@thedog the placing of units without a factory is not the problem, I want to get rid of that message

@torpedoa Are you sure you want to have a 1v1 game in the first place? This seems a game that, realistically, has to be more than two-sided (and arguably it should be a FFA). It not like there is something like "Roma" and everything else is fighting against it only.

@rogercooper that's pretty interesting could really get pretty accurate with initial placements.

@torpedoa there are several ways we handle ffas when i play. 1: all war, all the time, no alliances, no deals, no egging on others to attack a faction. 2: we only allow each faction to try to instigate one diplomatic function per turn, even if that action fails or is turned down, only one diplomatic action per turn. 3: unlimited diplomatic actions per turn. 4: adjust settings so "deals" take an extra round to "break" so there is less back-stabbing and surprises. 5: usually when one faction is stronger then the others, there is an unspoken alliance against the strong faction.

@wc_sumpton @Cernel I think i have to explain to myself that the charioteer is just too much additional weight to be able to scramble together with the chariot then. Because the chariot unit is not empty to begin with. lol I think i can live with that. Sounds reasonable. Dont you think?

Playing without alliances and territories ownerships at all, all factions will conquer all neutral territories where faction units are put, immediately after the first combat move of any faction.

@ubernaut Eventually you can read that and have some clue? This is really strange. https://forums.triplea-game.org/topic/2946/game-without-any-territory-ownership-set-questions-and-suggestions

@lafayette yea so i have pinta and I can do some stuff but trying to change the whole thing/color usually doesn't work unless it's gray ( forget what it's called ) and I can use those for Germans.

@numetalfan Not to hard. I would use a 'switch' condition to insure that only one player received the captured unit, and a limited 'resource' to build that captured unit. <!-- Add to the resourceList --> <resourceList> ... <resource name="CapturedMountainTroops"/> </resourceList> <!-- Add to production --> <production> ... <productionRule name="buyCapturedMountainTroops"> <cost resource="PUs" quantity="4" /> <cost resource="CapturedMountainTroops" quantity="1"/> <result resourceOrUnit="Mountain troops" quantity="1"/> </productionRule> ... </production> <!-- The 'switch' trigger --> <attachment name="conditionAttachmentCapturedMountainTroops" attachTo="Switzerland" javaClass="games.strategy.triplea.attachments.RulesAttachment" type="player"> <option name="switch" value="true"/> </attachment> <!-- If Germany captures the factory --> <attachment name="triggerAttachmentGermanyCapturesSwisFactory"attachTo="Germans" javaClass="games.strategy.triplea.attachments.RulesAttachment" type="player"> <!-- Add 'switch' conditions --> <option name="conditions" value="...:conditionAttachmentCapturedMountainTroops"/> <!-- Give Germany 3 resources --> <option name="resource" value="CapturedMountainTroops"/> <option name="resourceCount" value="3"/> <!-- Change 'switch' to false --> <option name="playerAttachmentName" value="RulesAttachment" count="conditionAttachmentCapturedMountainTroops"/> <option name="playerProperty" value="switch" count="false"/> </attachment> Because every player should check the same 'switch' once its false it will block all other players and the resource will insure only a certain amount of units will be built. Next... Cheers...

@thedog Most maps are set up to work with 2.6 This could be an example: https://github.com/triplea-maps/age_of_tribes Note the 'description.html' file: https://github.com/triplea-maps/age_of_tribes/blob/master/description.html Note the extracted game notes files (*.html): https://github.com/triplea-maps/age_of_tribes/tree/master/map/games

@numetalfan heh heh : ) Make sure you can still place as many dudes as you want in France and aren't limited in case you get liberated and they Power up. Rare but ... : )

@beelee all problems solved - indead, it was the tech tested those bunkers, everything works now, very well

FUTURE WARS I was looking into your map right now... My feedback for you: I give you one thumb up for the work you did in the .xml - what will not only help me. And I won't give u my other thumb down - so I hack my hand off. But unfortunately I am a WWII man, so I am not really into "Lord of the Rings meets today's military" - to say it like I see it. But I like your fields turning into that green if you have captured them - that looks kinda fresh. I guess because the whole map doesn't belong to anybody - except that circles. And that makes a nice contrast. And about intellij - if you say you're using notepad++ the picture you posted is from notepad++? If so, please let me know how to turn it into that black style. Thankxxx

@rogercooper ahh... gotcha ya

@thedog right on so sea transport won't work on 99 plus ? I guess I gotta do some math for the Land and Air boys then : ) Thanks

@rogercooper As "movementCostModifier" is part of territoryEffectAttachment is is very limited to what else you can do. However if each unit type has its nationality/faction built into the unit like "infantry-usa" or "roman-infantry" then you can target who gets the benefit or not. I think that might be as good as is gets.

I'd like this feature as well. It could work great to mimic Brest-Litovsk agreement more realistically without using triggers or Communists. For example CP occupies all these territories but unables to advance more deeper while Russia (Whatever tsarist, democratic or communist) can retake these teritories if CP doesn't defent them properly. So CP will need to tie significant forces to keep these territories.

@rogercooper said in great accurate resource for map making!: 40480105 Thank you Spy!

@pact_of_plastic yea just when it tells you theres a new one. Idk. i guess it doesn't really matter. So you're on the 2.5 stable ? Edit just saw your other post so yea 2.5.

@beelee ++Good! It works, thanks