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...

Great! I would help if possible, let think on that (balance of forces to be even) that can be an innovation even for gametable. thanks & greets

@beelee 😉
https://github.com/triplea-game/triplea/pull/2506#issuecomment-336785177

Is it possible to see SBR damage in territory tab too?

@frostion Yah that is the idea. In my example the BB would actually change twice...

Unit starts as a BB

Turns into BBdamaged

Then turns into BBhvydamaged

This idea could be used in other ways as well for something like a production facilities which could have far more hit points... like 16 HP changes to a lower producing version with 8 or more damage.

@hepps I saw that, due to the purchase limits of the old Fodder AI", with the triggers bringing back the stuff, when it is going to be assigned to the players. But this is another matter yet. As I said, the two "requiresUnits" here are just useless. You could remove them both, and nothing would change, for those units. As I said, this is really a marginal matter, we/you can solve any ways you prefer (most likely, what is wanted is removing the first occurrence only), doesn't really matter and it's no problem; it was really not the focus of my post.
As a matter of my proposal, if you want just to keep it as it is, the change would be this one (but this would equal not having it):
<option name="requiresUnits" value="spanishEntrenchment:spanishCombatEngineer" count="1"/>

@cernel I agree we should increase the major version number, but for a different reason:
The work and infrastructure changes that are required for such a change would be massive, that's why the version would be completely incompatible.