• 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
    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
    3
    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
    2
    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
    1
    5 Votes
    265 Posts
    246k Views
    HeppsH
    @Name Just checking in to ensure you're ok.

Recent Posts

  • @Vendetta said:

    @KurtGodel7 The coastal guns honestly sound like more more trouble than they're worth in order to get the balance right. Unless you think it'd be a really fun enhancement to the gameplay that you're determined to see through, it's probably safe to skip it and just give the invaders the round one penalty you have in mind.

    Off the top of my head, the only major WWII warships I can recall being sunk by coastal forts were the cruisers Blücher and Königsberg during the invasion of Norway. Realistically, coastal defense batteries should be able to deter small raids, but not pose a serious threat on their own to a large invasion fleet.

    But, suppose Britain builds a strong battleship fleet, and those battleships can exert more force than the coastal guns at a given hard point. Britain's response should be to unload one unit as an invasion. The goal would be to trigger a combat between the battleships and the coastal guns, with the British player knowing this would do more PU damage to Germany than to Britain.

    If you want to avoid this kind of cheese, you might be able to turn the Coastal Battery into a building instead that doesn't get shot at in combat but does get captured if the province is taken. That would also be a natural way to put a one per zone limit on its placement. It could have AA style fire (1 die each at up to 3 ships, or however many targets you think is right).

    If you think Claude can write some more complex rules, you could have the BBs take bombardment shots at the Coastal Battery first - if they score enough hits, they don't destroy it, but instead suppress it, and prevent it from firing. You could have the degree of suppression scaled to the number of hits it takes.

    For instance, you've given the Coastal Battery shots at 4 targets by default. The British BBs arrive and bombard first - they score 2 hits, so now the Battery only takes 2 shots at enemy ships.

    Making it a building also allows it to be a strategic bombing target, giving the enemy an alternative way to deal with it instead of just sending their ships in to slug it out head to head.

    I agree that I should not add coastal guns. I'm at the point where I need to not add more complexity to the map. The sample games I've been playing flow smoothly, and are not bogged down by complexity.

    If I did want to add more complexity--which I don't--but if I did, one way to achieve that would be the Battle of the Atlantic. The Battle of the Atlantic would exist as an abstraction. Each turn, Germany could send subs into the Battle of the Atlantic. Britain and America Atlantic could send destroyers in. Any units sent to the Battle of the Atlantic are there permanently. They cannot return to the main map. At the beginning of each game round, the German subs in the Battle of the Atlantic would fight the Allied destroyers. Combat would last for two rounds. Destroyed units would be removed from play. Any German subs that survived that combat would impose an economic penalty on Britain and America Atlantic. There would be a cap as to how much of a penalty each nation would receive. If, say, Britain's cap is 15 and America Atlantic's penalty cap is 20, then the first 15 PUs of economic damage done would hit Britain, and the next 20 Pus of economic damage would hit America Atlantic.

    Later on, Germany gains the ability to have Type XXI U-boats as a special unit. Sending those to the Battle of the Atlantic would be very cool. Maybe each normal sub would impose a penalty of 2 PUs, and each Type XXI would impose a penalty of 5 PUs. Something like that.

    But, I have no plans to actually implement this idea, because it would be added complexity.

    read more

  • America Atlantic's turn, round 7.

    image.jpeg

    Note that the British and Atlantic Americans are exerting good pressure on Spain. Italy has turned Gibraltar into a hard point. The Gibraltar territory itself was too small for many unit stacks, so there is a box to the left of the Gibraltar territory to indicate its units. Note that Italy's units are defensive: trenches, heavy guns, a few infantry or conscripts. America Atlantic gets an income nerf. It receives 30% of its true income on round 3, 40% on round 4, and so forth, until eventually growing to 100% of its income.

    image.jpeg

    The thing to note of this screen shot is that America Atlantic already has three factories in northwest Africa. Also it has discovered Industry tech. That means that each factory has +2 to its unit placement capacity, so long as the underlying territory is worth at least 2.

    image.jpeg

    Over in Asia, things seem to have gotten a little stagnant. Japan has thoughts of breaking through in China or against the British, but both tasks are proving tougher than expected.

    image.jpeg

    The source of Japan's problems in the north is the Soviet factory in Vladivostok. If Japan could crack that, it could conquer significant land area in the eastern Soviet Union. But that will be a tough nut to crack.

    image.jpeg

    Japan has conquered most of the East Indies. It hopes this income will let it achieve a breakthrough on at least one of its fronts.

    image.jpeg

    America Pacific has built a good fleet, and it has neutral farmed Mexico. Its neutral farming ambitions do not stop there. Next up: Honduras.

    image.jpeg

    In the east, the German force in Gomel is locked with the Soviet force in Bryansk.

    image.jpeg

    The Soviets had been neglecting their northern front a little. The Germans punished that by destroying the Soviet force at Tikhvin. The Soviets appear to be able to hold at Archangel.

    image.jpeg

    Italy could envision itself as the proud new owner of Cairo. While the Italians have an offensive posture on that front, the British have been putting up a very good defense. Britain has been helped by industry tech (more unit placement) and recently gained Raj tech (3 free colonial militia per turn for India).

    image.jpeg

    Japan has proudly built its first Yamato battleship! Also it built two SPCs. Each will produce a new fleet carrier every other turn.

    image.jpeg

    Why are there random conscripts here? Because the Soviet Union unlocked Conscription 1 tech. Now, each Soviet factory produces 1 free conscript per turn, as long as the underlying territory is worth at least 9 PUs. This is good for five conscripts per turn. The Soviet Union would very much like to gain more techs in this category. It looks forward with eagerness to getting Conscription 4 tech--although that won't come for a long time. The Soviet player has prioritized the conscripts over getting free KV-1 tanks (although it would like to receive those also).

    The Allies have opportunities to shift forces between the European and Pacific theaters. The Soviet Union decides how much to allocate to its eastern front. Britain decides how much to place on its factories in India, Africa, and Australia, versus how much to place in Britain itself. Units built in western India can be shipped west to fight Italy in Africa, or they can go east to fight Japan. Neutral farming is also a decision about front allocation. If America Pacific farms the Latin America neutrals, that is a decision to allocate more to the Pacific. If America Atlantic neutral farms them, that's a decision to go more heavy after Europe.

    read more

  • @KurtGodel7 The coastal guns honestly sound like more more trouble than they're worth in order to get the balance right. Unless you think it'd be a really fun enhancement to the gameplay that you're determined to see through, it's probably safe to skip it and just give the invaders the round one penalty you have in mind.

    Off the top of my head, the only major WWII warships I can recall being sunk by coastal forts were the cruisers Blücher and Königsberg during the invasion of Norway. Realistically, coastal defense batteries should be able to deter small raids, but not pose a serious threat on their own to a large invasion fleet.

    But, suppose Britain builds a strong battleship fleet, and those battleships can exert more force than the coastal guns at a given hard point. Britain's response should be to unload one unit as an invasion. The goal would be to trigger a combat between the battleships and the coastal guns, with the British player knowing this would do more PU damage to Germany than to Britain.

    If you want to avoid this kind of cheese, you might be able to turn the Coastal Battery into a building instead that doesn't get shot at in combat but does get captured if the province is taken. That would also be a natural way to put a one per zone limit on its placement. It could have AA style fire (1 die each at up to 3 ships, or however many targets you think is right).

    If you think Claude can write some more complex rules, you could have the BBs take bombardment shots at the Coastal Battery first - if they score enough hits, they don't destroy it, but instead suppress it, and prevent it from firing. You could have the degree of suppression scaled to the number of hits it takes.

    For instance, you've given the Coastal Battery shots at 4 targets by default. The British BBs arrive and bombard first - they score 2 hits, so now the Battery only takes 2 shots at enemy ships.

    Making it a building also allows it to be a strategic bombing target, giving the enemy an alternative way to deal with it instead of just sending their ships in to slug it out head to head.

    read more

  • @Vendetta said:

    @Schulz

    If I recall correctly, he doesn't have an actual Bunker unit, it's a Trench one that takes hits adds defense to other units, but it doesn't actually shoot.

    Giving land units the ability to hit ships is something that has to be handled very carefully because of the cost ratios. If they can be built cheaper and spammed faster than warships, anti-ship defenses will end up becoming unassailable.

    The only case in TRO where I decided to give a land unit a ship-hitting ability was Italy's Marines with a Decima MAS tech, where it's an offensive action they can only do on their turn, not an anti-invasion defense.

    If you want to have any sort of coastal artillery unit that hits ships, it needs to be balanced by either high price, low hit probability, or a strict stacking limit per territory that allows fleets to outscale it.

    The Europe map honestly looks pretty good at this point, I think it would probably be more productive to move on to improving other WIP areas since you're relying heavily on Claude usage.

    In a recent test game, Britain had a large fleet of transports. Germany had four hard points to prevent invasion. Britain didn't need to overcome a hard point to invade: there were other places along the coast for it to unload its units.

    But, let's say I introduced coastal guns, as well as the associated game mechanic. That creates a race between Germany and Britain. If Germany wins the race (that is, if its coastal guns are stronger than Britain's battleships), Britain will just unload/invade a territory that isn't a hard point. Problem solved. Germany just tied down a lot of PUs into coastal guns which could otherwise have been spent on its eastern front. But, suppose Britain builds a strong battleship fleet, and those battleships can exert more force than the coastal guns at a given hard point. Britain's response should be to unload one unit as an invasion. The goal would be to trigger a combat between the battleships and the coastal guns, with the British player knowing this would do more PU damage to Germany than to Britain.

    To avoid this problem, some would say I should limit the number of battleships which can fire at coastal guns to the number of units actually invading. Drop off only one infantry? Only one battleship gets to fire at the coastal guns, but all the coastal guns get to fire at the battleships.

    Suppose Britain has 10 battleships, and drops off 10 infantry. This triggers full combat between the battleships and the coastal guns. Germany loses some coastal guns, Britain doesn't lose any battleships. Then there is combat. The infantry don't get to fire on the first round (arriving amphibiously), and they won't survive until the second round. But, the battleships get to bombard. Assume those 10 battleships inflict 6 hits. Sticky hits, so those 6 hits kill 3 German trenches. At the cost of 10 infantry, Britain has taken away 3 trenches plus some coastal guns.

    Don't get me wrong. All of this would be a cool thing to add to the game. I just don't know that the game needs any additional complexity at this point.

    read more