270BC - Official Thread


  • Moderators

    @Hepps Actually, you can also see the medium (Swiss) flag wit the unit flags setting enabled.


  • Moderators Admin

    @Cernel Why would you enable the unit flags when the unit images already have flags in them?


  • Moderators

    @Hepps That's a good question for the developers.😅

    Anyways, I'd just provide all the 3 flags, even if currently useless.


  • Moderators Admin

    @Cernel I don't really think its necessary since there is 0.00000000% chance anyone would ever turn on this feature in this map the way it is currently designed.


  • Moderators

    @redrum My 270BC Cernel Variant, if you look at the notes while you are in game selection, only the title has the custom coloured background and the stuff that follows is not centred, while it should.
    Instead, if you load the game and look at the notes after loading the game all looks fine (all have the background and is centred).
    Instead, the current 270BC looks the same before and after loading the game (as I'm sure it should).
    Why is that?
    I'm not figuring out what is the problem there. You have any ideas how to fix this? I don't recall if the old 270BC was like that too or only my variant.
    If you think it is off topic here, I'll open a thread, but I wonder if maybe this was an old 270BC problem that you fixed, since I don't recall I changed layout stuff and such, but only what's written and the tables?


  • Moderators

    @redrum said in 270BC - Official Thread:

    @Cernel I had played around with the unit zoom but had decided the same thing that 87.5% was still the best and I think that is what I left it as: https://github.com/triplea-maps/270bc/blob/master/map/map.properties

    Thinking again about it, I'm actually undecided between 87.5% and 83.33%. I think 83.33% fits definetely better, especially in the busiest parts (Greece and the Aegean), and there are those 64x64 pixels cities that overlap quite a bit also due to the fact that all units are drawn from top-left, so all the exceeding pixels go on the units that are next right and down (this can only be solved by making all units 64x64 pixels and reducing all placement coordinates by 8 multiplied by the zoom setting, to have the 48x48 pixels images on the same positions, but that would cause a lot of overlapping, much of it being invisible transparency, with consequential issues when you are selecting units), but, of course, the more you zoom the more the units get blurred.

    I think I'm actually leaning towards preferring the 83.33%, all considered, since I like having some empty space between the units images, but either 100%, 87.5% and 83.33% are all reasonably preferable, depending how much you are bothered from one or the other inconvenience, and how much you value actually seeing good looking not blurred unit images (that is possible only at the super-packed 100%).

    p.s.: Still haven't figured it out the gamenotes thing. Was it the same for 270BC too, before the latest update, or just something I caused is mostly what I'm wondering?


  • Admin

    @Cernel I think the previous game notes had that problem. I'm pretty sure I changed the html/css to use different tags/styles to properly make them display in the map window and game panel.


  • Moderators

    @redrum Were the previous ones (that the variants still use) deprecated or this is just a TripleA issue and why did you change them?


  • Admin

    @Cernel I think its always been that way. I'd have to look at the code to see why the notes in some cases display differently in the map window vs game panel.


  • Moderators

    @redrum Ok: moved to GitHub, and since I intend removing 270bc_variants from the repository anyways, I've used another map as example:
    https://github.com/triplea-game/triplea/issues/5731


  • Moderators

    I believe a recurring issue of this game is that the fort placement rules are not easily understood by many people new to the game.

    How the game explains such rules is only by this "Note", in the "fort" row of the "Units" tab:

    normal placement with city,
    1 per territory per turn with legionaire

    I believe this is not quite enough to certainly define such rules. Here it is my take, having only an asterisk in the "Notes" column and this written right under the table:

    *Every fort can alternatively be placed, at the rate of 1 new fort per territory per turn, in any territory not having a city in it, at the start of the placement phase, but only if the territory has at least one legionary unit in it, at the start of the placement phase, and it has been owned by the turn player since before the current turn.
    (forts can be placed also in value 0 territories)
    (in territories already having cities in them before the current placement phase, forts are placed normally, without any special requirements, just like any other unit, and accounting together with all of them for placement limits)
    (you can also place both 1 fort and 1 city into the same territory, during the same placement phase, as long as that territory has one or more legionaries and no city in it, at the start of the phase)


Log in to reply
 

37404
1780
2097
Visitors Today