@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.

@redrum How about restricting it to apply only to games that have at least 1 same named unit, in the battlecalculator, shared between each and all selectable (not hidden, not null) players in the game? While not absolutely safe, it would be a fairly consistent way to identify those games that have very different frontiers, and may just happen to share a few units here and there. I can't think of an available game for which this would not be fine, as long as TWW never gets any of those shared units in the battlecalculator (as I assumed).

@redrum I think it woud be just better letting the mapmakers able to define if a movement 0 or cannot combat move unit should stay at the start or at the end or somewhere else in the list, by their order in the production frontier. Alternatively, I would go with the battlecalculator order (so, a 0/1 immobile unit would be first, and a 0/4 immobile unit would be last). For the problem of defence only units pushing the defence listing only down (like in the case of your first image, in which the alpine infantry is pushed down from 1st to 3rd position by the two immobile units), deteriorating simmetry, I've opened this f.r., that would cover that (the solution would be pushing down the attacking alpine infantry too, leaving empty spaces): https://forums.triplea-game.org/topic/695/always-align-the-same-named-units-in-the-battlecalculator-if-any

@beelee might try "TransportC8 D1 (already available) " if subs get out of Line. Seems ok so far though, ( U-Boats just took a beating as I type this ) but "Those Boys been in Dry Dock too Long". : ) With a C5 DD it'd no longer be the Fodder Unit. Also, just noticed, if a DD is fired on in CM while going to another SZ, You cannot move through that zone in NCM due to it have been being in a "Combat Zone". Another boost for the DD : ) Oops ! Sorry just realized probably not the right spot for this : )

@redrum I would rather go with something like this: [image: 1522170609484-20180327_alt01-resized.png] Both side bars being shrinkable at will, also under the limits of the minimap and the writings. The minimap shrinkable too, but keeping the X/Y ratio. An option for forcing the two side bars to have the same wideness, in the menu. The left side bar would be substituted by the history bar, when in history only. Also, when you shrink the left bar (with the units), the units eventually zoom smaller when the sidebar is slimmed so much that they would otherwise be cut, so that you can have that left side bar, with the units, veeery slim (people don't like to lose board space).

Made some slight adjustments. Here is the proposed grouping/sorting: Unit owner: territory owner, not at war with territory owner, player order in XML Unit type: 0 movement, can't combat move, sea, air if sea territory, land, air if land territory Within each of those groups sort the units by XML order in UnitList

Reposting here, since it fits this discussion. @general_zod said in Group and Sort Units onto Placements Logically: @redrum Can we have a mechanism that prevents overflow from being displayed completely in a given territory. (on map view only, but still displayed on territory tab). So Instead of displaying the line of overflow units. It would display a single special unit depicting there is overflow. Ideally that unit would be clickable, to see the list of actual overflow units. I'm leaning towards this being settable during the placement picker steps. Lets say a different color square or symbol (green) on last placement, indicating overflow wont display on map. Instead a special unit will display in the last position, representing that there is more overflow units.

@redrum kk Japan and NewJersy bots run the latest pre and have maps updated

@ssoloff Thinking on it some more. I suggest the confirmation checkbox should always be next to the button (done/ok) as a pre checked or not checked box, depending engine preference. If the engine preference is activated then confirmation is required by placing a check the box. If the engine preference is deactivate then the confirmation box is a pre checked. This disposition might be helpful if one wants to remove the pre check from the box to be safe (if desired) , while still in normal game mode.