Military Advisor

[EmperorFool]

I'm working on completing this screen today (hopefully), but I added something quick last night (I majored in procrastination at UCLA): a new Orders grouping so you can group units by their orders (heal, sleep, fortify, patrol, blockade, intercept, automation, etc). It's available now in SVN.

One thing that is missing is that if you give a unit multiple orders (e.g. go to plot X and then pillage), it is put into the Go To group. I will eventually add all those extra actions.

 

[The Doc]

I think, blockade is missing. Or does it count to patrol?

 

[EmperorFool]

I think, blockade is missing. Or does it count to patrol?

It's Plunder in the Civ code, so that's what I call it in code to match. However, it should be Blockade when displayed to the player (fixed in XML now).

 

[EmperorFool]

Status update:

• Selecting a second-level group that shows up in multiple 1st level grouping items selects it under that 1st level grouping item only.
• Groups are no longer confused with each other, e.g. selecting Domestic City no longer selects Swordsman.
• Strategic Advantages tab is mostly done: layout, bonuses and units, though I am working on the units as we changed the columns earlier.
• I still need to remove the ? units from the Sit Rep tab. It will now only show units that either your or the AI can build that the other cannot for sure. The cases where you aren't sure due to trade network disconnection are assumed to be unbuildable by the AI. The new third tab will show the gory details.

I was hoping to have this done last night, then today, but that was not to be. The night's still young, however.

 

[EmperorFool]

I know we've hashed this over many times, but I'm just not entirely happy with the results. In the screenshot below, notice a few things:

1. The set of units that I cannot build due to resources or access to coast is always the same. Should this be shown once at the top?
2. Should I omit the boats on my side instead of treating coastal access as a missing resource?
3. Note that for the two rivals that have access to Horse, Chariot is listed in their Can Build column and still in our Need Resource column. Is this still what we want?
4. It's hard to tell that I know I have a metal advantage over Qin by looking at the units. The fact that I know he cannot build Swordsman is obscured since it's listed in the Needs Resource column for every rival. Should I split the last column into two columns (Maybe and Cannot) like I originally planned?

Spoiler Screenshot :

Generally, does this look useful or too cluttered? I find it a bit cluttered and am trying to devise ways to clean it up and still present the full picture. I'm leaning back toward changing the columns to "Advantage" and "Possible Advantage".

For example, the only place that Chariot would be listed is as an Advantage for Qin and Jaio II. Swordsman and the other metal-needing units would show as a Possible Advantage for me against every rival except Qin where they would show in the Advantage column and against Jaio II where they wouldn't show.

 

[Cybah]

one question to the ressources: which ressources are shown? all strategic right? iron, copper, ivory, horse, oil, uranum, aluminum? or simply all ressources any unit need? is there a mechanism?

I'm leaning back toward changing the columns to "Advantage" and "Possible Advantage".

For example, the only place that Chariot would be listed is as an Advantage for Qin and Jaio II. Swordsman and the other metal-needing units would show as a Possible Advantage for me against every rival except Qin where they would show in the Advantage column and against Jaio II where they wouldn't show.

Sounds goood.

 

[CellKu]

1. The set of units that I cannot build due to resources or access to coast is always the same. Should this be shown once at the top?
2. Should I omit the boats on my side instead of treating coastal access as a missing resource?
3. Note that for the two rivals that have access to Horse, Chariot is listed in their Can Build column and still in our Need Resource column. Is this still what we want?
4. It's hard to tell that I know I have a metal advantage over Qin by looking at the units. The fact that I know he cannot build Swordsman is obscured since it's listed in the Needs Resource column for every rival. Should I split the last column into two columns (Maybe and Cannot) like I originally planned?

ad 1. I think if you rework your approach as you suggested (your advantage/possible advantage-approach below) that might not be an issue anymore. I think the advantage is what is interesting, so I see no need to tell me what I can't build (this information is already (indirectly) included in the advantage column).

ad 2. Yeah, omit them. Makes it less cluttered.

ad 3. as above ad 1.

ad 4. I think that is a good idea. However, do you account for trading? What if Qin who has no iron later trades for iron and builds swordsmen?


One question to better understand your approach to "need resource":
How do you treat the situation when the player has briefly seen that the AI has a certain unit (let's say a swordsman), but has not seen whether the AI has the necessary resource (e.g. iron)? For example while moving my boat along the coast (of an otherwise unknown island) I have briefly got a glimpse of an AI swordsman. Will that information be available in your screen as "can build"? What if I saw a mined iron while floating along, but have no trade connections as of yet?

Generally, does this look useful or too cluttered? I find it a bit cluttered and am trying to devise ways to clean it up and still present the full picture. I'm leaning back toward changing the columns to "Advantage" and "Possible Advantage".

For example, the only place that Chariot would be listed is as an Advantage for Qin and Jaio II. Swordsman and the other metal-needing units would show as a Possible Advantage for me against every rival except Qin where they would show in the Advantage column and against Jaio II where they wouldn't show.

I think that is a good idea. In the end what I want to know is whether I have an advantage (a possible advantage) over another civ or not. As it is now, that information is a bit obscure. So, I support your advantage/possible advantage approach.

 

[Cammagno]

I think that is a good idea. In the end what I want to know is whether I have an advantage (a possible advantage) over another civ or not. As it is now, that information is a bit obscure. So, I support your advantage/possible advantage approach.

+1

abcdef

 

[ruff_hi]

I know we've hashed this over many times, but I'm just not entirely happy with the results. In the screenshot below, notice a few things:

1. The set of units that I cannot build due to resources or access to coast is always the same. Should this be shown once at the top?
2. Should I omit the boats on my side instead of treating coastal access as a missing resource?
3. Note that for the two rivals that have access to Horse, Chariot is listed in their Can Build column and still in our Need Resource column. Is this still what we want?
4. It's hard to tell that I know I have a metal advantage over Qin by looking at the units. The fact that I know he cannot build Swordsman is obscured since it's listed in the Needs Resource column for every rival. Should I split the last column into two columns (Maybe and Cannot) like I originally planned?

I ... am trying to devise ways to clean it up and still present the full picture. I'm leaning back toward changing the columns to "Advantage" and "Possible Advantage".

I've been thinking about this after looking at your screenshot. I would also support a return to ...

    Advantage                    Disadvantage
Definite    Maybe             Definite    Maybe

That was, if we have metal and they don't - we see a sword definite advantage. If they have horses and we don't - we would see a definite chariot disadvantage. If we lose trade access, that chariot becomes 'maybe' while our sword also becomes a 'maybe'.

I think that is much clearer regarding what is an advantage and what is a disadvantage.

Re boats: I would only show boats if parties have access to the coast. Who cares if they have boats and all of your cities are land locked! Hmmn - actually - that might be a huge disadvantage if you were playing on a water heavy map ... they could expand while you couldn't. Ok, show boats.

 

[The Doc]

btw: Is it possible to extend the rows for each leader to the left and the right so that they make full use of the blue box they are in? That would give the stuff at the sit-rep and the strat. res. tab more space and it would also look less cluttered, IMHO.

 

[EmperorFool]

Which ressources are shown? . . . All ressources any unit need?

This is exactly what I do. Any resource that is required by at least one unit is added to the set of "strategic resources" in UnitUtil.

However, do you account for trading? What if Qin who has no iron later trades for iron and builds swordsmen? . . . How do you treat the situation when the player has briefly seen that the AI has a certain unit (let's say a swordsman), but has not seen whether the AI has the necessary resource (e.g. iron)?

The approach I take is very naive, unfortunately. Here's what I do:

• If you are connected to their trade network, I check if they have access to at least 1 of the resource. This ignores the source of that resource (not that I can find that out anyway), whether it be from their own territory or a trade with another civ.
• If you are not connected, I assume they have no resources. Every unit that requires at least one resource gets put into the "Needs Resource" column.

The problems with being trickier include

• If you see a Swordsman, maybe it was a gift from another civ.
• If you see an Iron mine with a road, maybe it's not hooked up to their trade network.
• If you saw an Iron mine that is now in the fog of war, maybe it's been pillaged since you last saw it.

Ideally the player would be able to select the resources that they believe each rival has and have the screen use that information to determine which units are available.

For example, you might say that Qin has Iron and then deselect it once you've pillaged his mine. Sure, he might have another Iron mine you don't know about, but when you saw him sending more and more Swordsman to the front line as reinforcements, you could again select Iron for him.

One thing I might at least be able to do is check the known deals (visible when hovering over an attitude cell on the Glance tab) to see if Qin is getting Iron via a trade. Does anyone know if this information is always available regardless of the war situation?

btw: Is it possible to extend the rows for each leader to the left and the right so that they make full use of the blue box they are in?

I'm waiting to complete the functionality of the screen before making it pretty, otherwise I'd have to make it pretty several times.

The problem with the Sit Rep tab is that the number of columns varies, and doing auto-expand is a PITA. This Strat Adv tab should be easier since the set of columns is static.

BTW, what should I show then on the Sit Rep tab for the Strat Adv columns? Just the Definite columns for Us and Them? Or should we remove them entirely from that tab and add things like Attitude, possible DP/PA, possible embargo?

 

[EmperorFool]

Here's how the screen looks now that I've changed it around to Known/Possible advantages.

Spoiler :

 

[ruff_hi]

EF - want to tackle something hard? I would love the ability to click on an AXE icon when I see one of their axes wandering around and put a great big X over the top - just so I know that it isn't possible anymore.

 

[EmperorFool]

I would love the ability to click on an AXE icon when I see one of their axes wandering around and put a great big X over the top - just so I know that it isn't possible anymore.

Do you mean click on the unit on the map? And when you do, it moves it from the Possible column to the Known column (or removes it if you can build them as well)? And where does the big X go?

This is similar to my idea above of being able to select resources that the screen will assume they have access to, except for units instead of resources.

This would be awesome, but I don't see it happening before the release given how much work that would be. I suppose if I made it one-way with no way to remove units from the assumed list, it wouldn't require as much effort.

 

[Cammagno]

Ideally the player would be able to select the resources that they believe each rival has and have the screen use that information to determine which units are available.

For example, you might say that Qin has Iron and then deselect it once you've pillaged his mine. Sure, he might have another Iron mine you don't know about, but when you saw him sending more and more Swordsman to the front line as reinforcements, you could again select Iron for him.

I really like this!

BTW, what should I show then on the Sit Rep tab for the Strat Adv columns? Just the Definite columns for Us and Them? Or should we remove them entirely from that tab and add things like Attitude, possible DP/PA, possible embargo?

I'm for removing, no need of the same info in two tabs of the same screen

 

[Cammagno]

Here's how the screen looks now that I've changed it around to Known/Possible advantages.

Spoiler :

Good, much clearer now!

 

[Cammagno]

Do you mean click on the unit on the map?

Better on the unit icon in the tab

And when you do, it moves it from the Possible column to the Known column (or removes it if you can build them as well)?

Uhm... I don't know, maybe the unit was a gift, and in any case what happens if then the resource allowing it is lost? IMHO this is ok only if you can provide also a rest button which deletes these user changes.

 

[EmperorFool]

Woot, I think it's done. I've committed the following fixes/changes:

• Fixed group selection on Deployment tab. The Swordsman group in Friendly Territory is not a different group from the Swordsman in Enemy Territory, and it's also different from the Woodsman II promotion group.
• Moved Strategic Advantages to its own tab. Shows advantages versus units that can and cannot be built. Also shows the resource advantages.
• Added Possible Embargos to the SitRep tab.
• Sit Rep always shows Vassals and DefPacts columns, even when empty. Should hide the vassals column when they are not allowed due to game settings, probably. This tab still doesn't show teams (PAs).
• Fixed problem with clicking in header causing a redraw problem. Also fixes redraw problem after opening and closing Civilopedia by clicking units.

Here are the latest views. I'd still like to add the attitude to the Situation Report in the future, but I'll hold off until after release just to be safe.

Spoiler Situation Report :

Spoiler Strategic Advantages :

Please, please test this screen thoroughly over the next couple days so we can release in confidence.

 

[Cybah]

one question to the ressources:

which ressources are shown/listed? all strategic right? iron, copper, ivory, horse, oil, uranum, aluminum? or simply all ressources any unit need? is there a mechanism?

good work btw.

 

[Cammagno]

one question to the ressources:

which ressources are shown/listed? all strategic right? iron, copper, ivory, horse, oil, uranum, aluminum? or simply all ressources any unit need? is there a mechanism?

good work btw.

I think that your question already received an answer, look here: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=7319880&postcount=291
If not, please tell us in more details what you'd like to know.