Fuel Enhancements

[Hepps]

@redrum Looks great! Adding all these features just for the fun of it. What a champ!

[prastle]

@hepps @redrum you both realize I EXPECT POS2 @ UPDATES and this will make GD a very rough map
sigh

[prastle]

@hepps its almost like you want all to ignore unless Tylenol scripts

[redrum]

@prastle Did you just volunteer to update POS2 XML?

[prastle]

@redrum NOPE! but with all your additions I really hope you did

[redrum]

Here is the PR adding the "fuelFlatCost" unit option: https://github.com/triplea-game/triplea/pull/3244

XML

    <attachment name="unitAttachment" attachTo="elite_cavalry" javaClass="games.strategy.triplea.attachments.UnitAttachment" type="unitType">
      <option name="consumesUnits" value="1:cavalry"/>
      <option name="movement" value="2"/>
      <option name="transportCost" value="3"/>
      <option name="canBlitz" value="true"/>
      <option name="requiresUnits" value="parade_ground"/>
      <option name="requiresUnits" value="general"/>
      <option name="createsResourcesList" value="-4:Supplies"/>
      <option name="fuelCost" value="Supplies" count="1"/>
      <option name="fuelFlatCost" value="Supplies" count="2"/>
      <option name="fuelFlatCost" value="Industry" count="1"/>
      <option name="canInvadeOnlyFrom" value="transport:train"/>
      <option name="createsResourcesList" value="-1:Manpower"/>
      <option name="attack" value="4"/>
      <option name="defense" value="3"/>
    </attachment>

Before

After

[prastle]

@redrum and you questioned why I said you were brilliant?

[Frostion]

Nice update. I still hope that you would reconsider removing the ( and the ) signs. They just make the movement bar unnecessarily long, and not having them would be more consistent with how icons and numbers are displayed elsewhere.

I think that I will have to start work on Iron War and Iron War Europe movement fuel versions. Hopefully balanced versions of these can be ready alongside a new engine release Jubii! And they can make use of the hide resources from players feature!

[redrum]

@frostion Yeah, I think you already saw but I updated the route message in the other forum thread already

And yeah, I definitely think Iron War can benefit from a lot of the recently added features. And could be the first map to ever implement fuel in a balanced and user friendly way!

[redrum]

Thoughts on how carriers and fighters fuel costs should work? I think I see 2 options:

1. Simple - If carriers and fighters are moved together during combat or non-combat move then only the carrier is charged fuel. This would include moving into combat and so a fighter moved with a carrier into combat wouldn't be charged fuelCost or fuelFlatCost.
2. Noncombat Only - If carriers and fighters are moved together during non-combat move then only the carrier is charged fuel. Any moves during combat move are considered that the fighter has taken off from the initial carrier position so is always charged fuel during all combat moves.

There are other more complex variations of these that meet somewhere in the middle but I'm pretty hesitant to go there. Open to suggestions and ideas but want to pick something we feel works well across all maps and is fun/intuitive to use.

[Frostion]

1. Simple has my vote. It seems logical and during game it would make sense if fuel was consumed on these terms. People would also see the carrier actually carrying fighters, not just acting as a landing strip at sea.

[General_Zod]

@redrum

Choice 2 seems better to me. Choice 1 would only be logical if your making air units true cargo on the acc. But then you need handle issue where air units are being carried 2 sea zones while cargo during CM or NCM. Then the air units fly their full normal movement during CM or NC, in addition to the moves as cargo. Or maybe you have a solution already.

[wc_sumpton]

@redrum I tend to agree with @General_Zod here. Choice 2.
If you have a loaded transport, you only need to click on the transport to move it an its cargo. Moving the ac and fighter requires that both items are clicked on to move. I can see the point of not charging for a NCM where both ac and fighter start and end in the same territory. But any move during CM, which implies that both are going into battle, should charge both their movement resources.

[Hepps]

Deuce has my vote as well.

[redrum]

Well, given that I'd vote for option 2 as well, I'm going to move forward with that. In the future, if we get lots of maps that implement fuel adding different options around consumption should be fairly easy. Now the fun part, implementing it and making sure it works properly with both fuelCost and flatFuelCost.

[Frostion]

I can't really see the logic in fighters paying fuel for moving through several sea territories before entering a battle, especially if they start out in the same sea territory as their motherships and presumably would sit on the deck of the carrier most of the time. If fighters are part of a fleet that moves through the seas with the purpose of ending up in a battle, the fighters would not use more or less fuel than if the same fighters were part of a fleet that moved great sea distances with no intention of ending up in a battle.

If the fuel cost idea is based on the fighters patrolling around their fleet on the way, then all non moving land based fighters should also pay fuel every turn, just to keep them able and activ in the defence of their land territory. And I don't see that happening. Why should fighters then pay fuel for sitting on the deck of a carrier, or for being transported a great distance and then launched.

A forced fuel payment would also not make any sense if we talk about spacefighters sitting in the launchbay of a spaceship, waiting to get out into a battle when the fleet arrives at its destination.

In both the WW and the space scenario, a turn normally simulates a long period of time where a fleet is on the move, plus a relative to that very short period of battletime in the end, where the fighters go activ. Not enough time to justify that the fighters should pay the same amount of fuel as if they were flying across a continent to attack a target and then return home.

Also, I can't see why talk about "true cargo" vs. carried fighters should influence the answer to the question about fighters using fuel or not when on a carrier. Just because carried tanks should not use fuel when carried in a cargo hold, it does not mean that fighters with the ability to launch into battle should use fuel as their land cruising and attacking counterparts.

[prastle]

@frostion well I think the idea is that they are launched into combat and the mother ships steams closer for pickup. OR they go for a free ride of 2 in non combat. Just my 2 cents up to you guys.

[redrum]

Here is the PR for the carrier/air fuel changes: https://github.com/triplea-game/triplea/pull/3249

@Frostion I don't think any solution is gonna be perfect. I guess the way I see it is I'd rather charge fuel for all combat moves then have the situation where you move fighters into battle with a carrier and charge 0 fuel when they are participating in a battle. I think it also probably better aligns with how carrier/fighter work from a movement perspective since they can't move on the carrier then launch for their full range, they are considered launched from their starting position. Anyways, I think moving forward with the non-combat solution is a good place to start and once we have some maps implement fuel then we can always adjust it if it doesn't play well or feel intuitive.

[redrum]

And now its in the latest pre-release: https://github.com/triplea-game/triplea/releases/tag/1.9.0.0.9693

I played around with it on WaW variants fuel and seems to work pretty well. That's I think the only map that has fuel with carriers/fighters implemented.

[Hepps]

@redrum Yes as far as I know I think you are correct.