Mixed Questions

[redrum]

@Schulz Yeah essentially you'll need to negate the income of the first end turn phase or try using the "endTurnNoPU" delegate instead: https://github.com/triplea-maps/the_pact_of_steel/blob/master/map/games/pact_of_steel_2.xml#L711

[Schulz]

I've added it.

<delegate name="endTurnNoPU" javaClass="games.strategy.triplea.delegate.NoPUEndTurnDelegate" display="Turn Complete"/>

Then edited the phrases;

<step name="germany0CombatMove" delegate="move" player="Germany"/>
<step name="germanyBattle" delegate="battle" player="Germany"/>
<step name="germany0EndTurn" delegate="endTurnNoPU" player="Germany">
<step name="germanyCombatMove" delegate="move" player="Germany">
<stepProperty name="resetUnitStateAtStart" value="true"/>
</step>
<step name="germany2Battle" delegate="battle" player="Germany"/>
<step name="germanyPurchase" delegate="purchase" player="Germany"/>
<step name="germanyNonCombatMove" delegate="move" player="Germany" display="Non Combat Move"/>
<step name="germanyPlace" delegate="place" player="Germany"/>
<step name="germanyEndTurn" delegate="endTurn" player="Germany"/>

Gives error message.

[redrum]

@Schulz Uh, what error message do you get?

[Schulz]

aggression_1914-master.zip!/aggression_1914-master/map/games/aggression_1914.xml', game name: '<unknown>', failed to parse XML document

[redrum]

@Schulz Well you are at a minimum missing a "/". This:

<step name="germany0EndTurn" delegate="endTurnNoPU" player="Germany">

Should be:

<step name="germany0EndTurn" delegate="endTurnNoPU" player="Germany"/>

[Schulz]

It gives still double income. Maybe better to give up this idea.

[beelee]

@Schulz said in Mixed Questions:

...Maybe better to give up this idea.

No No No. You're making headway. This would be a good thing for people to know how to do

[redrum]

@Schulz Hmm. You should only get income on the second end turn. Is the first end turn still giving income? You might want to take a look at the turn history to see when the income is added.

[Schulz]

I got income only on the second end round, the income summary of Germany showed two times and resulted double income.

[redrum]

@Schulz Hmm. Not sure why that would happen. I can take a look if you want to upload your map somewhere and send me the link.

[Schulz]

Will there be more variety about unit HP systems?

[redrum]

@Schulz Not sure what you mean?

[Schulz]

There are normal units and double HP units. I'v asked if there would be any way making an unit with a hp between them by altering dices or somethings.

[Hepps]

@Schulz said in Mixed Questions:

There are normal units and double HP units. I'v asked if there would be any way making an unit with a hp between them by altering dices or somethings.

This is already possible in some fashion. Depending on specifically what you are looking for.

[Schulz]

In a set up that player is unable to pick his casualties while some units have lower chances to get hit representing thier higher HP. They have still the same HP but harder to kill because they require more specific dice numbers to die.

[redrum]

@Schulz Couldn't you just have units with multiple HP and use random AA casualties to simulate some units being harder to kill?

[Cernel]

@redrum Would be actually good to know (and document in pos2) how random AA casualties behave with multiple hitpoints units (when damageable is true, of course). For example, if I have 5 hits and 5 or more 2+ HP units, is there a chance that 2 hits will be assigned to a same unit? Substantially, is the randomization by hitpoint or by unit (meaning, will a unit with X hitpoints have X times the chance of being hit than a unit with 1 hitpoint?)?

My guess is that it randomizes by unit (but I haven't tested it). If so, I don't think that would work very well, unless there is still a chance of a same unit getting multiple hits even if the number of hits are equal or less the number of units, that would maybe be the best behaviour, as it may be argued a unit should not be hit more if it has more hitpoints, I suppose (not sure).

[redrum]

@Cernel Yeah, I actually don't know how the randomization works and would have to look at the code or test it. I don't think any maps have really used it extensively yet.

[Cernel]

@redrum However it does work, I tend to think it is not intended. I think that randomization was intended only for when (once upon a time) the AA attacks were ignoring hitpoints, thus killing everything with one shot each (a behaviour that is still the default, but can be opted out with the "damageableAA" option). So, if I'm right, it would be just a matter of seeing how it "happens" to work. Of course, maybe only veqryn could actually say if anything is intended or not (I cannot be sure).

[Schulz]

Do these AA attachments perfectly work in land and sea battles?