UnitAttachment Which Allows/Requires Another Unit To Move
-
@rogercooper If you meant only the count equal to 0, that would be just a minor additional element in the whole system. If you are asking why to do this whole thing, instead of using the available terrain effects, I'm probably not the most qualified to answer you about what exactly is the additional aim to what you can already do with terrains, as I guess this matter has behind some private talking I didn't partake.
Clearly, the main enhancement of this new feature would be the ability to have a count, if it gets made. I agree that if this feature would be merely a "1-to-infinite" thing, it would not add that much. Entering or not entering is currently easily achievable with terrain effects, as you point out (just have a no-train terrain everywhere there is not a rail). The other item would be being able to purchase and place rail, but this is fairly easily achievable, by having a set of triggers that remove the anti-rail territory effect, if a rail is present, or by a set of user actions for making rails, removing such territory effect. However, this is still a bit of work more, and unfeasible to be supported by the AI at any point. Theorically, also the count limit is achievable with the current option, by having a high limit and stuffing the territories with otherwise pointless units, so to leave the difference for other units to move into, creating different actual limits for the various territories, but this would be definitely a dirty hack.
TripleA may really benefit from the ability to somewhat set different stack limits per territory, instead of only the same for any, as now. If this comes as a unit ability, allowing you to manage such limits, mainly by placing new units of the kind, that may be an added value, as well.
My guess is that this thing started mainly out of the need of being able to purchase rail, if wanted, otherwise just doing it with territory effects would be very easy, if rails are supposed to allow infinite trains and not supposed to be purchased or placed (I guess what's behind this feature request is that they aren't).
A side note is that this feature would increase the need for a "remove units" phase, in this case for removing the existing rail units, as opposed to placing new ones. This would also add some additional depth for realistic games, as a WWII game with a realistic rail representation would actually have rail units almost everywhere you need, thus much limiting the impact of this requirement.
Finally, one of the main reasons to have rail is to save fuel cost, which would lead to the matter that, currently, the fuel feature is not very well handled (in particular, having an option for land transported units not to consume fuel themselves, when transported).
-
@redrum This looks very versatile. I like it.
-
@rogercooper You can use terrain... but it is pretty limiting and it is also quite cumbersome to try and work with in the XML if you want to produce or destroy something like portions of a rail network.
This would provide for far more flexibility to a designer.
-
The other suggestion, besides having a way to have it with a count, instead of only 1 to infinite (in particular, maybe to use it for ports (sea and air ones)), was to call it "requiresUnitsToMoveInto", instead of "requiresUnitsToMove", if this is meant to limit moving into only (not sure).
-
To be clear, the renaming above only in case you need the other unit only in the territory you move into, not also in the one you move out (don't know your plans).
-
The initial implementation is now in the pre-release: https://github.com/triplea-game/triplea/pull/2298
To test it, I edited the TWW XML with the following for reference:
<attachment name="unitAttachment" attachTo="germanTrain" javaClass="games.strategy.triplea.attachments.UnitAttachment" type="unitType">
<option name="movement" value="5"/>
<option name="attack" value="0"/>
<option name="defense" value="0"/>
<option name="transportCost" value="2"/>
<option name="canBeGivenByTerritoryTo" value="Germany"/>
<option name="requiresUnits" value="germanFactory"/>
<option name="canInvadeOnlyFrom" value="none"/>
<option name="requiresUnitsToMove" value="germanRail"/>
</attachment>
<attachment name="unitAttachment" attachTo="germanRail" javaClass="games.strategy.triplea.attachments.UnitAttachment" type="unitType">
<option name="isInfrastructure" value="true"/>
<option name="canBeDamaged" value="true"/>
<option name="maxDamage" value="12"/>
<option name="maxOperationalDamage" value="8"/>
<option name="movement" value="0"/>
<option name="attack" value="0"/>
<option name="defense" value="0"/>
<option name="isConstruction" value="true"/>
<option name="constructionType" value="fProduction"/>
<option name="constructionsPerTerrPerTypePerTurn" value="1"/>
<option name="maxConstructionsPerTypePerTerr" value="1"/>
<option name="canDieFromReachingMaxDamage" value="true"/>
<option name="consumesUnits" value="1:Material"/>
<option name="requiresUnits" value="germanCombatEngineer"/>
</attachment>closed Add requiresUnitsToMove Option to UnitAttachment XML #2298
-
@redrum Ok... got this up and running. All I can say is FREAKING AWESOME!!!!
Great step forward! Thank you for implementing this... really adds to the potential for the game. You have my complete appreciation for making it happen.
-
Have been testing and tweeking my test XML all day. This works flawlessly without any mechanical issues thus far. Both Trains and Rail behave as expected... both can be bombed, disabled, destroyed, repaired and captured. The transport is simple and easy... everything works like a charm.
From the tests thus far... here is my only observable issue which I think needs to be addressed....
It needs a validation process for the territory where a train is originating from. Feels all kinds of wrong that you can move out of a terr. with either no rail present what-so-ever, or a territory with a disabled rail.
So far every other test has passed with flying colours.
Once again, great work!
-
@hepps Glad its working well and thanks for testing it out. I'll make the change to check the starting territory as well since I agree that makes more sense for this feature.
-
@redrum Just giving credit, where credit is due. Rarely is something integrated into an existing system with such flawless efficiency.
If I were wearing a hat.... it would surely be off for you fine sir.
-
@hepps Change to check the starting territory as well should now be in the pre-release: https://github.com/triplea-game/triplea/pull/2315.
closed Requires units to move check starting territory #2315
-
@hepps Change to include checking for allied units should be in the pre-release: https://github.com/triplea-game/triplea/pull/2326
-
@redrum Worked like a charm. I think this feature is where it needs to be. I will continue testing for issues, but the last release seemed to correct all remaining issues.
-
@redrum Might be a bit late, but I think AND and OR should be reversed.
IMO this is more intuitive, you'd expect the xml to always add everything together.
If you read the xml without any colons, you'd read requireUnitsToMove germanRail, requireUnitsToMove russianRail etc. and IMO you'd say AND instead of OR.
Just my opinion, what do the others think? -
@roiex I agree with you that it doesn't make sense that thing meaning OR, but the other thing meaning OR would not make sense, just as much.
I suggest you remove the "OR" capability, and add a count, instead, in the sense of a "rail" being able to allow up to a number of "train", and cumulative. That would be much more extensive than the "OR", as well. I mean in my mind, as I don't fully know your plans, obviously.
Again, I don't know what you guys talked about privately, so nevermind me if this suggestion of removing the "OR" in favour of a count is unacceptable for either of you two, for whatever reasons.
-
@cernel For me it actually does make a little bit more sense, but this might be because the : character reminds me of |, which is used for or in a lot of programming languages
But I get your point.
What I don't get is what exactly you mean with your alternative.
Having ORs allows you to use the rails of your allies for example, not sure how this would be done using your suggestion. -
@roiex Ah, right, didn't think about that. Here you have germanRail, italianRail. Nevermind then, as I said.
Still, normally the ":" in similar cases mean AND, for example this one, but also many others, if not all of them, especially the conditions testing:
https://github.com/triplea-game/triplea/issues/2325Since you need the "OR", then probably you should have this thing on the "rail", not on the "train"; that way the "OR" would be intuitive, and it would also make more sense that when the rail is bombed it is disabled, as being the unit having the ability itself.
As said, probably having it on the "rail" would make also easier and more intuitive adding a count, in the sense of a "rail" allowing up to a number of "train".
On the other hand, since normally units move without this limitation, I would also add a count that gives up to a number of free movements to the target "train". In this case, you would have the train having itself movement 0 and the rail giving it the free movement that you would now assign the train, and you could also use this option for representing cases in which the network gives a bonus, rather than allowing/disallowing; for example, "street" units for an Ancient scenario, in which a "legionary" moves 1 normally but can move 2 or maybe 3 if all territories from start to finish have "street" units (in this case, the legionary has 1 movement and the street gives 1 or 2 to infinite legionaries).
-
@cernel This was previously discussed in the thread about the development of Total Ancient War, relatively to the fact of having "road" units, giving bonus movement to units that can also move without roads, for which the current bonus movement system is not that good, because you just give it for the starting territory, while it would be correct only if it works in case all territories you are moving through have "road" units. So this would cover that too, if it would resurface, at any point in the future. In general, I surely suggest to expand this with counts both for:
- Having 1 "rail" to some "train", instead of only 1 to infinite.
- Having the ability to move faster, instead of only being able to move at all or not (in this case, the "train" case would be a subset in which the moved unit has movement 0 itself).
In the case nr. 2, it would be opportune that such units are always selectable, then (differently from the other movement 0 units, supposed to never move).
-
@cernel Such "road behaviour" will be added as part of my diplomacy extensions, the canConvoy feature should pretty much adress what you want.
-
@roiex Cool, but, actually, right now I've no plans to use it (but who knows), but it came up in the past (and maybe Zim might want to update his TAW map still). Would it be possible to build it up on this railwayish thing, as I said? In general, extending a same thing, while keeping past functionalities, is better than having multiple. And I think, as you pointed out, that this thing looking like AND and meaning OR should be changed anyways, because it is counterintuitive and really inconsistent with almost anything else of how stuff works. Up to you, of course.
In the moment in which you have two separate entries of "requiresUnitsToMove", what that logically means is that you need the one and the other to move, as you said, and I believe this is how it works in all options cases so far.
