@alkexr said in Custom Firing Groups for units:

<firingGroup name="sub" display="Sub" canNotTarget="true">
<target value="$AIR_UNITS$" />
</firingGroup>

I'll want to spend some more time thinking about this proposal, kinda interesting!

For variables, I think it might be easier all round to natively reference the list instead of an implicit inline. EG:

<firingGroup name="sub" display="Sub" canNotTarget="true"> <target unitList="AIR_UNITS" /> </firingGroup>

@Panther That works well for people that know what they are doing, but the average user won't know that.

And it probably won't matter for the most part, it would just be nice.

@ff03k64 gotcha

@ff03k64 yea be nice if you could edit more than 1 tech at a time too. Unfortunately, I think tech is one of the more complicated parts. The hardwired ones more so if I remember right.

I just posted a version of the Axis & Allies & Zombies game at link. I was not able to implement the full ruleset.

AAZ actually has fairly complex interaction between the 3 sides in combat. It would take a substantial amount of work to implement.

Easier to implement would be the creation of a zombie whenever an infantry unit is destroyed. I have already suggested creating a unitDestroyed condition.

The common solution for this is to simply lowercase all filename references in the program itself, which I'm really surprised TripleA doesn't already do. That would entirely eliminate this class of problems.

https://github.com/triplea-game/triplea/tree/master/docs/development#getting-started

Improvements to the setup documentation are really welcome. Anything not covered would be great to see added and could be good starter PRs.

@LaFayette I might have to join a lobby just to see what the boots actually do!

@ff03k64 There are some things you can do to influence the AI, especially if you don't want a human player.

If you use the Easy AI, the AI will move towards the nearest enemy-held capital, without consideration of counterattack.

If you put a capital on the map, the AI will give it more importance, even if losing it has no effect on the owner.

You can give the player specific units through events. If you want a sea campaign, just give it ships

You can deny it specific units or limit the number of units it builds of a specific type. If you want a land campaign, don't let it build ships.

You can confine it to specific territories

If you don't want it to anything except be an ally, make it a pro-neutral or don't give it a movement phase.

@SilverBullet ctrl s is the only one I know of. gotta hit enter 3 times too

@Cernel said in Zero movement cost to enter transports.:

@Panther said in Zero movement cost to enter transports.:

@Cernel said in Zero movement cost to enter transports.:

@Panther Do you think that a mobility 0 unit that can be loaded onto a transport can be actually loaded onto the transport or is the mobility 0 making this impossible unless something gives a mobility bonus to the unit?

I know that all units that are transportable have mobility 1 or more in the basic games. So, for example, I'm saying how about if I change the infantry mobility to 0, rest the same.

The rules say that loading/offloading of a unit counts as the unit's entire move. Moving requires movement points. So I would conclude that a unit with "movement 0" can't move at all (unless - as you say - it receives a mobility bonus by whatever) . How would an infantry with "movement 0" physically move onto a transport?

What we are talking about here is nothing else than moving a unit from a territory to a seazone and/or vice versa!

I can't see how this could be allowed while movement between territories would be denied because of "movement 0"
(again: unless - as you say - the unit receives a mobility bonus by whatever).

Any considerations about the fact that TripleA requires units to be mobile to load onto transport ships, but allows offloading immobile units, instead? How can this be explained? For example, if a transport starts the game with mobility 0 infantries on board, does it make sense that they can be offloaded?

Why should a mobility 0 infantry be unable to load onto a transport, while an already loaded mobility 0 infantry is able to offload from the same?

It cannot be explained- at least not by the rules.
From a rules perspective - as stated before - that does not make any sense.

I can only recommend that a setup of a game does not include this constellation
(again: unless - as you say - the unit receives a mobility bonus by whatever).

If you just want to continue your game, could you go to edit mode and change the politics?

I think someone is working on a scenario for if the Axis win, based off the book "The Man in the High Castle"

@Cernel

I don't think that it has any effect on the AI. This property seem to only effect how units are selected in a zone when the zone is selected.

Cheers...

Another idea: this would be perfect for lend-leased or captured units.
example1.PNG
So here we have France, which has just been conquered by the Germans. An infantry and an armor have survived the blitzkrieg but lay within what is to be Vichy France.
example2.png
With the system for multiple unit images in place one could make special cases for units that switch control.
example3.png
The Germans on their next move bring an Artillery into Vichy France and convert the Infantry and Armor into German units. The way this would work is that there are special unit images in both the Neutral_axis and German unit directories. These would not appear in unit production but only appear when French units switch control to being Neutral_axis or when previously French Neutral_axis units switch control to being German.

This could also work with a lend-lease system (I will add example images for that soon)

@RoiEX <Fog of War> But could you make an option where there is a moderator or game master and that person is able to turn on or off icons. That way another separate game map can be used that would simulate FoW for players.

@Cernel depends what part of the US for pronunciation. My point is the colonials seemed to spell however and that is in part due to the first dictionaries that gave any kind of authoritative spelling only coming out in the 1800s. Before then nobody could say one way was more correct.

With regards to official language, there is none in the US. It is a cultural point as some are trying to make English the official language to effectively racially discriminate. That kind of law would make translators unavailable and officials forms and documents available only in English .

I think we perhaps should draw this discussion back to the game. The consensus is to favor american spelling of words (so color, not colour) for consistency. This really will apply to future work, existing maps are too many to change, coordinating that change across differing engine versions is also a mess. Just changing it would break a lot of maps for a lot of people.

@LaFayette said in Non-Combat Movement Bonus Tech:

@Cernel Oh, gotchya, it's not a base ability to have different movement across phases. I'd agree that it should then be a base ability option and a technology would only then be a true bonus to add to that.

Yes, this is what I was saying, but it's not a big deal. Mostly I feel it is unpolished that, for example, if I want to have a unit that is (always) a land transport, I am forced to give a tech to every player for that. The way @wc_sumpton is doing it is consistent with many other existent items, so my position against such things is general, not specific to this feature (and it's not a big deal just giving everyone the tech).