Subcategories

  • Flag Display, Tech/Stats window

    2
    3
    2 Votes
    2 Posts
    585 Views
    B
    ps. quick follow up Q Does anyone know if it is possible to separate the flag and small flag used by tripleA for the unit flag displays from the images used in the menu displays? Right now TripleA uses the same image for both the stats menu stuff and the unit flag display (if you turn that feature on). But it would be ideal if these could be separate images since their function's are pretty different. If we could use different sized graphics for each we could get the flag display options for the units to be more flexible. Here's another example showing theFrostion roundel pucks for unit "flag display on = large." I sized his puck at 36x52 for the Declaration of War screen (it is upscaling/compressing as mentioned in the post above for the menu type screens) but it would be nice if we could get a separate image for the unit flag display. Some example screens DOW screen 36x58px flags [image: DOW.png] 36x58px Unit Flags on Large, Unit view 100% [image: ships and chips 100.png] 36x58px Unit Flags on Large, Unit view 125% [image: ships and chips 125.png] Small flags in Battle Calc, Unit flag on Large, Unit view 100% [image: small flags in calc.png] Unit flags on Small [image: small flags on units.png] Ideally we'd want to pull a different image/size for the flag display options large and small on the units, than the graphics used in the stats and menu windows. Like a smaller puck say. But right now it pulls from the same graphics. I think it was probably to eliminate redundancy when tripleA was first built maybe? Or maybe the image compression thing is similar? but anyway, the file sizes of the images are rather small, and the utility of having more graphics options would be very nice, especially if trying to do a larger map/unit display. Any ideas on how to pull that off?
  • How to create random spawning during the game?

    8
    3
    1 Votes
    8 Posts
    1k Views
    wc_sumptonW
    @ebbe
  • Invisible Islands for placement of units :-/

    4
    2
    0 Votes
    4 Posts
    837 Views
    TheDogT
    @cernel A few hours later and in 2.5 the missing islands are working as they should, thanks again!
  • Having a player with whitespace in the name

    1
    1 Votes
    1 Posts
    537 Views
    No one has replied
  • Chinese view on the world map?

    4
    1
    2 Votes
    4 Posts
    1k Views
    B
    yea AK such an important piece for USA. Definitely be Nuking those commie bastards from there lol
  • Basic XML Error/Unpacking/Packing

    6
    0 Votes
    6 Posts
    1k Views
    B
    @gunther-s :flexed_biceps: yea idk either seems some of the different OS react differently on some stuff
  • How to modify borders on an existing map

    108
    4 Votes
    108 Posts
    52k Views
    Davor PavlićD
    @thedog It worked!
  • What is the polygon grabber?

    3
    0 Votes
    3 Posts
    511 Views
    TheDogT
    @conofive Load TripleA Map Creator Tools button Step 2: Map Utilities button Run the Polygon Grabber button
  • Building multiple unit types with productionPerXTerritories?

    15
    0 Votes
    15 Posts
    2k Views
    Jason Green-LoweJ
    @wc_sumpton Thank you! This works exactly as intended. I appreciate both the solution and the fact that you took the time to explain what was going wrong and how to fix it! I feel much better now and I should be able to finish my mod.
  • Is the TipleA engine sufficient to run this hypothetical map?

    10
    1 Votes
    10 Posts
    2k Views
    LaFayetteL
    @cernel It depends on how much support is provided by Java Swing to render webp. Though, the big gains will be from simplifying the code and not storing in memory images that are unnecessary. The mini-map is stored in memory at full size and is constantly shrunk down to the small mini-map size (that is a large chunk of memory usage right there). So, a better format could have some gains if it is efficiently handled.
  • 0 Votes
    6 Posts
    1k Views
    N
    @martymoose 3.X changes: https://forums.triplea-game.org/topic/1181/total-world-war-december-1941-3-0-0-6
  • Any easy way to redraw an existing map

    2
    0 Votes
    2 Posts
    756 Views
    RogerCooperR
    @simon33 You can use the "Tile Image Reconstructor' under Map Tools/Optional things. It the changes is minor, you can try editing the polygons.txt file and other files directly.
  • Images disappear when game is published to TripleA server

    11
    0 Votes
    11 Posts
    1k Views
    Jason Green-LoweJ
    @cernel OK, that seems to have been the problem. Thank you!
  • Territory effects that apply only to some borders of a territory

    9
    2 Votes
    9 Posts
    2k Views
    wc_sumptonW
    @Myrd I understand that 'canalAttachment' is used to connect sea zones with land zone restrictions. But it can also be used to connect land zones. One of the first modifications could be to allow the option "landTerritories" to accept sea zone (this might already be allowed), and the uses of a key word like "None". Then all that would need to be done is allow the use of 'territoryEffect' be attached to the 'canalAttachment'. Not simple I understand. Also, a change to the 'territoryEffect' to add a limit to the number of combat rounds. These are my thoughts. Cheers...
  • Any way to create a multi-HP unit that starts off damaged?

    2
    0 Votes
    2 Posts
    632 Views
    B
    @myrd Only one I know of is "hitsTaken". <unitPlacement unitType="battleship" territory="97 Sea Zone" quantity="1" owner="Italians" hitsTaken="1"/> but this only works with the auto repair not damaged ones you'd pay for. I just copied how hepps did it in TWW but still need to use edit at the start to get the hitpoint damage right.
  • Low Luck vs Random AA Casualties

    1
    -1 Votes
    1 Posts
    447 Views
    No one has replied
  • How to produce trenches & fortifications without factory?

    19
    0 Votes
    19 Posts
    3k Views
    RogerCooperR
    @unternehmer I think everyone here is going for excessive complexity. Professional armies always build field fortifications of a type appropriate for the conflict. There should not be a need to have a separate PU cost or choices about what type to build. Just have the units make the field fortifications for free and use triggers or special attacks to remove excessive numbers of fortifications. Or ignore the entire issue and give the units extra strength on defense.
  • How to: Missile land units Support for Sea units

    2
    1
    0 Votes
    2 Posts
    679 Views
    B
    Hi @ebbe So you have a Sea unit that has transport capacity that when the missle unit is on board it gives support to the Sea/Naval unit ? If so, I remember someone wanted something similar a while back but I never followed up on it. I'm not sure if supportAttachment recognizes cargo on a transport. Haven't tried it. I think I was gonna try and use unitPresence, the missile unit in this case, to trigger the support or change the combat values with <option name="unitAttachmentName" value="UnitAttachment" count="unitAttachment"/> then trigger back if there weren't any present. I never tried it tho. I'll think on it some
  • First strike units not firing first?

    9
    1
    0 Votes
    9 Posts
    2k Views
    C
    @cernel To clarify, in v1 submarines should indeed fire separately from other defending units if there are offending air units but together if there are no offending air units. Anyway, the separate step in which only defending submarines fire should not be called as "first strike" or anything like that. I defer to @Panther for confirmation.
  • Is it possible to run a trigger for each unit found via unitPresence?

    11
    0 Votes
    11 Posts
    2k Views
    M
    I looked at the engine code around createsUnitsList and it doesn't look like it will work. The relevant code is in EndTurnDelegate.java. } else if (!uaToCreate.getIsSea() && !uaToCreate.getIsAir() && t.isWater()) { toAddLand.addAll(ut.create(createsUnitsMap.getInt(ut), player)); ... if (!toAddLand.isEmpty()) { final Predicate<Territory> myTerrs = Matches.isTerritoryOwnedBy(player).and(Matches.territoryIsLand()); final Collection<Territory> landNeighbors = data.getMap().getNeighbors(t, myTerrs); if (!landNeighbors.isEmpty()) { final Territory location = getRandomTerritory(data, landNeighbors, bridge); createUnits(location, toAddLand, change, endTurnReport); } } So basically, for any land units that would be created at sea, we instead find a random neighboring land territory owned by the player and create the units there. No considerations for transports are given. I suppose engine changes could be done to support different semantics, but given this whole line of thinking is already trying to workaround a different engine limitation - perhaps that one could be addressed directly, i.e. making unitPresence support each (either as a multiplication on top of each on directPresenceTerritories if both are used, or not allowing multiple each values on different options).

Recent Posts

  • @Ramon said:

    -can i make tech dice basically hit every time (so they hit at 1 or higher, basically you pay 20 ipcs for guarenteed tech unlock)

    Hi

    The answer is yes but I can't find an example at the moment. Roger, The Dog or the Master wc will clue you in most likely 🙂

    but it has something to do with "rolls" and "chance' if i remember right.

    From POS2

    Screenshot from 2026-09-18 08-49-37.png

    so something like that

    read more

  • found the marine!

    <option name="isMarine" value="true"/>

    sometimes it can be so easy

    read more

  • @wc_sumpton

    Hi WC!

    Thanks a lot for your time and effort!

    If i understand correctly you can basically give conscripts 1 attack, and make every unit (except trenches) debuff them with 1?

    I have 2 more questions:

    -can i make tech dice basically hit every time (so they hit at 1 or higher, basically you pay 20 ipcs for guarenteed tech unlock)
    -for a unit such as a marine can i give it +1 amphibious attack?

    ~Ramon

    read more

  • @Ramon said:

    Is there a mechanic or attachment that allows a 0 attack unit to destroy a 0 defense construction?

    The "trench", a 0 defense construction unit, could give the "conscript", a 0 attack unit, a plus 1 attack using support attachments. The problem with this is that the support should be applied only when the "trench" is defending and only the "conscript" is attacking.

    <attachment name="supportAttachment_Trench" attachTo="trench" javaClass="UnitSupportAttachment" type="unitType"> <option name="faction" value="enemy"/> <option name="unitType" value="conscript"/> <option name="side" value="defence"/> <option name="dice" value="strength"/> <option name="bonus" value="1"/> <option name="number" value="1"/> <option name="bonusType" value="Trench"/> <option name="players" value="$All-Players$"/> </attachment>

    To do this a plus and minus support attachment would have to be created for every attacking/defending land unit to create a counter to the "trench".

    <attachment name="supportAttachment_InfantryAttack" attachTo="infantry" javaClass="UnitSupportAttachment" type="unitType"> <option name="faction" value="allied"/> <option name="unitType" value="conscript"/> <option name="side" value="offence"/> <option name="dice" value="strength"/> <option name="bonus" value="1"/> <option name="number" value="-1"/> <!-- All positive supports are "Trench" --> <option name="bonusType" value="Trench"/> <option name="players" value="$All-Players$"/> </attachment> <attachment name="supportAttachment_InfantryAttackDebuf" attachTo="infantry" javaClass="UnitSupportAttachment" type="unitType"> <option name="faction" value="allied"/> <option name="unitType" value="conscript"/> <option name="side" value="offence"/> <option name="dice" value="strength"/> <option name="bonus" value="-1"/> <option name="number" value="-1"/> <!-- All negative supports are "Debuf" --> <option name="bonusType" value="Debuf"/> <option name="players" value="$All-Players$"/> </attachment> <attachment name="supportAttachment_InfantryDefend" attachTo="infantry" javaClass="UnitSupportAttachment" type="unitType"> <option name="faction" value="enemy"/> <option name="unitType" value="conscript"/> <option name="side" value="defence"/> <option name="dice" value="strength"/> <option name="bonus" value="1"/> <option name="number" value="-1"/> <!-- All positive supports are "Trench" --> <option name="bonusType" value="Trench"/> <option name="players" value="$All-Players$"/> </attachment> <attachment name="supportAttachment_InfantryDefendDebuf" attachTo="infantry" javaClass="UnitSupportAttachment" type="unitType"> <option name="faction" value="enemy"/> <option name="unitType" value="conscript"/> <option name="side" value="defence"/> <option name="dice" value="strength"/> <option name="bonus" value="-1"/> <option name="number" value="-1"/> <!-- All negative supports are "Debuf" --> <option name="bonusType" value="Debuf"/> <option name="players" value="$All-Players$"/> </attachment>

    It can get slightly complicated.

    Cheers...

    read more