Review of "estimatedResourceProduction"
-
@wc_sumpton
estimatedResourceProduction is too longI prefer resourceProduction or productioResource
The above will depend on what properties are set/true.
If Sea Zones generate resources, then they too should be included, yes?As to when to use the above, I think it needs another variable resourceProductionEndTurn
So the coder knows that objectives and unit resource generation/loss are included if that is what they want. Maybe this, resourceProductionEndTurn should be a separate PR to keep it simple, because its not. -
@thedog said in Review of "estimatedResourceProduction":
If Sea Zones generate resources, then they too should be included, yes?
Yes.
@thedog said in Review of "estimatedResourceProduction":
As to when to use the above, I think it needs another variable resourceProductionEndTurn
As of now, there are 2 different processes. The one use under the "Resources" tab and is pictured in brackets. Then there is the endTurn process, which calculates all resources to be given at the end of the players turn. They are different process and are calculated differently.
Cheers...
-
I've thought about it and to reply to the scenarios you mentioned, I prefer to reserve "resourceProduction", "effectiveTerritoryProduction" or whatever we are going to call it, for referring to the values stated under the "production" column in the "players" tab.
It is information directly displayed by the game and I rather don't want players to have to add/subtract territory production values themselves to see if they are in a position to trigger events.
I am not exactly sure which territories the game uses to calculate this number or if there are any exceptions, but I've checked some situations, and as far as I know the game excludes contested territories if the corresponding property "Contested territories produce no income" is set to true, so therefore the condition shouldn't check for these. Other than that, it counts up the production values of all territories under a player's control.
On the flip side, territories of players not controlling their capital(s) and the Chinese in World War II v3 are included in this column by the engine with a non-zero value, so therefore my preference is that territories in these scenarios are included (that image I attached is from V3 and you see a 7 for China, which is the value you get if you sum all of their territories).
I am not sure about the sea zones and I have never come across a game where the scenario you described comes up, so I can't give a comment on that. However the Original Europe game has special sea zones (convoy zones) that produce income and can be captured like territories and these too are included in the "production" column by the game, so if that is what you meant, I would include that too.
So long story short, I propose to have a condition that checks these exact total production values that are calculated by the game. Variations of this condition can be used to check for a player's total income including any bonuses from objectives and unit bonuses.
-
@Cernel, @TheDog, @VictoryFirst
Within the game engine there are only territories. There are no sea zones, only territories marked as water="true". This tells the engine that this territory may not have an attachment. When the game engine calculates resources, it is checking the territoryAttachment for production/resource options. If the territory has an attachment water or not, it is checked.
Cheers...
-
this post is deleted
-
@wc_sumpton said in Review of "estimatedResourceProduction":
This tells the engine that this territory may not have an attachment.
Reread what I wrote, they may not have one. If a territory is not mark it must have an attachment.
Cheers...
-
Ah I see, that's the double meaning of "may not"
Lol. Sorry was just confused for a second. I will delete my post. -
@wc_sumpton said in Review of "estimatedResourceProduction":
@wc_sumpton said in Review of "estimatedResourceProduction":
This tells the engine that this territory may not have an attachment.
Reread what I wrote, they may not have one. If a territory is not mark it must have an attachment.
Cheers...
Is English your first language?
As @VictoryFirst pointed out, "may not" is ambiguous.
"May not" means either "not allowed to" or "allowed not to", but the former is prevalent, so, if you say "they may not have one", it will commonly be understood as if you are saying "they are not allowed to have one", which is here the same as saying "they cannot have one".
I'm just saying that @VictoryFirst did not misunderstand what you said.
(I'm talking about what I know of English English: I don't know about American English.)
-
You are correct. So, I offer my apologies to @VictoryFirst. There have been many discussions about the proper terms used when describing zones/territories/areas and I was only trying to point out how these are interpreted by the game engine.
Again, I am very sorry to @VictoryFirst, and any others that I may have offended.
Cheers...
-
No need for apologies, I am not offended at all
Actually I have an interest in languages and seeing the ambiguity of "may not" come up in practice was quite funny 
However, we are digressing. We still need to have good names for the condition attachment options. I have some suggestions.
The sum of the "production" values of all territories a player controls:
"territoryProduction"The estimated amount of resources a player receives at the end of his turn (including territory production values, objectives, unit bonuses, etc.)
"resourceProduction" -
@victoryfirst said in Review of "estimatedResourceProduction":
The estimated amount of resources a player receives at the end of his turn (including territory production values, objectives, unit bonuses, etc.)
"resourceProduction"This might be undoable. If "resourceProduction" were to account for objectives/triggers that itself was part of the process, might cause the engine to get caught in a circular reference. Still working on it.
Cheers...
-
@wc_sumpton Whoa! I didn't say or mean that you offended anyone or had to apologize for anything.:face_with_open_mouth:
-
@cernel said in Review of "estimatedResourceProduction":
@wc_sumpton Whoa! I didn't say or mean that you offended anyone or had to apologize for anything.
Understood.
I did come down kind of hard on @VictoryFirst. And then I just blew him off. You pointed this out.
The last 5 - 7 years have been quite trying. With only recently thing have been improving. What I'm trying to say, both with this comment and the above apology, is that they are geared more towards myself. Self-growth and self-improvement.
Cheers...
-
@TheDog, @VictoryFirst, @Cernel, @beelee, @RogerCooper
With the understanding that "hasResource" is kind of stuck in limbo. Basically, the process works, but there are some "requirements" that need to be ironed out. There are some questions with "territoryProduction".
Should property "Multiply PUs" affect the returned value when "PUs" are checked?
Should "Resource Modifiers" on the player selection screen be accounted for?
Cheers...
-
@wc_sumpton said in Review of "estimatedResourceProduction":
Should property "Multiply PUs" affect the returned value when "PUs" are checked?
No.
Should "Resource Modifiers" on the player selection screen be accounted for?
No.
-
@wc_sumpton
Into the mix,
The property "Economic Victory" & its associated properties might hold the values you are after.Is it worth checking to see how the above calculates its values?
Also 1941 GCD industries produce PU each turn, so any units like Oil-Fields and Lend-Lease-Depots should also be taken into account, yes?
https://forums.triplea-game.org/tags/thedog
https://forums.triplea-game.org/topic/3741/curated-best-top-maps-triplea-guides -
@wc_sumpton said in Review of "estimatedResourceProduction":
I did come down kind of hard on @VictoryFirst.
Didn't seem that way to me. I don't think it did to Victory either
You doing just fine brother. We are who we are at this point. You get high marks from me
-
@thedog said in Review of "estimatedResourceProduction":
The property "Economic Victory"
This property only checks for ownership of a territory, it does not check for blockade, convoy, convoy routes, contested etc... (Something the engine calls "Can the territory produce?").
@thedog said in Review of "estimatedResourceProduction":
Also 1941 GCD industries produce PU each turn, so any units like Oil-Fields and Lend-Lease-Depots should also be taken into account, yes?
At this point "no". But I say this with caution, because getting this information is quite easy. It may require a new condition "territoryUnitProduction" created so it is not confusing.
Also triggers/objectives cannot be added because triggers/objectives could use the condition.
@beelee said in Review of "estimatedResourceProduction":
You doing just fine brother. We are who we are at this point. You get high marks from me
Thank you both.
Cheers...
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login