As of pre-release 1.9.0.0.12435, the Find Territory command should work as expected when Lock Map is enabled.

The feature would have put a left/right arrow on the screen with a count of how many unused units there were. Hotkeys would have been mapped to these, and hitting space bar would proceed to the next one. So you could scroll through all units and then 'skip' a unit you do not want to move. There was a bug with the hotkey system where the main window would lose the listener and the hotkeys would stop working until the map was clicked. That delayed/broke the feature, so I've some old code in a branch hanging out for this but it'll take some time to revive that and to fix the hotkey problem (which was our oldest open bug tracked in github). Other TripleA priorities are more pressing, I don't rightly know when I'll get back to this, but I would like to.

@hepps Who is Neil Diamond? Anyways, here is the PR: https://github.com/triplea-game/triplea/pull/4140 This has no impact on existing maps that don't use the new parameters. But allows maps to require airbase for interception just like scrambling. It also allows specifying the max number each airbase can send to intercept (default is infinite). I tested it by editing TWW to have fighters require airfields to intercept and have a limit of 1. Here is the XML examples: Airfield <attachment name="unitAttachment" attachTo="britishAirfield" javaClass="games.strategy.triplea.attachments.UnitAttachment" type="unitType"> <option name="isAirBase" value="true"/> <option name="maxInterceptCount" value="1"/> Fighter <attachment name="unitAttachment" attachTo="britishFighter" javaClass="games.strategy.triplea.attachments.UnitAttachment" type="unitType"> <option name="canIntercept" value="true"/> <option name="requiresAirbaseToIntercept" value="true"/>

Here is an example of what I was proposing... [image: 1538564088164-hot-key-menu-resized.png]

Looking to update this further so the resource icons are displayed instead of the text. Example: [image: 1538449039800-a1114872-f1b3-4853-b982-2273c36f53a0-image.png]

Yeah, the whole "each" functionality is pretty funky. I'd like to implement some sort of variable/tag/etc system where you can define essentially a list of values at least to start. I think probably units, territories, and numerical lists would be the ones most useful. Something like: <variable name="landUnits" value="infantry:artillery:tank"/> <variable name="capitals" value="moscow:berlin:london:toyko:washington"/> <variable name="every5" value="5x[0-100]"/>

@redrum said in Comment Log: @frostion Close. There is actually a little known feature called the "Comment Log" (View > Show Comment Log). Here you can take notes and such to share with other players or yourself. These appear in the comment log box at the bottom of the screen and in the game history. When you save/load a game the existing comments only appear in the history not in the comment log any more. Yeah, that's what I meant. On the point, as usual

@jonpfl Best thing to do is increase the font size of the numbers and/or change the font color. Go to top bar "View" > "Edit Map Font and Color". Also in the latest pre-release numbers for damage and unit counts now have outlines.

For more detail, you can use the program, Centennia Historical Atlas. However it only covers Europe, North Africa and the Middle East during the second millenium. The military history department of West Point has some interesting maps USMA

@alkexr Yeah, the biggest issue is when you get a large stack of bombard units its a huge pain to select all their targets and remember which ones targeted what.

@jonpfl Gimp is one freeware program. The one I use is Paint dot net. If you are familiar with windows programs it is FAR easier to learn and use. You can also just hijack unit images from other games that have more distinctive unit images. The difference between the three units in TWW is quite dramatic... [image: 1535908302756-americandestroyer.png] [image: 1535908302755-americancruiser.png] [image: 1535908302750-americanbattleship.png]

@cernel But I'm really undecided here, since when you are dealing with a map made by someone else, it is really handy to use edit mode (in remove units mode) to be sure about what is in that territory, now that units may be hidden. I'm thinking units supposed to be never drawn should be allowed not having an image assigned (of course they should like in the case of all territories having a combat infrastructure), but, if editable, the engine should not give any errors for missing images when editing, if the unit is not to be drawn.

@alkexr As @Cernel mentions, there is a map property that when 2 territories have multiple canals between them whether units have to control all or just one to pass. Here is the property: <property name="Control All Canals Between Territories To Pass" value="true" editable="false"> <boolean/> </property> The default is 'false' meaning you only need to control one not all but you can look at the newly released Red Sun Over China to see how I set this to 'true' and have essentially 'serial' canals for trains.

Great conceptual idea!

@redrum I actually think it is not needed or logic (assuming all players of a same alliance always winning or losing together) to support talking to single players of a same alliance, but only to alliances, as long as at least one player (meaning the country/power) of such alliance is played by a human player, except that: if the game has only 2 alliances, then you can talk only to the alliance you belong to; when you talk with any alliance, the message is always also sent to any human players part of an alliance you have a player assigned to yourself (your teammates always know everything you say). The above would mean that if only two or less human players are part of the game (either playing a regular 1v1 or with some AI), you have only the option of the general chat (nothing of this feature). For example, you can have any World War II games, but v3 and Global: <alliance player="Germans" alliance="Axis"/> <alliance player="Japanese" alliance="Axis"/> <alliance player="British" alliance="Allies"/> <alliance player="Russians" alliance="Allies"/> <alliance player="Americans" alliance="Allies"/> In this case, beside the general chat, your only option would be talking with either "Axis" or "Allies", but only the alliance you are currently using a player of, while at least another player of the same is assigned to another human player. This is because I believe in a 1v1 you never reasonably want to talk to the enemy alliance only; so there is no reason to have that option (there is no gameplay related reason to do that). Of course, if you are playing a 1v1 with two human players, each taking all the players of a same alliance, your only option is the general chat (there is no reason talking to your alliance, since it is only you, and there is no reason talking to the enemy alliance only, because it is a 1v1, as said, thus you are substantially already doing that when using the general chat). As a pure FFA case, you can have Feudal Japan: <alliance player="GameSetup" alliance="GameSetup"/> <alliance player="Otomo" alliance="Otomo"/> <alliance player="MinorClans" alliance="MinorClans"/> <alliance player="Miyoshi" alliance="Miyoshi"/> <alliance player="Ryuzoji" alliance="Ryuzoji"/> <alliance player="Shimazu" alliance="Shimazu"/> <alliance player="Chosokabe" alliance="Chosokabe"/> <alliance player="Mori" alliance="Mori"/> <alliance player="Urakami" alliance="Urakami"/> <alliance player="Yamana" alliance="Yamana"/> <alliance player="Hatakeyama" alliance="Hatakeyama"/> <alliance player="Asai" alliance="Asai"/> <alliance player="Asakura" alliance="Asakura"/> <alliance player="Oda" alliance="Oda"/> <alliance player="Takeda" alliance="Takeda"/> <alliance player="Uesugi" alliance="Uesugi"/> <alliance player="Hojo" alliance="Hojo"/> <alliance player="Satomi" alliance="Satomi"/> <alliance player="Date" alliance="Date"/> In this case, beside the general chat, you could talk with any alliance played by a human player that it is not you (this condition is not actually necessary, as you are never meant to take players across different alliances, but just in case), that is the same as talking to that player, as FFA (if correctly coded) assign 1 player per each alliance (and usually you define both the player and its alliance with the same name). However, once only 2 human players remain in game (normally, the others have surrendered/raged and have been turned to AI), your only option is the general chat. As a case of a game with the traditional multi-players alliances, but more than two alliances, you can have Domination: <alliance player="British" alliance="-Am.P.J.Br"/> <alliance player="Americans" alliance="-Am.P.J.Br"/> <alliance player="Japanese" alliance="-Am.P.J.Br"/> <alliance player="Portugese" alliance="-Am.P.J.Br"/> <alliance player="French" alliance="-Sp.It.R.Fr"/> <alliance player="Russians" alliance="-Sp.It.R.Fr"/> <alliance player="Spanish" alliance="-Sp.It.R.Fr"/> <alliance player="Italians" alliance="-Sp.It.R.Fr"/> <alliance player="Germans" alliance="D.A.O.G.C"/> <alliance player="Austrians" alliance="D.A.O.G.C"/> <alliance player="Ottomans" alliance="D.A.O.G.C"/> <alliance player="Dutch" alliance="D.A.O.G.C"/> <alliance player="Chinese" alliance="D.A.O.G.C"/> In this case, beside the general chat, your only option would be talking with "-Am.P.J.Br", "-Sp.It.R.Fr" and "D.A.O.G.C", except that if there is no other human player than yourself controlling any players of an alliance you are playing, you don't have the option to talk to that alliance (cause you would be talking with yourself). So, for example, since "Domination" is usually played with 3 human players, each taking all the players of a same alliance, if I'm currently playing "-Am.P.J.Br", then I will have the three options of the general chat, the "-Sp.It.R.Fr" and the "D.A.O.G.C". If "D.A.O.G.C" is eliminated from the game, and the games turns into a 1v1, because we reload, assigning all "D.A.O.G.C" players to AI (maybe "Does Nothing"), I will have no options at all, since I cannot talk with "D.A.O.G.C", because it has no human players assigned, nor to "-Am.P.J.Br", because it is all me, nor to "-Sp.It.R.Fr", because, since the game is now only between my alliance and that alliance, there are no reasons for secretive talking. If we would be playing "Domination" with 6 human players, each couple sharing an alliance, then we would have the 4 options of the general chat and all the 3 alliances available (your own alliance would be for secretively talking with your teammate, and the other alliance options would be for secret diplomacy). As said, in this case your teammate should be able to see whatever you say (so, when you select someone else alliance, you are practically selecting both that alliance and your own). p.s.: In the remote past Wisconsin (or maybe someone else; I'm not sure) actually tried to make a private chat for FFA games, but Sean Bridges (not sure either) refused it; I asked Veqryn about it and he told me that the code was not sound because of some technical reasons, so it was refused, and Veqryn himself wasn't interested in the idea. p.p.s.: Since automated hosts are moderated (and a mod is judge, jury and executioner), that is to be taken into due consideration, enabling anyone of mediocre intelligence to understand what was going on and make a judgment upon it, or limiting this feature to private hosts only.

wow thanks for the posts. I will look into TWW

@cernel I would suggest to add an infinite=true flag. eg: <option name="attemptsPerTurn" infinite="true"/>

I think most, or at least some, would have preferred the EV column being fixed as to display what engine version that host is using, rather than removing it. I think the status column should aim at telling anyone that they are welcomed to join your host to play in it, without you having to chat in lobby to tell people so or put a redundant comment in notes inviting people to join your host, that the status column should already do. So: I think the current "Waiting For Players" is good enough. I think "Waiting" only is not a good pick, since that doesn't communicate that you want other users to join your host to play the game you are proposing; it's too generic and it may mean you are waiting for technical reasons, like loading times. "Awaiting Players" shortens it a bit, keeping the same info as "Waiting For Players" (number 1), but is sounds a touch formal, so it makes me think that you are specifically waiting for someone, you had an appointment with, rather than just being open to anyone willingly to join, that should be the actual message. "Open" may be good, as it should be much better than "Waiting" (number 2) in communicating that the game can be joined and it sounds rather immediate to me, as you can think to a Host as being a Room, basically, but it has the drawback of being scarcely consistent with the status itself, as games in progress are not closed, but still open for observers to join them. "Open For Players" is a little shorter than "Waiting For Players" (number 1) and solves the drawbacks of just "Open" (number 4), also maybe being the most effective in giving the message we want, but it sounds a touch awkward. "Need Players" may be the best if we want to focus on noob friendliness, but it has the drawback of being scarcely consistent with the status itself, as the status would be just that of a host whose game is not yet started, that doesn't necessarily mean you actually need players, except for bots, since they automatically start when all players are taken. The issue could be solved by having different status for not started games depending if all in-game players (the countries) have been taken (so, you can have three statuses: "Need Players", "Ready", "In Progress").

@cernel Ah, ok, couldn't have guessed that from your initial question that I read as rules question. Searching for sort of analogies in the rules we have the "Sea Units starting in hostile seazones" rules, that allow to move from a hostile seazone, simply to escape combat or to initiate combat elsewhere. So concerning land units I would tend to let the player decide to let them either stay and engage the enemy troops or to move to an adjacent territory during combat move phase. In case the territory has become hostile due to the player's proximate action, I would allow two steps. (Analogy: Load transport in hostile seazone exception, when the seazone has just become hostile due to proximate DOW by the transport's owning power). In case the territory has become hostile at some time between the power's turns, I would only allow one step in analogy to the 1914 rules. Just some ideas of course.