Equipment brainstorming

[Frostlee]

i think we need a little brainstorming on what we want the the "equipment sistem" to do.

actually i think that the requirement are the following:

allow to choose from a list of equipment and add an amount (absloute, i.e. max 3, or relative, i.e. max 60% of unit size). [already capable]

allow to specify which equipments are optional and wich are reqiered. [already ok]

allow an easy method of finding the equipment you are looking for, even in the case of a very long list. (i.e. tabbing maybe?) [not yet]

allow to put limit on the absolute total number of equipment and the total point of equipments taken. [not yet?]

allow grouping of equipment and allow the above limit for each group (for example max one item from group1 and max 50 points from group2). optionally allowing items in group to "count as" more than one (for example max 2 one hand weapon, but two hand weapon count as two, of course! ) [not yet]

allow "magic equipment" to be taken (i actually dont remebmer well warhammer rules on magic equipment...) maybe as specal "upgdade" options for equipment?


before any discussion on how to implement we need a little brainstorming about the ideas i think...

[IBBoard]

Yeah, brainstorms like this are useful. Sorry to repeat myself, but this kind of input is definitely useful. Now that I've got you and Snowblizz beta testing (hopefully the first of many!) it finally feels like WarFoundry is getting somewhere and I'm getting useful feedback from people who aren't the developer.

I've played Warhammer (back in 5th/6th Edition) and 40K (mainly 3rd with some 4th Edition) but there are probably still things I won't take in to account.

allow an easy method of finding the equipment you are looking for, even in the case of a very long list. (i.e. tabbing maybe?)

Tabbing like that seems good and usable (or something similar in concept, if not layout - it depends how the tabbing can be rendered to make it obvious what it is that'll change when you pick a different tab). We've now got a ticket for it.

allow to put limit on the absolute total number of equipment and the total point of equipments taken. [not yet?]

I'd say that's two things, of which we do the first. Unless you mean "only take one of item X in the whole army" instead of "only take one of X per unit". Per-army would have to be requirements based at the moment, which I wasn't planning to implement until another version.

allow grouping of equipment and allow the above limit for each group (for example max one item from group1 and max 50 points from group2). optionally allowing items in group to "count as" more than one (for example max 2 one hand weapon, but two hand weapon count as two, of course! ) [not yet]

Now you're just getting awkward I did wonder about situations like that when thinking about the percentage limits for weapons. At the moment you can't have more than 100% of a unit equiped with an item - seems sensible, but I did think people might decide that "2 hand weapons" should equal "200% equipped with hand weapons".

My alternative (which should also handle your situation, if I've coded the UI right) is that you could have a "one hand weapon" option, a "two hand weapons" option and a "two-handed weapon" option all in the same MutEx group. That would let you take one and it should hide the others, the only down-side being if you could end up with more combinations that those three (e.g. one hand weapon, or two hand weapons, or hand weapon and spear, or just spear, or two-handed broadsword, or bow and spear, or bow on its own, or...). If the latter is the case then I need a plan for a generic way to handle it.

Limits per item type (e.g. "no more than 100pts from group1") would also be restriction based with a custom handler.

allow "magic equipment" to be taken (i actually dont remebmer well warhammer rules on magic equipment...) maybe as specal "upgdade" options for equipment?

Magic items aren't really upgrades for equipment, they're items in their own right. In some situations you can have normal items as well as magic items of a similar type (e.g. magic bow and normal sword, or magic sword and normal spear).

Magic items in later versions of Warhammer isn't (from what I remember) too different to 40K armoury items - it's defined per-race and characters are allowed set amounts/types. 5th and possibly 6th edition had a central store of magic items (which would need some way to avoid duplication across the current data files) and AFAIK there wasn't a points limit, just a count limit (champions could have one and generals could have three, I think).

[snowblizz]

This is a fairly central part of the application so some thoughts are probably a very good idea! Especially trying to support many different ways of doing stuff.

Equipment tends to interact quite heavily. So at a basic level it makes sense to have magic items be like regular equipment, perhaps giving them an IsUniqueArmy and IsUniqueUnit property, for validation.

The fun part is that they can count as several things. There is the magical warboar for Orcs e.g., some magic armours cannot be combined with a shield (because they already come with one e.g.). You can't really go with the "has 2 hands to hold them" idea either as some units have the ability to carry a range of equipment, it just can choose or is forced to during the game to pick what they use. E.g. you can carry 2-handed weapons and shields, but not use them at the same time. I think most people consider hand weapons, 2-handed weapon and two hand weapons as distinct options. Most option for 2 handweapons are actually purchased as "(1) additional hand weapon".

Of course 40k has time "simple" principle now where they state model comes with "x" or "x+y", it can buy "z" or "t" or "n", replace "x" with "q" and/or "w", replace "y" with "s", "r" and "p", buy "m", exchange "x+y" for "n", "k" and "l".

Most magic items are restricted to race. In fact since they changed "common magic items" to have different costs in different races they really are not common anymore but specific to that race. Furthermore some of the supposedly unique items can be taken in multiples or stacked. Dwarf runes and dispell scrolls and some simialr items. In fact the Dwarfs have their "create magic item" subsystem essentially. It is almost as a subprogram in AB.

I would actually like to see the standard equipment a unit comes with listed. As an example looking at the current system I didn't even see the "broadsword" option until just now. It shouldn't fall under "required equipment" IMHO. In fact I consider that optional equipment.

[IBBoard]

A per-army limit may be a sensible extra, but per-unit limits should already be handled in the equipment definitions.

In terms of magic boars etc, what I'd probably recommend is putting them in a separate "magic items" group or "magic [item type]" groups, keeping them distinct from the mundane versions. Limiting items because you've taken a different item of a similar type probably shouldn't be a "what group are they in" thing.

In terms of multi-handed weaponry/multiple hand weapons then we might find we need multiple mutex groups on a single item. Rollcall only had one mutex group per item, but multiple would let you say that "sword stops you taking broadsword, but allows you to take extra hand weapon" but also "broadsword stops you taking sword or extra hand weapon".

40K is generally more explicit and closer to the implementation of what we'd have. It might be an easy one, comparatively speaking, although if that example has a Codex equivalent then you've got to make sure that you handle the user replacing X and Y with Q and R then trying to exchange X and Y (which they no longer have) with N, K and L.

Dwarf Runes are going to be the awkward one, especially in a generic way. What I have at the moment in the Army files (but nowhere else in the API) is "custom equipment", which is a combination of equipment items. Rollcall has a special "Dwarf Rune Builder", so something similar would be workable for custom equipment.

As for the broadsword being "required", in that situation (where it replaces the sword) it effectively is. You either have to take a sword or a broadsword - one or the other is required. I think the UI might be a bit unintuitive, though, so I'll separate it out and handle it better.

[Frostlee]

well, the "per army" limit is something we definetely need imho.

i also share your ideas for the "magic items". put them in separte groups for more easily show the equipment list, but use the same mutex group for magical sword and normal sword should work.
of course allowing multiple mutex group fo the same item means that the above magical sword will share a mutex with the normal sword and another mutex with another magical item that cannot be taken at the same time...
also something intresting that will make easy the handle of multi hand weapos is adding to mutex group the ability to "count slots". let's explain whit an example.

Code: Select all

we have a sword, an additional weapon, an axe and a two hand  broadsword.
of course you must take one of sword(default), axe or broadsword.
if not taking the broadsword you can take the addiotional weapon, and you
cannot take both the sword and the axe.
so.
lets assign all the weapon the mutex gruop number 1, and lets give it two
slots and mark it with one slot required.
also we assign the sword and the axe the mutex group number 2, with one slot.
the sword, the axe and the additional weapon takes one slot
(for both the groups), while the broadsword uses two slots.
well, now i think we easily have met our conditions.


actually the only contisions not already esplicity met is the "item requires item" (such as the above additional weapon requires you to already have the sword or the axe, but also 40k has some of such requirements). if i'm not wrong Rollcal has such system for units, maybe we can have something similar for the equipment.

unfortunatly still with all of the above we still cannot handle the 40k's "multiple replacing" where any number of items you already have are replaced by any number of items.

anyway before going on, i whish to sit and think a little. are we making a general purpose application to create armies enough flexible, or we are just adding the ability to specific handle single games?
i mean, add this for game X, add tht for game Y, add... and so on?
so, my question is: are all of this "complications" really necessary? and if we let an "equipment validation plugin" do all of the dirty job? maybe just a simple LUA script could solve all of our problem, keeping the project simple and flexible as we wish it to be.
(yes, i admit, it's not totally an idea of mine... i have "copied" it from ArmyCalc, but they use it just for validation, we can use it also to check the equipment...)
let think a little about this.

[IBBoard]

Taking that example you wrote up then I'd do it a little differently and you wouldn't need to care about "slots". In effect the mutex would be doing the slot control for you.

If you have a sword (required) but can swap it for an axe or a broadsword, and can optionally take an extra hand weapon with the sword or axe then I'd assign mutex as follows:

Sword: Mutex1
Axe: Mutex1
Hand weapon: Mutex2
Broadsword: Mutex1, Mutex2

Also, the sword, axe and broadsword would be tagged "required" since one or the other of them is required and if you swap the sword for the axe and don't define the axe as required as well then it is potentially removable.

That combination of Mutex would mean that you could swap the sword for the axe but still be allowed to take a hand weapon (mutex1 swapped for mutex1, but nothing stopping you taking mutex2). Meanwhile, swapping the sword for the broadsword would stop you taking the extra hand weapon as well (mutex1 swapped for mutex1&mutex2 item, which then prohibits the hand weapon).

In terms of changes, we're trying to come up with as generic a system as possible that handles as many of the oddities as possible. Some of them may be too awkward and need to be controlled per game system by a custom validation module, but overall there should be enough commonality that a flexible system will hopefully cope.

The guy behind ArmyCalc had mentioned LUA and scripting for validation, which I hadn't been so keen on (too many potential issues with bad code, and you've got to make sure you can let it know what is available). Instead I was looking to use plugins that read the data through the standard .Net API and used hard-coded rules in combination with the "extra data" stored with objects to work out what was valid. I've just had a quick look and it appears that LUA does have an interface so that it can work with .Net, so we can go that way if we really want to, but IMO putting code in a data file is a Bad Thing(TM).

[Frostlee]

well, nice answer!
your (TM) seems to be a good reason for the way you designed the system!
now i think there's just few open points.

do the "combination of mutex" allow any of the "mutex with slots"? or at least do it cover our needs? well i think it does, but the question could be still open.
anyway, i don't think that the actual system allow multiple mutex group. it is just a string, isn't it?

i still have a question about the "item requires item" and the "multiple replacing" but i haven't thinked a lot about, and so i'll let you speak first and later i'll share my thoughs.

i'm also thinking for a single euipment list, beacause i don't like too much the double "req equip" and "opt equip", but i'll make a design at the "end" of this brainstorm in the thread about the equipment dialog.

[IBBoard]

Mutex is currently singular, but it's just an implementation mechanism for making sure that two or more items can't be taken together. It does just use a string, and the string is just used as a simple matcher of "does the mutex string of already taken item X match the mutex string of potential new item Y? If yes then you can't take it".

The multiple mutexes in combination (like the example I showed above) should handle most situations, but if anyone can find one that doesn't work then I'll take a closer look at it. In effect the mutexes become the slots, so mutex1 was you filling up slot 1, but the broadsword fills up slot 2 as well, which prevents you taking the extra weapon because of mutex2.

Item requires item will be a bit more difficult, as will replacing multiple items (depending on whether those multiple items are multiples or whether they're actually things like "bolter and chainsword"). The default fall-back position is to pair them up as a single item and have "X and Y", which can be replaced with "X and Z" or "X and A" or "P". It's not perfect, but it would work if all else failse.

As for the equipment lists, they're already in the list of things to change It made sense at the time to indicate what could and couldn't be replaced by grouping them in lists, but in hindsight it is a bit pointless and there are better ways to do it from the user's point of view.

[IBBoard]

Mutex is now plural (and has been released in v0.1b3), so that fixes one of our problems. Unfortunately Snowblizz seems to have found some other problems that need resolving, which seems to revolve around different ways of taking equipment.

• 'Normal' unit equipment - your standard "all or nothing"-type equipment like swords, bolters, shooters, etc. Can use Mutex to let people do the alternatives. Also covers simple things like "25% of a Night Goblin unit can have nets"
• 40K-style "special weapons" - Equip up to X people in the unit with a special weapon.
• 40K-style mixed "special weapons" - Equip up to X people in the unit with a special weapon, but with a selection of special weapons (e.g. Orks Boyz can have up to three Big Shoota, Rokkit or Burna)
• Multi-weapon individuals - One person or thing can have more than one weapon (e.g. Dreadnoughts come with two combat weapons and can have another two, which is 400% in the current thinking)
• Multi-weapon mobs - As above, but with more than one of them in the unit (e.g. Killa Kan mobs)

The special weapons may be handled as a special case of mixed special weapons where it is a mix of one. The multi-weapon mobs may be best handled through sub-units if people want to mix and match, but might have to be different. Other than that they are all slightly different situations to take in to account.

The additional complexity is the UI. The most obvious solution would be to have slots, giving us an unnamed slot with no limits for most things, and then "extra weapon" slots defined by each unit type (e.g. Ork Boyz define three) with the mutex on the big shoota/rokkit/burna applying to each slot individually. The problem with that is that you want to handle it in secret without the user being aware of it, because it is added complexity above and beyond what they normally have to consider when doing a paper army. For a paper army they just say "unit with guns, plus two heavy guns and a flame thrower" rather than "unit with guns, plus heavy gun in slot 1, heavy gun in slot 2 and flame thrower in slot 3".

I've got to come up with the best way to define all of this for flexibility and ease of use (because if you don't need the functionality then you shouldn't have to do overly complex data file definitions) but if anyone has any suggestions or selection types that I've missed then please chip in.


[edited to use more sensible/correct percentage usage]

[snowblizz]

I'll cut in a quick note about Ork Boyz that I haven't had the time to "complain" about yet. They can take 1 heavy weapon per 10 models basically. 10-19, 1; 20-29, 2; 30, 3. But I guss that's basically implementable in percentages. Somehow.

Regarding the UI I'm already finding I'm pushing it with the options that exists, it rally isn't too cool to scroll looking for dozens of items. I must admit the AB checkbox style does have a lot going for it. No extra windows. Or I'm just damage by years of use. Its not like the Office ribbon is especially appreciated either.

I guess I should give try at another type of army to see if I find other cool issues to bother you with.

[IBBoard]

Really? Games Workshop really are trying to come up with some awkward rules We should be able to handle it at the moment with a combination of "maxPercentage" and "roundDirection" attributes on a unitEquipmentItem with a round direction of "down" and a maxPercentage of 10.

Regarding the UI I'm already finding I'm pushing it with the options that exists, it rally isn't too cool to scroll looking for dozens of items. I must admit the AB checkbox style does have a lot going for it. No extra windows. Or I'm just damage by years of use. Its not like the Office ribbon is especially appreciated either.

Tonight I really will check out more of how Army Builder works It might not be the best way, but at least I can then come up with ideas in light of the existing tools. The way we have at the moment is based on what Rollcall did and seemed sensible in terms of separating "the unit and what it has" from "what you could take".

Do you think Frostlee's tabbed interface proposal would be any easier? Or perhaps just a larger dialog?

[edit] Hmmm, I guess the tabs can be easier in some situations, although the flexibility of "always arm half of the unit, even after I increase the unit size" would be lost. Some of the options (like changing unit size or name) are not entirely intuitive, though!

[IBBoard]

Sorry for the double-post, but a) I'm the Admin, so I can and b) I don't want this to get lost in a rambling extension of the previous post.

I've been thinking about my "mutex with slots" idea and a slight tweak might work. If we keep the current system for most equipment (no 'slot' specified and mutex applying to everything) then that'll keep most situations happy and usable. What we could then add is specific equipment slots/groups on the unit with a max limit (e.g. "heavy_weapons" with a limit of 4).

With that specified for the unit, certain weapons (e.g. big shootas/burnas/rokkits) could then say that they're applicable to that slot. Mutex groups could still be used on top of that (e.g. where you can take up to three special weapons, but they must all be the same type) but

I think it'd allow for a simple standard solution, hopefully cover most equipment requirements, and be hidden to the user because the big shoota/burna/rokkit would be filling the "eavy_weapon" slot because that's what they're assigned to - the user doesn't have to know it, it just happens. The logic of limiting the unit to 4 heavy weapons would be controlled by the class that says "these are the weapons you can add" and could be validated later by a different process.

[snowblizz]

I don't see why double posting is such a sin. I do it all the time on my club's forum as well. Just so it'll pop to the top. Granted I provide 90% of the conversation and am the admin so I take liberties.

Yes GW does indeed like to make it complicated. I had look last week in the Space Wolf codex and boy will we have our work cut out to make those equipment selections work. Complex doesn't even begin to describe it.

I must admit the tabs did look promising, I think I said so already. TBH what it boils down to IMHO is actually user preference. I think I recall you mentioning UI plugins? so that way later on a niftier approach could be used. IIRC AB3x places all unit options now in a tiny window with check boxes and controls so you can check and click +:s and -:s to change numbers. Very mouse driven. AB2x has the same system except for magic items which have their own dialog which really is sort of unnecessary.
I think tabs could be a good idea, that way you could separate unit options and tie some validation/restriction to it, right? take x amount from "category/tab" heavy weapons, or armour, etc.

Another thing, not to do with equipment but I sorta remembered it now is counting slots for categories. You have percentages but we need to be able to coutn and restrict the number of times each category is used, mins maxes etc.

[IBBoard]

Double-posting is annoying when people post two very short responses ten minutes apart. There's an edit button there if you need to add anything, and with short times between posts then it is unlikely that anyone actually read your first one, so adding to it takes up less space, doesn't extend the topic for no reason, and doesn't bump your post count (some people are rank/post count obsessed )

Back on-topic:

I noticed the Space Wolf codex this month and wondered how awkward that'll be. I haven't read anything obvious yet, but I'll trust you on it being complex. Hopefully some form of mutex and slots will cover it!

UI plugins would be possible in theory, but the more likely candidate is a fork of the UI with things changed. At the moment we just show a simple tree of units with points values, where as Army Builder shows stats and the lot. To me that's not important (you either roughly know the stats yourself, or you need them at game time - most of the rest of the time it doesn't matter and they're just clutter) but I guess some people will want it.

I did ponder an alternate equipment UI that made use of the "multi-document interface" that we have now by adding another floating window, this time containing the available equipment for you to either drag-and-drop or select and click "add". It'd probably be smoothest to just add a default amount and let users edit it if they don't like it, but it might be workable unless it gets too cluttered.

Adding multiple equipment items at the same time should be doable (turning it in to more of an "edit all equipment" dialog than a "add item" dialog) but it wasn't what I'd intended and it would need a bit of reworking on the validation, since it currently works as "I want to take # of item X, and the unit has A, B and C - is this okay?"

Category slots will need its own discussion thread (especially if you want to discuss any oddities like missions and the Space Wolves having double HQ), but I was planning it as a separate validation plugin, since Warhammer does it differently to 40K and I'm sure other game systems do it differently again (or don't care).

[Frostlee]

just a little quite OT question:
i have noticed that at least one equipment is needed for each unit (from the race.xsd).
but what about unit not carring anything? think about beasts in WH (high elves great hawks) or other game systems (warmaster is the one in which i spotted this question)...
it should be easy a little fix for such unit i think.