• RE: Ancient Empires: 222 BC

    @Name Quick question... are mountains meant to be impassable territories?

    posted in Maps & Mods
  • RE: Ancient Empires: 222 BC

    @Name said in Ancient Empires: 222 BC:

    @Hepps Everything but borders is in other layer(s), at least for now until I deside for sure. Or do you mean extra details, ideas etc?

    I was just being funny... when your ready, and if you want some pointers for adding some pizaz to the map, just let me know.

    posted in Maps & Mods
  • RE: Another supportAttachment request...

    @wc_sumpton I meant if the matter was needing two different kind of support/units to get supported, it seems more logical doing it directly rather than 0.5 + 0.5 and ignoring if only one 0.5. Also that would allow for support or nothing when it is a +2 or more. But I have to say several times I wished for something like this, especially when you have land transported units.

    posted in Feature Requests & Ideas
  • RE: Ancient Empires: 222 BC

    @Name Looks incredible!!! I guess I should start preparing for a relief "How To..." 🙂

    posted in Maps & Mods
  • RE: Ancient Empires: 222 BC

    @Name I strongly suggest avoiding any cases of crossed borders, like Jasi, Iapodes F/mines, Andizetes, Mazaei H. Most times you are presented with such element, you have the doubt whether you are seeing a very small border or no border. In this case, one might wonder if there is a very small border connecting Japodes F/mines with Andizetes.

    My suggestion, never having crossed borders except maybe if two of them are sea-to land. That is becoming even more confusing to read in the moment any borders are rivers, or anyways not single pixels, or such (and, regardless, they tend to become confusing once you do relief tiles, typically).

    Especially to give more possibilities when it comes to details drawing, I also suggest avoiding small borders (as they might, then, look like crossed borders, with some relief on it).

    posted in Maps & Mods
  • RE: Ancient Empires: 222 BC

    @Name You are a natural.😘

    posted in Maps & Mods
  • RE: Another supportAttachment request...

    @wc_sumpton said in Another supportAttachment request...:

    @Cernel
    I could see the number as a decimal. But if I wanted to include a fighter:

    <attachment name="supportAttachmentFighterInfantrySupport" attachTo="fighter" javaClass="games.strategy.triplea.attachments.UnitSupportAttachment" type="unitType">
       <option name="unitType" value="infantry"/>
       <option name="faction" value="allied"/>
       <option name="side" value="offence"/>
       <option name="dice" value="strength"/>
       <option name="bonus" value="0.5"/>
    <!-- value of "-1" means infinite -->
       <option name="number" value="-1"/>
       <option name="bonusType" value="FighterSupport"/>
    </attachment>
    

    So here a fighter could give half support to an infinite number of infantry. Now I could add artillery:

    <attachment name="supportAttachmentArtilleryInfantrySupport" attachTo="artillery" javaClass="games.strategy.triplea.attachments.UnitSupportAttachment" type="unitType">
       <option name="unitType" value="infantry"/>
       <option name="faction" value="allied"/>
       <option name="side" value="offence:defense"/>
       <option name="dice" value="strength"/>
       <option name="bonus" value="0.5"/>
       <option name="number" value="2"/>
       <option name="bonusType" value="ArtillerySupport"/>
    </attachment>
    

    So one artillery can support 2 infantry or 2 artillery can support 4 infantry... as long as a fighter is supporting the battle. So I think "bonus" gives more flexibility. But ok maybe both "bonus" and "number"?

    Something to think about 😉

    Cheers...

    I see, but what country are you from?

    In my country, 0.5 is usually approximated as 1, as the most common convention. Is it approximated as 0, instead, in yours?

    Otherwise if you mean that the support is effective only when reaching a full number, meaning that a 0.99 would be seen as a 0, then I suggest you clarify it in the original post.

    However, I think things like saying a unit can be supported only if a number of other units are supporting it, at the same time, would be better made with a dedicated option, that tells the unit requires receiving support from another specific "bonusType", for this support to be effective.

    This would be actually very good for cases like, say, having an infantry that is land transported by another unit and you have a self propelled artillery that can support infantry only as long as there is one of these other units in the battle too. Or you have archers and hackneys, and you want the archers supporting the knights only if there is a hackney available for each would-be supporting archer in the battle.

    posted in Feature Requests & Ideas
  • RE: Dragon War - Official Thread

    Also, how about having air-only connections in the narrow sea passages, meaning:
    Questos - Northern Baldoria
    Blood Islands - Blood Hills
    North Goronmok - Stormcrag
    and so on?
    However, in this case, you'll need to visually indicate such air only connections on the map (with arrows or such, preferably as decorations), as I see in the map there are a lot of possible cases.
    So, let me know if you like this idea or not (basically, if you have a strait that it is about as narrow as a river, you may want air to move across with a single movement, as well). If yes, you will have to give me the full list of such other air only connections too.

    posted in Maps & Mods
  • RE: Ancient Empires: 222 BC

    @Name How is the project progressing?

    posted in Maps & Mods
  • RE: Dragon War - Official Thread

    @Cernel said in Dragon War - Official Thread:

    @Frostion Practically, when you try to move land over air only connections, you will have this message on the bottom bar:
    "Must control...to move through".

    What would you prefer the "..." be saying? That's the only thing I can customize.

    You don't need to add all air units, because by default all air units ignore canals, but I can add it, so it will be the easiest in case you might want to add non air units in the future.

    Would an error message like this (look at the bottom bar) be fine?
    20200125.png

    Any better ideas, for what to have for the "...", as I described?

    posted in Maps & Mods