@danelyoung The scenario is still not working in pre-release, but works in the stable version.

A StackOverflowError is simply signals that there is no more memory available. It is to the stack what an OutOfMemoryError is to the heap: it simply signals that there is no more memory available. JVM has a given memory allocated for each stack of each thread, and if an attempt to call a method happens to fill this memory, JVM throws an error. Just like it would do if you were trying to write at index N of an array of length N. No memory corruption can happen. The stack can not write into the heap. The common cause for a stackoverflow is a bad recursive call. Typically, this is caused when your recursive functions doesn't have the correct termination condition, so it ends up calling itself forever. Or when the termination condition is fine, it can be caused by requiring too many recursive calls before fulfilling it. Here's an example: public class Overflow { public static final void main(String[] args) { main(args); } } That function calls itself repeatedly with no termination condition. Consequently, the stack fills up because each call has to push a return address on the stack, but the return addresses are never popped off the stack because the function never returns, it just keeps calling itself. If the stack is full you can't push, if you do you'll get stack overflow error. StackOverflowError is avoidable if recursive calls are bounded to prevent the aggregate total of incomplete in-memory calls (in bytes) from exceeding the stack size (in bytes).

@Frostion I am actually close to getting something working. <attachment name="conditionAttachmentJapaneseEnemyUnitPresent" attachTo="Japanese" javaClass="games.strategy.triplea.attachments.RulesAttachment" type="player"> <option name="enemyPresenceTerritories" value="all" count="each"/> </attachment> <attachment name="triggerAttachmentJapaneseEnemyUnitCount" attachTo="Japanese" javaClass="games.strategy.triplea.attachments.TriggerAttachment" type="player"> <option name="conditions" value="conditionAttachmentJapaneseEnemyUnitPresent"/> <option name="resource" value="PUs"/> <option name="resourceCount" value="1"/> <option name="when" value="after:BBidplace"/> </attachment> The trigger is not firing, but I am getting close to having a way of counting all enemy units and all friendly units. I can then use the difference for some rough handicapping. In many scenarios, there is no obvious historical (or hypothetical) conflict. This way I can just assign random sides and balance them, rather than having a free-for-all, which I find makes for uninteresting play.

Ok thanks, that worked!

thanks guys!

@Frostion Yes it does, thank you for the additional information.

Hey Cernel, thanks for your guidance here. I figured out the problem. Did not have a relationshipinitialize section Did not have any true neutral territories on the board so it interfered with stuff. It works now! Thanks for all your help.

@Joe-G FIgured this out. A list of playerattachments at the end was missing from my XML.

@Joe-G No problem. TripleA is fairly evenly split between British and American English. It can be easily confusing. I would personally prefer if TripleA would follow British English fully.

@Frostion thanks. you guys rock. I got it working

@Cernel @stalinpasha I just use drag and drop when I want to upload an image to forum.

@Cernel Mind you that, this way, removed attacking units will turn into zombies owned by the attacking player, if you retreat, or owned by the defending player, if you lose the battle without retreating. For the losing battle without retreating part, you can have a trigger conquering the territory in favour of the "Zombies" player before the infrastructure unit repairs and, immediately thereafter, another trigger re-establishing ownership without conquering the territory (just check that a battle has happened for the attacker but the territory is owned by an enemy of the attacker, if you have a basic 2 sides scenario). For the retreat part, you can hack it by having the intermediate infrastructure unit being a movement 0 air unit (so it won't retreat with the rest and will never move out of it), but I personally strongly disagree on the current behaviour that attacking air infrastructures are conquered (since they are hovering the territory, they should not be influenced by any ownership changes, until after they landed on it, which they never can) (I believe a @Frostion map uses this behaviour for Nuke, if I recall correctly, but I consider this being a case of exploiting a wrong engine behaviour (bug)).

@Frostion thanks for the info I wasn't sure. Yeah in the yaml its version 1 so I'll pull it now and update it. I've already updated the repository on github (getting used to that as I am a noob there too :face_with_raised_eyebrow: ).

@Frostion - thank you for all the advice on sounds. I finally have everything lined out thanks to your tips and tricks! I'll be updating Twelve Clans later with music and sounds. :beaming_face_with_smiling_eyes:

Me too - this has some intriguing applications...

Ah yes.. I see the problem. I have a local copy of the xml and "unit" folder for development purposes and I have simply been adding my new units to the existing folder in the actual game. I see the original author of this game did have these two units in the folder. If I move them out.. the problem is solved! Thanks. Also, I agree it would be better to look at production frontier, but minor problem. Thanks for the help. I think my new version is ready to release to the public.

I am now using variables successfully..

@LaFayette Yeah, that's why DNAI needs to be figured out and documented (and fixed to work with no capitals without crashing, possibly), as it is now going one way in the moment you can use it for attacking with its own phases and another way in the moment it substantially skips the collect phase, plus the strange behaviour of a first purchase then nevermore, that it is a complete surprise to everyone. Substantially, Veqryn made this AI probably based on something he was planning, but that never happened and, as far as I know, nothing was documented about all this more or less artificial and likely sigle-game tailored construct, that has been since available to all users and map makers. I would personally prefer it being just 100% like assigning the player to somebody that just keeps skipping everything it can skip and clicks randomly on anything it must do (but this would require fixing the placement phase itself as being a must do, preferably with a property to allow having the current free-not-to-place behaviour for custom maps).

@Hepps Yeah thats what it looks like and what I initially thought but I double-triple checked and didnt find anything. But you did just give me the idea of searching for "" in the file and I found a unit placed with no territory. I probably wouldnt have thought of searching for that if I didnt read your comment tho, so thank you alot.

@gabegolfer said in Can a Unit do 2 damage on one hit? (Make enemy select 2 casualties): How would I assign the number of dice rolls per round? <option name="attackRolls" value="*"/> <option name="defenseRolls" value="*"/> *natural number Would that be in the “unitAttachment” section? Yes. Is more than one dice roll per round even possible? Yes, since Classic.