@Frostion Here are some examples:

Attack Suicide Support Unit
Can provide support for the first round of battle and then suicides. It would act as just a regular unit with no attack/defense values on defense (wouldn't suicide).

<attachment name="unitAttachment" attachTo="suicideSupportUnit" javaClass="UnitAttachment" type="unitType"> <option name="movement" value="1"/> <option name="attack" value="0"/> <option name="defense" value="0"/> <option name="isSuicideOnAttack" value="true"/> </attachment> <attachment name="supportAttachmentSuicideSupportUnit" attachTo="suicideSupportUnit" javaClass="UnitSupportAttachment" type="unitType"> <option name="unitType" value="infantry"/> <option name="faction" value="allied"/> <option name="side" value="offence"/> <option name="dice" value="strength"/> <option name="bonus" value="1"/> <option name="number" value="10"/> <option name="bonusType" value="magic"/> </attachment>

Iron War Nuke with Updated Properties
Suicide on attack unit which fires during first strike but can't attack other nukes.

<attachment name="unitAttachment" attachTo="Nuclear-Bomb" javaClass="games.strategy.triplea.attachments.UnitAttachment" type="unitType"> <option name="attack" value="5"/> <option name="attackRolls" value="10"/> <option name="movement" value="6"/> <option name="fuelFlatCost" value="Fuel" count="3"/> <option name="carrierCost" value="2"/> <option name="isAir" value="true"/> <option name="canAirBattle" value="true"/> <option name="airAttack" value="0"/> <option name="airDefense" value="0"/> <option name="isSuicideOnAttack" value="true"/> <option name="isFirstStrike" value="true"/> <option name="canNotTarget" value="Nuclear-Bomb"/> <option name="isStrategicBomber" value="true"/> <option name="bombingMaxDieSides" value="10"/> </attachment>

POS2 XML PR: https://github.com/triplea-maps/the_pact_of_steel/pull/42

@beelee I totally agree with this as the immediate concern when finishing up a turn is generally where the least mobile units need to go.

Great suggestion!

@wc_sumpton I meant if the matter was needing two different kind of support/units to get supported, it seems more logical doing it directly rather than 0.5 + 0.5 and ignoring if only one 0.5. Also that would allow for support or nothing when it is a +2 or more. But I have to say several times I wished for something like this, especially when you have land transported units.

@lenzls You could cache the results and/or compute them in the background on game launch. Overall though, I'd stick to the rule of thumb: "working, clean, fast - in that order". I think we need to eventually have bigger updates to make game data broken up and store the history data as delta's and independent of the immutable data such as base game rules and map options. That would give many benefits, a compability for a custom save-game format that does not rely on serialization, smaller save games, and much faster game clone operations which cause many delays. Hence, IMO it might be okay to just cache the results and let it be somewhat slow until we can get those deeper changes in place. Grant it, if there is a way to cleanly make the rendering fast, then it would be very difficult to wait or object to that.

@redrum Seems like a good place to start. Very interesting... I had always wondered what impact the 256 x 256 had other than when the map itself was being rendered. I hadn't realized it affected unit placement as well.

@Cernel said in Tooltip info gets worse by the unit (Feature Request):

@Panther What would you use as terms, from a boardgames standpoint, to define the value you need to roll equal or lower and that multiplied by the number of dice you roll (for example, Classic heavy bombers)?

The rulebooks introduced "attack value" and "defense value" for a single unit. Now, if I understand your question correctly, you ask for a term that represents the sum of attack values/defense values of units stacks, avoiding mathematical expressions.

I would not mind it being called "Attack/Defense Power" or "Attack/Defense Strength" (personally preferring Power over Strength). Though it must be made clear somehow/somewhere that this term represents the mathematical formula behind it.

Could you have a and d for add attackers and defenders respectively, with ctrl-a for actions?

Not sure I can think of a good alternative to actions. Decisions clashes with defendera.

Yeah, I agree it should be a per map setting like unit size and @Cernel and I have discussed this a few times before 🙂

@Zaroph Possibly. I think also most folks use the in-game chat and the forums and are used to those.

@Cernel said in AA revised - possible upgrades:

@Panther said in AA revised - possible upgrades:

Transports can offload into the same territory in both combat and noncombat movement if the second unit was loaded in a previous turn.

On this regard, I'm actually not sure if a move like this would be allowed: starting the turn with an empty transport, loading 2 infantries into it, sending the transport into a naval battle and offloading 1 infantry into a sea borne assault, during Combat Move, winning the naval battle and the land battle where the unit was offloaded (this last thing may be granted, in case the territory is empty or having capturable units only), then offloading the other 1 infantry, into the same territory, during Non Combat Move.

?

I checked this is wrong. However it would be correct if reworded this way:

starting the turn with an transport with 1 infantry in it, loading 1 infantry into it, sending the transport into a naval battle and offloading 1 infantry into a sea borne assault, during Combat Move, winning the naval battle and the land battle where the unit was offloaded (this last thing may be granted, in case the territory is empty or having capturable units only), then offloading the other 1 infantry, into the same territory, during Non Combat Move.

Basically, in Revised you have an additional incentive, however small in importance, for keeping your cargo on board across the rounds (really bad for playability, actually, as tracking loaded stuff is a serious pain). This is actually a bit bigger if you add also the (Revised OOB only) case of offloading 1 infantry to take 1 territory, then protecting this infantry by offloading an AA Gun, on the next Non Combat Move phase (this is actually something that has a good chance to be a good move, especially if you plan contesting with naval bombardment rather than with air units).

@Hepps said in Rework Purchase Units...:

@simon33 I would probably find it really annoying to have all kinds of units on the map I can't move. Now I'd have to remember all my purchases and where I had placed them. A situation that would be even more complex if you already had a bunch of units in the same territory as where you have a factory and are placing 0 movement units.

The other issue is whether you could have placed units with zero movement while all the existing units (very same units) would retain their movement? I'm not even sure that is possible.

I understand what you're saying. Ideally, these new units would be invisible until the end of the turn which increases the complexity. Also, they need to not be granted movement at the start of combat movement, if you are playing a map with purchase before combat movement.

Regarding the 2 stacks for different movement values, it is possible this has merit although it doesn't work this way now and would increase the clutter on the screen. Not sure if this is a goer.

@RoiEX looks like you do it using xcode somewhow:

"Make sure to submit all versions of your software. While Xcode 10 or later is still required to submit, you don’t need to rebuild or re-sign your software before submission."

i think i might already have a developer id and i definitely have xcode but i never really use it. 😛

@LaFayette said in New method for board scrolling:

@Cernel you're suggesting that the main map scrolls to the location of the right click? Or are you suggesting that when holding right click the mouse stays stationary and the map moves under it?

Maybe these minimap analogies are confusing more than clarifying. Anyways, I was actually suggesting that the cursor "stays stationary and the map moves under it".

Thinking again about it, you could also have the initial behaviour (for the initial right click only) of centring the map on the board pixel where the cursor is, while relocating the cursor itself at the centre too, in this case. However, this would raise the issue of what to do if you would have not enough board remaining to actually centre it (say, what should happen if I right click on the 0,0 coordinate of a not wrapping map like 270BC), which would be relevant for any maps not having both X and Y wrapping (I think only "Hexglobe", "Feudal Japan Warlords" and "Conquest of the World" do). On this regard, the centre should be the centre of the view, not the centre of the screen (usually the centre of the view is more to the left, if you have no history bar or the history bar is narrower than the main bar).

@Cernel I think you would be in the minority as most of the examples that both myself and @Frostion posted don't have a completely straight bar and mostly the ones that do are older games. The idea is to make the UI more dynamic and only take up the space it needs based on the information currently presenting so its more almost dashboard/widget like than pure bars/panels. As well as try to concentrate it more into the corners which act as sort of anchors so you have more visible screen area from a circular standpoint.

@Hepps *high five good post

https://www.brainpickings.org/2017/01/24/dylan-thomas-do-not-go-gentle-into-that-good-night/