this option, and didn't see this matter as very important.
I can just confirm the behaviour appears to be the same in years.
If this gets solved, I can just say that I'm not sure if I would use this feature myself, but I can see it being of some interest. I believe it has been some years since anybody used this option in a custom map, tho I can't be sure.Even if this matter is not engine solved, it would be still good to document if this is an unsupported unintended limit (like the fact that you can go over neutral territories with air in two steps), and document it in PoS2 or somewhere, so that "Global War 2" etc. players may know they should not do it and the matter is left open for future developers to add support for.
Also, having a phase steps to set, for each phase, if this option applies or not (instead of always during NCM and never during CM) would be cool, similarly to the current existent step that define if bonus movement is given or not, on the phase. From pact of steel 2:
giveBonusMovement = true/false resets and gives bonus movement (default is true at start of phase if delegate ends with "CombatMove" but not "NonCombatMove") -
Since we are talking bout Territory tab info somewhere else: another issue of the option is that it doesn't get displayed in the territory tab, if that is an issue (just other things like this are usually displayed in there).
-
I added info to the territory tab to display whether territories are naval or air bases. PR: https://github.com/triplea-game/triplea/pull/3329
closed Improve Hotkeys and Enhance Tabs #3329
-
Only concern I have at the moment regarding it being displayed in territory tab is. Maybe naval base / air base is not the best things to call these attributes, since it can be used in alternative ways down the line.
For example I was considering using the naval base in my under water sea zone / submarine naval model. Where only the subs would get to the benefit of the + 1 movement on NCM because the underwater sea zones would utilize the naval base attribute. The logic being that the subs can move stealthily and further under the surface vessels if they are on non combat missions.
(Although @cernel does bring up potential issue with the perpetual +1 movement deal, but I think I can work around it.)
However to the player it might get confusing to see a naval base (per territory tab) in the middle of the oceans, in sea zones (underwater) that only submarines can enter.
This is only one example, but who knows what others can imagine. Anyways ideally, it would be nice to have the ability to change the displayed name per xml or another .properties file.
-
@general_zod Fair point though I think some territory text indicator is better than nothing. We can potentially reword the text if maps use it in more unique ways.
-
@redrum Ok
-
Regarding the steps for sequence. Does "giveBonusMovement" affect these (air/naval base ) 2 attributes? Just wondering if you already know the answer.
-
@general_zod Never tried, but I'm almost sure it should not. However, since this option was made many years before steps existed, it may be related to the name of the momement phase only; so, you can try to have a named non combat movement phase with the steps turning it into a combat movement one, see if it fools the option into working during CM.
Anyways, as I said, as it is, this option is really limited, as you can only use it for territories not touching two adjacent sea zones and only in case no other adjacent sea zones are touched by territories that touch other naval bases. I don't know if the issue of allowing keeping moving of 1 more again and again is the reason why it is years since any maps used it, if I've not overlooked some, but it would be an almost unavoidable reason for me to not considering it.
