Instead of adding a new 'canStack' property, why not just add the 'count' value to the 'bonusType' property. So for @Frostion's Siege-Tower:
<option name="bonusType" value="Cover" count="3"/>
would allow 3 Siege-Towers to stack the support together.
The absent of count would equal 1. So if @Frostion had a Battering-Ram and its supportAttachment:
<option name="bonusType" value="Cover"/>
Then the Battering-Ram could not stack support with itself, but it would still stack with the Siege-Tower so that:
2 Siege-Towers would equal -2 support for enemy fortifications
1 Siege-Tower and 1 Battering-Ram would equal -2 support for enemy fortifications
2 Battering-Rams would equal just a -1 support for enemy fortifications.
1 Siege-Tower (count="3") with two Battering-Rams would still gain the -3 support.
Just some thoughts.
@Windrunner21 Click Download Maps from the opening screen. Then look under tools and you will find "Map Making Tutorial".
I would suggest creating a simple xml-only mod before trying to create a new map from scratch.
@RogerCooper @Cernel @Hepps
As my ideas for this mod have morphed, those two are probably the closest ones yet. Thanks!
I will probably still end up wanting to change them eventually, but I can definitely make some tweaks like impassible or 0 PU territories to make them work for now. Thanks again!!
@LaFayette said in Unit Flags - Are there any maps that would like to default it to on?:
players who always turn on flags for specific maps. In those cases it seems there is evidence flags should be on.
Then again, I suspect most people did not realize the flags feature was there or how to turn it on. I'd guess we won't know the answer to "for which maps do users turn flags on?" without adding feature usage tracking code. (Perhaps I'm wrong though and there are some maps that are clear candidates.)
@Hepps I recall that, back then during early development, I reiterately tried to have Imbaked making the gas into a tech, like tanks. Instead, he insisted that he wanted gas available since start game, but I don't recall what was his reason for it. The problem with techs that unlock units is that they have a fixed cost for unlocking, thus they induce spam, by making the unit relatively less expensive the more you buy it (as the research cost will be divided amongst more TUV, lowering the markup). So, basically, the risk is that either the tech is not good to get or once you get it you need to spam it a lot to make it worthwhile. This is likely the root of the problem of the current NML Mustard Gas and Working Women tech combo.
With this said, unless the map goes a bit the way of Civil War, and you have manpower vs manufacture, so that, for example, you cannot spend all your income in spamming infantry (hence the gas would be alternative to other materials, not much to infantry, reducing the need of having a quite strict mathematical comparison between the TUV cost of the gas and the TUV cost of the infantries it is going to grind down), I would rather suggest gas being limited by the number of targets, that would represent the fact that is not a weapon of annihilation. Regular gas may hit at 1 and mustard gas at 2 (and possibly another level of gas that hits at 3), and only infantry or infantry-like units, with possible maximum rolls limited to the number of targets (as said). However, the problem with this is that, then, you may end up just sending exactly a number of gas equal to the maximum hits you can roll, each time, that would be some dumb management. The best would be that gas has a sort of mechanics that becomes less and less effective the more you use it on a same target, and the more effective the bigger the target.
@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.