You can do {“BasicName”} and {“RR11”}, that also works fine. It is unnecessary for GKC Pre-select though (iirc, when pre-select was first introduced, you couldn’t use Beanshell expressions, but that functionality was later introduced).
Good evening Benkyo,
I followed your earlier instructions and just put in BasicName and RR11 without any quotes and it worked fine.
However, it wasn’t much faster than using the Additional matching expression. Maybe 3 seconds as opposed to 4. Maybe. Definitely not less than 3.
I didn’t try it with quotes around it.
As for the reporting issue, I found out that these markers can begin the game with the Invisible trait turned on. So no reporting from the start. All I had to do was save the game in that state and use it for a Pre-defined setup.
I’m still going to experiment with Jim Hunter’s suggestions about controlling what units get reported but that may take me a bit. My first try ended up with a lot of reporting errors and no units got into the chat log. I’m sure I’ll have to go to the prototypes and take out whatever reporting traits are already there before Jim’s entries will work.
Frank
Hi Frank,
One could turn the whole thing around a bit and ask why do you want those markers in the first place?
I know the mechanics of Afrika Korps that you want to capture - that units moving with the Rommel unit get additional MFs, and it can be beneficial to track Rommel’s movement.
But Vassal has the built in future of movement trails to deal with things like that. Basically, if a user enables movement trails for the Rommel unit, and conscientiously puts down on each hex traversed, then you will have a trail automatically. Users will not need to place the markers as Vassal does it for you.
I really like my circular saw with an adapter for a track - sort of gives me (almost) the best of both worlds in a cheaper package
Anyway, my 2¢
Yours,
Christian
Ahhhh, Christian Christian Christian, you do love automation. And here I am trying to push a cardboard equivalent on you. Sigh. We come from different times.
You’ll appreciate this: I like 'em because I use 'em in my ZunTzu gamebox. (There I said it. The forbidden word for which I’ll be cast out of VASSALdom forever.)
No, actually I thought it would be okay to use the Trails feature but it really is sub par for this application. Look at this:
First of all, Rommel’s Trails are subdued when you’re moving another piece; they’re hard to see. Also, it’s easier to remember how many road hexes and cross country hexes Rommel has moved as you place them down on the board. You can plan Rommel’s path much easier when you see the whole thing. It’s easier for your opponent to see what you’ve done and they’re still there if he wants to check your move. Backtracking isn’t obvious–at all–with Trails. You can see which cross country hexes your slow Italians are going to have to take to reach Bengasi. (That’s Rommel’s first move in the illustration. The ones with markers I mean.) Ariete will take 1 & 2 while the infantry will use 3 & 4 for maximum distance. But enough Afrika Korps details.
In short, it’s just easier. At least I think so. And I’m always on the side for easier.
Your adapter still needs a straight track though doesn’t it? But I’m always on the side for cheaper.
Frank
I do, because I want to make easier to focus on the game strategy, operations, and tactics rather than bookkeeping and game mechanics.
I know.
You can set the level of transparency in the movement trails trait. You can even make the colour of Rommel’s trail be a different colour or thickness to make it even more obvious.
Sure, but you have place the markers by hand, and I think counting up the hexes is, if not less work, then at least comparable work for the user.
A bit of Afrika Korps detail: I’m not sure you need that backtracking of Rommel. See for example the Hazlett opening in
- Lockwood, J., “Afrika Korps Theory - A Tournament Player’s View of Afrika Korps”, The General, Vol.17, #3, p4-12
or the replay in
- Beyma, R.J, Burdick, D.S., & Hazlett, T., “Afrika Korps - Replay”, The General, Vol.13, #5, p14-16,21-22
Stacking limitations only applies at the end of the movement turn, not during so Ariete and four Italian infantry divisions can move together along the coast-line.
Well, I disagree - I think the trails are easier 
It does, and I really like the self-adhesive ones you get which make the clamps superfluous. So much easier And the track is made of aluminium (aluminum to those that still use inches) which makes it light and easy to handle - double easy 
Yours,
Christian
Hi Christian,
All’s in fun. You’re a smart guy and I respect your ideas, opinions, and competence. Our difference is philosophical; neither of us can change on that. I enjoy our discussions and I hope you do too.
Thanks for the General links and the tip on making Rommel’s trails brighter and a different color. I think I’ll take you up on that. Then players could use the markers or the Trails whichever they find more convenient.
And just to end on a note of difference…I use double stick tape too but I find my squeeze clamps to be much faster and easier to use with my saw guide. We all have our favorites.
Frank
Hi Christian,
I took your advice…even if you spelled color funny:
Rommel’s unselected transparency is set to 80%.
I’ll admit that it works. You can easily see where Rommel went now. You did good Christian. Don’t let it go to your head though; my ZunTzu-ish roots still like placing the markers and l think it’s much easier to explain Rommel’s move using them.
(By the way, Rommel does have to backtrack slightly if you want to get the Italian infantry to reach the escarpment. They take the shortcut between the coast and Agedabia.
That’s RR3 and 4 in the picture. And see how much easier it is to explain with the markers?)
Seriously though, thanks for the critique and helpful suggestion.
Frank