1. Home
  2. Development
Log in to post
Load new posts
  • F

    PR help

    14
    1 Votes
    14 Posts
    2k Views
    LaFayetteL
    There are three ways to merge branches: merge fast forward merge rebase git merge <remote> <branch> and git pull <remote>/<branch> AFAIK are the same thing and are both merges. git pull --rebase <remote> <branch> is a proper rebase. This is the one you should prefer to avoid having 'merge commits'. A fast forward merge is really similar to a rebase, and you do that with a -ff flag to merge, ie: git merge -ff <remote> <branch> There is also a proper 'rebase' that can be done. AFAIK these two are the same: git pull --rebase <remote> <branch> and git rebase <remote> <branch> Unfortunately it is fundamentally a bit confusing as it depends on exactly how the rebase is done and with which flags. This is a place where a GUI can get in the way.
  • F

    Development setup

    27
    0 Votes
    27 Posts
    8k Views
    F
    @Trevan I am glad you know your way around! I never would have found that.
  • aardvarkpepperA

    Is there a flowchart or similar for the AIs?

    7
    0 Votes
    7 Posts
    1k Views
    aardvarkpepperA
    @TheDog Thanks. Quite handy.
  • TheDogT

    Factory/Town building in version TripleA v2.3+

    7
    1 Votes
    7 Posts
    1k Views
    TheDogT
    Awh shucks (looks down & shuffles feet)
  • ubernautU

    First stab at 2.0 AI

    2
    2 Votes
    2 Posts
    1k Views
    ubernautU
    @redrum so here's stab #3 AI got moscow again in stab #2. this is v3 btw figuring that the most advanced version of the game that AI can play effectively. playing as allies with no bid maybe i should started as axis but i wanted to see the AI's initiative and figured giving some kind of handicap to AI was probably warranted. noticed that the AI is definitely stronger than before but still seems to have some weakness in the area of protecting transports. i know we've discussed it before but seems like there must be some way to prevent AI from spending all it can on facility repairs as well makes the AI very susceptible to strat bombing. autosaveBeforeEndTurn.tsvg
  • T

    Usage of "Submarines Defending May Submerge Or Retreat"?

    7
    1 Votes
    7 Posts
    1k Views
    C
    @Trevan Yeah, this is a very old problem. V1.III is not something I can be sure, but I'm almost sure you should be able to submerge regardless whether or not you are able to retreat. As far as "Submersible Subs" goes, my suggestion was to keep the name as an archeproperty and split it into a series of new properties.
  • T

    Question on MustFightBattle#checkForUnitsThatCanRollLeft and "Transport Casualties Restricted" property

    36
    0 Votes
    36 Posts
    6k Views
    C
    @Trevan I suggest you not to make changes if you don't know what's the matter about it, especially in the moment that the change is not going to fix any known problems. The auto-elimination steps should rather be generally revised, maybe from scratch, so to solve the known problems and creating a system actually enforcing the correct rules (that will need to be interpreted, to some extent). Thinking hard about this, the only situation of only infrastructures remaining needing auto-elimination of non-infrastructure units I can think of is the case of defending units refusing to partake in air battles.
  • Fiorella ZampettiF

    This topic is deleted!

    2
    0 Votes
    2 Posts
    18 Views
  • PantherP

    The Point of Play by Forum

    12
    0 Votes
    12 Posts
    2k Views
    PantherP
    @LaFayette I agree to your last posting in general. What triggered me was your sentence that PBF was "too damn complex to be useful". It has been proven on A&A .org that PBF is useful, that PPF does not have further usability issues, that PBF is popular and is used by a relevant number of players in a relevant number of games. And this is not an ephemeral impression but has been like this for more than 10 years - and still is of course. I am sure you have taken a look in the meantime. No one questions the benefits of streamlining processes or improving the code.
  • Nathan CoulsonN

    Unable to Host Network Game on Linux Raspbian (Raspberry Pi 4)

    3
    1 Votes
    3 Posts
    813 Views
    RoiEXR
    Interesting. Would you be able to provide a Stacktrace (the whole error message) so we can dig into this?
  • LaFayetteL

    Internal Dice Sender Cleanup

    Moved
    10
    0 Votes
    10 Posts
    3k Views
    PantherP
    @LaFayette The dice logic that is (still) used by the engine in other play modes (for example "Local Game"). In PBF/PBEM you have always been able to avoid (external) MARTI in the past by using those internal dice. That was achieved by selecting "Internal Dice Roller" instead of an external Dice Server.
  • bluelionmanB

    Feedback Game Engine 2.1

    1
    1 Votes
    1 Posts
    866 Views
    No one has replied
  • C

    About the Battle Lost sound

    2
    1 Votes
    2 Posts
    1k Views
    C
    Also, if I'm being attacked and my opponent loses the battle or retreats, why do I even hear the "Battle Lost" sound? I didn't lose the battle: I won it! Shouldn't this sound be given only to the player assigned to the turn power or, at most, also to the other players of its side only? Maybe the win/lose sounds should be switched over for the opposite side? Opinions?
  • T

    Should the sneak attack of FirstStrike unit battle steps change during the round?

    38
    0 Votes
    38 Posts
    9k Views
    PantherP
    @Cernel Correct. In newer editions a destroyer - among other things - cancels the submarine's ability to perform its surprise strike. In v2 however, the destroyer enables the sub's casualties to fire back at the normal time in the combat sequence.
  • LaFayetteL

    JavaFX Update of Staging Screens

    18
    2
    0 Votes
    18 Posts
    2k Views
    RoiEXR
    @aardvarkpepper What is a "magic hover spot", exactly? @LaFayette is referring to this special location, where you can put your mouse where it flickers between 2 animation states, which doesn't look nice, nor is it intentional. was grey with text buttons, not all nice with the folders and buttons It still is that way, this thread is discussing future UI improvements.
  • LaFayetteL

    2.0 Rollout - Reducing 1.9 Bot Server Capacity

    6
    0 Votes
    6 Posts
    919 Views
    LaFayetteL
    Decommissioned the 7xx London server, we are down to 1 bot server with 7 game instances on 1.9 Upgrading the 1.9 messaging was surprisingly effective, most users are in the 2.0 lobby
  • LaFayetteL

    Publishing Zip distributable AKA 'All Versions'

    1
    0 Votes
    1 Posts
    531 Views
    No one has replied
  • T

    Refactoring MustFightBattle

    Moved
    21
    0 Votes
    21 Posts
    4k Views
    T
    I've been working on the offensive subs submerge/withdraw step and discovered that my idea of having a unified valid() check that works for both getNames and execute won't work. In the offensive subs submerge/withdraw step, execute shouldn't run if there is a destroyer present. But getNames is called at the beginning of the round and there might be a destroyer present that will die before execute is called. If getNames doesn't return the submerge/withdraw step, then an error will occur. I was actually able to trigger this error from the master branch when Submersible Subs is false, Sub Retreat Before Battle is false, and a destroyer is present at the beginning of the round but then is destroyed during the round. If Submersible Subs is true and Sub Retreat Before Battle is false, then this error doesn't occur because it doesn't check for destroyers. I'm going to be removing valid() as a public method from the BattleStep interface. Instead, getNames and execute will do their own internal valid check. This check might be the same or different, depending on the step.
  • LaFayetteL

    How to fix staging screen alliances button (missing) feedback?

    5
    1
    0 Votes
    5 Posts
    1k Views
    LaFayetteL
    One other option I thought of is if we can change the behavior so it always has some sort of UI update. In essence the toast would actually be doing that. I think the options are: (1) have the alliance button cycle through choices (IMO not good) (2) have the alliance button show a toast (3) hide the alliance button when it would be a no-op If there's no feedback suggestions then will give (2) a go as a toast likely will not hurt. (3) is an option, initially I think it's not great to have controls appearing and disappearing.
  • prastleP

    Bots all crashed!

    3
    1 Votes
    3 Posts
    1k Views
    prastleP
    @LaFayette cool! I guess we shall see. Either way this was way better than the last crash. Great Stuff!

Recent Posts

  • VictoryFirstV
    VictoryFirst

    Also, you get a NoSuchElementException when doing a battle with the UK-aaGun unit:
    c80a9ad1-4141-4dac-a091-41bd276796e3-image.jpeg
    In this battle, I gave the British infantry, tank and aaGun the ability to retreat on the first round of combat.

    When choosing to retreat and selecting a territory, it immediately throws NoSuchElementException and the game crashes. I think that is caused because there is a phase where the aaGun shoots at the air units and that comes after the phase where the British decide to retreat. This results in a phase where the aaGun cannot shoot at the air units. I think it's better to move the decision to retreat for the defender after AA fire, according to the North Africa rules.

    4d5afbaa-b922-4031-9a53-9961e87b81b3-image.jpeg

    In other words, "British withdraw?" should come below "Germans notify AA casualties".

    read more
  • VictoryFirstV
    VictoryFirst

    Another bug, air units don't retreat along with the other units. They just stay in the territory. I think it is copying the logic for attacking air units. But retreating defending air units requires the same logic as retreating land units.

    08920d0f-5a47-4e6f-bac9-396232a1655a-image.jpeg

    read more
  • VictoryFirstV
    VictoryFirst

    Also, minor request but it would be nice if the decision for the defender to retreat is displayed here if it's made at the start of the combat round, so that it says "British decide to retreat units" as the first entry in this battle history.

    81e6b426-6981-4e64-92f5-7d33ebe188ea-image.jpeg

    read more
  • VictoryFirstV
    VictoryFirst

    @iratoric

    I just did a combat with infantry having the ability to defensively retreat in North Africa and it is looking really neat! It is working almost exactly as intended.

    I discovered a minor bug though and that is that units are able to retreat to territories they are not allowed to enter because of relationships. All the territories in capital letters are controlled by the player Mines, which is neutral towards the British. I am able to select such a territory and retreat to it. This should not be possible:
    533aa204-9bb1-4847-af7c-8473a96db448-image.jpeg8fb26259-5e7b-41eb-9068-890236660ca3-image.jpeg

    For the attackers, this is working correctly.

    read more