Fuel Enhancements

[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:

[Hepps]

@prastle where is the boner emoticon?

[prastle]

@redrum first best

[prastle]

@prastle with the descriptive info

[Hepps]

@redrum Boy.... only took 7 years for those images to be used! My catharsis has arrived!

[wc_sumpton]

@redrum Fabulous
That's it, one word... well maybe two Absolutely

Cheers...

[Frostion]

r@redrum
Looks good. I guess if you were to display both what you have and what you get, it could be like:
PUs: 54 (+37) Lumber: 19 (+9) Food: 23 (+13)
or
54 (+37) 19 (+9) 23 (+13)

It would be cool if there were icons, maybe only icons if the map folder had a directory called resources and there were 24x24 pixel pictures with the corresponding names. Like the way PU markers and territory names work.

As I mentioned before, I am pretty sure that I once saw a map directory called "resources" in a map I downloaded. But I would guess that the engine never really supported this resource display thing. But I think I have found the old forum thread that discussed the option of displaying territory production. I do think that it makes much more sense to display total resources that can be spent and be collected: http://tripleadev.1671093.n2.nabble.com/Multiple-resources-working-soon-tp7058897p7167455.html
Seems like hepster was also involved in the previous project

[General_Zod]

@redrum I like with names. Will leave room for about 10 or 12 resources.

[Hepps]

@frostion The resource folder was made so that the rendering could be done.... but the feature never really got to completion.

[prastle]

@hepps kinda upset i cant upvote it 10 times