I saw you were working on the resource management, and I'm curious on your current plan. The 'Update the way the player's usable resources are handled'-task denotes a problem with complexity, but no preferred solution.
Note this in the task description:
Finish fleshing out this thought and create tasks revolving around this problem.
Basically, I started defining the task and ran out of time and steam and had to get to bed for work in the morning.
Part of the problem is that I don't have a good grasp of the actual problem. I haven't fully worked it out in my head but it comes down to one thing; my current implementation is far too simple and worked while I was just starting the game development but it's time to provide a more sophisticated approach to it. I'm too tired tonight to finish 'fleshing out my thoughts' so I probably won't be updating it until tomorrow sometime in the afternoon.
As I understand it, Agridomes store their own food, which means every Agridome - object has its own counter and behaviour. This is similar to the original, but I'm not sure why this isn't done with a global counter.
Because it's easier to use the internally built objects to manage all of this instead of global counters. I never liked global counters and it doesn't fit the simulation model specified by the original game. Hooman touches on one of the reasons I went with this approach:
In a way it almost makes more sense to have food stored at agridomes, and potentially losing it if the agridome is destroyed.
Bingo. This is why I went with this design. If you don't manage your structures properly and a structure that contains perishable storage goes inactive for one reason or another, you very well could lose all of that resource. You could even consider regular storage tanks to have 'perishable storage' such that if one was disabled the seals on the containers could leak leading to corrosion and deterioration of the stored resources.
Bulldozing a structure would be handled a little differently (this is where a global counter would make sense); Resources stored within the structure would be pushed into other like structures and whatever remains would effectively be lost. Kinda sucks but that's the way it works in real-life too.*** Quick though while it's on my mind, if a Storage Tanks structure was destroyed during a disaster, bulldozing its remains should probably provide a higher level of resources than an empty Storage Tanks due to whatever remains of its stored resources could be scavenged. ***
On storage of resources (and later items in warehouses); the original did that per object. That is the plan, I gather, but I wouldn't have the faintest on how an implementation would look like.
This is the plan. Without going into too much detail, suffice it to say that at least for resources, I use an object that defines a number of resource types. This object can act as either a simple container (e.g., to pass along construction, manufacturing and recycling values as well as required input resources) and can act as a storage container with push/pull functions (e.g., pushing resources into the container and pulling resources from it). These storage management function check the given capacity of said container and will only allow so many resource in.
By using these resource objects within certain structures, implementation is fairly trivial. The logic is contained within the structure itself on what resources get pushed/pulled from storage and the resource objects themselves handle push/pull requests.
In the original, I would build a tokamak and forget about my energy needs. Energy was implemented, right?
Pretty much. At this point the only energy provided is the meager 50 units by the SEED Power Facility. I haven't yet implemented the Tokamak. I'm not sure exactly when I will but probably after I get the storage situation finished and cleaned up.
The master report was a bit odd, but it could be made useful.
This is true, but simply cloning it and improving it to me is a waste of time. Why fix something that's badly designed when you can redesign something superior? I'm not a great UI designer by any stretch so any thoughts on this front would be helpful especially any mockups. Keeping in mind that I want to kind of stray away from the modified Windows 3.1 GUI approach.