@Gully ok i guess tomorrow then

PR is now merged. Feel free to give it a try in the pre-release and provide feedback!

shouldn't all (as many as possible) heavy (sound/image) game assets be in the domain of maps?

Wow, looking at that help menu, it suffers from a common developer problem where trying to solve one thing "people don't know about this" feature, the information is plastered in the wrong places. Most of those ctrl hotkeys can be seen by simply opening the menus and looking there. The 'turn off map artwork' is the same, just a restatement of menu options. The extra details about that do not belong here. This is a bit of a UX issue, overloads unnecessary information on a user and out of context. The problem that creates is it detracts from the rest of the information that is present here. Anyways, that is a digression. For now flags/highlight has a new home with the unit scroller for better or worse. Further progress I would agree needs a bigger vision. For that we should know what more controls we are going to need and then work to create mock-ups of how they could be arranged. Follow up is in this thread: https://forums.triplea-game.org/topic/1525/ui-mockups-needed-unbury-the-controls

@redrum yeah one game of tww is usually more than enough time management wise

@RogerCooper @Cernel @Hepps As my ideas for this mod have morphed, those two are probably the closest ones yet. Thanks! I will probably still end up wanting to change them eventually, but I can definitely make some tweaks like impassible or 0 PU territories to make them work for now. Thanks again!!

@LaFayette I'm actually guessing the reason was the map name was messed up as it had a dash which caused it to not download and launch properly. It is now updated and available to download in TripleA. I'll create a separate map thread for it tomorrow.

@ff03k64 It is a work-in-progress map. I have had a little pause in developing it, but I think that I am about ready to begin working on it again. I have not released a playable beta version yet, but it will come out eventually. Look for it in the maps and mods category.

TripleA Turn Summary: Germans round 4 TripleA Turn Summary for game: World War II Revised LHTR, version: 1.4.1 Game History Round: 4 Purchase Units - Germans Germans buy 3 armour, 3 infantry and 1 submarine; Remaining resources: 1 PUs; Combat Move - Germans 1 submarine moved from 5 Sea Zone to 6 Sea Zone 1 bomber moved from Germany to 6 Sea Zone 1 fighter moved from Germany to 6 Sea Zone 1 armour moved from French Equatorial Africa to Belgian Congo Germans take Belgian Congo from British 1 armour moved from Belgian Congo to Italian East Africa Germans take Italian East Africa from British 1 infantry moved from Anglo Egypt to 15 Sea Zone 1 infantry and 1 transport moved from 15 Sea Zone to 13 Sea Zone 1 infantry moved from Southern Europe to 14 Sea Zone 1 infantry moved from Southern Europe to 14 Sea Zone 2 infantry and 1 transport moved from 14 Sea Zone to 13 Sea Zone 3 infantry moved from 13 Sea Zone to Algeria 1 infantry moved from Libya to Algeria 1 battleship moved from 15 Sea Zone to 13 Sea Zone 1 armour moved from Germany to Balkans 1 armour moved from Germany to Balkans 1 armour moved from Germany to Balkans 1 armour moved from Germany to Balkans 1 infantry moved from Eastern Europe to Balkans 1 fighter moved from Eastern Europe to Balkans 1 armour moved from Eastern Europe to Balkans 1 infantry moved from Eastern Europe to Belorussia Combat - Germans Battle in Algeria Germans attack with 4 infantry Americans defend with 2 armour and 2 infantry Germans roll dice for 1 battleship in Algeria, round 2 : 0/1 hits, 0.67 expected hits Germans roll dice for 4 infantry in Algeria, round 2 : 1/1 hits, 0.67 expected hits Americans roll dice for 2 armour and 2 infantry in Algeria, round 2 : 1/1 hits, 1.67 expected hits 1 infantry owned by the Germans and 1 infantry owned by the Americans lost in Algeria Germans roll dice for 3 infantry in Algeria, round 3 : 0/1 hits, 0.50 expected hits Americans roll dice for 2 armour and 1 infantry in Algeria, round 3 : 1/1 hits, 1.33 expected hits 1 infantry owned by the Germans lost in Algeria Germans roll dice for 2 infantry in Algeria, round 4 : 0/1 hits, 0.33 expected hits Americans roll dice for 2 armour and 1 infantry in Algeria, round 4 : 2/1 hits, 1.33 expected hits 2 infantry owned by the Germans lost in Algeria Americans win with 2 armour and 1 infantry remaining. Battle score for attacker is -9 Casualties for Germans: 4 infantry Casualties for Americans: 1 infantry Battle in 6 Sea Zone Germans attack with 1 bomber, 1 fighter and 1 submarine British defend with 1 destroyer and 1 submarine Germans roll dice for 1 submarine in 6 Sea Zone, round 2 : 0/1 hits, 0.33 expected hits British roll dice for 1 submarine in 6 Sea Zone, round 2 : 0/1 hits, 0.33 expected hits Germans roll dice for 1 bomber and 1 fighter in 6 Sea Zone, round 2 : 1/1 hits, 1.17 expected hits British roll dice for 1 destroyer in 6 Sea Zone, round 2 : 0/1 hits, 0.50 expected hits 1 submarine owned by the British lost in 6 Sea Zone Germans roll dice for 1 submarine in 6 Sea Zone, round 3 : 1/1 hits, 0.33 expected hits British roll dice for 1 destroyer in 6 Sea Zone, round 3 : 0/1 hits, 0.50 expected hits 1 destroyer owned by the British lost in 6 Sea Zone Germans win with 1 bomber, 1 fighter and 1 submarine remaining. Battle score for attacker is 20 Casualties for British: 1 destroyer and 1 submarine Battle in Balkans Germans attack with 5 armour, 1 fighter and 1 infantry Russians defend with 2 artilleries and 2 infantry Germans roll dice for 5 armour, 1 fighter and 1 infantry in Balkans, round 2 : 3/1 hits, 3.17 expected hits Russians roll dice for 2 artilleries and 2 infantry in Balkans, round 2 : 2/1 hits, 1.33 expected hits 2 infantry owned by the Russians, 1 artillery owned by the Russians, 1 infantry owned by the Germans and 1 armour owned by the Germans lost in Balkans Germans roll dice for 4 armour and 1 fighter in Balkans, round 3 : 3/1 hits, 2.50 expected hits Russians roll dice for 1 artillery in Balkans, round 3 : 0/1 hits, 0.33 expected hits 1 artillery owned by the Russians lost in Balkans Germans win, taking Balkans from Russians with 4 armour and 1 fighter remaining. Battle score for attacker is 6 Casualties for Germans: 1 armour and 1 infantry Casualties for Russians: 2 artilleries and 2 infantry Non Combat Move - Germans 1 fighter moved from Balkans to Germany 1 bomber moved from 6 Sea Zone to Germany 1 fighter moved from 6 Sea Zone to Germany Place Units - Germans 3 infantry placed in Southern Europe 3 armour placed in Germany 1 submarine placed in 5 Sea Zone Turn Complete - Germans Germans collect 40 PUs; end with 41 PUs Combat Hit Differential Summary : Germans : -0.67 British : -1.33 Americans : -0.33 Russians : 0.33 Territory Summary for Germans : Germany : 1 aaGun, 3 armour, 1 bomber, 1 factory and 2 fighters French West Africa : 1 flag Belgian Congo : 1 flag Southern Europe : 1 aaGun, 1 factory and 3 infantry Italian East Africa : 1 flag, 1 armour Eastern Europe : 1 armour Western Europe : 1 aaGun and 2 infantry French Equatorial Africa : 1 flag Balkans : 4 armour Belorussia : 1 infantry Anglo Egypt : 1 flag 5 Sea Zone : 1 submarine 6 Sea Zone : 1 submarine 13 Sea Zone : 1 battleship and 2 transports Production/PUs Summary : Russians : 29 / 33 Germans : 40 / 41 British : 32 / 35 Japanese : 19 / 22 Americans : 46 / 48 Dice Statistics: Total 1 was rolled 26 times 2 was rolled 26 times 3 was rolled 26 times 4 was rolled 33 times 5 was rolled 37 times 6 was rolled 21 times Average roll : 3.544 Median : 4.000 Variance : 0.993 Standard Deviation : 0.997 Total rolls : 169 Null / Other 1 was rolled 1 times 4 was rolled 2 times 5 was rolled 1 times Average roll : 3.500 Median : 4.000 Variance : 1.111 Standard Deviation : 1.054 Total rolls : 4 Germans Combat 1 was rolled 9 times 2 was rolled 10 times 3 was rolled 8 times 4 was rolled 9 times 5 was rolled 12 times 6 was rolled 9 times Average roll : 3.561 Median : 4.000 Variance : 0.170 Standard Deviation : 0.412 Total rolls : 57 British Combat 1 was rolled 5 times 2 was rolled 4 times 3 was rolled 5 times 4 was rolled 8 times 5 was rolled 8 times 6 was rolled 7 times Average roll : 3.838 Median : 4.000 Variance : 0.412 Standard Deviation : 0.642 Total rolls : 37 Americans Combat 1 was rolled 2 times 2 was rolled 4 times 3 was rolled 4 times 4 was rolled 3 times 5 was rolled 5 times 6 was rolled 2 times Average roll : 3.550 Median : 3.500 Variance : 0.386 Standard Deviation : 0.621 Total rolls : 20 Russians Combat 1 was rolled 6 times 2 was rolled 2 times 3 was rolled 7 times 4 was rolled 4 times 5 was rolled 2 times 6 was rolled 2 times Average roll : 3.000 Median : 3.000 Variance : 1.129 Standard Deviation : 1.062 Total rolls : 23 Japanese Combat 1 was rolled 3 times 2 was rolled 6 times 3 was rolled 2 times 4 was rolled 7 times 5 was rolled 9 times 6 was rolled 1 times Average roll : 3.571 Median : 4.000 Variance : 1.827 Standard Deviation : 1.352 Total rolls : 28 Savegame

@Windrunner21 Here is where all your currently downloaded maps should be located... From there what you want to do is copy any of the maps you want to examine and paste them somewhere else on your computer. I personally just made a folder on my desktop called Triple A related. Once you have all the maps in the new folder you should unzip them so that it is easier to access all the sub folders inside each one. Once you have a map folder unzipped it will look like this... The XML is inside the Games folder. (Note if the map has more than one game variants you will see mulptile XMLs inside). As far as opening the XML you want to use Notepad or some other reader program. I personally use Notepad++ that I downloaded free.

Mod status would be tied to account and not username. If someone wants to change their account name, they can create a new account. I'm not sure why we should make it so difficult and say "no, you have to re-register with that same email but a new account name". Is that just not convoluted? We can certainly discourage mods from changing their names, or changing often. I'm not sure if it's worth the complexity of special casing it into the code when we can keep the same name by convention. Given the game allows multiple logins, no limit on how many accounts, no validation of email, no password requirement even, it doesn't seem like relieving the requirement of creating a new account if/when a person wants to change their username is a huge deal necessarily. I really view it as a convenience so you don't have to register multiple accounts. Arguably we want that particularly when stats could become tied to a user.

@Gully cool dont forget to mention me after you post so i get notifications.

@ff03k64 said in Fortification functionality: What would you think of it from modern forces perspective? Trenches and barbed wire i would assume. I could see a case for lowering the effective attack of a unit. Barbed wire slows infantry down. IMO a lot of modern defense is about providing cover and is only effective against certain attacks. In part firepower has grown so overwhelming. For example, pillboxes are still built and used, but it won't fully protect you against direct fire from a tank and airplane. Should barbed wire be an attack penalty for just infantry? To answer my own question, I'm not sure. Disrupting infantry will also disrupt the combined arms benefit of infantry attacking with a tank. I'm also thinking about ruined cities, notorious as tank traps as anti-tank personnel can often use the ruins for cover, hide and strike. I think where it's so complex is that only certain defenses are effective against certain attacks and negating a combined arms attack has its own benefit. For example, a ruined city with a massive smoke screen is simply difficult to attack. Airplanes have trouble, the ruins make it slow and dangerous for vehicles leaving mainly infantry vs infantry combat. That is where you often see tactics of infantry tunneling through building walls from one to another to avoid taking fire from entrenched defensive positions. How to model that in a game is an interesting question for certain.

@LaFayette said in Unit Flags - Are there any maps that would like to default it to on?: players who always turn on flags for specific maps. In those cases it seems there is evidence flags should be on. Then again, I suspect most people did not realize the flags feature was there or how to turn it on. I'd guess we won't know the answer to "for which maps do users turn flags on?" without adding feature usage tracking code. (Perhaps I'm wrong though and there are some maps that are clear candidates.)

@LaFayette All fixed (2.0.15631) (except maybe the report thing, that I don't know).

@redrum Instead of adding a new 'canStack' property, why not just add the 'count' value to the 'bonusType' property. So for @Frostion's Siege-Tower: <option name="bonusType" value="Cover" count="3"/> would allow 3 Siege-Towers to stack the support together. The absent of count would equal 1. So if @Frostion had a Battering-Ram and its supportAttachment: <option name="bonusType" value="Cover"/> Then the Battering-Ram could not stack support with itself, but it would still stack with the Siege-Tower so that: 2 Siege-Towers would equal -2 support for enemy fortifications 1 Siege-Tower and 1 Battering-Ram would equal -2 support for enemy fortifications 2 Battering-Rams would equal just a -1 support for enemy fortifications. 1 Siege-Tower (count="3") with two Battering-Rams would still gain the -3 support. Just some thoughts. Cheers...

@JPW062 Thanks for feedback, interesting idea on outsourced development. We'd probably want at least 160 hours worth. It can be hit or miss as we would want mostly work to untangle various parts of the mess. I suppose 90% of programming is the more tedious stuff, which is okay, it's just part of the work. Once we have more of the current jumble untangled, more items should move faster. We need quality tests to be written but to also do that we need for the code to have its UI and logic split. If it's really something worth coordinating, a dedicated discussion topic would be good to open IMO to explore the idea in more detail. Ajax swing does look pretty promising, I did not realize though that it seems really pricey. @JPW062 , if you want to reach out to them and ask if they can do an open source license, or how much it would cost, do please feel free! I fear it may be a dead-end though if it'll be thousands of dollars, hard to say if that is truly worth it.

@MartyMoose Global 50 No wonder the Canadians are going first Yea you need to activate "Tech Development" in "Map Options" before you start the game or it will skip the tech phase. I don't remember tanks being able to move infantry. I thought it was they could just blitz with 2 mechs or maybe mech boost the inf ? Anyway, just click on both and move them together and see what happens : )