I know about neutralsCharge, but is it possible to create a "neutral" power (friendly to one or more alliances) and charge players a number of PUs when they have units in the territory? For example, I was thinking of adding Azores to a NWO-style map, but instead of putting neutral units there so it has to be captured through combat, make it a neutral, but friendly power (with no turn phases) and charge anyone that places units (such as landing planes) there. This is similar to the old Axis & Allies (pre-revised) board game, where flying over neutral territories like Spain would incur an immediate IPC charge rather than simply being impassable.
Can PUs be removed from a given player's treasury through conditions/triggers to model this effect?
Also, can territory ownership be set by triggers? I'm trying to model the entry of neutral powers into the conflict. Rather than have a power like Spain always be Allied or Axis, they will enter the war on one side if the other invades them. This would involve creating Allied_Spain and Axis_Spain players in the XML, and using triggers to drop units in territories when a territory is invaded, but I foresee a delay of a couple of turns before they have collected income, purchased units and deployed them. I know units can't be removed or moved by triggers at this time, but if I could drop new units on territories and define territory ownership at the same time, they could collect income right away, even if the collect income phase has been moved prior to combat movement (scorched earth variant).
Another bug report. Erroneous "You have purchase more than you can place, continue with purchase?" warning.
Save game is attached below. Round 8, Japan's turn:
- Japan has 10PUs bombing damage.
- Japan spends 5 PU to reduce damage to 5 PUs
- Japan territory is worth 8 Production
- Should be able to place 3 units
- Japan buys 3 Armour
- Game engine warns user that "You have purchase more than you can place, continue with purchase?"
- If the user ignores the warning they are able to place the units as normal at the end of the turn.
Attaching save game at the start of the turn (post-research) where you can reproduce the issue as above:
Not sure where to post this... request for next stable. Can we include the inverse of a canal. This should be a quick add I think. It would be two close land points which connect if the listed sea zone(s) are ally controlled. A realistic example might be two close hawaiian islands, in which small boats and craft... maybe even swimming could transport troops from one to another... but would not be allowed if an enemy fleet was in the water. Instead of a canal we could call it a bridge.
'thats the way it is' makes it neither desireable nor inevitable
On the note of canals, currently a sea zone cannot be a part of more than 2 canal relationships
(i think. i might have the source of this error wrong)
If this was fixed it would benefit TRS, WAW and increase options to modders in general.
His Idea of an inverse canal is also very potentially useful :)
Ah canalAttatchment is what I missed. If this is true perhaps someone can update rising sun and WAW to include this? I find it hard to remember that I cannot use these canals when my ships move through so easily
Veqryn, I remember reading that you were hoping to put out a new version around the end of this month, but I don't know what features you're planning to implement. You mentioned back in May of 2010 that dynamic (changeable) alliances would be coded in at some point - any chance that will get added in the near future?