Tooltip info gets worse by the unit (Feature Request)
-
The only two things that I can reference are:
-
In the game codes (xml), you have "strength" meaning the single dice value, in the support attachments (but this is merely an internal reference, and TripleA has a long tradition of having wrong and badly worded internal reference, often displayed differently in the tooltips, instead, "isInfantry" comes to mind).
-
In the battlecalculator, you have "power" (I guess should be rather "total power") to sum up all the dice values of all units in the side.
Then, again, if one would say that if you get heavy bombers your bombers become stronger, that would probably feel about as correct as saying that they become more powerful. So, I'm just saying, at least let's try to be consistent between tooltips, battlecalculator and xml codes, if feasible.
Edit: To be clear, what I said is that I believe that should not be called "Power", as I'm almost positive the power of a unit is the same if you roll 1 dice at 4 or 4 dice at 1, at least this is what I believe it is the common understanding, as it is also what you get in the battlecalculator. However, I'm not sure how should it be actually called, instead. "Strength" is at least the xml way to define it, but there might be a better alternative.
-
-
I can see in the manual for Europe, where artillery was introduced, it says that Artillery "Increases each matching infantry to an attack roll of 2." So I guess official terms won't be any good
-
@redrum said in Tooltip info gets worse by the unit (Feature Request):
@Cernel Not sure either is "better" but you could have the same challenge if you have lots of different types of support then you end up having to list for each unit that can be support something like "Can be supported by A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H...".
I agree that, theorically, you can have a unit type giving support to an infinite number of different unit types just as much you can have a same unit type receiving support from an infinite number of unit types, but:
-
The way I explained (if I have been sufficiently clear), would not imply that the receiver is actually referencing the supporting units. Instead, it is only referencing the support type, as specified in the xml (in this case "ArtilleryBonus"). So, for example, if you have a single infantry unit supported by many different kind of artillery units, you will have a single entry on the infantry unit (not the list of all the artillery units, like in your "Can be supported by A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H..." example), as long as these artillery units have the same "type" of support, while, with the current system, if you have a single artillery unit supporting many different kind of infantry units, you will have the full list, unless you don't provide it because of being too long, that, in my opinion, is even worse (complete lack of information).
-
The way support attachments are coded is that you can define only one giver and unlimited receivers (not the other way round, that would require you making as many different support attachments).
-
In practice I believe the case of having a same unit giving support to a number of units will be averagely numerical superior than the case of a same unit receiving support from a number of units, if only because of TripleA traditions regarding the receiver being the fodder (I don't think it makes actually more sense for a supported infantry to increase in strength than having the artillery hitting harder, but this is how it traditionally works).
I think the main thing is most players naturally think about the thing giving the support rather than receiving it.
- I'm not saying not to give any information on the giver, but just giving the "support types" information on both the giver and the receivers, while giving all other information on the giver only. So, the focus would remain on the giver.
Regardless, if sticking with the current system, I believe listing should never be truncated or hidden, as that is lack of information, that is the worst. If you have 1,000 targets, and not listing some of them would give no way to know who is the target, then you should list all 1,000 of them. After all, if I make 1,000 different supports for a single unit, aren't you listing all of them?
-
-
Also I want to point out that my suggestion is more reactionary than revolutionary, as in the single support type case you would substantially go back to how support were displayed back when there were only artilleries and infantries (you had the artillery tooltip saying that was the unit giving support and the infantry tooltip saying that was the unit receiving support).
-
@Frostion said in Tooltip info gets worse by the unit (Feature Request):
I can see in the manual for Europe, where artillery was introduced, it says that Artillery "Increases each matching infantry to an attack roll of 2." So I guess official terms won't be any good
Yeah, maybe that's better.
Let's just skip all this "Power", "Strength", whatever, labelling ("Power" also has the issue that, in the boardgame, that is how the players are called), and have it just saying something like, in our examples:
instead of:
Support on Attack: 1 ArtilleryBonus Power to 1 AlliedSupport on Defense: 2 FortBonus Power to 3 AlliedI suggest:
ArtilleryBonus: +1 Attack to 1 Ownor
ArtilleryBonus: +1 Offense to 1 OwnFortBonus: +1 Defense to 3 Own/AlliedThe reason I would say "Offense" (as in American English) instead of "Attack" is mostly that "+1 Attack" makes me think I'm attacking one more time, that is getting 1 more dice to roll.
I guess it is not very clear if, for example, all my dice roll at +1 defense or I'm getting only +1 defense in total, but that is just as unclear as saying "power" or "strength", I think.
Also skipping saying "support" at all, as that is definitely not good in the moment we may have negative "supports", and saves from having to adopt a dualism support/suppress, or whatever, or moving to a less clear, but more comprehensive, terminology (like saying "modifier", instead of "support").
Also no point saying "Own/Allied" on attack, as I don't believe the Allied part should ever happen, besides that option that makes air attack (very marginal, and no idea if support actually works with it) and the Classic special rule of fodder air on carriers, that I would certainly argue should not receive support.
p.s.: I also suggest generally changing "Attack" in favour of "Offense", on display only (it would remain "Attack" in the xml), as I explained in here:
https://forums.triplea-game.org/topic/1736/how-to-fix-action-panel-tabs-ctrl-a-hotkey/20 -
@Cernel said in Tooltip info gets worse by the unit (Feature Request):
@Panther What would you use as terms, from a boardgames standpoint, to define the value you need to roll equal or lower and that multiplied by the number of dice you roll (for example, Classic heavy bombers)?
The rulebooks introduced "attack value" and "defense value" for a single unit. Now, if I understand your question correctly, you ask for a term that represents the sum of attack values/defense values of units stacks, avoiding mathematical expressions.
I would not mind it being called "Attack/Defense Power" or "Attack/Defense Strength" (personally preferring Power over Strength). Though it must be made clear somehow/somewhere that this term represents the mathematical formula behind it.
