• 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.
  • Is it possible to balance AA50-41 without Nos?

    3
    -1 Votes
    3 Posts
    841 Views
    C
    I'm a long time believer that they should have never added National Objectives to the v3 (anniversary) 1941 game. However, it is a fact that almost everyone plays with them enabled, despite the fact that they are officially optional (differently from technology, that is the other official option, in this case rarely taken).

Recent Posts

  • @Vendetta Wouldn't make more sense for Flak Towers to reduce the damage roll for bombers.

    read more

  • Hey @alkexr

    A friend and I have been testing out v3 and compiling feedback as we play it. We have played v2 dozens of times and are excited to play v3. I'll have more detailed feedback on the balancing as we play a couple more games of v3, but here is what we have so far.

    We really like the new map layout. Rivendell seems stronger and not guaranteed to fall. Rohan is more open and harder to hold, but giving Arnor Tharbad counters Saruman well with this. I also like the new Gondor terrain and love that Cair Andros is a settlement now. We also really like the new units like the White Wolf and Ice Drakes.

    The new Orc Holds faction is fun, but doesn't seem to add anything new from when it was controlled by Angmar. It also doesn't have any counter to Dwarves. As a result, it doesn't really go anywhere and ends up fortifying on Goblin Town and Mount Gundabad until a doom stack of Dwarven Halberdiers come.

    Combining the Woodland Realm and Lorien into the Silvan Elves was overall a good choice since the Woodland Realm in v2 didn't really do anything unique for Good.

    -Winged Nazgul (and maybe all flying units) prompt the attacker if they want to submerge submarines each combat round. This never happened in v2 so likely a bug from reworking the units.

    -Settlements need a visual indicator for how many units can be placed on them. v2 had this.

    -Rivendell visually had hills, but is not a hill terrain tile.

    -Angmar and Moria might need a starting minor settlement because its pretty easy to max out their spawns on their capitols the first few turns until they expand.

    -Druadan Forest in v2 used to be a neutral tile that shortened the route for Rohan to send reinforcements to Minas Tirith. This made the tile strategically valuable and worth fighting the neutral archers there. In v3, the shortened path is replaced by a hills tile already controlled by Gondor. This now makes the forest just another tile. Personally, we liked the unique value that the Druadan Forest used to have.

    -We like that mountains and marshes slow down movement, but maybe it shouldn't slow down Dwarves as an added benefit for their race?

    -Angmar and Orc Holds orc units are too similar of color. Since they often have overlapping frontlines against Arnor, the only way I can tell them apart is from the tooltips. The same applies for Mordor and Dol Guldor orcs now that Mordor has a settlement closer to Dul Guldor.

    -The Gondor settlement of Calembel has an extra 1 income marker on it bordering with North Lamedon.

    -Add the archer unit to the Gondor roster since Rangers don't have Anti-Air anymore.

    -Spearwall ability references a Werewolf unit that doesn't seem to be in the map.

    read more

  • @Vendetta

    Hmm ... very interesting. What say you @victoryfirst

    read more

  • One of the unique techs I outlined for Germany in my set was “Flak Towers.” The effect I intend it to have is that if facility AA has a near miss against a strategic bombing raid (i.e. rolls a 2 by default, or a 3 if you have AA Radar tech), the bomber will be forced to abort its mission and go home without dealing any damage - but it will get to fly back without being shot down.

    I also outlined a “Flying Fortresses” tech which would be available to everyone, but the US would have a bonus making it easier to develop. That tech would make any hit scored by AA fire against a strategic bomber require a hit on a second roll to confirm and shoot it down. If the confirmation roll misses, the bomber aborts the mission but survived and returns. The bonus would not apply against interceptions by fighters - if they score a hit, it’s a kill.

    Allowing situations where the defense can succeed but the bomber can survive struck me as a good way to play with the balance of the strategic bombing game without giving the bombers extra hit points. Works easily enough on tabletop, whether it can be translated into the TripleA engine is something I’ll have to find out.

    Could be a good way to fine tune the balance in your bombing war meta without ping-ponging between either the defenders or the bombers being wiped out in one sided massacres.

    It would take some extra work to make it play nice with your multiple hit point system. One thought that comes to mind is having the AA/interceptors roll two sets of dice per turn. One set inflicts damage as normal, while the other forces a retreat if it hits. That way you’d end up with a range of possible outcomes - they might get through and bomb the target with or without taking damage, or they might get sent back to base with or without damage, or they might get shot down.

    read more