@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.
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.
Ok , changing the unit into a different unit altogether is reasonable. But then we have to figure out, how the player would be able to initiate the change, between a specific "normal submarine" and "surface submarine" in any given sea zone?
Short of a function per se, it would require some finagling with sea zone design, maybe by creating an area that the player can park his submarine, which is designated as surfaced or submerged sea zone for submarines. I'll have to think this through further, sounds like it can have other implications, if it is even possible to do in a logical design.
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...
Redesigning the battle screen is a necessity if anyone wants to use dice larger than d6 to d12. I have a mod where I'm experimenting with d18 and they seem to have some nice benefits and I would like to make them permanent. However the battle screen is a bit of an issue. There are 18 columns on each side albeit most empty, but they still occupy precious space. This causes unit images to be cutoff when the battle screen opens. The players can either manually drag the edge to expand the window, or use maximize button. But even if window is maximized it can't accommodate 36 images for d18 at the size they are currently displayed. Looks like even 24 images for a d12 wont fit without cutting off a couple. Anyways it would be rare to fill each numbers column but it should still accommodate them in chance it does fill up.
If the image size in battle screen was adjustable, it would offer a quick fix. Maybe in game menu or in map. properties file.
Another helpful feature would be an auto window sizer for the battle screen window itself, so it only opens as large as it needs to in order to accommodate all images at whatever size they are.
@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.
@frostion Yeah, this has come up before and is probably a good idea. I think the AI actually already does this (you might want to test that out) so it would probably be pretty easy to add the same logic to default selection provided to the player.