How to "fix" action panel tabs 'ctrl+A' hotkey?

redrum

@LaFayette Here is the original hotkey improvements that I did a while back for reference: https://forums.triplea-game.org/topic/690/improve-hotkeys

Folks did ask for hotkeys for the tabs so there are at least some people that use them. Originally actions was ctrl+A. I honestly don't know that there is a better option that what we have now. ctrl+C isn't ideal for action tab but I think its better than removing the hotkeys or not having ctrl+A for adding attackers to BC.

LaFayette

I was going through hotkeys, realized that we had 'ctrl+R' for resources, then experimented with the others. When trying 'ctrl+A', nothing happened it looked like a bug/broken. I think the inconsistency there is very bad. IMO 'ctrl+A' was taken, we needed to find a different alternative compared to breaking the consistency of the action tab hotkeys. My 2 cents, this looked broken/buggy and it's due to the UI inconsistency. My opinion is based on the experience of thinking the "ctrl+A" hotkey was broken.

LaFayette

@redrum FWIW, you and I had debates on code consistency, IMO a UI inconsistency is a realized problem, no hypothetical about it, it's a magnitude or two worse than a coding inconsistency as it makes users think the game is broken. I'd call the lack of consistency a pretty significant problem to the point I question whether we should even hotkeys at all on the tabs if they are inconsistent. I say that because if you have to remember such exceptions, it makes the hotkeys far less useful, perhaps useless/frustrating even. The point of a hotkey is that you can deeply learn it and do not need to think about it, if you have to hard-code such an exception into muscle memory, it's just not good and probably means the hotkeys won't be used.

redrum

@LaFayette Agree, I don't like inconsistency

That being said, the challenge is you essentially have 2 UI actions that to be consistent with the other similar actions both need the same hotkey. I think that adding attackers/defenders to the battle calc will be more utilized than the tab hotkeys which is why I chose that direction. I will say that I did rename 1-2 of the tabs when I redid the hotkeys originally and one of the reasons was to help align to available hotkeys though not sure there is a good alternative to "actions".

The best solution might be to change tabs to not need ctrl and just the solo keys. That would have the benefit of aligning with the new unit cycling buttons as well which don't use ctrl. Would need to see if there would be any conflicts doing that though.

LaFayette

@redrum Not a bad idea, 'n' for 'notes' would collide with unit scroller 'n' for 'next unit'. The others offhand look okay.

Frostion

@LaFayette Unit scrolling could use . and ,
Some other games also use this. Even though I find it so much easier to just click the arrow

redrum

@Frostion Yeah, I've seen "," and "." used in a few other games as well. I think because they are have the shift value of "<" and ">" on most keyboards.

LaFayette

Good suggestion :thumbs_up:

Cernel

@LaFayette said in How to "fix" action panel tabs 'ctrl+A' hotkey?:

@Cernel I've thought that ctrl+1-9 would be great for selecting battles.

@redrum / others, please jump in if you have any other thoughts, the current remapping being proposed is as follows:

done -> ctrl+enter
actions tab -> ctrl+a
add defenders -> ctrl+d
add attackers -> ?

Attackers has limited options as 'A', 'T' are taken. We could choose "C" or "K" for it. Anyone have thoughts?

Ctrl+O for "add attackers" would be mostly inconsistent, but at least not totally, as we already have some instances of "offensive", like in the AA attacks and in the supports. Of course, that would need renaming the option as "add offenders", as well as adjusting the automatic tooltips.

I personally always disliked the dualism attack/defence. It is contrary to the traditional military thinking (I could dig and quote some Clausewitz), where the concept of "attacking" is not really something more related to the offence than the defence (rather, traditionally, it was the offender that decided to invade, while the decision to attack, that is engage, the invading force rested mostly on the defender; of course, with static World War warfare, invading and attacking became much more related, instead, in the moment you have enemy troops waiting for you right beyond the no man's land).

It would make much more sense if the dualism attack/defence would be substituted by a more correct offence/defence one.

That way, you can use Ctrl+O to "add offenders" to the battlecalculator.

Then, I would also change the way the battle window presents the related steps, from the current, for example:

RomanRepublic fire
Carthage select casualties
Carthage fire
RomanRepublic select casualties
Remove casualties
RomanRepublic withdraw?

to

Offender attacks
Defender selects casualties
Defender attacks
Offender selects casualties
Remove casualties
Offender remains or retreats

Which would have the benefits of:

Being more correct game wise, as in defence you may have more than one power defending (and I believe there is also the current issue that the program assigns as the only defender the territory owner, that might even not have any units in the battle).
Being more correct tech wise, as offensively or defensively attacking is not something that it is all about firing with your gun (even, though, of course, in late modern wars it is very rare to kill or injure with bayonets and such, but, for example in the pacific, disease sometimes killed more men than any weapons).
Being more omnicomprensive, as it makes no sense using "fire" for ancient and medieval scenarios (how are my slingers and hoplites firing?), and it makes not a lot of sense using it for early modern scenarios either (still in Napoleonic times, cavalry fought mostly with swords, or even lances, rather than firing) (also, you may have scenarios with laser guns or whatever weapons that are not actually firing).

simon33

Could you have a and d for add attackers and defenders respectively, with ctrl-a for actions?

Not sure I can think of a good alternative to actions. Decisions clashes with defendera.