• Azimuth's Trilogy - Official Teaser Trailer

    22
    5 Votes
    22 Posts
    7k Views
    A
    @rogercooper done. It's now possible to play Nazi Germany and pretend it's not Nazi Germany
  • Transport Restricted Unload

    3
    0 Votes
    3 Posts
    855 Views
    cameronC
    bah. it does only apply to noncombat unloading. well that sucks. oh well. thanks for the reply.
  • πŸ’€ Settlers: Age of Tribes - Official Thread

    maps thedog
    14
    1 Votes
    14 Posts
    5k Views
    TheDogT
    Fixed missing Flag none.png image found here; https://github.com/triplea-game/triplea/issues/12584 . Link to 1st post that has the Google Drive download link https://forums.triplea-game.org/topic/2399/settlers-age-of-tribes-official-thread
  • Does anyone still play Classic?

    2
    0 Votes
    2 Posts
    712 Views
    PantherP
    @moomanmaster Look at https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/ Some people play Classic over there.
  • UHD Domination NML Upscaled Baseline

    5
    3 Votes
    5 Posts
    2k Views
    Black_ElkB
    @bret-hawkeye How's it going! No worries dude, we're all still sorta noobin' it here honestly, or at least I am hehe. Currently it's just a baseline. To make it into a functional tripleA map that we could actually edit in the game-engine we're still at the point where it needs the centers.txt and the map.properties etc. It's a bit of challenge since basically what we're trying to do is upscale an existing map/scenario that already has an XML rather than creating an entirely new one. So taking the same Territories and Sea Zone tiles (same labels, nations etc) but where those polygons have new coordinates for a larger board. Everything else remaining the same. This is similar to the method used to make the UHD Global, where we take an existing game (the Standard Global by Bung & Veq) but using a new map for it. Here's an example of something similar, using another larger scale map, but where the process is a bit further along. Just so you can see how it might potentially come together... https://github.com/beelee1/mega_new_elk That's a port of 1941 GCD gamemap, but using the UHD Global unit files/game XML etc. It's is just a skeleton of a game, there are no starting units yet, not actual scenario per se. Bill helped me throw it together, where we just grafted the latter onto the former to get a ball rolling. That one uses the 2.6 pre-release, so you'd just drop it into downloaded maps and should fire up as normal. Here is the same, but with a quickie xml draft created using edit mode. So basically all territories with a production a floor at 1 PU, convoys blanked out, a couple capitals assigned and whatnot, just so it will launch within tripleA and look like something vaguely familiar for a G40 vibe. Again just as a jumping off point. From there you'd go in and adjust the production values of the territories or add starting units for a set up, come up with a turn order sequence or tech and stuff like that. 2024-5-7-Mega-New-Elk.tsvg In that scenario, you can imagine maybe that the start date is right after the Fall of France (instead of before like regular G40). Maybe aircraft are evacuated from the Paris tile to England tile, on the first turn of the game to represent DeGaulle? Perhaps most of Vichy goes Pro Axis neutral, while Free France has their locus of power in Central Africa or a Government in Exile in London. Whatever, just a riff for a starting point and spitball idea. Might look something like this for a 1940 date, very rough draft... [image: Screenshot 2024-05-12 123749.png] In order to do something similar for the older WW1 map, it's a similar process a little bit simpler, since presumably players of that scenario would want to keep the game they play more or less unchanged, just with a beefier map. So starting with an existing game xml, same tech advances or whatever, but warping it to fit into a new larger map. In the case of 1914 NML, like using all those production values or units etc. Or one could use one of the larger maps and create a variant from there, but then that's like making a whole new game right lol. Little more involved hehe. Anyhow not sure if that helps to clarify. It was pretty bare bones for the Domination stuff, last person to tool around there was Redrum I think? I wanted to make a WW2 customizers map that had sorta all the stuff in there, perhaps also with a playable scenario for a jumping off point, so I guess the idea would be roughly like that, just more WW1 themed? Again not sure what all is grabbin' peeps these days or how much interest there'd be for it.
  • Arheic Wars / Pangea Proxima A&A

    53
    1 Votes
    53 Posts
    19k Views
    jkprinceJ
    @jkprince havent been doing much lately, here is some pixelart that might find its way in as unit sprites [image: 5c0667b2-1d88-44d1-b29f-b43624525602-image.png] [image: 1849d59b-1729-42a5-935a-9107e955011e-image.png] [image: 21379730-daa3-44e6-a998-f623e5f04342-image.png] [image: 2953405c-1eeb-4d0f-8d01-b8411db2c899-image.png] [image: 49c9d10f-9b2a-4a70-a8b5-d95236223dd6-image.png] [image: cbc292e8-9bc7-4bdb-9eab-4fb6d92bf457-image.png] [image: 579b14e5-d9f4-4e1d-83e6-085aa142e746-image.png]
  • Experimenting with Realistic Distances

    9
    1 Votes
    9 Posts
    3k Views
    SchulzS
    Any another suggestion about the territories? What about the sea zones?
  • Domination 1914 NML relief (black lines update?)

    2
    3 Votes
    2 Posts
    887 Views
    ubernautU
    @black_elk love it!
  • CrazyG's Big World War One

    164
    3 Votes
    164 Posts
    131k Views
    C
    @tinmanta Moved to this topic.
  • The Grand War

    44
    6 Votes
    44 Posts
    28k Views
    jkprinceJ
    6 years later, this mod is still great and I believe deserves to be moved up at least to the "good quality" section from where it sits in experimental. I might make a house rules mod for this as practice- One thing I notice is that Mazdak is almost always the first nation to drop in each game, at least when it is played by AI. IMO, its cultist underpinnings should be represented ingame thru a system that's in mechanically between the Chinese Underground and Grand Armee ones. Rn, the possibility of Mazdak taking Arcadia is a pipe dream if you're not playing as them. If I make an upgrade mod for this, I will add a "Global Mazdakism" territory, impassable like Grands. Unlike Grands, it is not their capital, and does not have any IPC value, so they can still be eliminated. However, also unlike Grands, it has a factory in it. As Mazdak takes more territories, they gain additional locations to which they can deploy units out of their Global Mazdakism pool. Mazdak only: Can deploy to Mazdak and Aksum Control =>3/5 of (Aksum, Sudan, Arcadian Congo, Zimbabwe, Korean Congo): Add deploy to Hedjaz and Sudan, free units in Hedjaz and Mazdak Control =>3/5 of (Khemet, Palestine, Hedjaz, Agrot Republic, Madagascar): Add deploy to Makan and Sumatra and adds some free units in both Control capital Arcadia: Adds free armies and PUs and declares war against everyone (existing rule). Adds deploy to Bengal and Burma. Adds a Motor Pool building into the Global Mazdakism pool, to speed up infantry exit. Control =>3/5 of (Bengal, Burma, Sumatra, Dravidia S.R, Arcadia): Adds a free nuke into the pool territory, for use anywhere, no tech required. Adds a few more free units. First time you capture any nation's capital other than Arcadia's: Also adds a free nuke into the pool territory. Gives a bonus free tech token. ... Apart from Mazdak, some other nation ideas (possibly only for when controlled by AI): India / SUFFER gets a single free volunteer added to "Volunteers 5" at their turn end for as long as they don't control all of their original territories. GRANDS gets a single Infantry added per turn to their Grand Armee pool as long as they are on Total War (i.e losing) China gets an extra Refinery in Yunnan, to help their Fuel budget. It's removed if the territory is lost, and not returned when regained
  • Total World War Diplomacy -- country specific bonuses?

    6
    1 Votes
    6 Posts
    1k Views
    ubernautU
    @jim-parker glad i could help
  • Gundam - One Year War

    9
    2 Votes
    9 Posts
    5k Views
    RogerCooperR
    @luhhlz I was able to download sucessfully, so I will eventually put on github if no one else does.
  • Error when clicking on "Download Maps" button

    error download maps
    3
    1 Votes
    3 Posts
    1k Views
    U
    @thedog said in Error when clicking on "Download Maps" button: @unternehmer Im on Windows TripleA 2.5.22294, downloads work. So its probably your PC. I would deinstall TripleA and reinstal, hope that helps. Thanks for information! :folded_hands:
  • New blank map for mappers

    17
    5 Votes
    17 Posts
    12k Views
    SchulzS
    The Northernmost Europe is also added. https://i.ibb.co/f8BhVvZ/National-Borders-1914.png
  • Proposed Map: Flames and Steel

    17
    1 Votes
    17 Posts
    4k Views
    RogerCooperR
    @kurtgodel7 said in Proposed Map: Flames and Steel: @rogercooper said in Proposed Map: Flames and Steel: @kurtgodel7 If you multiple HP units, where the damaged units take hits first, you basically have the effect of multiple 1 HP units with a weaker combat strength. Correct. Imagine a WWII nation doing a poor job of arming its soldiers. They lack heavy weapons, and can't do much against tanks. Many of them are not given any weapons at all, and are told to grab what they can from dead soldiers. They don't have much in the way of ammunition. In a real war, this would be a bad idea, unless this level of armament really was the best you could possibly do. But in a typical TripleA map, soldiers like this would be considered "conscripts." The ability to build them would be an absolute godsend for whichever nation was lucky enough to have them. They are the best of all possible best things: a cheap source of cannon fodder. In the rules set I envision, the ability to build infantry would be limited by a nation's population size. So yeah, you're getting cannon fodder through your infantry build. But any cannon fodder you want over and above that would have to come from some other way. Think about the difference between a tank and a piece of artillery. Both are heavy hitters, intended to do a lot of damage. But of the two, only the tank is intended to actually soak up damage. So, it's realistic to imagine a tank not just as a good source of firepower, but also as a good source of hitpoints. There are at least two ways of handling units with multiple hitpoints. There's the way which currently exists: all units with multiple hitpoints get injured before any of them actually get killed. Then there's the way I've proposed, in which one unit with multiple hitpoints must die before the next can be injured. This latter approach is a sort of nerf to multiple hitpoint units. In particular, it prevents battles from being too one-sided in favor of the victor. Currently, at least in most maps, all units have just one hitpoint, except for battleships and (in some cases) aircraft carriers. If however you nerf the multiple hitpoint thing, as I propose, then that opens the door to having a lot more units with multiple hitpoints. That in turn opens up a whole new area of strategic depth. Think about the technologies you've seen in TripleA. In particular, think about those techs which improve units. Normally you'd be improving their offense, their defense, or (in some cases) their mobility. All that's well and good. But what if you could also improve their hitpoints? Imagine a conscript: a unit which attacks and defends on a 1. In the type of map we're used to, a heavy tank might attack and defend on a 5. But, it would have just 1 hitpoint. If it's 5 conscripts versus 1 heavy tank, both sides would have equal firepower, but the conscripts would be 5 times tougher to kill. But now imagine if that heavy tank could have multiple hitpoints, reflecting the fact that it has good armor. Imagine if technology could unlock additional hitpoints for it. Now, the hitpoint situation just became a lot less one-sided. Moreover, the tech system got richer, because unlocking those extra hitpoints is one more option for your research effort. I would give the conscript unit an attack of 0. It would be useless attacking on its own. About right for the Chinese army and even some units of the Soviet army. I would hesitate to give a heavy tank more hit points. Any tank, regardless of armor is vulnerable without supporting infantry. A heavy tank trades off mobility for protection. Just make it a 4-4-1 unit as compared to regular tank as 3-3-2. There is a limit of how much tactical detail can be handled by TripleA.
  • Units and tech: Domination 1941

    9
    1 Votes
    9 Posts
    2k Views
    K
    [image: ef87ac73-ced6-40e3-9b69-9a83102532a5-image.png]
  • TAW - Total Ancient War

    2
    1 Votes
    2 Posts
    968 Views
    ubernautU
    @falkon-powers missed this one sounds interesting
  • World War II v3 1941 Balanced Mod

    6
    0 Votes
    6 Posts
    2k Views
    Jason Green-LoweJ
    @beelee It is; I'll take a look. Thanks for the bug report.
  • Gundam - The Gryps Conflict

    gundam maps new maps
    1
    0 Votes
    1 Posts
    2k Views
    No one has replied
  • Civil War 2028 - Official Thread

    6
    2 Votes
    6 Posts
    2k Views
    TheDogT
    For me its boring killing everything on the map, as it comes to a point when I know I have won, but I want the map to tell me have Economic Victory is probably the way to go. If there is a total of 300pu on the map then my formula is 300 x 66% = 200pu. For the losing side only having 33% of the pu there is usually no coming back. In xml terms you will need; <property name="Economic Victory" value="true" editable="true"> <boolean/> </property> <property name="Democrats Economic Victory" value="200" editable="true"> <number min="150" max="300"/> </property> <property name="Republicans Economic Victory" value="200" editable="true"> <number min="150" max="300"/> </property>

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