@cernel Are there any places this is an actual problem? Is it actually confusing?

'cargo' is a useful homogenizing term. If we talk about transports being able to transport either things like 'aa guns' or 'infantry', and it has a certain cargo capacity, we can refer to the 'aa guns' and 'infantry' both as having a cargo requirement.

If we instead said that the transport had a troop capacity or a cargo capacity, I don't see the value in that distinction. It further gets confusing whether then considering if tanks require troop capacity or cargo capacity.

Renaming terms is a high effort activity. Particularly so because there is a reasonable chance this will break save games.

FWIW, 'cargo' may refer to people in some cases. EG: "Precious cargo" almost exclusively refers to humans (usually babies or young children) and/or their pet animals.

Overall, my 2 cents is that the term 'cargo' is pretty descriptive, universal, and is not terribly confusing.

@schulz Yes: set the original owner to the nation and the owner initialize to the enemy.

@wc_sumpton

That's it. Now it works. Thx

@cernel

"Russia" territory in vX series not only represent Moscow, it represent all the areas between Moscow and Ural Mountains

v3 actually proved that Manchuria-Moscow distance can be increased but in the expense of making Japan incredibly strong to keep game balance. It actually changed nothing since it is still amost always better to go Atlantic only as USA. Plus there is still no reason to not attack Russia and Japan and take almost all Siberia.

If there is a Hawaiian factory and Germany can be reasonably countered without USA (like in Big World or WaW), a Pacific war is a guarantee thing but expense of (unhistorically) lack of significant US presence in Europe. But we would still have no two ocean going USA. It is easy to make Pacific an active front, hardest thing is making the actual US approach in WWII (%80 Atlantic-%20 Pacific) is a good choice rather than going only Atlantic and Pacific.

I think the issue is actually based on having naval units too expensive compared to ground units and lack of more defense oriented sea units hence making a Pacific war worthless investment as USA.

@lafayette right on yea I wanted to have a "map option" activate which rd the game would start for games that have multiple scenarios with different start dates. That way I could keep it all in 1 xml and not have to update multiple ones.

Only way I know of, is to make a trigger for each instance that would need adjusting, which is a lot. I thought if it was possible to only do a couple code lines and bingo, it would be sweet lol

@thedog said in How to place units in allied or major/minor territory?:

I would try creating more units, the indian units will need to end with say;
Indian units
Infantry_in
Tanks_in
factory_in

These units must specify the factory they can be produced from with
<option name="requiresUnits" value="factory_in/>

British units
Tanks_br
Fighter_br
factory_br

These units must specify the factory they can be produced from with
<option name="requiresUnits" value="factory_br"/>

Then the two factories can produce only their national units.

In your idea you will get units produced by the faction on its own factory located in its own territory?
If "yes", then, sorry, your idea is not relevant to this topic.

@thedog Take a look at these objectives from Global

<attachment name="objectiveAttachment_Italians_3_North_Africa" attachTo="Italians" javaClass="games.strategy.triplea.attachments.RulesAttachment" type="player"> <option name="objectiveValue" value="5"/> <option name="alliedOwnershipTerritories" value="Alexandria:Morocco:Algeria:Tunisia:Tobruk:Libya" count="6"/> </attachment> <attachment name="objectiveAttachment_Italians_4_Control_Iraq_Or_Persia_Or_Northwest_Persia" attachTo="Italians" javaClass="games.strategy.triplea.attachments.RulesAttachment" type="player"> <option name="objectiveValue" value="2"/> <option name="directOwnershipTerritories" value="Iraq:Persia:Northwest Persia" count="each"/> </attachment>

Attachment 3 counts the number of territories held by Italy and the other Axis powers. Although this is an objective attachment, it could just as easily be a triggered victory.

Attachment 4 counts only the territories held by Italy ("directOwnership").

@thedog

now everything works!

@thedog lookin good 🙂

@beelee

I have only comment

no

..close with comment