Fuel Enhancements

[redrum]

@wc_sumpton Depends on what you want the balance of fuel consumption to be for land vs sea vs air. If you want high fuel consumption for air then yeah you can essentially set it to something close to their max movement since most times you move air you tend to use most of their moves. I'd probably argue most maps are better off keeping air fuel consumption more inline with land/sea so if you have like 1 per move for land/sea then having air be like 1-2 fuelFlatCost would keep them more balanced.

[General_Zod]

To echo @redrum a bit.

I think its, crucial to not over power a unit. Especially air units. But a successful fuel model will have a few moving parts to contend with. Not only, the units overall fuel consumption and abilities, build cost, etc., in comparison to all other units. As well as each nations access to the actual distribution of the fuel resource territories.

With Iron War, even more to contend with, due to iron resource. It will surely need tweaking as play testing feedback comes in. But I think this game will be a hit once it's balanced out. Even more so if it's multi player friendly.

[redrum]

Alright. So we are down to the final few fuel enhancements left. Scrambling.

So my thought is scrambling should charge the fuelFlatCost and/or fuelCost times number of territories to scramble territory and back (so almost always 2xfuelCost since its 1 territory away). Any thoughts?

[Hepps]

@redrum Seems right... though if you say have your aircraft set to a flat rate... how would that work?

[redrum]

@hepps It would just charge the fuelFlatCost just like when you would move them during you turn. So for example, if you had fighters set to fuelFlatCost=2 and scrambled 2 fighters then it would cost 4 fuel. Its essentially like they use a 'tank' of fuel to go scramble and defend just like when moving/fighting during a regular turn.

[Hepps]

@redrum So if you had a fighter set to 1.... then both there and back would be 1.

[redrum]

@hepps Yeah, if fuelFlatCost=1 then a fighter there and back would be 1. If you had fuelCost=1 then a fighter there and back would be 2.

[Frostion]

This sounds good
What is the reason behind the viewpoint that moving fighters to newly build carriers is outdated and should not be used?
Has it ever been an official rule in an A&A board game?
Is it because of a "free" fighter movement? If so, could there not just be restrictions on movement, allowing only fighters with at least 1 move left to move, and if placement can be done before CM and NCM, then it will also use 1 move of its total round moves?

[redrum]

@frostion Yeah, the free movement is strange and unintuitive IMO. It was part of some of the early A&A games. It tends to be better to allow fighters to end movement where you are placing a carrier than landing them then allowing the free move to the carrier. If no A&A game ever had done that then I don't think anyone would ever have said 'I wish we could add a rule to land fighters then allow them a free move if I build a carrier'.

[General_Zod]

@redrum

Are you removing that move fighter to new carrier property?

I'm just wondering if it that property can be used creatively in other yet in undeveloped maps. In a way that has nothing to do with acc. It might come in handy yet.

[redrum]

@general_zod No, I'm just not adding fuel cost support for it. So that 'free' move will cost 0 fuel.

[Hepps]

@redrum Free'r than before?!?! Get em while their hot!

[redrum]

@hepps More free the better? But yeah doesn't cost move points or fuel. Its magic!

[Hepps]

@redrum It was magic before... now its low carbon foot print magic.

[redrum]

Here are some initial screenshots of scrambling with fuel. The scramble window shows 'estimated' fuel cost of both defending/returning. If the fighters die then they aren't charged returning fuel for "fuelCost". This is using Global 40 with fighters having:

	  <option name="fuelFlatCost" value="PUs" count="4"/>
	  <option name="fuelCost" value="PUs" count="1"/>

No Fighters Selected

UK Fighter Selected

UK and French Fighters Selected

Not Enough Fuel for Scramble

[prastle]

@redrum magic only is you

[redrum]

Here is the PR: https://github.com/triplea-game/triplea/pull/3292

[Frostion]

The above screenshots need the favicon in the top right, not a java icon

Edit: @General_Zod @redrum Good that the option to move fighters to new carriers is not removed. The option is critical to the Star Wars maps, an option implemented per request from players to prevent new fleets from being taken out immediately by long range fighters.

[redrum]

@frostion Good catch. There was a bug (probably been around forever) that caused the TripleA icon not to appear and for scramble window to not close if you exited the game. Both are fixed in the PR now.

Yeah, no plan to remove that property as it would break lots of maps and A&A die hards would be up in arms I would say there are probably better ways to prevent new carriers from being taken out too easily. I would recommend some combination of these properties instead as they are more intuitive:

    <property name="Produce fighters on carriers" value="true" editable="false">
      <boolean/>
    </property>
    <property name="Produce new fighters on old carriers" value="true" editable="false">
      <boolean/>
    </property>
    <property name="Land existing fighters on new carriers" value="true" editable="false">
      <boolean/>
    </property>

[prastle]

@redrum JP bots were empty and the lobby is slow atm. If you and Dan are done with your latest engine/fuel update we could add it to jp bots just a thought. I stopped all JP bots for now.