Fuel Enhancements

[General_Zod]

@redrum

I hear ya, it doesn't quite feel right to allow the no air fuel validation during CM. But neither does grounding an entire air force during a CM, even though it has enough fuel to get to the game changing battle.

One option for "Air Fuel Validation During CM" doesn't sound too bad. It will allow some positive flexibility with fuel in wider range of maps.

There is precedence too. Since we currently allow sanctioned kamikaze with the commonly accepted air movement validation rules as they are with respect to acc. Not to mention, we send various units to their demise all game.

One size fits all sounds like a loftier goal then breaking it down into a couple flexible components.

[Hepps]

Since there is a lot of questions about this.... I was contemplating an idea to solve it in a simple manner. I haven't really spent a great deal of time thinking about it.... but I will throw it out there to see if the idea has any merit.

What if air units just had a flat rate?

Instead of consuming fuel on each individual move.... ie. fighter consumes 1-4 depending on how far it moves.... what if air just consumed a predetermined amount of fuel if they move (under their own power) at all?

Fighter consumes 1 fuel
Tact. consumes 1 fuel
Strat. consumes 2 fuel

This would simplify a lot of the validation issues and eliminate this idea of intentionally flying aircraft to their deaths. It also seems to make the consumption equation much more streamline for maps to make logical sense of how much fuel different unit types consume in a turn. Currently if you apply fuel to an air scenario... having a large air force is by far very disproportionately expensive (in terms of fuel) then say a armour. e.g. 6 fighters moving full range will cost you 24 fuel. While 12 tanks can move full range for the same cost.

Now I realize this can be sorted out via increasing the cost per move for all the other units... but then it quickly becomes pretty complicated for the player.

I don't know if this is any good. But I thought it might really simplify this task.

[prastle]

@hepps keep it simple stupid ! good idea!

[redrum]

@hepps I kind of like the idea. Air units seem to be where a lot of the complexity around fuel is.

[General_Zod]

@hepps

It's definitely worth exploring.

[redrum]

After thinking about it some more, I really like the idea of moving air fuel consumption to more of a "flat consumption" or "fuel tank" model where if the air unit moves (under their own power) then it just consumes X amount of fuel no matter how far it moves.

I think this simplifies a lot of the complexity and edge cases as well as making it easier to balance fuel around air units as their consumption will be more consistent (vs having consumption by move with 6-8 range air units).

Essentially, if an air unit that consumes fuel either attacks or moves (under its own power) then it consumes a flat amount of fuel. This would include any combat move, any non-combat move where it isn't moved with a carrier, and any scramble to another territory.

This would remove the need for fuel validation and whether fuel should be lost if air units are lost in battle.

[General_Zod]

@redrum @hepps This flat fuel consumption for air units might be the best ticket. Resolves many technical and practical concerns.

[Hepps]

@general_zod I agree. I spent a little more time pondering the issue and I have come to the conclusion it might be absolutely best.

-the negative cost of moving less than max spaces is marginal when compared to the total benefits it offers.

-By not having to create maps with a saturation of oil deposits to accommodate for massive fuel costs associated with air, it limits the potential for exploitation.

-Solves a myriad of technical issues that threaten to make these improvements either un-achievable... or incomprehensible.

[Frostion]

"What if air units just had a flat rate?"
I can see that this proposal allready has a lot appeal. I cannot say that I am a fan of this, so if it was to be implement, I hope there will be xml options to deviate from this system, like activate 1 resource for 1 move or being able to define how much fuel units use when moving.

I can see that in a ww2 map, where we got acc and fighters, the 1 "fuel" for 1 move for a fighter is out of proportions. But lets say that the map had different resources for different vehicle types (I am assuming here that the individual unit types can have their fuel type specified). Then suddenly the map maker would like to control how much resources are spent on a multi territory move. And I would guess that map makers of many non-world war settings, like fantasy, science fiction, maybe with some very "abstract" multi moving air units and land vehicle, would not want generic move costs. Maybe the "fuel" is "magic" and it would make sense to have a magic attack on a place far away cost more that an attack on a neighbouring territory. Or a teleportation that uses more energy the farther the move.

My points are that:
1: A generic 1 or 2 fuel cost for an air unit would not always be wanted by the map maker.

2: We should not think about this feature as a fighter/ACC/world war thing. Instead it should be flexible enough to be used universally where the fuel and fuel consumption could symbolize a lot of different things.

3: Maps should either be able to activate a 1 resource for 1 move system and/or use a system where unit types (sea/air/land) could have their fuel consumption defined individually.

[Hepps]

@frostion You bring up some good points. I guess I was really thinking world war centric when pondering this issue.

I do think this would offer some flexibility since (in my mind at least) this feature would be implemented as its own attachment. As in below...

	<!-- Fighter -->
	<attatchment name="unitAttatchment" attatchTo="fighter" javaClass="games.strategy.triplea.attatchments.UnitAttachment" type="unitType">
		<option name="movement" value="4"/>
		<option name="carrierCost" value="1"/>
		<option name="isAir" value="true"/>
		<option name="attack" value="3"/>
		<option name="defense" value="4"/>
		<option name="canScramble" value="true"/>
		<option name="maxScrambleDistance" value="1"/>
		<option name="canIntercept" value="true"/>
		<option name="canEscort" value="true"/>
		<option name="canAirBattle" value="true"/>
		<option name="airDefense" value="2"/>
		<option name="airAttack" value="2"/>
                <option name="fuelcost" value="petrol" count="1"/>
		<option name="fuelFlatRate" value="petrol"/>	
                <option name="fuelcost" value="pilot skill" count="1"/>		
	</attatchment>
	
	<!-- Carrier -->
	<attatchment name="unitAttatchment" attatchTo="carrier" javaClass="games.strategy.triplea.attatchments.UnitAttachment" type="unitType">
		<option name="carrierCapacity" value="2"/>
		<option name="movement" value="2"/>
		<option name="isSea" value="true"/>
		<option name="attack" value="1"/>
		<option name="defense" value="2"/>
		<option name="blockade" value="1"/>
                <option name="fuelcost" value="petrol" count="1"/>
	</attatchment>	

Which as you can see in this example would provide the map maker with the ability to use both types of consumption systems. As well as having the potential ability to charge both a flat rate as well as a running consumption for the same unit using multiple types of fuel.

I used air as the primary example... but really it was meant as a stand alone concept. So that you could either put a "flat rate" charge on a unit, or leave it to consume per move. The two systems were intended to co-exist. Sorry if that wasn't clearly stated.

Lastly, after thinking on this a little more... this could also be used in combination with triggers & conditions to have a unit use both systems at the same time for the same unit...

<attachment name="triggerAttachmentgermanfuel1" attachTo="Germany" javaClass="games.strategy.triplea.attachments.TriggerAttachment" type="player">
  <option name="trigger" value="conditionAttachmentgermanairmoves"/>
  <option name="unitType" value="fighter"/>
  <option name="unitProperty" value="fuelFlatRate" count="pilot skill"/>
  <option name="when" value="after:germanyCombatMove"/>
</attachment>
<attachment name="triggerAttachmentgermanfuel2" attachTo="Germany" javaClass="games.strategy.triplea.attachments.TriggerAttachment" type="player">
  <option name="trigger" value="conditionAttachmentgermanairmoves"/>
  <option name="unitType" value="fighter"/>
  <option name="unitProperty" value="fuelFlatRate" count="pilot skill"/>
  <option name="when" value="before:germanynonCombatMove"/>
</attachment>

[General_Zod]

@hepps @Frostion @redrum

Yes for overall map making flexibility, having both methods ("fuelCost" and "fuelFlatRate") coexist is ideal.

1. Does "fuelFlatRate" only affect air fuel validations or are we now proposing to break it down into 3 (separate) components to include land fuel validations and sea fuel validations as well?

[Hepps]

@general_zod In my mind you would then be able to use the flat rate attachment for anything.

[Frostion]

Phew! I am glad that you can see the point in supporting a variety of “fuel consumption” uses and situations. I can now sleep better tonight. LOL

[redrum]

@frostion Yeah, so my intention would be as @Hepps laid out to add a new option for flat fuel consumption vs per move fuel consumption. So the existing functionality would still be available.

Most of the things that are on the list to enhance would benefit either fuel consumption model. That being said if I decide to focus on adding flat fuel consumption then I most likely won't address what I consider the gaps around air units using the per move fuel consumption (air unit validation, AI support, etc). Doesn't mean they won't ever be addressed but initial goal is to get to some form of usable fuel system before trying to support lots of different options.

[General_Zod]

@redrum I think maybe a rephrasing of my last post is in order.

@general_zod said in Fuel Enhancements:

Does "fuelFlatRate" only affect air fuel validations or are we now proposing to break it down into 3 (separate) components to include land fuel validations and sea fuel validations as well?

Will "flat fuel consumption" as currently planned only affect air, or also land and sea?

As it stood initially, the "flat fuel consumption" was addressing the air fuel validation intrinsically. I thought.

[Hepps]

@frostion Yup. I am as concerned with flexibility as I'm sure you are. This entire idea was really just about flexibility with simplification.

I figured this option was clear solution to some of the huge obstacles that have plagued this features progression. And since it would really just be another independent feature... it would not hinder us from future development of different idea's surrounding movement validation concerning fuel, but would in the interim provide for at least a functioning system that makes this far more usable.

[redrum]

@general_zod I would like to make it a unit option available to any type of unit. I think it particularly fits best with air units but in theory you can imagine a map that uses a flat fuel cost for land/sea units as well especially if they have high movement rates.

That being said, I haven't actually looked at the code yet so if air fuel consumption is coded very differently from sea/land then it might be implemented in phases where the new flat fuel option might only work for say air units initially.

[redrum]

Initial pass on being able to display current player's resources on the bottom bar:

[prastle]

@redrum nice job!

[redrum]

With icons and names:

With just icons: