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

redrum
Administrator
@Cernel - Yeah, I'd prefer to avoid having to update essentially every map that has a canal :)
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Multiple Canals Between 2 Sea Zones

Veqryn
Administrator
it could be done in a backwards compatible way

similar to how things like isArtillery actually create support attachments behind the scenes, canal attachments could create whatever the new deal is behind the scenes as well


my only concern with switching to OR is that if we keep it that way for a while then people will start using it, which would make the eventual transition to a more complete system more difficult in the future

in my mind, might as well just make the eventual system now.  it would be easier than you think, and we are a ways off from a release anyway...
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
@Veqryn - So even if we implement the full system I think changing the existing attachments to work in a global 'OR' instead of 'AND' should be done. This IMO really is a 'fix' and how it should have been implemented the first time around. I don't think it'll really make the transition to a new system more difficult. I agree after we design the new canal system then we just convert the existing canal config into the new ones behind the scenes.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Multiple Canals Between 2 Sea Zones

Veqryn
Administrator
Now that i think about it, OR and by proposed system above could co-exist together without any loss of functionality, because IF you want that AND relationship back, you can just make condition attachments that use AND and only have 1 canal that uses it for that connection.

@cernel, do you concur?
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
Short answer:

I'm not sure I understand, but I would say no, you still need multiple canals for the same connection if you want to enforce different movement limits (which you can do with the current system).

For example, if you want to make a rule that, for land connection of two land territories A and B (maybe visually separated by a river), air can always move directly A-B, while light land units can move directly A-B only if A and B friendly (simulating a pontoon bridge), and heavy units can never move directly A-B, then you would need multiple serial canals for a same connection (I think now it is the 4th time I say it).

If you don't want to support this anymore, ok. Redrum also checked that, so far, noone took advantage of this coding possiblity (and maybe noone but me saw this possibility at all). But from what I understand, what you want to do should still support it, and I seem to understand it will be an universal system either way, so all good I believe (not sure).

Long answer:

I think this discussion is going on in circles for a while now, because anyway it boils down only to have AND vs OR inter canals plus AND vs OR intra canal (territory validation of the invalidation of the canal).

Whatever possible detailed explanation is multiple times re-explained in my previous posts.

What I meant is that what redrum wanted to do is surely an improvement; I just suggested a more universal (possibly fully universal) and, possibly, more user friendly system.

The current system is very dumb and limited, since it has AND between canals and AND amongst territories of a same canal, which is redundant (landTerritories is currently useless, cause you could make multiple canals, anyway). Plus it is hard to figure out, it is also redundant in the coding, requiring both the same name of the canal and the same canalName option, to no gain, plus it is split into two differint attachment for no reasons and no gain, aside from added complexity, bugs and double redundant coding you must assure to be exactly the same in both attachments.

Just be careful to allow for AND inter and OR intra, or OR inter and AND intra: you can't possibly do a worse system than current, IMO, unless you put OR both inter and intra canals (which you won't).

I just said that inter-canals default AND would make the most sense, logically, since, as now, all canals are stand alone, and are stuff that blocks movement in connections, NOT stuff that allows movement (if it would be so, OR default would be right). That's why I suggested to re-use the "canalName" option as an inter-canal OR option, when the same amongst canals.

The only feature I'd really request is the new system (if any) being 100% triggerable (as the current one is).

Plus, I suggest having the possiblity of setting a canal as always being there blocking, with no territory validation option (which, at the moment, can be easily hacked around by using an unreachable territory box assigned to Neutral, anyway; so not a big deal).

Whatever you guys do will be probably fine; so just go ahead the way you want to, already, IMO.
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
And I add that making multiple serial canals makes sense both with AND and OR, as the inter-canal validation setting.

So, please, do not remove the current ability of having multiple canals for the same connection/territory (whatever you decide is the base), in the new system as well.

Ideally, it would be maker friendly the most if you can set AND or OR both for inter-canal validation and intra-canal territory validation, but having it only in one or the other would be already universal.

As said, just doing what redrum wants to (namely changing to OR and touching nothing else at all) is good (and I believe it is actually universal, as long as you keep the AND intra canal and the possiblity of having multiple canals per same connection) (but very maker unfriendly and needing enormous amount of coding in some cases). Whatever else is a plus, if coherently done.

So, if you are dubious, then maybe just do the AND to OR inter change, that redrum wants, and touch nothing else at all.

To sum up, as long as multiple canals per connection are allowed, as they are now:

Serial canals can be done both with the AND and OR inter canal, as long as the intra is AND.

Parallel canals can be done only with the OR inter canal, if the intra is AND.

Seria canals can be done only with the AND inter canal, if the intra is OR.

Parallel canals can be done both with the AND and OR inter canal, as long as the intra is OR.

Serial canals can be substituted by a single canal (with the current system; I don't fully understand the new one) only if anything else but the territories option is the same (thus doesn't work for the example I made of air - light units - heavy units).
History plays dice
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Multiple Canals Between 2 Sea Zones

Veqryn
Administrator
In reply to this post by Cernel
I did not read more than the first paragraph of that wall of text, but you bring up a good point.
If you want to have two different rules for different groups of units, you would need the AND relationship.  (The would done by excluding some units from the first attachment, then excluding the other units from the second attachment.)
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
If you would have also red the second paragraph, you would have had the info that this is about the 3th time I repeat this point, in this topic.

If you don't want to read everything I write, in the interest of avoiding misunderstandings, then I'd change my suggestion to just do exactly what redrum wants to: changing AND to OR inter canals and touching absolutely nothing else at all forever, about canals.
History plays dice
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Multiple Canals Between 2 Sea Zones

redrum
Administrator
@all - I agree that we are mostly going in circles now and mostly agree on changes. I'm going to move forward with changing relationship between multiple canals across the same territories to OR instead of AND. This fixes the canals in TRS and WaW though limits the possibility of serial canals with different units restrictions (currently not used in any maps).

I've added a feature request to create a new canal attachment that is easier to use and covers all scenarios instead of the current system. Hopefully will tackle this sooner rather than later: https://github.com/triplea-game/triplea/issues/344
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Multiple Canals Between 2 Sea Zones

Frostion
In reply to this post by redrum
Any news on this front?
Will a future TripleA release support channels to be configured like “own two of these three territories and you are allowed to sail through”?
I am just curious if the long discussion here ever lead to any actual change.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Multiple Canals Between 2 Sea Zones

redrum
Administrator
@Frostion - The current pre-release and the next official release has the changes to make multiple canals OR instead of AND so that WaW and TRS work as intended. So yeah you can create multiple canals between 2 territories to get the “own two of these three territories and you are allowed to sail through” effect.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Multiple Canals Between 2 Sea Zones

Cernel
In reply to this post by redrum
I guessed not explaining what is what yet again, because so far everything I said appeared to be either pointless or even misunderstood, but here it is, again, a new summing up, since, for once, we have a new mapmaker (m3tan) using canal stuff in some good ways.
It took me some hours to write this down, so it would be appreciated if all developers involved in any canal related development read it.
redrum wrote
This fixes the canals in TRS and WaW though limits the possibility of serial canals with different units restrictions (currently not used in any maps).
Firstly, while I still think that supporting parallel canals is more important than supporting serial canals, I don't think that just throwing serial canals out of the window is a good idea, and they should be supported too (they have been supported till now). For example, if you have two territories, A and B, and want X units to be always able to go through, while Y units are able to go through if A is owned and Z units are able to go through only if both A and B are owned (for example, only enemy air and submarines can go through if you own only Gibraltar, while Tangier is owned by the enemy; while only enemy air, but not submarines, can go through if you own both Gibraltar and Tangier) (for example, if you have only one side, you can put some guns and shot at what passes; instead, if you have both sides, you can put a chain or something, blocking more stuff than what one side ownership only allows you to do), then:
With the old system, you could have made it by having one canal that restricts all units but X, unless you own A, and another canal that restricts all units but X and Y, unless you own A and B.
With the new system, this is just not possible at all, because if you have one canal that doesn't restrict X an Y and a second canal that doesn't restrict only X, both X and Y will be always able to go through, no matter what kind of settings you have (what can always pass trough is always the sum of all "excludedUnits" listings of the various canals; this makes the possibility of having different "excludedUnits" for the various canals in between the same two zones totally useless and wasteful, as they can be just changed to a same shared "excludedUnits", having listed all the units listed in any of them).
So, with the new system, it is not possible having units Y able to go through under some restrictions and units Z able to go through under some other restrictions, but you can only have units X able to always go through and any other units but X able to indistinctively go through, if one or more of the canals meets the territory requirements.

I don't think that the "currently not used in any maps" is a good reason for not supporting anymore a good and sensible mapmaking possibility, because the only maps doing the other thing were Sieg's "WaW" and "tRS"; so what if, instead, those maps were never made, and some other maps using serial canals were made instead?
And Sieg might have done it just because he initially didn't realize it was not supported...
Of course, if you close a possibility to do something, you will probably not see anyone doing it, or very rarely you might see someone doing it (while unsupported) anyway. I don't think what a single mapmaker does or not does is the way to go, or a reason to open or close something that has applicative impacts for the future, in one way or the other.
For example, Frostion went having parallel canals in his new Age of Tribes map, because they are supported, now. Maybe he would not have done it, if they were not supported. Who knows?
So you can't really say "we close this possibility because no maps currently use it, and we will talk about it again if any maps will"; because if you close it, then it will be very unlikely that you will see maps working that way (Sieg did it despite it being not supported, but it is rare that the mapmakers do unsupported things and, even in this case, you can see all the confusion that this caused, with so many people playing the map the wrong way, because it was unsupported!).
And what about if in the future 3 maps will use serial canals instead of the 2 Sieg maps using parallel canals? Would you switch back to "AND" and make the Sieg maps unsupported, again, because now more maps go the other way?

Well, anyway, the "give mapmakers the tools and someone will use them, eventually", I kept repeating in here, appears to be concretizing in a much interesting way (please, read all has been said in this other Topic):
http://tripleadev.1671093.n2.nabble.com/ROLL-THROUGH-THE-REICH-development-thread-tp7592137p7592188.html
m3tan wrote
AH - that was the problem. I was only looking at my air routes. I totally forgot I have a strait connecting Sicily and Naples. I have air routes, estuaries, canals, rivers, and straits each blocking and enabling movement of various types of units. In my tunnel vision, I forgot the game engine views them all as canals.

And yes you can connect land territories even though it states in PoS2 that they must be sea zones. I have rivers and straits blocking movement of army sized units unless you control both sides. I have estuaries preventing amphibious landings in places like the Scheldt. And I have air routes allowing air units to skip over narrow bodies of water that shouldn't limit their range.

The limit of 1 canal per territory/sea zone is really annoying though...

I used to have rail ports that allowed units to noncombat move from Berlin-Paris, Berlin-Rome etc but it was causing crashes left and right so I removed them. Now I know why. Although again the behaviour was not entirely consistent. Berlin had multiple railport connections and never crashed. But weird things were happening like German units could rail into battle in Paris even though they didn't own Paris. I concluded that  because Berlin and Rome were each connected to Paris and Paris was connected to Rome, there was some weird transitive effect going on permitting the illegal moves because Germany and Italy were allied...
Also, in that Topic, I just made yet another example of what you are not allowing anymore (bad idea imo, even though allowing parallel is more important):
Cernel wrote
An example of a serial canal would be that you have a territory B and a territory A, with a sea zone in between; "air" and "anphibious_tank" can always go through, some "light_units" can go through only if both sides are owned, some other "heavy_units" can never go through (they will have to be shipped, if they can load on ships). With the current (1.8.0.9) engine, you can obtain this by making two canals. The first one requires an impossible (hacky) ownership and restricts all units but "air", "amphibious_tank" and "light_units". The second one requires ownership of A and B and restricts all units but "air" and "amphibious_tank" (so, the net effect is just to restrict the "light_units").
I really think such a very sensible thing (currently supported) should be kept being supported! No matter if no mapmakers used it, so far (also, this is just a bad principle, because, normally, you first setup the code abilities, and, only thereafter, someone may or may not use them, not the other way around!).

I think I've already explained in this topic about everything relatively to the limits/absurdities/unwieldiness of the current canal system, again and again.
But since Veqryn prefers not reading what I write and the other developers appear not really getting the points and, anyway, have no map-making experienced to be trusted touching such a sensible and unintuitive subject like canals, in the interest of not breaking/limiting more things than fixing/expanding them, my definitive suggestion, under present circumstances, is noone touching absolutely anything at all about canals in the source code, aside only from the "AND" and "OR" inter canal (redrum already touched).
So, the above was just for the record. Not actually suggesting anymore any developers to screw around with canals, trying to make a better or universal system (please, don't do it).
As a said, just changing the inter canal from "AND" to "OR" (already implemented by redrum) was a good thing (thanks for that; that was needed to be done for literally years), I still support that; just don't do anything else!
As it is, the current system is very redundant, unwieldy and silly, but at least it works well (if you understand it) and it is (still) highly extensive.
As the only exception (which is not really an exception, since it is not about adding or changing stuff, but not again supporting currently supported stuff), again, removing the (currently supported) possibility of having multiple differently set serial canals per territory has been a bad decision.
And, obviously, removing the possibility of having multiple canals per the same territories at all would be an even worse decision!
The "OR" thing (necessary to support WaW and tRS) should have been added as an additional possibility, not in substitution of the current "AND" behaviour.
The only thing that I still suggest is having a xml property for switching the inter canal behaviour from "AND" and "OR", the default being "OR" ("AND" is the fixed behaviour in the current/old 1.8.0.9, while "OR" is the new fixed behaviour, and I suggest to be able to have either, with a property), because using serial different canals with the new "OR" system is not possible anymore!
But, please, at the developers, don't do anything else, about canals!
My suggestion is talking again about a new universal or better system only when it will exist a very intelligent developer with a very good advanced map-making experience and that takes time to attentively read what all other people say. Otherwise, likely outcome is broking/restricting more than fixing/enhancing.
So, pointed out that I don't wish anymore any developers to do any actual reworking of the current silly but functional canal system (because now I fear you would do more bad than good), CAN WE JUST HAVE A SWITCH PROPERTY FOR HAVING "AND" OR "OR" INTER CANAL, THUS SUPPORTING BOTH THE OLD AND THE NEW SYSTEM, ADDING/CHANGING NOTHING ELSE? This would be just a switch for adding back exactly the same system as the old one was for years, so I think it's a reasonable conservative suggestion (if you want to expand the engine to support WaW style canals, that's fine, but why to reduce it in supporting other kind of canals, not allowing anymore the old behaviour at all, just because noone used it so far (and the new one was used only by Sieg in two maps, so still an exception)?).
I mean, if it was so easy (I surmise) to change the behaviour from "AND" to "OR", why not giving the mapmakers the possibility of setting "AND" or "OR" as they wish, instead of going from obliging them to use "AND" to obliging them to use "OR"?
If it is an easy thing to do, I much suggest allowing the mapmakers the choice between "AND" and "OR", instead of forcefully changing it one way to the other, and not changing anything else about how the current canals work.
So, I'm not suggesting a change or an addition or even an improvement, but just upkeeping the old, already existent, possibilities, beside adding the new, already implemented, ones.
As said, if the matter was just not supporting it because noone wanted to make a map with serial canals, then you should support it now, if "m3tan" affirms that he wants to do so (up to him) (I would still advise to support the old "AND", beside the new "OR", for future mapmaking, even if he and anyone else don't want to use it, right now).

Again, since what I saw coming up from the developers (here and in GitHub) were (imo) all or mostly bad ideas, I gave up with the suggestion of making a better general system but I still want, once again, to reiterate that, instead of changing inter-canal from "AND" to "OR", and also better than having a property for setting it, would be to leave the old "AND" inter canals and change the intra canals to "OR".
What I mean is, letting all other silly things as they work in the 1.8.0.9, and only changing this:
<option name="landTerritories" value="Anglo Egypt:Trans-Jordan"/>
to be "OR", instead of "AND" based, while leaving the "AND" inter canals.
This would allow to fully support parallel canals (like those in WaW) and, as I've already explained, would still support using serial canals.
As said, the main drawback of this, would be that all maps currently having multiples in the "landTerritories" would need to be changed to have two stand alone canals, each one having one of the multiples. As redrum remarked, this would mean changing almost all maps having canals (this is what you get when you let such a bad system being for so long).
A simple solution to this, that would require changing nothing but only WaW and tRS (I can post the new canal coding for those), and a better solution than having an "AND" or "OR" general property, would be having an option, inside the same canal, for counting the canals listed in the "landTerritories" as all needed or only partially needed (best would be able to set a number for how many of those are needed, as the inital Veqryn proposal was).
This MUCH BETTER intra-canal change (that was the initial Veqryn's proposal), instead of the inter-canal "AND" to "OR" current change, not only would allow to use all the current serial canal possibilities, but would also allow mapmakers to use both serial and parallel canals, in the same map!

The bottom line is that I'm not demanding anything (at most, I'm suggesting not removing something that has been possible and supported for years up until now), nor any of these changes actually matter at all for anything I'm making, but I'm just asking: do you want TripleA to be a good engine for decent or even good historical maps (like the one m3tan is making) or do you want it to just be an engine to play the usual "tic-tac-toe" maps? And the maps make by Sieg are still "tic-tac-toe", just ENORMOUS versions of "tic-tac-toe", because they still use almost the same rules as the silly Revised.
So far (when Veqryn was still active, and purposedly expanded canals possibilities, thus allowing m3tan and Hepps to do what they are doing) the direction has been espansive. I only suggest it not turning reductive.
History plays dice
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Multiple Canals Between 2 Sea Zones

redrum
Administrator
@Cernel - Yeah, I can add a property to still allow the AND between canal attachments. I'd like the default to be OR since it is more common and makes more sense in most situations.

Suggestions for the property name?
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Multiple Canals Between 2 Sea Zones

redrum
Administrator
@all - How about a property named 'Control All Canals Between Territories To Pass' with default of 'false'? Any better naming suggestions? Could also go for something like 'Serial Instead Of Parallel Canals'?
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Multiple Canals Between 2 Sea Zones

Cernel
In reply to this post by redrum
Oh very nice.
I don't wanna use it (at least not right now), but I'm just sad when I see a cool possibility getting phased out.
If m3tan would maybe be the only 1 mapmaker using serial canals (after he realises he can have more than 1 per territory), I'd let him decide the name...
Probably it will never show up anyway, as a user option, because I guess mapmakers will just set one or the other.
Default "false" is totally fine.
As I said, supporting parallel (it also allows having straits, you have to own both sides to be able to block sea movement) is more important than supporting serial; just think serial has its merits too.
The best would be being able to have both serial and parallel in the same map; so I think even better would be setting this thing for each canal, if possible, instead of with a property (but if is too much hard or not possible, a property is still better than nothing!).
No ideas about the name, atm, actually. I'll think about it, if m3tan doesn't actually care at all (I'm not sure).

There was the suggestion of allowing having OR or AND for WaW, but I personally believe it should not be so, since that map was never meant to work or be balanced or even make sense for an AND behaviour. So I would just keep OR only, not even optional, for WaW, unless several people currently playing it with the AND canals engine behaviour really want it still.
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
If done with a general property, maybe "Control All Canals To Validate Movement" (I would avoid adding "Between Territories" or somesuch, because it is obvious).

If possible, I would suggest doing it this way, instead of with a property:

                <attachment name="canalAttachment4" attachTo="65 Sea Zone" javaClass="games.strategy.triplea.attachments.CanalAttachment" type="territory">
                        <option name="canalName" value="Canal4"/>
                        <option name="landTerritories" value="Malaya:Sumatra"/>
                        <option name="parallelCanal" value="true"/>
                </attachment>
                <attachment name="canalAttachment4" attachTo="110 Sea Zone" javaClass="games.strategy.triplea.attachments.CanalAttachment" type="territory">
                        <option name="canalName" value="Canal4"/>
                        <option name="landTerritories" value="Malaya:Sumatra"/>
                        <option name="parallelCanal" value="true"/>
                </attachment>

                <attachment name="canalAttachment5" attachTo="66 Sea Zone" javaClass="games.strategy.triplea.attachments.CanalAttachment" type="territory">
                        <option name="canalName" value="Canal5"/>
                        <option name="landTerritories" value="Sumatra:Java"/>
                        <option name="parallelCanal" value="true"/>
                </attachment>
                <attachment name="canalAttachment5" attachTo="110 Sea Zone" javaClass="games.strategy.triplea.attachments.CanalAttachment" type="territory">
                        <option name="canalName" value="Canal5"/>
                        <option name="landTerritories" value="Sumatra:Java"/>
                        <option name="parallelCanal" value="true"/>
                </attachment>

The "parallelCanal" setting should be the same (true or false) for all canals having the same "attachment name" or the same "canalName" (just like currently the "canalName" must be the same, as well).
True is default (when missing).
If it is true, then if the canal blocks movement, you can still pass if there is at least another canal not blocking it, instead (which is how it always works in 1.9).
If it is false, then if the canal blocks movement, nothing can pass, no matter the other canals (which is how it worked in 1.8.0.9 and before).

No clue if such a thing would be reasonably feasible, but I think it would be even better than the property (still good), as it would allow having both serial and parallel canals for the same map, in case any mapmakers will want to have them both.

Anyway, this is just a plus; just the property is already good enough (as it fully keeps what it is currently possible, and maybe noone will ever want to have both parallel and serial on the same map).
History plays dice
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Multiple Canals Between 2 Sea Zones

m3tan
I couldn't care less what the property is called but I'd like to see the AND canal feature retained. I'm frankly surprised at how underutilized canals are for simulating things like straits, rivers, and rail ports. For sci-fi maps, they'd be great for stargates, wormholes, black holes, white holes etc... For fantasy portals, magic, teleporters etc...
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Multiple Canals Between 2 Sea Zones

Frostion
In reply to this post by redrum
@Redrum
Between the two names you mentioned I would vote for the "Control All Canals Between Territories To Pass" (Or something similar). The reason is the plain and simple language and explanation. I think the name, whatever the implementation form and place in the xml, should be simple and not demanding a longer thinking and "figuring out what it means"-process.

Also, since xml building seems a lot like a copy-paste thing anyway, then I don't think the length of a descriptive name matters.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Multiple Canals Between 2 Sea Zones

Cernel
In reply to this post by Cernel
I changed idea on this (went back to initial proposal).

Better now to just do the property AND / OR true or false (default OR, as it is easier to use and probably more important and prevalent), which would be a fix for WaW etc., but still allowing mapmakers to have the old behaviour, if they wish.

Only limit of this (not a big one) is that mapmakers can't have both parallel and serial canals, only one or the others (if all canals work the same, you can have serial canals by making them into a single one, tho).

Next step, I think (if you want), would be adding what Veqryn initially proposed: a count for the land territories (default equal to all, if absent), like:
<option name="landTerritories" value="Anglo Egypt:Trans-Jordan" count="1"/>

This, with the AND behaviour, would be an universal system, already (as I previously explained), but, since you have the OR (now default), you can still easily make parallel canals.

I imagine both the property AND / OR and adding a count for the "landTerritories" would be easy changes, and what is good is that they are just additive to the current sistem; thus zero risk of messing up (new is going to be surely equal or better than current, by definition).

Basically just doing the change to OR, redrum proposed, but keeping the old AND optional, and maybe also adding a count for the landTerritories, as Veqryn initally proposed, which can't be bad (and, imo, would be a nice addition; it also could make for things like "Turkey will open the straits to the Allied powers if N of etc. etc. territories are Allied owned start turn").

But, again, just a property AND/OR is already good enough. Having also a count for the land territories would be just a plus.
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 m3tan
Canals were dumb initially. Veqryn expanded them a lot years ago. Not sure if he had projects to use this in some ways, or just did it to give freedom to mapmakers; anyhow the change was not really well popularised, thus noone thought about using the new canals for even quite obvious things, like 1 movement air crossing of straits.

Practically, the whole new possibilities were generally overlooked by almost anyone (I saw them, actually, but had no projects about them), also because the current canal system is not that easy to figure out, as you already noticed.

Theorically, you can actually fully reproduce Chess with canals and 1 PUs fuel cost for all, using the current TA engine, plus adding a useraction for Castling, but that would require a tons of canals related to a great quantities of territory ownerships.
History plays dice
1234