Multiple Canals Between 2 Sea Zones

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
71 messages Options
1234
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Multiple Canals Between 2 Sea Zones

Cernel
Indeed, as I said, likely 90% people haven't the intelligence required to understand and use the Veqryn's system, that, on the other hand, require a bit less coding; so, poor human mind aside, it is actually easier.

Still, we (I can do it, if you want) can make a "Rosetta Stone", traducing for anyone the stuff, or even giving the final code for all cases, with "XXX", "YYY" ect., to which people just have to copy paste their territory names, making it for all cases from 2 to 6 parallel canal (so only 5 cases total, to copy paste and substitute the "XXX" etc. with the needed territory names). And having it as a copy paste stuff inside pos2.

That copy-paste 5 examples would be doable by like 90% people, and I think noone will ever use more than 6 pararell canal; and, in case, we can expand the "Rosetta Stone", anyway, or just give the correct solution in forum.
History plays dice
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Multiple Canals Between 2 Sea Zones

Cernel
In reply to this post by redrum
redrum wrote
I'm still not sure why you would vote for the system that you've essentially shown is clearly more difficult for most people to understand?
To upkeep the current AND capability, plus the Veqryn system actually go over the AND/OR switch (that you don't want to have) and, by setting from 1 to infinite, allows for representing all the possible unthinkable solutions.

So, it is the perfect and ultimate system.
History plays dice
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Multiple Canals Between 2 Sea Zones

Veqryn
Administrator
@cernel,
Ahem, my "solution" was to a problem that was different then the one presented (of controlling X number of Y total territories in a single canal, in order to control that single canal).

The actual problem, as redrum clarified, is that there are groups of canals controlling movement between two zones, and we want there to be an OR relationship allowed between them.

I see really only two possible ways to solve this in the engine (neither of which would use my previous solution):

1. Change the global relationship between canals from AND to OR.
or
2. Redo canal logic into something resembling condition attachments, so that you can have both AND and OR.
Please contribute to the TripleA 2013 donation drive:
http://tripleadev.1671093.n2.nabble.com/2013-TripleA-Donation-Drive-tp7583455.html
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Multiple Canals Between 2 Sea Zones

Cernel
No, No, No. I understood that you misunderstood, as I said, but your solution is awesome! It 100% covers all WaW and tRS cases, plus also covers so well the case you had in mind, in case any mapmakers want to have it, plus it actually covers all the possible infinite canal cases you can think or not think of, plus it keeps (and expands!) the AND relationship between different canals, that allows for advanced strategic simulations of stuff like a river not influencing air, but influencing in a way anphibious units, in another way light units and in yet another way heavy units, etc.!

I can give all the finished working canal attachment for WaW here, using your solution. tRS as well, so that's no problem!
History plays dice
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Multiple Canals Between 2 Sea Zones

Veqryn
Administrator
hm...,

so how would allowing a count for the number of territories controlled in a canal, allow for this:

(A and B) OR (C and D)

?

I could be wrong, but wouldn't using the solution I originally proposed, only work for situations where a territory is shared between the canal groups?
Please contribute to the TripleA 2013 donation drive:
http://tripleadev.1671093.n2.nabble.com/2013-TripleA-Donation-Drive-tp7583455.html
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Multiple Canals Between 2 Sea Zones

Cernel
No, it allows everything. Everything! Just give me a moment I post, hang on.
History plays dice
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Multiple Canals Between 2 Sea Zones

Cernel
In reply to this post by Veqryn
Yes, of course, it would be very easy to use it for that case of owning N+ to pass, and I think that would be a pretty sweet addition on its own (easyest thing, is having a canal you can block ships with only by owning all sides, by setting N=1 in that only, which is how a medieval BOOM works, but it can also represent a strait you can use to block ships only by mining it, thus you need to have both sides to mine it good, and block the enemy, etc.).

But, as far as parallel canals are concerned, here they are, from 2 to 5 (all WaW cases, cept there is not the 4):

Canal kind of => Undercoding (N = 1 always)

A-B-C => B and (A or C)
A-B-C-D => (B or C) and (B or D) and (A or C)
A-B-C-D-E => (B or D) and (B or C or E) and (A or C or D) and (A or C or E)
A-B-C-D-E-F => (B or D or E) and (B or D or F) and (B or C or E) and (A or C or E)

Sorry, need sleep right now, and too tired to code actual stuff; I'll post the full sets of WaW and tRS working canals today later. I might also have done some mistakes, cause I didn't check a lot plus sleepy.
History plays dice
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Multiple Canals Between 2 Sea Zones

Cernel
In reply to this post by Veqryn
Sorry, just briefly noticed now you were not asking for a WaW case.

In WaW there are only sequence of canals uninterrupted by land connected land territories with no sea crossing.

But, sure, this case is ok as well (tho doesn't matter for WaW):

A -yes canal- B -no canal- C -yes canal- D

with A-B-C-D all land connected in sequence,

would be, as you said:

(A and B) or (C and D)

or, coding wise:

(A or C) and (A or D) and (B or C) and (B or D)

In this case, the "AND" solution inter-canals and "OR" solution intra-canal actually requires more coding. But sometimes it requires less. Anyway, doesn't matter much.

bye
History plays dice
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Multiple Canals Between 2 Sea Zones

Veqryn
Administrator
well this is interesting, it seems the original solution i proposed was to answer the wrong question, but actually does answer the original question

that is pretty cool

so, it is not the most intuitive to use, but it does solve the issue and allow for a bunch of other things too

the only issue is whether anyone is smart enough to use it, as i did not even see the full extend of how it could be used...



also, i wanted to bring up that going with a global OR relationship does not prevent us from also adding a "count" to canal territory lists at a future date...
Please contribute to the TripleA 2013 donation drive:
http://tripleadev.1671093.n2.nabble.com/2013-TripleA-Donation-Drive-tp7583455.html
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Multiple Canals Between 2 Sea Zones

redrum
Administrator
@all - I agree with Veqryn's last point. I think it would be best to change from global AND to OR relationship for now. This should then be able to cover all situations that we've discussed here. Then later on we can always look to add a 'count' or other functionality if needed.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Multiple Canals Between 2 Sea Zones

Cernel
In reply to this post by Veqryn
My uninformed (no clue what it takes to code it) suggestion is to just get around now creating the universal and definitive system for using multiple canals (like already done for multiple conditions), so that mapmakers, from now on, can configure multiple canals as they wish (or at least not shutting close the "AND" door, to open the "OR" door) and not have to think about it again, instead of closing all the possibilities of the AND option, in favour of opening the OR option, because as now no maps use the AND (didn't check myself), while WaW+tRS use the OR, and maybe in the future have to reopen it if somebody wanna use the AND or anything (plus discouraging mapmakers to use the currently available AND implications, cause not anymore supported).

The AND can be substituted by merging in 1 canal only in the case that all the AND canals are working exactly the same, as a matter of any other options but the territories themselves (this means you can't anymore have serial canals blocking different kind of units, for example).

The one Veqryn proposed is already an universal system (so it would be fine and definitive, already), but not the only one possible, of course, and definitively not the most user-friendly (well, it is very user-friendly if you want to set a number of territories to own to pass a canal, which is an added possibility for mapmakers (for example, you can say that Turkey in WW2 will open the straits to anyone that manages to own N in a list of territories, to represent a dominating projectian of power, convincing Turkey to assist you)).

Generally speaking, it appears natural to me that the AND should be the default behaviour (since canals are stuff added on top of connections, shutting them, doesn't seem normal that if a second canal doesn't block, then it also opens up the first one, that itself alone would actually block, if the second one would not exist; an OR relationship seems just not fitting with this kind of stuff).

As I've already said, it would seem fittingly to me that canals with different "canalName" are in a "AND" relationship with each other, and canals with the same "canalName" would be in a "OR" relationship with each other.

At this point, since one way or the other WaW and tRS can be fully supported once and for all, likely to be never touched again, at least for canals, and assuming neither Veqryn nor redrum nor lafayette have projects to make some new maps using multiple canals (sorry if I'm wrong, just guessing), I suppose it doesn't actually matter for any of the engine developers, either ways. Thus, imo, better finalizing an universal system, AND plus OR plus whatever number, like it is for the conditions, and letting the map developers do whatever they want, if they want.

My conclusions are:
1- If must be AND aut OR, OR is better than AND, at least for current maps (but OR as default is weird and feels wrong).
2- Better adding OR as an option, keeping AND as another possibility and default.
3- Even better an universal system, like the one Veqryn formulated, or something different and more user friendly, if feasible.

Myself, I suggest coding the proposed Veqryn system and adding an useless "OR" inter-canal option (off default) on top of it, to make it more maker-friendly.

Anyway, just in case, here it is the coding that would (aside from possible errors on my part, cause I can't test it) fully enforce the WaW canal rules, under the Veqryn's system:

                <attatchment name="canalAttatchment01" attatchTo="sz48" javaClass="games.strategy.triplea.attatchments.CanalAttachment" type="territory">
                        <option name="canalName" value="Canal01"/>
                        <option name="landTerritories" value="Istanbul:Ankara"/>
                </attatchment>
                <attatchment name="canalAttatchment01" attatchTo="sz51" javaClass="games.strategy.triplea.attatchments.CanalAttachment" type="territory">
                        <option name="canalName" value="Canal01"/>
                        <option name="landTerritories" value="Istanbul:Ankara"/>
                </attatchment>


                <attatchment name="canalAttatchment02" attatchTo="sz49" javaClass="games.strategy.triplea.attatchments.CanalAttachment" type="territory">
                        <option name="canalName" value="Canal02"/>
                        <option name="landTerritories" value="E.Egypt:Israel"/>
                </attatchment>
                <attatchment name="canalAttatchment02" attatchTo="sz62" javaClass="games.strategy.triplea.attatchments.CanalAttachment" type="territory">
                        <option name="canalName" value="Canal02"/>
                        <option name="landTerritories" value="E.Egypt:Israel"/>
                </attatchment>


                <attatchment name="canalAttatchment03" attatchTo="sz128" javaClass="games.strategy.triplea.attatchments.CanalAttachment" type="territory">
                        <option name="canalName" value="Canal03"/>
                        <option name="landTerritories" value="Yucatego:Panama"/>
                </attatchment>
                <attatchment name="canalAttatchment03" attatchTo="sz127" javaClass="games.strategy.triplea.attatchments.CanalAttachment" type="territory">
                        <option name="canalName" value="Canal03"/>
                        <option name="landTerritories" value="Yucatego:Panama"/>
                </attatchment>


                <attatchment name="canalAttatchment04" attatchTo="sz66" javaClass="games.strategy.triplea.attatchments.CanalAttachment" type="territory">
                        <option name="canalName" value="Canal04"/>
                        <option name="landTerritories" value="Malaya:Sumatra"/>
                </attatchment>
                <attatchment name="canalAttatchment04" attatchTo="sz108" javaClass="games.strategy.triplea.attatchments.CanalAttachment" type="territory">
                        <option name="canalName" value="Canal04"/>
                        <option name="landTerritories" value="Malaya:Sumatra"/>
                </attatchment>


                <attatchment name="canalAttatchment05" attatchTo="sz69" javaClass="games.strategy.triplea.attatchments.CanalAttachment" type="territory">
                        <option name="canalName" value="Canal05"/>
                        <option name="landTerritories" value="Sumatra:Java"/>
                </attatchment>
                <attatchment name="canalAttatchment05" attatchTo="sz108" javaClass="games.strategy.triplea.attatchments.CanalAttachment" type="territory">
                        <option name="canalName" value="Canal05"/>
                        <option name="landTerritories" value="Sumatra:Java"/>
                </attatchment>


                <attatchment name="canalAttatchment06" attatchTo="sz72" javaClass="games.strategy.triplea.attatchments.CanalAttachment" type="territory">
                        <option name="canalName" value="Canal06"/>
                        <option name="landTerritories" value="Java:Bali"/>
                </attatchment>
                <attatchment name="canalAttatchment06" attatchTo="sz108" javaClass="games.strategy.triplea.attatchments.CanalAttachment" type="territory">
                        <option name="canalName" value="Canal06"/>
                        <option name="landTerritories" value="Java:Bali"/>
                </attatchment>


                <attatchment name="canalAttatchment07" attatchTo="sz72" javaClass="games.strategy.triplea.attatchments.CanalAttachment" type="territory">
                        <option name="canalName" value="Canal07"/>
                        <option name="landTerritories" value="Lambok"/>
                </attatchment>
                <attatchment name="canalAttatchment07" attatchTo="sz109" javaClass="games.strategy.triplea.attatchments.CanalAttachment" type="territory">
                        <option name="canalName" value="Canal07"/>
                        <option name="landTerritories" value="Lambok"/>
                </attatchment>

                <attatchment name="canalAttatchment08" attatchTo="sz72" javaClass="games.strategy.triplea.attatchments.CanalAttachment" type="territory">
                        <option name="canalName" value="Canal08"/>
                        <option name="landTerritories" value="Bali:Soem" count="1"/>
                </attatchment>
                <attatchment name="canalAttatchment08" attatchTo="sz109" javaClass="games.strategy.triplea.attatchments.CanalAttachment" type="territory">
                        <option name="canalName" value="Canal08"/>
                        <option name="landTerritories" value="Bali:Soem" count="1"/>
                </attatchment>


                <attatchment name="canalAttatchment09" attatchTo="sz72" javaClass="games.strategy.triplea.attatchments.CanalAttachment" type="territory">
                        <option name="canalName" value="Canal09"/>
                        <option name="landTerritories" value="Soem:Flores"/>
                </attatchment>
                <attatchment name="canalAttatchment09" attatchTo="sz110" javaClass="games.strategy.triplea.attatchments.CanalAttachment" type="territory">
                        <option name="canalName" value="Canal09"/>
                        <option name="landTerritories" value="Soem:Flores"/>
                </attatchment>


                <attatchment name="canalAttatchment10" attatchTo="sz73" javaClass="games.strategy.triplea.attatchments.CanalAttachment" type="territory">
                        <option name="canalName" value="Canal10"/>
                        <option name="landTerritories" value="Nayumo:Ceram" count="1"/>
                </attatchment>
                <attatchment name="canalAttatchment10" attatchTo="sz110" javaClass="games.strategy.triplea.attatchments.CanalAttachment" type="territory">
                        <option name="canalName" value="Canal10"/>
                        <option name="landTerritories" value="Nayumo:Ceram" count="1"/>
                </attatchment>

                <attatchment name="canalAttatchment11" attatchTo="sz73" javaClass="games.strategy.triplea.attatchments.CanalAttachment" type="territory">
                        <option name="canalName" value="Canal11"/>
                        <option name="landTerritories" value="Nayumo:Okaba" count="1"/>
                </attatchment>
                <attatchment name="canalAttatchment11" attatchTo="sz110" javaClass="games.strategy.triplea.attatchments.CanalAttachment" type="territory">
                        <option name="canalName" value="Canal11"/>
                        <option name="landTerritories" value="Nayumo:Okaba" count="1"/>
                </attatchment>

                <attatchment name="canalAttatchment12" attatchTo="sz73" javaClass="games.strategy.triplea.attatchments.CanalAttachment" type="territory">
                        <option name="canalName" value="Canal12"/>
                        <option name="landTerritories" value="Flores:Ceram" count="1"/>
                </attatchment>
                <attatchment name="canalAttatchment12" attatchTo="sz110" javaClass="games.strategy.triplea.attatchments.CanalAttachment" type="territory">
                        <option name="canalName" value="Canal12"/>
                        <option name="landTerritories" value="Flores:Ceram" count="1"/>
                </attatchment>


                <attatchment name="canalAttatchment13" attatchTo="sz74" javaClass="games.strategy.triplea.attatchments.CanalAttachment" type="territory">
                        <option name="canalName" value="Canal13"/>
                        <option name="landTerritories" value="New Britain:Boku:Guadacanal" count="1"/>
                </attatchment>
                <attatchment name="canalAttatchment13" attatchTo="sz83" javaClass="games.strategy.triplea.attatchments.CanalAttachment" type="territory">
                        <option name="canalName" value="Canal13"/>
                        <option name="landTerritories" value="New Britain:Boku:Guadacanal" count="1"/>
                </attatchment>

                <attatchment name="canalAttatchment14" attatchTo="sz74" javaClass="games.strategy.triplea.attatchments.CanalAttachment" type="territory">
                        <option name="canalName" value="Canal14"/>
                        <option name="landTerritories" value="New Britain:Boku:Cristobal" count="1"/>
                </attatchment>
                <attatchment name="canalAttatchment14" attatchTo="sz83" javaClass="games.strategy.triplea.attatchments.CanalAttachment" type="territory">
                        <option name="canalName" value="Canal14"/>
                        <option name="landTerritories" value="New Britain:Boku:Cristobal" count="1"/>
                </attatchment>

                <attatchment name="canalAttatchment15" attatchTo="sz74" javaClass="games.strategy.triplea.attatchments.CanalAttachment" type="territory">
                        <option name="canalName" value="Canal15"/>
                        <option name="landTerritories" value="New Britain:Samo:Guadacanal" count="1"/>
                </attatchment>
                <attatchment name="canalAttatchment15" attatchTo="sz83" javaClass="games.strategy.triplea.attatchments.CanalAttachment" type="territory">
                        <option name="canalName" value="Canal15"/>
                        <option name="landTerritories" value="New Britain:Samo:Guadacanal" count="1"/>
                </attatchment>

                <attatchment name="canalAttatchment16" attatchTo="sz74" javaClass="games.strategy.triplea.attatchments.CanalAttachment" type="territory">
                        <option name="canalName" value="Canal16"/>
                        <option name="landTerritories" value="S.Guinea:Samo:Guadacanal" count="1"/>
                </attatchment>
                <attatchment name="canalAttatchment16" attatchTo="sz83" javaClass="games.strategy.triplea.attatchments.CanalAttachment" type="territory">
                        <option name="canalName" value="Canal16"/>
                        <option name="landTerritories" value="S.Guinea:Samo:Guadacanal" count="1"/>
                </attatchment>


                <attatchment name="canalAttatchment17" attatchTo="sz102" javaClass="games.strategy.triplea.attatchments.CanalAttachment" type="territory">
                        <option name="canalName" value="Canal22"/>
                        <option name="landTerritories" value="N.Japan:Akita"/>
                </attatchment>
                <attatchment name="canalAttatchment17" attatchTo="sz100" javaClass="games.strategy.triplea.attatchments.CanalAttachment" type="territory">
                        <option name="canalName" value="Canal22"/>
                        <option name="landTerritories" value="N.Japan:Akita"/>
                </attatchment>


                <attatchment name="canalAttatchment18" attatchTo="sz89" javaClass="games.strategy.triplea.attatchments.CanalAttachment" type="territory">
                        <option name="canalName" value="Canal18"/>
                        <option name="landTerritories" value="Ifalk:Puna"/>
                </attatchment>
                <attatchment name="canalAttatchment18" attatchTo="sz85" javaClass="games.strategy.triplea.attatchments.CanalAttachment" type="territory">
                        <option name="canalName" value="Canal18"/>
                        <option name="landTerritories" value="Ifalk:Puna"/>
                </attatchment>


                <attatchment name="canalAttatchment19" attatchTo="sz106" javaClass="games.strategy.triplea.attatchments.CanalAttachment" type="territory">
                        <option name="canalName" value="Canal19"/>
                        <option name="landTerritories" value="Manila:Mindor"/>
                </attatchment>
                <attatchment name="canalAttatchment19" attatchTo="sz105" javaClass="games.strategy.triplea.attatchments.CanalAttachment" type="territory">
                        <option name="canalName" value="Canal19"/>
                        <option name="landTerritories" value="Manila:Mindor"/>
                </attatchment>


                <attatchment name="canalAttatchment20" attatchTo="sz109" javaClass="games.strategy.triplea.attatchments.CanalAttachment" type="territory">
                        <option name="canalName" value="Canal20"/>
                        <option name="landTerritories" value="Boho"/>
                </attatchment>
                <attatchment name="canalAttatchment20" attatchTo="sz105" javaClass="games.strategy.triplea.attatchments.CanalAttachment" type="territory">
                        <option name="canalName" value="Canal20"/>
                        <option name="landTerritories" value="Boho"/>
                </attatchment>

                <attatchment name="canalAttatchment21" attatchTo="sz109" javaClass="games.strategy.triplea.attatchments.CanalAttachment" type="territory">
                        <option name="canalName" value="Canal21"/>
                        <option name="landTerritories" value="Mindor:Mindanao" count="1"/>
                </attatchment>
                <attatchment name="canalAttatchment21" attatchTo="sz105" javaClass="games.strategy.triplea.attatchments.CanalAttachment" type="territory">
                        <option name="canalName" value="Canal21"/>
                        <option name="landTerritories" value="Mindor:Mindanao" count="1"/>
                </attatchment>

The total number of canals needed is actually 1 less than the current number of WaW canals.
History plays dice
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Multiple Canals Between 2 Sea Zones

Cernel
In reply to this post by Veqryn
Veqryn wrote
also, i wanted to bring up that going with a global OR relationship does not prevent us from also adding a "count" to canal territory lists at a future date...
I'm not sure, but I guess the basic for an universal system has to be AND. Thus if you take that system (with territory counts) and substitute AND with OR you still lose all the current serial canals possiblities of AND.

I can't see how to replicate the currently available AND possiblities in a OR system plus counts.

Also, I would guess adding a count to an OR only system would be close to useless.
History plays dice
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Multiple Canals Between 2 Sea Zones

Cernel
In reply to this post by redrum
Once you are in a OR only system, the only functionality you possibly want to add is adding AND back (as an option), I would say.
History plays dice
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Multiple Canals Between 2 Sea Zones

Zim Xero
I'm kinda late to the discussion, but here is my suggestion:

1) Leave Canals how they are.
2) Create a Warp connection.  A warp connection should allow all possible arguments to define it... AND, OR, XOR, NOR, or any combination of them.  This allows all types of connections to support future map building.  Most importantly... make it so it must be defined from each direction.  This will allow terrain features we have not used yet... such as being able to cross a river between two territories from only one direction unless a condition is met.
'thats the way it is' makes it neither desireable nor inevitable
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Multiple Canals Between 2 Sea Zones

Cernel
Yah, having AND, OR, XOR, NOR options would be universal as well, not needing Counts.

Actually, just only AND plus OR would be universal, not needing counts. Basically, OR and Counts are the same thing, but one is better to use for something than the other and vice versa. Like, you can use Count=1 to do the same things as OR, but in a less intuitive way, or you can use OR to just spam all the ownership possiblities that would allow transit in a Count system (but, for example, if you have 10 territories and count 5 this would imply making a ridiculous number of OR canals).

That's why I said adding Counts to an AND only system with default Count equal to ALL is very good (and universal), but adding Counts to an OR only system with default Count equal to ALL (which would be the case if we just go with redrum proposal) is kind of silly.

Basically, to sum it up, OR=Counts (kinda), since the current default Count is equal to the sum of all territories. If the default Count would be equal to 1, then it would be AND=Counts (kinda).

Adding counts to an OR system in which the default Count is "all of them" would make very little sense; on the other hand adding counts to an AND system in which the default Count is 1 (which just means OR) would make very little sense, as well.

I'd like to add that, generally speaking, looking at the past makes little sense, because few mapmakers go for adding unsupported stuff, like Sieg did in this convoy case, and anyway we can see what a mess the addition of this unsupported stuff ended up causing, in this case. So, if something is unsupported, there is a very small chance that anyone will go that way; consequently, not supporting stuff (like not anymore supporting AND between canals) is almost like closing it for future feasible mapmaking use. You can't really say: if someone will make a map needing AND again in the future, then we will go back supporting it.

That's why I think making out an universal system once and for all would be preferable.

Regarding having a dual Canals and Warp system, sorry Zim, it doesn't look necessary to me, and I believe everything Zim wants can be Canal additions, not touching the current coding and default behaviour (if the developers want to).

Anyway, I guess we can more or less count Zim in, as another vote for keeping also the AND.
History plays dice
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Multiple Canals Between 2 Sea Zones

Veqryn
Administrator
honestly, it sounds like the general preference (from a feature point of view) would be for a more complete system, rather than just patching things to be only OR relationship (just for Sieg's two maps).

part of the trouble in making a more complete system is that canals probably shouldn't be attachments attached two a single territory.  Instead, canals (in the xml) should be a single block somewhere where you specify:

the connection the canal controls (ie: the two connected territories, normally sea zones)
the territories or other logic required to control that connection.  This would honestly be best as specifying a condition attachment, and then having the logic for this be in the condition attachment.
other crap (like unit exceptions, etc).  

It makes the most sense to me to re-use condition attachments rather than have to duplicate what they are already great at somewhere else...


so it would look like this in the xml (pseudo-code):

<canalSuez>
  name=Suez
  connection=Sz16:Sz34
  condition=conditionAttachmentOwnEgypt
  (unit exceptions, other stuff, etc...)
</canalSuez>


(and there would be a separate conditionAttachment called conditionAttachmentOwnEgypt which has an allied-ownership-territories list of egypt, or w/e)


if everyone likes the above, we can think about how we want to get there...?
Please contribute to the TripleA 2013 donation drive:
http://tripleadev.1671093.n2.nabble.com/2013-TripleA-Donation-Drive-tp7583455.html
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Multiple Canals Between 2 Sea Zones

Cernel
Of course that would be the best, universal and very maker friendly; was just guessing you didn't want to do it for compatibility reasons.

So, basically it's the same Warp thing Zim proposed, but substituting the current weird Canal system, instead of flanking it. And, yah, I never understood why the current canal system was splitted in 2 different attachments per canal.

Or have you a github utility for changing all depot maps from old to new system?

Would it be possible to bundle in it the "isMarine" stuff, that you get a modifier when attacking through a canal, like when you do when unloading for ships (the very common malus you get for attacking jumping a river)? And maybe a canal option that forbids retreats through the canal. Just some thoghts.

Guess I won't post the tRS canals for your previous count system, then.

Either ways, I don't really care for maker friendliness myself, cause I think I can figure out; so my vote is just for it being universal and triggerable (you can change whatever canal stuff with triggers during the game, currently, hope will be still true in new).
History plays dice
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Multiple Canals Between 2 Sea Zones

Cernel
In reply to this post by Veqryn
A little not very intuitive thing that I would like for canals is an option like the "repair start round=turn", that makes the canal opening for whatever allies only at start of the owner turn (the territory ownership condition is met only if the current owner had the territory at the start of its turn, even 1 round before). Meaning you are able to pass through canals only if enough territories meet the condition of being owned since the start of the respective owners own turns, instead of just start turn of the turn player.

This would be basically to remove the Canal Can Opener, and allow to use land-only canals to remove the Can Opener at all from the game.

I know, it does sound very strange, and I'm not really expecting to be supported or even get, but couldn't help myself from proposing it.
History plays dice
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Multiple Canals Between 2 Sea Zones

redrum
Administrator
@all - My thought is make a short-term fix to change from AND to OR so we can at least support all maps properly we have now. Then probably look to refactor canals entirely to something more like Veqryn's example which would be easier to use and more intuitive. This would be a much larger change that will take a good deal of effort and time. I feel that there are higher priority items that I prefer to tackle first. I'm eventually thinking of creating a list of major fixes/enhancements then opening up a poll similar to how I've run AI development priorities.

Thoughts? Does this seem reasonable?

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Multiple Canals Between 2 Sea Zones

Cernel
As I said, while waiting, if the choice is having only AND or having only OR, OR would be surely preferable, owning to the count being "all", for the canal's territories.

But if the matter is making a simple patch, I believe it would be better keeping the inter-canal AND and, instead of a changing AND to OR, changing the territories count default from "all" to "1+"(=OR).

So, basically, now we have AND between canal and AND for the territories inside the canal, which is silly and redundant, much limiting canals usage. Instead of changing the inter-canal AND to OR, I believe it would be better changing the intra-canal territories requirement AND to OR.

It would be much more omnicomprensive, but drawback is that it would imply changing lots of maps, substituting all canals with multiple territories in them with multiple canals with 1 territory each (in the current AND relationship). So, not feasible, unless you have a mass utility for it in github, I immagine.

WaW would work with the coding I posted, just by removing the Counts (that would automatically be at default 1=OR).
History plays dice
1234