Expand "userActionAttachment"



  • The "userActionAttachment" could really use another method of payment for each action in addition to PUs.

    I suggest expanding the existing code for below to be able to use a resource .

    Existing: "costPU" value: Amount of PU you will be charged to attempt this action.

    Suggested: "costResource" value: Amount of resource you will be charged to attempt this action.

    I am currently trying to get my new technology model to function via "userActionAttachments" for "Big World 3 : Final Solution". I would love to use a resource like "political capital" or "political influence" in addition to some PUs. This would give me a nice mechanism of purchasing and activating technologies, that does not involve any randomness at all.

    Nations would receive some free "political influence" each turn depending on their governments ideoIogy. For instance a democratic government means it's harder to get things done if you have a healthy opposition, so you get less free "political influence" as leader of USA or UK. A fascist ideology as in Germany or Italy would have more "political influence" to get things done since there is virtually no political opposition. Also I intend to make objectives that each nation needs to accomplish in order to obtain additional "political Influence" that is needed to push through a initiative, such as developing a new technology. Also I would like to offset "political influence" with traditional resources.

    I could use resources like iron, oil, and rubber to develop the technologies as well. This would give the nations additional reasons to go for certain territories and regions. Which will promotes variety and less scripted moves.



  • @general_zod Yeah, out of all your blue sky suggestions (I do like them!) this is the only one that has a chance of being implemented. There is just simply no reason why you should restrict user action cost to PUs; it doesn't even really make the code simpler or anything.

    I would suggest a different xml implementation though, which is "cost" value="10:PUs:10:oil:5:iron:1:PoliticalInfluence".



  • @alkexr

    I was hoping that if implemented, that it was possible to enter the cost on multiple lines for a single user action. However I like your idea better. It assures cost can be split between PUs and multiple resources, for a single user action.


  • Admin



  • @redrum

    I knew I saw related post somewhere.

    I love the idea to be able to check any resource via conditions. It will open up some creative ideas.

    As they relate to user actions, will the conditions be rechecked continuously?

    Lets say I have 3 user actions and each one has a mixture of 5 different resources, something like so.

    1. "Jet Power" - cost = 5 political influence, 30 PUs, 10 Aluminum, 5 Steel, 10 oil.

    2. "Improved Artillery" - cost = 5 political influence, 30 PUs, 5 Aluminum, 20 Steel, 10 oil.

    3. "Submarine Advances" - cost = 10 political influence, 30 PUs, 5 Aluminum 20 Steel, 20 oil.

    Lets say " jet power" is chosen, this will activate a trigger to subtract the required resources and activate technology. Will the condition that checks for adequate resources, be rechecked after the initial expenditure is made? So further actions can be paid for without issues, all on the same sequence step?



  • I'm aware I that I can use the production phase to do essentially the same thing. However, currently there is no way to prevent the additional non combat units needed from cluttering the "unit help" feature. This side effect renders the "unit help" to cumbersome to be as useful as first intended. Especially for the noobies, it becomes a source of confusion instead.

    So here is another suggestion for feature.

    An attribute which can set, if this unit will be displayed in "unit help". Maybe in the "unitAttachment" as so.

    <attachment name="unitAttachment" attachTo="Jet-Power" javaClass="games.strategy.triplea.attachments.UnitAttachment" type="unitType">
        <option name="unitHelp" value="false"/>
     </attachment>

Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to TripleA Forum was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.