TUV for Units That Have consumesUnits Property

redrum

@Cernel said in TUV for Units That Have consumesUnits Property:

But if we count the consumed units of the consumed units, with potentially no end (as per the above point), you may have units that upgrade units they are the upgrade of, thus being able to keep switching between one and the other, depending on what you need; in this case, if you count all, as per the above point, you will end up having infinite TUV.

Are there any example maps that do this? I'm tackling this feature right now and wanted to see if we have any test maps.

Cernel

@redrum said in TUV for Units That Have consumesUnits Property:

@Cernel said in TUV for Units That Have consumesUnits Property:

But if we count the consumed units of the consumed units, with potentially no end (as per the above point), you may have units that upgrade units they are the upgrade of, thus being able to keep switching between one and the other, depending on what you need; in this case, if you count all, as per the above point, you will end up having infinite TUV.

Are there any example maps that do this? I'm tackling this feature right now and wanted to see if we have any test maps.

I don't know. I guess not.

Do you want me (or someone) to make a simple mod of something having that behaviour, to test it out?

redrum

@Cernel That would be very helpful. Making sure to include some edge case scenarios such as 2 units switching back and forth by consuming each other and even a larger cycle of 3-4 units that consume each other (swordsman -> knight -> archer -> swordsman*) . The other scenario I thought of is that you can have multiple consumeUnits lines so end up with a large tree like structure if you have multiple levels instead of just "keel" to "hull" to "battleship" think "battleship" requires "hull" and "gun" which then each require multiple things.

Cernel

@redrum Well, that doesn't sound like simple, and also considering that you are doing the stuff now I will see to do something still simple but partially covering what you are saying.

Cernel

@redrum said in TUV for Units That Have consumesUnits Property:

The other scenario I thought of is that you can have multiple consumeUnits lines so end up with a large tree like structure if you have multiple levels instead of just "keel" to "hull" to "battleship" think "battleship" requires "hull" and "gun" which then each require multiple things.

Since currently you can only consume stuff in the same territory, that would require the "gun" to be a sea or air unit. If the engine would be expanded to consume units on land to place on sea, that would become more of a case, so I guess it makes sense to take it into consideration.

Frostion

I hope that the final solution to this improvement of the AI will enable/motivate it to upgrades factory units, besides combat units. Like for example village to town (Dragon War map), Factory to Advanced Factory and does the Roman period maps not also have upgradeable factories? My point: Don't forget to give production ability a value.

redrum

Initial changes added to pre-release to address #1: https://github.com/triplea-game/triplea/pull/2268. Please test and let me know if you find any issues. Seems to work fine on both Global 40 and TWW.

prastle

@redrum could you have a look at the gitter q/a and see if any of those errors are worth taking to github?

https://gitter.im/triplea-game/QA

redrum

The change to add the tuv option for UnitAttachment is now in the pre-release as well: https://github.com/triplea-game/triplea/pull/2276

Example:
<attachment name="unitAttachment" attachTo="germanBattleship" javaClass="games.strategy.triplea.attachments.UnitAttachment" type="unitType">
<option name="movement" value="2"/>
<option name="attack" value="7"/>
<option name="defense" value="8"/>
<option name="isSea" value="true"/>
<option name="tuv" value="25"/>
</attachment>

Cernel

@redrum I believe (or at least I've a strong feeling) the "tuv" option should not belong to the unitAttachments, but rather to the productionRules.

Example:
<productionRule name="buyFusiliers">
<cost resource="PUs" quantity="8"/>
<value resourceOrUnit="Fusiliers" quantity="8"/>
<result resourceOrUnit="Fusiliers" quantity="1"/>
</productionRule>

(the value would refer to a single "Fusiliers", no matter the number in the "result")

Also, it can be taken into account the possible need of assigning different values for different players for the same unit. This would not be possible if this is a unit option.

It is important to be considered that you can have different values for different players for the same unit (think about Shipyard tech or different frontiers, like in the case of Napoleonic Empires, with UnitedKingdom having cheaper costs for Encampment and General).

This may matter also for the necessity of valuing units that cannot be bought. For example, in "Napoleonic Empires" there is the "Capital" unit. The "Capital" unit is exactly the same thing as the "Encampment" unit, thus it would be reasonable the most to assign the "Capital" (you can't buy) a value equal to 10 (same as the Encampment), which is already possible (the "Capital" has currently value 15, that I believe should be changed to 10). However, the Encampment costs 8 for the UnitedKingdom; so it would be advisable that, either, for consistency:

The "Capital" is valued 8 for UnitedKingdom only.
The "Encampment" is valued 10 for UnitedKingdom too, despite costing only 8, for it.

This depends if we intend the TUV to represent what we believe it is a value of the unit or to represent the actual costs.

I tend to believe that 1 is more consistent. In the moment in which if we get JetPower, the TUV doesn't increase, despite now the unit having more value for that player than the others, then it makes sense that, in the moment in which we get Shipyard, the TUV decreases by the costs, despite the unit having still the same value for everyone.

For point 1, I think this would be better achieved by assigning, in the "productionFrontier", a productionRule that is meant to assign the value only, and it doesn't show up at all in the production window. I'm thinking of something like:

That you then assign in:

<productionFrontier name="productionUnitedKingdom">
<frontierRules name="buyCapitalUnitedKingdom"/>
...

Since having no "result" it won't be displayed, but will serve just to tell the game to value the "Capital" unit owned by the UnitedKingdom at 8.

Cernel

In particular, if we would go with the "TUV" being a unit option (but I feel strongly it is not the right place for it), thus forcing the same value for any players, then it would be almost a necessity to allow for relating it to the technology, and maybe even support, because, in the moment you say that a same unit must absolutely have the same "statistic" value for everyone, then if a tech makes it better for a player only, it would make the only sense that the value for that player increases.

The matter is still deciding if, with the "TUV", we mean to capture the supposed value of the unit or we merely intend to report the sum of their current costs.

We may also consider having separate "TUV" and "TUC", so that, for example, in the moment in which a player gets "Shipyard", the "TUC" decreases but the "TUV" remains the same, while, in the moment in which a player gets "SuperSubs", the "TUC" remains the same but the "TUV" increases (of course, in this case, we would need to define a separate value for a submarine benefitting from the SuperSub tech, higher than the normal value assigned to the same unit).

Cernel

The matter if the TUV should represent strictly the sum of the current costs or should be used to picture a total estimated value has been discussed already in this Feature Request ticket:

https://sourceforge.net/p/triplea/feature-requests/216/

I believe, in the moment in which you put a "TUV" option inside the unitAttachments, thus forcing it to be the same for any players having that unit, you are going in the direction of the "TUV" being meant to represent the value, which would be a change of direction from the past, that may be good or bad, but has to be pondered, and preferably made consistent amongst games and dynamics.

Cernel

To clarify, the reference to support was that maybe a player has a same unit having a stronger support ability than what another player gets. However, this may be a not relevant matter, as it may be argued this being bad practice, and the mapmaker should rather take care to have two different units, if having different support abilities, even if all remaining stats would be the same. The matter would, however, be definitely relevant in case of supports assigned via tech, or underlying it (for example, players starting the game at different tech levels), but I guess this can be comprised in the, already made, reference to tech-based actual "value" differences for a same unit owned by technologically different players.

redrum

@Cernel TUV should represent "value" rather than "cost" so it can be used to compare strength of nations/alliances, battle calc casualties, and AI calcs. If you want "value" to adjust based on techs then you'd probably already have a fairly complex map and would have separate units per nation like TWW does. This would allow different TUV for units based on technology using triggers I believe.

Example (tech that improves German infantry and trigger to increase TUV):
<attachment name="unitAttachment" attachTo="germanInfantry" javaClass="games.strategy.triplea.attachments.UnitAttachment" type="unitType">
<option name="movement" value="1"/>
<option name="attack" value="2"/>
<option name="defense" value="3"/>
<option name="transportCost" value="2"/>
<option name="tuv" value="3"/>
</attachment>
<attachment name="unitAttachment" attachTo="russianInfantry" javaClass="games.strategy.triplea.attachments.UnitAttachment" type="unitType">
<option name="movement" value="1"/>
<option name="attack" value="2"/>
<option name="defense" value="3"/>
<option name="transportCost" value="2"/>
<option name="tuv" value="3"/>
</attachment>
<attachment name="triggerAttachmentGermanInfantryUpgrade" attachTo="Germany" javaClass="games.strategy.triplea.attachments.TriggerAttachment" type="player">
<option name="trigger" value="conditionAttachmentGermanInfantryUpgrade"/>
<option name="unitType" value="germanInfantry"/>
<option name="unitProperty" value="tuv" count="4"/>
<option name="uses" value="1"/>
<option name="when" value="before:germanCombatMove"/>
</attachment>

Frostion

I would like to test this out. I just want to be sure that I understand the purpose of this new feature. If the battle window and its default casualty selection is silly, like if expensive units with specual abilities tends to be selected instead of the "obvious choice", then I can play around with this tuv stat, raising it to the first number that makes it not default selected by the engine, which instead selects a more appropriate unit to die first. Right?

If this is the case, then maybe this new feature can prevent Iron War battles select SS-Infantry over normal infantry? (as SS right now are selected as casualties before normal infantry, even though they are like infantry, but also give negative support to enemies.)

redrum

@frostion The casualty selection does take tuv into account but only after attack/defense/etc. I think its used as mostly a tie breaker so if 2 units have equal attack/defense then it kills off the cheaper unit first.

Edit: Also since TUV is only done in PUs, it would probably be useful to manually give units that cost other resources an adjusted TUV.

Cernel

@redrum That is another reason for having that setting in the production rules, instead of in the unit attachments, so that you can also give a PUs value to the resources, the same way you assing it to units. However, that is already possible, since you can have a production rule for buying a resource with PUs, no matter if actually supposed to happen, just not assigning it to any players' frontiers. It would be advisable that, in this case, the engine sums up automatically all resources that have a PUs value assigned (the mapmaker can still define a different TUV, of course).

Cernel

I'm also curious if it is only me that has the feeling that the unit attachment is not the right place for defining the UV of a unit.

Ah, rite: it should be called "UV" (unit value), not "TUV".

Cernel

@redrum Actually, I don't think so. Usually, complex tech maps unlock units. It is more a thing for small/simple maps to have silly technologies like that in the moment you get JetPower all your Fighters magically turn into JetFighters. A more advanced map would probably, instead, unlock an additional JetFighter unit. So, I think the unit upgrade, meaning a same unit that becomes better thanks to tech, I believe it is relevant for simple maps not less than more complex ones.

But, what I was saying, the matter is that the thing should better be consistent.

If you decide that TUV should represent the value, then the TUV should stay the same when you get Shipyard and should increase when you get SuperSub (it would be up to the mapmaker to assingn a referring value, there).

If you decide that the TUV should represent the cost, the TUV should decrease when you get Shipyard and should stay the same when you get SuperSubs.

So far, the second has been true, as the TUV, up until now, has never been anything related to any kind of value, but just the picture of the total current costs (thus TUC would have been a better name for it), as Veqryn confirmed when he said that he is perfectly fine with your TUV sinking in the moment in which you get Shipyards (I agree that is kinda silly).

Frostion

@redrum
As I understand, the TUV unit option is a working feature now. But I can’t see it described anywhere in the pact_of_steel_2.xml (is it?) Will it be written into the xml with an explanation?

This makes me wonder is any other newer or older xml working features are missing from the xml “bible”. It would be a shame if good features risk being unknown and unused by some mapmakers.

Also, I can see that many of the Sub XML Properties described here - https://forums.triplea-game.org/topic/355/sub-xml-properties?page=1 - do not have an explanation in the pact_of_steel_2.xml.

I know that I am maybe annoyingly calling for someone else than me to edit and update the pact_of_steel_2.xml, but I can’t see this being done by anybody else than the persons with the most insight. It’s a pretty important xml and the instructions there must be correct to the word We cant have amateurs editing that file.