New Features,Questions,Requests and Clarifications

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
177 messages Options
1234 ... 9
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

New Features,Questions,Requests and Clarifications

Rolf Larsson
I´m playing around with the new features and I stumbled over a few things:
I´m referring to the XML for pact of steel 2, from the latest prerelease(27.03.11).

1. Airfields and Harbours can be damaged by strategic bombardements. How do they repair?
I just guess it is 1 PU needed by default to repair 1 damage like factories, right?

Request for 1. :
It would be nice,if repair cost for them could be set similar to the repair rules for factories.
Another request for this:
It would be nice, if factories and structures like these could be set to autorepair X damage per turn without any costs.

2.Harbours repair damaged battleships like this:
<option name="repairsUnits" value="battleships"/>

Request for 2. :
It would be nice, if this could be a list of units that get repaired, like value="battleships:cruiser:carrier" if those are set as 2 hit units as well.
Another request for this:
It would be nice to then set a number of max units that get repaired by this structure per turn, like:
<option name="maxRepairsUnitsPerTurn" value="2"/>

3. maxBuiltPerPlayer :
This is a very powerful and great feature. It allows to represent for example manpower, if set for infantry, with all the consequences as it is thought to be used for structures like factories I think.

However, the value for it is static, and here comes the request for 3. :
It would be nice if this value could be set to something like X per Y territories, which would mean it is dynamically. X units of this kind can be built by this player if he holds Y territories.
Example: If Germany holds 10 territories 2 factories can be built. If the option is 1 per 5 territories.
Another request for this:
Let it depend on the PU production a player has. For example: 1 per 20PUs production.

4. Custom Sided Dice
Wonderful a 10 sided dice, really a killer feature! However, what about the AAs? I think they are hardcoded, and role for 1 by default and 2 if radar tech is on.
What about the dice roled for war bonds?
What about strategic bombing?
Any other fixed 6 sided dice rolls I forgot about?
Request for 4. :
Defense value to be settable is now needed for AAs.
Custom dice for war bonds.
Custom dice for strategic bombing/bombers to be settable.

Those are all things I currently noticed about, some can be easy changed others not I guess.


We now have custom dice!
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: New Features,Questions,Requests and Clarifications

Veqryn
Administrator
This post was updated on .
1.1 I think you can set them under repair rules
then again, kev is not done with coding all those things, and they are what he is working on (where the hell are you kev?)
1.2 can you just give people extra income or something?

2.1 you can already do this, I made it as a list, as my xml shows
2.2 I already have this on my list of things to do

3.1 dynamic stuff is harder.  you can use triggers though to change this number

4.1 i do want to be able to give AA's a defensive value, this is already on my list of stuff to do. but this one is at the bottom of said list
4.2 setting dice individually for different parts of the game, is frankly speaking, not going to happen.  however, i may find a way to set different things about rolling for tech / war bonds / bombing, that will allow basically the same features as custom dice would

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: New Features,Questions,Requests and Clarifications

Rolf Larsson
1.1 Ok, just more or less cosmetic I´d say. I will try it with repair rules.
1.2 Extra Income would work yes, but it could be used otherwise then, too.

2.1 Great, seems I haven´t read thoroughly enough, thx.
2.2 Yes seems to be a good addition.

3.1 Interesting, no idea how to do it yet, but if it works with triggers then it is cool.

4.1 Great, no hurry here, if side is 12 radar tech would normalize it.
4.2 Nice.

Keep up the great work and thx for your commitment!
We now have custom dice!
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: New Features,Questions,Requests and Clarifications

Rolf Larsson
In reply to this post by Rolf Larsson
A few more requests and questions:

R1. A condition like this : Unit Type X by Player Y is in Territory Z, would be nice as a condition.

R2. Triggers can modify unit attachements, how hard is it to let them modify territroy attachements?
I mean it would be nice to have one capital only and if it is captured a popup message(see 3.) says
something like: Player X moved his capital to Territory Y. Another nice benefit of it would be a changed ownership for maps with Vichy France for example or something like Player X lost 3 possible capitals and surrenders to Player Y, as a result all remaining territories change ownership.

R3. Condition/Trigger for PopUps(Test Messages) and sounds. I think it is on the list for long, but a text message PopUp should not be that hard to code, cause victory messages are already displayed and triggered.

R4. Trigger for movement points for units would be nice, too. I somehow mixed up Naval- and Airbases with Harbours and Airfields and thought all those could be done with triggers anyway, but I noticed that it is currently impossible to add movement points with triggers to a unit.

R5. The effection of enemy units with triggers, but it is on the list I think as it is mention already. This one however seems to add a lot more options so.

R6. Trigger for alliance change of a player could be a nice workaround for these is at war/is not at war by changing their alliance from neutral to axis/allies/whatever.

R7. AntiTankGun with similar rules as the AA, I think this has been requested before, but it is a good one.

R8. An option very similar to the Bid sequence, which does not carry over unspent PUs.

R9. More or less cosmetic: Remove players, which have no technology research options from the stats list. Will new technology be displayed? Will the default technologies disappear when removed?

OK thats all for now, some of these are easy I think others not, just my thoughts for more and more flexibility going away from the standard AandA style. Btw thx for all those great features that are already done lately, keep up the great work!
We now have custom dice!
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: New Features,Questions,Requests and Clarifications

Veqryn
Administrator
R1 & R2. Already thought of this, and I plan on doing both (and also player attachments, and all other attachments).  I hope to expand what things can be used as conditions in the future, and have already asked squid for some direction on it.  However, the priority is 1940, and i will only start doing this after we have 1940 working.

R3. Personally I hate popups, because it causes a need for people to click, which is always a sore point when people go to the bathroom or w/e.  I kind of dislike that a popup was added for warbonds.  Personally, I prefer that all triggers and things simply get listed in the history tab (I already added this).

R4. Not true.  I recently updated Pact of Steel 2 to have, based on a condition, Japanese fighters lose 1 movement (so movement = 3).  Also, I just coded Naval and Air Bases last night (new property is called "givesMovement")

R5. effection or defection?  can you be more specific on what you want to see?  I would personally like the ability to delete units with a trigger, not just add them.

R6. There is no point right now, because right now you are either at war or not at war.  This is going to be way off in the future since so many different parts of the code (and AIs) need to be changed.

R7. The logic for battles is the most complex part of the engine, and I prefer not to make it more spaghetti like.  It is way to dependent on very specific cases with even more specific exceptions.  Any more stuff we add just makes the code more complex and even harder to debug or add new things into (or have new coders come and look at it and understand).  

R8. ??? can you explain?

R9. not really important...


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: New Features,Questions,Requests and Clarifications

Rolf Larsson
I found a few strange things with the prerelease, so more important things first:

1. If a player has mechanized Inf and paratrooper tech, the "isAirTransportable" attachement interfers with "isInfantry". Practically it means you can no longer use the benefit of mechanized Inf tech.

2. If a territory contains an airfield and a factory, you can not strategically bomb both of them, if you choose 2 different targets for each bomber, only 1 target is beeing bombed.

3. Heavy bomber rules seem not to work for airfields and harbours.

4. Airfields and Harbours can not be repaired. I haven´t set a repair rule for them, but I will try it with one set. However I think the pactofsteel2.xml should state that it is required.

5. Paratroopers! If you use it, the engine searches for the shortest way to the target territory, if this is beeing owned by an enemy, you can not use your paratroopers even if you would reach your target territory by another(longer) route and it would then be the first enemy territory.
Suggestion:
A game option like this: "ParatroopersStopInFirstEnemyTerritory" value="true/false"


Back to the requests:

R1&R2. Great.

R3. Popups could only last 3 seconds without a click needed, it would just be nice to get informed about certain things with it. Like Player X discovered..., but it is not really important if it is in the history tab.

R4. Sorry it seems I wasn´t precise enough. I think you changed a unit attachement for all Japanese fighters, something like oilshortage or so. What I wanted was an Airfield beeing able to add 1 movement point, similar to the isAirBase territory attachement, but for a unit to be triggered.

R5. Sorry not precise enought here, too. I was talking about the allied/enemy option of the trigger.

R6. Isn´t it needed for Global 40? It just sounded easy to change alliance.

R7. True. If something like this is done it should be flexible anyway, not only AA vs. Fighters or AT vs. Tanks.

R8. At some point with map making, I thought: Hey I could just add the Bid Sequence here and let run 999 times , so the player is always able to buy and place untis for lets say 15 PUs, but then I realized, if nothing is purchased with the bid, the PUs are just carried over to the normal income.
I thought maybe there is an easy method to have them add to the income if not used for the Bid or not.

R9. True, just would look better.
We now have custom dice!
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: New Features,Questions,Requests and Clarifications

Veqryn
Administrator
1. are you using isLandTransport?  I am pretty sure i tested this stuff and it worked for me

2&3. aware of this, kev's fault / he is still working on it

4. i haven't tested since i'm still waiting on kev

5. you know how to select a route right?  ctrl - click on the territories to make a path.  

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: New Features,Questions,Requests and Clarifications

Rolf Larsson
Ok I double checked things and the result is the same. I´m using seperated Landtransports and I checked things with Armour as the LandTransport, too. If an Infantry has "isInfantry" attachement and "IsAirTransportable" and the player has both, Paratrooper Tech and Mechanized Infantry Tech, the benefit for Mechanized Infantry Tech is not working. Please check it again Veqryn, I hope it is something I did wrong, but I don´t think so.

Defining a route myself with ctrl + click, wonderful! I played this game for years, but never knew I could do this, great.

Repair Frontiers for Airfield, Harbour currently have no effect, not coded yet I guess. Let´s be patient. Another Thing about it is, that even if you use 2 Strategic Bombers on it, only the first one is counted. I hope kev is completing it soon.
We now have custom dice!
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: New Features,Questions,Requests and Clarifications

Veqryn
Administrator
ok, i found the issue,

nothing to do with isInfantry actually, and everything to do with isAirTransportable being checked for before other things

fixed.


also, in the process of making "Low Luck Strategic Bombers and Rockets", I was able to give bombers and rockets their own max dice sides.  i plan to do the same for AA tonight.  But i can't do that for normal units because you can't have separate dice for units that are fighting and rolling together at the same time.
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: New Features,Questions,Requests and Clarifications

Rolf Larsson
Good, glad I could help.
Sounds good to have custom dice for them, too. Is AA then able to be set for a defensevalue, too?
We now have custom dice!
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: New Features,Questions,Requests and Clarifications

Rolf Larsson
In reply to this post by Rolf Larsson
A few more little requests:

1. One thing that is necessary to be done for the realization of the highly expected boardgame anyway:
In this boardgame Carriers, which are hit can´t carry planes anymore. If this could be done in a flexible way, which is: defining unitattachements for all _hit units seperately, it would be nice.
Example:
<attatchment name="unitAttatchment" attatchTo="Carrier" javaClass="games.strategy.triplea.attatchments.UnitAttachment" type="unitType">
                         <option name="movement" value="2"/>
                         <option name="attack" value="1"/>
                         <option name="defense" value="2"/>
                         <option name="isSea" value="true"/>
                         <option name="carrierCapacity" value="4"/>
                    </attatchment>
<attatchment name="unitAttatchment" attatchTo="Carrier_hit" javaClass="games.strategy.triplea.attatchments.UnitAttachment" type="unitType">
                         <option name="movement" value="1"/>
                         <option name="attack" value="0"/>
                         <option name="defense" value="1"/>
                         <option name="isSea" value="true"/>
                         <option name="carrierCapacity" value="0"/>
                    </attatchment>

2. "DestroyedWhenCapturedBy"... is a very good feature, I really like it. It would be nice to have something like "DestroyedWhenCapturedFrom"..., which would allow scorched earth for russia only for example.

3. Not so important, but nice would be, if rockets and aa guns could be seperated. They really have nothing in common, which would justify AAGuns to be used as rockets, despite the fact that you have limited pieces when playing a boardgame.

4. Really less important:Landtransports/MechanizedInfantry -a really great addition-, however it would be nice to have real Landtransports with a capacity.

We now have custom dice!
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: New Features,Questions,Requests and Clarifications

Veqryn
Administrator
1. This would not work because _hit carriers still have to be able to carry "cargo" aircraft (aircraft owned by an ally).  They just can't pick up new planes, or launch existing planes, if they are hit.  So the code would have to be much more complex than you are thinking.

2. This is not needed because you can simply have all russian factories be called factory_rus, and have those set to destroy when captured by all players.

3. I already did this actually.  AAguns have been separated into all component parts, and atomized as far as they can go without re-writing the entire combat section.  The parts I have separated them into so far: normal aaguns, aaguns against normal combat only, aaguns against strat bombing only, rockets, and aagun movement and placement rules (ie: you can now have a normal unit which follows aagun movement and placement rules, if you use isAAmovement).  rockets that are only rockets (and aaguns that are not called aaGun), must have a _rockets version (and possibly a _r and _rockets_r versions too).  

4.  Agreed, but too much trouble for now.
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: New Features,Questions,Requests and Clarifications

Rolf Larsson
@1. Ok seems I was wrong about the rules. But anyway, can we have 2Hit damaged units to have different stats than those not damaged? I think it would add a lot of realism to the engine, if it is not to hard to be realized.
Maybe with a global property : "Damaged2HitUnitsValueChanges" = "true" or similar and then just the unitstats for the unit_hit.
Currently it is ignored and I think only the picture changes and somewhere is marked, that this unit got a hit. No clue about how difficult it is to integrate that.

@2. Nice, thx.

@3. Great work again, the "isAAmovement" isn´t in the latest prerelease from 4/5/11, right? If I do not set "isAAmovement" to true, may I move it during combat move?
And to get rockets which are not AAGuns, I just set their "attackAA" value to "0" and use different names for those other AAs(with all pictures etc.)?
We now have custom dice!
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: New Features,Questions,Requests and Clarifications

Veqryn
Administrator
@1 can you test this for me?  in most ww2v3 type xml's there is an attachment for "factory_hit".  can you try giving it something, like movement, and see if it works only when it is hit?

@3 "isAA" is a giant switch, in order to keep backwards compatibility.
if you want something without the aa part, you don't put anything related to aa in it.  If you want rockets that are only rockets, then simply use "isRocket"
if you want to not move a unit during combat move, and possibly not have multiple in that territory (depends on your global properties, etc.), then give it "isAAmovement"

check my latest features thread, for examples  :)

thx,
veqryn
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: New Features,Questions,Requests and Clarifications

Rolf Larsson
This post was updated on .
In reply to this post by Rolf Larsson
1. Just played around with the new suicide features. I really like them, great work! My goal was to realize strategic rockets(V1,V2 and similar) simply with the isSuicide,isKamikaze and isStrategicBomber stats for an air unit. I found out that isSuicide makes a unit only die in a real combat not in a SBR. Is it meant to be that way or is it the combination with SB? Anyway I would like to see this, just because rocket tech in a normal game can be a game killer, this way it would be possible to: destroy rockets, they need time to get into firing position, they would cost something and they are single use. Provided it is not too difficult, because focus lies on the implemantion of this boardgame rules...

2. Another thing I have made some thoughts about is the AdvancedConstruction thing. It can be done quite simple I think, without any new windows etc.
-Global option: "AdvancedConstruction" true/false
-UnitAttachement: "isEngineer"or"isConstructor" true/false for the unit required to do AdvConst
-UnitAttachement: "isMaterial"or"isConsumption" true/false for the unit which should be consumed
-UnitAttachement: "ConsumesXUnits" int value of the ammount of consumed units, maybe even the name of the unit which will be removed and the ammount of it, which would be more flexible and not require the "isMaterial" attachement stat for another unit.
Additionally some things need to be done:
- a check which lists all the units in the territory where this construction should be placed(done anyway to check for max. nummers of this type).
- a check if enough of the consumed units would be available/ check if the Constructor is present
- the error messages if something is missing
- the remove of the consumed units after the construction is placed
Thats all I think needs to be done, easily spoken. The result would be like this:

Territory X has Y materials and 1 constructorunit present. You buy a bunker the normal way, but it costs much less than normal, because you paid already for the material. You place the bunker in territory X(all conditions are met). The bunker is placed Y materials are removed or 1 if you make it cosume only 1.

Another maybe better addition would be :
Two Global options: 1.- "ConstructionsRequireEngineer" and 2.-"AllowUnitReplacement", which would allow the same but it is more flexible and allows to upgrade a unit for example, too.
Nr. 1 should be simple to realize, see above.
Nr. 2 is a bit more complicated, see above too, but if paired with the unitattachement:"consumesUnit"="nameoftheconsumedunit" for this new one, it could be used for infantry/elite, tank/heavytank etc. too.
Example:
Territory X has 1 infantry and you have set the following stats for eliteinfantry:
"movement"...
"isConstruction"...
"consumesUnit"="infantry"
"Cost" = "3"
This would allow a nice upgradefunction. However the primary use would be IMO to have advanced construction, which means something like material must be present to build certain things like factory, bunker, fortress, port etc.
We now have custom dice!
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: New Features,Questions,Requests and Clarifications

Rolf Larsson
This post was updated on .
In reply to this post by Veqryn
@1 I have tested this with Battleships, Carriers and Cruisers with different stats for the _hit one, not factory, but I think it is the same with it.
Ok tested for factory, too. If it is damaged and the factory_hit picture is there and factory_hit has movement, nothing happens, which leads me to the conclusion the stats from the undamaged units are used.
We now have custom dice!
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: New Features,Questions,Requests and Clarifications

Veqryn
Administrator
In reply to this post by Rolf Larsson
@1.  Actually I want to expand isSuicide to have the unit die when doing SBR's too (in order to simulate nuke attacks, missiles, etc.).  However, that code is a whole different part of the program, so I'll have to look into it.  
The original purpose was so that I could play a tactical game on triplea: Battle of Jutland.  
Have you tried the new battle of jutland?  it is in the folder with the prerelease.  I take pride in saying it is first tactical map for triplea, and it is completely unique, separate from a&a.  

@2. I am thinking of ways to do upgradability of units, and this is one of the options.

Here is what I was imagining:

superbunker
consumesUnits="2:constructionTruck"

or

major_factory
consumesUnits="1:minor_factory"


ideally, though this is a freaking ton more work, you would be able to do this:
consumesUnits="4:silver"
consumesUnits="2:gold"
consumesUnits="1:gold:2:silver"
this means that you can place this unit somewhere where you have any of those 3 options, and it consumes all of those
the problem here though is, that you need a window to ask the player which choice they want
because of this, and the extra work involved, i think i will do the easier option

obviously the conditions are that you own the unit involved,
however, there are problems with doing changes like this, as they have propagate forward and backward when people go through the history panel, or play multiplayer games
but i still think it could be done

I guess the biggest issue with this are:
1) it has be undoable, if I click undo i should get my 2 trucks back, etc.
2) should i be able to place them on territories just conquered?  what about water?  I am assuming it doesn't count towards factory placements
3) i have to verify that the unit has ZERO damage before doing this

because of that last thing, waiting for zero damage, I will need to wait til kev or who'ever finishes coding the new damage and disablement stuff, as well as custom factory production and damage limits

so, this is on the to-do list, right after custom factory production and damage limits gets done

thx,
veqryn
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: New Features,Questions,Requests and Clarifications

Rolf Larsson
@1. Yes I have taken a look at Battle of Jutland, a bit confusing in the first place, but very impressive and yes totally different to the normal AAAGames. I like it, great work!
I have tested a strategic bombing raid with isSuicide and isKamikaze unit with the latest prerelease and it worked well, but it did not vanished after combat.

@2. Really good news you have it on the list and that it seems to be needed for this boardgame, too, with the upgrade from minor_factory to major_factory.
I would keep it as simple as possible:
1. only consumes 1 unit:
consumesUnits="minor_factory" if peple like me need something different, they should just make
new units. I would do something like "material" and "bigmaterial" or "2material" units.
2. there should be definitly no choice. One unit upgrades to only one other.
3. I would strictly follow construction rules here and do it like a construction, so place captured if true or not if false. Similar with water territory, I just guess a construction must be placed on land? So upgrading "isSea" units would be a task for harbours id say(if the harbour has the "isEngineer" attachement and those are required for this placement/upgrade), this guarantees adjacent to land at least. Which would lead to a new attachement for constructions "requiresEngineerToBeBuild" or similar).
4. Upgrading your own units is also a must id say, because you have to own a territory to place a construction there. Therefore something like Russians upgrade an infantry in moscow from British to a russian eliteinfantry should not be possible. When checking for the units in the territory, i guess there is a possibility to determine their owner. Allied units should just be removed from this list after check.
5. True, Undo function seems most critical issue here, I can only think of a new method called in this case and doing upgrades backwards... sounds difficult.
6. Factories should be able to be constructions like this, but not by default id say.
7. Zero damage, hm I don´t know the factory upgrade rules from this boardgame, but when it comes for Battleships upgrading to MonsterBattleships and they are hit, id say they should not be damaged. Which leads back to the 2Hit units issue, if _hit units are really different regarding their stats, it should be easier to upgrade just undamaged ones.
We now have custom dice!
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: New Features,Questions,Requests and Clarifications

Veqryn
Administrator
try the svn again, i updated it last night with the patch for strat bombers dying if isSuicide
we will release an unstable this weekend, so any testing for bugs now, would be great
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: New Features,Questions,Requests and Clarifications

Rolf Larsson
Great I have tested and it worked good. However, if you do a normal attack with the Suicide-Bomber and SBR with another one, it says that a battle must be resolved first, but it is the SBR which has to be resolved first(not very important).
If those SuicideBomber have an attackvalue of zero, no SBR is possible(better said: you do it, but do only damage of zero) and additionally the factory image changes to factory_hit, but without a damage, damagenumber or any repair needed for it. I guess it is the same when you do a SBR with a normal Bomber with attack value of zero.
Plus you get an error message, which can be ignored, but it is not nice:

java.lang.NullPointerException
        at games.strategy.triplea.ui.DicePanel.setDiceRollForBombing(DicePanel.java:49)
        at games.strategy.triplea.ui.BattleDisplay.bombingResults(BattleDisplay.java:198)
        at games.strategy.triplea.ui.BattlePanel$16.run(BattlePanel.java:610)
        at java.awt.event.InvocationEvent.dispatch(Unknown Source)
        at java.awt.EventQueue.dispatchEventImpl(Unknown Source)
        at java.awt.EventQueue.access$000(Unknown Source)
        at java.awt.EventQueue$1.run(Unknown Source)
        at java.awt.EventQueue$1.run(Unknown Source)
        at java.security.AccessController.doPrivileged(Native Method)
        at java.security.AccessControlContext$1.doIntersectionPrivilege(Unknown Source)
        at java.awt.EventQueue.dispatchEvent(Unknown Source)
        at java.awt.EventDispatchThread.pumpOneEventForFilters(Unknown Source)
        at java.awt.EventDispatchThread.pumpEventsForFilter(Unknown Source)
        at java.awt.EventDispatchThread.pumpEventsForHierarchy(Unknown Source)
        at java.awt.EventDispatchThread.pumpEvents(Unknown Source)
        at java.awt.EventDispatchThread.pumpEvents(Unknown Source)
        at java.awt.EventDispatchThread.run(Unknown Source)

New Rockets rock!!!
We now have custom dice!
1234 ... 9