Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Feature request: optionally require explicit "no action this turn" for idle units #6884

Closed
ghost opened this issue May 20, 2022 · 5 comments
Closed
Labels

Comments

@ghost
Copy link

ghost commented May 20, 2022

Button "Next unit" goes through units only once. Especially later in the game, when you have tens of units, you may want to move them in certain order, or at least some units after the other. For example, if you want to attack in specific order. However, with the current UI that's not easy.

I can think of two alternatives:

  1. Add a special no-action command to units, something like "Wait" (key W on desktop). When this pseudocommand is issued, unit gets skipped for now, but moved to the end of the queue of "Next unit". So, user intention expressed here would be sth. like "Yes, I want to move this unit, but not now, remind me again later, when I'm done with other units".

  2. Make this explicit: require that all units are moved or explicit command like e.g. "Skip this turn", "Stay put this turn" etc. is always issued. In other words, until all units receive some command (or are fortified/sleeping, those would be ignored as now), button "Next unit" would not become "Next turn". This could be an optional mode activated on "Options" screen, so that by default it would work as now.

@ghost ghost added the feature label May 20, 2022
@SomeTroglodyte
Copy link
Collaborator

Not possible with the current data model. There's no 'queue', just a 'due' flag. And honestly, I can relate - I remember CTP's way - but this is minor. After all, having a brain, and using it to temporarily store a few "to-do"'s is a viable workaround? 😁

Your "2" might correspond to us not clearing 'due' as it is now (when you hit next when next just has selected your general and maybe a few other situations) but on-command only. Much easier to code, but - I don't think that would really help much. I may be wrong..... Yes, maybe, I'd have to see it, my imagination isn't working. Volunteers?

@ghost
Copy link
Author

ghost commented May 21, 2022

Not possible with the current data model.

Well, it is there to be improved. Doesn't strike me as something terribly difficult to write.

After all, having a brain, and using it to temporarily store a few "to-do"'s is a viable workaround? grin

It is, but a nicer UI that tries to prevent simple blunders is always better than saying: "Haha, moron, it's your fault!".

I don't think that would really help much.

This would make the game enforce that you must make a decision for every unit before being able to finish the turn. I.e. either a unit must be fortified/sleeping, you need to move/attack etc. with it, or explicitly say "I don't want to use its [remaining] AP this turn". As I proposed above, this should be only an optional mode, because I'd presume not everyone would like it.

@SomeTroglodyte
Copy link
Collaborator

moron, it's your fault

Now I'll have to find a place in the game to output that quote... Maybe as easter egg... 🐰 🥚

something terribly difficult to write

Go ahead, we'll help you along. And if you indeed start, do tell us where (and how) our getting started documentation is lacking 😀

ghost pushed a commit to doublep/Unciv that referenced this issue May 21, 2022
@SomeTroglodyte
Copy link
Collaborator

"Go ahead"

#6896 little later

👍

SomeTroglodyte added a commit that referenced this issue May 25, 2022
* Implement a waiting command (#6884)

* Resolve misc. issues with commit 27a03bc

* Resolve misc. issues with commit 93d9fe9

* Resolve misc. issues with commit 2ca7ed1

Co-authored-by: Paul Pogonyshev <[email protected]>
@SomeTroglodyte
Copy link
Collaborator

Solved, by @doublep

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant