@redrum I suggest the council make a quasi official rule of thumb at minimum and post it somewhere.

@hepps ALL ABOARD..... Next stop sunny Kursk.

Baggage to the rear please.

Here is what the final product looks like with map blends = ON. Next step is to figure out the GitHub uploading. And yes this will be just a map skin for the existing revised map, so it's not forced on anyone.

Unfortunately TripleA ignores some of my layers and it doesn't look as nice as it does in the graphics editor, but it still an improvement over original.

This one is with maps blend =off. A bit brighter version.

@zlefin Yeah zombies making repairs seems even stranger than zombies existing.

@hepps Inactive might be slightly misleading, because the units will still defend. But I'm not opposed to changing it to "Static_AI".

@hepps

I'm trying to not deviate to much from A&A revised map. But it is an improvement. Let me know what you think. And then I'll run the map utilities

Btw, make any changes you want.

So this is regarding the somewhat recent engine changes that cause auto battle selections. Which in turn auto rolls dice for the first roll.

Can we have this as optional per an engine preference. I rather always choose the battle from the list on the right and have an element of control over the luck involved with when the dice for those battles actually start generation.

Having some control over when the dice begin generation of a roll matters, imo. Those rolls are not predetermined, the timing of the clicks on the buttons do matter. Unless we are using a really crappy random dice generator.

ie. If I wait 1, 2 or 3 seconds, those rolls are likely to not be the same each time, they are not predetermined.

So why should we be forced to take auto generated clicks for battles, which determine when the rolls are generated, which in turn determines what the outcomes of those rolls are. Thus eliminating our players luck.

Even the battles that have no defensive rolls should not be auto selected per my proposal (ie. transports, sbr AAguns). Per engine preference.

This also brings up another separate point. The sequence of player clicks within a battle seems illogical. eg. Player A clicks continue button, that determines Player B's actual roll. Shouldn't Player B control his own luck? And vice versa. This involves one extra click to fix. But then a player really controls their own luck. This should also be optional per engine preference as well.

Btw, this topic has nothing to do with the existing engine preference options. Those are different. And I do understand that some like the existing method, because it's less clicks (so.. hard to click, hehe), which is why I am proposing this, as an engine preference.

I propose a brief section devoted to images in POS2 or in one of the other help documents.

@general_zod

One panzer per passenger please.

I'm sorry sir, you already have a panzer loaded.

Rage, sweet..

Black Sabbath, WarPigs.

@Frostion

An alternate method involves using bidPlace delegates. If you want to place one sea unit per player turn in a turn order. You will need to place the multiple delegates before the regular sequence begins. The trick here would be to trigger one sea unit to place (during the bidPlace) and additionally trigger an invisible sea unit (owned by nation whos turn it is) into every available sea zone during the bidPlace and remove all of them after the bidPlace. This will allow you to place sea units in sea zones that look empty or unowned.

But if you actually require ownership of the seazones to be changed, you need to trigger them as well. Or try assigning each seazone and attachment before hand that has ownership assigned, and see what happens. But I think triggers would still be required here. Maybe try adding production=0 to seazones too, then it should switch ownerships.

@Frostion

I have used the existing feature extensively on one of my maps, although I have more coding before completed. It involves selecting territories like risk. But it follows rules custom to the game and makes use of different value territories rather than all the same values. So a lot of conditions to code. But it's like 75% done.

Oh and we have also edited manually to same effect when we want use this rule set. It's for my Bad-Ass 4 Nation FFA. But soon will be an engine supported ruleset .

I can play around with what I have currently to see if seazones can be selected during that delegate. Otherwise it can likely be done with useraction and a ton of triggers and conditions. I'll get back to you.

@redrum By the way what does the randomStart delegate feature request entail. I have used the existing feature extensively on one of my maps, although I have more coding before completed. It involves selecting territories like risk. But it follows rules custom to the game and makes use of different value territories rather than all the same values. So a lot of conditions to code. But it's like 75% done.

@redrum

Ok, so it's on the short list I guess. That's cool. I was wondering if it got knocked off the list between the time this topic was being initially discussed and the feature list votes. You seemed to green light the feature back then.

Anyways, greatly appreciated. I will also post a thread to show my progress on the map thus far and direction I want to take it. By the way this feature has immediate use a bug fix for TWW as you may recall (materials from harbors to transports). And I think some of the other map makers could make good use of it once they take a good look at it. @Cernel already pointed out it was useful as logistical solution rather than using land canals (above). So it's got a lot of potential.

If there was an additional attribute that caused the waypoints to be checked for the specific units. Then it could be used as terrain or weather movement penalties or as bonuses for stuff like autobahn/highways. But if that's too complex to code, don't bother. I'm mainly pulling for what we discussed already.

@redrum

Thanks for all your hard work and efforts elsewhere, all are also greatly appreciated. But I kind of need to know where I stand here.

I know you have created a vote system for feature requests. That's ok, however it is imperfect. Since non mapmakers can vote and skew the results to features that might not even be on any ones drawing board for immediate future.

That being said, do you think it would be too much trouble to squeeze this feature request in eventually. No hurry really, but... My whole map design hinges on it being implemented eventually.

I think it's quite a revolutionary design and should play well once it's thoroughly tested and fine tuned. Thus a worthy feature request. This design should facilitate the necessity and importance of solid sea strategies and not to simply allow them to be ignored as so many maps currently do allow. Especially in the strategies in the Atlantic theatre.

Basically this design will use a combination underwater sea zones, naval bases and hybrid shipping lanes. In conjunction with convoy attachments, routes, seazone blockades , seazone production, custom bonuses. And possibly if not to much work for players, a system that requires sea nations to transport certain resources to their capitals where they are then exchanged for income. I have a few options on implementation of latter portion. But I need this feature request in the end.

@schulz Imo 1 week should not be the bar to take over some ones map. I recommend you simply mod it, and not use the same name. Maybe when he returns he can give blessing to merge the files.

@schulz Look in the autosave folder, maybe triplea autosaved before it crashed.

C:\Users\username\triplea\savedGames\autoSave

Also double check.

C:\Users\username\triplea\savedGames

@hepps Can I see the whole map?

@schulz Oh, my bad, I didn't see , you did respond. Anyways, you should fix it if broken. Then you don't need permission to mod NML.

@schulz Btw, why no response to the "blood and steel" question?