@wirkey It would be a burocratic nightmare to use edit for this system.

@beelee I revived a thread that has long been dead. Now it is an undead thread.

@schulz I feel like the first sentence of this comment means it should end with something like... "This message has been brought to you by the party against single blocker units". 😃

@schulz This is partially a duplicate of (or at least much overlapping) this other topic:
https://forums.triplea-game.org/topic/657/blitz-more-like-amphibious-attacks

@general_zod Yeah. I considered this too. There are a bunch of other reasons, as well; for example, customized tooltips don't work with technology (if you have a map where a unit may get better for a tech, you can't really customize its tooltip).

After sleeping on it, I think the credits should be left to the HTML notes.

So the proposed info tag could just be :

<info name="Age of Tribes: Primeval" version="1.0.7" created='2016.03.06' updated='2018.01.02'/>

@hepps then once a map had a system the results could be standardized.

@cernel

Yeah I do something similar in my "Bad-Ass 4-Nation FFA" tech tokens are purchased during the purchase phase. One could add resources there in addition to PUs cost.

But the level of luck hat a typical technology model uses, ruins the game imo. There should be very little luck, if any at all, when the often typical game changing, overpowered and unbalanced technologies are involved.

Tackling all resource related improvement in one shot, sounds like a big job. I would be very happy with the simple fixes which I proposed above as first intermediate steps.

@general_zod said in Resource System Assessment and Improvements:

This method is not only ideal for userAction and politcalAction, but would definitely reduce the amount of code needed as compared to checking conditions and making triggers to replicate what is already elegantly achieved. (currently with "costPU" method).

This being said, I am still, all for a separate option, with the ability to check resources in separate conditions which can be used anywhere (non userAction/politcalAction areas ideally). And if this method turns out to update resources instantly, I guess doing things the long way will be better than not doing them at all.

Ooooooooooooh it because they fear to lose the capital!

Well, actually, in Feudal Japan you cannot directly go from war to allied, and practically I've never seen players coordinate for canopeners, nor I think it is really something you worry about.

@redrum I agree that Feudal Japan has several issues and it is kind of silly, also tendentially very hard to balance, due to the linear island shape, but, compared with what we have, it is surely one of the best FFA of TripleA.

Of course, it is playable only if the humans are in the minority, if only for balancing reasons.

I think this problem would be fixed by adding 2 castles in each capital (for a total of 3), which I actually believe would be good anyways, giving some anti-stomping margin. If I would do this change (only), would you merge it?

This is a 20 rounds savegame with the 3 castles setup; it looks fine enough:
0_1524681495796_20180425_Feudal Japan_AI(Fast)_02.tsvg

Yah. Having to write it down for each player I believe is the main drawback of the new bonus system, as I pointed out. Tho probably a way to assign it to all players sharing the same type would cover better, like in case you solo a FFA with many players.
Following your proposal, rather better the button just sharing all possible settings for the player amongst the alliance; also easier to document in the tooltip.

@redrum Thanks for doing this, it works quite well. I will put it to good use.

@Cernel That sounds like a good solution, to remove (or limit) the max button for zero cost purchases. We shall see if abuse of this feature becomes a problem once a map-maker implements it and we can see how players use it.

That ignore option with the category does the trick, Thanks!

@redrum said in Autosave in Bots:

@prastle I think he's more asking if there would be a way to have the bot server send the autosaves to each player's local machine so if that bot freezes or the player wants to switch bots then they have the saves locally as well.

Yeah, that was the plan. No need to have them on the server, just local. And it could overwrite the previous save. And maybe only the player on turn will get it

@irontooth if you don't want a separate mod you can change stats by making a custom tech that changes the unit stats.

That would do the trick for me.

@cernel Not besides @ his username. Given that I already have the PR to address this posted, I'm sure he'll see it when he has some time.

@cernel I'd rather move towards being consistent with how the bottom bar displays it with the +/- right next to the amount in parenthesis. So other areas in the UI could probably use bold text as well but gotta start somewhere.

@general_zod Never tried, but I'm almost sure it should not. However, since this option was made many years before steps existed, it may be related to the name of the momement phase only; so, you can try to have a named non combat movement phase with the steps turning it into a combat movement one, see if it fools the option into working during CM.

Anyways, as I said, as it is, this option is really limited, as you can only use it for territories not touching two adjacent sea zones and only in case no other adjacent sea zones are touched by territories that touch other naval bases. I don't know if the issue of allowing keeping moving of 1 more again and again is the reason why it is years since any maps used it, if I've not overlooked some, but it would be an almost unavoidable reason for me to not considering it.