@Michael-Hoover Currently TripleA asks if you are sure inconsistently. For example, you are not asked if you are sure when you decide to end the Research Technology phase buying nothing, while, instead, you are asked if you are sure when you decide to end the Purchase Units phase buying nothing.

A good example file is the pact of steel repo. Download that map and unzip it, then just open up the xml its full of comments about every option available.

Or just click here.

Another good example is the Warcraft_war_heroes beta from Frostion. Although he uses the chance option for fishing you can modify it for whatever.

I might be more help if you want to post some code I can look at?

A factory that carry no battle-value is structural whether it's mobile or not.

Yes, just enabling battles between land units and warships which land units may even sink ships too. Always found naval bombardment feature underwhelming when trenches/bunkers present.

@Michael-Hoover said in DestroyedUnit Condition:

I tried using the "whenHitPointsDamagedChangesInto" unit attachment option but it doesn't work when the unit is reduced to 0 hp (killed, destroyed, etc).

It does, but not in the current release.

I like the changes. i thought I saw somewhere else that the color might be changed to more of a blood red look ? So not so bright ? Idk if it'd work or not but the red seems a little too bright to me.

My other critique is I prefer the (parentheses) to have a space ( parentheses ) before their content. It makes it easier for me to read, but that just might be a personable problem of my own that I need to learn to live with 🙂

Great work. I like it. Thank You

then let me rephrase ☺
Is it possible to have the engine altered so that all the "stacking limits" that that the unit/player has, also be in effect under pregame placements?

@Schulz said in A new map project for variety of scenarios?:

Modern Day, War on Terror, War on Drug, Cold War, WW2, Inter-war, WW1, 1900, Napoleon Wars, Seven Years Wars, 6 days war etc...

It will be hard to make a map that can handle such disparate conflicts. I always like a new map, but it once you decide to exaggerate some areas you will need to decide which ones based upon some specific time.

I've created a PR - https://github.com/triplea-game/triplea/pull/6501

trevan created this issue in triplea-game/triplea closed Battle Tree Estimator #6501

@LaFayette ... Like @Panther I also use the history bar / history mode quite often. And it is a little nuisance to have to travel to the menu dropdowns everytime. It could be nice to test out a version of TripleA that had a left side bar with easy accessible history mode. I could easily imagine a colapsable history mode that opened up to fill 100% of the left bar and collapsed to the buttom.

In regards to what is added to the two sidebars, could it be possible to have game settings ("Game Screen"?) that could switch these things on /off? Maybe the customization options of unit text size, color, flags etc. could also fit into the same category. Basicly all visual stuff, sidebars and controls.

EDIT: Tabs might be just as good 😉

ah yes, makes sense LaFayette. Though obviously the problem exists locally as well.

couldn't the program just save auto-saves in client mode as well as in host mode? Wouldn't that solve everything? Makes a bit more sense than having all those public save files with small variations in the faction name be available to everyone through the bot.

Im not sure how you've programmed this thing guys so bare with me but hopefully the point comes across.

And thank you for the support, it's not a huge deal but like, sometimes it just messes up games not having it.

Bump? 😄 Haha

Nah I dunno, since we're running TOC it might be a bit much to run this too.
Also corona is kinda closing out anyway 😛

@Captain-Crunch said in Adding music to games:

@JoeyP no wai. I'm so surprised (not) since half these threads are someone trying to think of random obscure questions and then the mod or idea they are wanting to do is never seen again ... read my sig 😉

It has always been this way. Only a small minority of TripleA projects come to a conclusion, let alone fruition (and most are not really finished or polished). In turn, only a small minority of those that do become any popular.

@Ondis The reason I redesigned as a square was based on the example @LaFayette had posted... with some infantry units not really centered... the circles looked very off center... where-as using the square I thought it would look more centered as well as the square would work well for some of the larger unit images like the BB or CA

@LaFayette Well, that was really more on the side of the user, as it would be the one adjusting the right bar wideness, but I've no idea if it is an easy thing to do or not. For example, the optimal size of the buttons is probably not the same if you are on a full hd or on a ultra hd, but of course there are many more items that go the same way, so I guess it's consistent.
What the mapmaker would gain is the ability of setting a minimap dependent right bar wideness independently.

Minor note, I would actually distribute the buttons this way, left to right:
Previous-Next-Skip-Sleep-Alert.

The unit scroller updates are now live with unit counts and follows the mouse cursor.
I'm curious if there is consensus that we probably will not need to use the battle calculator quite as much.

@Hepps really the issue is more confusing rendering than forgotton units. Once folks have play-tested the updated unit scroller, I'd be curious if there are more ideas for making it clear which units are in which territories. AT some point it'll come down to updating/fixing maps, before we get to that point, I'm wondering if there is more that we can reasonably do.

There might be some overlap here with the 'highlight territory' on mouse enter idea. Having all units highlight when you hover over a territory should really help this too.

I like the idea @ubernaut , could be units only, territory only, or both. The units getting a 'roll-over' highlight makes a lot of sense. Very similar to how when you hover over buttons or anything clickable, it usually shimmers. To boot, we already have the unit highlight ability readily coded up, likely that would be a far easier than outlining the territory.

so is there a Git request for a quick save?

wow abuse more thats like my 7th or 8th post he deleted cuz the truth (my sig) hurts

@tinfoil666 I was thinking we could do territory highlights of territories eligible for placement (you can demo the 'territory highlight' by doing a find territory, it will outline the territory in white). We could potentially turn the territory highlight on for all eligible territories, then when the territory/factory is exhausted, turn it off. I wonder if combining that with grayed out factories would make it even more clear.

I like the territory + factory visual change.

If there were only 1 implemented, I would pick factories, but on maps where the factories are 'invisible' (such as the 'build anywhere' maps), then you would need to highlight the territory for this to work.

Until your response, I forgot that the factories are not always visible.

[edit] Don't forget that the 'eligible territories' should include sea zones adjacent to factories with builds left. Ideally, the sea zone highlights should cease once you have placed your last sea unit.