• đź’€ Settlers: Fallen Empire - Official Thread

    maps thedog
    15
    3 Votes
    15 Posts
    7k Views
    TheDogT
    Latest version v020 ready for download within TripleA. In TripleA Click Download Maps Button Click Installed tab Click ** Settlers: Fallen Empire** Click Remove Button Click Yes button to remove Click Ok button (Successfully removed) Click Close (To force the map list to refresh) Click Download Maps Button............................<= new players start here Find & Click ** Settlers: Fallen Empire** Click Install button Enjoy! Settlers Fallen Empire Manual pdf unchanged Settlers_Fallen_Empire_Manual.pdf v020 Sea Zone PU collection is now working as intended It currently requires the following steps player none=Neutral must be have an initial relationship of Neutral with the Player factions, see lines 6977 etc player none=Neutral start of turn 1 is changed to War, see lines 5913-5931 Define All-SZ (Sea Zones) & All-Players required for #4 foreach to work A foreach to convert currentowner = originalowner, this allows PU to be collected, see lines 5899-5911 (#1 & #2 are are a bizzare requirement that should not exist. ) Turn placementAnyTerritory True and False, allows placement of isAI unplaced Factories, makes for a better player experience (thanks to @wc_sumpton) Link to 1st post https://forums.triplea-game.org/topic/2467/settlers-fallen-empire-official-thread
  • Domination 1914 No Man's Land - Official Thread

    256
    5 Votes
    256 Posts
    264k Views
    SchulzS
    Late fighters are balanced around with other units and techs.
  • Religions and beliefs

    11
    1 Votes
    11 Posts
    362 Views
    M
    @TheDog I have a specirfic TripleA version with some specific xml files for games like TWW and I have 2/3 curent games so it is not so easy....
  • 🏯 Shogun Advanced - Official Thread

    thedog
    26
    2 Votes
    26 Posts
    6k Views
    TheDogT
    @malmessi It is in game in the usual place Help> Game Notes
  • How to add to Big World Variations

    15
    1 Votes
    15 Posts
    3k Views
    RogerCooperR
    I put it onto github under https://github.com/triplea-maps/thehobbesians_1939. I will add to the in-game downloader tomorrow.
  • TripleA Maps List

    4
    3 Votes
    4 Posts
    292 Views
    RogerCooperR
    @TheDog said: @rogercooper Cant find Ansalon/Analon on Github maps Missing from your list, but on Github maps Settlers: Fallen Empire Shogun Advanced Ansalon was superseded. https://axisandallies.fandom.com/wiki/Master_of_Ansalon Settlers: Fallen Empire uses the Fallen Empire Map Shogun Advanced is under The Shogun Map
  • Middle Earth: Battle For Arda - Official Thread

    588
    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
    270 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.
  • Warcraft: Lordaeron Wars - Official Thread

    37
    8 Votes
    37 Posts
    24k 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
    3 Votes
    39 Posts
    12k 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: tripleAbeheaded.png]
  • WW1 contour baseline map 4000px

    16
    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: wwi_more territories.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
    6 Votes
    264 Posts
    292k 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
    562 Views
    No one has replied
  • Proposed Map: Domination 1941

    498
    2 Votes
    498 Posts
    784k 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.
  • War Plan Red-Orange

    10
    4 Votes
    10 Posts
    3k Views
    M
    Another update, version 0.3.0! [image: 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
  • World War II V6 - Balanced

    1
    1 Votes
    1 Posts
    614 Views
    No one has replied
  • East & West

    7
    3 Votes
    7 Posts
    3k Views
    RogerCooperR
    This is now available through the in-game downloader.
  • Global 40 Expansion UHD Boxes Recorded Games

    3
    1 Votes
    3 Posts
    2k Views
    B
    deleted.
  • Can we fix TWW?

    93
    0 Votes
    93 Posts
    56k Views
    ubernautU
    @lafayette [image: pumped-yes.gif]

Recent Posts

  • About bombers, a cool new feature would be allowing for bombers to travel longer distances at the expense of lowering their bombing/attack power. Just an idea.

    read more

  • @KurtGodel7 said:

    @Cernel said:

    @KurtGodel7 said:

    Also, some planes were harder to shoot down than others, and this is reflected in me giving some airplanes more hitpoints than others.

    I guess your are not doing it, but it would be good if you split the heavy bombers available since start game at least into two different units, one mainly representing the Avro Lancaster and the other one mainly representing the B-17 (and the B-24 too if you don't want to split in 3) (I'm not talking about other future/tech ones like the B-29). The B-17 should have more hit-points and more defensive power than the Avro Lancaster, but the Avro Lancaster should have a slightly bigger bombing power (not much). This can be balanced by making the Avro Lancaster cheaper (whether or not this is the case) or just letting the United States have an advantage in heavy bombers over Britain.

    The initial strategic bomber is the same for all nations. The final version is different for each. (This includes America Pacific vs. America Atlantic.)

    America Pacific's final strategic bomber is the Liberator. America Atlantic's is the Flying Fortress. And Britain's is the Avro Lancaster. Of the three, the Avro Lancaster has the hardest hitting power, due to the "Tall Boy and Grand Slam" tech. Uniquely among the three, it can benefit from Window tech, which adds -1 to the interception value of enemy air. The Flying Fortress has the most ability to defend itself against interception. The Liberator has a longer range than a Flying Fortress. Germany, Japan, and the Soviet Union each also get their own final version of strategic bombers, though their final versions are below those of the U.K. and U.S. Japan's version is a little better than Germany's version or the Soviet Union's version.

    Wait. I saw that you had the "Superfortress" as "Strategic Bombers" tech. That would be the B-29. How is the "Flying Fortress" the final strategic bomber? That is the B-17, right?

    Ok for the Avro Lancaster and the B-24 I guess, but the B-17 in mid-to-late 1941 should be already available for purchase. I mean, I certainly agree with the United States starting with zero of them (since they were very few before Pearl Harbour) but with the ability to purchase them (unless maybe you have a progressive tech and the B-17 is like at 95% development completion or something).

    I guess you are taking into account the possibility of USA Pacific sending B-24 to fight in Atlantic, right? They have been quite important in the Mid-Atlantic gap and very important in bombing Germany.

    read more

  • KurtGodel7 said:

    @Vendetta said:

    @Cernel said:
    For game-play (realistic or not - and I would say not too much if not), it would be necessary for India to have very low placement ability (factories) (and being able to place little TUV, meaning being restricted to placing infantry (a good number but not too many of them - whether realistic or not, I know there were many Indians in the British army) and hardly anything else - kind of like China even though the situation was not as bad as China after 1937), while having fairly high production (income) and being part of the British Empire - meaning sharing its income with the United Kingdom - so that India is mostly a British cash-cow that Japan can take and the British cannot defend alone, thus pressure from the United States in Pacific is needed, or the Japanese take India.

    I think Kurt actually set himself up to handle this pretty easily if he wants since he split MP and PU into two different resources. He can do something like the conscript model he has for Italy/USSR/China (call it Colonial Infantry instead of Conscript for flavor here) where it’s a unit that only costs MP but is limited to only being produced in India, and India has high MP resources but relatively low PU.

    I like this idea.

    I could see this going in one of two different ways.

    Let's say I give India 5 MPs. These are used to buy five colonial militia per turn, which are placed on India. A colonial militia would be a conscript by another name.

    I give India five MPs. These MPs are added to Britain's general pool of MPs. They don't necessarily get spent in India. Britain could use them to buy more infantry for London, for example, with which to prepare an invasion of Europe. Britain could have used the MPs for colonial militia for India. It just chose not to.

    I like 1) a lot more than 2). Once my weekly usage limit resets, I could have a conversation with Claude about this.

    Okay, I feel silly. The obvious way of solving this problem is: don't allow India to give Britain MPs. Instead, Britain receives free bonus units for India. These bonus units will be colonial militia. I should probably make Britain research tech to unlock the free units.

    In fact I have something like this in the game already, except that Britain is getting free infantry for India. I need to change that to colonial militia and increase their number.

    read more

  • @Vendetta said:

    @Cernel said:
    For game-play (realistic or not - and I would say not too much if not), it would be necessary for India to have very low placement ability (factories) (and being able to place little TUV, meaning being restricted to placing infantry (a good number but not too many of them - whether realistic or not, I know there were many Indians in the British army) and hardly anything else - kind of like China even though the situation was not as bad as China after 1937), while having fairly high production (income) and being part of the British Empire - meaning sharing its income with the United Kingdom - so that India is mostly a British cash-cow that Japan can take and the British cannot defend alone, thus pressure from the United States in Pacific is needed, or the Japanese take India.

    I think Kurt actually set himself up to handle this pretty easily if he wants since he split MP and PU into two different resources. He can do something like the conscript model he has for Italy/USSR/China (call it Colonial Infantry instead of Conscript for flavor here) where it’s a unit that only costs MP but is limited to only being produced in India, and India has high MP resources but relatively low PU.

    I like this idea.

    I could see this going in one of two different ways.

    Let's say I give India 5 MPs. These are used to buy five colonial militia per turn, which are placed on India. A colonial militia would be a conscript by another name.

    I give India five MPs. These MPs are added to Britain's general pool of MPs. They don't necessarily get spent in India. Britain could use them to buy more infantry for London, for example, with which to prepare an invasion of Europe. Britain could have used the MPs for colonial militia for India. It just chose not to.

    I like 1) a lot more than 2). Once my weekly usage limit resets, I could have a conversation with Claude about this.

    read more