@alexei-svitkine This had been possible in the past when the PBF-settings allowed to select either the local dicey or the remote MARTI-dice. Unfortunately this feature had been removed accidentally - and players do miss this feature. It has already been discussed to reinstate this feature, but.... well ... See: https://forums.triplea-game.org/topic/2151/feature-request-reinstate-internal-dice-roller/

Some thoughts: Personally I would not want to install another bloaty (Steam) client just to be able to use TripleA. But as long as TripleA will be kept as an independently installable software I would not object. Concerning the user base: I have no idea if and how the user base would enlarge. But if it did it would mean, that the need for support and explanation would increase, too. Now who will cover that? Who will monitor Steam-forums and maybe Discord-channels? On A&A .org, the PBF-base of a remarkable user-base, it is basically me as a one-man-show who helps users with troubleshooting in case of software problems on their side. And I must admit that - at least since 2.6 - development - this "job" has become harder for me as 'improvements' of the software to me have become more and more unclear. Not a complaint - just a remark that giving support to me becomes harder and harder, too. I am not sure how long I will be willing to continue this. Before thinking of enlarging the user base by using one of the popular game distribution sites one should reflect what is feasible not only concerning the possible consequences - but also concerning the current lineup, too.

@stohrm well there is a button that'll cycle through all your units that haven't moved. It can be helpful at times. I don't use it much personally. A live game would probably be different though.

@rainova Later I've concluded that units having different sizes in different territories could be unpleasant to see.

@simon33 It's a known bug with a specific command and the lobby bots. There are already reports filed on it. It's simply not a high priority to get fixed; and can only be fixed by certain devs, so it gets fixed whenever they decide its priority is high enough that they work on it instead of the other things they could be working on.

@lafayette said in Showing all shortest paths on the same preference level: @cernel If all were shown: the UI could become crowded I don't think this would be the case: virtually always the various paths would be apart from each other and I guess most times you would have about 3 of them. It is just needed to make sure (and I guess this is already the case) that paths that run partially through the same zones are exactly overlapping there (so you would see only one path in such segments). it would not be clear when clicking which route would be selected. We'd have to introduce a second click to confirm the route. This could potentially double the needed clicks for many moves. I suggest that left clicking (possibly randomly) selects one of the paths (like now it arbitrarily shows only one) without even telling the user (as you would do such a click when you are completely indifferent on the matter) and right clicking makes you cycle through the paths (showing only one at the same time) before selecting the current path by left clicking thereafter (so, if you are indifferent, you only left click, whereas, if you want to select a path, you firstly right click one or more time to cycle trough the paths and then left click when you are sure). This would imply removing the ability of deselecting units (by right clicking) when the cursor is not hovering the zone occupied by the selected units (meaning that you need to be hovering the starting zone to be able to deselect units). Alternatively, it may be required to hover specifically the unit type you want to deselect (much the same way as you already have to do when you want to add units of that type by left clicking). Having a hotkey to maybe cycle through a different route would be maybe a nice way to do it. Though, how often does this come up where a person really wants to 'see' the alternative routes instead of just alt-clicking the alternative route that they want? This may be a good lighter alternative, keeping the basic behaviour as it is now, if it is preferred not to make changes but just to add an other feature. It may be made so that clicking shows all paths (until you keep the button pressed) and releasing the key cycles the preferred one.

@cernel If I understand correctly you're suggesting it be an either /or to download from repo's or to download directly from a URL. The alternatives that would accomplish are not very palatable to me: A) We add a second button to the main screen. Cons: too many buttons on main screen already, this makes it harder to use all existing controls, it's one more thing when considering what to cick next. putting a button on a screen that is not typically pushed is a bad UX, all UI elements should be relatively cohesive and used scatters download functionality, there are two places now to know about when downloading \B) When clicking the 'download maps' button we ask whether to download from repo or direct URL. I don't like this very much as we introduce an extra button click when 99.9% of the time users will be downloading from repos.

@numetalfan yea I think you can do what you want. I Think there's a few maps that have a similar mechanic. Slightly different . Can't think of any off hand. Maybe you could buy units for a certain price and place in a Capital and when the right amount of units are present they activate the trigger ?

@torpedoa Sadly, that doesn't fit my intention because of the interaction with IsDestroyer & the fact that there's no way to limit it to a single unit/round. It would actually be as-intended if I could dictate whether units retreat ("withdraw") to the same SZ/territory or retreat to a neighboring one.

@ubernaut Definitely.

@wirkey said in Display Standard Deviation in Battle Simulator: 4.11 ± 2.58 Std deviation can be tricky. 4.11 would be the average outcome, the plus min 2.5 means most other results were clusted within that distance from the average. It could be the case that most results were clustered much more closer with a few very extreme results, or the clustering was pretty tightly grouped (no way to tell based on std deviation alone). Hence, IMO we probably really want percentiles if we are going to add more statistics.

@waxfingers said in Unit Option When Damaged Change Into Different Unit (Weakened Battleships): Hi @rogercooper OK I will check that out. I am not sure if it does exactly what I am proposing though. Would removing IPCs mean a single bombing run takes away so much IPCs for that turn only? Or does the damage and consequence persist if not repaired? My idea is more of a continuous drain if not dealt with and repaired. Also, I wanted the major territories to be a little bit resistant to it (would need like 3+ planes or separate bombing runs to do enough damage to have an effect). That is why the math was territory value less bombing value is the amount of IPCs lost. So if territory is 5 and bombing was only 3 then nothing happens to IPCs. It would not be persistent. If you want persistent damage, just make damage to factory capacity unrepairable.

@anton-hengst Unfortunately, unitSupportAttachment only gives combat bonus. You could use "givesMovement" but that his no limitation on the number of units assisted. "isLandTransport" only works 1:1 and is ignored by the AI.

@beelee Thx

You can do that well enough by simply ignoring the in-game results of the battle and using Edit Mode to set the units and such after the battle. It won't display in the history, but it will otherwise work fine.

The improved Production Panel is available in my test build v3.5.1-bu: https://forums.triplea-game.org/post/50714 see also: https://github.com/triplea-game/triplea/issues/9231

@butterw As I already said in the past, instead of Ctrl+A and Ctrl+D, I suggest having Ctrl+X and Ctrl+Alt+X, where X is any natural number. The number defines that only the units having that mobility value or more are added as long as they can attack ("fire"), respectively, as offenders or as defenders (so, Ctrl+0 would act the same as Ctrl+A). The main advantage is that, when adding offenders, you use Ctrl+1 for adjacent zones, Ctrl+2 for zones which are not adjacent but are adjacent to an adjacent zone, and so on. When adding defenders, you will probably almost always use Ctrl+Alt+0. Of course, the feature can be limited upwards to the number 9.

@raziridium again i dont want to cause a problem, but maybe we should vote if we "want" to change the logo before we vote to change it.

@butterw Cool, hard decision how to proceed. Removal of common hotkeys that allows for greater game play efficiency vs mitigating a rare but impactful mis-click due to chat. Maybe there is another option here..