@cernel It depends on how much support is provided by Java Swing to render webp.

Though, the big gains will be from simplifying the code and not storing in memory images that are unnecessary. The mini-map is stored in memory at full size and is constantly shrunk down to the small mini-map size (that is a large chunk of memory usage right there).

So, a better format could have some gains if it is efficiently handled.

@martymoose 3.X changes:
https://forums.triplea-game.org/topic/1181/total-world-war-december-1941-3-0-0-6

@simon33 You can use the "Tile Image Reconstructor' under Map Tools/Optional things.

It the changes is minor, you can try editing the polygons.txt file and other files directly.

@cernel OK, that seems to have been the problem. Thank you!

@Myrd

I understand that 'canalAttachment' is used to connect sea zones with land zone restrictions. But it can also be used to connect land zones.

One of the first modifications could be to allow the option "landTerritories" to accept sea zone (this might already be allowed), and the uses of a key word like "None".

Then all that would need to be done is allow the use of 'territoryEffect' be attached to the 'canalAttachment'. Not simple I understand.

Also, a change to the 'territoryEffect' to add a limit to the number of combat rounds.

These are my thoughts.

Cheers...

@myrd Only one I know of is "hitsTaken".

<unitPlacement unitType="battleship" territory="97 Sea Zone" quantity="1" owner="Italians" hitsTaken="1"/>

but this only works with the auto repair not damaged ones you'd pay for. I just copied how hepps did it in TWW but still need to use edit at the start to get the hitpoint damage right.

@unternehmer I think everyone here is going for excessive complexity. Professional armies always build field fortifications of a type appropriate for the conflict. There should not be a need to have a separate PU cost or choices about what type to build. Just have the units make the field fortifications for free and use triggers or special attacks to remove excessive numbers of fortifications. Or ignore the entire issue and give the units extra strength on defense.

Hi @ebbe

So you have a Sea unit that has transport capacity that when the missle unit is on board it gives support to the Sea/Naval unit ? If so, I remember someone wanted something similar a while back but I never followed up on it.

I'm not sure if supportAttachment recognizes cargo on a transport. Haven't tried it. I think I was gonna try and use unitPresence, the missile unit in this case, to trigger the support or change the combat values with <option name="unitAttachmentName" value="UnitAttachment" count="unitAttachment"/>
then trigger back if there weren't any present.

I never tried it tho. I'll think on it some

@cernel To clarify, in v1 submarines should indeed fire separately from other defending units if there are offending air units but together if there are no offending air units. Anyway, the separate step in which only defending submarines fire should not be called as "first strike" or anything like that.

I defer to @Panther for confirmation.

I looked at the engine code around createsUnitsList and it doesn't look like it will work.

The relevant code is in EndTurnDelegate.java.

} else if (!uaToCreate.getIsSea() && !uaToCreate.getIsAir() && t.isWater()) { toAddLand.addAll(ut.create(createsUnitsMap.getInt(ut), player)); ... if (!toAddLand.isEmpty()) { final Predicate<Territory> myTerrs = Matches.isTerritoryOwnedBy(player).and(Matches.territoryIsLand()); final Collection<Territory> landNeighbors = data.getMap().getNeighbors(t, myTerrs); if (!landNeighbors.isEmpty()) { final Territory location = getRandomTerritory(data, landNeighbors, bridge); createUnits(location, toAddLand, change, endTurnReport); } }

So basically, for any land units that would be created at sea, we instead find a random neighboring land territory owned by the player and create the units there. No considerations for transports are given.

I suppose engine changes could be done to support different semantics, but given this whole line of thinking is already trying to workaround a different engine limitation - perhaps that one could be addressed directly, i.e. making unitPresence support each (either as a multiplication on top of each on directPresenceTerritories if both are used, or not allowing multiple each values on different options).

@myrd If you are trying to exactly replicate the boardgame, it is going to be complicated and I don't have anything better for you.

@wc_sumpton Thank you, that's exactly what I needed! You solved my problem. 🙂

@lafayette
Is the Pre-Release link below correct ?
https://prerelease.triplea-game.org

If so then it does not work.

FeignException$InternalServerError: [500 Internal Server Error] during [GET] to [https://prerelease.triplea-game.org/maps/listing] [MapsFeignClient#fetchMapListing(Map)]: [{"code":500,"message":"There was an error processing your request. It has been logged (ID d97cbd373f49b787)."}]

I tried to add the above, but I don't think I'm authorised, but I think its already covered by;
https://github.com/triplea-game/triplea/projects/25#card-74205079

@wc_sumpton Works perfectly. I plan to have 10% upkeep cost scenarios for all the boardgame conversions.

@panther Interesting! I'll check that.

@thedog said in What for isAA is better suitable: artillery barrage or another attack / defense type?:

You can also use
<option name="isFirstStrike" value="true"/>
for land battles

So the order is
AA
First Strike
Basic Atk / Def

So maybe you can do what you want like this
AA = AA & Indirect Fire
First Strike = Direct Fire Anti Tank & direct HE
Basic = Infantry fire & close range fire

Dear @TheDog,

as I have already mentioned, I use the option «isFirstStrike» and moreover I combine this option with «canNotTarget», «canNotBeTargetedBy», «canEvade», «canAirBattle» and «canScramble» for land units.

But still there is a problem that «isFirstStrike» can represent the range difference (or the mobile warfare or the sudden strike etc.) but not another attack / defense type like the option «isAA» with its sub-option «targetsAA».

It would be great to have such a sub-option like «targetsFirstStrike» but as we currently don’t have such an option you cannot use by your tank unit «isFirstStrike» to attack anti-tank gun and then basic attack against infantry.

@thedog

Thank You