Proposal: Combine tags into `<territory>`

[LaFayette]

Proposal: Condense several nodes into the <territory> node. This would be the addition of optional nodes {<territoryAttachment>, <placements>, <connections> }

This update would be backwards compatible. Though, if specifying both old and new tags, the game engine would generate an error to avoid non-determinism.

Below are two examples, I'm still considering between whether territoryAttachment properties would be nicer as attributes or if as nested child tags.

Example 1

<map>
  <territory name="Quebec">
     <territoryAttachment owner="Canadians" production="2" unitProduction="3" capital="Canadians" victoryCity="1"/>
     <placements>
         <placement unitType="Infantry" quantity="3"/> <!-- default owner = territory owner -->
         <placement unitType="Tank" quantity="3" owner="Canadians" />
     </placements>
     <connections>
        <territory name="SZ 20"/>
        <territory name="SZ 19"/>
        <territory name="Ontario"/>
     </connections>
  </territory>
</map>

Example 2 (Alternative territoryAttachment)

<map>
  <territory name="Quebec">
     <territoryAttachment> 
       <owner value="Canadians"/>
       <unitProduction value="3" />
       <kamikazeZone value="true" />
     </territoryAttachment>
     <placements>
         <placement unitType="Infantry" quantity="3"/> <!-- default owner = territory owner -->
         <placement unitType="Tank" quantity="3" owner="Canadians" />
     </placements>
     <connections>
        <territory name="SZ 20"/>
        <territory name="SZ 19"/>
        <territory name="Ontario"/>
     </connections>
  </territory>
</map>

Example (for comparison, existing XML)

The above would be equivalent to the XML below:

  <map>
    <territory name="Quebec"/>
    <connection t1="Quebec" t2="SZ 20"/>
    <connection t1="Quebec" t2="SZ 19"/>
    <connection t1="Quebec" t2="Ontario"/>
  </map>
  <initialize>
    <ownerInitialize>
      <territoryOwner territory="Quebec" owner="Canadians"/>
    </ownerInitialize>
    <unitInitialize>
      <unitPlacement unitType="Infantry" territory="Quebec" quantity="3" owner="Canadians"/>
      <unitPlacement unitType="Tank" territory="Quebec" quantity="3" owner="Canadians"/>
    </unitInitialize>
  </initialize>
  <attachmentList>
     <attachment name="territoryAttachment" attachTo="Quebec" javaClass="games.strategy.triplea.attachments.TerritoryAttachment" type="territory">
       <option name="production" value="2"/>
       <option name="unitProduction" value="3"/>
       <option name="capital" value="Canadians"/>
       <option name="victoryCity" value="1"/>
     </attachment>
  </attachmentList>

[wc_sumpton]

@LaFayette

I like example 2 with the <attachment> (saying territoryAttachment in the <territory> block seems redundant) listed out separately, seems easier to read and flows more like the rest of the block.

Would territory 'Ontario' need to show a connection to 'Quebec'? Maybe for clarity but on connection should be enough.

Would canal connections be also included?

I understand that this is just an example, but I do like the direction this is headed.

Cheers...

[LaFayette]

We could even remove the <territoryAttachment> node altogether, eg:

  <territory name="Quebec">
     <owner value="Canadians"/>
     <unitProduction value="3" />
     <kamikazeZone value="true" />
     <placements>
         :
         :

Thoughts?

For canals, they attach to multiple territories, nesting underneath one territory would potentially not be as helpful as it could be. Here is an example of what we have today:

<attachment name="canalAttachmentCentral America - Colombia" attachTo="25 Sea Zone" javaClass="games.s
trategy.triplea.attachments.CanalAttachment" type="territory">
   <option name="canalName" value="the Central America - Colombia channel"/>
   <option name="landTerritories" value="Central America:Colombia"/>
</attachment>
<attachment name="canalAttachmentCentral America - Colombia" attachTo="100 Sea Zone" javaClass="games.strategy.triplea.attachments.CanalAttachment" type="territory">
   <option name="canalName" value="the Central America - Colombia channel"/>
   <option name="landTerritories" value="Central America:Colombia"/>
</attachment>

I think that might be better as one 'canal' tag. It's a really good call-out - though if it's going to be a different tag then perhaps topic for another thread (thread created: https://forums.triplea-game.org/topic/2269/proposal-simpler-canal-node)