The British units can reach Ceylon in 1 round but the US unit cannot with using this British transport even if Britain didn't use this transport in this round.

New propert about preventing round delay when Allied units are
on transport

What do you mean by that @Schulz , can you explain a bit further?

There has been some really great feedback here. Just want to remind that we need to keep our heads up, think high level, broad direction, strategic focus.

Let's say I want to change a territory effect so that every unit gets an extra 1 defense in addition to whatever other bonus they already get. For this to happen I may need to change close to a hundred lines of xml and remember to change unit tooltips and game notes as well.

Or let's say I want to move purchase phase before combat move. Not only do I have to edit one line per player, but also suddenly most of my complex trigger systems using when are broken.

Or let's say, for the sake of example, that I want to (heaven forbid) change the shape of a territory so it touches another one nearby. Now I have to run the tile image breaker, potentially center picker, polygon grabber, placement finder, then make sure to change the connections in the xml, and also fix name placement, PU placement and relief tiles if necessary.

The common thread in the three examples above is that to make even a simple and intuitive change I need to engage in lengthy procedures which require no thinking but are full of pitfalls nevertheless (especially in the case of trigger systems).

So why is this a problem? There aren't all that many cases of mapmakers changing stuff around, so even if it takes an unreasonable amount of time per modification, it still won't add up to too much time lost across all mapmakers. And reducing this kind of friction would be a lot of time for the developers. So wouldn't it be more time-efficient to just let mapmakers deal with it?

Yes, it would.

But.

See, there is a reason why mapmakers don't change stuff around too much. I personally start creating a map with the base tiles. Once I'm done, I'm done. Maybe I change it once every couple of years, but I'm mostly just stuck with the original. If the layout doesn't support interesting strategies, then I'll just try to work around it. Especially in the case of BFA, where every modification to the map involves the coordination of two mapmakers living in opposite timezones. It's just simply impractical to do it, most of the time.

Now imagine a world where changing the shape of a territory (or adding a new one) takes as long as it takes for you to go through the brush strokes in Paint. I'd imagine there would be a lot more experimentation and a lot less being stuck with a map that seemed vaguely right before I even played on it once. Actually I don't think I can stress this enough, but having to make a final decision on the layout of territories before playtesting is absurd. We probably don't notice this too much because we've gotten used to it by now, but it goes against the principles of game design.

In a world where you can make minor modifications with minor effort, I would expect iterative design to happen. I would expect a lot more maps popping up, a lot more variations on each one of them. The community could gather more experience about things that work and things that don't, and we'd eventually have more of the former than the latter.

It really isn't about the time mapmakers already spend on improving maps, which they wouldn't have to spend in an ideal world. It's about the time mapmakers decide not to spend on creating or improving maps, because it's just too much effort.

So this is a vision of what could be. I believe that if we focus (admittedly immense) energies on improving the fluency of mapmaking, we could reach a point where there are dozens to hundreds of active mapmakers, and just as many maps to which every one we've made so far pales in comparison. I know it's hard to believe... we've got so used to seeing only a couple of active mapmakers with the occasional quality map that we somehow think this is normal.

Also Fog of War for features.

• Stop the over stacking of units at Capitals when there is no threat within say 3 Territories.

• In mid to end game the AI appears to lose the ability to expand and capture new territories.

• To fix building new Factories.

I am still on 1.9, it builds factories, so I am missing out on all the new features being added

New, it would be great if the map designer could pick an aggression level for each AI faction say 51 to 100, this is the Battle Calculator average chance of winning, where 60 is very aggressive, meaning the AI has 60% chance of winning (Germans, Orcs), verses say an AI set at 90 (Americans, Dwarves).

More features has in part gotten us into some trouble, but at the same time that is what you notice and where you get value.

The nasty truth about misapplying duct tape solutions in serious software development is that the duct tape solution ends up creating unnecessary additional complexity because it doesn’t address the whole problem, just the symptoms. This isn’t unique to software development, but if duct tape solutions are used to achieve short term gains, then future solutions are built on a foundation of duct tape instead of some sound organizational method.

https://jeffreypalermo.com/2009/09/debunking-the-duct-tape-programmer/

Historically we've had a pretty relentless addition of features to everywhere that could sustain it and have since been focused on reworking the core of TripleA. We've made progress there and it's time to think about what's next now that we can start to move forward again.

The idea is to know which categories we want to really focus on. Think about it in a way as grouping the feature requests into categories, which categories are then the most important?

My favourite one is the ability to define the possible targets (the new canNotTarget option).

https://forums.triplea-game.org/topic/182/guidelines-and-feature-request-list

That is to say that what I prefer is more features.