"Attatch" incorrect spelling fixed

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
33 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: "Attatch" incorrect spelling fixed

Cernel
Absolutely not, I would say; last time I checked they worked and, in my opinion, they are both great features, I would most likely use were I making a XX century wargame map.

Having +1 for going from base to base makes a lot more sense than just +1 at startup and the fact that an aeroplane in an island fully surrounded by the same sea zone is counted as just being inside that sea zone makes a lot of sense, as well, and should be used in really every realistic maps having aeroplanes and islands (because how it normally works in all maps is really dumb), but I would couple it with giving Carriers the ability to boost of +1 the movement of fighters, personally.

Why you want to remove two of the best and most realistic options TripleA has?

For example, metan is making a new realistic-oriented map, and I hope he will use the airBase for any islands fully surronded by only 1 sea zone, if he has any at all in his map.

Is it true they don't work anymore? That would be bad. Let me verify.
History plays dice
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: "Attatch" incorrect spelling fixed

Cernel
Traditional example is that in all maps in which Hawaii is an island fully surronded by a sea zone and there is a Pearl Harbor scenario (like in V3 1941) you can attack the fleet but can't attack the island, or it takes 2 movements more total, which is really dumb.

AirBase solves this absurdity just fine, and should be really used in really every single land territory fully surrounded by a single sea zone only, in all maps having air units, to make sense.

Why on Earth should you be able to attack everything in a sea zone, yet required to use 2 movements more to attack the island that it is right in the middle of that one sea zone? Makes no sense; and airBase is the best solution.
History plays dice
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: "Attatch" incorrect spelling fixed

aaalafayette
Administrator
This post was updated on .
In reply to this post by RogerCooper
Hosting maps privately has its own liabilities. If it wasn't going to be this change, it would have been another. @rogerCooper I would encourage you to get the maps hosted officially, then the greater community could benefit from them. There is no debate on UK/US/Canada spellings, I was not volunteering to fix those, simply was looking for other quick fixes that could easily be done by global search and replace.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: "Attatch" incorrect spelling fixed

aaalafayette
Administrator
In reply to this post by crazy_german
"Did you take isImpassible off the list for a reason?"

I don't think it was ever included.  The only things included in the list are the cases where someone simply said (As requested):

A -> B

Where A is before, and B is the spelling after. Sorry, but there was way too much typed here for me to read it all in detail. I asked for simple 'before' and 'after' spellings, and no more. In cases where there was more, I skimmed the text, but did not take the time to pull out requested changes.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: "Attatch" incorrect spelling fixed

Cernel
In reply to this post by crazy_german
crazy_german wrote
Sort of related, these two properties are in the PoS 2 XML

navalBase values: works according to original pacific rules: it increases the non-combat movement of naval units by +1 IF they go from friendly naval base TO friendly naval base
airBase values: works according to original pacific rules: it allows free movement between the land territory and any connecting water territories,

But it seems to me that these currently do nothing, they were planned features which were never implemented. Should these be removed from the PoS XML?
Just tested, they both work fine, I think (just tested briefly).

There is just a little visual limit: the movement is fully displayed even when not charged. Anyway, I would not call this a bug, since, for example, going from friendly navalBase to friendly navalBase it says 3, while it uses 2, as per rule, and I think it's fine.

And, sorry, I was wrong, this does not adress the traditional Pearl Harbor absurdity that you can attack the fleet but can't attack Hawaii, as it works only to and from friendly airBases. Still a neat option for realistic maps having the traditional inslands fully inside a single sea zone, tho.

The neat thing is the landing part, since it makes a lot of sense that if you can go over a sea zone in 1 movement, you can also land in an island in the middle of that sea zone with the same movement.

Anyway, we are just going off topic, since this is a working option that needs no renaming, afaik.
History plays dice
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: "Attatch" incorrect spelling fixed

Cernel
In reply to this post by aaalafayette
isImpassible->isImpassable
Naval Bombard Casualties Return Fire Restricted->Naval Bombard Casualties Return Fire
Battleships repair at end of round->Units Repair Hits End Turn
Battleships repair at beginning of round->Units Repair Hits Start Turn
option name="turns"->option name="rounds"

Even tho the last one would be neat to have it actually working as "turns", meaning only for the referring player, not for the whole round. But this would require some specific map updating. If not changed, pos2 should be updated clarifying in the description that it says "turns", but means "rounds".

Anyway, the current pos2 descripiton should be changed this way:

turns values: which turns this will be checked on (example: value="1:4:6-8:11-+" means turns 1,4,6,7,8,11,and all turns after 11)
->
rounds values: which rounds this will be checked on (example: value="1:4:6-8:11-+" means rounds 1,4,6,7,8,11,and all rounds after 11)
History plays dice
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: "Attatch" incorrect spelling fixed

crazy_german
In reply to this post by Cernel
So I just tried airbase and navalbase on a revised map, and they worked. I am 99% sure they did not work during a test on a map I was building. Is there a global property that causes them to work or not? Also, territories that have these effects should be marked in the territories tab.

Sorry for being off topic.
Correctly crazy, disingenuously German
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: "Attatch" incorrect spelling fixed

Cernel
Sorry, although I think these are some neat options, I never had any plans to do anything with them. Since you tested successfully, I know nothing more than you do.

Generally speaking, I don't think it's a good idea using TripleA for WWI or later scenarios. I think TA is particularly bad at representing air, so I would preferably go for times in which air units didn't exist (basically, everything before WWI).

Only 1 tip: naval base should not be used if the bases are one next to the other, or you can move infinite through the chain.
History plays dice
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: "Attatch" incorrect spelling fixed

Frostion
In reply to this post by panguitch
/bump
I would also like to know if any XML uploads/overwrites to github will be auto-checked/fixed after the manual upload? I don’t really have an overview of all the details that needs to be fixed in the XMls to be compatible in the future.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: "Attatch" incorrect spelling fixed

aaalafayette
Administrator
For maps in the repo, check for a PR with the necessary updates.
For maps in repo not claimed by anyone, 'map admin' owned maps, I updated them directly.
For new future fresh map uploads to github, it'll be a per-case basis. Likely I can help get the updates done there as well.


Please note, once maps are in github, there is no magic scrubbing that happens, you update a file, they are re-zipped and pushed to github releases, nothing magic in between happens.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: "Attatch" incorrect spelling fixed

Cernel
In reply to this post by crazy_german
You know that if you decide to change

Impassible->Impassable

then you should also change all references in map.properties
color.Impassible=->color.Impassable=
?

Also, can you share the latest changelist?

And what about also getting rid of most obsolte stuff, like
option name="isTwoHit" value="true"->option name="hitPoints" value="2"
etc.
?
History plays dice
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: "Attatch" incorrect spelling fixed

Cernel
Is there any interest in making up a list of all deprecated stuff, changing it from deprecated to unsupported, and updating all existing GitHub maps to not deprecated coding?
History plays dice
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: "Attatch" incorrect spelling fixed

RogerCooper
I have been working on an app in Microsoft Access, to allow easier building of scenarios by using an actual database program. It inherently cleans up the XML in the process. Once the changes are made, I should be able to clean things easily, especially with a list of deprecated features. It is can also be used to catch problem situations such as units without costs.
12