Tooltip info gets worse by the unit (Feature Request)

Cernel

@Frostion The way this should work, actually, to cover fully and avoid ridiculous wideness, is that you have a key, and this key is referenced on all targets, like it actually worked for the old supports.

For example, at default setting, you can have the supporting unit as "Support" and all possible target units as "Supportable", in their tooltips.

Customizing it, you can use a key like "infantry", then the support unit can say "Support infantry" and all the target units say "infantry", in their tooltips.

The issue here, however, is that the attachment key traditionally refers to the giver, not to the receiver, so, to make sense with all coded so far, in the moment that key will say something like "artillery", instead of something like "infantry", then it would have to be something like the support unit saying "Artillery support" and all the target units saying "Artillery supportable". Of course, here I mean you would write "Artillery", or whatever, in the type for the support attachment in the game file (no need to show it if only 1 type per game, see the basic case).

Anyways, the word "support" itself is not really good, in the moment you can have negatives, once you go past the standard.

Cernel

But, personally, I would just fully customize my tooltips anyways. That way I'm also safe from future developers, as long as they don't remove tooltip customization.

LaFayette

@Cernel , You probably would not believe how much time we spend trying not to break things or change things unexpectedly. In all seriousness, that activity alone of ensuring no regressions probably doubles or triples, or 5x's the time it takes to make any update. Hence why it's so favorable to remove things that need not be there or are barely worth this rather tremendous cost. Even then, we make mistakes as the code is crafted together like a well played game of jenga before the last round.

Cernel

@LaFayette I think it was obvious that was not a serious statement. I don't actually believe any future developers would remove tooltip customization.

I was just saying that, if making a map, I would just customize the tooltips, so I'm sure that they show up as intended, as I cannot expect that if changes are made in the future they will be optimized for my map...

Frostion

@redrum @LaFayette So is it possible to modify the engine, to just have a maximum tooltip window width? so to prevent insane long tooltips by adding a line breaks whenever the list of units is too long.

Or is the better solution to go direct to a vertical list of units, perhaps with a tabs/space in front of every unit name, so that the list can stand out by not being left aligned like the rest of the tooltip?

redrum

@Frostion Yes. Though the easiest improvement would probably allow a certain number per line say 4-5 on the first line then ~10 on following lines with an indent and then a maximum number of lines (2-4) then show ellipses if there are more.

Example (5 first line, 10 following lines, 3 lines max)
Unit can support unit types A through Z

Support on Attack & Defense: 1 Cavaliering Power to 5 Allied A, B, C, D, E,
        F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O
        P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y ...

Frostion

@redrum Well, I think that would work. It would be better than what we have now. It avoids variable lists and instead presents the actual units affected by the support. And it takes into account that there could be a very many units. I am ready to test it out

Hepps

@Frostion Don't think anyone ever envisioned a unit with 30 support attachments....

leave it to @Frostion to test the outer limits of the creative process!

redrum

@Frostion So first take at this is using 100 max character width, moderate size indent for new lines, and no limit to number of unit types or lines. This impacts both the tooltips and the unit help window so here are examples with Dragon War. Feedback welcome. I will probably at a minimum add some sort of max unit types to allow in the list (something like 50 or 100 in case any map has just a ridiculous number of units) though not sure anything more than 20-30 is really worth displaying.

Unit Help

Tooltips

redrum

@Hepps Here is some TWW examples:

Hepps

@redrum That seems great... to be honest I have never looked at the tool tips in TWW as I designed it. So it's hard for me to assess objectively.

redrum

I added a 25 unit max for now but open to adjusting it.

PR: https://github.com/triplea-game/triplea/pull/5867

Cernel

@redrum said in Tooltip info gets worse by the unit (Feature Request):

@Hepps Here is some TWW examples:

Can someone explain me how is it not better having something like:
+1 ArtilleryBonus Strength to 1 Own/Allied
(no list) on the RussianArtillery, and, then, something like:
Can be supported by ArtilleryBonus
on the russianAlpineInfantry etc..

(better just calling it "Artillery", but that's in the game file)

The only reason I can see is that, then, you would have to read all tooltips to see what are the supportable targets, but this is offset by the fact that, when reading the tooltips of those targets, instead, you don't have to read all tooltips to see if there is a unit, somewhere, that may give support, at least if you see no "can be supported" reference, and, anyways, I believe such general matters should be information in Notes.

Except that, if it is negative, it should say "Can be suppressed", instead of "Can be supported".

Also, most likely I've already said this too, but saying 1 ArtilleryBonus Power to 1 Allied is wrong! If you say "to 1 Allied", that means you are giving it only to allies (which makes particularly no sense in this case, twice over, since the targets are units that none of your allies have and, anyways, you can never support any allies in attack, only in defence, and this one doesn't work in defence), not to your own units too, or any non allied units that is on your same side on the battleboard (also remember that, when defending, you can fight with your enemies, as long as both you and your enemies are enemy of the attacker, so we need to test how support works here, as well as figuring how it should be supposed to work, rulewise (saying Own/Allied may be not enough, as well)). If you say "1 Power to" that is not really communicating how that power is given (am I receiving 1 bonus dice to roll at 1?), so it should have been "+1 Power to", to hint better it is a modifier, at least, but it would be still wrong, because, if you increase by 1 the value you are rolling for, you are actually giving +1 Power only in case that unit is rolling 1 dice, but you are actually giving +0 Power if that unit is rolling 0 dice, +2 Power if the unit is rolling 2 dice, etc., unless we change the meaning of power from what I believe has been its usage so far.

Anyways, those are the reasons why I would rather just customize my tooltips (also since you never know what they will say at any point in the future (might get worse)).

redrum

@Cernel Not sure either is "better" but you could have the same challenge if you have lots of different types of support then you end up having to list for each unit that can be support something like "Can be supported by A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H...". I think the main thing is most players naturally think about the thing giving the support rather than receiving it.

"Allied" is generally used to include both the owner and their allies. I don't think I've ever seen anyone else question that but changing it to "Own/Allied" would be an easy update if so.

"Power" indicates an increase to the dice roll vs "Roll" indicates additional dice rolls. Not sure there are better terms but seems straightforward to me.

Cernel

@redrum said in Tooltip info gets worse by the unit (Feature Request):

"Power" indicates an increase to the dice roll vs "Roll" indicates additional dice rolls. Not sure there are better terms but seems straightforward to me.

Sadly, I don't know if there is even anything written anywhere about such TripleA definitions, but I'm almost surely positive that the traditional usage is:

Power = Rolls per Strength

Meaning that a unit rolling 2 dice at 4 would have power 8, not power 4.

Or would you say that heavy bombers do not increase the offensive power of bombers? Because this is what you are saying.

redrum

@Cernel Well we could change it to "strength" instead of "power" if you think that makes more sense.

Cernel

@redrum Mostly, I suppose we need to document it somewhere, then stick with it. I'm just saying that, especially since Low Luck, when you say power I think that's what you mean (no matter how many dice it is split into), but not like I'm the official word of TripleA, nor I have a reference right now, and we cannot ask veqryn, I guess.

Yeah I suppose strength would be better, though maybe the only clear way would be to say "offensive value" or "defensive value", not completely sure on this point.

@Panther What would you use as terms, from a boardgames standpoint, to define the value you need to roll equal or lower and that multiplied by the number of dice you roll (for example, Classic heavy bombers)?

Cernel

The only two things that I can reference are:

In the game codes (xml), you have "strength" meaning the single dice value, in the support attachments (but this is merely an internal reference, and TripleA has a long tradition of having wrong and badly worded internal reference, often displayed differently in the tooltips, instead, "isInfantry" comes to mind).
In the battlecalculator, you have "power" (I guess should be rather "total power") to sum up all the dice values of all units in the side.

Then, again, if one would say that if you get heavy bombers your bombers become stronger, that would probably feel about as correct as saying that they become more powerful. So, I'm just saying, at least let's try to be consistent between tooltips, battlecalculator and xml codes, if feasible.

Edit: To be clear, what I said is that I believe that should not be called "Power", as I'm almost positive the power of a unit is the same if you roll 1 dice at 4 or 4 dice at 1, at least this is what I believe it is the common understanding, as it is also what you get in the battlecalculator. However, I'm not sure how should it be actually called, instead. "Strength" is at least the xml way to define it, but there might be a better alternative.

Frostion

I can see in the manual for Europe, where artillery was introduced, it says that Artillery "Increases each matching infantry to an attack roll of 2." So I guess official terms won't be any good

Cernel

@redrum said in Tooltip info gets worse by the unit (Feature Request):

@Cernel Not sure either is "better" but you could have the same challenge if you have lots of different types of support then you end up having to list for each unit that can be support something like "Can be supported by A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H...".

I agree that, theorically, you can have a unit type giving support to an infinite number of different unit types just as much you can have a same unit type receiving support from an infinite number of unit types, but:

The way I explained (if I have been sufficiently clear), would not imply that the receiver is actually referencing the supporting units. Instead, it is only referencing the support type, as specified in the xml (in this case "ArtilleryBonus"). So, for example, if you have a single infantry unit supported by many different kind of artillery units, you will have a single entry on the infantry unit (not the list of all the artillery units, like in your "Can be supported by A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H..." example), as long as these artillery units have the same "type" of support, while, with the current system, if you have a single artillery unit supporting many different kind of infantry units, you will have the full list, unless you don't provide it because of being too long, that, in my opinion, is even worse (complete lack of information).
The way support attachments are coded is that you can define only one giver and unlimited receivers (not the other way round, that would require you making as many different support attachments).
In practice I believe the case of having a same unit giving support to a number of units will be averagely numerical superior than the case of a same unit receiving support from a number of units, if only because of TripleA traditions regarding the receiver being the fodder (I don't think it makes actually more sense for a supported infantry to increase in strength than having the artillery hitting harder, but this is how it traditionally works).

I think the main thing is most players naturally think about the thing giving the support rather than receiving it.

I'm not saying not to give any information on the giver, but just giving the "support types" information on both the giver and the receivers, while giving all other information on the giver only. So, the focus would remain on the giver.

Regardless, if sticking with the current system, I believe listing should never be truncated or hidden, as that is lack of information, that is the worst. If you have 1,000 targets, and not listing some of them would give no way to know who is the target, then you should list all 1,000 of them. After all, if I make 1,000 different supports for a single unit, aren't you listing all of them?