Expand givesMovement Option To Require Specific Units At Destination

Hepps

@general_zod I get it. I am not trying to be a dock. Just trying to underscore that some of the ideas you have are work-arounds for some very concerning underlying issues with mechanics. If we focused on those underlying issues... we could create a far more versatile engine.

General_Zod

@redrum Nice idea. I think that does it. The NCM component should be doable by triggers so it simulates navalBase nicely once that is added.

General_Zod

@hepps And you get a fix too,

Hepps

@general_zod This is why I like to paint @redrum into a corner.

General_Zod

@redrum Question, does disabling the end point unit via sbr cancel the +movements for this attachment. Also I am assuming that disabling the start point unit still will. Is that a correct assumption?

redrum

@general_zod That's what I was thinking. Essentially try to build off of what givesMovement already does and include the checks to ensure the start and end units aren't disabled by damage for it to work.

Hepps

@redrum That is a nice addition to the feature.

Hepps

@general_zod I applaud the creativity this inspired.... For those about to submerge... we salute you!

redrum

@hepps Now if only we can find someone to implement it

Hepps

@redrum Good help is hard to find.

General_Zod

@redrum I'm currently working out the details for my German SubPens. I just wanted to confirm how this feature will function. So my main question at the moment is.

Regarding the unit that will give the + movements to other units. If this unit is giving + movement to sea units, can the giving unit be on land and or sea? I assume either but wanted to make sure. Also I should probably ask for starting point units and end point units to be clear.

redrum

@general_zod Yeah, it'll work like givesMovement already works today in terms of it the unit that is giving movement is a land unit and you specify to give it to sea units then it checks adjacent sea territories (port, etc). My intention would be for the end point to work the same way.

General_Zod

@redrum cool

redrum

I added this to the feature list. It will require a non-compatible release but should start working on one once we stabilize the bots.

Cernel

@redrum said in "isNavalBase" For "unitAttachments":

Material Example (can only move materials from harbor on to transport)

<attachment name="unitAttachment" attachTo="harbor" javaClass="games.strategy.triplea.attachments.UnitAttachment" type="unitType">
      <option name="givesMovement" value="1:material:transport"/>

Yep, this is really a problem when you have, like, a game in which, instead of having the PUs collection, you have to go take the resources with your transports and such, that is, after all what the Battle of the Atlantic was for. A limit of the basic games is that, like, in the moment you have your British that collect all their PUs wherever, no questions asked, that takes away the very basics of why the Germans even produced 1 submarine. But currently there is the issue that if you have stuff you can move with transports or trains you need it to have at least 1 movement to get into the transports, but actually you don't want your raw materials to be able to walk on their own (so you would have them 0 movement and move them around with trains and lorries). Now that canals don't block transported, you could make canals in all land to land connections, to enforce that, but this sounds definitely easier. Tho I still believe doing it this way feels off the mark, and I think really (a bit of off topic here) movement 0 units should be generally allowed to move to transports if they have a transport cost assigned (and, of course, always selectable if they have a transport cost assigned); basically make moving from land to sea generally cost 0 movement points, instead of 1, yet charging unitary fuel cost when from land to sea (you would still lose all remaining movement, like now it happens for 2+ movement units; so no difference for any basic games). This would seem the most straight way, since anyways units not having a transport cost defined in the attachment are unable to load on transports; so no reasons to require them having 1+ movement to do it, as you already decide it in the moment you define a transport cost for them (and default is that they cannot load, so you'll still be unable to load NWO bunkers on transports).

Also, another item for ships is that (at least when not damaged) they never need to go back to ports, while actually ships worked sort of like aeroplanes, in that you would have to "fly" off from your port and "land" back to it after a period; tho of course this is a matter of weeks rather than hours. I can see this new options can go a fair way to partially enforce that behaviour, tho still it doesn't oblige you to have to go back to port to be able to fight again, even in the same sea zone. So it doesn't fully solve the matter here.

General_Zod

I think this topic should be renamed "Expand givesMovement Option" so people immediately know what this is doing. The topic has evolved into something much more useful than originally proposed.

redrum

@general_zod Yeah, renamed it. Good call.

General_Zod

@redrum Cool, I changed it in the main list as well.

General_Zod

@redrum

Thanks for all your hard work and efforts elsewhere, all are also greatly appreciated. But I kind of need to know where I stand here.

I know you have created a vote system for feature requests. That's ok, however it is imperfect. Since non mapmakers can vote and skew the results to features that might not even be on any ones drawing board for immediate future.

That being said, do you think it would be too much trouble to squeeze this feature request in eventually. No hurry really, but... My whole map design hinges on it being implemented eventually.

I think it's quite a revolutionary design and should play well once it's thoroughly tested and fine tuned. Thus a worthy feature request. This design should facilitate the necessity and importance of solid sea strategies and not to simply allow them to be ignored as so many maps currently do allow. Especially in the strategies in the Atlantic theatre.

Basically this design will use a combination underwater sea zones, naval bases and hybrid shipping lanes. In conjunction with convoy attachments, routes, seazone blockades , seazone production, custom bonuses. And possibly if not to much work for players, a system that requires sea nations to transport certain resources to their capitals where they are then exchanged for income. I have a few options on implementation of latter portion. But I need this feature request in the end.

redrum

@General_Zod Well, I'd say its probably in the top 5 features I'd like to add. Now that AA support is implemented, I'm going to work on improving the PBF/PBEM poster. After that, its probably between this feature, sub/destroyer enhancements, battle calc improvements, expanding RandomStartDelegate, and AI improvements. When and if those get implemented is hard to say since it could be tomorrow or it could be never since I only do it as a hobby.

The voting was really aimed at giving the larger community a chance to prioritize a few features and see what people beyond just the active map makers want. Generally, most of the features I choose to implement are either broad improvements to TripleA or specific features that a map maker is looking to utilize.

Generally, the more active the map maker and the more flushed out their map/design is, the more likely I'm going to implement a feature they request since its more likely to then get real usage in a high quality map. I think if you look through the implemented feature list then you'll see that many of those can be tied back to maps made/updated by @Hepps @Frostion @alkexr and myself: https://forums.triplea-game.org/topic/182/guidelines-and-feature-request-list. The best way to influence getting a feature implemented besides creating the feature request thread, is to have a high quality map thread showing design and progress