• Map closest to Axis and Allies Anniversary Edition?

    2
    0 Votes
    2 Posts
    789 Views
    ubernautU
    @SkyGawker v3
  • TripleA - a request from a player to a designer

    2
    0 Votes
    2 Posts
    734 Views
    C
    @The_Good_Captain said in TripleA - a request from a player to a designer: First, in both '41 and '42 versions of Anniversary, the official errata optional rule regarding SZ 16 (the Dardanelles rule) was omitted. The problem here is that the TripleA program doesn't allow for having a direct setting that enables/disables a canal. This could be hacked in a number of ways, but probably should rather be a feature request for the program to support such a possibility, before changing any maps (so, one would need first to find a developer to add the feature to the program, another developer to review such feature, then someone willingly to modify the map's games, and, finally, an administrator accepting the changes (all this besides any considerations about copyrights over the existent map, whose creators are likely not all active any longer)). Meanwhile, you can use my "WWIIv3 1941 Tech Advance" variant. Just be sure to customize it back to standard WWIIv3 rules, before enabling the "Canal Turkey" option. Second, I know this is a map in development but the destroyer units in Europe '99 (“Europe - Alpha” map as its called in TripleA) This (as well as "Pacific") is more like a map abandoned during development. It may be more than 10 years nobody is working on it.
  • "Bad-Ass" 4 Nation FFA

    58
    1 Votes
    58 Posts
    24k Views
    RogerCooperR
    @RogerCooper This scenario has been fixed can be downloaded
  • Amsterdam_met_de_bois

    Moved
    19
    5 Votes
    19 Posts
    3k Views
    RogerCooperR
    @Hidde2k You need to change the B in the version number to 2.
  • Diplomacy like modification?

    4
    0 Votes
    4 Posts
    978 Views
    RoiEXR
    @Cernel Not necessary. Providing the link like you just did is absolutely fine. @Marc-Sarzi Yeah it's a real bummer that simultaneous movement is not possible. You can do a lot with the xml, but there are just some core concepts that can't be changed. As developers we're in a long process of modernising the code and TripleA itself in multiple areas, but core gameplay is simply not a priority. There are tons of more pressing problems to solve and simultaneous movement isn't just something one can implement in an afternoon. TripleA is open source after all, so if you're ambitious enough, at least in theory, you could contribute for this to eventually become a reality.
  • Axis & Allies Zombies (AA42-2)

    20
    2 Votes
    20 Posts
    4k Views
    C
    @Cernel For example, if I'm making a game that is not exactly "chess", I would call it "chess" if the ultimate aim is for it to be exactly like "chess", and maybe this is just impossible, due to the limitation of the program. On the other hand, I would not call it "chess" if it is a game inspired to "chess" but deliberately made different in some ways.
  • Adding a map to the repository in one category or another one

    1
    3 Votes
    1 Posts
    554 Views
    No one has replied
  • best WW2 map?

    8
    0 Votes
    8 Posts
    4k Views
    K
    The best WWII maps are New World Order (European theater), Rising Sun (Pacific), and World at War (the whole world). They are all part of the same series. I'll focus on New World Order, as this is the one with which I'm most familiar. The attached picture shows New World Order at the start of a game. Germany is supposed to expand quickly, conquering Paris on G3, and conquering most or all of neutral Poland by G3 as well. Early in the game Italy is supposed to conquer southern France, the Balkans, central and western North Africa, and potentially Greece. It's also supposed to expand into eastern Spain. Britain is supposed to expand in the Middle East, conquering neutral Iran, Iraq, and possibly neutral Turkey. There are no diplomatic or other penalties whatsoever for attacking neutrals. Axis nations are Germany, Italy, Finnland, and Romania. Allied nations are U.S.S.R., France, Colonial France, Britain, and the U.S. Contested areas are Scandinavia (if UK or US go north) France (if UK or US go middle), Spain (if Britain or US go south) or northern Africa. Over in the east, Turkey can be contested between Britain and Italy. If Britain wins that struggle it will seek to advance into Greece and the Balkans. If Italy wins it will seek to take Iran/Iraq from Britain, perhaps even conquering Britain's factory in Cairo and driving Britain out of the east Mediterranean entirely. Sometimes Allies will go Kill Italy First, in which case Axis will often respond with Kill Soviet Union First. In this map Italy is at least as important to the Axis as the Soviet Union is to the Allies. To give you a feel for the scale of this map, it's perfectly normal for Germany to have an income of 130 and Italy to have an income of 80, and for Allied incomes to balance out Axis. Starting on round 4 you will be able to build special, more technologically advanced units: harder hitting, long ranged bombers for Britain and the U.S., Katyushka for the Soviet Union, jets for Axis, big armor and bunkers and super subs for everyone. This map includes some land and air unit types not seen in Larry Harris maps. [image: alt text] [image: alt text]
  • Existing A.I options and A.I modding

    7
    1 Votes
    7 Posts
    1k Views
    RogerCooperR
    @felizardo You should also check out the Fast AI. It plays almost as well and it usually much faster.
  • Steampunk 1915

    10
    1 Votes
    10 Posts
    2k Views
    S
    @RogerCooper Hi Roger, Actual Cernel answered my question for me. I had inadvertently left some of the original authors units in the unit folder. That is why they were appearing in "unit help". I think my version is ready to go.
  • Dragon War - Official Thread

    103
    0 Votes
    103 Posts
    63k Views
    FrostionF
    @Michael-Hoover Very well spotted! () This is now fixed if you remove and redownload the map. There were actually 3 dragon notification mix-ups that I had to fix.
  • TWW 2.7.7.2 or earlier versions

    1
    0 Votes
    1 Posts
    384 Views
    No one has replied
  • Total World War Diplomacy?

    9
    0 Votes
    9 Posts
    2k Views
    Hal LinH
    Oh, that fixed it! I feel dumb now haha
  • Game of Thrones & A Song of Ice and Fire - Official Thread

    96
    4 Votes
    96 Posts
    55k Views
    Greg AndersonG
    Sorry for not posting in a while. I'm currently quite busy. I'll post again when I finish the units, as there are a few things to iron out.
  • Star Trek Dilithium mod

    1
    0 Votes
    1 Posts
    580 Views
    No one has replied
  • Missing Connection in Dragon War

    4
    2 Votes
    4 Posts
    1k Views
    FrostionF
    Thanks @Michael-Hoover for the notification. I appreciate that you came here to the forum and not just fixed your own local copy Yes, there was a flaw in the XML. Actually there were two connections in the XML between the two territories. But this was not the problem. There has recently been an implementation of “Air connections” to the map as an alternative to bridge connections. (Credit to @Cernel :thumbs_up:) The two territories had gotten an air connection (even though it shouldn’t) and this was preventing normal unit movement. You probably flew over the connection but could not walk over it with another unit. It should be fixed now when v1.2.8 Dragon War is downloadable/updateable. I hope you return and notify if you find other flaws. :winking_face:
  • Broken Mods in Scenario Repository

    2
    1 Votes
    2 Posts
    587 Views
    LaFayetteL
    The hope was that we'd have an army of map owners/makers taking care of the maps in repositories. In practice the maps in repository tend to be a last step and a bit of 'fire and forget'. That is not the case for all maps, there are some certainly being actively maintained, though that can't be said for the bulk as we have over a hundred and just a few people maintaining the whole project (code, servers, maps). If you have fixes, it would be great to see them get uploaded, let us know where you are running into trouble and/or what you are trying. Any scenarios you have that can be uploaded are certainly very welcome additions.
  • 1940 map with 1942 rules?

    8
    0 Votes
    8 Posts
    2k Views
    Michael HooverM
    Thanks for the ideas I'll check that out!
  • Correcting the Pacific Mod

    1
    0 Votes
    1 Posts
    509 Views
    No one has replied
  • Ancient Empires: 222 BC

    265
    5 Votes
    265 Posts
    246k Views
    HeppsH
    @Name Just checking in to ensure you're ok.

Recent Posts

  • @KurtGodel7 said:

    Germany sends four fighters and four dive bombers to attack a Soviet territory. The Soviets defend with 4 fighters. Neither nation can send more because they are both at the cap. (The attacker is limited to four bombers + four escorts; the defender is limited to 4 fighters.)

    Step 1: a dogfight between German and Soviet fighters. This lasts two combat rounds. Each side's fighters fire at their dogfight value.
    Step 2: Any Soviet fighters which survived the dogfight get to attack the German dive bombers. The Soviet fighters fire at their interception value, the dive bombers fire back at their air defense value. Destroyed units are removed.

    In this case, if you want to have all Soviet fighters firing both at the German fighters and (if surviving) at the German bombers and do not want to have different dogfight values for escorts and would-be interceptors, then I would say that the change which I would suggest to this system is having the surviving German fighters firing during step 2 too, meaning that (during step 2) the surviving German fighters fire against the Russian fighters with their dogfight value at the same time as the German bombers fire with their air defence value (meaning that this time any fighter downed by other fighters get to fire at the bombers anyway).

    To achieve this, the rule may be that on phase 2 up to as many surviving fighters as the number of enemy bombers fire at bombers with their interception value and the rest of the surviving fighters (if the surviving fighters are more than the enemy bombers, meaning them all if the other side has no bombers) fire at fighters with their dogfight value (or do nothing if there are no more enemy fighters at this point). Alternatively, the rule may be that all surviving fighters fire at bombers if one or more bombers are present and fire at fighters otherwise. I think the best would be having a prompt to decide how many fighters are firing at enemy bombers (the prompt being given only if the enemy has both bombers and fighters at this point).

    If both sides have fighters but no bombers, this would be the same as having an additional dogfight round.

    (The attacker is limited to four bombers + four escorts; the defender is limited to 4 fighters.)

    I really don't like the number limit and don't understand why having it.

    read more

  • @Cernel said:

    @KurtGodel7 Before I truly reply, it would be good to clarify if the dogfight phase of your system lasts until only the fighters of one side remains, or it is just a single round of fire in which fighters hit each other (so there may be fighters surviving on both sides) before the surviving fighters proceed hitting the bombers.

    What I guess is that it is the latter. Am I right?

    To keep it simpler, let's assume that one side has fighters and bombers and the other side has only fighters.

    This way, all fighters of the side with only fighters are interceptors (at least after the first phase), and all fighters on the opposite side are escorts.

    If my guess is correct, what your system is depicting is that there is a first phase during which the bombers are still far away, and fighters try to kill each other in fighters-only engagements (dog-fights) until this phase ends, I guess because they eventually reach the bombers or to represent that fighters can slip through and get to attack the bombers without having to down all opposing fighters first. When they reach the bombers, the dogfight phase ends because the escorting fighters stop firing once and after the enemy fighters reach the bombers, whereas the now intercepting fighters now fight against the bombers alone and get fired back by the bombers only.

    Of course, I get that the fact that the escorting fighters do not fight when the bombers fight is just because their previous fight is meant to cover this too for simplicity instead of having them firing twice (like the interceptors instead do, because they first fire in the dogfight and then again against the bombers). Right?

    In this simplified example, are the escorting fighters at least firing with a higher power than the fighters on the other side during the dogfight phase, in order to balance the fact that they are later doing nothing while the interceptors fire against the bombers (and I would say also because of the fact that the other fighters have to worry about getting to the bombers while they are fully focused only on downing the fighters should give them some tactical advantage)? My understanding is that they do not (right?), which would be arguably fine in a more symmetrical example like the case in which both sides have the same number of fighters and bombers.

    I think your system needs at the very least a dynamic by which fighters which are not going to be interceptors after the dogfight have a higher power during the same than the fighters which do, and I believe it is missing this.

    Is my understanding all correct?

    Okay. I will give an example.

    Germany sends four fighters and four dive bombers to attack a Soviet territory. The Soviets defend with 4 fighters. Neither nation can send more because they are both at the cap. (The attacker is limited to four bombers + four escorts; the defender is limited to 4 fighters.)

    Step 1: a dogfight between German and Soviet fighters. This lasts two combat rounds. Each side's fighters fire at their dogfight value.
    Step 2: Any Soviet fighters which survived the dogfight get to attack the German dive bombers. The Soviet fighters fire at their interception value, the dive bombers fire back at their air defense value. Destroyed units are removed.
    Step 3: if there are Soviet aa guns present in the territory these get to fire. Each aa gun gets one shot only regardless of the number of aircraft. It fires on a 2. Destroyed aircraft are removed from play.
    Step 4: If a German dive bomber was destroyed previously it doesn't get to attack. If it was damaged but not destroyed, it is aborted and doesn't get to attack. But if it's still at full health it gets to attack the land units present.

    This next part is very new, as in today. If a dive bomber is strafing a land target it gets a +1 bonus. Depending on the nation this can be upgraded to at least +2 with tech. Maybe +3. Likewise, a torpedo bomber gets a +1 bonus when attacking naval targets and, depending on the nation, it can be upgraded to +2 or even +3 with tech.

    Normally an air battle would have a maximum of four fighters and four bombers for the attacker, and four fighters for the defender. There are two situations in which the four air maximum does not apply: air defense against strategic bombing raids, and naval battles. If it's a strategic bombing raid, the attacker is limited to 4 bombers and 0 fighters. The defender can send fighter type aircraft to the raid without restriction. For a naval battle there are no restrictions on either side's air participation. If you want to sink a big fleet and you have 20 air, send all 20!

    The United States (both halves) has a tech called P-51 Mustang, which adds +2 to the range of its advanced fighters, and allows it to send a maximum of four advanced fighters as escorts for each factory it wants to strategically bomb. This does not make American bombing raids invincible, but it does make them a lot tougher.

    read more

  • @Vendetta said:

    @KurtGodel7 West Prussia and Posen should trade names on your map. Vienna's border is also drawn kind of wacky, that strip at the north should probably be part of Bohemia.

    I've added these things to my list. No more work on the list for the next 3 - 4 days, because I'm at 94% of my weekly usage limit.

    read more

  • @KurtGodel7 Before I truly reply, it would be good to clarify if the dogfight phase of your system lasts until only the fighters of one side remains, or it is just a single round of fire in which fighters hit each other (so there may be fighters surviving on both sides) before the surviving fighters proceed hitting the bombers.

    What I guess is that it is the latter. Am I right?

    To keep it simpler, let's assume that one side has fighters and bombers and the other side has only fighters.

    This way, all fighters of the side with only fighters are interceptors (at least after the first phase), and all fighters on the opposite side are escorts.

    If my guess is correct, what your system is depicting is that there is a first phase during which the bombers are still far away, and fighters try to kill each other in fighters-only engagements (dog-fights) until this phase ends, I guess because they eventually reach the bombers or to represent that fighters can slip through and get to attack the bombers without having to down all opposing fighters first. When they reach the bombers, the dogfight phase ends because the escorting fighters stop firing once and after the enemy fighters reach the bombers, whereas the now intercepting fighters now fight against the bombers alone and get fired back by the bombers only.

    Of course, I get that the fact that the escorting fighters do not fight when the bombers fight is just because their previous fight is meant to cover this too for simplicity instead of having them firing twice (like the interceptors instead do, because they first fire in the dogfight and then again against the bombers). Right?

    In this simplified example, are the escorting fighters at least firing with a higher power than the fighters on the other side during the dogfight phase, in order to balance the fact that they are later doing nothing while the interceptors fire against the bombers (and I would say also because of the fact that the other fighters have to worry about getting to the bombers while they are fully focused only on downing the fighters should give them some tactical advantage)? My understanding is that they do not (right?), which would be arguably fine in a more symmetrical example like the case in which both sides have the same number of fighters and bombers.

    I think your system needs at the very least a dynamic by which fighters which are not going to be interceptors after the dogfight have a higher power during the same than the fighters which do, and I believe it is missing this.

    Is my understanding all correct?

    read more