Ah, just saw the responses : )
The variable route would work, you are still duplicating the territory names, but at least it's more concise. 👍

Now for the last thing for these units. How can i place them in allied territories (assuming i have a rookie there)?

Hi Roger,

check

https://forums.triplea-game.org/topic/2066/new-production-unit-barracks

for this - I had the same topic before.

PR: https://github.com/triplea-game/triplea/pull/7651

Thanks for pointing me to the property @Cernel ;

I'd like to keep updates limited to the game data assembly layer. That means for now I'll leave the "Control All Canals Between Territories To Pass" property unaltered.

We could even remove the <territoryAttachment> node altogether, eg:

<territory name="Quebec"> <owner value="Canadians"/> <unitProduction value="3" /> <kamikazeZone value="true" /> <placements> : :

Thoughts?

For canals, they attach to multiple territories, nesting underneath one territory would potentially not be as helpful as it could be. Here is an example of what we have today:

<attachment name="canalAttachmentCentral America - Colombia" attachTo="25 Sea Zone" javaClass="games.s trategy.triplea.attachments.CanalAttachment" type="territory"> <option name="canalName" value="the Central America - Colombia channel"/> <option name="landTerritories" value="Central America:Colombia"/> </attachment> <attachment name="canalAttachmentCentral America - Colombia" attachTo="100 Sea Zone" javaClass="games.strategy.triplea.attachments.CanalAttachment" type="territory"> <option name="canalName" value="the Central America - Colombia channel"/> <option name="landTerritories" value="Central America:Colombia"/> </attachment>

I think that might be better as one 'canal' tag. It's a really good call-out - though if it's going to be a different tag then perhaps topic for another thread (thread created: https://forums.triplea-game.org/topic/2269/proposal-simpler-canal-node)

Well I have played with it a little more. If the area one attacks during the first combat phase is still enemy-controlled at the end of the first combat phase (either because you just attack with air units or because there is a ground unit but it does not survive the attack), then during the second combat movement phase you can move a friendly ground unit into the area and then directly into another enemy-controlled area. Otherwise, you can move into the attacked, now-friendly-controlled area, but not then move from there into an enemy-controlled area.

Then I tried putting the second combat movement and combat at the very end of the turn, after the EndTurn phase and now it works, I can move into the previously attacked area (whether it is friendly-controlled or enemy-controlled) and from there directly into an enemy-controlled area. You cannot use air units to support any attack you make in the second combat phase (because they had to land during noncombat movement). But this does not bother me.

If anyone has a better way to do this please let me know.

Wonderful! It works now on my end -- thank you so much for fixing the problem. 🙂

@Numetalfan

The saved game carries a copy of the xml used to create the game. Any changes made to the xml will not show in a saved game. To test changes you have to always start a new game.

Cheers...

@Jason-Green-Lowe heh heh friendly advice 🙂 was just saying you could have it included in the original map for a one click activation instead of an entirely separate map 🙂

@LaFayette Thanks, thats good to know.

Thanks a lot @RogerCooper. That does, what I want to do, in a very simple code. The only difference is that the tech development isn't known in turn 1. For instance the British don't know if the japanese might have long range aircraft and, thus, be able to make a full fledge attack on India i turn 1. But I can live with that when the alternative is to spend hours and hours trying to make triggers to more or less the same thing:)

For other people who want to do this:

In ressources you add this after PUs:

<resource name="techTokens"/>

In ressourceInitialize you add this after the PUs for each player

<resourceGiven player="xxxx" resource="techTokens" quantity="60"/>

In properties you add this:

<property name="WW2V3 Tech Model" value="true" editable="false"> <boolean/> </property>

@LaFayette not sure how i would but regardless even if the thing is using curves to match a gamut it will not be 100% as good an originally colored graphic some information is always lost when you do it it's just a matter of degrees and again often times the unit is not of one hue to begin with so yeah… maybe we've talked this one past death at this point. 😛

@wc_sumpton I'm pretty sure a grand re-write of map spec is going to take too long. If we freeze the current spec and have everyone wait, it'll be painful. Perhaps the key will be instead to just accept the complexity and create alternative forms of the XML so that it's flexible and we can get the expressiveness gains that you're seeking.

I'm working on a system to upload maps to server, but that's really running into trouble with various technical debt issues and to do that properly I need to start from the beginning and clean up how we deal with maps. It won't be a quick project, but I think we can probably get in a position where supporting alternative XML forms will be easier and we can then add it in.

At that rate I'd rather we go further with simplifications and really do it right.

With that said, using technology for a base ability does seem like duct tape. With that said, I think if we want non-combat movement to be different from combat, we should build it in first class. WDYT at this point?