• 10
  • 3
  • 25
  • 8
  • 5
  • 2
  • 1
  • 8
  • 10
  • 5
  • 6
  • 32
  • 14
  • 27
  • 7
  • 7
  • 2
  • 7
  • 36
  • This topic is deleted!

    2

Recent Posts

  • C

    @rainova No idea if it is feasible, but my suggestion is that every time you start TripleA whilst having a zoom which is going to be applied to the program, the program prompts the user to choose whether or not actually to apply the zoom to TripleA too (maybe with a tick box for not asking it again, though such a choice should better be somehow reversible).

    We should not expect players to change their screen resolution in order to see TripleA units big enough

    I agree. I remember someone (who I believe is not any longer active) in the past arguing that doing so was easy enough, back then when I pointed out that most of TripleA was going to become visually obsolete with the advent of 4k.

    Some might remember that it has been many years I'm keeping saying everyone in TripleA should think primarily in terms of 4k resolution (like advicing mapmakers to make maps optimized, or at least good enough, for 4k screens).

    A good "worst-case" test map might be "World At War", since it is a very popular game which has very small units and zones.

    read more
  • R

    @cernel said in Allow user to specifically choose amphibious offloaded units in battle chooser:

    Try to look at the map and units at a monitor resolution of 2/3 of the maximum whilst having 100% general zoom and at the maximum (4k) monitor resolution whilst having 150% general zoom. What, if anything, gives a better visual of the map and units?
    Meaning, starting from a 4k monitor resolution at 100% general zoom, is it better for your view to increase the zoom to 150% or to decrease the monitor resolution to 2.666k?

    The unit icons have about the same quality with 150%@4K and 100%@2660 x 1440. But text is perfectly sharp with 4k while blurry with 2660 x 1440. We should not expect players to change their screen resolution in order to see TripleA units big enough

    read more
  • @cernel said in Allow user to specifically choose amphibious offloaded units in battle chooser:

    @Panther What I actually meant is whether there is some sort of official distinction between withdrawing and retreating, game wise.

    Result of a quick check:

    v1 uses "withdraw" only
    v2, v3, v4, v5, v6, 1940... all use "retreat" only
    LHTR2 uses "withdraw" and "retreat" both. See pages 14-16. (Step 7 of the Conduct Combat Phase). For the distinction please see yourself (as I am short of time at the moment).

    read more
  • C

    @rainova said in Allow user to specifically choose amphibious offloaded units in battle chooser:

    The top military command withdraws units. It is the units who retreat - and may route in the process.

    The TripleA player plays the top military command role. In the situation we are discussing here, routing is not an issue. IMHO we should use the the term withdraw

    How do we come to a conclusion so I can unify the terminology in the program code the right way?

    Though, I have to say that to withdraw makes me think that we are deciding unit per unit whether or not to withdraw it (that is what we should be able to do when we submerge submarines, although TripleA fails to support this). The concep of, nomally (full land invasion), withdrawing the entire army in the field or nothing, without having the option deliberately to withdraw only part of your units is something that I do not associate to the concept of withdrawing. Terms like "fall back" or "pull out" come to mind.

    A long time wish of me was a new feature that would allow withdrawing/retreating as many units as you want (amongst those which you can withdraw), instead of being obliged to retreat all you can or nothing, and also being able to retreat once the battle is won (retreating when no defending units are left). Of course, off topic.

    @Panther What I actually meant is whether there is some sort of official distinction between withdrawing and retreating, game wise.

    read more