@redrum thanks for the reply. As I said above, not a big deal. A person just needs to pay attention : )

@zlefin Given the work towards a revamped UI, I don't think we'll be adding anything around the current menu UIs to preview since hopefully in the next few months we have at least the core menus redone. In the long run, I think we'll probably remove having different look and feel options and consolidate to a single one that has a lot more images/flavor.

Actually - on the real board - every territory (except Neutrals of course) has the emblem of the original controller printed on the board. Just to add this information here...

This is a good one, will come in handy with more dice sides for sure. Maybe we should include this in Menu -> Movement/Selection Help too.

@beelee said in Reserve Units Tab:

@stohrm Hi Stohrm
you can do your combat moves then buy then do combat so the combat outcome is still unknown before you purchase

I like that idea a lot. Thanks. It doesn't totally solve the issue; but, in a way, it'll definitely help in the overall decision making process.

And yes, it's been a while since I last checked in - the holidays and such.

It's been a while since I've been here (in the Forums) and I do appreciate your response(s).

Yes, I am aware that one can use Paint (or any other graphics program) and modify the look of the Units. I don't know if there's a 55x55 pixel limit; but, as such, there's not a whole lot one can do.

I have modified all the Infantry type units and done so fairly successfully; but I'm far from any kind of graphic artist.

I've been working on the ships as well; but they're even harder. Again, 55x55 is an extremely small canvas...

Which is why I suggested a "standardization" (in the first place). Yes, unique looks (based on Nationality) are nice; but are they practical?

Anyway, the game I've been playing (and modifying for myself) is "World War II Global - 1940" and I've been splicing in "Pact of Steel 2" bits and pieces. I believe it was the British planes that were the issue; but, yes, I will get around to changing them.

Anyway, again, thanks for your responses. I'm way too much of a loner; but I'm trying...

I should probably add that if the "activateTriggerOnChanceFailure" is added. Then we can have elaborate logic based on "chance" triggers that do not need a million conditions. Each "chance" trigger could in theory cascade to it's conclusion.

Another simple example of use is, map makers can have spawning reinforcements logic to help out an AI player. The elaborate logic to spawn can be based on chance. So the human player won't be able to predict where the reinforcements will spawn next. A trigger, via 1 line of code ("activateTriggerOnChanceFailure" ), would know how to proceed if the chance roll fails without a whole new set of conditions. Currently more than 1 failed chance roll can not be handled practically.

@patrik said in Atomic bomb - the Wunderwaffe:

I think this corresponds to the real scientific process, where more investment over time increases your chance of succeeding, but there is always a good portion of luck.

Scientific progress is very random. It is very likely just pure chance that we have a coherent theory of general relativity (Einstein managed to get it right at the first shot), while after nearly a century we still can't say the same about quantum mechanics. Or to take another example, the amount of evidence for heliocentrism over geocentrism was basically the same at the age of Ptolemy as at the age of Copernicus; it could just as well have become widespread in the ancient world a millennium and a half earlier.

Technological progress, on the other hand, is very different. I wouldn't say there is any reasonable amount of luck involved in developing a particular tehchnology. The reason it seems random is because we can't tell in advance how difficult exactly a specific problem is, and also because it is hard to assess how effectively your engineers can work on the problem given the funding they get.

Real life set aside, if someone can possibly get this überweapon round 3, and your opponent only gets it like round 7, then he will feel RNG-f***ed. (Quite rightfully so too.) In principle your strategy should be prepared for randomness, but I have doubts whether or not "roll a dice, if you roll 1, you lose"-type randomness is good for player experience.

The tech system itself is a great idea though. You could have easier and harder technologies. Also IMO it is much better than most other TripleA tech systems, because you can go from "very slim chance of getting tech" to "almost certainly getting tech" by just doubling your investment, so there is a very real tradeoff between PUs and chance.

If we were really slick, we could start data mining the kill ratio's too. Like Germany vs Russia, or Japan vs USA.

Who has killed the majortiy of nation X's units. All the data exists, we just need to complete the parsers that record it, and have it in tripleA nicely displayed somewhere.

I love seeing these kinds of statistics, alot can be done with them to have a much better/deeper understanding of the game.

Sure maybe you might still lose a hard fought war against a tougher opponent, but now you can prove you killed him 2 to 1. or vice versa, and did everything possible to save your country for annihilation! 🙂

@redrum Just tested this new feature with TWW 2.8 for the first time.

Appears to work flawlessly! Initial tests are very positive. Movement enhancements really make for a new experience.

Now the long and arduous journey begins to see how it will affect balance.

@general_zod Now that I think on it... this behavior is related only to games set up where the transports are lemmings. Meaning that if the transports are ignored in battle then you can land amphibious assaults and loose the transports.... but your guys still land. However... if your transports are combat units... then the units will die before landing if the transport is lost.

Haha, oh yes. One more thing to mention, the name Big World really doesn't signify large scale map as it used to. This map will be small compared to some of the present large ones, and tiny compared to what's on the drawing board. I'm just keeping the name since people are familiar with Big World 1 & 2.

@alkexr
Yeah, I've seen the tooltips.properties. It's a nice system.

However I'm not proposing going that far, by changing what information is listed. I would be satisfied with a simple true or false, for the inclusion on the unit help page.

But if a developer wants to create the properties file instead is also fine.

@redrum speeds up play when the guy is waiting for it

@redrum Another sequencing thought would be random turn order. This would require engine changes, but not huge ones. For many mods, there is no clear-cut way to decide which nation should play first. Back-to-back turns would be a possibility, but the effect could be mitigated by having static units in the capital.

@hepps JESUS! and I wanted was chu chus ... 😉

Well, purchase window is just not comfortable, could be A/B/C/D/E with A for FirstStrike value, B for normal attack, C for FirstStrike value defense, D for normal defense and E for movement, maybe the number of rounds in brackets like : 2(1)/3/3(2)/4/1 but that looks at bit much info, colour could be used maybe.
Any text popup beeing configurable would be good, probably needs to be per unit, maybe within xml under unit attachments.
For engine casualties selection and AI it is not so easy to set. 2 attackers with 3, one FS, one normal and 2 defenders with the same values, for example is hard to judge, as it really depends on the hits your opponent scores. If both FS miss, but you get a hit in normal round, you sure want to keep your FS unit and the same situation when a FS unit scores a hit, but when the FS values are lower, say 1 or 2 with 6 sided dice, it is much harder to tell and more gambling, while I would say a FS unit with 2 is still better than a normal unit with 3...