Group and Sort Units onto Placements Logically

redrum

@cernel I think most maps (even new maps) would probably benefit from those groupings. If we get to a point where there are a number of maps that would prefer to have ordering that don't use those grouping then we can consider adding an option or updating how the sorting works.

Cernel

@redrum Maybe some prefer having infrastructures last, instead of first, since they have been last until not?

redrum

@cernel Generally, you want isInfra first so that they don't move around.

Hepps

@redrum I agree. Seems very logical for your infrastructure being first... then the units that don't move EVER stay stationary inside a territory. The system you have devised seems a great step forward in making the appearance of the map more consistent since your stationary units will be stationary turn over turn.

The rest of your organizational system seems logical and well planned out as well.

Cernel

@redrum I think it depends mostly on the kind of map. In maps with a complex, infrastructure based, production system, think about Civil War, you definitely prefer having them first. The preference might go the other way round for maps with only a few industry and AAguns somewhere, and mostly both in the same places, as you don't really care to even look at them, as you would have already pretty much memorized them, and, of course, whatever is first allows cleaner view, so you get a faster glance at what the not infrastructure composition is, which is especially relevant in the moment you are checking for the defensive safety of your positioning, as infrastructures (factories and aaGuns) don't normally attack you.

Mostly, I think this should be well defined in PoS2, and be fairly stabilised, once you decide how it works, as I can see mapmakers wanting to have a stable behaviour, in the moment they define their maps.

As I said, I tend to agree that infrastructures first may be better than infrastructures last, so don't think I'm at the opposition here, but, especially since this would turn the current actual behaviour around, I'm wondering if most would be happy or not (I've no doubt that players of Civil War will).

Cernel

@hepps On the matter of things not moving around, the Fortress of Napoleonic Empires don't, either. How about relating it to having movement 0 or having the property that disallow movement during combat move, instead of being an infrastructure.
I actually think I would rather relate it to the inability of moving during combat move, rather than the infrastructure attribute (that, by the way, just means that you can't take hits and are captured: you could have a map in which infrastructures are combat units only, all moving, and not production related at all), also because, this way, AAguns won't go different ways moving from v3 to v5, but I'm not actually sure, because, for a number of reasons, I don't like that option (I would prefer being unable to move to hostile, rather than totally unable of moving during combat move).
I think I would have a preference for having just movement 0 units first (which would also be consistent with the current behaviour of having them not selectable), so my suggestion would be to go for checking movement 0, instead of being an infrastructure (you can also have infrastructures like the Horses of Feudal Japan), even tho that would imply a different treatment of AAguns for v3 and v5, which I'm not really bothered myself.

So, summing all up, my suggestion would be:
not relating it to the "isInfrastructure" attribute, but to the movement being equal to 0. However, when the property "Selectable Zero Movement Units" is set to true, then this priority is absent.

How about this?

Cernel

@cernel Or the rule could be that you get priority only if you can't move during combat move, no matter why; thus either having movement 0 or the specific inability to move during combat move, or both, would get you priority all the same.

Cernel

@redrum said in Group and Sort Units onto Placements Logically:

@cernel If you agree to update every existing map then sure. The main reason to have some general grouping is that most maps will never be updated so we need to have some groupings to help them.

While this is a reasonable concern, and one that I anticipated, already, it might be less dramatically so that you might thing. Basically, aside rare cases of units you have but cannot buy, what I was saying is that the order you would see on the actual board would be the same order you have when you open the purchase window. Most maps are reasonably defined, already, on this regard, and, since in most maps you see aaGuns and factories last in your purchase window, most map will retain the current behaviour of listing infrastructures last, while allowing full customisation for new and supported games. Adding to this, the order being exactly the same both for purchase and placement I believe has a value in itself.
Maps having the units in the purchase windows listed randomly or, anyways, all over the place, would be damaged, but I'm not feeling much concened about that. Of course, my concerns don't matter.
Also, an xml only listing would solve the problem of deciding what is going to be what since, as I've pointed out, "isInfrastructure" is not necessarily that meaningful (and you can have maps in which all infrastructures are just supporting combat units or transporting ones).

I wouldn't mind updating Civil War so to have all infrastructure units first.

Cernel

@redrum Even at the risk of going off topic, I would add that I would have the units order in the purchase window AND the placement order AND the support order (units able to give bonus to some of multiple) being all the same. Of course, this would raise the concerns about existing maps, but the support order should matter very little for most. Of course, support ordering is a highly arguable matter, as well.

Cernel

@cernel Actually, when not specified in the screen, the purchase order you get in the purchase screen is the one of the frontier; so that would be the order I'm proposing, instead of the general xml one (unless the unit is not specified in the frontier).
Anyways, it doesn't matter to what I was saying; what I'm saying is having the same order as that player would have when you open the purchase window, however that is defined.
The matter, then, would be what about is not listed in the frontier (purchase window). In that case (that doesn't matter for most maps), I would actually show all such units before those in the purchase window, and by their xml general order, as I guess they may be often like utility units having roles similar to the territory options; tho there are a few cases, like Age of Tribes, in which those units are the ones that got out of the frontier for obsolescence. Still, even in this case, I think it makes sense having them listed before the current purchasable ones.
A problem may be a game like WAW, in which you have Bunker at start game, but can produce them only from round 4, so they are not in the frontier for the first 3 rounds, while being on the field, but I can't really have an opinion on that thing at all, as it makes just no sense that everyone has bunker, yet nobody remembers how the hell to build them until 3 rounds after the start of the game. That's obviously just a gameplay thing, I guess because the mapmaker considered the game would flow better without early bunker placement.

Cernel

@cernel Just to be clear, in case anybody doesn't know it, taking the xml dependant production window would not be a constraint for main games of new / supported maps, as you can customise it in the skin, anyways (look at War of the Relics), while I'm assuming it should be reasonable safe for existing games, as you would assume some order was put into it, as it showing in the purchase window, already.
Another related matter would be armonising the Unit Help listing, if feasible, as there the xml general order is not used at all, but anything goes with the purchase order (I agree), then random (if I'm not missing some order I don't see).

Cernel

@cernel It may make sense that the order on the board and the order you have in Unit Help are exactly the same, but I'm not sure if maybe Unit Help should rather go with the purchase frontier, in case those are differently ordered. Also maybe you (or some) have the preference of seeing factories first on board and last in Unit Help?

General_Zod

@redrum

There are valid points on both sides of the discussion.

I have an idea that doesn't resolve any of the above points. But just floating it out there anyways.

Can we have a mechanism that prevents overflow from being displayed completely in a given territory. (on map view only, but still displayed on territory tab).

So Instead of displaying the line of overflow units. It would display a single special unit depicting there is overflow. Ideally that unit would be clickable, to see the list of actual overflow units.

I'm leaning towards this being settable during the placement picker steps. Lets say a different color square or symbol (green) on last placement, indicating overflow wont display on map. Instead a special unit will display in the last position, representing that there is more overflow units.

redrum

@Cernel I didn't read all those posts but it may be better to have the first group be 'units with 0 movement' rather than 'isInfra'. I'll consider changing to that.

@General_Zod Not showing units on the map, I don't think would be very intuitive. It would cause players to have to open up the territory tab all the time which would be really annoying.

Cernel

@redrum To keep consistency, it may be better having the first group as all units that are not selectable, for whatever reasons (those that when you click on them during CM nothing happens), and code it in a way to be dependant from that setting (so, if the units that are selectable will change, this will change too). This, in turn, would include the 0 movement units, unless the property "Selectable Zero Movement Units" is true.

Cernel

@cernel I mean, all those that are not selectable at any point. So, for example, a traditional AAgun would be always part of it, even tho it is selectable during NCM but not during CM. Having AAguns in different positions in different phases may be confusing.

Cernel

@redrum This reminds me of the Axis & Allies Classic game, in which you had those box territories on the map for additional placements for a bunch of territories likely to get overcrowded. I actually thought about the opportunity of having something like that in a TripleA map too, to limit overflow, while not having to have all territories too huge (some you just can't, like little islands), but I discarded the idea, as the risk of overlooking and the cumbersomness of having to look at two territories is too much of a big deal, in the moment the territory is not telling you if there is more somewhere else. The @General_Zod idea would be somewhat the same concept as that, albeit definitely more playable; still, I'm not sure how much that may be worth more of the traditional overflows. I would have it as a menu option, off as default, except that, instead of requiring clicking, when that option is enabled, you would not see the overflows, but a circle with a plus, or something, telling that there are additional units, and you see them in a box by just hovering the cursor (no need to click). Also, then, a quick key to go back and forth from full overflow mode.
Anyways, myself I think I would just prefer having the overflow visible all time, and anyway I think a good mapmaker should take care to assure enough space for units (this is not helping for the existent many maps that don't, of course), but it's an interesting idea. Definitely would give the game a more polished look.

redrum

Updated to use the following as goal is really to have '0 movement' and 'can't combat move' units first not necessarily isInfra.

Here is the proposed grouping/sorting:

Unit owner: territory owner, territory owner allies, player order in XML
Unit type: 0 movement, can't combat move, land, sea, air
Within each of those groups sort the units by XML order in UnitList

redrum

This is merged and can be tested in this pre-release: https://github.com/triplea-game/triplea/releases/tag/1.9.0.0.9903

General_Zod

I always use the territory tab. Would be interesting to take a poll someday.

https://forums.triplea-game.org/topic/684/polling-question-which-play-style-do-you-prefer
Players that primarily play by:

A. Zoomed way in and rarely use territory tab. Thus not much need for territory tab.

B. Zoomed out enough to see whole continents and nearby sea zones. Thus rely heavily on territory tab information.

Btw my idea involved a click on the special overflow unit, but hover would definitely be better.