Thanks for the quick thoughts/feedback.

We'd have to work out some issues for the blank map. It could be that we start off with an empty map that can be loaded, or there is a quick wizard process that gets a map maker to that point. TBD exactly, main idea though is that the tools would be moved to in-game rather than be completely external.

Glad the idea of map configuration hosting sounds good. Implicit to that idea, is that the entire map would be stored on the server, in DB!! No more github manipulation or uploads. Hence the asset split is particularly useful. If the UI tools are good, then map makers will have a UI to select their assets by image and it will be written into the configuration properly without anyone dealing with IDs. Part of the goal would be to decrease the manual file editing. I suspect a fallback to file system will almost always be there to support offline map making.

I was thinking that the potential new map database could write out to a github repository and check in the contents, largely to serve as a backup. That's a detail for now that is less important compared to the other main ideas.

really like both of these ideas. 🙂 i also think even further simplifying the battle window by only showing the currently active odds groups could make the whole thing much more visually appealing and less cluttered.

here's another random thought, if we are taking a deep dive on the battle window another thing that might be interesting is an enhanced low luck view. Since so many people play with LL and the predictability often leads to much more precise odds calculations that must be made in real-time in tight/large battles there could be some added value to be had there.

Wow, looking at that help menu, it suffers from a common developer problem where trying to solve one thing "people don't know about this" feature, the information is plastered in the wrong places. Most of those ctrl hotkeys can be seen by simply opening the menus and looking there. The 'turn off map artwork' is the same, just a restatement of menu options. The extra details about that do not belong here.

This is a bit of a UX issue, overloads unnecessary information on a user and out of context. The problem that creates is it detracts from the rest of the information that is present here.

Anyways, that is a digression. For now flags/highlight has a new home with the unit scroller for better or worse.

Further progress I would agree needs a bigger vision. For that we should know what more controls we are going to need and then work to create mock-ups of how they could be arranged. Follow up is in this thread: https://forums.triplea-game.org/topic/1525/ui-mockups-needed-unbury-the-controls

Ctrl+Z (hide right hand panel) is only a hotkey, it could use a UI icon.

I like Low Luck for battling the AI or online matches but with the board game I just use dice

everyone has their own preferences and its nice to have options.

Haha, I guess my terminology is backwards, sorry.

i think to remove randomness in this game is like poker with an ordered deck. Sure the hands will be very orderly but by taking the randomness out of it you are really taking a fundamental aspect of game out of the picture. Part of your strategy should be to allow for things to go against you imo.

That being said i do understand why people like LL and a version of it the effect of it were always even would be interesting to try at least.

also, this over rolling of 1's and 2's, this is the first ive heard of that. here is 14 round 6 sided game stats as well as a 28 round 12 sider stats they look pretty good to me. 😛

Screen Shot 2019-07-06 at 6.55.48 AM.png Screen Shot 2019-07-06 at 6.56.17 AM.png

@redrum right well the attacker never gets to choose the casualties so i was just using that as a comparison. if the defender should always be able to choose the best scramble returns it really wouldn't be any worse than that.

@redrum yeah that would be awesome

@redrum I am working on a generic system for randomly shifting alliances, so the foreach will be very useful. I hope you can add it for initializing as well.

@CrazyIvan I have not played Classic in so long I kinda forget how the engine works but you might want to try World War II V3 1941. (Anniversary Edition Map) Shared fleets work better in V3/Global rules.

That is interesting, and might change things around quite a bit.

PR: https://github.com/triplea-game/triplea/pull/4816

ron-murhammer created this issue in triplea-game/triplea closed Add new canal option canNotMoveThroughDuringCombatMove #4816

@redrum Now there's a nice short cut.

@Cernel No, you need the territory attachments listed before the unit attachments as that is where you define which territories have territory effects.

It will always use the territory instead of the territory effect in the rare case you'd have a name conflict.

You can use restricted or allowed with territory effects just like territory names.

Long term, many places where you can specify territory names, I'd like to allow territory effects so I want to avoid duplicating lots of unit options.

@Frostion The tooltips will actually show a list of the territories as the engine maps the territory effect to all the territories that have it when the map is parsed. It should work for sea unit placement as well (you could have say a "coast" territory effect which is required for certain sea units). The territory effects only influence the territory that the unit is being placed in (land or sea) so having some territory effect where the land factory is has no influence on what sea units can be placed. But you could have land territory effects that limit what infrastructure can be placed so for example you could limit "naval base" unit can't be placed where there is a "mountain" territory effect.

@Black_Elk Thanks man... awfully nice to say.

team chat rooms and direct messages would be rad. 🙂