• Roger's Scenario Thread

    Pinned
    978
    9 Votes
    978 Posts
    2m Views
    RogerCooperR
    Name The Shogun Advanced Description Japan in the Sengoku Period on a large map https://axisandallies.fandom.com/wiki/The_Shogun_Advanced [image: 1784343226921-05614493-26a2-456d-a926-437186a5a058-image.jpeg] Good Points A variety of clearly differentiated units Upkeep costs & build caps prevent spamming and mega stacks Historical economic values and clan locations Political rules Historical events like the introduction of muskets Bad Points Everyone starts at war with everyone else (historically the clans tending to group into eastern and western alliances) Because of the lack of alliances at start and some random placements, it can be confusing to play
  • Triplea Maps

    Pinned Moved
    1
    2 Votes
    1 Posts
    8k Views
    No one has replied
  • The Triplea Game Engine

    Pinned Moved
    1
    1 Votes
    1 Posts
    4k Views
    No one has replied
  • How to add to Big World Variations

    11
    1 Votes
    11 Posts
    2k Views
    TheDogT
    @rogercooper Do you have permission to copy/move this map https://github.com/ClavintheGreat/thehobbesians_1939 to https://github.com/triplea-maps ?
  • Middle Earth: Battle For Arda - Official Thread

    588
    2
    3 Votes
    588 Posts
    1m Views
    R
    Interesting video, and welcome back! I think the changes are interesting. Regarding tactics I do think that having 5 levels is a lot. I think that @shorogyth 's system seems reasonable. I'd also pull the plains bonus out of the tactics system (call it "defensive tactics") and have a separate plains attack bonus. That way horses can have a bonus there, and rangers won't automatically be good attacking on plains. I know it's a third number, but I think it'll be less confusing than tactics being mostly defense bonuses but also one attack bonus. Also, can you have more than a +-1bonus on some terrains? I feel like most flying units would need more than a -1 bonus on caves, especially because tactics give them bonuses. I agree with the relentless issue. I think it's cool for some units to ignore your defensive terrain advantage, but they should be rare and therefore scary. Having basically all orcs be relentless is pretty silly and makes plains better for defense than cities. Regarding unit abilities, I don't think rock paper scissors is necessarily bad, especially because not all factions are equally strong in each. If each faction has different strengths and weaknesses, it forces factions to collaborate more, and stops things from snowballing as much if one faction falls. Eg Gondor would spam rangers because they have good defense bonuses and would kill the winged nazgul (thereby denying mordor's leadership), so you could send flanking cavalry from Rhun or harad to eliminate them. Elven archers were much stronger than the spearmen, but fell very quickly to wargs, which forced the elves to diversify more. In particular, Isengard had no ranged units, so Rohan's flank cavalry was especially dangerous since it would directly target the fires of orthanc, and so isengard had to spend a lot of effort screening its siege forces. I think ranged support feels reasonable. I like all abilities that encourage using a variety of units. Eg the galadhrim archers are one of the most powerful units in the game, but they require you to buy the weaker elven spearmen to unlock their full value. I like the change to charge, since before formation made those units a liability because you couldn't make them not charge. Eg the warg riders were essentially useless for angmar because of this and rohan suffered hard. I do like the new ambush mechanic since it encourages more diversity in unit selection. I do think it should be allowed in cities though (that was the whole siege of osgilliath), and the fact that only a certain number of units can ambush will balance it. I'm not sure I like scouting as it is though. If scouting eliminates ambush, then you just need 1-2 units with scouting in your army and you're fine. And if those units are otherwise useful (eg rangers) then it makes ambushers useless. Maybe scouting should be like spearwall? Just decreasing the effectiveness of ambush so it's less good but still useful? So maybe barrow wights would have an ambush of 6, then eg warg scouts could have a scouting of 2, rangers 3, and wizards 6x2 or sth? I feel like something missing in the game is some notion of hit and run tactics for cavalry. Cavalry is expensive and strong and excels at taking out small groups, but you often can't take advantage of this because if you do it exposes your cavalry to counterattack where they won't make up their PU values. Meanwhile air units can do this which gives angmar and mordor a big advantage. Maybe some cavalry could have an ability wherein they (and only they) can independently retreat after the first round of combat, even if there's a win? This still requires some thought, since if you don't have a win in your first round you have to decide if it's worth leaving your cavalry open to guarantee the win, and cavalry is still worse than flying units since they don't get the whole combat or a noncombat move. But it makes cavalry much more tactically interesting Also a general thought, but I think rangers need to be a higher tier of ranged unit. They have excellent tactics, mountaineer, high movement, anti-flying, scouting, ambush, support, and maybe more. And given the lore this makes sense, but also in the lore they aren't common at all - the Dunedain are solitary and dying out. So I think buffing them and treating them more like weak creatures than elite infantry would make more sense. And then you could maybe have some weaker version for gondor representing Faramir's rangers which are just elite infantry
  • Pact of Steel 2 mods for new Version

    6
    0 Votes
    6 Posts
    77 Views
    TheDogT
    @djggml So here is a working map.yml (remove the .txt to use it. map.yml.txt map_name: the_pact_of_steel games: - {game_name: Pact of Steel, file_name: pact_of_steel.xml} - {game_name: Pact of Steel 2, file_name: pact_of_steel_2.xml} - {game_name: Pact of Steel 233, file_name: pact_of_steel_233.xml} Note it has the version line removed.
  • World War I with more territories?

    47
    1
    1 Votes
    47 Posts
    10k Views
    SchulzS
    I think it's necessary to block the Milan–Trento route to make it both more historical and to make the front lines even narrower than the Western Front. The mountains favored the Austrian defenders, but Italy was able to threaten both the Trieste and Trento routes simultaneously from one central position, which was their advantage. Austria won't have a factory in Trieste (but the Germans will have one in Munich). The front line will still encourage the Austrians to take Udine for a better defensive position, which was historical. Should the Turin–Lyon route be impassable as well? Maybe @cernel could help us with this? [image: 1784754980788-wwieurope_names_values-copy.jpg]
  • TripleA Maps List

    3
    1
    3 Votes
    3 Posts
    70 Views
    TheDogT
    @rogercooper Cant find Ansalon/Analon on Github maps Missing from your list, but on Github maps Settlers: Fallen Empire Shogun Advanced
  • 🏯 Shogun Advanced - Official Thread

    thedog
    18
    1
    2 Votes
    18 Posts
    5k Views
    RogerCooperR
    @TheDog I recently tried this mod and there is a lot to like about it. However, it does have one problem, at the start of everyone is at war with everyone else. This is both ahistorical and confusing to play. They should either start neutral with each other or grouped into two loose alliances, one in Eastern Japan and other in Western Japan.
  • 💥 1941 Global Command Decision - Official Thread

    maps thedog
    1k
    2
    4 Votes
    1k Posts
    2m Views
    C
    Thanks Dog. I understand. and thanks for your reply. Regarding the forts, would it be possible for game start forts not to require upkeep but only new build forts require upkeep instead-So like a different kind of starting fort? What I like most about this game are the local battles that occur due to the giant map. Did the game ever have forested areas in Belarus region with partisans popping up? I play iron war and oil and snow maps too. The iron resource make the game and fight for it give the game that extra strategic edge, and the oil too. because it powers most units.. Also the partisans popping up occasionally are a bit of a hindrance when sometimes your units are stuck fighting them whilst they could be moving somewhere else where they are more needed. Thanks
  • Global 40 Expansion UHD Boxes

    129
    2 Votes
    129 Posts
    47k Views
    wc_sumptonW
    @beelee said: Didn't want to hijack Ramon's thread what is the downside, if any, from having this enabled ? Turns out it wasn't on. "Transport Casualties Restricted" It can throw errors if units that do transport, have "transportCapacity" greater then 0, have attack or defense values greater then 0. These units will need "isCombatTransport" set. Cheers...
  • Warcraft: Lordaeron Wars - Official Thread

    37
    8 Votes
    37 Posts
    22k Views
    Z
    @gr8gamerguy It has certainly been a long time since I worked on this project but I really want to finish it and condensed things down. With the advent of chatgpt I think ill come to finish it. (In case you ever see this message, thank you for all.the big reports)
  • Jurassic v2.0

    39
    1
    3 Votes
    39 Posts
    11k Views
    G
    UPDATED: http://john.gregorek.com/Games/Generic.zip Added caveER_png to help identify territories for removal/addition. Shifted place_txt values to represent top-left corner of unit images. Corrected polygons_txt fragments for defining territories across map borders. Not happy with glyph branding. It's optional. Still have an issue with border fragments that requires your inspection. The reliefTiles hide the map border edge well, but note the dinosaur has been beheaded. [image: 1782669793495-tripleabeheaded.png]
  • WW1 contour baseline map 4000px

    16
    2
    3 Votes
    16 Posts
    8k Views
    SchulzS
    I like maps that are aesthetically pleasing to look at. Map rotations, curves, extreme squeezings/stretches, and abnormally big Scandinavia, Eastern Europe, or Africa are just not good. Standard maps aren't suitable either because they make Europe too small. It’s better to use an equirectangular projection, get rid of all the unpleasant stuff I listed, and subtly shrink non-European territories.[image: 1782041112853-wwi_more-territories-resized.png]
  • world_war_ii_v5_1942 is incorrectly linked and installed

    15
    1 Votes
    15 Posts
    5k Views
    PantherP
    I can confirm that it downloads fine now. That already was a good example for the workflow. Thank you
  • Power of Politics 1914 : A WWI scenario

    264
    3
    6 Votes
    264 Posts
    277k Views
    ubernautU
    @RogerCooper @thedog i was thinking i might try to recruit @wc_sumpton to help us but the basic problem is the version that we have does not appear to be very far along compared to some of the posts so it’s kind of hard to tell what they were thinking with the map also some of the territories are sort of microscopic i think there might be a problem with unit stacking as it stands as well
  • Churchills 1939

    1
    0 Votes
    1 Posts
    534 Views
    No one has replied
  • Proposed Map: Domination 1941

    498
    2 Votes
    498 Posts
    742k Views
    TheDogT
    @Schulz Been a while. If you want to use this threads map you are welcome to use it. It is used in 1941 Global Command Decision, but be aware it has nearly 800 locations so is probably best for solo play.
  • Domination 1914 No Man's Land - Official Thread

    253
    1
    5 Votes
    253 Posts
    248k Views
    SchulzS
    @RogerCooper I think the ahistorical presence of the Bolsheviks in Siberia makes the game more interesting and provides more options to both sides. I haven't played against the AI in a long time. All I remember is that the AI is worse at handling naval stuff, not necessarily specific to the Americans on this map. There used to be a tech that gave transports +2 movement, but it was nerfed to +1. Not sure if that would make any difference to the American AI's behavior.
  • War Plan Red-Orange

    10
    2
    4 Votes
    10 Posts
    3k Views
    M
    Another update, version 0.3.0! [image: 1780437482711-0.3.0-jpg-smaller.jpg] The technology system has been reworked, every country now has a unique ladder of techs to climb and you unlock tech with tech tokens. Plus, the Portuguese and the Dutch have been added! Download it here: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1EowcYb0cA0qfcVIqZaasKfUgzp_aBd9G?usp=drive_link Download instructions: Download the “war_plan_red_orange” folder contained in the link Add this to C:/Users/(your username)/triplea/downloadedMaps Once you hit “select maps” in TripleA, the file should automatically be unzipped and it should just work. If you are still running into issues, please report them to me! Also, we have a Discord server now! https://discord.gg/78EEWmuK7C

Recent Posts

  • read more

  • @TheDog alright I've renamed it from main to master (and made a small balance fix that was long overdue), let me know if that worked!

    read more

  • Interesting video, and welcome back! I think the changes are interesting.

    Regarding tactics I do think that having 5 levels is a lot. I think that @shorogyth 's system seems reasonable. I'd also pull the plains bonus out of the tactics system (call it "defensive tactics") and have a separate plains attack bonus. That way horses can have a bonus there, and rangers won't automatically be good attacking on plains. I know it's a third number, but I think it'll be less confusing than tactics being mostly defense bonuses but also one attack bonus.

    Also, can you have more than a +-1bonus on some terrains? I feel like most flying units would need more than a -1 bonus on caves, especially because tactics give them bonuses.

    I agree with the relentless issue. I think it's cool for some units to ignore your defensive terrain advantage, but they should be rare and therefore scary. Having basically all orcs be relentless is pretty silly and makes plains better for defense than cities.

    Regarding unit abilities, I don't think rock paper scissors is necessarily bad, especially because not all factions are equally strong in each. If each faction has different strengths and weaknesses, it forces factions to collaborate more, and stops things from snowballing as much if one faction falls.

    Eg Gondor would spam rangers because they have good defense bonuses and would kill the winged nazgul (thereby denying mordor's leadership), so you could send flanking cavalry from Rhun or harad to eliminate them. Elven archers were much stronger than the spearmen, but fell very quickly to wargs, which forced the elves to diversify more. In particular, Isengard had no ranged units, so Rohan's flank cavalry was especially dangerous since it would directly target the fires of orthanc, and so isengard had to spend a lot of effort screening its siege forces.

    I think ranged support feels reasonable. I like all abilities that encourage using a variety of units. Eg the galadhrim archers are one of the most powerful units in the game, but they require you to buy the weaker elven spearmen to unlock their full value.

    I like the change to charge, since before formation made those units a liability because you couldn't make them not charge. Eg the warg riders were essentially useless for angmar because of this and rohan suffered hard.

    I do like the new ambush mechanic since it encourages more diversity in unit selection. I do think it should be allowed in cities though (that was the whole siege of osgilliath), and the fact that only a certain number of units can ambush will balance it. I'm not sure I like scouting as it is though. If scouting eliminates ambush, then you just need 1-2 units with scouting in your army and you're fine. And if those units are otherwise useful (eg rangers) then it makes ambushers useless. Maybe scouting should be like spearwall? Just decreasing the effectiveness of ambush so it's less good but still useful? So maybe barrow wights would have an ambush of 6, then eg warg scouts could have a scouting of 2, rangers 3, and wizards 6x2 or sth?

    I feel like something missing in the game is some notion of hit and run tactics for cavalry. Cavalry is expensive and strong and excels at taking out small groups, but you often can't take advantage of this because if you do it exposes your cavalry to counterattack where they won't make up their PU values. Meanwhile air units can do this which gives angmar and mordor a big advantage. Maybe some cavalry could have an ability wherein they (and only they) can independently retreat after the first round of combat, even if there's a win? This still requires some thought, since if you don't have a win in your first round you have to decide if it's worth leaving your cavalry open to guarantee the win, and cavalry is still worse than flying units since they don't get the whole combat or a noncombat move. But it makes cavalry much more tactically interesting

    Also a general thought, but I think rangers need to be a higher tier of ranged unit. They have excellent tactics, mountaineer, high movement, anti-flying, scouting, ambush, support, and maybe more. And given the lore this makes sense, but also in the lore they aren't common at all - the Dunedain are solitary and dying out. So I think buffing them and treating them more like weak creatures than elite infantry would make more sense. And then you could maybe have some weaker version for gondor representing Faramir's rangers which are just elite infantry

    read more

  • @thehobbesian

    Tha map is here, so can be downloaded manually.
    https://github.com/ClavintheGreat/thehobbesians_1939

    I think it to make it downloadable for all, it needs to change the repository from main to master
    I dont have permission to do this.

    Here is the instructions for a rename.
    https://docs.github.com/en/repositories/configuring-branches-and-merges-in-your-repository/managing-branches-in-your-repository/renaming-a-branch

    read more