-
0 Votes1 Posts358 Views
-
0 Votes9 Posts2k Views
-
4 Votes96 Posts52k Views
-
0 Votes1 Posts559 Views
-
2 Votes4 Posts1k Views
-
1 Votes2 Posts541 Views
-
0 Votes8 Posts2k Views
-
0 Votes1 Posts492 Views
-
5 Votes265 Posts237k Views
-
-1 Votes3 Posts774 Views
-
0 Votes26 Posts9k Views
-
1 Votes41 Posts13k Views
-
1 Votes4 Posts1k Views
-
1 Votes1 Posts576 Views
-
1 Votes2 Posts613 Views
-
0 Votes3 Posts942 Views
-
0 Votes10 Posts2k Views
-
0 Votes22 Posts7k Views
-
3 Votes18 Posts2k Views
-
0 Votes3 Posts609 Views
Recent Posts
-
@captain0
Apologies I have not replied earlier.Yes it is possible to have new build Bunkers/Forts having Upkeep, yes you would need a different kind of starting Bunker/Fort.
For reference 2HP units like Battleship, Carriers, Tank-Hvy cost 2pu Upkeep. Bunker is the exception and only costs 1pu Upkeep, so long term are good value, but too many and they drain your resources.
Partisans were never in the design of the map, although historically accurate they did sap the strength of the Germans, I thought it was more of a distraction for the player and like in history would be suppressed with reinforcements from the west. I think the German player has a tough time especially if using Winter.
Having said the above if more players want Russian Partisans then say.
It was a design decision not to have resources other than PU as the AI does not understand them, see here.
https://forums.triplea-game.org/topic/3743/how-to-make-a-map-ai-friendlyIn game there is enough of a draw to get the oil producing TT and they are also VCs so I think the map simulates it well. On the flip side when testing we did not have to balance the Oil Resource vs use in game.

However we did spend ages playing against the AI, making it better to give the solo player a cracking game 🤯
-
@iratoric The war should continue, but the issue is that I do not know how to code it.
It is doable if I know someone will show me how to code it.
-
@Schulz Most of the things you are saying make sense, but are you saying the Allies should instantly win if they take Constantinople? Because I don’t agree with that one. For example, Germany could be about to take Paris or Petrograd on the next turn which would be a similarly (if not more) devastating blow to the Allies.
-
@iratoric I was thinking the same.
Russia's nominal income is huge at 165 IPC (excluding Serbia). It is the penalty that makes them weaker than Germany and even weaker than France later. If the Allies capture the Dardanelles and Constantinople, the income debuffs Russia receives should periodically decrease and eventually be removed realistically. But at that point, the game would already be over.
Round 1 (20 Aug14): -60
Round 2 (10 Dec 14): -62
Round 3 (30 Mar 15):-65
Round 4 (20 July 15): -70
Round 5 (10 Nov 15): -75
Round 6 (28 Feb 16):-80
Round 7 (20 Jun 16):-85
Round 8 (10 Oct 16): -90
Round 9 (30 Jan 17): -95
Round 10 (20 May 17): -105
Round 11: (10 Sep 17)-120
Round 12 (30 Dec 1917): -150That debuff continuing even if the Allies succeed does not make sense either. So the game should end with an Allied victory even if they control only one capital.
The US will join in round 9 with a similar debuff to represent their mobilization process. Instead, their debuff will decrease gradually and be removed totally.
Round 9: -90
Round 10:-80
Round 11: -65
Round 12: -50
Round 13: -35
Round 14: -25
Round 15: -15
Round 16: -10
Round 17: -5
Round 18: 0The game is supposed to last 15 to 18 rounds.