Development To-Do list

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
106 messages Options
123456
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Development To-Do list

Shonn
Suggestions:

A- Costal Batteries.
Giving some units a flag so that they can fire back at Shore Bombarding naval units.
I would say it fits well with Bunkers only type of structure.

B- "Land" Scramble.
Have a 2nd type of scramble. Like have a land mobile unit that functions as Airfield. (A HQ unit maybe?), that allows the scramble of up to 2 (or X) "armour" labelled units (armour, mech infantry, dunno. Blitz enabled units?).
To represent the use of ground forces held in reserve.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Development To-Do list

blumb
I would like to suggest removing the link between issea and issub.

That would make it possible to have things like spies vs isdestroyer elites and scout planes that lend support but are too high for troops to shoot.
It would also make it so that sub carriers would be possible:) I really want these for historical maps.

This could be also be done with values for "Evades Attack From", "Can Enter Enemy Territory During Non Combat Move".
A bunch more typing, but more correct. And the later could be handy anyway.

I'm sure there are other ways of doing this. I believe that the objective is understood though. Add isstealth?

I've been thinking of a Dec 1918 map with Bolsheviks/White Russians.
The new politics in the engine makes Japan/Russia interesting in this time frame.
With the engine changes I've suggested, we could have a whole new intrege front that is complementary to the politics.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Development To-Do list

Zim Xero
This post was updated on .
In reply to this post by Zim Xero
You can cross weather off of the "to develop" list.
I just realized it is already possible.

Example of how to use the trigger:

<attatchment name="triggerAttachment" attatchTo="Parthia" javaClass="games.strategy.triplea.attatchments.TriggerAttachment" type="player">
<option name="conditions" value="conditionAttachmentWallCheck"/>
<option name="territories" value="East"/>
<option name="territoryProperty" value="territoryEffect" count="walled"/>
</attatchment>


For this trigger, the territory effect named "walled" comes into existence on Parthia's turn in a territory named East, if "conditionAttachmentWallCheck" is true.  The territory effect named "walled" can have any modifiers, such as +2 attack for all catapult units.  NOTE: might need to use the -RESET- feature with this.

Another use would be to trigger Russian winter every 4th round, using a territory effect named "winter" and enabling it in all northern provinces.  The actual effect can be as desired.  The cool thing is that it can come and go with the seasons, or any available condition, even random.

NOTE: it would still be nice to hide triggers from being displayed using a -hide- setter of some sort.  Having a trigger show up for every territory numerous times is not only annoying, it makes it difficult to see important triggers.  I know Veqryn desires 'transparency' in triggers.. but shouldn't that be left ultimately to each games designer?  Arbitrary rules based on assumptions of use or misuse limit game design, which ultimately hurts TripleA.
'thats the way it is' makes it neither desireable nor inevitable
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Development To-Do list

blumb
In reply to this post by Shonn
Shonn, take a look at the way that I did the factories in the Rising Sun AA boats edition.

I made it so they can be sbr'ed to a non producing point, further sbr'ed to destruction. They're also stackable as insurance for next round production and at the same time production is limited to territory pu regardless of # of factories.

I think this is, not what you are looking for exactly, but pretty close to it.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Development To-Do list

ZjelcoP
Hi there,

Thanks for all the hard work that has been put in this wonderfull game by all!
I have two requests, see if they make sense and are worth the effort.

1: With some maps I find it very hard to distinguish certain units, or even have any idea what they are.
The unit art sometimes just doesn't give me the information I need.

Example: Big world: Cruisers and Battleships look very much alike to me.

Fantasy/ ancient world: What the hell is this unit?

For now if there are pictures in gamenotes (rarely) you can compare them. I also use Battlecalculator which can hint at what it is. If there are any good options that i missed please point me to them.

My suggestion would be to make the territory scrolling function display behind the unit picture and number of units the name of the unit. Then with gamenotes I can found out what the unitstats are if necessary.
Possibly make this function (de-)selectable for who finds it annoying. Also show unitstats? Could be helpful in maps with many new or unknown units. Allows you to get familiar with them quickly without having to check gamenotes constantly.

2: No big one, but if not too hard would be nice:
Sometimes when using the battlecalculator it is not possible/impractible to move units to a territory to make the calculation.
Now you can start the battlecalculator in one territory. Is it possible to import the opponents by selecting an other territory? Possibly even multiple territories. (what happens if all units from these three territories attack me?)

Cheers Zjelco

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Development To-Do list

Veqryn
Administrator
This post was updated on .
In reply to this post by Veqryn
so i haven't really been keeping this updated well, but here are some new features in 1.7 and 1.8 that i didn't really introduce yet:


RandomStartDelegate will allow random or player chosen territory assignment at start of the game

UserActionDelegate will allow players to take any action that could be a trigger

UnitSupportAttachment can now modify dice and/or strength, negative or positive, for both allies and/or enemy units

sounds can now be played from inside a map zip, using sounds.properties.  sounds can also be played by trigger now.

game steps (phases) can now have properties set for them, and there are many properties to choose from, such as things related to pbem, resetting unit movement, etc

trigger 'when' setting can now have multiple entries, multiple when's

players can now be "disabled", thereby allowing differing number of players in a game with only 1 xml

resources can now be purchased as part of a production frontier

xml can specify units to start the game damaged, with unit damage or hit damage

units can now have any number of hit points, more than just 2 hitpoints

units that repair other units now can repair at different rates per turn
Please contribute to the TripleA 2013 donation drive:
http://tripleadev.1671093.n2.nabble.com/2013-TripleA-Donation-Drive-tp7583455.html
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Development To-Do list

eurofabio
Just wondering about the card engine...is still in the to-do list?
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Development To-Do list

Veqryn
Administrator
In reply to this post by Veqryn
Someone asked about this, so I figured I'd post it here as general knowledge.

How does "count" work when setting attachment properties and when using a trigger to change them?

count is actually not needed in the engine
what actually happens is that inside the engine, while it is parsed, we just take the count and add it on to the front of value, with a : in between

basically, if you have:

option name="someOption" value="aValue" count="aCount"

is actually the same as writing:

option name="someOption" value"aCount:aValue"


so if you wanted to change an attachment property for the above, you could write it as:

option name="attachmentProperty" value="aCount:aValue:aPropertyOptionName"



Now lets say you screw it up.  You played the map, and the history bar says your change was applied, but why isn't it working?

Answer is that error messages from setting something dynamically like this, will show up in the console, BUT the console will not pop up with an error.

That means that you actually need to have the console already open to see the error.

Example error:

WARNING [Triplea start thread] UnifiedMessenger -> Could not set property:transportCapacity subject:UnitAttachment attached to:games.strategy.engine.data.UnitType called jp_transport with name:unitAttatchment new value:holyshitbatman
java.lang.IllegalStateException: Could not set property:transportCapacity subject:UnitAttachment attached to:games.strategy.engine.data.UnitType called jp_transport with name:unitAttatchment new value:holyshitbatman
        at games.strategy.util.PropertyUtil.set(PropertyUtil.java:40)
        at games.strategy.util.PropertyUtil.set(PropertyUtil.java:51)
        at games.strategy.engine.data.ChangeAttachmentChange.perform(ChangeAttachmentChange.java:107)
        at games.strategy.engine.data.ChangePerformer.perform(ChangePerformer.java:57)
        at games.strategy.engine.framework.ServerGame$2.gameDataChanged(ServerGame.java:131)
        at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native Method)
        at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java:57)
        at sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:43)
        at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:606)
        at games.strategy.engine.message.EndPoint.invokeSingle(UnifiedMessenger.java:631)
        at games.strategy.engine.message.EndPoint.invokeMultiple(UnifiedMessenger.java:601)
        at games.strategy.engine.message.EndPoint.invokeLocal(UnifiedMessenger.java:579)
        at games.strategy.engine.message.UnifiedMessenger.invoke(UnifiedMessenger.java:191)
        at games.strategy.engine.message.UnifiedInvocationHandler.invoke(UnifiedInvocationHandler.java:65)
        at com.sun.proxy.$Proxy14.gameDataChanged(Unknown Source)
        at games.strategy.engine.framework.ServerGame.addChange(ServerGame.java:705)
        at games.strategy.engine.delegate.DefaultDelegateBridge.addChange(DefaultDelegateBridge.java:108)
        at games.strategy.engine.delegate.DefaultDelegateBridge.addChange(DefaultDelegateBridge.java:103)
        at games.strategy.triplea.attatchments.TriggerAttachment.triggerUnitPropertyChange(TriggerAttachment.java:2104)
        at games.strategy.triplea.delegate.TechActivationDelegate.start(TechActivationDelegate.java:105)
        at games.strategy.engine.framework.ServerGame.startStep(ServerGame.java:601)
        at games.strategy.engine.framework.ServerGame.runStep(ServerGame.java:498)
        at games.strategy.engine.framework.ServerGame.startGame(ServerGame.java:294)
        at games.strategy.engine.framework.startup.launcher.LocalLauncher.launchInNewThread(LocalLauncher.java:100)
        at games.strategy.engine.framework.startup.launcher.AbstractLauncher$1.run(AbstractLauncher.java:57)
        at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:744)
Caused by: java.lang.reflect.InvocationTargetException
        at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native Method)
        at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java:57)
        at sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:43)
        at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:606)
        at games.strategy.util.PropertyUtil.set(PropertyUtil.java:37)
        ... 25 more
Caused by: java.lang.IllegalArgumentException: Attachments: holyshitbatman is not a valid int value
        at games.strategy.engine.data.DefaultAttachment.getInt(DefaultAttachment.java:66)
        at games.strategy.triplea.attatchments.UnitAttachment.setTransportCapacity(UnitAttachment.java:1348)
        ... 30 more
WARNING [Triplea start thread] UnifiedMessenger -> Could not set property:transportCapacity subject:UnitAttachment attached to:games.strategy.engine.data.UnitType called jp_transport with name:unitAttatchment new value:holyshitbatman
java.lang.IllegalStateException: Could not set property:transportCapacity subject:UnitAttachment attached to:games.strategy.engine.data.UnitType called jp_transport with name:unitAttatchment new value:holyshitbatman
        at games.strategy.util.PropertyUtil.set(PropertyUtil.java:40)
        at games.strategy.util.PropertyUtil.set(PropertyUtil.java:51)
        at games.strategy.engine.data.ChangeAttachmentChange.perform(ChangeAttachmentChange.java:107)
        at games.strategy.engine.data.ChangePerformer.perform(ChangePerformer.java:57)
        at games.strategy.engine.framework.ServerGame$2.gameDataChanged(ServerGame.java:131)
        at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native Method)
        at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java:57)
        at sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:43)
        at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:606)
        at games.strategy.engine.message.EndPoint.invokeSingle(UnifiedMessenger.java:631)
        at games.strategy.engine.message.EndPoint.invokeMultiple(UnifiedMessenger.java:601)
        at games.strategy.engine.message.EndPoint.invokeLocal(UnifiedMessenger.java:579)
        at games.strategy.engine.message.UnifiedMessenger.invoke(UnifiedMessenger.java:191)
        at games.strategy.engine.message.UnifiedInvocationHandler.invoke(UnifiedInvocationHandler.java:65)
        at com.sun.proxy.$Proxy14.gameDataChanged(Unknown Source)
        at games.strategy.engine.framework.ServerGame.addChange(ServerGame.java:705)
        at games.strategy.engine.delegate.DefaultDelegateBridge.addChange(DefaultDelegateBridge.java:108)
        at games.strategy.engine.delegate.DefaultDelegateBridge.addChange(DefaultDelegateBridge.java:103)
        at games.strategy.triplea.attatchments.TriggerAttachment.triggerUnitPropertyChange(TriggerAttachment.java:2104)
        at games.strategy.triplea.delegate.TechActivationDelegate.start(TechActivationDelegate.java:105)
        at games.strategy.engine.framework.ServerGame.startStep(ServerGame.java:601)
        at games.strategy.engine.framework.ServerGame.runStep(ServerGame.java:498)
        at games.strategy.engine.framework.ServerGame.startGame(ServerGame.java:294)
        at games.strategy.engine.framework.startup.launcher.LocalLauncher.launchInNewThread(LocalLauncher.java:100)
        at games.strategy.engine.framework.startup.launcher.AbstractLauncher$1.run(AbstractLauncher.java:57)
        at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:744)
Caused by: java.lang.reflect.InvocationTargetException
        at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native Method)
        at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java:57)
        at sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:43)
        at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:606)
        at games.strategy.util.PropertyUtil.set(PropertyUtil.java:37)
        ... 25 more
Caused by: java.lang.IllegalArgumentException: Attachments: holyshitbatman is not a valid int value
        at games.strategy.engine.data.DefaultAttachment.getInt(DefaultAttachment.java:66)
        at games.strategy.triplea.attatchments.UnitAttachment.setTransportCapacity(UnitAttachment.java:1348)
        ... 30 more
Please contribute to the TripleA 2013 donation drive:
http://tripleadev.1671093.n2.nabble.com/2013-TripleA-Donation-Drive-tp7583455.html
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Development To-Do list

Pulicat
In reply to this post by Veqryn
Feature request:

A way to tally up total resource value beyond just TUV, possibly using a .properties file.

example: "total PU value," "total manpower value," "total industrial value," etc

And then we can have destroyedTUV condition be expanded for whatever resources is customized.

puli
how now brown cow?
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Development To-Do list

Peuri
This post was updated on .
In reply to this post by blumb
In addition to blumb's suggestion of seperating isSea and isSub it would be cool if isAir and isStrategicBomber would also be seperated. Then you could have land units spies/raiders that could damage factories.

Allowing resources to run into the negative would also be useful for scenarios with running resource costs on buildings or units.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Development To-Do list

Cernel
In reply to this post by Veqryn
1)
You can capture enemy territories over which you started your turn (this is relevant only for limited rounds combats, no retreat combats and diplomacy allowing you to go at war with a power having unit of yours in its territories already) only by going into them during combat move or ending the combat move phase into them. This would make for some weird situations for units moving more than 1 territory. In particular, it is silly that if you start in an enemy territory beside your own territory, aside from capturing the territory by ending the combat move there, you can capture it by going out of it and in again, but not just capture it (preferably counting this as 1 move) and, then, move on, to other territories.

2)
It's impossible to capture enemy infrastructures in friendly (owned or allied) territories.
Making it possible (that is, having infrastructures captured while the territory in which they are doesn't change ownership) would open up a whole unexplored field, for which there are no significant insights about the proper behaviour. Following are just my suggestions on how it should behave, based on coherency and realism.
I suggest to make lonely infrastructures in friendly territories capturable with no malus if blitz through factories and AA allowed, and ending movement otherwise (if blitz through infrastructures is not allowed).
Being able to blitz or not (unit attachment) (independently from the presence of enemy units) should be irrelevant, in this case (so that a unit that can't blitz an empty enemy territory won't be stopped upon capturing an infrastructure in a friendly territory (so, as unit unable to blitz empty enemy territories should be able to "blitz" enemy infrastructures in allied territories; like it is now, but instantly capturing all of them, instead of ignoring them)
Also, if as unit starts its combat move phase in a friendly territory with an enemy infrastructure in it, there should be 2 different consequences:
1) if AA don't block movement: the infrastructure should be immediately conquered, at the start of Combat Move, for free
2) if AA block movement (blitz through factories and AA restricted is true): the infrastructure should be conquered only upon ending the Combat Movement phase there, if the unit didn't move (and, in this case, the unit should be not able to move anymore, during noncombat, just like when capturing an enemy territory with an AA in it)
It's harder to say if infrastructures should be able to capture infrastructures (so, if an infrastructure with movement 2 enters a friendly territory with 100 enemy infrastructures, it captures them all and can keep moving of the remaining 1 movement) or not. This is a question also relatively to whether infrastructures should be able to capture enemy territories or not (at the moment, the behaviour is that an mobile infrastructure can enter an enemy territory with only enemy infrastructures in it and capture the territory and all of the infrastructures).
In my opinion it would be better if an infrastructure can capture territories and infrastructures (like it is now), otherwise it would be hard to decide what should happen if an infrastructure enter an allied territory with enemy infrastructures in it. Anyway, I'm not sure on this point.
Of course, units unable to combat move must not be able to capture enemy infrastructures, even in territories they are start turn.

3)
(this is an unorthodox way to use canals, so it's not really a limit:) Canals blocking movement from a land territory to a sea zone doesn't block the ability to place (what produced) from that territory to that sea zone (if you can't load from a territory to a sea, it's arguable you should not be able to launch ships in the same direction too). Also the V2 style movement of air to carrier during placement may be influenced.

4)
I think noone has ever thought about how to handle a situation in which the ship and its cargo (all or part of it) are belonging to powers with a War relationship between them (this can happen because you loaded as an Allied, then declared War, while being loaded, still). I think the way it works now may be fine (hard to see a really good and reasonably feasible way to behave here), except that ships in this condition should be unable to load other units (only till this condition goes on).

5)
MOST IMPORTANT: It would be cool to be allowed to retreat after having destroyed all of the units in a territory (a popup that ask you if you want to consolidate or retreat: if you choose consolidate, the fight end as normal, if you choose retreat you retreat like in normal retreats). Also, it would be better to be able to set, in the XML, if the territory (and any capturable unit in it) get captured or not if you win the battle but retreat.
I think this is, as now, the biggest absence of realism in the whole TripleA universe. If you attack and kill all of the enemy units except one, you can retreat; while, if you killed them all, you just attacked too well and can't retreat... As now, at least for me, this is the biggest reason why Low Luck has a bigger gaming dept, since it allows for safe strafing; not obliging you to the nonsense of letting "favourable" dice decide you can't retreat for no sensible reasons. At least, it's for me the biggest reason for playing Low Luck, instead of Dice, since; on the other hand, I love (sensible) randomness.

6)
It would be cool to have an option to be allowed to retreat only part of the engaged force each round of combat and to different territories, choosing the mix. This would also invalidate a metagaming use of the combined attack by unloaded and not unloaded units in V2 (to take the territory with minimal forces, not possible otherwise (make no sense that you can't decide to leave part of your force to keep fighting)).

7)
It would be cool to have an attachment for making a specific unit unable to retreat (so, if others retreat, the battle goes on with only not retreating units involved as attackers). Anyway, this may generate metagaming situations in which you exploit this limit, to have a victory with most of the forces retreating; so, it would be something to add only after the previous ones being made (if there are some units that can't retreat, the units able to retreat should be allowed to partially decide not to).

8)
It would be cool to have personalized properties names showing up in options; for example, in an ancient game, "Submersible Subs" would be better shown off as "Ships Cannot Block". This would also allow for avoiding confusion in case of wrongly named stuff, like the bombardment fireback restricted.

9)
It is advisable to be able to choose if to remove unloaded or not unloaded units of the same type (instead of being obliged to remove the unloaded ones first (there are some cases in which you would prefer not to remove all of the unloaded ones first)). Even better, would be an option to oblige removing all of the unloaded units before removing any other units, so to get rid of the metagaming uses of the V2 partial retreat of not unloaded units.
History plays dice
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Development To-Do list

Pulicat
1) is already sort of possible, if you withdraw your troops from stalemated territory, at the end of your combat phase, enemy automatically takes over the land. I think there is a game property for this.

puli
how now brown cow?
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Development To-Do list

Cernel
In reply to this post by Veqryn
Also, I'd like to make you noticed that, as now, you can use the "airbattle" stuff also for things that are not "isair".

I've tested it a bit and found, so far, that it works totally fine if you have land units making air battles (before the normal combat).

This would be a *very* interesting possibility to reproduce, for example, tank battles going on right before the normal battle (the current typical behaviour of eliminating all infantries before armours is ridiculously stupid, since, historically, the logoration of the armours, in normal field and breakthrough oriented battles, was far far higher than the logoration of the infantries (basically, all major battles started with some days or , at most, around a week, of heavy armour fighting, in which the armours of the losing side got literally decimated; then, after one side obtained the superiority in this struggle of the titans, the following multiforce and wider frontline kind of combat ensued, with the infantry just now starting taking some serious casualties, in relative terms)). This typical behaviour of the armour being first casualty (for the loser) is particularly clear in usually very plain theatres, like during the battles in Libya (uncommon typology of warfare and terrains, like swamps and cityfights, can change the behaviour but, still, if you unwittingly throw armours in those situations too, they won't last long, either). Or, even in a modern map, I can quite see the opposite cavalries doing 1 round of "air battle" before starting combat; or the opposing artilleries doing 1 round of antibattery fire before starting combat, or whatever (that would be cool, wouldn't it, Pulicat?).

As now, the only limit I found in using the airbattle stuff for land units is that it will trigger also when said laund units are cargo (so, you'll have cargos fighting each other). In this case, as you can imagine, you get some various bugs (transports moltiplicating, not dyeing, etc.).



So, on a short term basis, it may be interesting to:

Enforce a restriction on stuff being cargo not participating in air battles (so, the much interesting air battle stuff will be freely usable for not air units too, as it is already, aside from the cargo problem)

On a medium term basis:

Allow for multiple airbattles (so you can have cavalry skirmish, beside antibattery fire, beside biplane jostling in an advanced WW1 map, for example)

On a long term insane wtf basis:

Perfection the current behaviour for airbattles between cargo, limiting it to cargo only, so to actually allow for such a battle; so to represent those ancient and medieval times in which it was the cargo inside the ships that fought in the sea battles, not really the ships themselves (so, for example, the knights will be powerful fighting on land but weak fighting as cargo, while the archers will be the best fighting as cargo, etc.; moreover allowing for the ships participating too, in a similar way as it is currently for "isInfastructure" units taking part in battles).



p.s.: This is not a bug report, since the airbattle stuff is meant to be used with airbattle units only and, afaik, it works totally fine for them (I would also be against enforcing a limit obliging you to assign that sort of things to air units only; can't see a problem if some crazy mapmakers want to use some stuff in unintended ways).
History plays dice
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Development To-Do list

Bung
In reply to this post by Veqryn
hey Veq, what do you think about trying to write the information in those error pop-ups directly to a log file on the users' computer? then you wouldn't have to hope that someone managed to grab all the info and save it without accidentally closing it when they send the save file, you just ask for the log file too.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Development To-Do list

Rolf Larsson
not sure how long it will be until next unstable, but here are some thoughts, which might be useful:

1. Full integration of AA stuff within support, like "integrateAAstrikes" true/false
2. Rounds of support, just "rounds"="3" means the support is only given for three rounds of battle...
3. Integration of AA stuff for amphibious assaults, like "ismarineAA" ="value"
4. unit categories as a new unit attachment, just a string like "Groundsoldiers" very important for move/place/attack limitations as it would allow to move different units up to a limit, but only from this category.
5. repair for multi hitpoint units, just like the one, which is already there for damaged units
6. another new unit attachment/upgrade of "whenCombatDamaged": "damage/hitrange sets" count="1,2,3" value=" a list of unit attachments, which are beeing used when the unit has been taken 1-3 damge/hits, like a factory with 15 max damage and canproduce5 units, would get can produce4 units when 1-3 damage is there, number of rolls for multihitpoint units etc.
We now have custom dice!
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Development To-Do list

Veqryn
Administrator
thx to redrum's initiative, we now have a multi-threaded battle calculator

on average, it speeds up the calc by around 2x to 4x (so it cuts down the time to 1/4th to 1/2 of the original time)

the ui calc, dynamix, and the new hard ai all use it
Please contribute to the TripleA 2013 donation drive:
http://tripleadev.1671093.n2.nabble.com/2013-TripleA-Donation-Drive-tp7583455.html
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Development To-Do list

Ingos
In reply to this post by Cernel
Cernel wrote
5) MOST IMPORTANT: It would be cool to be allowed to retreat after having destroyed all of the units in a territory...
I really like this idea, and I am under the impression that it would not be difficult to implement either, instead of the battle ending as usual the retreat pop-up appears first and if you choose "remain" the battle ends

But in my opinion this would be better if it was included as a game option that could be enabled/disabled before the game start.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Development To-Do list

Shonn
Bonus Movement "limit".

Some emplacements (or possibly units even) give extra bonus to movement of some units.
Docks in some World War II, or Airfields in TWW map.

Is that "cappable" to an amount of units per Dock / Airfield?
(TWW example - 1 Airfield can give only to 2 planes extra movement, the others do not benefit of the Airfield at all -- or even better I dare say, only X planes from that Region can move in the Combat Move phase depending on how many airfields are present.).

_____________________________

Mixed Turns:

Same faction Nations share phases.

Like, Axis Combat Move (all together, Germany, Italy, Japan, etc). Then they all produce (Keeping their own separated PUs, production facilities, techs, etc).

This allows the combining of attacks - but at the same time prevents the "1-2" type of attacks which can open up holes and such.

Or eventually combine then differently. (USA-UK at once, Germany-Italy at once, Soviets on their own accord and so does Japan.)

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Development To-Do list

wirkey
Shonn wrote
Mixed Turns:

Same faction Nations share phases.

Like, Axis Combat Move (all together, Germany, Italy, Japan, etc). Then they all produce (Keeping their own separated PUs, production facilities, techs, etc).

This allows the combining of attacks - but at the same time prevents the "1-2" type of attacks which can open up holes and such.

Or eventually combine then differently. (USA-UK at once, Germany-Italy at once, Soviets on their own accord and so does Japan.)
Not sure if combined attacks work, but everything else is possible. You can have German purchase followed by japanes noncombat move etc.
Would be interesting to see what happens if germany has combat moves, than japan, both move into the same enemy territory. What happens now if during germany's turn. I'd guess that only german units fight and in japan's turn, their units fight the remaining enemies.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Development To-Do list

hepster
In reply to this post by Shonn
The combined attacks could be achieved with some very detailed manipulation of an XML.  You could theoretically set all Axis powers as one nation (similar to how the German Minors are set up in TWW) and then do the exact same for all the Allies.
“A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition”― Rudyard Kipling
123456