Group and Sort Units onto Placements Logically

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.

General_Zod

Also @Cernel makes a very good point. This affects map design by highly influencing the size a of territories.

redrum

@general_zod Yeah, generally I see the vision of the engine to enhance the experience around having territories that are large enough to show most units on the map without overflow. But I do realize some of that is personal preference but I think it also makes the experience more cohesive and less back/forth between areas of the UI.

So focusing more around the territory size of the A&A maps and TWW instead of NWO/WaW/TRS/Civil War. One thing that would be nice is if zooming was easier and less clunky.

Hepps

@redrum You can zoom with your scroll wheel. I find it easy. Was Kinda why I was at a loss to answer the poll. I play with both depending on what I am trying to accomplish.

prastle

@hepps well it also depends on the size and number of screens they have

General_Zod

@hepps The scroll wheel doesn't allow for fine tuning. It seems to jump to intermediate zoom levels. Usually at a zoom not preferable to stay at for remainder of game, thus forcing me to go into menu and change it to exactly where I like it.

prastle

@general_zod or in my case being forced to run two mice so I now have a scroll wheel.... YES I KNOW! I'm stubborn and set in my ways

Hepps

@prastle I'm sure you still use a chisel and hammer to write your thoughts down on stone tablets as well.