Unit Tooltip Improvements & Poll

[Cernel]

@redrum Voted 2, but those parentheses should have really been removed. I think it is obvious that something like:
1 (Transporting Cost)
or
1 (Can Produce Units)
doesn't make sense and it is wholly unnecessary, especially since the number is bolded.
Anyways, I would rewrite the second one like:

Land Unit
2/5/2 Offense/Defense/Movement
3/12 formation Preemptive Defensive Roll before first Combat Round
1 Transporting Load*

*Just trying another suggestion; no idea if it sounds good.

Also the fact that the dice side is given as "/12", which makes sense, is another reason for not using slashes otherwise.

[Frostion]

@redrum In your example 2 / version 2, why all the ( ) signs?

Would "1 Transport Capacity" not be better understood and more correct than "1 (Transport Capacity)"? The ( ) signs have no function here, as they would normally hold info that explained a preceding word, expression, concept etc.

I know the signs are also used like that in the displaying of (A/D/M), but in that position their function is to say "this here is an elaboration of what the / / / is all about." and not explaining what a number is.

It could be potentially confusing for people to see all the ( ) signs.

But I have to say, the new tooltip display will be a great improvement however the first outcome. This is great work by the dev team

[Frostion]

Lol hadn't read @Cernel s post It's like an ecco.

[redrum]

@frostion @Cernel Yeah, the ( ) can be removed. Just threw something together to at least have something to compare to option #1. Updated it to remove the ( ).

[Hepps]

@redrum said in Unit Tooltip Improvements & Poll:

@hepps Placement Restrictions is a list of territories not territory effects so unless its very short (4 or less) then the values won't be displayed. As you definitely don't want a list of 100+ territories like it is in TWW. You'd need to have a new unit property based on territory effects.

    <attachment name="unitAttachment" attachTo="germanMarine" javaClass="games.strategy.triplea.attachments.UnitAttachment" type="unitType">
      <option name="movement" value="1"/>
      <option name="attack" value="2"/>
      <option name="defense" value="3"/>
      <option name="transportCost" value="2"/>
      <option name="isLandTransportable" value="true"/>
      <option name="canBeGivenByTerritoryTo" value="Germany"/>
      <option name="requiresUnits" value="germanBarracks"/>
      <option name="unitPlacementOnlyAllowedIn" value="Ontario:Quebec:Northern Central US:Chicago:Detroit:Eastern US:New York:Northeastern US:Washington:Eastern US:Southeastern US:Southern US:Florida Peninsula:Northern Mexico:Northwestern US:Western US:San Francisco:Los Angeles:British Columbia:Alaska:Hawaiian Islands:Eastern Mexico:Panama:Columbia:Venezuela:Rio de Janeiro:Argentina:Chile:Cape Town:Western South Africa:Eastern South Africa:Algeria:Tripolitania:Cairo:Turkey:Western Turkey:Ireland:Scotland:Central Britain:Southern Britain:London:Northern Spain:Western France:Northern France:Vichy France:Low Countries:Northern Germany:Denmark:Eastern Germany:Poland:Leningrad:Eastern Finland:Finland:Northern Finland:Northern Sweden:Sweden:Southern Sweden:Norway:Central Norway:Archangel:Northern Italy:Rome:Sardinia:Sicily:Southern Italy:Northern Yugoslavia:Southern Yugoslavia:Greece:Bulgaria:Romania:Eastern Ukraine:Caucasus:Southern Caucasus:Astrakhan:Western Kazahk:Northern Saudi Arabia:Southern Saudi Arabia:Bombay:Western Madras:Calcutta:Rangoon:Malay:Southern Thailand:Thailand:Saigon:French Indochina:Kwangtung:Hong Kong:Shanghai:Shantung:Peking:Manchuria:Korea:Eastern Manchuria:Vladivostok:Soviet Far East:Hokkaido:Japan:Tokyo:Kyushu Shikoku:Luzon:Phillippines:Brunei:Borneo:Sumatra:Java:Celebes:Dutch East Indies:Dutch New Guinea:Caroline Islands:Wake Island:Southwestern Australia:Southern Australia:Queensland:New South Wales:New Zealand"/>
    </attachment>

Yeah. I had forgotten how we had achieved the restrictions in the XML (which is far more complex then the end resulting restrictions). Based on that it would be impossible to effectively display this.

[Hepps]

I think was mentioned earlier by @Cernel .

Having the "/" as the division between different individual values is not ideal when we also have #/# as a method of displaying the chances for a hit.

Perhaps using the vertical "|" for the divisions between independent values... eg. A|D|M 1|2|1.

Seems it might be clearer to newbs... since we know anyone with any Triple A experience is not likely to be confused.

[alkexr]

@hepps said in Unit Tooltip Improvements & Poll:

Perhaps using the vertical "|" for the divisions between independent values... eg. A|D|M 1|2|1.

I think "A-D-M 1-2-1" is processed faster by the brain than "A|D|M 1|2|1".

[Frostion]

The voting seems like a tight race. Maybe it's not the best way to decide stuff ... But then again it reminds me of what Churchill said about democracy

I hope people are aware that the current descriptions favour option 1:
"Can produce units: 1:"
makes more sense than
"1 Can produce units" displayed in the example.

Be aware that the descriptions can ofcours be rephrased to fit the format we end up with. GO VOTE!

[redrum]

@frostion Yeah, some of the descriptions will need reworked a bit if we go with option #2. This is one of the reasons a decision needs made on ordering before putting more time into this.

@alkexr Only issue with dashes is they are used for negative numbers.

[Hepps]

@alkexr The only reason I went with the vertical is because we will have certain areas where there will be negative values. So again for clarity... I was suggesting something that cannot be mistaken for meaning something else. I was just offering another option.

[Cernel]

@frostion Yeah the poll might be a little rigged by the fact that the stuff is more tailored to option 1.

Anyways, sorry to repeat, but I can't see how this is not looking better an any other proposals:

1 Att, 2 Def, 1 Mov

If absolutely has to have all numbers first, maybe this:

1, 2, 1 — Att, Def, Mov

Also, giving the diceside might be better with an @ like:
3@12

instead of the slash. Not sure if the dicesides should be bolded too.

Really, I would reserve the slash only for meaning "vel" (and/or), in the tooltips (for example "Att/Def", with the meaning of "both in attack and defence", like currently used for support). Anyways, I think it is important to use a symbol univocally. So, once one decides for what is the slash (as well as whatever), then it should be used for that and for that only, in the tooltips.

[Frostion]

If it is decided to always show dice-type as part of unit info (as this is currently not shown anywhere easily seen by the player, and as AA units may their own dice types, and as these dice types may change during game) it seems to me logical to use the / slash to show dice types in tooltips during play. Like:

Infantry (Germany)
1/6 Attack
2/6 Defense
1 Move
+1/6 Bonus attack power from Artillery

Mathematically it reads for example one/sixth attack and that is the actual hit chance.
And yes, att/def info should then not be cramped onto 1 line as using several lines would simply be move readable.

I can see good reasons for displaying the dice types. If AA chances will be displaying dice type, why not also regular game dice. It would spare players and mapmakers from having to go into notes to for info like "This map uses 6 sided dice, and this and that unit type uses this AA dice, until maybe changed by this and that event in game... etc." (Like triggers)

As for how to display values in purchase, I really like Hepps separation line. I think we would be good if we replaced the current purchase info slashes with these separation lines. I think we should stick to very simplifyed unit info display at purchase, similar to the current, as long as tooltips also pops up at purchase.

[redrum]

Well the poll seems to be about split. I'm going to stick with option #1 since it has a slight lead and most of the tooltips are already worded for that ordering.

@Frostion I think having the dice sides for every type of roll is probably overkill and would make the tooltips busier and harder to read. If more of them allowed for different dice sides then it would probably be worth it.

[redrum]

Here are some examples of the new tooltip:

LME

TWW

Global 40

Iron War

[redrum]

PR: https://github.com/triplea-game/triplea/pull/3604

[Hepps]

@redrum LOVE LOVE LOVE!!!! that you incorporated the "Targeted Attack" and "Targeted Defense". MUCH improved terminology!

[Cernel]

I'll make other tryouts, that I don't actually know how they sound to English speakers, in my order of preference:
"Transporting Ponderance"
"Transporting Demand"
"Transporting Bulk"
"Transporting Massiveness"
Also maybe changing "Transporting" with "Carrying" would be more correct, as transporting seems to imply movement (trans+port), which would be correct for land and air transport, but not for sea ones, where you still take capacity and remain loaded even if not moving.

Plus I don't know if among those I already said there might be a decent one, already (I guess not, since no response)...

If that way, I'd prefer:
Att, Def, Mov: 6, 5, 2

if the | is definitive, maybe spacing it and bolding the number only:
Att | Def | Mov: 6 | 5 | 2

instead of:
Att|Def|Mov: 6|5|2

[Cernel]

@hepps Uhm, I guess this is something recent, as it used to be just AA, but I'd go with "Preemptive" instead of "Targeted", since I think the main thing is that there is no fireback. "Targeted" is quite good too, since those attacks are limited to a list of targets, but I think that would be more like "Selective", since you have a selection, amongst which either the target player chooses or it is randomly selected, and, still, it would not give the IMO main info that happens before anything else, and you don't get to fire back.
But "Targeted" is good too, except for the case you set as targets all the units you can normally take as casualties (if you want only the no-fireback effect); just saying.

[Hepps]

@cernel Those are not really an improvement from an English standpoint.

I just have to wonder if we aren't trying to fix something that isn't broken. I mean I get why you are suggesting alternate naming conventions... but in ten years I have never once had to explain "Transport Cost" to a single player. Nor do I remember ever seeing a post (on either forum) indicating anyone was ever confused by the current terminology.

If something really elegant is found... then it would be nice.
One thing that really conveys the transport capacity is "Cargo".

So you could go with something like...

Cargo Capacity
Cargo Cost

But again, to me it feels like change for change sake.

[redrum]

Yeah, I like "targeted" and I'm leaning towards just leaving "transport cost" for now.

I made a few more adjustments. Here is the latest: