Unit `off' flag display

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: Unit `off' flag display 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: Unit `off' flag display 

"Markus Armbruster" <armbru.TakeThisOut@pond.sub.org> wrote in message
news:87pshwu2f1.fsf@pike.pond.sub.org...
> Markus Armbruster <armbru.TakeThisOut@pond.sub.org> writes:
>
> [...]
>> Which symbol is more intuitive, `=' or `#'?
>>
>> I fear no single character symbol really is. You have to look it up
>> in documentation, or stumble upon the fact that start/stop commands
>> make it appear/go away. Just like for `prd' in census.
>
> Hmm, we could simply explain the symbol, like this:
>
> # type x,y w eff mu def tech ran hard carry
> special
> 3 lb TBD-1 Devastat 21,-3 = 68% 127 3 64 0 0 7S
> 10 f2 P-51 Mustang 21,-3 100% 127 14 377 0 0 7S
> 11 f2 P-51 Mustang 21,-3 80% 127 14 377 0 0 7S
> 12 f2 P-51 Mustang 21,-3 80% 127 14 377 0 0 7S
> 17 np naval plane 21,-3 = 88% 127 14 378 0 0 7S
> 5 planes, 2 stopped (eff marked with =)

Could work. But what's wrong with using something like '!' which is
the universal "negatory"?

plane * ?work=!

Mr. Ed
 >> Stay informed about: Unit `off' flag display 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: Unit `off' flag display 

"Markus Armbruster" <armbru DeleteThis @pond.sub.org> wrote
>> "Mr. Ed" <resvonXXX DeleteThis @XXXyahoo.com> writes:
>>
>>> Markus Armbruster <armbru DeleteThis @pond.sub.org> writes:
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>> Which symbol is more intuitive, `=' or `#'?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Hmm, we could simply explain the symbol, like this:
>>>
>>> # type x,y w eff mu def tech ran hard carry
>>> special
>>> 3 lb TBD-1 Devastat 21,-3 = 68% 127 3 64 0 0 7S
>>> 10 f2 P-51 Mustang 21,-3 100% 127 14 377 0 0 7S
>>> 11 f2 P-51 Mustang 21,-3 80% 127 14 377 0 0 7S
>>> 12 f2 P-51 Mustang 21,-3 80% 127 14 377 0 0 7S
>>> 17 np naval plane 21,-3 = 88% 127 14 378 0 0 7S
>>> 5 planes, 2 stopped (eff marked with =)
>>
>> Could work. But what's wrong with using something like '!' which is
>> the universal "negatory"?
>>
>> plane * ?work=!
>
> Do you suggest to use `!' instead of `=' in the report, or do you
> suggest not to show stoppage there at all, because players can test
> that with a conditional?

Sorry for the confusion... I was suggesting showing '!' in the report
rather than '=' since ! is sort of the global "not". And if '!' worked
with a conditional as well, that just be bonus (plane * ?work#!).

I totally agree that we wouldn't want something examinable only via
a conditional. Enough things are hidden as is.

BTW - this is a fantastic idea that is way overdue. Having to stop
entire harbors, airports and headquarters (or having to move out some
set of their units) just because you didn't want to upgrade a
handful was annoying at best.

Mr. Ed
 >> Stay informed about: Unit `off' flag display 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: Unit `off' flag display 

Just to add to the discussion, as I too would like the ability to start/stop
individual units. But I think it could be more. What if there were a way to
set how much percent that the unit is allowed to improve at the update, instead
of just 0 or all. Instead, what if we allowed units to be improved in multiples
of 10%, from 0% to 90% (anything less than 10% is dead, so the most anything can
improve is 90%)


consider the following example:

# type x,y w eff mu def tech ran hard s/l special
1 jhb B-52 Strato-Fo -24,-4 0 10% 127 20 333 42 0 100kt A
2 jhb B-52 Strato-Fo -24,-4 3 10% 127 20 333 42 0 100kt A
3 jhb B-52 Strato-Fo -24,-4 9 10% 127 20 333 42 0 100kt A
4 jhb B-52 Strato-Fo -24,-4 9 40% 127 20 333 42 0 100kt A
5 jhb B-52 Strato-Fo -24,-4 9 100% 127 20 333 42 0 100kt A
6 jhb B-52 Strato-Fo -24,-4 1 100% 127 20 333 42 0 100kt A

plane #1, is 10% and is configured to improve 0%.
plane #2, is 10% and is configured to improve 30% (to go to 40%).
plane #3, is 10% and is configured to improve 90% (to go to 100%).
plane #4, is 40% and is configured to improve up-to 90% (to go to 100%).
plane #5, is 100% and configured to improve up-to 90% (incase it gets damaged).
plane #6, is 100% and configured to improve up-to 10% (incase it gets damaged
right before the update and you don't want to go broke fixing it while you are
sleeping at the 3am update!).


This then allows players to build all of their units as they wish.


-Bungy




"Markus Armbruster" <armbru DeleteThis @pond.sub.org> wrote in message
news:871wuf30sr.fsf@pike.pond.sub.org...
> I'm working on giving units an `off' flag, like sectors have. When a
> unit is off, it doesn't get repaired at the update. For units capable
> of producing (fishing boats and oil derricks), off also stops
> production.
>
> Sector's off flag is displayed by census in column `prd', which is
> either blank or `no'. It's four characters wide. I don't
> particularly like the prd column. It's meaning is not obvious. A
> wider caption could help, but we don't have space for that.
>
> No matter how we display the off flag, we better display it the same
> for all units. Sectors can remain different, I think.
>
> The unit report with the least space available for new stuff is the
> plane report. In fact, it's 79 characters wide, and thus has no space
> available at all:
>
> # type x,y w eff mu def tech ran hard s/l LSB nuke
> 19 jhb B-52 Strato-Fo -24,-4 100% 127 20 333 42 0 A 100kt
>
> I believe all information here is essential, except for tech. The
> other unit reports show tech, too. I'm reluctant to remove it.
>
> No column can be narrowed, except for the the type column. I'm
> reluctant to do that.
>
> The last two columns are almost always blank, and the meaning of the
> LSB column is unobvious. The following non-blank cases can occur[*]:
>
> LSB nuke
> satellite on ground NN
> satellite in orbit YN
> dto., geosynchronous YY
> carrying nuke, airburst A 100kt
> dto, groundburst G 100kt
>
> I'd like to condense this into:
>
> satellite on ground
> satellite in orbit orbit
> dto., geosynchronous geosync
> carrying nuke, airburst 100kt A
> dto, groundburst 100kt G
>
> This is more intelligible, and it saves two characters.
>
> Instead of adding a prd column, I propose to attach a flag character
> to the eff column, say prefix it with `=' if the unit is off. Looks
> like this:
>
> # type x,y w eff mu def tech ran hard s/l special
> 19 jhb B-52 Strato-Fo -24,-4 =100% 127 20 333 42 0 100kt A
>
> That's not obvious either, but at least it's unobvious without wasting
> space.
>
> Opinions?
>
>
> [*] You can edit nukes onto satellites, but the nukes can't do
> anything useful there, so let's ignore that.
 >> Stay informed about: Unit `off' flag display