[Conf] Warn players before reinforcing trapped territories

[Winged Cat]

Concise description:

• When someone is about to reinforce to a trapped territory, display a warning.

Specifics:

• If someone tries to, or is about to, reinforce to a territory that borders nothing and can bombard nothing (whether because the player just took the territory or during reinforcements phase), display a warning of some sort.
• The best warning might be a confirmation dialog box, that only pops up after the player submits such a reinforcement order. (Thus, if presented with a list of places to reinforce to on Chained reinforcements, the warning only appears after someone selects a trapped territory, and does not get in the way of players who avoid that. It also does not appear for players who reinforce 0 armies to a just-conquered trapped territory.)
• If a dialog box is not feasable, an alternate might be bold text that appears just above the reinforcement command window when the selected reinforce-to territory is trapped.
• This only applies to maps such as San Francisco, where a player can be trapped in Alcatraz. This is a particular problem with Battle for Iraq, where a player can be trapped in several territories (the US and Baathist loyalty boxes) and it is not readily apparent that reinforcements to any of those territories will be trapped (see the many many complaints that has generated so far), but this suggestion is intended to fix this problem in general in case it appears on other maps in the future.
• This does not apply to maps such as Waterloo, where a player can be "trapped" in artillery but still able to bombard and otherwise affect territories beyond what the player controls. In particular, this does not apply to Arms Race, since being "trapped" in half the map and being able to bombard the rest is part of the point.
• At the moment, there do not appear to be any maps where a player can be trapped in territories that border or can bombard anything (short of controlling the entire map, at which point the game is won anyway). Therefore, "territories that border nothing and can bombard nothing" seems to be a sufficient test, requiring no reworking of the maps where this occurs, and no foresight in future maps (unless future maps allow for someone to be trapped in territories that border one another, at which point this can be revised).
• This is only a warning, not a prevention. Reinforcing to trapped territories is a legal move, and there may be tactics that rely on that.
• This is separate from the "Automatically eliminate trapped players" suggestion. Both suggestions are intended to improve the site, but they may have different strengths and weaknesses that need discussion, and they will probably affect slightly different areas of the site's code.

This will improve the following aspects of the site:

• Most of the time, reinforcing to a trapped territory will probably be a mistake or a misinterpretation of the map. Reinforcing to trapped territories under such circumstances makes the game less fun for the reinforcing player, and likely also for the other players upon experiencing the reinforcing player's typical (and justified) reaction.

[Timminz]

Just learn from your mistakes, and pay more attention to what you're doing, in the future.

[blakebowling]

Yeah, just read the maps (it's good that a n00b used the form and filled it out in detail )

[Winged Cat]

Yeah, just read the maps

Problem is, "just read the maps" does not work in at least one case (Battle for Iraq - it is not clear that the US & Baathist loyalty squares are traps), which has already met with approval from the foundry (that is, there is no filter for confusing maps - which has its merits, but also leads to this problem). This suggestion is intended to treat and prevent this particular problem, both on that map and on others in the future should it ever happen again.

(it's good that a n00b used the form and filled it out in detail )

Where I come from, "n00b" means the type of newbie who refuses to learn or get along. I hope that is not what you meant to imply here.

[cicero]

Cat
Please accept my apologies on behalf of BlakeBowling.

BlakeBowling
Please check your inbox.

Cicero

[cicero]

Back on topic I tend to agree with Timminz.

Whilst I do see your point cat, If a game/map has difficult elements or traps then it is for players to learn how to overcome those difficulties and traps not for the game engine to say "that doesn't look like a good move to me, do you want to reconsider ?".

Where would it end ?

[Timminz]

Yeah, just read the maps

Problem is, "just read the maps" does not work in at least one case (Battle for Iraq - it is not clear that the US & Baathist loyalty squares are traps)

It does clearly state all attack routes. I agree that that map is quite confusing, but all the information you need is there. It just takes a bit of deciphering.

[blakebowling]

Yeah, just read the maps

Problem is, "just read the maps" does not work in at least one case (Battle for Iraq - it is not clear that the US & Baathist loyalty squares are traps), which has already met with approval from the foundry (that is, there is no filter for confusing maps - which has its merits, but also leads to this problem). This suggestion is intended to treat and prevent this particular problem, both on that map and on others in the future should it ever happen again.

(it's good that a n00b used the form and filled it out in detail )

Where I come from, "n00b" means the type of newbie who refuses to learn or get along. I hope that is not what you meant to imply here.

that's not what I meant at all, I was just saying that you weren't as experienced as some of us, not saying that you weren't willing to learn or change (otherwise you wouldn't be in this forum)

[Thezzaruz]

Whilst I do see your point cat, If a game/map has difficult elements or traps then it is for players to learn how to overcome those difficulties and traps not for the game engine to say "that doesn't look like a good move to me, do you want to reconsider ?".

Whilst I agree that the game engine shouldn't be bothered with things like this I do think that there could be much done to improve the information about all maps and special rules that exist on CC.

[Winged Cat]

Cat
Please accept my apologies on behalf of BlakeBowling.

Accepted and thanks. I figured it was probably just a misuse of words.

Problem is, "just read the maps" does not work in at least one case (Battle for Iraq - it is not clear that the US & Baathist loyalty squares are traps)

It does clearly state all attack routes. I agree that that map is quite confusing, but all the information you need is there. It just takes a bit of deciphering.

I'm playing on Battle for Iraq now, and I disagree that all the information is there. The arrows are so small as to practically not be there, and those are the only clear indicators that those squares are traps. The norm is that there is always a way out of such situations. Even the San Francisco map makes it quite clear and obvious that Alcatraz is an exception to this.

Whilst I do see your point cat, If a game/map has difficult elements or traps then it is for players to learn how to overcome those difficulties and traps not for the game engine to say "that doesn't look like a good move to me, do you want to reconsider ?".

Whilst I agree that the game engine shouldn't be bothered with things like this I do think that there could be much done to improve the information about all maps and special rules that exist on CC.

Quite. My thinking is that Battle for Iraq, having been quenched, is unlikely to have this bug fixed - and it is possible that this situation may come up with other maps in the future, possibly even deliberately used to good effect. If Battle for Iraq is fixed, and future maps are checked for this sort of problem, then this would become less of an issue. (Yes, I have posted a bug report on BfI's thread - but I saw this same bug reported repeatedly in that thread, and written off as "not a bug" repeatedly. If that is acceptable for CC maps in general - and I can see the possibility of multiple "trap" territories figuring into the play of some as-yet-unwritten maps - then the CC engine might use with more proper support of this.)

[blakebowling]

Cat
Please accept my apologies on behalf of BlakeBowling.

Accepted and thanks. I figured it was probably just a misuse of words.

You can't just accept mine

[Winged Cat]

Cat
Please accept my apologies on behalf of BlakeBowling.

Accepted and thanks. I figured it was probably just a misuse of words.

You can't just accept mine

Usually it's best to straight-up accept the clearly stated apology, and not go into nitty details of what was and was not the insult. ("n00b" is an insulting term.)