@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

@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.

@Hepps i still have the original psd for the icon i could maybe make a cool intro for it too, let me know if you want to collaborate.

I see rampaging scope creep. Can we just get the button?

@mattbarnes The platinum pocket protector.

@simon33 Right, yeah. Splitting purchase/placement into two phases doesn't make any good sense unless some dice are rolled in between (as per standard games). This may be done by adding an option that would be like a fuel cost, but for placement, and setting that units that cost 0 to purchase are always free to place in any numbers. Then the mapmaker would just need to set 0 purchase cost for units and set the price as placement cost.

The poll does ask Features/Changes. Bug fixes would meet the latter criteria. Given that it isn't particularly easy, I'm not upset that it's fallen into the category of a change that people can vote on.

Would be nice if the Calc button was bigger or more centered/obvious somehow. I keep wanting to hit close for some reason to activate it : ) Sorry haven't checked out the new model yet. I'll give it a shot soon. Good work as always : )