Fuel Enhancements

[General_Zod]

@hepps Its linked imo. So the air isn't really cargo. Its just a patch for fuel is what your saying. Sounds confusing already.

[Frostion]

@general_zod
Yes. If fighters do not deplete some of their movement during a ride with a carrier, it will surely mess with a lot of maps. I don't think any current maps would want to have aircraft combat or noncombat moving their aircraft as "carrier's movement" + "own movement". A carried aircraft should deplete movement. It could logically symbolize that time is spent. And for this reason, carried offensive aircraft should normally have higher movement stats than the carriers.

I do think however that they should not spend fuel while moving and / or fighting in the same territory as their carrier, as the fighters fuel consumption could be characterized as limited compared to an offensive use of aircraft. So in that sense they should freeride if with a carrier.

I think this would make sense both in a World War map setting as well as a SCI FI setting, like if a space mothership flew through space, ended up at a planet and then launched its fighters down into the atmosphere of the planet as a part of a planet invasion. The fighters were carried fuel free, but when they move out and away from the capital ship as a part of an offensive operation, then the start consuming fuel. Same as a WW invasion fleet with fighters.

[vicvictory]

@frostion I fully agree. Same should be in use for transports by train.

[Cernel]

It's amusing that after the years people think that fuel cost charged on loading only must have been the result of some actual reasoning behind it.
Actually, it was not.
It was made it that way only because Veqryn found that was the easiest way to code it (it worked on unloading, before then, or rather I should say it was supposed to, but there were bugs related to unloading from hostile sea zones).
The only other alternative was fuel being removed as a whole.
Veqryn would have preferred fuel costs being charged both upon loading and upon unloading. I was and am surely strongly against that, and would have preferred it charged on unloading only, but charged on loading only is acceptable too, as long as it is not both. Ultimately, what was made was just what was the easiest.

Fuel is a very important element of TripleA for future development of maps, that has been discussed a bit, but with little ever coming out of it. I'll review this topic and try to make a complete evaluation of the matter.

[Hepps]

@general_zod I think the idea of changing the functions & abilities of the ACC & fighters really has to be considered as a completely independent feature request.

As @Frostion mentions... the idea of fundamentally changing the behavior has huge impacts on pretty much every single existing map. If I had to guess... it would really need to be added as a new Global property in order to allow us to maintain the existing repository while also making it available to map makers.

[General_Zod]

@hepps True they are separate features, but they also overlap and should be evaluated together to avoid future roadblocks. The road blocks we seem to have now because backward compatibility is a priority. And we want to keep what in many respects is inferior functionality (because it was likely the easy method then).

@cernel I wasn't there but it seems that the decisions to take the easiest methods then. Is gonna impact TripleA for a very long time. In form of stifling potential progress, into the more ideal directions.

That being said, I respect those decisions too. Its a lot of hard work and we are volunteers. But maybe, we can find a new way, and not settle.

Or maybe, I'm just being too idealistic.

[redrum]

@general_zod While changing carrier/fighter movement rules is related, that would be too large a change at this point and better in a separate feature request thread.

Overall, seems like we are mostly in agreement on things. I'm going to update the first post to what I think should actually be changed for fuel to see if we have agreement.

[General_Zod]

So your ok with aircraft making a CM, for fuel free, as long as the aircraft are with an acc, during said CM.

Its understandable, as a stand alone feature, I can get on board with this logic.

But to me, it just seems to conflict with the logic of any future acc improvements. The kind that would allow aircraft to be true cargo.

But I guess this is likely not gonna happen due to backward compatibility concerns and restrictions. And especially not, if the new fuel rules will contradict the logic of such improvements.

[redrum]

@general_zod I think from a gameplay perspective its simpler to allow fighters/ACC to move fuel free even into battle. If we have a majority of people think otherwise then I'm ok with the alternative that fuel free movement for fighter/carriers is only available during non-combat move.

[General_Zod]

@redrum That's fair. Thanks

[redrum]

@Hepps @General_Zod @Frostion I've updated the first post to outline proposed changes to get fuel to a point where it would be a solid game system and try to minimize changes to existing implementation. A few of them are more difficult than others especially land transporting, air landing fuel validation, and AI logic.

[Frostion]

@redrum
In regards to 1 and 2. Would this "fuel you have" and "fuel you gonna get" be displayed in the bottom bar of the screen, under the actual map window?

I vaguely remember a discussion about this bar once, and that this bar could at one point display different resources via small resource icons. I also recall going through a lot of maps' file structures (some years ago), discovering a single specific map that had a directory called "resources" (as I recall) containing a bunch of mini icons of different resources, like coins, science etc. Maybe @redrum @Cernel @Hepps @prastle or other oldies know what map I am talking about. I just wonder if what I saw was an early test in regards to visually displaying resources, or files meant for a testing of this in that bottom bar?

Also, in regards to resource income predictions, how would the engine calculate this. The engine is obviously able to predict territory income, like it does with the PUs, but is the engine able to see the the coming income generated by units? (My personal opinion is that seeing the next predicted income is not that important)

Also, something I did not see in the first post: Will air units consum/reserve their maximum move in fuel when taking off, thereby being sure to be able to get home, maybe returning with some fuel to put back in the bank, but also maybe getting killed while attacking with fuel in the fuel tanks, meaning losing unspent fuel?

[redrum]

@frostion
Fuel Display - Haven't decided exactly where fuel reserves/income is going to be displayed. But ideally something like Civ6 resource bar on the top: http://i.imgur.com/SywhlsV.jpg

Fuel Income - It would essentially use the same logic as the end of turn report. Count up incomes from territory/units/NOs/etc based on what is currently owned (this could obviously change as the players turn progresses and gains/loses territories).

Air Fuel Tanks - Good question. Haven't really thought about that yet. Interested in what people think about this in terms of both air unit fuel validation and whether if they get killed in battle if they should lose what's remaining. This is a difficult question and opens other things like if the air unit only flies to attack 1 space away but has 4 max movement should it validate/lose just 2 fuel or 4 fuel? I want to create a system that is fairly straightforward but also makes sense.

Here is a air fuel proposal from the old SF article:
The minimum of the move into combat and the rest moves for maximum range is taken for fuel reserve:
e.g. bomber 6 max range

• 1 move into combat, 5 move for max range left. the MIN(1:5) is 1.
  so only fuel for 1 move has to be reserved.
• 3 move into combat, 3 move for max range left. the MIN(3:3) is 3.
  so only fuel for 3 move has to be reserved.
• 4 move into combat, 2 move for max range left. the MIN(4:2) is 2.
  so only fuel for 2 move has to be reserved.

[General_Zod]

@redrum

Regarding the suicide by lack of fuel. This should be allowed. This would be a valid last ditch tactic to turning the tides of the war, if fuel supplies are low. Also it allows a nation to capture more fuel if already in a precariously low level. (if game designed for that aspect, that is)

In fact, it's not too different from a desperation tactic that will inflict heavy losses on ones own army, in terms of TUV or in unit numbers.

I suggest allowing it as long as the prerequisites are met. Which should be simply, that it is not a traditional suicide, by lack of valid landing sites.

If you must have it, do it as an optional global game property.

However the con is that AI will not handle it properly, unless it is coded into it's behavior, to do so.

Fuel tanks if included should also be optional. So to allow some flexibility in map design.

[prastle]

@frostion I sadly don't recall the map. I do love your idea of aircraft that die or ships or whatever cause the player to lose the fuel they were fueled with.

[beelee]

@general_zod yea a lot of planes splashed in wwII due to lack of gas. They weren't intentionally trying to crash. As an option sounds good

[redrum]

I dunno. It just kind of doesn't feel right to me to allow suicide by running out of fuel but not by movement (kind of the same concept in my mind). I'm open to doing no air fuel validation and air lost in battle don't carry any fuel to lose if that is what the majority feel is best though. I'd prefer to try to come to a consensus and avoid lots of different options if possible for these initial improvements. As 1 solid fuel system is better than having a bunch of options that don't ever come together.

[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!