• Crazy Europe: House of Habsburg

    453
    7 Votes
    453 Posts
    750k Views
    CrazyGC
    Little one is a galley, big one is a man of war. Both can fight, I really dislike the instantly killed dedicated transports of some games.
  • Random number of units placed randomly at random turns?

    38
    0 Votes
    38 Posts
    16k Views
    CrazyGC
    Random though about this. Currently you can make a trigger fire another trigger. <option name="activateTrigger" value="triggerAttachmentRussians5_FarEastReserves:1:false:false:false:false"/> (Format: "triggerName:numberOfTimes:useUses:testUses:testConditions:testChance") How doable would the following be? <option name="activateRandomTrigger" value="triggerAttachment1:triggerAttachment2:triggerAttachment3" count="2"/> The above would fire exactly 2 of those 3 triggers at random. IDK how important the additional options are for activateTrigger (I don't understand what the test things do, and if I wanted to fire the trigger more than once I would just put more lines) Also I investigated and I do not have the global conquest map on this computer. Sorry
  • AI never buys resources?

    12
    0 Votes
    12 Posts
    3k Views
    redrumR
    @comr Best thing is to play some of the new/complex maps and read the POS2 XML to understand what is available today: https://github.com/triplea-maps/the_pact_of_steel/blob/master/map/games/pact_of_steel_2.xml The AI overview and backlog of improvements are here: https://forums.triplea-game.org/topic/105/ai-development-discussion-and-feedback. I wrote all of the Fast/Hard AI so know all of the algorithms/code for it. It was primarily written to play the standard A&A maps (classic, revised, v3, global, etc) so it performs reasonably well on maps that primarily use similar rules. But if you try to have the AI play Total World War or Civil War, it plays very poorly and doesn't understand many of the features used in those games. Suggestions and contributions are always welcome and you can find the AI code here: https://github.com/triplea-game/triplea/tree/master/game-core/src/main/java/games/strategy/triplea/ai
  • This topic is deleted!

    3
    0 Votes
    3 Posts
    11 Views
  • Can Russia upgrade minor IC's to major?

    Moved
    2
    0 Votes
    2 Posts
    1k Views
    HeppsH
    @willk_1230 So if by eligible Minor Factories... you mean the one in Novgorod and the one in Volgograd... then it is because neither is eligible to be up-graded. "Major industrial complexes can be built only in originally controlled (not captured) territories with an IPC value of 3 or higher." Page 23 Restictions on Placement Pragraph 4. Here is a link to the manual for your reference.... https://www.axisandallies.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Axis-Allies-Europe-1940-Second-Edition.pdf
  • Civil War | Ships placement

    2
    0 Votes
    2 Posts
    1k Views
    C
    I know the owner of the map is not around, so what I'm asking here is what most players understand or anyway play with.
  • Civil War | Assign and hide utilitarian players

    5
    0 Votes
    5 Posts
    2k Views
    redrumR
    @cernel Ah, well yaml file updates just determine whether users that have the map downloaded get prompted to update it. Probably don't need to update it for a minor change like this. But not a big deal either way.
  • Japan limited on Minor IC's in Global 40?

    Moved
    2
    0 Votes
    2 Posts
    1k Views
    B
    @willk_1230 unless you already have one there you should be able to. Post a save and we'll try and see what's up
  • This topic is deleted!

    3
    0 Votes
    3 Posts
    19 Views
  • Alagaësia

    49
    4 Votes
    49 Posts
    35k Views
    alkexrA
    Version 1.0 released, uploaded to map repository. Updated the first post in this thread to reflect this.
  • Axis and Allies 1914 Map

    3
    0 Votes
    3 Posts
    3k Views
    mezzaM
    @panther Thanks! Hopefully someone will be able to make a workable version.
  • Conversions to Version 1.9

    100
    2 Votes
    100 Posts
    77k Views
    RogerCooperR
    @rogercooper Everything I have has been converted. I will leave it to others to put these in the repository.
  • question about TWW

    Moved
    7
    0 Votes
    7 Posts
    2k Views
    prastleP
    @hepps gigglez
  • i need someone who can help me develop a new game

    Moved
    3
    0 Votes
    3 Posts
    2k Views
    RogerCooperR
    @seancb Can you post your rules & setup?
  • Unit Browser

    22
    0 Votes
    22 Posts
    9k Views
    MahksM
    @general_zod Got the support bonuses working: UBr Update Filters may be configured under "Settings" (Not 100% happy with those yet) The techAttachments do not look like they will be useful. Since they are dependant on whether the player has the tech or not, it would be hard to display, unless there is a popup with all techs switched on, but ... messy...
  • Global 1940 2nd Ed. Revised_Combat Move First

    2
    0 Votes
    2 Posts
    1k Views
    B
    @drbrunch Hi dr It's mostly a personal preference thing. NWO uses it. Their reasoning was for when you have AAguns shooting at air units during flyovers in CM, you would know before purchase if you lost any air. As far as the mod goes, if it's RD 4, Russia can attack regardless of the phase order. Suppose the Game Notes could be updated to reflect that.
  • WWII v3 1942

    5
    0 Votes
    5 Posts
    2k Views
    SchulzS
    @deltium I would like prefer to play the it via the lobby if possible. I don't know how to PBEM, I used to try it but I was unsuccesfull during the v341 tournament.
  • Non Combat Move - Disable issue

    3
    0 Votes
    3 Posts
    1k Views
    MahksM
    @general_zod resetUnitStateAtEnd fixed it thanks!
  • Terra Firma 1939

    40
    4 Votes
    40 Posts
    17k Views
    redrumR
    @oda Overall, definitely a step in the right direction. I think you have at least a good core unit set now and the infrastructure portion is pretty interesting. I think just layering on a few more of the features you have planned then starting to get some games going to test balance is a good approach. If you have any questions on the XML or would like feedback on any particular areas just let me know.
  • neuschwabenland flags mystery

    4
    0 Votes
    4 Posts
    2k Views
    General_ZodG
    @mahks To expand on above explanations. If the game located in C:\username/triplea/downloadedMaps/*gamename*/map is lacking an image or sound file. It will look in the following location. Which is the TripleA engine's installed location. The typical install location for the triplea engine and the "assets" folders are below. C:\Program Files/TripleA v.1.9.x.x.xxx/assets flags misc resources sounds units territoryEffects (this one is missing now?)

Recent Posts

  • @KurtGodel7 said:

    Germany sends four fighters and four dive bombers to attack a Soviet territory. The Soviets defend with 4 fighters. Neither nation can send more because they are both at the cap. (The attacker is limited to four bombers + four escorts; the defender is limited to 4 fighters.)

    Step 1: a dogfight between German and Soviet fighters. This lasts two combat rounds. Each side's fighters fire at their dogfight value.
    Step 2: Any Soviet fighters which survived the dogfight get to attack the German dive bombers. The Soviet fighters fire at their interception value, the dive bombers fire back at their air defense value. Destroyed units are removed.

    In this case, if you want to have all Soviet fighters firing both at the German fighters and (if surviving) at the German bombers and do not want to have different dogfight values for escorts and would-be interceptors, then I would say that the change which I would suggest to this system is having the surviving German fighters firing during step 2 too, meaning that (during step 2) the surviving German fighters fire against the Russian fighters with their dogfight value at the same time as the German bombers fire with their air defence value (meaning that this time any fighter downed by other fighters get to fire at the bombers anyway).

    To achieve this, the rule may be that on phase 2 up to as many surviving fighters as the number of enemy bombers fire at bombers with their interception value and the rest of the surviving fighters (if the surviving fighters are more than the enemy bombers, meaning them all if the other side has no bombers) fire at fighters with their dogfight value (or do nothing if there are no more enemy fighters at this point). Alternatively, the rule may be that all surviving fighters fire at bombers if one or more bombers are present and fire at fighters otherwise. I think the best would be having a prompt to decide how many fighters are firing at enemy bombers (the prompt being given only if the enemy has both bombers and fighters at this point).

    If both sides have fighters but no bombers, this would be the same as having an additional dogfight round.

    (The attacker is limited to four bombers + four escorts; the defender is limited to 4 fighters.)

    I really don't like the number limit and don't understand why having it.

    read more

  • @Cernel said:

    @KurtGodel7 Before I truly reply, it would be good to clarify if the dogfight phase of your system lasts until only the fighters of one side remains, or it is just a single round of fire in which fighters hit each other (so there may be fighters surviving on both sides) before the surviving fighters proceed hitting the bombers.

    What I guess is that it is the latter. Am I right?

    To keep it simpler, let's assume that one side has fighters and bombers and the other side has only fighters.

    This way, all fighters of the side with only fighters are interceptors (at least after the first phase), and all fighters on the opposite side are escorts.

    If my guess is correct, what your system is depicting is that there is a first phase during which the bombers are still far away, and fighters try to kill each other in fighters-only engagements (dog-fights) until this phase ends, I guess because they eventually reach the bombers or to represent that fighters can slip through and get to attack the bombers without having to down all opposing fighters first. When they reach the bombers, the dogfight phase ends because the escorting fighters stop firing once and after the enemy fighters reach the bombers, whereas the now intercepting fighters now fight against the bombers alone and get fired back by the bombers only.

    Of course, I get that the fact that the escorting fighters do not fight when the bombers fight is just because their previous fight is meant to cover this too for simplicity instead of having them firing twice (like the interceptors instead do, because they first fire in the dogfight and then again against the bombers). Right?

    In this simplified example, are the escorting fighters at least firing with a higher power than the fighters on the other side during the dogfight phase, in order to balance the fact that they are later doing nothing while the interceptors fire against the bombers (and I would say also because of the fact that the other fighters have to worry about getting to the bombers while they are fully focused only on downing the fighters should give them some tactical advantage)? My understanding is that they do not (right?), which would be arguably fine in a more symmetrical example like the case in which both sides have the same number of fighters and bombers.

    I think your system needs at the very least a dynamic by which fighters which are not going to be interceptors after the dogfight have a higher power during the same than the fighters which do, and I believe it is missing this.

    Is my understanding all correct?

    Okay. I will give an example.

    Germany sends four fighters and four dive bombers to attack a Soviet territory. The Soviets defend with 4 fighters. Neither nation can send more because they are both at the cap. (The attacker is limited to four bombers + four escorts; the defender is limited to 4 fighters.)

    Step 1: a dogfight between German and Soviet fighters. This lasts two combat rounds. Each side's fighters fire at their dogfight value.
    Step 2: Any Soviet fighters which survived the dogfight get to attack the German dive bombers. The Soviet fighters fire at their interception value, the dive bombers fire back at their air defense value. Destroyed units are removed.
    Step 3: if there are Soviet aa guns present in the territory these get to fire. Each aa gun gets one shot only regardless of the number of aircraft. It fires on a 2. Destroyed aircraft are removed from play.
    Step 4: If a German dive bomber was destroyed previously it doesn't get to attack. If it was damaged but not destroyed, it is aborted and doesn't get to attack. But if it's still at full health it gets to attack the land units present.

    This next part is very new, as in today. If a dive bomber is strafing a land target it gets a +1 bonus. Depending on the nation this can be upgraded to at least +2 with tech. Maybe +3. Likewise, a torpedo bomber gets a +1 bonus when attacking naval targets and, depending on the nation, it can be upgraded to +2 or even +3 with tech.

    Normally an air battle would have a maximum of four fighters and four bombers for the attacker, and four fighters for the defender. There are two situations in which the four air maximum does not apply: air defense against strategic bombing raids, and naval battles. If it's a strategic bombing raid, the attacker is limited to 4 bombers and 0 fighters. The defender can send fighter type aircraft to the raid without restriction. For a naval battle there are no restrictions on either side's air participation. If you want to sink a big fleet and you have 20 air, send all 20!

    The United States (both halves) has a tech called P-51 Mustang, which adds +2 to the range of its advanced fighters, and allows it to send a maximum of four advanced fighters as escorts for each factory it wants to strategically bomb. This does not make American bombing raids invincible, but it does make them a lot tougher.

    read more

  • @Vendetta said:

    @KurtGodel7 West Prussia and Posen should trade names on your map. Vienna's border is also drawn kind of wacky, that strip at the north should probably be part of Bohemia.

    I've added these things to my list. No more work on the list for the next 3 - 4 days, because I'm at 94% of my weekly usage limit.

    read more

  • @KurtGodel7 Before I truly reply, it would be good to clarify if the dogfight phase of your system lasts until only the fighters of one side remains, or it is just a single round of fire in which fighters hit each other (so there may be fighters surviving on both sides) before the surviving fighters proceed hitting the bombers.

    What I guess is that it is the latter. Am I right?

    To keep it simpler, let's assume that one side has fighters and bombers and the other side has only fighters.

    This way, all fighters of the side with only fighters are interceptors (at least after the first phase), and all fighters on the opposite side are escorts.

    If my guess is correct, what your system is depicting is that there is a first phase during which the bombers are still far away, and fighters try to kill each other in fighters-only engagements (dog-fights) until this phase ends, I guess because they eventually reach the bombers or to represent that fighters can slip through and get to attack the bombers without having to down all opposing fighters first. When they reach the bombers, the dogfight phase ends because the escorting fighters stop firing once and after the enemy fighters reach the bombers, whereas the now intercepting fighters now fight against the bombers alone and get fired back by the bombers only.

    Of course, I get that the fact that the escorting fighters do not fight when the bombers fight is just because their previous fight is meant to cover this too for simplicity instead of having them firing twice (like the interceptors instead do, because they first fire in the dogfight and then again against the bombers). Right?

    In this simplified example, are the escorting fighters at least firing with a higher power than the fighters on the other side during the dogfight phase, in order to balance the fact that they are later doing nothing while the interceptors fire against the bombers (and I would say also because of the fact that the other fighters have to worry about getting to the bombers while they are fully focused only on downing the fighters should give them some tactical advantage)? My understanding is that they do not (right?), which would be arguably fine in a more symmetrical example like the case in which both sides have the same number of fighters and bombers.

    I think your system needs at the very least a dynamic by which fighters which are not going to be interceptors after the dogfight have a higher power during the same than the fighters which do, and I believe it is missing this.

    Is my understanding all correct?

    read more