Another idea: this would be perfect for lend-leased or captured units. [image: 1599769480026-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. [image: 1599769585720-example2.png] With the system for multiple unit images in place one could make special cases for units that switch control. [image: 1599769792104-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).

@ff03k64 This is within the TripleA engine, and not the xml. Cheers...

Thank you!

do you have any specific maps in mind where this would be particularly useful? Any map that uses territory effects with combat like the large middle earth map. Terrain map modes in games are useful for a quick visual glance for planning out moves in games (certain tripleA maps and other games) where terrain influences combat. @Zaroph You mean like the special colour currently given to all "impassable" territories, which makes you unable to see ownership colours completely (I'm assuming this behaviour exists only on the (wrong) assumption that all impassable territories are non-owned (that is, owned by the "Neutral" (null) player)). How would you deal with the fact that, differently from ownership, you can have an unlimited number of effects per territory? Yeah thats what I mean, like a simple example would be making all sea/water territories blue and all mountain territories some sort of dull grey or brown colour. From what I see, if you have 2+ effects in a territory they will be ordered in the game according to the order youve specified in the xml. So I imagine the most simple way of doing it would be to just take the first effect and use that.

@ebbe I think a retreat option for the defenders sound good. Personally though, I would not like it to be a 'partial' since for the attacker withdrawing is all or nothing. Maybe the option could be given at the start of the battle round. Then if the defender wishes to retreat the attacker get one more shot, without defensive retaliation. The remaining survivors would then be move to one selected territory. Just my thoughts. Cheers...

I am a little bit confused. Can we use movementCostModifier right now? It defined as Territory Effect in Pact of Steel 2.

Perhaps this is simple as making the dice roller fields optional. (though, if you set one, then you need to set all of them as required, or leave them all blank to not use a dice roller). To make the UX better for this we could default a checkbox "Use MARTI dice roller" to checked, and if you uncheck it then it hides the MARTI dice roller fields. A Help button would be pretty key here to explain that MARTI would do external dice-rolls and internal would simply just not use that. I think there are probably some implications for the game engine itself as the way PBF is done is kinda hacky, the flag indicating PBF is not direct and probably would trigger a request to Marti. We'd need to make the 'using-marti' be an (internal) game option and to check only that for whether to use marti or not.

@bluelionman said in Single Play Timer request: I find the biggest issue with me is I over think things and I am hugely indecisive - a bad personality trait. My buddy has that issue. I find it extremely disturbing when he's passing someone on a two lane highway. lol ... This leads to when I play human players they get very frustrated with my slow play. I would love to be quicker but like a smoker without intervention I just can't seem to improve. ...> Hey nobody likes a quitter In all seriousness though, this has been discussed before and I think it'd be a good feature. You'd probably have to search for it, as it's been a while since I've seen it discussed.

@madvitale I'm not sure how the AI would react. When changing cost you need a new unit. A new unit needs to have everything the old unit does, so quite a bit of work. Transport capacity should be able to be done with conditions/triggers only. I think So not too bad. You have to alter the xml. Explained here: pact_of_steel_2.xml It takes a while to get the hang of, unless you happen to be a triplea savant : ) If you wanna pursue it, people will help.

@Panther Created an issue if you would like to add anything. https://github.com/triplea-game/triplea/issues/7187

@wirkey That it can't, apparently.

@Panther Actually, I would say this is a duplicate of: https://forums.triplea-game.org/topic/1727/have-a-button-that-shows-all-your-units @redrum Shuould duplicated feature requests be locked?