Fuel Enhancements

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!

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.

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?