Unit Tooltip Improvements & Poll

[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?

[redrum]

PR is merged and unit tooltips can be tested in the latest pre-release: https://github.com/triplea-game/triplea/releases/tag/1.9.0.0.10758

[redrum]

@alkexr So I added in an option for appending to the tooltip the custom text instead of replacing. Just add ".append" to the properties file keys. Example is I took your original LME properties file and changed wizard to this:

tooltip.unit.wizard.append=Unseen<br/>Prefers Settlements

Unit help:

PR: https://github.com/triplea-game/triplea/pull/3623

[Frostion]

@redrum Looks very good. A great improvement to the old tooltips Just some concerns:

1. If the tooltips are to use the vertical lines instead of the slash for separating the Att/Def/Mov, then the numbers at purchase screen should also be separated in a similar fashion. If we wouldn’t like it at purchase, we shouldn’t have it in tooltips. Different looking separations for the same thing two places could be confusing. Also, if the numbers at purchase will then seem too cramped together with new line types (they were naturally spaced a bit apart with the / sign) we should think about adding spaces in between numbers and lines.

2. I can see that when units use the old artillerySupportable attachments, a strange sounding and looking info in tooltips like “1 ArtyOld Power to 1 Allied (…)” is used. Players without insight into XML history and definitions will probably go “what???” Would it be possible to change the word “ArtyOld” into just “artillery”? If not, I would say that a lot of maps should be given an update. Not a problem for me and my maps, but many other maps might not get it.

[redrum]

@frostion Good points. I'm planning to update the purchase screen to use | and I'll probably just have ArtyOld not be displayed since its an internal tag since isArtillery is converted to a support attachment.

[LaFayette]

@redrum pipe delimiters look almost like a 'one' to me, so I've a slight preference for unifying to: 10/10/10 over 10|10|10

FWIW, experimenting around with other delimiter chars, like dash or dots, slash or pipe delimiter do seem to be the best two choices.

[Cernel]

@lafayette My suggestion was to space it.

10 | 10 | 10
instead of
10|10|10

[redrum]

@lafayette So "/" conflicts with using that as the dice sides in some places "3/12" (3 attack roll on a 12 sided die) which made some of the tooltips hard to read.

@Cernel Yeah, I'm going to take a look at adding some spacing to see if that makes it a little easier to read.

[redrum]

Updates format for tooltip and purchase screen to "A | D | M": https://github.com/triplea-game/triplea/pull/3641

[Frostion]

@redrum I am looking forward to trying it out, but there seems to be something seriously wrong with the latest few re-releases. The map tiles seem to load very slow, sometimes they never load and just hang, so one cannot play the map. Do youknow what I mean? Is there an end to this problem?

[redrum]

@frostion Yeah, there were some map tiles changes that are problematic but its a known issue and reported here: https://github.com/triplea-game/triplea/issues/3539

Feel free to add any details/insights there.

[Cernel]

@redrum said in Unit Tooltip Improvements & Poll:

@frostion Good points. I'm planning to update the purchase screen to use | and I'll probably just have ArtyOld not be displayed since its an internal tag since isArtillery is converted to a support attachment.

How about supporting the possibility of not having the label displayed without having to use the old unit options to obtain this result? Either:

1. Wherever there is only 1 type of support, the default tooltips don't display the type.
2. You can avoid having the type for the support and, in this case, it defaults to "ArtyOld" and it is not displayed; the same if the support is called exactly "ArtyOld".
3. You can have the support called exactly "ArtyOld", to not have it displayed.
4. Same as 3, but with something else than "ArtyOld"; and also changing "ArtyOld" to that for the deprecates.

I would strongly favour 1, as, in the moment you don't have a label for a support, you also get the info that in that specific map there is only 1 type of support.

[Cernel]

@redrum Minor note: when Veqryn updated 270BC he added the special support of warelephant and kept the old unit attachment options supports. So, in that game, as well as in any games in which the mapmaker mixed up the old options with the new attachments, something, if not ArtyOld, should be probably displayed, since you have more than 1 support attachment. Going with the number 1 at my previous post would address this too. Anyways, I consider this a marginal matter, as I'm not so sure that the mix up of old and new support options/attachments in a same game should be supported, as it doesn't look like a very sound practice.

[redrum]

@cernel Agree, good idea. I like option #1 and agree ArtyOld should display if multiple support types so that those maps are clear even if it isn't the best name. Generally, I don't think they should be mixed but we have some maps that do. Here is the PR: https://github.com/triplea-game/triplea/pull/3646

Revised

270BC

[Cernel]

@redrum Maybe have it as "artillery" instead of "ArtyOld", to make 270BC or such look not too strange (of course, easy to update), since the option is called "is artillery", after all. As long as pos2 tells you to not use both kind of support in the same game, the name doesn't need to be one that you would never actually use (that I guess it is the whole reason behind that naming).

[redrum]

@cernel Well "artillery" really isn't much better for 270BC as chariots having "artillery" doesn't really make any more sense than "ArtyOld". Maps could also use "artillery" as a separate support type (not sure if any do) but essentially any string but "ArtyOld" could be a different support type.

[Cernel]

@redrum Let me point out that this is all a side note, as I'm not strong on any of this, as I consider this a marginal matter, except only that it is cool being able to not have the label (without having to resort to deprecates), if you are making a game with only 1 support, especially in the case, as you can see in 270BC, that it would be hard to find any good label at all for it.

I know the issue would be if anywhere there is a map that uses both the old options and having a supportattachment called "artillery", then it would be bugged off. I would be surprised it exists.

Actually, "artillery" would be at least better than "ArtyOld" on that map, as the support was mostly related to "ballista" and "onager" (that are artilleries). The support from chariots didn't exist previous to the Veqryn changes, as that was one of those changes, and, anyways, I could argue that chariots have archers on them and the early modern meaning of "artillery" used to comprise any kind of missile weapons (yep, archers were artillery too). In the old chariots were 1/4 without support. In my variant they are 2/4 without support. In the post-Veqryn 270BC they are 1/4 with support to axeman.

[Cernel]

@cernel Also, in the moment in which the support is never displayed if only 1 type, it would feel strange to mandate the mapmakers to choose a label that will be never used. So I think it would make the most sense to also allow not having the type entry in the support attachment, defaulting to the default label ("ArtyOld" or "artillery" or whatever) if missing. This way, mapmakers that want only 1 support in their game and don't want it to have a label (maybe also because it is so abstract and generic that there cannot be a good label) will just make supportattachments lacking the "type" (like until now they would have probably used the unit options for support), and the engine will assing the default label for it, much in the same way it happens for the deprecates.

[Hepps]

Love love love! the new tool tips. Looking smashing!

[Cernel]

Mostly referring to the tooltips you get hovering the cursor over the units, I suggest:

• Removing the player name, showing between parentheses after the unit name, from the tooltips, leaving the unit name alone.

Reason: For decently made maps, this is redundant to see, as the ownership of the unit should be clear on the unit itself, so you should not need a tooltip telling you who the owner is. If the unit ownerships are confusing, there is already the option to turn on small flags. If even the flags are confusing, that's probably a bad enough map you don't want to play anyways. You may have long unit names and long player names, causing the tooltip to become very large, for no good reasons. In maps like TWW, you will see something like "GermanInfantry (Germany)", and, in general, you cannot exclude that the name of the unit itself might contain the information about who the player is. It is especially questionable since it is an element that you cannot customize, and I believe all not customizable parts should be kept to the minimum.

• Having the first letter of the unit, as well as whatever letters for it, displaying always in its own case, instead of always being upper case.

Reason: In the moment the mapmaker can choose whether to have "infantry" or "Infantry", I see no good reasons to force an uppercase in only some places. In some cases, like for example "aaGun", you will end up with oddities like "AaGun" (you can see this in all basic maps except v6).