Terrain Effects for movement

wc_sumpton

@redrum, @Cernel I know this is still being discussed, what about the remainder movement. If armor movement is set to 2 and:

<attachment name="territoryEffectAttachment" attachTo="mountain" javaClass="TerritoryEffectAttachment" type="territoryEffect">   
            <option name="movementCostModifier" value="armor" count="2"/>    
</attachment>

Then the armor can only enter a mountain territory from an adjacent territory. But if the count is set at a range:

<attachment name="territoryEffectAttachment" attachTo="mountain" javaClass="TerritoryEffectAttachment" type="territoryEffect">   
            <option name="movementCostModifier" value="armor" count="2-1"/>    
</attachment>

Where '2' is the normal entry cost but if the armor still has 1 movement left it could still enter the mountain territory.

Cheers...

Cernel

@wc_sumpton But, then, the armour would be completely unaffected by the mountains. It could enter the mountains from 2 territories afar and the next turn it could leave them with its full 2 movement. Is this what you want? Not opposing your suggestion, just wondering.

wc_sumpton

@Cernel Yes, as long as the first territory moved into was not another mountain territory. If the first move were to enter the mountain territory the cost would be 2 and the armor would not be able to continue movement.

I understand what you are saying, my suggestion is just an option for the map makers. If the mountain territory is set to '2' and not '2-1' then the armor would only be able to enter as its only move.

Hope this help explain my suggestion.

Cheers...

redrum

@wc_sumpton I'm thinking about whether units can enter territories when they have remaining movement points but not enough for that territory. My thought is to have an XML property which controls whether they can or can't rather than doing a range on each individual territory effect. So something like:

    <property name="Units Can Enter Territories With Higher Movement Costs Then Remaining Moves" value="false" editable="true">
      <boolean/>
    </property>

Cernel

@redrum This property would indirectly allow charging upon exiting. You just need to have in each territory a unit giving (at start turn) the exact same modifiers as given by the territory effects, then the practical behaviour would be exactly the same as charging upon exiting.

I indirectly agree to this.

Cernel

@redrum I also think this would be good for defining territories you cannot move through, but you can move into. Sort of no blitz territories, except that it applies also to non combat movement. Currently you either have fully passable or fully impassable territories, while there is not an option for a territory to be accessible but not transitable. So, yeah, I think this is a good property to have. I can think of some uses, also for triggering territory effects during the course of the game.

redrum

And it starts to become a reality...

XML

        <attachment name="territoryEffectAttachment" attachTo="Mountain" javaClass="TerritoryEffectAttachment" type="territoryEffect">
            <option name="movementCostModifier" value="germanStrategicBomber" count="5"/>
        </attachment>

Showing that a strat bomber that has 6 movement can't enter Austria as it would cost: 1 first move + 6 (1 base + 5 mountain) = 7.

Cernel

@redrum Please clarify if movement value 0 and remaining movement 0 units can enter a movement cost 0 or less territory, or, probably better, have a property for defining it. This is quite important to settle a matter.

redrum

@Cernel I'm still deciding if its going to be feasible to allow 0 movement left units to continue to move. Due to how units work today, once they hit 0 movement they can't move any more.

Cernel

@redrum My suggestion is having a property for it (could be removed if we sort out we really want one or the other). If not, I tend to think that this can be bundled with the property for entering with partial movement left. If that is true, then you can enter 0 with 0, otherwise you cannot.

redrum

And allowing bombers to have free movement into urban territories:

        <attachment name="territoryEffectAttachment" attachTo="Urban" javaClass="TerritoryEffectAttachment" type="territoryEffect">
            <option name="movementCostModifier" value="germanStrategicBomber" count="-1"/>
        </attachment>

Bomber with 0 movement left can move to a urban territory

Bomber with 0 movement left can't move to a non-urban territory

@Cernel I think I'm going to always allow units with 0 movement to move into adjacent territories that have movement cost of 0. I think that is the most natural approach and the way route finding is done, it would cause weirdness if you couldn't. Example if we allowed using all my movement points to move next to a territory with 0 movement cost and then not allowing moving into it in a separate move vs moving to the 0 movement cost territory in the original route would be allowed. This means if you have 0 movement cost territories, then 0 move units could move into them if they are adjacent. Generally, 0 movement cost or negative movement cost will be possible but in most cases isn't advisable unless you are essentially considering those territories as kind of "part of certain adjacent territories" or maybe like a wormhole.

        <attachment name="territoryEffectAttachment" attachTo="Urban" javaClass="TerritoryEffectAttachment" type="territoryEffect">
            <option name="movementCostModifier" value="germanAntiAirGun" count="-1"/>
        </attachment>

redrum

And an example of fractional movement cost. Here we assigned coast to only have a movement cost of 0.5 for infantry so they can move 2 only across coast:

        <attachment name="territoryEffectAttachment" attachTo="Coast" javaClass="TerritoryEffectAttachment" type="territoryEffect">
            <option name="movementCostModifier" value="germanInfantry" count="-0.5"/>
        </attachment>

Cernel

@redrum Ok, so it is official that I can have "production" units that have basic movement 0 and if I assign -1 for them on sea zones, then I can load them on transports without requiring any land transport units to go into the transport too?

redrum

@Cernel Yep. Here is an example:


        <attachment name="territoryEffectAttachment" attachTo="Sea" javaClass="TerritoryEffectAttachment" type="territoryEffect">
            <option name="movementCostModifier" value="germanAntiAirGun" count="-1"/>
        </attachment>

Frostion

@redrum How much fuel will be used? Will there be decimal fuel used? And will the player's fuel in bank also be like 102.75 fuel left?

redrum

@Frostion I'm not changing any of the fuel logic with this initial implementation. It will still just be based on the number of territories moved through. But if a map is going to use fuel and movementCost then I'll take a look at updating fuel cost to be based on movementCost instead.

But to your point, one of the issues is that resources don't support decimals at the moment so that would either need to be changed or fuel would have to round up/down.

redrum

@Frostion Actually taking a quick look at the fuel logic, I don't think its much effort to update it as well. The only limitation is I'm not going to update resources to allow decimals yet so fuel will have to round off. So my proposal is the fuel cost will be based on movement cost of the route (doesn't change for maps without territory effect movement costs) but will round the amount used up (the reason not to round down is that you could potentially game the system by moving 1 territory at a time). So an example would be lets say I have a tank where it costs 1 fuel per move and it has 2 moves (so costs 2 fuel total to move 2 territories in a turn with no territory effects). Now let's say I add Road territory effects so that territories only cost 0.5 to move across. Now a tank could move a max of 4 Road territories (would be charged 4 fuel without these fuel updates) but here would be the fuel charges that I'm proposing:

Moves 1 Road territory - costs 1 fuel (0.5 movement cost rounded up)
Moves 2 Road territories - cost 1 fuel (1 movement cost)
Moves 3 Road territory - costs 2 fuel (1.5 movement cost rounded up)
Moves 4 Road territories - cost 2 fuel (2 movement cost)

Cernel

@redrum To avoid having to make all movement 0 units selectable (this should have really been a setting per unit, not general) can I, instead:
1: Make the unit movement 1 and give +1 movement cost for it in any land territories (no effects for sea zones), so it can only go into sea zones. In particular, a land unit offloading into a territory will always do it without any movement cost implied, so that it doesn't matter if that land territory would normally be movement cost 1 or 2 or whatever, for it?
2: Make the unit movement 1 and giving -1 movement to self, and -1 movement cost in sea zones only. So, this way it will work just like if it would be a simple movement 0 units (but I can keep the other actual movement 0 units non selectable).

Cernel

@Cernel Assuming you'll confirm it, the fact that movement cost is never applied for offloading units (offloading always being an exactly cost 0 movement) should be documented in pos2, especially with reference also to the fact that offloading into a territory increasing your movement would not do it (as also per the general rule that you cannot move after offloading). Confirmed?

Cernel

@Cernel Finally, a land/air transported unit will ignore whatever movement costs to self, both the basic 1 and any modifiers from territory effects, correct?