Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
More options
-
Please note: In an effort to ensure that all of our users feel welcome on our forums, we’ve updated our forum rules. You can review the updated rules here: http://forums.wolflair.com/showthread.php?t=5528.
If a fellow Community member is not following the forum rules, please report the post by clicking the Report button (the red yield sign on the left) located on every post. This will notify the moderators directly. If you have any questions about these new rules, please contact support@wolflair.com.
- The Lone Wolf Development Team
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
A ruleset disallows a whole composition group
- Thread starter Mathias
- Start date
At 07:23 PM 3/3/2007, you wrote:
I take it that the list is rather long, else you wouldn't have flagged this as a problem. In general, the list of exceptions is short, which is why AB does things the way it does. How would you recommend we modify this in the future?
-Rob
Unfortunately, there is no way to cause a unit to be hidden as an exception other than via the Member tagexpr. So you'll need to add the Member tagexpr to all the units impacted by the ruleset.If a ruleset dis-allows everything within a certain composition group, there has to be a better way of hiding all those units than the member expression, but I can't seem to find it.
I take it that the list is rather long, else you wouldn't have flagged this as a problem. In general, the list of exceptions is short, which is why AB does things the way it does. How would you recommend we modify this in the future?
-Rob
Unfortunately, Aeronautica Imperialis lists 18 scenarios in the rulebook (usually with different force compositions for each side), and I'm trying to include them all. There are actually only around 5 rulesets to implement for all those (for example, around a third of the scenarios give one side or the other only fighters), so I'm trying to assign everything to base rulesets and rely on inheritance. So, if the ruleset expression in the member tag could check on the base ruleset, that would be useful.
Around half to 2/3 of the units can be affected by the rulesets (bombers and ground defenses). Although, I can see the next book for AI including a scenario that gives one side only ground defenses, which would mean that all the fighters need to be restricted, giving everything a member expression.
I may have to go with only the 5 force organizations that actually exist, and include a long note section for which scenarios they belong to, since the rule choices don't support cascading menus.
I'm planning to accomplish things with a couple of global tags, to note whether each composition group is currently available.
The other option might be to modify the rules for profiles - allow someone to set a maximum limit of 0 - and have the composition profile then exclude everything in that composition group.
Around half to 2/3 of the units can be affected by the rulesets (bombers and ground defenses). Although, I can see the next book for AI including a scenario that gives one side only ground defenses, which would mean that all the fighters need to be restricted, giving everything a member expression.
I may have to go with only the 5 force organizations that actually exist, and include a long note section for which scenarios they belong to, since the rule choices don't support cascading menus.
I'm planning to accomplish things with a couple of global tags, to note whether each composition group is currently available.
The other option might be to modify the rules for profiles - allow someone to set a maximum limit of 0 - and have the composition profile then exclude everything in that composition group.
At 09:17 AM 3/6/2007, you wrote:
-Rob
I don't understand this request. Can you give me a detailed example of what you have in mind?Unfortunately, Aeronautica Imperialis lists 18 scenarios in the rulebook (usually with different force compositions for each side), and I'm trying to include them all. There are actually only around 5 rulesets to implement for all those (for example, around a third of the scenarios give one side or the other only fighters), so I'm trying to assign everything to base rulesets and rely on inheritance. So, if the ruleset expression in the member tag could check on the base ruleset, that would be useful.
That's not very maintainable. :-(Around half to 2/3 of the units can be affected by the rulesets (bombers and ground defenses). Although, I can see the next book for AI including a scenario that gives one side only ground defenses, which would mean that all the fighters need to be restricted, giving everything a member expression.
Cascading menus? How would you use cascading menus? Please outline how this would all work and maybe there's an alternative approach that could achieve the same net result.I may have to go with only the 5 force organizations that actually exist, and include a long note section for which scenarios they belong to, since the rule choices don't support cascading menus.
Using just a few global tags that are assigned by various rulesets sounds like a good approach.I'm planning to accomplish things with a couple of global tags, to note whether each composition group is currently available.
This won't eliminate the units from being selectable, but it will definitely achieve the goal of proper validation. So this might be a much simpler solution that yields the desired net result.The other option might be to modify the rules for profiles - allow someone to set a maximum limit of 0 - and have the composition profile then exclude everything in that composition group.
-Rob
1) Since there are actually only around 5 rulesets, although they end up having around 30 different names, I was hoping to have the ruleset.? tag expression look up the base ruleset that was in use. I realized there's a better way to do this - use a tag expression to look for ruleset.FtrOnly? - all the rulesets based on the same rules will be named in a pattern.
3) I'm thinking in terms of a windows pulldown menu sort of thing:
Small Games
Large Games
Campaign Games Scenario 1 Attacker
(tab)(tab) Defender
(tab) Scenario 2
(tab) Scenario 3
(tab) etc.
The scenarios have names, and each of the three game types has 6 scenarios, each of which can have different compositions for attacker and defender.
(this forum apparently won't let me put in large numbers of spaces or tabs, which is why things look odd in my display)
5) I was already going to set the profiles to allow no units from specific composition groups when the scenario doesn't allow it. What I'm suggesting is a change to the way Armybuilder works, so that if the profile for the ruleset allows no units of that composition, Armybuilder considers those units to have failed their member expression.
3) I'm thinking in terms of a windows pulldown menu sort of thing:
Small Games
Large Games
Campaign Games Scenario 1 Attacker
(tab)(tab) Defender
(tab) Scenario 2
(tab) Scenario 3
(tab) etc.
The scenarios have names, and each of the three game types has 6 scenarios, each of which can have different compositions for attacker and defender.
(this forum apparently won't let me put in large numbers of spaces or tabs, which is why things look odd in my display)
5) I was already going to set the profiles to allow no units from specific composition groups when the scenario doesn't allow it. What I'm suggesting is a change to the way Armybuilder works, so that if the profile for the ruleset allows no units of that composition, Armybuilder considers those units to have failed their member expression.
At 07:08 PM 3/12/2007, you wrote:
So this is going to require a lot of thought to figure out a different solution that avoids the nasty implications.
-Rob
That's exactly the sort of situation we added the wildcards for! Excellent!1) Since there are actually only around 5 rulesets, although they end up having around 30 different names, I was hoping to have the ruleset.? tag expression look up the base ruleset that was in use. I realized there's a better way to do this - use a tag expression to look for ruleset.FtrOnly? - all the rulesets based on the same rules will be named in a pattern.
While it's not quite as nice as cascaded menus, you can come pretty close using rule contexts. Start with having on rule context where the user chooses one of the main categories (e.g. small, large, etc.). Require the user to pick exactly one ruleset from the context. Then have seaprate rule contexts for each of the categories, and have those categories enabled based the selection of the corresponding category ruleset. The net effect is that only the rule context for the selected category appears, and the user can pick an appropriate ruleset for that category.3) I'm thinking in terms of a windows pulldown menu sort of thing:
Small Games
Large Games
Campaign Games Scenario 1 Attacker
(tab)(tab) Defender
(tab) Scenario 2
(tab) Scenario 3
(tab) etc.
The scenarios have names, and each of the three game types has 6 scenarios, each of which can have different compositions for attacker and defender.
(this forum apparently won't let me put in large numbers of spaces or tabs, which is why things look odd in my display)
This may seem easy, but it's just the opposite. The problem is that membership handling controls what entities can be selected, which occurs BEFORE everything else. Meanwhile, composition profiles are tied into the validation engine, which is process AFTER everything else. So what you're asking for is a very fundamental change that would have significant ramifications throughout the AB engine.5) I was already going to set the profiles to allow no units from specific composition groups when the scenario doesn't allow it. What I'm suggesting is a change to the way Armybuilder works, so that if the profile for the ruleset allows no units of that composition, Armybuilder considers those units to have failed their member expression.
So this is going to require a lot of thought to figure out a different solution that avoids the nasty implications.
-Rob
While it's not quite as nice as cascaded menus, you can come pretty close using rule contexts. Start with having on rule context where the user chooses one of the main categories (e.g. small, large, etc.). Require the user to pick exactly one ruleset from the context. Then have seaprate rule contexts for each of the categories, and have those categories enabled based the selection of the corresponding category ruleset. The net effect is that only the rule context for the selected category appears, and the user can pick an appropriate ruleset for that category.
I tried this originally, but it required me to leave the rule selection screen and re-enter before the correct context became enabled. Do I put the legality on the rules themselves, instead of the context?
At 07:20 PM 3/15/2007, you wrote:
-Rob
That sounds like a bug within AB. Every time you change rules, all of the inter-dependencies should update themselves properly. If that's not occurring, then something is wrong within AB - possibly just a UI refresh not occurring after the engine update, but still a bug.Quote:
While it's not quite as nice as cascaded menus, you can come pretty close using rule contexts. Start with having on rule context where the user chooses one of the main categories (e.g. small, large, etc.). Require the user to pick exactly one ruleset from the context. Then have seaprate rule contexts for each of the categories, and have those categories enabled based the selection of the corresponding category ruleset. The net effect is that only the rule context for the selected category appears, and the user can pick an appropriate ruleset for that category.
I tried this originally, but it required me to leave the rule selection screen before the correct context became enabled. Do I put the legality on the rules themselves, instead of the context?
-Rob
At 02:36 AM 3/18/2007, you wrote:
This is different from what I have on the todo list. At least, I *think* there is a difference here. I'm referring to the thread entitled "Feature request - Selecting multiple items in a context" that started on 4/18/06. Is that the thread you're referring to as well?this is the same behaviour we reported a while back, I think you had added it to the list of stuff for the next AB release?