Resource System Assessment and Improvements

[Cernel]

Just for completeness, it also exists this option limited to PUs only

	<!-- 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>

Theorically, you could rework this option as being "Multiply ...", where "..." would apply to whatever resource called exactly that way, in the property.
However, while this is a handy property, I don't think anyone will ever really want to use it to multiply anything else but PUs (its usage is about limited to the matter of defining placement limits relatively to the income, without having to set different production and unit placement for each single territory).
Basically, you use this property only in cases like you want all territories to give PUs equal to 2 or more times their placement abilities, and, this way, you can do it without having to set 2 values for each single territory. This is mostly for maps with maintainment costs, where you would have a lot more placement than remaining income for new units, or for having thigh placement limits without necessarily resorting to have the fodder costing only 2 PUs, that is somewhat impractical.

So, this is just a notice, but my actual suggestion is forget it and keeping this property working just as it is, as I don't think there should be really any reasons for using it for anything else but PUs.

[redrum]

@Cernel Do we have any maps that actually use that property? I do agree with you that the property is really just a shortcut instead of setting unitProduction vs production for each territory. I don't really like it and would actually prefer having a better map creator tool where you could set a single value around unit production for each territory and then be able to set all production/resource values as a multiple of that if wanted (maybe just even as a starting place).

[Cernel]

@redrum
I don't know if it is currently used by any maps in the repository, but I suggest to keep it.
I think I intend to use it to have all territories in a game producing 6 times their placement abilities, and that would save unnecessarily setting different production and placement abilities, that would take unneeded space in the territory tab (already severely limited by 64x64 pixels units), and be generally not a sensible way to go, in the case you want just all to be multiplied the same way (I don't like showing pointless info).

I think it is a well working option, so I don't see reasons for deleting it, even tho it may be not strictly necessary (but I'm not sure if setting different production and placement would work in any cases, with other properties; it might be forcefully bundled with a v3 bombing system).

Summing up, I don't think there is a strong case for keeping this option (but I might be overlooking something) but I don't see any strong case for removing it, either, so my suggestion is quite surely to keep it. It makes the most sense to go that way, in the moment in which you want all to be multiplied the same amount; setting production and unit placement each territory I see it mostly as a way to have specifically defined income and placement values, rather than same ratio for all.

This property was made in order to have a mod of NWO in which you have 2 times the income production and you can buy 1 artillery at 7 PUs etc.. I think it makes more sense than setting double all territories, and I'm not sure if that would be actually possible only with a v3 bombing system.

[Cernel]

Yes, from what I read in PoS, it seems that unitProduction works only if you are using a v3 bombing model; so that property would be necessary if you are using a v1 or v2 one, like in that case of the NWO mod it was originally meant for (not tested). Anyways, I would keep it, regardless, just as it is, since it makes the most sense, in my mind, in the moment in which you just want all to have the same ratio. If you don't want to bomb at all, I think the biggest item would be not to have additional unit info in territory tab, for no reasons (having just production, instead of both unit and income production).

[General_Zod]

@redrum Regarding, the resource list, in the "End Of Turn Report". The detailed information is useful and if possible, ability to minimize/expand this portion would be cool. But more importantly, totals per resource would definitely be helpful.

Additionally, even more helpful to planning, would be the current real-time resource totals on the "economy tab". So after other nations go and before your turn comes again, you can quickly see real-time resource totals and start planning accordingly, versus manually counting the totals. In Iron War and Dragon War particularly, you cant efficiently plan your projected future purchases without knowing ballpark totals, and if you cant project purchases, you cant plan combat, etc.. .

Also, would be cool if via xml properties, the map maker could choose which resources should be shown on the "economy tab", so as to not just create clutter with lesser data. Same concept would be cool for "stats tab" too.

And back to the "End Of Turn Report", I also think the "End Of Turn" portion of text should be removed. So the report/summary and End Turn delegates can be placed at the start or end of turn. And not look like it was repurposed. I have been using it at start of turn for some time now. People seem to like it more, and it is simply most logical position.

Also since I touched on "economy and stats tabs". Would be extremely helpful to use the real-time data on these tabs for conditions, objectives, political attachments. In particular, Production, PUs, VC, but even Units and TUV would be nice. The possibilities and uses would vastly enhance Triple A.

[redrum]

Initial improvements to "Income Summary" are in the latest pre-release: https://github.com/triplea-game/triplea/pull/1996

[Frostion]

@redrum @CrazyG
In regards to maps and units that allow and use maintenance costs / minus resource production, maybe a good thing to do was to make a new XML option available that allowed players to go into minus in the bank. Like if every turn a player has units or some other thing dragging the economy down below zero. It is pretty weird that there is no penalty or option to implement a penalty (a penalty like having to work one self out of the minus before being able to spend resources again.)
Stuff like Actions and Operations should ofcours not be able to drag a player bellow zero bank resources.

[redrum]

@Frostion Interesting idea and should be possible though from a gameplay perspective once you end up negative its often difficult to reverse that cycle without additional mechanics (like disbanding units, loans, trading, etc). Were you thinking of a specific use for Iron War or another map? Or just a generic idea at this point?

[Frostion]

@redrum
I was just thinking about it as a generic idea. Not related to any of my maps. I would also think that the map’s economy would of course have to be specially designed to function with something like this enabled.

[Hepps]

@Frostion So that I understand what you are trying to say...

Let's say your current Inf. units had a maintenance cost of 1 PU per unit per turn.... then if you had more Inf. than PU you'd be dragged down below 0 PU at the end (presumably) of your turn. So then you'd be restricted from purchasing anything else until you had some surplus PU.

But by comparison... if you also had say... tanks that consumed 1 Fuel per move... you'd still be restricted from moving them once you hit 0 Fuel.

I am understanding your line of thinking correctly?

[Frostion]

@Hepps
Well, I did not really think about fuel in this proposal. I was mostly thinking about economical overspending that could result in a nation going untrustworthy, broke and unable to invest in new construction or production projects, unless they pay all the current debt. Or if the map had a different economy where it would make sense to be able to go into minus.

Fuel as a resource should obviously have to function differently than for example PUs or Gold or other expenses that could be loaned from the private sector or forcibly collected from poor farmers in the time of need

Maybe if something was implemented that supported resources to be able to go into minus, obtions should also be available to point out what resources should be affected. Like:

<resourceList>
    <resource name="PUs" negativeBalancePossible="true"/>
    <resource name="Fuel"/>
</resourceList>

[General_Zod]

@redrum @alkexr @Cernel @Frostion If you do go with checking conditions for resources and triggers for payment. I suggest not deprecating the existing "costPU" in user action and political action. Because that itself might break existing maps and maps in development.

@cernel said in Resource System Assessment and Improvements:

I see this just a better alternative than the otherwise biggest item of expanding the ability to use other resources but PUs for user actions (that I would, then, deprecate, as you would be able to do the same and more with conditions and triggers), >

For myself, I can say that my new diplomacy model for my FFA uses "costPU" for most of the political actions. I would have to create 40 sets of conditions and triggers to update it. 10 per nation. For total of 80 additional elements minimum.

Also the Iron War maps might use "costPu" for the user actions that send cash to allies, off top of my head.

Also another reason to leave "costPU" is that it is a simple elegant condition itself, to prevent a user action or political action from even being offered in the first place. By manipulating the cost, to be more than a player should have available. Gives more flexibility and options.

Ideal would be to also expand "costPU" to use multiple resources in addition to resource checks as @alkexr suggested.

@alkexr said in Expand "userActionAttachment":

@general_zod Yeah, out of all your blue sky suggestions (I do like them!) this is the only one that has a chance of being implemented. There is just simply no reason why you should restrict user action cost to PUs; it doesn't even really make the code simpler or anything.

I would suggest a different xml implementation though, which is "cost" value="10:PUs:10:oil:5:iron:1:PoliticalInfluence".

Here is link to that directly related topic.https://forums.triplea-game.org/topic/418/expand-useractionattachment]

[General_Zod]

@general_zod

Greyhawk Wars also uses user actions similar to Iron War. I know it has "costPU" but maybe it doesn't give cash to ally.

Ok I remember now, was to try swaying other nations to join yours.

[General_Zod]

Just adding a resource related feature request link.

https://forums.triplea-game.org/topic/642/iscapturedby-for-resources-elements

[General_Zod]

So I am wondering if the "costResource" is gonna be added to the userActionAttachment and politicalActionAttachment anytime soon.

I would love to use this type of feature in Big World 3 : Final Solution. The design of the technology model and diplomacy model in particular hinge on if this will be available. Also the direction of economic structure in general would depend on it's availability, since it would open up a lot of new possibilities to build upon.

<attachment name="userActionAttachment_German_Turn_Two_Technology_Selections_SuperSub" attachTo="Germans" javaClass="games.strategy.triplea.attachments.UserActionAttachment" type="player">
      
<option name="conditions" value="CA_Germans_Currently_Round_Two:CA_Germans_Round_Two_Techs_Not_True_1of4:CA_Germans_Round_Two_Techs_Not_True_2of4:CA_Germans_Round_Two_Techs_Not_True_3of4:CA_Germans_Round_Two_Techs_Not_True_4of4"/>

<option name="activateTrigger" value="triggerAttachment_Activate_Germans_SuperSub_Tech:1:true:false:false:false"/>
<option name="text" value="Research_Super_Subs_Technology"/>
<option name="chance" value="6:6"/>
<option name="attemptsPerTurn" value="1"/>
     
<option name="costPU" value="25"/>  
<option name="costResource" value="Political.Influence:50"/>
<option name="costResource" value="Steel:25"/>
 
</attachment>

So the userAction would cost the player 25 PU, 50 Political.Influence, 25 Steel. Cost applied when they click the button for the action and each button would have it's own unique cost.

---

I propose the same be used for politicalActions as well. This would allow more depth to diplomacy with neutral nations in a ww2 scenario by adding a cost in Political.Influence for major diplomatic overtures. With enough resources put into the diplomatic mission, the neutral nation can align with your alliance. This could mean a simple alliance or conversion of their territories and military, depending on other factors.

[redrum]

@general_zod Depends. I accept bribes

[Cernel]

@general_zod Did you read what I wrote? Having conditions to test resources would allow all this and more.

Meaning you have a condition to test the player having the resource and a trigger removing such resources (the triggers are already there).

Then you can give the cost info by customising the button or description message, if you want.

[Cernel]

@redrum Also, minor matter, but on the first item, I would still suggest that something like:

"Units generate -36 PUs"

is instead worded as:

"Units consume 36 PUs"

It is strange to read negative generation.

Also, instead of something like this:

"France collect 147 PUs; end with 227 PUs
Units generate -36 PUs; France end with 191 PUs"

I would say:

"France collects 147 PUs, for total 227 PUs
Units consume 36 PUs: France retains 191 PUs"

Also, while the old summary was ridiculously detailed, I'm not sure if it needs to be so concise as current. I wouldn't mind if it would tell apart what generated/consumed what, saying
"X1 A units generate Y1 PUs,
X2 B units consume Y2 PUs,
X3 C units consume Y3 PUs;
Player1 end with Z PUs."

as that would also give you the info how many pikemen, knights, etc. you have, that would be neat.

But current is fine.

[General_Zod]

@cernel @redrum

Being able to check resources in conditions is great.

But for userAction and politicalAction, it makes sense to have the cost attached directly to the buttons and that cost displayed to the player (on or next to action buttons). Also this method allows for instantaneous updating of resources, which is needed since there can be multiple userActions in the same phase. The userActions buttons availability in this phase are dependent on if resources are updated instantly (in the same phase), thus affecting the logic used to code it.

This method is not only ideal for userAction and politcalAction, but would definitely reduce the amount of code needed as compared to checking conditions and making triggers to replicate what is already elegantly achieved. (currently with "costPU" method).

This being said, I am still, all for a separate option, with the ability to check resources in separate conditions which can be used anywhere (non userAction/politcalAction areas ideally). And if this method turns out to update resources instantly, I guess doing things the long way will be better than not doing them at all.

[General_Zod]

@redrum

Haha, does first class tickets, to front row seats, in the soon to be, earth shattering project, that is "Big World 3", count as a bribe? Perhaps I can email you a case of virtual scotch to help grease the wheels, hehe.

But if not you will still get my sincerest gratitude for all the hard work and contributions you make on a daily basis. And I'll owe you one if you can get this feature done.