• RE: TWW 3.0.0.6 Gully (al) vs redrum (ax)

    @Gully Scramble and OOL?

    posted in Play By Forum
  • RE: TWW 3.0.0.6 Gully (al) vs redrum (ax)

    TripleA Manual Gamesave Post: Japan round 5

    TripleA Manual Gamesave Post for game: Total World War: December 1941 3.0, version: 3.0.0.6

    Game History

    Round: 5
    
        Research Technology - Japan
            Trigger japaneseaTITB: Japan gains access to ImprovedTacticalBombers
            Trigger japaneseaTIFR: Japan gains access to IncreasedFighterRange
            Japan spend 0 on tech rolls
                Japan rolls : 0/1 hits, 0.00 expected hits
    
        Combat Move - Japan
            Trigger japaneseAirtraninfra1: Setting isInfrastructure to false for unitAttachment attached to japaneseAirTransport
            Trigger japaneseAirtraninfra1: Setting attack to 1 for unitAttachment attached to japaneseAirTransport
            Trigger japaneseAirtraninfra1: Setting destroyedWhenCapturedBy cleared  for unitAttachment attached to japaneseAirTransport
            Trigger japaneseTank1: Setting isLandTransportable to false for unitAttachment attached to japaneseTank
            Trigger japaneseMecht3: Setting isLandTransportable to false for unitAttachment attached to japaneseMech.Infantry
            Trigger japaneseHvyTank1: Setting isLandTransportable to false for unitAttachment attached to japaneseHeavyTank
            Trigger japaneseTank2: Setting isLandTransportable to true for unitAttachment attached to japaneseTank
            Trigger japaneseHvyTank2: Setting isLandTransportable to true for unitAttachment attached to japaneseHeavyTank
            Trigger japaneseMecht4: Setting isLandTransportable to true for unitAttachment attached to japaneseMech.Infantry
            2 japaneseInfantrys moved from Burma to Yunnan
            1 japaneseInfantry moved from Hunan to Kweichow
            1 japaneseCombatEngineer moved from Hupeh to Kweichow
            4 japaneseFighters and 1 japaneseTacticalBomber moved from Inner Mongolia to Tsinghai
            1 japaneseInfantry moved from Kansu to Tsinghai
            1 japaneseMech.Infantry moved from Hupeh to Tsinghai
            2 japaneseMech.Infantrys moved from Inner Mongolia to Tsinghai
            1 japaneseMech.Infantry moved from Inner Mongolia to Tsinghai
            1 japaneseFighter moved from Shansi to Kweichow
            1 japaneseNavalFighter moved from French Indochina to Kweichow
            2 japaneseNavalFighters moved from 86 Sea Zone to Rangoon
            1 japaneseTransport moved from 86 Sea Zone to 87 Sea Zone
            2 japaneseInfantrys moved from Malay to 87 Sea Zone
            2 japaneseInfantrys moved from 87 Sea Zone to Rangoon
            2 japaneseNavalFighters moved from 92 Sea Zone to Rangoon
            1 japaneseStrategicBomber moved from French Indochina to Tsinghai
            1 japaneseNavalFighter moved from French Indochina to Yunnan
            1 japaneseInfantry moved from Vladivostok to Khabarovskiy Kray
                  Manchuria take Khabarovskiy Kray from Russia
            1 japaneseArtillery moved from Burma to Rangoon
            1 japaneseTransport moved from 100 Sea Zone to 99 Sea Zone
            2 japaneseInfantrys moved from Tokyo to 99 Sea Zone
            2 japaneseInfantrys and 1 japaneseTransport moved from 99 Sea Zone to 100 Sea Zone
            2 japaneseInfantrys moved from 100 Sea Zone to Soviet Far East
            1 japaneseInfantry moved from Kamchatka to Soviet Far East
            5 japaneseTanks moved from Hupeh to Northern China
            2 japaneseMech.Infantrys moved from Inner Mongolia to Northern China
            1 japaneseAntiTankGun moved from Inner Mongolia to Northern China
            1 japaneseArtillery and 6 japaneseInfantrys moved from Inner Mongolia to Northern China
            1 japaneseSubmarine moved from 109 Sea Zone to 116 Sea Zone
            1 japaneseSubmarine moved from 108 Sea Zone to 118 Sea Zone
    
        Combat - Japan
    

    Combat Hit Differential Summary :

    Japan rolls : : 0.00
    

    Savegame

    posted in Play By Forum
  • RE: Screen centering/cycling around map UI idea

    @Cernel

    while the other arrow should be absent or only working until getting back to the initial unit group displayed

    What's the intended benefit? If I want to go back to the last 'selected' unit, why should I have to scroll all the way through first?

    posted in Feature Requests & Ideas
  • RE: Screen centering/cycling around map UI idea

    @LaFayette Then, maybe, to keep it coherent the most, we should not have a left/right couple of specular arrows, but just a right arrow (or whatever is working when you click on skip too), while the other arrow should be absent or only working until getting back to the initial unit group displayed, but not any further "back", and displaying a symbol that hints this is only going back on what previously already displayed.

    posted in Feature Requests & Ideas
  • RE: Screen centering/cycling around map UI idea

    @Cernel "put to sleep" has connotations : )
    It's usually used in animal shelters.

    Skip does advance to the next unit so that we avoid an "empty unit" selection. If you hold space bar, you can skip all units. It seems clunky if you have to alternate between pressing space and 'n' to do that. Alternatively, every time you press 'space' to skip, you'd need to press 'n' to go to the next unit. It's much nicer to be able to skip and go to next without having to do those as two separate actions. The intended use-case for the 'unit-scroller' is to 'scroll' or 'cycle' through all available units.

    posted in Feature Requests & Ideas
  • RE: Screen centering/cycling around map UI idea

    @LaFayette if the behaviour of the skip button, beside skipping, is to move to the same next unit you would move by clicking on the right arrow, then it should better stay right under such arrow. However, since there is not an intuitive reason why the skip button should also have a right/left behaviour, it may be advisable that, after you click it, you keep the territory in the scroller, but with no units in it, so that you have to, then, use the left/right arrow to move to either units group presented beside the one you just skipped or stationed.

    Station has also the advantage that you can say "I stationed these units", but you cannot say "I slept these units", but you'll need to say "I put these units to sleep", so the term would be actually "put to sleep", not just "sleep".

    posted in Feature Requests & Ideas
  • RE: Screen centering/cycling around map UI idea

    As another perspective, the minimap sets a minimum sizing (due to the UI framework). So there is a minimum. We are talking about a mere 15px increase of this minimum.

    If we disappear elements that do not fit, it's then a difference of 15 px for when the smallest of minimaps and unit scroller would disappear. In other cases, the minimap would disappear before the unit scroller. It's a bit moot as I don't know/think offhand that could be done cleanly.

    We certainly could consider having a similar 'hide' button for the unit scroller. It would require some additional space, which maybe is not a good choice. I certainly would like more opinions and feedback before we demo that.

    posted in Feature Requests & Ideas
  • RE: Screen centering/cycling around map UI idea

    Thanks for the response

    @Cernel have you considered the implication for unit move history and the stats table? A unit move history of 150px might cut-off the first unit moved, let alone cutting off on the second.

    Once you reduce the space so much that the unit scroller doesn't fit anymore, it should disappear, and there should be an option for having it disappear

    We have a "full-screen" mode, the entire right hand edge can be shrunk. Having just the unit scroller disappear is not trivial. A feature to have the right hand edge disappear independent of the mini-map would seem to serve that goal well.

    My biggest concern without having a minimum, focusing "too" much on allocating space for the map, is that the unit history and stats tables suffer. It has been a long running annoyance to have to scale the stats table to be able to see the values. It's a particular problem on WaW where many values go beyond the expected 2 digits and are 3 or 4 digits.

    posted in Feature Requests & Ideas
  • RE: Total World War: December 1941 3.0.0.6

    @wirkey Yeah, the issue is without reverting to original owners immediately that if you would build infrastructure and then liberate the nation's capital, that nation wouldn't be able to use that infrastructure (americanFactory != chineseFactory). So we'd need triggers to either convert infra units across nations or have them become materials when liberation occurs.

    posted in Maps & Mods
  • RE: Screen centering/cycling around map UI idea

    @LaFayette I don't think there should be a minimum, or the minimum should be so small to assure to be purely theorical (like a minimum at 100 pixel wide minimap). Then, the default can be whatever it is preferred generally by the developers, but, after starting the game, one should be able to manually reduce the wideness of the sidebar as low as the minimum fitting the minimap. Once you reduce the space so much that the unit scroller doesn't fit anymore, it should disappear, and there should be an option for having it disappear, as well (if someone prefers not having it, maybe to have more space for action display).

    Regarding guessing what the assumed miniMap wideness may be, for a predetermined default wideness we can refer to the history tab, and consider that it would make the most sense for two bars on the left and the right of the screen to be preferably of the same wideness. If I load World War II Classic with 2.0.16492 and click on game/show history, the left side bar is exactly 158 pixels wide. Then taking out 10 pixels on the left and 4 pixels on the right of the smallMap, that would give a smallMap of 144 pixels wide, if you want to have the right bar as wide as what you get default for the left bar.

    Based on the above, I would say that the standard wideness of the smallMap, currently, should be 144 pixels, but I realize that this is actually much under any average you may derive by looking at the repository maps.

    Since TripleA is in the weird condition of not actually having an official main referring game, an alternative way is looking at the smallMaps of world_war_ii_classic (being the first and default game that ever existed for TripleA), of big_world (having been for many years the default game offered by TripleA), and of the_pact_of_steel (being the fist truly custom yet official game of TripleA and having a mod serving as tutorial for mapmakers). The wideness are the following, in pixels:

    world_war_ii_classic: 233
    big_world: 243
    the_pact_of_steel: 233

    posted in Feature Requests & Ideas