Subcategories

  • User actions question

    1
    0 Votes
    1 Posts
    417 Views
    No one has replied
  • Allow Blockades in All Sea Zones?

    7
    0 Votes
    7 Posts
    1k Views
    LaFayetteL
    Ah, just saw the responses : ) The variable route would work, you are still duplicating the territory names, but at least it's more concise.
  • place units anywhere, also no max production in factories

    18
    0 Votes
    18 Posts
    2k Views
    F
    Now for the last thing for these units. How can i place them in allied territories (assuming i have a rookie there)?
  • Infantry-Only Factories

    production
    3
    1 Votes
    3 Posts
    527 Views
    N
    Hi Roger, check https://forums.triplea-game.org/topic/2066/new-production-unit-barracks for this - I had the same topic before.
  • Proposal: Automatic <property> type discovery based on value

    Moved done
    2
    2 Votes
    2 Posts
    340 Views
    LaFayetteL
    PR: https://github.com/triplea-game/triplea/pull/7651
  • Proposal: Simpler '<canal>' node

    Moved
    5
    0 Votes
    5 Posts
    743 Views
    LaFayetteL
    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.
  • Proposal: Combine tags into `<territory>`

    Moved
    3
    1 Votes
    3 Posts
    519 Views
    LaFayetteL
    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)
  • Adding a default for map.properties 'color.Impassable'

    Moved done
    1
    1 Votes
    1 Posts
    283 Views
    No one has replied
  • Generating Random Default Colors When Default Color List is Exhausted

    Moved done
    1
    1 Votes
    1 Posts
    352 Views
    No one has replied
  • Second combat movement phase

    2
    1 Votes
    2 Posts
    902 Views
    A
    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.
  • Proposal: Add 'allowBid' and 'defaultBid' attributes to '<player>' node

    Moved
    1
    0 Votes
    1 Posts
    271 Views
    No one has replied
  • Help: National Objectives are removed when editing name of map file

    51
    0 Votes
    51 Posts
    15k Views
    Jason Green-LoweJ
    Wonderful! It works now on my end -- thank you so much for fixing the problem.
  • carrier rules for WWII V3_41

    15
    1
    0 Votes
    15 Posts
    2k Views
    wc_sumptonW
    @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...
  • How to assign bonus production to NoPU countries for completing objectives?

    20
    0 Votes
    20 Posts
    3k Views
    B
    @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
  • Can you have mutually exclusive units?

    1
    0 Votes
    1 Posts
    259 Views
    No one has replied
  • AI picks obviously the wrong casualty, what could it be?

    6
    0 Votes
    6 Posts
    875 Views
    TorpedoAT
    @LaFayette Thanks, thats good to know.
  • Asign random tech

    3
    1 Votes
    3 Posts
    634 Views
    R
    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>
  • Merge player colors from map.properties into Game XMLs

    Moved
    16
    2 Votes
    16 Posts
    2k Views
    ubernautU
    @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.
  • production frontier question

    1
    0 Votes
    1 Posts
    323 Views
    No one has replied
  • My Total World War project

    Moved
    9
    1 Votes
    9 Posts
    1k Views
    LaFayetteL
    @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?

Recent Posts

  • @RogerCooper said:

    I am not sure that this is true. I recently played the mod https://axisandallies.fandom.com/wiki/WWIIv3_1941_UK_Factory in which the British starts with an unplaced factory. The AI places it in Persia.

    This is done through the bid process. Zero out the British bid and the factory will never be placed by the British AI player.

    The engine does violate the rules for placing factories.

    Cheers...

    read more

  • @TheDog said:

    @wc_sumpton
    Give the AI a Factory it will not Place it (it will place units). It will only Place a Factory that it has decided it needs, even though it might have a lot them to place.

    I am not sure that this is true. I recently played the mod https://axisandallies.fandom.com/wiki/WWIIv3_1941_UK_Factory in which the British starts with an unplaced factory. The AI places it in Persia.

    read more

  • @wc_sumpton
    To the genius that is wc_sumpton, Thank you, Thank you!
    Im almost excited by this revelation 🙄

    That "placementAnyTerritory" value="true"
    Should work the way it does, now the AI armed with this, will be a much tougher opponent. muhahah 🤪

    read more

  • @TheDog said:

    Give the AI a Factory it will not Place it (it will place units). It will only Place a Factory that it has decided it needs, even though it might have a lot them to place.

    The AI uses the same rules for placing a purchased unit/factory that a Human player does. The rules only change when the AI attempts to place non-purchased/held/given units/factories.

    For S&G add the following to GCD:

    <!-- Player Rules --> <attachment foreach="$All-Players$" name="rulesAttachment" attachTo="@All-Players@" javaClass="RulesAttachment" type="player"> <option name="placementAnyTerritory" value="true"/> </attachment>

    Let the AI play a few rounds, more than 2. Save the game and then reload with Human players and inspect the history. Check purchase with placement.
    The AI is now placing the factories!
    Most of the units have "requiresUnits". Even with "placementAnyTerritory", "requiresUnits" still has to be fulfilled to place units.
    Using "placementAnyTerritory" allows the AI player, not a Human player, to place units into newly captured territories. There are also some side effects to how the AI purchases units, it may in fact stop purchasing altogether.

    Cheers...

    read more