Player Bonus Settings Revamp

[Cernel]

@Black_Elk said in AI Bonus Settings Revamp:

For me the Attack/Defense bonus is not particularly intuitive. Unlike the income bonuses, the attack/defense bonus is pretty vague, so I don't really know what entering a particular value in this field is going to do in game. For example if I give the AI an Attack Bonus of "1" or "2" or "10" what exactly does that mean in terms of the combat phase? Right now I have no clue, so I've basically avoided it.

The AI bonus att/def are kinda cheap and I don't think they were ever meant to be serious and I can't see many players using them. They are very distortive, because giving a +2 att to something that has 1 power is a +200%, while it is only a +50%, if it has 4 power. It just puts the units balance off; so I don't see that as a good AI cheat, and I find it annoying. I don't even know if the bonus attack would made classic / revised transports being able to actually fire? That would be really silly.

So, I want to propose two ideas of mine, that would be kinda the same, but better:

AI bonus dicesides : it lowers the dicesides used for the AI by the same amount (opposite effect if negative)
Human malus dicesides : it increases the dicesides used for the not-AI players by the same amount (opposite effect if negative)

*The ability to be negative can be skipped, as I don't think many would want to be helped against the AI.

(I dislike how this forum and github use * for bold etc., as I can't use it anymore for what it is supposed to do)

If I set it at 2 in a game using 6 dice sides, the AI only will roll on d4, instead of on d6. This would mean that, like, an AI bomber auto-hits in attack and an AI infantry has 1/4, instead of 1/6 to hit. It should apply to AA-gun rolls etc., as well (in the above example, the AI would AA hit at 1/4, instead of 1/6).

I think that if the above would be made, then both the "AI bonus attack" and "AI bonus defense" can be deprecated or deleted, from the engine.

Of course, if you set the AI bonus dicesides at 6+, then everything autohits, just like when you set at 6+ the AI bonus att+def, on a 6 dicesides map.

[Cernel]

@Black_Elk said in AI Bonus Settings Revamp:

AI bonus income flat rate
AI bonus income percentage

How about having also:

Human malus income flat rate
Human malus income percentage

(reduce income from not-AI players when positive)

?

(I guess it would be a very easy addition, code-wise?)

[redrum]

@Black_Elk Yeah, that is what the placement bonus would do. The thought behind it is the AI struggles on some maps to use all its bonus income so increase placement (production) capacity. You might be right that having a separate parameter for that would make it more flexible. Though I don't want to create too many AI bonus parameters as it gets confusing and many are often not used.

@Black_Elk @Cernel I'm thinking of just removing the attack/defense bonuses as I don't think they really make much sense. It would unbalance most maps pretty extremely. I really think income/production or initial bid is the best way to give the AI some bonuses that are pretty intuitive.

@Cernel My thought is to make it so you do individual bonuses per player (human and AI) and allow positive/negative values so you could either increase the AI's income or decrease the player's income to try to give the AI an advantage.

[Cernel]

@redrum said in AI Bonus Settings Revamp:

@Black_Elk @Cernel I'm thinking of just removing the attack/defense bonuses as I don't think they really make much sense. It would unbalance most maps pretty extremely. I really think income/production or initial bid is the best way to give the AI some bonuses that are pretty intuitive.

I agree with removing those, tho you might want to make a topic about it, asking if there is any AI player around that will miss them. I would still suggest to substitute them both with
AI bonus dicesides : it lowers the dicesides used for the AI by the same amount
tho, if it is not too much work, as it would be like making the AI luckier, with no hard distortions. It would be like, we all have the same powers, but the AI rolls 4 sided dice and you roll 6 sided dice.

[Frostion]

My take on this: :thinking:
• "AI Bonus Income Percentage" of some sort is all that is really needed.
• Scrap the attack/defense bonuses.
• But ... maybe it would be cool with an increased ”dice luck” thing with an increased luck when AI is throwing dice? Incread income would mostly mean more units on the board, and this could be avoided by just having luck?
• “decrease the player's income to try to give the AI an advantage” sounds like something that would mess with a player's ability to follow, calculate and make sense of his income. Why not only increase AIs income?
• I have never heard the word “malus” before, and I think some non-English/Latin speaking folks would have problems understand a phrase like “Human malus income flat rate” or “Human malus dicesides”

Concerning "other resources" also being multiplied in a similar rate as PUs, this would be nice, but could also potentially make some problems.
• Like in Age of Tribes the AI would tech up more quickly, and I don’t think this is desirable.
• In Dragon War, right now the AI only gets more PUs with AI bonuses, but all units also cost wood, food and metal, and the AI does not get more of these resources, so it cant really make use of bonus income. A multiplier of everything would be nice.

If other resources are used for special non-purchase purposes (and I think this could be a lot of different things, especially if Actions and Operations will one day be able to use other resources or if technology rolls could be done with special resources), then it could be problematic and the map would maybe not want the special resources to be multiplied.

Maybe a solution could be a code in the XML that stated if the resource should be multiplied the AI bonuses, like this:
<resourceList>
<resource name="PUs"/>
<resource name="Officers" MultipliedWithAIBonus="no"/>
</resourceList>

[Black_Elk]

I think the main of appeal of the tripleAI income boost here over other similar types of "cheats" often used in strategy games to make computer opponents more challenging, is that it is totally transparent. As long as the player understands what's going on I'm fine with the dice sides thing, though I probably wouldn't use it myself. I don't find the term malus particularly confusing, but I'm a classicist by training, so there's that. In any case, it shouldn't really be necessary to have a separate name/field for income penalties, if the income "bonus" is applied by nation (instead of by AI) we could just have it go negative too if desired.

For example...
100% = Normal income
125% = Normal +25% income
75% = Normal -25% income
And so forth

That way you can do all the income stuff with a single field.

Ps. Just to clarify, right now 0 = 100%, so there's no way to go lower than normal.

[redrum]

@Frostion Interesting point about other resources. I hadn't thought much about them yet but my first instinct would be to increase them at the same rate as PUs. But you do have an interesting point that sometimes they are used for special purposes and it might not make sense. Age of Tribes is an interesting case since you could argue that giving the AI bonus for tech tokens actually might be a good idea since they research randomly vs the player doing so intelligently. An XML parameter on resources is probably a good idea.

[Zim Xero]

The system which you dont like is a 500% improvement over the olden days. In the past, you had to edit the enemy values to create balance. One idea I have is to add a "Challenge" check box. When checked, it will give all NPC factions a %bonus to their PU income equal to the percentage in which they lag behind the Highest PDU nation after turn #5. It should be set to a maximum of 200% income.

Example) In classic Axis and Allies, Russia starts with 24 PUs and Germany starts with 32 PUs. On turn #5... Russia has fallen to 12 PUs. While Germany has risen to 39 PUs. If Russia is an NPC... it will gaine a 39/12 % bonus on its income. 39/12 = 3.25 or 325% income, but since bonus income would be limited to 200%... Russia would only gain an extra 12 PUs.

This "challenge" checkbox option would help prevent runaway games vs the AI.

[redrum]

@Zim-Xero Well hopefully after I revamp it, it'll be 500% better than what we have now

Interesting idea though I think it would need to be map specific since some maps have many more small players on one side vs the other. My thought is to update the standard AI bonus settings first then consider adding some map specific options to define different difficulty levels where potentially something like you describe could be done.

[redrum]

I just submitted the first PR for changes around this: https://github.com/triplea-game/triplea/pull/1750

It primarily focuses on the following updates:

• Remove 4 old AI Bonus properties
• Add new Bonus Income Percentage for each nation (not same bonus for all AIs)
• Add bonus income during end turn phase instead of purchase phase (so you aren't multiplying saved income from the previous round)

This is just phase 1 of changes I'm planning to make for AI bonus properties. I'm also planning to have future PRs address other resources (non-PU) and look to add per map properties that can be configured.

Once its merged, play testing and feedback strongly encouraged!

[Cernel]

@redrum I hope this won't be done very fast; I've still a bunch of things to say / point out. Also, I don't like it myself, but I believe the flat is popular. Might be just because of the limits of the percent, tho.

[redrum]

@Cernel Its happening right now and I've already submitted the first changes. IMO, flat isn't really that useful. I think an initial bid and percentage based is the way to go. I'd like to start there and see what people think. The idea is to make smaller iterative changes and release them out quickly to get feedback. If people don't like it then I can roll back the changes or make different updates.

One thing to realize is once you start doing individual bonuses per player rather than same bonus for all AI, it takes up a lot more UI space so its not as easy to have lots of different options.

[Black_Elk]

@redrum Yeah I was picturing what the UI would look like for Iron War when I suggested it might be done by teams hehe. But a bonus by individual player nation would definitely allow for more nuance. Especially if it's a feature of PvP games.

As for bid logic, the AI seems to be most effective when it uses it's bid for the greatest number of the cheapest possible combat hitpoints (whether on land or the water.) It does pretty well when it spams infantry/artillery or subs/destroyers for example. Where it runs into problems is usually in purchasing stuff like defensless Transports, so might make sense to just eliminate those as an option.

Can't wait to check out the new system

[redrum]

The initial changes are live in the pre-release:

• Remove 4 old AI Bonus properties
• Add new Bonus Income Percentage for each nation (not same bonus for all AIs)
• Add bonus income during end turn phase instead of purchase phase (so you aren't multiplying saved income from the previous round)

Let me know what ya think!

[Frostion]

I have not tested this yet, but going to. Is there a need to rewrite the XMLs ? Where are there examples of how this must look in the XML ?

[redrum]

@Frostion Should work with no XML changes. We will eventually remove the 4 old AI properties from game XMLs but the engine just ignores them. I'll most likely be adding some new XML fields in follow on changes.

[Black_Elk]

Sounds good!

Is there a quick link to the latest pre-release development version? I'm kind of a moron at navigating github hehe.

[redrum]

@Black_Elk Yep the top most downloads here are the latest pre-releases: https://github.com/triplea-game/triplea/releases

[Cernel]

Ok. This post should capture most of my considerations on this matter, based on what discussed so far. It is a pretty intense post; so probably better you go make some tea first. Hopefully it is worth the time.
I know you are not comfortable with me making big posts, but I think this post simply covers so many matters, that it gets long.
Besides the preamble on the old options and related legacy matters, I've divided this post into different distinct parts, starting with (.); so you (and anyone) can read each of those like they would have been single distinct posts.

So, I've tested TripleA 1.9.0.0.4379 and I see that what you are going to do is:

• Remove all current AI bonuses.

• Have only a percent bonus, restyled as a per player bonus, under the current format:

"Russians Bonus Income Percentage", where "Russians" is the "player" name.

So, first of all, I want to say that I'm under the impression that, under the current system and in the recent past, the "flat" is not clearly less popular than the "percent", amongst AI players, and I believe a significant share of them (that might even be the majority) prefer to use the flat over the percent.
With this said, I, for one, am not a fan of the flat, and I'm fine with having this concept of AI bonus removed.
The main difference I can see is that the flat causes longer dragged on games, thus you can have a flat bonus at a great enough level for the game to be highly challenging, while being much less dramatically decided very early on then a competitive percent, as with a challenging percent either you crush the AI fast (reducing its production rapidly) or the reverse is likely to happen soon.
In particular, I guess the flat should reduce the impact of early luck in the game.
I'm mainly saying that, if you remove the flat, you should expect someone to get upset about it (I may be wrong), because he finds the "flat" a more enjoyable AI bonus. But all good for me, except that I rarely play AI, so I'm not a good reference. If anyone here likes the flat, better he speaks out for himself.

As I said, I doubt anyone will miss the att / def bonuses, instead.

I see that you plan to "eventually remove the 4 old AI properties from game XMLs", and this would be fine for all those games for which such settings are nothing more than a marginal touch.
But I don't think that this applies to any maps having them in the xml, as, in some of those, the mapmaker might have set them for some significant reasons, and may not be around (unlike @Frostion) to readily rework them. In particular, how do you plan to deal with those meant to be AI challenges? I guess this item has a minor importance, at this point, since most maps having the AI bonuses set in the xml were made and balanced for the old removed Moore AI; still, this may kill a few maps for which the AI bonus settings are critical, until anyone will rework them, of course (but we all know that the chance of this happening is very low). I don't really know what those maps are, since I very rarely play AI, and I don't think I've ever played any maps specifically built as AI challenge (I'm not saying I'm not interested in them; I actually wanted to try some, but never did, so far).
While I agree on the general principle of removing pointless properties from any xml, especially editable ones, as it is definitely bad to offer users pointless and ineffective options, this, on the other hand, would make harder to rework those maps, if anyone will want, in the future, because you won't get anymore to see what bonuses those games used to have, thus wondering if they had any, if you remove them (of course, this besides referring to older releases of these same games, but such releases are liable to become less and less worthwhile overtime (think about having now to go back to a release before 1.9)).
I'm just wondering if you are thinking just in terms of the majority of maps for PvP, that get played with AI too, while having no AI bonuses set default, but overlooking the minority of PvAI maps, and maybe a few hybrid cases (some @Frostion maps come to mind, like the Primeval version of Age of Tribes, that are not an issue, because he is around to fix them, but this does not apply to all maps in the repository), that have the AI bonuses spelled out. For example, also some of the PvP maps have some default AI bonuses, meant so to kick in just in case someone puts the AI on, without thinking about giving the bonuses, or as a mapmaker's suggestion about how to play an enjoyable game with AI.
Here I'm talking mostly in theory, as I don't really know these kind of maps (I rarely play with AI), but I'm sure there are at least a few of them in the repository. Also, sometimes maps come bundled with AI challenge mods of the main version, or have anyways versions for PvP and versions for PvAI, that might rely on old bonuses, to some extent.
Whatever the case, in the moment in which you remove all old AI properties from the xml, you lose the values they were set at, which I tend to agree is a trivial (virtually unimportant) matter in the majority of cases, but likely not all of them.
It doesn't concern me personally, as I've no maps in the repository, nor I'm interested in taking ownerships of or making changes to or anyway work on or even just play any maps having relevant AI bonuses.
I also tend to think that maps should not stop improvements at the engine level (nor anyone who improves the engine should be supposed to rework all maps having any problems because of this!), but rather getting flagged as broken, waiting for anyone to take them over and rework them.
So, no problem for me, as I think these improvement justify breaking some maps, that are always free for anyone to rework and retune, with the new better system.
The main thing I'm warning is that this is going to be a very slow process (or not done at all), thus this will probably end up with having some maps more or less broken in the repository, for the time being.

So, I think we can divide maps having AI bonuses set at default different from 0 in the xml into 2 main categories:

1. PvP regular maps that have also a default "suggested" AI bonus, likely but not necessarily tailored for noobs;
2. AI challenge maps that (among probably other things, like a purposely unbalanced setups) use AI bonuses as a main element of the game, plus any other kind of maps that make a not marginal or optional use of AI bonuses (for example, Age of Tribes : Primeval).

For the category number 1, let's take as example "Pact of Steel 2", no less. For what follows, I will take Pact of Steel 2 as the example of a full PvP map that happens to have some AI bonuses arbitrarily set for it, just in case someone wants to play it with AI, while surely not being meant to be played with AI.
You can see that you have "AI Bonus Income Percentage" = 20.
This is clearly a level set for noobs, that might not think of setting it themselves, before giving the map a run with AI, so to give some decent challenge for the casual player, I'm guessing (just trying to enter the mapmaker's mind, here).
I would personally not have it, and I disagree with this decision of having AI bonus set in normally full PvP maps, for some reasons, I'm not going to explain, to keep the post from being even more long (all minor considerations).

For the category number 2, I don't think any examples are needed (but there are a few). Also, I believe all AI challenges TripleA has were made for optimum gameplay with Moore AI, that it is not anymore available, and I don't think many, or even any, of them has been remade for the latest AI (I'm not sure, here), which is anyway continuously under development; so it would not really be feasible to rebalance them, at least not closely.
This might reduce the importance of the matter, since one might argue that all AI challenge games were already broken when Moore AI was removed (I don't really know, since I've never played any AI challenges).
I would defer to the players and the makers of the AI challenge games, as well as other games meant to be played with AI, any judgments on how all this would impact on them, as I know little of what I'm talking about, here.
Of course, there may be AI challenge games that do not rely on any AI bonuses, but just on their own setup / triggers / etc. and, in such cases, they are not part of the second category and the matter would be off topic (I don't really know, but I guess all those are already broken for the latest engine, if they were made for Moore AI and meant to be really challenging).

What are the conclusions?
For the category number 1 (Pact of Steel 2 having a percent of 20, Napoleonic Empires having a flat of 8, etc.) my personal opinion is in support of automatically mass-deleting such options from all maps for good, substituting them with nothing (in the xml), which is what you intend to do (and I would have suggested this anyway!).
For the category number 2, I'm surely not sure, but I guess leaving them as they are, even doing nothing, might be better (very confusing for the users either ways!), so to give a referring parameter, about how the map worked in the past (before being broken), in case anyone wants to rework them, especially in case either these deletions or the deletion of Moore AI will or did much damage them. However, this is hard to say, because leaving ineffective bonuses is liable to cause an endless series of bug reports, in the future, from people that will ask again and again why such options appear doing nothing, and it is going to just waste people time to figure out that they are indeed ineffective. Most likely, keeping the disabled properties in them, for future reference, would be a sensible move only if these maps are removed from download list too (I'm not suggesting this, since removing a map from download list is really a big step).
Admittedly, I don't really know about what to do for category number 2; so my suggestion is really just limited to 1.
Another option (I'm not encouraging nor discouraging), especially for finding a compromise for the second category, you might want to take into consideration, is not removing any AI Bonuses, but just deprecating and keeping supporting them only for maps having them set in the xml (removing only the current feature of having them automatically showing if not set). In this case, I would say it would be sensible to proceed removing all AI bonuses from category number 1, anyhow, especially to keep the options cleaner, and nothing from category number 2, of course. This would depend mostly on what is the consideration and the importance you assign towards all those maps having AI bonuses specifically set (at a value different from 0), and how much those options are important for the same games. Myself, I just don't know, since I know very little about those few maps and their popularity.

Of course, a main item to start with is how to discriminate maps between category number 1 and 2 (if you decide to threat them differently in any ways). The only sensible way I can see to do such a thing (if possible) is making a mass search of all maps having bonuses set in the xml, at any default different from 0, and posting the list here, telling that all these maps are going to have those properties deleted; then waiting for people to contribute their opinion in sorting them out. But I don't actually know how well this would work.

Of course, I'm not requesting or saying you have to do any of the above, nor I'm really personally concerned about any particular maps, as these are just general thoughts, and if you want just to go ahead mass deleting all options from both the engine and the maps, that is fine for me.

As a clarification, my category number 1 does not comprise maps having AI bonuses at 0 default only, set in the game xml; the main reason being the customisation of the "max" and "min" assigned to the option. Of course, no problems removing all AI bonus properties from these.

Now, let's go back on what it is proposed to be added, rather than on what it is proposed to be removed (I've already lingered far too long!), and the related legacy issues for maps' games.

.Starting Resources Multiplication

First of all, an important matter and a whole point I just missed (damn), when putting forward my suggestions, which may well be considered a regression we all overlooked!
In the moment in which I suggested and we agreed to move the bonus from multiplying the PUs stock before purchase to multiplying the PUs flux (the main reason here being not multiplying saved income), we are not anymore multiplying starting income! This is a functionality lost in the old one, where the income everyone had at start game would have been multiplied accordingly, right before the first purchase for that player.
I think this is quite an important matter, especially with reference to the traditional games, where the starting PUs are equal to the starting productions, thus it is nonsensical that players would get more units to buy on round 2 onwards, for the same total production, while not having any bonus on their purchases on round 1. This would have a continuity-breaking feeling as, in the normal games, the PUs the players start with is supposed to be the PUs they would have collected in the round before round 1 (most games don't start at the start of the referring war, but sometimes in the course of it, usually 1942).
So, I think you should add this point as one of the ones at the starting post of the Topic (a point I would have surely added myself, amongst the ones you pasted, had I not just overlooked it totally!):

- Having it multiplying all starting resources, assigned to the respective players (in resource initialize) (particularly important when we multiply placement abilities too).

This is particularly important relatively to the other point about the multiplication of placement capabilities, otherwise, in standard games, the placement multiplication would be not justifiable for the first turn of the benefitted players. Probably not much of a big deal, practically, but it would be a nonsensical element, in the system, making it unrefined.
Moreover, if all starting PUs are multiplied, I think this would be generally more sound for the general impact of the AI bonuses, and lowering the perceived need of assigning both the percent bonus and a bid, too, as the starting PUs multiplication would partially cover the popular balancing-through-bid concept, making the AI bonus alone more self-sufficient, at least as a matter of the feel of it.
Of course, this should apply to other resources, than PUs, just as much as the regular multiplication would.
I think this is practically a regression from the old system, that has to be corrected by assuring the multiplication of all PUs (and any resources) assigned at start game (in the resource initialize).
I actually now think that the main, or maybe only reason, why the old AI bonuses worked that strange way of multiplying what you have before purchase (instead of what you collect) was exactly to assure multiplying the starting income too! I'm not even sure if moving the multiplication from stock to flux (which I suggested) can be considered a net improvement, if we lose this dynamic.
A warning, just in case, is to avoid multiplying the PUs earned when not using some of the assigned bid (the bid getting saved should not be multiplied; only the resources in resources initialize).

.Per Player Bonuses

Personally (as it can be inferred by the fact that it was not part of my initial main suggestions), I hardly feel the need of being able of assign bonuses per player, and I would even question if that is worth the trouble of having to set multiple each time, in case you want all AI players having the same bonus. It may be considerably annoying when you play a new map, because you have to recall all the unfamiliar player names that are in the alliance supposed to be played by the AI.
To feel it, do this:
Select "Domination 1901" with AI, taking the "-Br.Sp.It.O.D" alliance, with the other 2 alliances to the AI.
Then, click on Map Options and assign a 25% bonus to all but the ones you intend to play yourself.
While I can see the point of having a per player flat bonus, I don't really see any major reasons for having per player percentage bonus; as long as there are no issues, inducing me to do otherwise, I think I would always want to just give all AI the same bonus percentage. I can't imagine any reasons, with the AI bonuses not causing issues, in which I would want to give +20% to some players and +30% to some others, instead of +25% to all.
Even in case the game is a traditional two sides one, and I'm taking only some of a side, thus playing with some AI allies against all AI enemies, I think it would still make the most sense to give the same percent bonus to all, comprising the AI players fighting on my side (as per how the current bonus work), as that bonus is meant to be a balanced representation of how the AI is inefficient in strategising, thus it should be applied to AI friend and foe alike.
But, while the arguments against having a per player AI bonus are rather minor, and maybe the biggest one is that, in the moment in which you have to multiply all, this would pretty much forcefully restrict the AI bonus to be of only one kind or, at the very most, two kinds (but probably two is already too much), I'm not seeing here in this topic any real strong argument / example / user case about why the AI bonus are good to be made per player specific.
Does anyone have any clear example in which you would feel the need of setting the AI bonus individually and differently, instead of giving +25% or whatever to just all AI players?
I'm mostly curiously waiting for someone (that it is more into AI gameplay than I am) to give me an example; not being negative on the matter for the hell of it, just a bit curious, since everyone agreed without much discussions, so I feel like everyone is seeing something obvious I'm missing.
But, sure, I guess setting bonus per player may have a bunch of good uses, and having to set the bonus per player should be bearable enough, even if you want just the same for all AI.

@Black_Elk said in AI Bonus Settings Revamp:

Sounds good. I'd say by far the most important would be the ability to assign the bonus on a per nation basis.

I'm not opposing your views but, mostly out of mere curiosity, can you explain why this is "by far the most important"? I'm not really making an argument against it; I'm just mostly curious about what exactly cases I'm overlooking, maybe other people might be wondering too.

But, at this point, we have to realise we have gone off-topic!
We are not talking anymore about AI bonuses at all!
Now these bonuses are all not-AI options, albeit made with AI gameplay in mind (just like you can give some bid to the AI; this does not make the bid itself an "AI bonus"!).
Just like with the bid, now these options can be used for whatever, related or not related with AI, just like other not-AI options.
For example, a mapmaker may decide that Player1 is a more productive civilization than Player2, thus able to get more income out of the same land...
Of course, I'm being just formal here, and I surely realise that these bonuses will be almost always used only for AI players, but they are not anymore "AI Bonus" themselves; just options that you may or may not use for any AI related reasons (like other ones).

.Similar Income Multiplication Property

About this, I want to put briefly out a warning, here, about the co-existence of this option (as per "pact_of_steel_2.xml"):

	<!-- Multiply PUs will multiply all PUs gained or lost during a turn. It will not yet multiply costs of units or any other costs, or starting PUs -->
	<property name="Multiply PUs" value="1" editable="false">
		<number min="1" max="10"/>
	</property>

What you are creating are, for now, a per-player, percent and positive-only version of the above option.
This is just a side note, and my suggestion is to leave this "Multiply PUs" option just as it is (keeping it, of course), without any changes.
I've tested it, and your new option changes the income based on the flux after it has been multiplied by the above option, already, as it should be (for example, if "Russians Bonus Income Percentage"=50 and "Multiply PUs"=2, Russians will get 3 times the money, which surely seems the most correct behaviour, to me).
So, all good here, it seems that your option works fine with the existent "Multiply PUs", which is a rarely used, but good to have, property.
"Multiply PUs" is a handy well rounded option, that I've rarely tested, but I recall that it worked totally fine.
I'm thinking to use it for a map with maintainment costs, since when you have maintainment costs, you need much more income per placement, to have some reasonable placement limits (thus I've in mind to use it at "6", so that a production 1 territories gives placement 1 but 6 PUs). The alternative would be setting different unit placement and income production for each single territory.
This was just a notice about the existence of this similar option, and a confirmation that it appears working just fine with your new ones. So, all good, here.
Eventually, your options will become more and more dissimilar from this one, the more you add features (in particular multiplying other resources), while this option should stay as it is.

.Placement Multiplication

Let's retake the matter of the placement abilities multiplication. Not actually sure if you got convinced about that, and will go on implementing it (I surely still suggest it), but, to answer some considerations on the matter:

@Black_Elk said in AI Bonus Settings Revamp:

I'm not entirely sure I understand the increased placement thing. Do you mean increasing the production capacity of territories under the AI's control? Like a territory that would normally build 10 units could then produce 15 units if the AI setting was +50%?

Yep.
And, as you can see, this needs to be coupled up with multiplying the starting PUs too (a needed improvement regardless), otherwise, on round 1, all those players will have more placement capabilities for no reasons at all (you can place 15, instead of 10, but what you can spend on round 1 is the same!).

@Black_Elk said in AI Bonus Settings Revamp:

I can imagine production increases being problematic for the hitpoint spam, since the AI already does a pretty good job of piling up infantry haha, so I'd prefer the ability to separate those two options and control for them if possible.

In my mind, this is rather a good argument in favour of having the placement increase default or maybe even forcefully bundled.
However, I'm always a fan of customisation, so I'm totally with you that I would like this being optional, as well.
Since it should be much less distortive for the AI purchase decisions if income and placement increase of the same amount, I think this will cut down, in a way or another, the problem of having an AI fine tuned for no-cheats working with them.
If the increase income without increase placement would make the AI purchases qualitatively worse, this is obviously a good reason for counterbalancing it by increasing placement.
If the increase income without increase placement would make the AI purchases qualitatively better (like in the case that the AI is buying too much fodder, without cheats), this would be showing that the AI has problems in making normal purchases (as, of course, it is supposed to be fine tuned for no cheats situations), and might be even more of a reason for not trying to reduce cheat-driven placement limits distortions, as the AI purchase itself should rather be fine tuned with respect to no cheats, than having the cheats changing it for the better, as, if they do so, this means that there must be some problems with the purchase decisions (if you are thinking to v5, I don't really know how much going from 5 to 6 in cost should reduce the armour purchases, but in v5 the matter is surely made worse off, for the armour, by the fact that the artillery is still cost 4; I've no experience, but it looks like that should quite dramatically reduce your armour purchases, from v3 or v4).
As long as the AI is meant for no cheats (and aims at minimising the need of them), the less the distortions (for the better or worse) the cheats cause, the more such games are worthwhile references for analysing the AI itself.
Ideally, it should never happen that the bonus income modifiers qualitatively change the AI purchases for the better (well, assuming the AI is meant to be fine-tuned for no cheats).
If you think that, currently, the AI buys way too much fodder (thus making the games less challenging / interesting), then you should hope / suggest the AI being changed as to buy more of other units, not needing having it due to cheat-driven placement limits, I think. Of course, this is just in my mind, but I guess this is it.

I'm not sure if anyone here already know this, but "the ability to separate those two options and control for them" is maybe proved possible by the fact that this is exactly what Dynamix did (maybe), as you can see back in 1.6.1.4:

I said maybe, since I never actually playtested if it even worked.
Just to avoid misunderstandings, I'm not pushing for something similar to this. In particular, I disagree with having the bonuses as something modifiable in the in-game menu, during the course of the game, and I think we all agree with this (especially since an AI player may happen to play right away, after starting a new game).
I'm just showing this here as a curiosity and in case it might be of help for you; not sure if you already know that Dynamix had this option. If you don't, now you do.
Myself, I suggest the placement multiplication being handled with a general true / false (boolean) property, applying to all players having the income multiplication (not only for a specific player), for having it when true, and being off as default (not because I believe it should not normally be used (all the contrary, actually, as I've made clear), but because it makes sense it is not bundled as default, unless the name of the income bonuses get changed to directly clarify that they are both income and placement bonuses, which, coupled with the fact that we have the player name too, would probably make them a tad too long), appearing in the options of all games (even when not in the xml), right after the related bonuses, that, when ticked, makes you multiply the placement abilities of the same amount as the bonus income percentage, as correctly understood by @Black_Elk.
I think that if you choose to have the income multiplication on a per player basis, then probably this excludes having the ability to set it for each player, as this would arguably make for too many options.
To sum it up, my suggestion is either a boolean applying to all percent bonuses (when selected) or having it automatically and surely; but, in this second case, the bonuses should be renamed as "Income-Placement", instead of just "Income".

.Other Resources Multiplication

My opinion on resources is not totally defined.
Surely, I believe the first step would be to expand the options as to multiply any resources, just like the PUs.
I think this should be good enough, for any regularly intended uses of resources, or almost so, as I don't believe there should be any important exceptions.
Still, resources are so extensive, beyond being just a parcelization of income, that I would surely encourage making a way for mapmakers to decide what resources are meant to be duplicated like PUs and what others should not be duplicated, as existing for roles diverse from income.
Age of Tribes is a borderline case, as you might argue that using units as tech "flags" for triggers is basically a (good) hack, which is justified mainly by how limited the true tech is.
In my opinion, unless Frostion really wants to keep the dynamic that buying a tech takes up a placement spot (I don't really see the reason for that), this should be ideally solved by making the actual tech phase able to handle a tech system like Age of Tribes, which seems a totally reasonable one, and I guess a few tweaks away from what is currently possible.
However, there may be other cases, I am sure, in which you would want some resources to be multiplied and some others not; so, if you want to give a way for mapmakers to exclude specific resources from being multiplied, that would be fairly good.
Since (as said) these bonuses are not AI bonuses, an option for setting what resources can be multiplied by these new properties should surely stay all inside the xml itself, and not be assumed or defined as anything AI related at all, as any mapmaker could use them for reasons having nothing to do with AI (non in any specific "map AI configuration", that I surely believe, instead, should not be part of any games' xml).
Anyhow, I believe there should be at least one exception to normally multiplying all resources: never multiply tech tokens or anything that works for anything else but the purchase phase (currently, "techTokens" is the only resource of this kind in existence that is fully supported, but "VPs" should not be multiplied, either). So, as of now, just remember to exclude "techTokens" and "VPs", upon expanding these option to all resources (even tho techTokens are usually bought, you might want a map with player starting also with some techTokens, instead of only PUs, to represent development started in previous rounds (before round 1); in this case, I think the PUs should be multiplied, but not the techTokens).

[Cernel]

.Other Sources Multiplication

I've seen that the PUs flux generated by the units themselves is added up too, like normal income, and, then, the total income flux is multiplied, which here is definitely the way to go, since you may have units producing only 1 or -1 PUs each. So, all good, here.

<option name="createsResourcesList" value="3:PUs"/>
<option name="createsResourcesList" value="2:techTokens"/>

Also notice that in cases like:

<option name="createsResourcesList" value="-3:PUs"/>

this is the normal way of implementing maintainment costs.

Of course, all income given via national objectives should be surely multiplied, after having been summed up with any other income flux, at End Turn:

<option name="objectiveValue" value="4"/>

I tested the engine behaviour is already optimal, in this regard, multiplying (if I see it correctly) all the income flux at end turn, no matter if it comes from normal collection or from national objectives, and I think this is the best (normal collection and national objectives income being treated the same, and all summed up like it is just all normal collection, before multiplying). So, all good, here.

A similar way to give income, instead of objectives, is with triggers.
Actually, objectives are substantially redundant, as I could do all with triggers and conditions, instead of objectives.
As a matter of actual gameplay, if I have a national objective giving some PUs or I have a trigger firing under the same conditions, after the same end turn, the result is the same. Thus, I could substitute all national objectives in all games with analogue triggers firing after end turn, and nothing would change, except only that in the EndTurn Reports they are identified as triggers (but the information given is substantially the same).
I've tested and can confirm that triggers giving "resource" and having no "when" specified, thus firing at End Turn, appear to be handled just like the objectives. So, all good, here, hopefully.
More in general, I believe also whatever resources given specifically by triggers should be multiplied too, but I'm unsure, on this point. One might argue that, with triggers, I can give 3 more infantry or 10 more PUs; since the triggered infantries are not multiplied, one may argue it would make sense for the PUs not to be, as well.
However, as I said, my opinion is that trigger given resources should be subjected to multiplication too (and it seems they already are).
While triggers giving resources firing before or after End Turn should probably be summed up with whatever other income (normal production, objectives and units resource creation), and the total net flux getting multiplied (it seems it currently already works this way, but I've not fully tested, especially not tested triggers firing before End Turn, instead of after it, as default), triggers giving resources firing not during an End Turn phase I believe should be summed up between all those firing at the exact same moment (in this case, "after" and "before" a same phase would be not the same moment), and the total flux at that point be multiplied (I've not tested if it already works this way).

<option name="resource" value="PUs"/>
<option name="resourceCount" value="4"/>

.True Multiplication

I want now to make a marginal case in favour of this new property being configured as a full multiplier, instead of as a bonus; meaning also working on the negative.
A very marginal example can be seen if, for example, you have production 6 and a national objective of -10 (for example, in Napoleonic Empires, Spain reduced to the capital only), making your net collection equal to -4; I think that if you have a bonus at 25%, then you should get -5, instead of only -4 (currently, when the net flux is negative, the bonus is just ineffective, instead).
In this case, these bonuses would be not bonuses anymore, but multipliers, thus the name would need to be changed to:

"Spain Income Multiplier Percentage"

I actually would make it shorter as:

"Spain Income Multiplier %"

Also, surely in this case, yet anyhow, I would set the default value to 100, where 100 means that we are multiplying by 100%, thus no change (this way, the values would go from 0 to infinite, instead of from -100 to infinite, that seems more logical, in my mind).
Actually, I would prefer the default being 1 (as the "Multiply PUs"), but only as long as you can add decimals (like "1.25").

.Report Rewording

I think the wording of the bonus income may be improved; it is like:

Giving player bonus income (25%) of 6 PUs; end with 29 PUs

I see there are the parenthesis, and the wording itself is correct, but the position makes me instinctively think that we are saying "25% of 6 PUs".
Maybe better if it reads:

Giving player 25% bonus income of 6 PUs; end with 29 PUs

Also, if this would be a multiplier, on the negative (if in a turn we collect a net negative amount of PUs) we could have, either:

Giving player 25% bonus income of -4 PUs

or

Giving player 25% malus income of 4 PUs

.Options Listing

I see that, as now, the listing is in alphabetical order; I really disagree with that, as it is not really helpful for anything.
I guess the simplest and most obvious way is just having it listed by the turn player order, which is how you normally list players, and this should be useful to quickly assign what you want in maps you know very well.

My preference would be listing by the turn order, but grouping up the alliances, prioritising depending on the player starting fist among the ones of a same alliance.

So, for example, in v3 it would be:
Germans
Japanese
Italians
Russians
British
Americans
Chinese

Or in v2 it would be:
Russians
British
Americans
Germans
Japanese

This would be user friendly the most, in most cases, in my mind, as you just assign the bonus you want to (I'm guessing over 90% times the same for all players of a same side), having to look only at the first and the last one, filling everything else in between too.
Of course, any mapmakers is able to set the bonus in the xml, to configure the listing as he finds functional the most, but this will be true only for a very small fraction of played games.

.Other Considerations

As a final warning, there will be all of a series of specific cases, like the malus income from blockades or the different kind of bombing rules, etc., that may or may not have to be taken into account, as sources of serious distortions.

For example, I would argue that if a player gets a percent bonus income, and especially (but not only) if this effects its placement limits of the same amount, then the max cap for bombing raiding under v3 rules should be increased of the same amount (the cap for bombing in v3 is default equal to 2 times the production value of the bombed territory).
Since bombing is already a borderline strategy, usually balanced so to be hardly worthwhile to pursue, you can see that if in v3 we just multiply income and placement, nobody will, then, decide to bomb a player that gets a considerable percent boost, just because of how scarcely effective would that be (you would need to outsmart the AI rather than engaging in an economic bombing war you virtually can't win, due to the economic bonuses), and this would be distortive, especially depending on how much bombing is a factor in that particular map (there are a lot of maps in which you can totally play by never bombing at all, but this should not be assumed).
Since I don't think there is any maps in which bombing is the necessary way to go, I imagine that here the matter would be limited to a loss of gameplay variety, rather than being highly game-changing.
More problematic may be rather the reverse: if I give +25% bonus to the AI, then a smart AI might be expected to mostly spam bombers, as the best way to win.

As another example, I would surely argue that the cost of buying tech (via "techTokens" or directly) should be multiplied of the same amount as the bonus income.
For example, if you have bonus income 100%, then you earn two times the money and, if buying tech costs the same, then you would end up, at least for most of the techs, to have a much better relative value for investing in tech; thus, if you double the income, while the cost of tech is the same, you should more than double the amount of money you spend in tech, and this is distortive.
Thus, I think that if the income gets a 50% bonus, also the cost of the tech should increase by 50% (like from 5 to 8 or 7).
In the case of tech giving an income boost, this is obvious, as that boost should (and already is) be multiplied as well.
For example, if you have a 50% income bonus, all your income should be multiplied, after adding a +1d6 bonus income from tech (thus multiplying it too), if you have it (as it actually already works). In this case, it is obvious that the cost of the tech should be increased by 50%, or the balancing between tech costs and benefits would be broken. You can see that if you have a bonus income of 100%, and (as it already works) you get twice a 1d6 bonus for warbonds, it would make the only sense that the tech cost of researching warbonds is doubled too.

However, I tend to think we (and here I mean you or any developers) can add up all the specific cases, as progressive refinements, after the system is all there for the basics; likely each one of them will have to be singularly argued upon.

Also, this whole matter reminds me that you may want to make this change (both in the starting menu and in the in-game "Game" menu):

Map Options->Rules Options
(or "Gameplay Options")

Since normally a "map" is the whole folder, and can have more than 1 xml in it (and the options are specified in the xml, not in any properties inside the map's folder).

You can imagine this post took some time to be formulated, so I hope it will be justifiably helpful (actually, split into 2 posts, because it was too long for the forum).