Fuel Enhancements

General_Zod

@Hepps
I think I see what your getting at, but this would leave loopholes. Or the engine code would need to plug all loopholes.

Maybe you can you elaborate how it works.

Hepps

@general_zod I don't know what loopholes you are referring to.

You Could attach this exactly the same way you do the other unit attachments.

<attachment name="unitAttachment" attachTo="italianCarrier" javaClass="games.strategy.triplea.attachments.UnitAttachment" type="unitType">
  <option name="negatesfuel" value="navalfighter:2"/>

With something like this you could then eliminate the fuel consumption for the specified unit(s) and specify the quantity of the unit(s) while they move together. Pretty much in the same manner as the Mech blitzing with a Tank.

General_Zod

I like it, but I see one loophole (for lack of better term) which needs plugging.

What happens if the air unit has used its max movement to get to the acc during the beginning of NCM phase? How does the air unit move together with the acc during the NCM, if it has no more available movement?

It seems to require, more functionality.

Hepps

@general_zod Well the ACC would not be able to move since the fighter has already moved its max movement.

No different then it currently is. You cannot currently move a fighter with all it's moves then proceed to move the ACC X number of more moves.

what I am suggesting would not change any part of the current functionality. If your Air moves with a ACC during combat or noncombat this would simply negate the fuel consumption... while still keeping the fighter consuming its own movement during the moves. Exactly the same as the game currently works.

General_Zod

@Hepps

So why not add another attribute in addition. That gives the air unit a free ride, even after it used all it movement. As long as it moves with the acc. Like the current mech infantry does.

<attachment name="unitAttachment" attachTo="italianCarrier" javaClass="games.strategy.triplea.attachments.UnitAttachment" type="unitType">
  <option name="addsMovement" value="navalfighter:2"/>

Hepps

@general_zod Well now we are talking about something entirely different.

what you are suggesting would completely change the mechanics and abilities of Carriers and Fighters. Effectively adding more range to the fighters.

General_Zod

No, not giving it more operational range, just a lift. But yes, I am proposing more than current ability, to act more like a true acc should. I am also only proposing for the NCM phase.

But there's likely a better method of achieving the same result. I'm just throwing out a quickie,

Hepps

@general_zod Correct, and while that may be a desirable request. I don't think it has any bearing on my suggestion for a way to add functionality to ACC and fighters as it pertains to the fuel question.

General_Zod

I thought we were spitballing ideas on how to reasonably bring a nice fuel consumption model to fruition. Whatever that entails.

Logical acc seems important. Unless we just aiming for the fastest method to get to playable fuel consumption.

Hepps

@general_zod Ok. And that is fine... but you provided an example under the pretext that it was a "loophole" that would need to be fixed in order for my idea to work with current functionality.

When really what you were doing was making an entirely different feature idea.

I'm not against your idea... I'm just saying your example does not identify any "loophole" in my suggestion.

General_Zod

@hepps haha, Point taken. You have a fine loophole free idea.

Hepps

Thinking of this with an even broader long term scope in mind...

The attachment might want to be expanded out to provide more options as well as be defined in better terms....

Where the attachment name is called "negatesConsumption"...

and the value is defined as.... "Type of consumable: Unit that would normally consume the specified consumable: number of specified Unit which no longer consume"

Depending on how workable this idea is I think it would work for all the different types of transport units while also allowing you to potentially have different types of consumable resources. (If you wanted)

Frostion

@Hepps Thats seems like a good idea. I could imagine other resources in use in some maps when ships carry units, like food supplies and salary.

redrum

So I didn't read all of the posts in this thread but seems that most of the remaining debate is around carriers/fighters and how to handle fuel consumption. And it is correct that generally fighters aren't considered 'cargo' and launch from carriers at the start of their turn.

My thought is to treat it kind of like land transports. If you select carrier and fighters in the same SZ and move together then they are considered cargo so don't burn fuel. If you move them in separate moves then they are not considered cargo. I think this makes sense from a gameplay perspective and minimizes changes to the existing carrier/fighter system.

Thoughts?

Hepps

@redrum Did you read my suggestion?

redrum

@hepps I didn't. Was it along the same lines?

Hepps

@redrum 1all you have to do is look up!

redrum

@hepps I see. A more generic version for any unit pairing. Guess the question is can we imagine any scenarios outside of transports and carriers that could impact fuel consumption?

wc_sumpton

@redrum Trains?

Hepps

@redrum Yah I can think of a few different scenarios outside of just movement.

Food
Supplies
energy

I suppose there are quite a few different scenarios where this type of attachment could also benefit from a action qualifier.