• Domination 1914 No Man's Land - Official Thread

    256
    5 Votes
    256 Posts
    264k Views
    SchulzS
    Late fighters are balanced around with other units and techs.
  • Religions and beliefs

    11
    1 Votes
    11 Posts
    362 Views
    M
    @TheDog I have a specirfic TripleA version with some specific xml files for games like TWW and I have 2/3 curent games so it is not so easy....
  • 🏯 Shogun Advanced - Official Thread

    thedog
    26
    2 Votes
    26 Posts
    6k Views
    TheDogT
    @malmessi It is in game in the usual place Help> Game Notes
  • How to add to Big World Variations

    15
    1 Votes
    15 Posts
    3k Views
    RogerCooperR
    I put it onto github under https://github.com/triplea-maps/thehobbesians_1939. I will add to the in-game downloader tomorrow.
  • TripleA Maps List

    4
    3 Votes
    4 Posts
    291 Views
    RogerCooperR
    @TheDog said: @rogercooper Cant find Ansalon/Analon on Github maps Missing from your list, but on Github maps Settlers: Fallen Empire Shogun Advanced Ansalon was superseded. https://axisandallies.fandom.com/wiki/Master_of_Ansalon Settlers: Fallen Empire uses the Fallen Empire Map Shogun Advanced is under The Shogun Map
  • Middle Earth: Battle For Arda - Official Thread

    588
    3 Votes
    588 Posts
    1m Views
    R
    Interesting video, and welcome back! I think the changes are interesting. Regarding tactics I do think that having 5 levels is a lot. I think that @shorogyth 's system seems reasonable. I'd also pull the plains bonus out of the tactics system (call it "defensive tactics") and have a separate plains attack bonus. That way horses can have a bonus there, and rangers won't automatically be good attacking on plains. I know it's a third number, but I think it'll be less confusing than tactics being mostly defense bonuses but also one attack bonus. Also, can you have more than a +-1bonus on some terrains? I feel like most flying units would need more than a -1 bonus on caves, especially because tactics give them bonuses. I agree with the relentless issue. I think it's cool for some units to ignore your defensive terrain advantage, but they should be rare and therefore scary. Having basically all orcs be relentless is pretty silly and makes plains better for defense than cities. Regarding unit abilities, I don't think rock paper scissors is necessarily bad, especially because not all factions are equally strong in each. If each faction has different strengths and weaknesses, it forces factions to collaborate more, and stops things from snowballing as much if one faction falls. Eg Gondor would spam rangers because they have good defense bonuses and would kill the winged nazgul (thereby denying mordor's leadership), so you could send flanking cavalry from Rhun or harad to eliminate them. Elven archers were much stronger than the spearmen, but fell very quickly to wargs, which forced the elves to diversify more. In particular, Isengard had no ranged units, so Rohan's flank cavalry was especially dangerous since it would directly target the fires of orthanc, and so isengard had to spend a lot of effort screening its siege forces. I think ranged support feels reasonable. I like all abilities that encourage using a variety of units. Eg the galadhrim archers are one of the most powerful units in the game, but they require you to buy the weaker elven spearmen to unlock their full value. I like the change to charge, since before formation made those units a liability because you couldn't make them not charge. Eg the warg riders were essentially useless for angmar because of this and rohan suffered hard. I do like the new ambush mechanic since it encourages more diversity in unit selection. I do think it should be allowed in cities though (that was the whole siege of osgilliath), and the fact that only a certain number of units can ambush will balance it. I'm not sure I like scouting as it is though. If scouting eliminates ambush, then you just need 1-2 units with scouting in your army and you're fine. And if those units are otherwise useful (eg rangers) then it makes ambushers useless. Maybe scouting should be like spearwall? Just decreasing the effectiveness of ambush so it's less good but still useful? So maybe barrow wights would have an ambush of 6, then eg warg scouts could have a scouting of 2, rangers 3, and wizards 6x2 or sth? I feel like something missing in the game is some notion of hit and run tactics for cavalry. Cavalry is expensive and strong and excels at taking out small groups, but you often can't take advantage of this because if you do it exposes your cavalry to counterattack where they won't make up their PU values. Meanwhile air units can do this which gives angmar and mordor a big advantage. Maybe some cavalry could have an ability wherein they (and only they) can independently retreat after the first round of combat, even if there's a win? This still requires some thought, since if you don't have a win in your first round you have to decide if it's worth leaving your cavalry open to guarantee the win, and cavalry is still worse than flying units since they don't get the whole combat or a noncombat move. But it makes cavalry much more tactically interesting Also a general thought, but I think rangers need to be a higher tier of ranged unit. They have excellent tactics, mountaineer, high movement, anti-flying, scouting, ambush, support, and maybe more. And given the lore this makes sense, but also in the lore they aren't common at all - the Dunedain are solitary and dying out. So I think buffing them and treating them more like weak creatures than elite infantry would make more sense. And then you could maybe have some weaker version for gondor representing Faramir's rangers which are just elite infantry
  • Pact of Steel 2 mods for new Version

    6
    0 Votes
    6 Posts
    270 Views
    TheDogT
    @djggml So here is a working map.yml (remove the .txt to use it. map.yml.txt map_name: the_pact_of_steel games: - {game_name: Pact of Steel, file_name: pact_of_steel.xml} - {game_name: Pact of Steel 2, file_name: pact_of_steel_2.xml} - {game_name: Pact of Steel 233, file_name: pact_of_steel_233.xml} Note it has the version line removed.
  • Warcraft: Lordaeron Wars - Official Thread

    37
    8 Votes
    37 Posts
    24k Views
    Z
    @gr8gamerguy It has certainly been a long time since I worked on this project but I really want to finish it and condensed things down. With the advent of chatgpt I think ill come to finish it. (In case you ever see this message, thank you for all.the big reports)
  • Jurassic v2.0

    39
    3 Votes
    39 Posts
    12k Views
    G
    UPDATED: http://john.gregorek.com/Games/Generic.zip Added caveER_png to help identify territories for removal/addition. Shifted place_txt values to represent top-left corner of unit images. Corrected polygons_txt fragments for defining territories across map borders. Not happy with glyph branding. It's optional. Still have an issue with border fragments that requires your inspection. The reliefTiles hide the map border edge well, but note the dinosaur has been beheaded. [image: tripleAbeheaded.png]
  • WW1 contour baseline map 4000px

    16
    3 Votes
    16 Posts
    8k Views
    SchulzS
    I like maps that are aesthetically pleasing to look at. Map rotations, curves, extreme squeezings/stretches, and abnormally big Scandinavia, Eastern Europe, or Africa are just not good. Standard maps aren't suitable either because they make Europe too small. It’s better to use an equirectangular projection, get rid of all the unpleasant stuff I listed, and subtly shrink non-European territories.[image: wwi_more territories.png]
  • world_war_ii_v5_1942 is incorrectly linked and installed

    15
    1 Votes
    15 Posts
    5k Views
    PantherP
    I can confirm that it downloads fine now. That already was a good example for the workflow. Thank you
  • Power of Politics 1914 : A WWI scenario

    264
    6 Votes
    264 Posts
    292k Views
    ubernautU
    @RogerCooper @thedog i was thinking i might try to recruit @wc_sumpton to help us but the basic problem is the version that we have does not appear to be very far along compared to some of the posts so it’s kind of hard to tell what they were thinking with the map also some of the territories are sort of microscopic i think there might be a problem with unit stacking as it stands as well
  • Churchills 1939

    1
    0 Votes
    1 Posts
    562 Views
    No one has replied
  • Proposed Map: Domination 1941

    498
    2 Votes
    498 Posts
    784k Views
    TheDogT
    @Schulz Been a while. If you want to use this threads map you are welcome to use it. It is used in 1941 Global Command Decision, but be aware it has nearly 800 locations so is probably best for solo play.
  • War Plan Red-Orange

    10
    4 Votes
    10 Posts
    3k Views
    M
    Another update, version 0.3.0! [image: 0.3.0 jpg smaller.jpg] The technology system has been reworked, every country now has a unique ladder of techs to climb and you unlock tech with tech tokens. Plus, the Portuguese and the Dutch have been added! Download it here: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1EowcYb0cA0qfcVIqZaasKfUgzp_aBd9G?usp=drive_link Download instructions: Download the “war_plan_red_orange” folder contained in the link Add this to C:/Users/(your username)/triplea/downloadedMaps Once you hit “select maps” in TripleA, the file should automatically be unzipped and it should just work. If you are still running into issues, please report them to me! Also, we have a Discord server now! https://discord.gg/78EEWmuK7C
  • World War II V6 - Balanced

    1
    1 Votes
    1 Posts
    614 Views
    No one has replied
  • East & West

    7
    3 Votes
    7 Posts
    3k Views
    RogerCooperR
    This is now available through the in-game downloader.
  • Global 40 Expansion UHD Boxes Recorded Games

    3
    1 Votes
    3 Posts
    1k Views
    B
    deleted.
  • Can we fix TWW?

    93
    0 Votes
    93 Posts
    56k Views
    ubernautU
    @lafayette [image: pumped-yes.gif]
  • World War 1914 Larry Harries Does Not Work Plus Question

    18
    2 Votes
    18 Posts
    1k Views
    VictoryFirstV
    @tonymez said in World War 1914 Larry Harries Does Not Work Plus Question: Why doesn't this map work>? It used to years ago. If you are saying this, that means you are talking about World War I 1914. My module for WWI 1914 exists since December 2th 2024. That's 1.5 years ago. World War I 1914 exists since December 3th 2022. That is 3.5 years ago. I think it is worth it to upgrade to 2.7. It is faster and handles the game folders better. I upgraded to 2.7 because I got error messages with 2.5 when opening maps all the time. With 2.7, I have never gotten an error message since. Download here the latest pre-release: https://github.com/triplea-game/triplea/releases/tag/2.7.15447 Download here the version I am using (which I get the least error messages with): https://github.com/triplea-game/triplea/releases/tag/2.7.14971

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. It 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