Review of "estimatedResourceProduction"

wc_sumpton

Within the game engine there are only territories. There are no sea zones, only territories marked as water="true". This tells the engine that this territory may not have an attachment. When the game engine calculates resources, it is checking the territoryAttachment for production/resource options. If the territory has an attachment water or not, it is checked.

Cheers...

VictoryFirst

this post is deleted

wc_sumpton

@wc_sumpton said in Review of "estimatedResourceProduction":

This tells the engine that this territory may not have an attachment.

Reread what I wrote, they may not have one. If a territory is not mark it must have an attachment.

Cheers...

VictoryFirst

@wc_sumpton

Ah I see, that's the double meaning of "may not" Lol. Sorry was just confused for a second. I will delete my post.

Cernel

@wc_sumpton said in Review of "estimatedResourceProduction":

@wc_sumpton said in Review of "estimatedResourceProduction":

This tells the engine that this territory may not have an attachment.

Reread what I wrote, they may not have one. If a territory is not mark it must have an attachment.

Cheers...

Is English your first language?

As @VictoryFirst pointed out, "may not" is ambiguous.

"May not" means either "not allowed to" or "allowed not to", but the former is prevalent, so, if you say "they may not have one", it will commonly be understood as if you are saying "they are not allowed to have one", which is here the same as saying "they cannot have one".

I'm just saying that @VictoryFirst did not misunderstand what you said.

(I'm talking about what I know of English English: I don't know about American English.)

wc_sumpton

@cernel

You are correct. So, I offer my apologies to @VictoryFirst. There have been many discussions about the proper terms used when describing zones/territories/areas and I was only trying to point out how these are interpreted by the game engine.

Again, I am very sorry to @VictoryFirst, and any others that I may have offended.

Cheers...

VictoryFirst

@wc_sumpton @Cernel

No need for apologies, I am not offended at all Actually I have an interest in languages and seeing the ambiguity of "may not" come up in practice was quite funny

However, we are digressing. We still need to have good names for the condition attachment options. I have some suggestions.

The sum of the "production" values of all territories a player controls:
"territoryProduction"

The estimated amount of resources a player receives at the end of his turn (including territory production values, objectives, unit bonuses, etc.)
"resourceProduction"

wc_sumpton

@victoryfirst said in Review of "estimatedResourceProduction":

The estimated amount of resources a player receives at the end of his turn (including territory production values, objectives, unit bonuses, etc.)
"resourceProduction"

This might be undoable. If "resourceProduction" were to account for objectives/triggers that itself was part of the process, might cause the engine to get caught in a circular reference. Still working on it.

Cheers...

Cernel

@wc_sumpton Whoa! I didn't say or mean that you offended anyone or had to apologize for anything.:face_with_open_mouth:

wc_sumpton

@cernel said in Review of "estimatedResourceProduction":

@wc_sumpton Whoa! I didn't say or mean that you offended anyone or had to apologize for anything.

Understood.

I did come down kind of hard on @VictoryFirst. And then I just blew him off. You pointed this out.

The last 5 - 7 years have been quite trying. With only recently thing have been improving. What I'm trying to say, both with this comment and the above apology, is that they are geared more towards myself. Self-growth and self-improvement.

Cheers...

wc_sumpton

@TheDog, @VictoryFirst, @Cernel, @beelee, @RogerCooper

With the understanding that "hasResource" is kind of stuck in limbo. Basically, the process works, but there are some "requirements" that need to be ironed out. There are some questions with "territoryProduction".

Should property "Multiply PUs" affect the returned value when "PUs" are checked?

Should "Resource Modifiers" on the player selection screen be accounted for?

Cheers...

Cernel

@wc_sumpton said in Review of "estimatedResourceProduction":

Should property "Multiply PUs" affect the returned value when "PUs" are checked?

No.

Should "Resource Modifiers" on the player selection screen be accounted for?

No.

TheDog

@wc_sumpton
Into the mix,
The property "Economic Victory" & its associated properties might hold the values you are after.

Is it worth checking to see how the above calculates its values?

Also 1941 GCD industries produce PU each turn, so any units like Oil-Fields and Lend-Lease-Depots should also be taken into account, yes?

beelee

@wc_sumpton said in Review of "estimatedResourceProduction":

I did come down kind of hard on @VictoryFirst.

Didn't seem that way to me. I don't think it did to Victory either

You doing just fine brother. We are who we are at this point. You get high marks from me

wc_sumpton

@thedog said in Review of "estimatedResourceProduction":

The property "Economic Victory"

This property only checks for ownership of a territory, it does not check for blockade, convoy, convoy routes, contested etc... (Something the engine calls "Can the territory produce?").

@thedog said in Review of "estimatedResourceProduction":

Also 1941 GCD industries produce PU each turn, so any units like Oil-Fields and Lend-Lease-Depots should also be taken into account, yes?

At this point "no". But I say this with caution, because getting this information is quite easy. It may require a new condition "territoryUnitProduction" created so it is not confusing.

Also triggers/objectives cannot be added because triggers/objectives could use the condition.

@beelee said in Review of "estimatedResourceProduction":

You doing just fine brother. We are who we are at this point. You get high marks from me

Thank you both.

Cheers...