Feature Requests & Ideas

• R

  AA/First Strike Unit Enhancements
  • Rolf Larsson  

  6
  1
  Votes
  6
  Posts
  991
  Views

  R

  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...
• B

  Fewer Players
  • beelee  

  1
  0
  Votes
  1
  Posts
  435
  Views

  No one has replied

• 

  Bombers That Can Miss (Negative Bombing Bonus)
  • Hepps  

  8
  0
  Votes
  8
  Posts
  1405
  Views

  

  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
• B

  Highlight "waiting for players" on Lobby games
  • beelee  

  10
  1
  Votes
  10
  Posts
  1805
  Views

  

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

  Possible Game Interface suggestions
  • Hepps  

  5
  1
  Votes
  5
  Posts
  1432
  Views

  

  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.
• 

  Visualization for Bombing runs
  • Hepps  

  16
  2
  Votes
  16
  Posts
  2625
  Views

  

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

  looking to pay someone to make battle board in TWW more readable so as to determine air and armor superiority
  • panzerman  

  1
  0
  Votes
  1
  Posts
  559
  Views

  No one has replied

• 

  Remaining Requests from Hepster
  • Hepps  

  5
  0
  Votes
  5
  Posts
  1059
  Views

  

  @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.
• S

  This topic is deleted!
  • slitherioo  

  3
  0
  Votes
  3
  Posts
  48
  Views
• 

  UnitAttachment Which Allows/Requires Another Unit To Move
  • redrum  

  58
  0
  Votes
  58
  Posts
  9846
  Views

  C

  @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"/>
• 

  Diplomacy Extensions
  • RoiEX  

  10
  2
  Votes
  10
  Posts
  1866
  Views

  

  @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.
• 

  Improve the default casualty selection of the last combat round
  • Frostion  

  2
  0
  Votes
  2
  Posts
  650
  Views

  

  @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.
• 

  Open website confirmation message - should we keep it, or just open the browser window?
  • LaFayette  

  3
  0
  Votes
  3
  Posts
  744
  Views

  

  Yes keep it.
• 

  Remove Space Bar for casualties confirmation
  • prastle  

  20
  0
  Votes
  20
  Posts
  3197
  Views

  

  @cernel said in Remove Space Bar for casualties confirmation: If that doesn't happen for you, it has to be either a bug or something is not clear about that option's description. Well, I posted the screenshot of the setting and tried the alternative. The two variables I can think of are: OS, I'm running Ubuntu 16 Look and feel, currently set to system default instead of substance. I'll need to check if either of those two are the reason. Thank you for confirming that @Cernel and @prastle For combat, you need to hit space bar twice for a mis-confirmation, and politics once. I would suggest it's a majority use case where two players are spamming space bar to get through a combat phase rather than either one chatting. If you play multplayer games instead of 1v1, you may have a different experience, but looking at lobby games at any time less than 25% to less than 10% of games are more than 2 players. So, we need to be sure: we keep combat fast, players need to be able to confirm casualties with keyboard shortcuts quickly. We need to keep in mind that space bar is an OS default to activate the currently selected control. Getting the UX correct here may be tricky. we need to keep in mind there are cases where players are chatting, single click confirmations are effectively broken, double space bar confirmations not as bad but still can lead to accidental confirmations. Summarizing that, I cut a tracking ticket so we don't forget this: https://github.com/triplea-game/triplea/issues/2293 Please add any 'requirements' to the list if any are missing, the problem at least is well defined, the task I documented is mainly to investigate possible fixes and to propose something that fits the listed requirements. DanVanAtta created this issue in triplea-game/triplea closed Fix accidental Space bar confirmation (problem while typing, eg: chatting) #2293
• 

  Drop old jar functionality
  • RoiEX  

  20
  0
  Votes
  20
  Posts
  2840
  Views

  

  But as long as it is possibe to always install a legacy version, there should be no need to keep old jars with the latest release and pre-releases @panther I think that is a very good point. Our new website, installer, and that we print the engine version in the game UI makes this all a lot easier compared to the SVN days. will the next major release affect all the maps the same as the last one? Likely not. We're in a better position to avoid a number of those problems now. We can still and always could introduce non-backward compatible XML changes. The last iteration required a re-download since we unbundled every map with from the game engine and we re-hosted. We took that opportunity to add in some non-backward compatible changes since all the maps needed to be updated anyways. I think soon we will introduce an XML schema versioning system directly into the XML . That would allow us to start upadting XMLs in non-backwards compatible ways, but still play 'old' map XMLs that had not been updated. Today the game engine and XML code need to stay in pretty much lock step, doing that we could let the game engine code move forward but still 'remember' how to parse the old XML spec. @RoiEX I would check on the live lobby a few times to get more player input on this one. I think the question at the moment is whether everyone agrees with "But as long as it is possibe to always install a legacy version, there should be no need to keep old jars with the latest release and pre-releases"
• N

  Version for Raspberry Pi
  raspberrypi new version triplea raspbian • • Nedhudir Falasren  

  5
  0
  Votes
  5
  Posts
  1050
  Views

  

  Now I'm inclined to blow the dust of my raspberry and try it myself ^^
• 

  Forum Recent Active Topics Widget
  • prastle  

  1
  0
  Votes
  1
  Posts
  555
  Views

  No one has replied

• 

  Handling of AI players not meant to be played - Github request.
  • Frostion  

  37
  2
  Votes
  37
  Posts
  7345
  Views

  

  @Frostion Hoping to release in the next week. We are going through some testing and fixing a few bugs that were found. You should be able to make a PR in github or make the changes local and not upload them then wait til its released.
• 

  Ideas for a 'show combat' button?
  • LaFayette  

  15
  0
  Votes
  15
  Posts
  2441
  Views

  C

  @LaFayette said in Ideas for a 'show combat' button?: @redrum Always on-top could be an option, yes. IIRC there was an issue where multiple always on top windows competed, so long as that is not the case that is a good alternative. It was me that reported that issue relatively to the "Game Notes" window. The case is different here, and I suggest having the on top and, then, see if it causes any issues or not. I think that if the window closes automatically when the battle is over, then there should be no issues at all for sure. But, we also should consider the spectator case, an always on top combat window would be really annoying, so some conditional logic would seem called for to always on-top only if you are involved in the battle. As long as you can still click to minimise the window, I believe that is not a problem. Anyways, if it is feasible, I agree to limit the always on top for the two referring players of the battle only, of course.
• D

  Moderate luck option?
  • David_VanDyke  

  61
  1
  Votes
  61
  Posts
  13554
  Views

  

  @David_VanDyke I don't believe anyone is currently working on it but I think we have a general consensus on the 2 main ways to implement it from this post: https://forums.triplea-game.org/topic/212/moderate-luck-option/20 Its hard to say if/when someone will pick it up to work on it but it is on the unprioritized feature list: https://forums.triplea-game.org/topic/182/guidelines-and-feature-request-list I'm currently working on: https://forums.triplea-game.org/topic/159/tuv-for-units-that-have-consumesunits-property I may eventually make a poll for folks to vote on feature requests they'd like to see prioritized.