Require Airbase to Intercept

[Hepps]

Wondering if it is possible to make the intercepting function be attachable to another unit in the same way that you can set an airfield to enable scrambling?

Would be a very good addition to games that use the airfield mechanism and add another really realistic mechanism to an already great feature.

Example
Have interception require an airbase and only be able to send 2 air units per airbase.

Add to air unit:

<option name="canIntercept" value="true"/>
<option name="requiresAirbaseToIntercept" value="true"/>

Add to airbase:

<option name="isAirBase" value="true"/>
<option name="maxInterceptCount" value="2"/>

PR: https://github.com/triplea-game/triplea/pull/4140

[prastle]

Suspiciously thinks about what your attaching now.

[Hepps]

@prastle This is actually a pretty straight forward request. In games where airfields govern the abilities of aircraft it doesn't make any sense that fighter can launch to intercept if there is no airfield present or if it is disabled.

[prastle]

@hepps Ah now I understand where you are going with this good idea!

[beelee]

@hepps yea that would be sweet.

This might be overreaching but would be cool if the airfield could use the "requires units" thingy so planes could get + or - bonuses.

I remember trying to have bombers get +2 on their sbr raids but only if they left from a airfield. Wasn't able to do it though.

Anyway, not to sidetrack things too much : )

[Hepps]

@beelee Issue with that is that the SBR would be checking for the pressence of the Airfield in the territory it is attacking... not from the territory from whence it came.

I shall think on it though.

[beelee]

@hepps yea I think that's what happened. Think i tried making a ftr a airfield so it could escort but that screwed all sorts of stuff up

[General_Zod]

Yes agreed, intercept rules would function more logically, if they require airfields. Especially if scramble rules already requires airfields and in affect.

[redrum]

@hepps Yeah, this should be doable in a similar way that scramble works. I'll just need to make sure to keep the existing functionality as well for maps that are already using it. Most likely either add additional parameters to canIntercept, a new unit property requiresUnitToIntercept, or property to require airbase.

Options:
1.

<option name="canIntercept" value="true:germanAirfield:italianAirfield:japaneseAirfield"/>

<option name="canIntercept" value="true"/>
<option name="requiresUnitsToIntercept" value="germanAirfield:italianAirfield:japaneseAirfield"/>

<option name="canIntercept" value="true"/>
<option name="requiresAirbaseToIntercept" value="true"/>

[alkexr]

@redrum said in Intercepting ability attached to Airfields:

<option name="canIntercept" value="true"/>
<option name="requiresUnitsToIntercept" value="germanAirfield:italianAirfield:japaneseAirfield"/>

This just happens so many times in mapmaking. You have to manually list all units that you know are all "things that obviously enable intercepting". The same happens when e.g. you have to keep listing all units that can accept a particular support, or units that can be targeted by a particular AA attack, etc. It would make things a hell a lot easier if we had macros, or definable unit / territory / etc. categories. Something like

<categories>
    <category name="enableIntercept" type="unit">
        <element name="germanAirfield"/>
        <element name="italianAirfield"/>
        <element name="japaneseAirfield"/>
    </category>
    
    <category name="isAffectedByMyFavouriteTrigger" type="unit">
        <element name="aLongListOfUnits"/>
        <element name="evenMoreUnits"/>
        <element name="youDontHaveToModifyAMillionTriggers"/>
        <element name="whenYouChangeAroundStuff"/>
        <element name="youOnlyHaveToModifyThisCategory"/>
    </category>
</categories>

and then

<option name="canIntercept" value="true"/>
<option name="requiresUnitsToIntercept" value="enableIntercept"/>

and

<attachment name="triggerAttachment_myFavouriteTrigger_No_13618567561" attachTo="Japanese" javaClass="games.strategy.triplea.attachments.TriggerAttachment" type="player">
	<option name="conditions" value="conditionAttachment_myFavouriteCondition_No_13618567561"/>
	<option name="unitType" value="isAffectedByMyFavouriteTrigger"/>
	<option name="unitProperty" value="attack" count="1"/>
	<option name="uses" value="1"/>
</attachment>

And if you decide that in the next version the unit evenMoreUnits is no longer worthy of being affected by all of the million triggers, you simply delete one line, instead of deleting one line from each trigger.

[Hepps]

@redrum said in Intercepting ability attached to Airfields:

@hepps Yeah, this should be doable in a similar way that scramble works. I'll just need to make sure to keep the existing functionality as well for maps that are already using it. Most likely either add additional parameters to canIntercept, a new unit property requiresUnitToIntercept, or property to require airbase.

Options:
1.
<option name="canIntercept" value="true:germanAirfield:italianAirfield:japaneseAirfield"/>

<option name="canIntercept" value="true"/>
<option name="requiresUnitsToIntercept" value="germanAirfield:italianAirfield:japaneseAirfield"/>

<option name="canIntercept" value="true"/>
<option name="requiresAirbaseToIntercept" value="true"/>

Option 3 seems like it would work best. Since you could make it (as with so many other properties) so that if it was not defined in the XML it would automatically default to "false" in all games. Thereby not affecting any existing game.

[redrum]

@alkexr I think something like categories to help create group of unit types and other things is a good idea though deserves its own thread.

@Hepps Yeah, I think option 3 probably is best since we already have the concept of airbase.

[Hepps]

The other thing that I meant to add to this is to also allow for a count functionality the same as scrambling as well.

<option name="maxinterceptCount" value="2"/>

[redrum]

@hepps Alright, added suggested implementation details to the first post.

[Hepps]

@redrum Just to clarify the first thing you added to the airbase is already in the code.

<option name="isAirBase" value="true"/>

[redrum]

@hepps Yeah, both first lines "canIntercept" and "isAirBase" already exist. Those are just to give context to the 2 new properties (1 on air unit, 1 on airbase unit) for requiring airbase and max count for interception.

[Hepps]

@redrum To quote Neil Diamond.... "Good times never seemed so good".

[redrum]

@hepps Who is Neil Diamond?

Anyways, here is the PR: https://github.com/triplea-game/triplea/pull/4140

This has no impact on existing maps that don't use the new parameters. But allows maps to require airbase for interception just like scrambling. It also allows specifying the max number each airbase can send to intercept (default is infinite).

I tested it by editing TWW to have fighters require airfields to intercept and have a limit of 1. Here is the XML examples:

Airfield

    <attachment name="unitAttachment" attachTo="britishAirfield" javaClass="games.strategy.triplea.attachments.UnitAttachment" type="unitType">
      <option name="isAirBase" value="true"/>
      <option name="maxInterceptCount" value="1"/>

Fighter

    <attachment name="unitAttachment" attachTo="britishFighter" javaClass="games.strategy.triplea.attachments.UnitAttachment" type="unitType">
      <option name="canIntercept" value="true"/>
      <option name="requiresAirbaseToIntercept" value="true"/>