• 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 Do you have the full tech trees written up yet or are they still work in progress?

    read more

  • @Cernel said:

    @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.

    Some thoughts on this.

    For America Pacific, the final strategic bombing tech is the Superfortress. A Superfortress is a special unit: an SPC produces one every two turns. For normal bombers--i.e., those which can be purchased with PUs--the final bomber is the Liberator for America Pacific and the Flying Fortress for America Atlantic.

    Some of my techs have anachronistic names. Japan needs to research "Kate" tech, even though it already had Kates as of June 1941. The U.S.S.R. needs to research "KV-2" tech, even though it had KV-2s in June 1941. I hate wasting opportunities to give players tech to research. In any case, and in answer to your question, both halves of America are able to build strategic bombers at the start of the game. But those strategic bombers don't get upgraded into Flying Fortresses or Liberators until the U.S. has researched tech. Another anachronism, granted.

    read more

  • 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