Global Dominance


  • Admin

    @redrum @CrazyG
    I hope that you are not considering removing the ability to have an air unit use carrierCost 0? Even on maps with carriers with like carrierCapacity 3 and fighter squadrons with carrierCost 1, it would be nice to be able to have some special units land on the carrier with a carrierCost 0. Like if it symbolizes a single fighter, like a hero, a Jedi or maybe an air balloon or whatever 🙄


  • Admin

    @Frostion We aren't removing/changing any functionality just clarifying how things currently work.

    @CrazyG Yeah, I think adding it to the Pact of Steel 2 XML would be good.


  • Moderators

    @Frostion said in Global Dominance:

    @redrum @CrazyG
    I hope that you are not considering removing the ability to have an air unit use carrierCost 0? Even on maps with carriers with like carrierCapacity 3 and fighter squadrons with carrierCost 1, it would be nice to be able to have some special units land on the carrier with a carrierCost 0. Like if it symbolizes a single fighter, like a hero, a Jedi or maybe an air balloon or whatever 🙄

    I think you are misunderstanding the matter. The matter is exactly that carrier cost 0 DOES NOT work that way you think. There are not "some special units land on the carrier with a carrierCost 0": they just don't need to land on any carriers at all, let alone taking space on them.
    If carrier cost 0 would mean that you can land on a carrier, but taking no space on it (just like it correctly happens with transport cost 0 for sea transports), then, the behaviour would be that you still need carriers to land in that sea zone, just you would not take up any space on them.
    How it actually works, instead, is that carrier cost 0 allows you to land on any sea zones, no matter if any carriers is there.
    So, what redrum is saying is that 2 alternative behaviours are at stake:

    1. The current behaviour that carrier cost 0 allows you to land on any sea zones, not requiring any carriers (carrier cost 0 means that you don't need carriers to land on sea).

    2. The arguably most intuitive behaviour (and that would the same as how transports work) that you always need carriers to land, but carrier cost 0 would allow you to land infinite on any carriers, not taking up any space (carrier cost 0 means that you will take no space on the carriers you still need to land on).

    So, to make an example, the question is: what is a carrier cost 0 air unit?:

    1. A seaplane, able to land on the sea.

    2. A very small aeroplane, taking virtually no space on any carriers it may land on.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seaplane

    (the seaplanes were very marginal in WW2, because the stuff needed to be able to land on sea compromises the ability of the aeroplane so dramatically that they are so inferior to other land-aeroplanes that nobody would want to use seaplanes for sea warfare, instead of aeroplanes and carriers; also, landing on the sea is not that easy, depending on the condition of the sea itself, and you still need some support service for refueling (which can be provided by submarines); still, units of seaplanes may be represented, in a very detailed map like Global Dominance; they would just need to be some more costly and very weak in combat...)

    So, what you want to do, @Frostion , would not be enforced with the current engine as, in your example, "Like if it symbolizes a single fighter, like a hero, a Jedi or maybe an air balloon or whatever", that fighter/hero would be just able to land on the sea itself, not landing on carriers for free, as you are interpreting it.

    An argument in favour of 1, would be that having 1 still allows the players to know the rules and self restrict themselves following 2 (the mapmaker would just need to write in notes that some units can land on sea, but you must take care to only end movement where you have a carrier).

    This is exactly what I was saying. I was warning the mapmakers around here that want to use this probably unintended behaviour that they might incur in the problem that, at any point in the future, a developer would see the current behaviour as just a bug, and change the engine so to restrict air to only land on carriers, even when taking no space on the carriers they land on.

    My vote would be either leaving all as it is, since some mapmakers appears interested and the "seaplane" behaviour cannot be considered surely a bug or, better, having cost 0 still requiring a carrier to land, but adding a special property like "isSeaPlane" then, when true, allows that air unit to land in any sea zones and disallow it to land on any carriers; this would also solve the problem that, I'm guessing, cost 0 might land on empty sea zones, but might still land on actual carriers, if they are there, and, then, those carriers might be allied ones, moving it as cargo, during their turns.

    Also, I want to clarify that I've never noticed nor experimented with any air units having carrier cost 0; so, here I'm just trusting what @CrazyG is saying.


  • Moderators

    @Cernel
    Lets start a thread about this if there are issues. This thread is supposed to be about Hepps map


  • Moderators

    @CrazyG Well, maybe Hepps is undecided if he wants to have seaplanes or wants to have airforce generals or navy admirals on aeroplanes, to kill them like Yamamoto. 😛
    For sure, he cannot have both...


  • Donators Moderators Admin

    @Cernel Either way lets not change this behavior... it creates all kinds of possibilities and makes the engine more versatile. Besides the issue of giving a Carrier unlimited capacity is easily accommodated by playing around with the carrier capacity and the unit capacity cost (as already mentioned).

    Instead of looking at it as bug we should simply add a clear explanation to the POS2 XML.


  • Admin

    Agree. I've created an issue to track adding it here so any further discussion not directly related to Global Dominance can be done there: https://github.com/triplea-game/triplea/issues/1737


  • Donators Moderators Admin

    @redrum Thanks


  • Donators Moderators Admin

    Have almost all of the unit stats and properties defined.

    Here's a little sample...

    0_1495478592637_New Unit Tree Sample Mech.png


  • Admin

    @Hepps The units look great. What do the purple numbers represent? How will 'veteran' versions work?


  • Moderators

    Ooh I hope the veteran concept is what I think it is


  • Donators Moderators Admin

    @redrum said in Global Dominance:

    @Hepps The units look great. What do the purple numbers represent? How will 'veteran' versions work?

    Purple numbers are transport costs...

    Veteran units are normal units that can be up-graded by command units in the field. So each of your command Units can up-grade one unit per turn that are in the same territory or sea zone.


  • Donators Moderators Admin

    Here is the overview of what the unit table includes.

    0_1496074325617_Unit Definition Chart 2.png

    Some more unit examples with follow in the near future



  • @Hepps How do you acheive the light blue around the islands? Is it built in (base tiles), or translucent blue in the relief tiles?


  • Donators Moderators Admin

    @Zim-Xero Either will achieve the same effect. For this game I will probably put them into the relief layer as I want to try and do a very minimal decorative approach for this map.


  • Moderators

    The picture reminds me I wish the swastika would be usable. I don't know what kind of legal issues this can cause, tho. Guess better not, if any, and up to the repository admins, that take the responsibility, of course.



  • @Cernel said in Global Dominance:

    The picture reminds me I wish the swastika would be usable. I don't know what kind of legal issues this can cause, tho. Guess better not, if any, and up to the repository admins, that take the responsibility, of course.

    IMO, historical accuracy shoud never be compromise, lest we forget history. I think the European rules which ban swasticase shoul not appply to this game.. Using the symbol a-new... should be banned.


  • Admin

    @Zim-Xero
    Lucky for us Europeans it is not EU rules. Most EU countries have no game censorship worth mentioning. Germany is the most restrictive and bizarre example of a state censoring games, and the state does not give games the same rights to display historical content as for example movies. As I understand, in 2017, the only way to play it safe and not get your game blacklisted is by still not depicting Nazi symbols or blood and guts. I found this new entertaining but informative video concerning the subject 🙄
    https://youtu.be/9niDM9qmaS0


  • Admin

    @Hepps I believe for TripleA we are still not allowing Swastika images in maps given certain countries regulations around them. Please make sure to adhere to that.


  • Donators Moderators Admin

    @redrum It was really just the template from the original design. It hadn't even registered on me it was still there. Not a big deal. I've blurred out the image on the sample and I will ensure the dreaded swastika is omitted from the game.