@Trevan said in Custom Battle Phases:

The air battle has generally the AA phase and the All other units phase.

I guess you talk about air battle in conjuction with AA phase because you imagine AA as a related action to aircraft encounters with AAGun-like units?

Because we can have non-isAir, non-aircraft units with canAirBattle, fortunately, and additionally have AA ability.

I now tested, just to clarify for myself, that AA is not related to air battle per se. I just want to avoid missunderstanding on my side, which is quite possible. Because i thought i can have AA at the start of air battles too.
I try my best to conclude as good as i can. Please correct me:

Basicaly AA is after air battle phase and before normal battle phase so to say.

So we can state that there are indeed 2 seperated Battles. (ignoring the non-fighting phases)

1. Air Battle (no support)

phase

2. Normal Battle (support)

Bombardment phase (the only still hard restricted one -> amphibious assault) First Strike phase (v2 vs v3 destroyer) phase

In terms of order of phases (at minimum 1)

air battle phase aa phase bombard phase first strike phase normal phase

The main reason why i lay it out so much, is that i want to be sure about the order of phases in general at the most basic if i use all battle options whether or not i then modify further.

@LaFayette said in Question About the Battle Screen:

...Coding up such a feature is probably going to require 5-10 hours...

Idk seems like a lot of work. Think it works ok the way it is.

@Cernel said in Suggestions About Victory Conditions:

(and, if you don't, then it is just bad play not to play specifically to maximize your chance to eventually achieve them, which should assure you not to be surprised to win).

This is exactly the point you seem to be missing. Sometimes people aren't playing as competitively. Perhaps they want to re-enact something historically, or are enjoying a particular dynamic on a particular front regardless of the objectives or conditions and want to see it play out. It would be harmful to the experience and enjoyment to force a player to stop playing. Game options can't be changed once the game is started and so if I accidentally left a condition activated (because it was default and I was just playing for fun) and then got stopped by the game when they were met without the option to continue, it would be really frustrating.

@Schulz there are times when you want to play a "real" game or map but in a "sandbox" mode (what would happen if...). Perhaps what we're getting at here is an overall "social" vs. "competitive" mode to TripleA overall.

Social would be local dice, allow to continue with victory conditions, edit mode, etc.

Competitive could be required dice server, game forcefully ends on victory, edit mode requires all players to accept before one player can make an edit, etc.

It's basically what you have described. The game server would have to keep the full game state and the two clients would only be allowed to have partial game state with some level of authentication to resume a save. Splitting up the game data like that is super-non trivial. It'll be more feasible FWIW when we have overhauled the networking technology. There are certainly some thoughts about having a partial system like that where the 'main' server is responsible for rolling dice. Having there be more responsibility on that server to support 'fog of war' would be a logical next step (and there has been quite a bit of demand for fog of war). For expectations, we are talking months of full time work, I can't say for sure it would ever happen.

Okay, thanks for the clarificatoin.

The bar can be shrunk to a minimum width of the largest required minimum of any element in the side bar. That will either be a component in the action tab or the minimap itself.. The history tab either has no effective min or a min that is always less than any minimap that exists today.

While having it so there is a consistent min across any possible tab would be, consistent, it's not necessarily trivial to do.

That's hardcoded, no option to hide it.

@Schulz
After reading through PoS xml, i cant say it is possible through territory effect. There is a list of allowed effects. HP not listed.
But without territory effect it is possible i say.
Condition and Trigger is the place to look at.

@Hepps Haha yeah....I'm patient but thorough LOL

I agree the 'Notes' tab being in the 'action panel' is very questionable.

Funny enough the min is set to 240px. Swing layout is an odd beast, there is invisible padding that needs to be available. With a more narrow unit scroller now, fewer buttons, that looks okay. The 'player' stats table has issues though and becomes difficult to read. Below is a sampling when setting the min to 200:

Screenshot from 2020-12-27 10-52-19.png

@LaFayette as long as we are sure this will not affect dice outcomes i withdraw my objection. 🙂

The path displaying in the game selection screen makes sense. The duplicate name scenario is an issue, it's a legacy design that expects all scenarios to have unique names.

I submitted the feature request on GitHub. We will see if anyone takes it up.

On a related note, I think that with user actions, there should be a default AI percent, to give the AI some guidance on whether to do something.

@LaFayette To give a suggestion in regards to a counter, I first thought of two methods that I later discarded. One was just a little "x something" like the units-to-be-placed has above, or the white count number at the factory like on placed units have. But I figured that both of these production indicators would maybe lead to confusing.

So my suggestion would be to have a counter after the territory name. Like "Berlin (Production X)". This would mean the whole territory. Then the individual factory free producti capability would be seen when placing, just like it works now.

What about it? 🤔

@RoiEX i wonder if this has anything to do with my issue of not being able to get a PBF game going on mac.