Feature Requests & Ideas

• 

  AI Development Discussion and Feedback
  • redrum

  116
  2
  Votes
  116
  Posts
  9274
  Views

  

  @alkexr Here is the PR: https://github.com/triplea-game/triplea/pull/3645 I tested your LAB map before the changes where the AI doesn't place any units since cities are non-infra and then after the AI places normally just like if they were infra factories. I also tested 270BC since that was the main map that had non-infra factories that caused issues. I needed to add some additional checks when purchasing/placing sea units so that each factory adjacent to a sea territory is treated separately instead of just adding their production together. Otherwise the AI thinks legions add 1 production to sea territories to produce boats. This change also should help support maps that have different types of factories (think barracks and shipyard) adjacent to the same sea territory as the AI should now consider each of their production and what they can produce separately.
• 

  Guidelines and Feature Request List
  • redrum

  3
  3
  Votes
  3
  Posts
  819
  Views

  

  ill start a few at a time zoom in yes idle timer yes fix the lag caused by new joiners yes three is enough for now
• C

  A general way to define infinite
  • Cernel

  15
  1
  Votes
  15
  Posts
  475
  Views

  

  @cernel I would suggest to add an infinite=true flag. eg: <option name="attemptsPerTurn" infinite="true"/>
• 

  Unit Tooltip Improvements & Poll
  • redrum

  75
  4
  Votes
  75
  Posts
  1812
  Views

  

  Love love love! the new tool tips. Looking smashing!
• 

  EV + Started Lobby columns
  • LaFayette

  37
  1
  Votes
  37
  Posts
  580
  Views

  C

  I think most, or at least some, would have preferred the EV column being fixed as to display what engine version that host is using, rather than removing it. I think the status column should aim at telling anyone that they are welcomed to join your host to play in it, without you having to chat in lobby to tell people so or put a redundant comment in notes inviting people to join your host, that the status column should already do. So: I think the current "Waiting For Players" is good enough. I think "Waiting" only is not a good pick, since that doesn't communicate that you want other users to join your host to play the game you are proposing; it's too generic and it may mean you are waiting for technical reasons, like loading times. "Awaiting Players" shortens it a bit, keeping the same info as "Waiting For Players" (number 1), but is sounds a touch formal, so it makes me think that you are specifically waiting for someone, you had an appointment with, rather than just being open to anyone willingly to join, that should be the actual message. "Open" may be good, as it should be much better than "Waiting" (number 2) in communicating that the game can be joined and it sounds rather immediate to me, as you can think to a Host as being a Room, basically, but it has the drawback of being scarcely consistent with the status itself, as games in progress are not closed, but still open for observers to join them. "Open For Players" is a little shorter than "Waiting For Players" (number 1) and solves the drawbacks of just "Open" (number 4), also maybe being the most effective in giving the message we want, but it sounds a touch awkward. "Need Players" may be the best if we want to focus on noob friendliness, but it has the drawback of being scarcely consistent with the status itself, as the status would be just that of a host whose game is not yet started, that doesn't necessarily mean you actually need players, except for bots, since they automatically start when all players are taken. The issue could be solved by having different status for not started games depending if all in-game players (the countries) have been taken (so, you can have three statuses: "Need Players", "Ready", "In Progress").
• 

  Improve Route Finder to Consider Territory Effects
  • alkexr

  28
  1
  Votes
  28
  Posts
  666
  Views

  

  @cernel Ah, ok, couldn't have guessed that from your initial question that I read as rules question. Searching for sort of analogies in the rules we have the "Sea Units starting in hostile seazones" rules, that allow to move from a hostile seazone, simply to escape combat or to initiate combat elsewhere. So concerning land units I would tend to let the player decide to let them either stay and engage the enemy troops or to move to an adjacent territory during combat move phase. In case the territory has become hostile due to the player's proximate action, I would allow two steps. (Analogy: Load transport in hostile seazone exception, when the seazone has just become hostile due to proximate DOW by the transport's owning power). In case the territory has become hostile at some time between the power's turns, I would only allow one step in analogy to the 1914 rules. Just some ideas of course.
• R

  Map Zoom past 100%
  zoom map scale map zoom view • • RogerCooper

  6
  1
  Votes
  6
  Posts
  190
  Views

  R

  @cernel Note that Ultimate World uses a size of 50% for units, which is too small for good legibility. 75% for units and 125% for that map would probably be good.
• 

  Drop 'Bot' column in lobby
  • LaFayette

  10
  0
  Votes
  10
  Posts
  235
  Views

  C

  @lafayette I confirm it gives very little value. When it was made, I opposed veqryn, saying that it was not good to make an additional column for no good reasons, but I was the only one not liking it, even tho now I'll admit it is not as totally useless as I thought. I cannot give the link to the discussion where veqryn presented this feature to the community, since it was in the old WarClub. A minor thing to take into consideration is that, without that, I could feign my host to be a bot, by calling it with a name starting with "Bot" and putting "automated_host XX" in comments.
• W

  hitPointsBonus option for techAbilityAttachment
  • wc_sumpton

  13
  0
  Votes
  13
  Posts
  323
  Views

  W

  @cernel I understand what you are saying. I would be nice if the selection was read from the player selection menu. I know that using the userActions is a 'hack', then again a lot of hacks are used. And in five years, if the AI is changed, another 'hack' may need to be developed. @Frostion asked how I accomplished the task. It just gave him some quick feed-back to his question. But then again as you have stated, there are times that I think that the AI should be using the userActions for some things as in IW to give aid to another ally. So I agree and to some point disagree. Cheers...
• S

  Allow users to de-select objectives when starting games
  • simon33

  6
  0
  Votes
  6
  Posts
  216
  Views

  B

  @alkexr much better way then I've been doing it. This is all i can find on "gameProperty" in POS2. gameProperty values: can be set equal to the exact string of any boolean game property option, including custom made up ones. Maybe it could be updated with your example for uneducated people like myself
• 

  Mini (Me) Map options
  • Hepps

  23
  0
  Votes
  23
  Posts
  845
  Views

  

  Seeing the mini map with a darkened "highlighted" area just seems wrong. People would expect highlighted stuff to light/bright, just as the units in the game are highlighted when mouse-over or selected. I think players will more easily spot where the big screen is on the mini map if light/bright than if dark. Generally since the mini map feature is a universal one for all maps, a part of the UI and a part of how TripleA is controlled, I would think it best if individual maps did not customize the appearance when it comes to light/dark, frame, transparency etc. I can see the point in setting the unit dot size since the mini maps are not all the same size, but otherwise the appearance should be uniform from map to map if we want players to easily jump into another map and be acquainted with the controls. By not allowing all sorts of mini map settings, there would also be some sort of quality control that ensured a practical mini map and not just "fancy" and unreadable mini map. I can see the appeal of mapmakers setting up their own version of nice looking minimaps, but I still would prefer a good and practical standard mini map that did not change from map to map.
• 

  Unit Icons Added By Conditions
  • redrum

  41
  3
  Votes
  41
  Posts
  1588
  Views

  W

  @crazyg Here is the properties file: 0_1531246712359_unit_icons.properties And here are the icons (courtesy of @Hepps ) 0_1531246998068_unitIcons.zip I have made some slight changes to my xml (testing ideas) and you may need to edit the properties file (I combined Pikemen and Musketmen into a single condition) there may be other name differences but mostly it should work. (I changed the file name in there to House_of_Habsburg_0.7 which is what I think you are calling it) Hope this gets you started!! Cheers...
• C

  TripleA plans to remove Easy AI - my computer will die!
  • ComR

  6
  -1
  Votes
  6
  Posts
  354
  Views

  

  @rogercooper Yeah, that is one of the other conditions to retire it. Essentially creating a 'semi-random' version of FastAI (not just a really bad AI that's actually trying).
• 

  WW II v5 1942 2nd Edition
  • scousemart

  21
  0
  Votes
  21
  Posts
  831
  Views

  

  @cernel This option sounds potential the most straight forward: 1- Having a default pointless (always passable) canal and closing/opening it, with triggers. TBH a more rigorous inspection of the code would be needed to really weigh each option. It looks like given the options we could do something if we committed to it.
• 

  Unit Experience Enhancements (destroyedTUV)
  • Hepps

  16
  0
  Votes
  16
  Posts
  310
  Views

  

  @cernel said in I Get it, I got it, I know its good. The experience I got you wish you could.: Also, let's not forget that how it works is not how it should work, by intended rules (casualties are supposed to be agreed amongst all defending players or chosen by the attacker). We aren't creating a Larry Harris game anymore. The intended rules are whatever the mapmaker wants.
• B

  Air Battle Dice
  • beelee

  10
  0
  Votes
  10
  Posts
  376
  Views

  

  @beelee NO Features for U!
• 

  Add Unit Count and Damage Display Outline
  • Hepps

  35
  3
  Votes
  35
  Posts
  929
  Views

  C

  @hepps said in Add Unit Count and Damage Display Outline: @redrum It all looks so good I can hardly bear it. As far as a default it hard to say... I normally use between 16 - 24. But now with the outline making the numbers more distinctive I might be inclined to reduce them down. I've it at 24 most of the time, as I said, and I actually think that after the addition of the outline it is even more opportune to have it at 24 or so. Since the outline has to be 1 pixel, having the size smaller than 24 makes the outline on the number look dirty (to me), in some cases, because of the much too visible pixellated effect. So, just wanted to say that I like this change, but it surely doesn't push me to use smaller numbers, since the outline evidences the pixelated effect, you inevitably have when getting too small (but 24 looks great). However, as far as distinctiveness goes, this is an improvement anyways.
• N

  Zero Luck Option
  • NoOneDares

  9
  0
  Votes
  9
  Posts
  374
  Views

  N

  @wirkey It would be a burocratic nightmare to use edit for this system.
• 

  Positive and negative supportAttachments to AA types
  • Frostion

  15
  3
  Votes
  15
  Posts
  357
  Views

  

  @frostion @alkexr I think both are good ideas but also fairly involved so hard to say if/when. Multiple AA attacks per unit type would mean having separate aaAttachments similar to supportAttachments. Then either having to convert existing AA unit options to generate an aaAttachment in the engine (like isArtillery generates a supportAttachment) or having to mass convert maps so that the existing AA unit options could be removed. Both of these options are pretty painful. AA support is probably a bit simpler and would just need some options in the support attachment to indicate its for AA instead of normal attack. Then logic added to check and apply support attachments to AA attacks. I don't think this change would impact compatibility since they would just be new options. I don't think it matters that much the order they are implemented in as you could come back to add a supportAttachment option later on to indicate which AA attack per unit type if you did #2 first. I definitely lean towards tackling #2 first as its significantly easier (probably days vs weeks). These also probably initially would not be taken into account by the default battle calc casualty selection though it already doesn't handle AA attacks and limited handling of support attachments.
• W

  Game Options
  • wc_sumpton

  10
  1
  Votes
  10
  Posts
  551
  Views

  

  @beelee I revived a thread that has long been dead. Now it is an undead thread.