@Hepps What I believe to have made clear is that I meant that air battles are always going to be followed by the regular (land) battle. That is you cannot do air battles only, without the following standard battle. So, if those two fighters are attacking alone a territory with a zeppelin and a bunch of land units, that is not going to end well for them.
So, since I want it both production based and to be achieved any time, rather than at end round only, and much prefer it showing clearly in the customizable settings, I'll use this hack of having multiple endrounds, as it doesn't appear causing any troubles (and the game is not meant to ever have any triggers). But I'm open to refactor it if it would be possible to achieve the same result with victory triggers/conditions, eventually.
I guess since we assume multiple endrounds is not intentionally supported, no reasons to document it.
Still, I have to say that personally doesn't like the fact that this endround step manages both hardcoded victories and sets uses for triggers, as they seem unrelated matters, and, in my mind, it should have rather been called "victory" step, doing only that (traditionally as the last step in the sequence).
@Numetalfan I didn't test the game, but just did what I suggested to do.
I see in the xml there are several istances of simply "Americans", namely:
<playerProduction player="Americans" frontier="production"/>
<playerRepair player="Americans" frontier="repair"/>
<attachment name="techAttachment" attachTo="Americans" javaClass="games.strategy.triplea.attachments.TechAttachment" type="player">
(the above figures twice)
<option name="capital" value="Americans"/>
Since "Americans" doesn't actually exist, all those instances need to be erased, and the related code being rewritten accordingly.
As I didn't modify or test the game, there may be other issues with it.
@redrum And, yeah, some multi players attacks would be cool. That has always been my pet hate, that Americans and British cannot possibly attack France together.
I agree that this property, while touching an interesting field, does it in a far from polished way, also since TripleA completely fails to display where the fighters actually are.
Actually, I would not say the same about allied fighters on carriers in ww2. Beside auxiliary carriers produced in U.S.America and turned to the British, that I don't consider part of this case, as it would be just turning the carrier to British ownership, carrying British fighters, maybe produced in U.S.America and turned British too, I cannot think of a single instance in which any aircrafts ever attacked anything from a carrier not under control of the same country. The main or only case of allied fighters on carriers would have been American carriers flying British fighters to reinforce British Malta.
Anyways, in general, if I were to decide the basic carriers rules, I would have them working extensively differently from now, and in particular allowing the fighters to take off from the carriers at any moment, also at the end of the carriers' movement, not forcefully at start turn, also since if you think that a turn is like 1 month (and in the standard games is likely several months), a carrier could make back and forth all the Atlantic, while the autonomy of the fighters for a single flight would be over an order of magnitude more limited (but air should be able to fly multiple times in a turn). The current carriers' rules just completely fail realism in the moment, for a single turn, the carrier would have bigger movement than the fighter, as it should be, since they are clearly made under the assumption that the carrier is going to be at least 2 movements slower than the fighters (and there are no fuel costs, so you always want to launch your fighters, and never to transport them as cargo, which is silly, as they were not launching fighters all time just for fun, unlike these games, where fighters on own carriers literally never actually move as cargo). A minimum of realism could be added by allowing the carrier to decide to keep the fighter on board, and move them around, that would be highly relevant also for fuel consumption. But some minimum realism might be actually added by splitting all powers into two, one for air and land and one for sea, except probably sea transports, due to the overly limiting rules around transporting allied land units (that don't make sense, as well, since it's not like transporting the Afrika Korp on Italian ships is harder than transporting Italian stuff).
But when it comes to spaceships is totally a different story.
@Schulz Many of big map games have the problem that the US has trouble contributing to the war effort.I think that the solution would be the placement of naval bases that boost ship speeds so they can get into action. The naval bases could be placed by events or be paid-for builds.The game Quartermaster General uses a system like this.
Just saves a prompt, as if you want to reinforce, you should do it in non combat. But I guess since the engine illegally allows you to "redeploy" during combat move, I guess that would be consistent.
I disagree with units being unable to move during combat move, in general, and would prefer not using that option in a custom map ever. The main reason is that, for general consistency, I believe I should be able to Combat Move units not intended to be sent into battle as part of combined combat operations. For example, I should be able to load a AA gun on a transport, send the transport in a sea battle, and then offload the AA gun into a friendly territory, or load 1 infantry and 1 AA gun into a transport, then offload the infantry into combat and retain the AA gun on board. All such moves are forbidden in the basic rulesets, and I believe this restriction is based on nothing, thus dumb (also since both moves would be legal if the AA gun is already on board). If a unit is not meant to be sent into battle, I'd rather set its attack stack limit to 0 (this is what I did with the general of a Napoleonic Empires variant of mine).
Actually I say it for specifically v3 map in the other maps it may be not problematic because bomber cost is higher in some maps and Italy is part of Germany ant it makes Germany less vulnerable to bombing.