Total World War: December 1941 (BETA) 2.8.0.5
-
And here are the revised icons as well.
-
@hepps Looks better smaller. I think you can even go smaller, just has to be indentifiable and functional.
I was wondering if a standard location for such information should be given. Maybe right under the nation flags/roundels.
-
@general_zod I tested smaller and wasn't happy with the results. This was the sweet spot for the map. Bear in mind that the screen shot is at 100 zoom which is not what I generally play at. So when you factor in zooming out... this was where I settled.
The fixed location is actually the top right corner of the unit image. I tailored the icons for both left and right facing units. So that the location is uniform over the entire map relative to which way the unit faces.
-
@redrum this is going to make you laugh... Same techs.... ordered the same way in the properties file... same nation.... rendered 2 different ways...
Look at the British BB and the British CC.
LMFAO!
-
Now that I am back to working on TWW/GD development I wanted to gauge the temperament of those who play the game.
To that end there is a poll on the first post of this thread. If you play this game and have an opinion... please weigh-in and let me know how you feel as it will determine whether I use TWW as a testing ground for my new concepts on ASW.
The poll is scheduled to end at the end of the month, so I will basing my decision on the results at that point.
Thank you in advance,
Guardian
-
I voted yes in the poll, I'm happy to try the new system, but couldn't you just put two XMLs in the folder so players have both?
-
@crazyg Yup... I just want to know whether people will play with the option.
There is no issue with having both options... I just don't want to go through the process of making an option available only to have it ignored.
that and there are already 2 versions... I don't really want to start getting into having 5 and 6 versions of a game like there are with other maps.
-
@crazyg keeping two xmls in sync is a lot more work. I don't play ( brain can't comprehend it all
) so I didn't vote.Don't know what changes heppester is doing but maybe one could add a tech that would activate the changes and keep it at one xml
-
-
@beelee Based on the changes a trigger will not work.
-
@hepps right on. what are the changes ?
-
@beelee Proprietary secret.
-
-
@beelee gigglez he is anal like that
-
@prastle heh heh just wondered what people were voting on : )
-
@beelee No body gets to savor my succulent 11 herbs & spices til the chicken is done.
B) -
-
I dont understand the poll. The "No" is just, please dont change anything. And the "Yes" is what? DDs lose the ability to detect subs?
-
@gully I have developed a new system where the "is destroyer" property is abandoned all together and removed from the game.
What happens is nothing can ever stop a sub from submerging... however... the "Improved Destroyer" and "Advanced Destroyer" techs gives destroyers the ability to try and depth charge subs when they try to submerge. As a trade of I have also changed how subs operate to compensate for the fact that Subs can survive (with a little luck) without the prospect of being slaughtered outright. These changes include making them effective on attack but at the same time utterly useless when paired with fleets as defensive cover.
-
I'd probably agree with @CrazyG on this. Given how well 2.8 has gone, I'd say retire 2.7 XML and if you want to test out new sub/destroyer mechanics then make it 2.9.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login