Invisible units
-
Meaning that I think the not drawn user case is not really related to something being production or logistic related, but to the fact of being ubiquitous (the reason why maps with factories everywhere used invisible images for them is because those units where everywhere, thus ridiculously redundant to see, not because they were factories; it would be just the same if you would have capturable units defending at 4 everywhere).
Of course, it needs to be surely there, thus being either a capturable infrastructure or something immediately replaced by triggers. This doesn't change the matter as, for example, you would not have invisible ruralproduction units if they would be destroyed on capture.
-
I would like to update (make a pull request for) Feudal Japan with this new feature, but I've still that "Delete costPU" pending pull request, and I don't know how to do it splitting the two.
-
@cernel You can have multiple PRs open at the same time. As long as they don't end up editing the same lines in the same file then there shouldn't be any issues.
Just make sure you create a separate branch when submitting the new changes.
-
@redrum I've no idea how to do that. What I just do is to compare the target repository with my repository, that is a modified version of that repository I forked.
I guess I could do it by making a second GitHub account where to fork the repository again and modify it in a different way.
-
@cernel Yeah, its gonna be pretty tough to explain how to go about doing that I realize. For this case, I think its gonna be easier if you just post your recommended changes here and I'll update the repo.
-
@redrum No, problem, I'll do it in the future. I want to propose other changes for that map anyways. Was just to hide the invisible factory in all territories.
-
@cernel The battle calculator could definitely use this feature or a similar method. In order to keep the selections minimal. At least until it is completely overhauled
-
It is also a relief since now you can go see how many units are in a territory, looking at the tab, without having to remember to subtract 1 or whatever. Trying it, it really feels nice not having anymore those ghost units around; it really makes a difference, the game looks significantly more like it.
On this regard, maybe the units that are not drawn should be not counted in the players tab either. I'm not certain, but tend to think so.
Anyways, have to report a bug. If the map has no images for the units that are not drawn, you get the missing image error when you try to do something with them with Edit mode. I think omitted units should be editable, so that is fine, and getting an invisible image when you are in edit mode, but you should not get the error. Or maybe this is an argument for providing (not blank) units images also for the units that are not drawn, so that they are visible in the edit window and pop ups, if you want to edit them?
-
@cernel Or maybe it would be just better to make them not editable either; I'm leaning in that direction, actually. Probably if a unit is not drawn, it should be something that you should never have a need to edit, unless the map has some faults, and that should rather be addressed by reporting / debugging, since anyways power users can press on with the game by removing the entry in map.properties (another reason why it is better having it there instead of the xml, also for testing and bug proofing during development, while not touching the xml for that).
-
@cernel But I'm really undecided here, since when you are dealing with a map made by someone else, it is really handy to use edit mode (in remove units mode) to be sure about what is in that territory, now that units may be hidden.
I'm thinking units supposed to be never drawn should be allowed not having an image assigned (of course they should like in the case of all territories having a combat infrastructure), but, if editable, the engine should not give any errors for missing images when editing, if the unit is not to be drawn.
