Unit Tooltip Improvements & Poll

[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:

[Cernel]

@hepps Ok. I personally like "Ponderance" a lot, since I think it exactly expresses what we are talking about, but I don't know how it really sounds or if it is uncommonly used.

[Hepps]

@cernel It's a nice word... but A) it is long (which isn't really good for a tool tip), and B ) It is not really a part of the English speaking vernacular.

[Cernel]

@redrum In that case, for like the Tank-Destroyer, I would reword these ways:

Targeted Offensive Attack for Battle: 1 @ 1/10 XXX Before Each Round
Targeted Defensive Attack for Battle: 1 @ 1/10 XXX Before Each Round

and, in such cases as they are both the same, collapsing them as:

Targeted Offensive/Defensive Attack for Battle: 1 @ 1/10 XXX Before Each Round

where XXX is "anti-vehicle gun" or whatever.

Also "Off|Def|Mov" (meaning "Offensive Stregth", "Defensive Strength" and "Movement Ability") would be strictly more correct than "Att|Def|Mov", for the basic values, since the game is strategic, not tactic, but I know that "Att" and "Def" are the tradition. Minor note.

[alkexr]

@redrum These new tooltips do quite a god job with LME. The only thing that needs to be added is unit type and terrain preference, both too map-specific to be procedurally generated. But I wouldn't like to create custom tooltips for the parts we can now generate, that would only add another place for errors. Would it be possible to add custom tooltips to the end of generic ones instead of overwriting the whole thing?

[redrum]

@alkexr Should be possible though I'll have to take a look at the code that does the custom tooltips to see how much effort it would be to allow appending rather than replacing.

[Frostion]

@Cernel "Targeted Offensive Attack for Battle: 1 @ 1/10 XXX Before Each Round"
and
"Ponderance"

These two statements make absolutely no sense to me. I basically do not understand the meaning. I am writing on my phone right now and the english dictionary does not even recognize "Ponderance". I would strongly advocate that descriptions were made more simple and not more confusing and hard to understand.

If I was to come up with a description for AA attacks, it would sound something like:

Special attacks: 1 (name of attack. Like "anti-air attack") (before battle or every round) with 1/10 hit chance when (defending and/or attacking) vs. (list of units)

So an AA attack could look like:

Special attacks: 1 anti-air attack before battle with 1/6 hit chance when defending vs. Bomber, Fighter and Dive-Bomber.

Special attacks: 1 anti-tank attack every round with 1/10 hit chance when defending/attacking vs. Tank and Mech-Inf.

[Cernel]

If we are not getting a good proposal for referring to the "load", how about just "Cargo Capacity" and "Cargo Size". I don't like "size" very much, since it is mainly referring to the volume, while the capacity is mostly the mass, but it is at least better than cost, and it is what is used in a few custom maps, like WAW. Or would "Cargo Load" be acceptable?