• đź’€ Settlers: Fallen Empire - Official Thread

    maps thedog
    15
    6
    3 Votes
    15 Posts
    7k Views
    TheDogT
    Latest version v020 ready for download within TripleA. In TripleA Click Download Maps Button Click Installed tab Click ** Settlers: Fallen Empire** Click Remove Button Click Yes button to remove Click Ok button (Successfully removed) Click Close (To force the map list to refresh) Click Download Maps Button............................<= new players start here Find & Click ** Settlers: Fallen Empire** Click Install button Enjoy! Settlers Fallen Empire Manual pdf unchanged Settlers_Fallen_Empire_Manual.pdf v020 Sea Zone PU collection is now working as intended It currently requires the following steps player none=Neutral must be have an initial relationship of Neutral with the Player factions, see lines 6977 etc player none=Neutral start of turn 1 is changed to War, see lines 5913-5931 Define All-SZ (Sea Zones) & All-Players required for #4 foreach to work A foreach to convert currentowner = originalowner, this allows PU to be collected, see lines 5899-5911 (#1 & #2 are are a bizzare requirement that should not exist. ) Turn placementAnyTerritory True and False, allows placement of isAI unplaced Factories, makes for a better player experience (thanks to @wc_sumpton) Link to 1st post https://forums.triplea-game.org/topic/2467/settlers-fallen-empire-official-thread
  • Domination 1914 No Man's Land - Official Thread

    256
    1
    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
    1
    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
    1
    3 Votes
    4 Posts
    292 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on Github maps Missing from your list, but on Github maps Settlers: Fallen Empire Shogun Advanced Ansalon was superseded.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
    2
    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
    1
    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
    2
    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
    3
    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
    2
    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
    2
    1 Votes
    3 Posts
    2k Views
    B
    deleted.
  • Can we fix TWW?

    93
    0 Votes
    93 Posts
    56k Views
    ubernautU
    @lafayette [image: pumped-yes.gif]

Recent Posts

  • @KurtGodel7 I agree on not allowing Heavy Tanks a blitz move, I didn’t give it to them in my mod either. But the Medium not having it strikes me as a mistake.

    If the only unit in your game that can blitz is a 1 defense light tank, then blitzing is hardly even a useful ability to have at all - they just get left exposed and easily destroyed by a counterattack on your opponent’s turns. Even one lone infantryman has a 50/50 shot at killing the light tank.

    Infantry + Field Gun attacks at a 2 + 2 and defends at 3 +2 , while Infantry + Light Tank attacks at 2 + 1 and defends at 2 + 1. So the Light Tank is a loser both on offense and defense vs the Field Gun, and the extra speed isn’t making up for it if the unit is too weak to do anything once it has to fight. The only units a Light Tank can attack with an advantage at all are an unsupported AT Gun or another Light Tank.

    If you think the Light Tank ends up too strong from my proposal, you could nerf it by giving the AT Gun that debuff bonus against it as well (but you could balance it making tanks and AT guns debuff enemy light tanks on a 1:1 basis, since the AT gun will be a common filler unit).

    read more

  • @Vendetta said:

    @KurtGodel7 Yes, I recalled the MP division and that does put a cap on infantry production. I thought there was a chart somewhere in the thread that listed the starting MP/PU income rates for the different powers but I'm having trouble finding it again. That will be helpful to see again to figure out roughly what each power can buy per turn.

    If I take your word that 1 MP should be treated as worth 2 PU, then we can compute 1 Infantry + 1 Field Gun as being equivalent in purchase value to 1 Tank.

    In a 1 vs 1 + 1 matchup, the battle odds are pretty even - the tank has a good chance of winning if it manages to score a hit on its first roll. If it misses the first shot, it usually gets killed.

    However, because of your sticky hits rule, the more you scale this up, the more likely the tanks are to lose because they don't get to spread hits out among themselves to preserve their firepower. In a battle of 5 Tanks against 5 Infantry + 5 Field Guns, the infantry and artillery win 70% of the time when they're attacking, and 84% of the time when they're defending.

    The Medium Tank would probably become more viable at a price of 7 PU, or if it had its attack stat raised to 4 while defense was left at 3.

    The Light Tank is in desperate need of way to justify its existence, and I think I've come up with a solution for that.

    Keep the price at 5 PU, and and raise its default stats to 3 Attack / 2 Defense. However, give the Medium Tank (and the Heavy, Panther, King Tiger, etc) all a trait that causes enemy light tanks to drop by 1 attack or defense if they fight each other (to the 2/1 value they currently have).

    Now the Light Tank can actually be dangerous against infantry that doesn't have heavy armor support, but when it does run into real tanks, it turns into fodder.

    This gives Italy and Japan a reason to actually buy them, while still giving them a reason to want to unlock the Medium Tank as a replacement.

    I will mull your idea over.

    Generally speaking, I believe that mobility should come at a price. Not an exorbitant price, but a price nonetheless. If more mobile units had the same raw combat power as slow, plodding units, players would be foolish to choose the slow, plodding units.

    Take Japan for example. It has a very good unit mix for what it needs to do in China. It builds infantry and anti-tank guns for its cannon fodder. Field guns to provide some spice on attack. Heavy guns if it needs to defend something. Light tanks if it wants to mix offensive firepower with mobility. A light tank costs the same as a field gun, and they both have the same attack value. The light tank doesn't provide support, the field gun does. Offsetting that is the fact that the light tank gives you more mobility. I believe the field gun and the light tank are somewhat reasonably priced relative to each other.

    There's tech which improves the field gun. Working women reduces its cost to 4. Creeping barrage increases its attack to 3. You could make the argument that if the field gun has these technological improvements in store for it, why not have something good under the Christmas tree for the light tank? During the actual war light tank designs certainly improved, so that could be added to the game as a technology to research.

    At a cost of 5 and an attack of 2, a light tank gives you 0.4 attack per PU spent. Whereas a medium tank costs 8 and has an attack of 3, giving you 0.375 attack per PU spent. The medium tank gives you more hitpoints for the money than a light tank, as well as more defensive firepower for the money. But the light tank has an edge--however slight--for offense for the money.

    Also the light tank is the only unit in the game which can blitz. I'm not necessarily wedded to this idea. The thinking behind it is this: during the air phase, it's very easy for Germany to can opener against the Soviet Union. After the can opener, I didn't want some random Soviet stack to be hit hard by German tanks. If Germany wants to hit the Soviet stack with light tanks only, okay fine, whatever. I can live with that. But, it's possible my concerns in this area could be overblown.

    The Soviet Union has a tech called "simplify the T-34" which reduces the cost of Soviet tanks by 1 PU. Other than that, I haven't handed out any cost reductions for tanks. One thing to be careful of is this: I don't want tanks to become cost competitive with anti-tank guns for hitpoints for the money. A player should get more cannon fodder for the money with a slow, plodding unit than with a more mobile unit like the tank. Britain's Comet tech allows British tanks to attack and defend on a 4. I sort of want to keep that unique to Britain, in recognition of the fact that its late war medium tanks were harder-hitting than other nations' medium tanks.

    Whatever chart I gave earlier is probably obsolete by now. Here is a new one, describing incomes.

    Germany: 148 PUs, 16 MPs
    USSR: 210 PUs, 28 MPs
    Japan: 89 PUs, 8 MPs
    U.K. 95 PUs, 4 MPs
    Italy 35 PUs 6 MPs
    China 25 PUs 11 MPs
    America Pacific 101 PUs, 4 MPs
    America Atlantic 136 PUs, 10 MPs

    Bear in mind that the Allies except for China receive an early game nerf to income. The nerf goes away rather quickly for the U.S.S.R. and Britain, and the nerf lasts the longest for America Atlantic. The above table lists nations at their full income values, while ignoring any early game income nerfs.

    Also, those numbers understate the infantry/conscript production for Britain and the Soviet Union. Britain can research techs to give it free infantry each turn for Canada and Australia. Free colonial militia each turn for India. This maxes out at 8 free infantry or colonial militia per turn, 6 of which are for India.

    The Soviet Union's conscription tech maxes out at Conscription 4. Conscription 4 generates 20 free conscripts per turn for the Soviet Union, over and above the 28 it can buy with its PUs. In order to get the full 20 bonus conscripts each turn, the Soviet Union would need to hold all five of Moscow, Stalingrad, Gorky, Sverdiovsk, and Chelyabinsk. Each one lost removes 20% of the bonus. Operation Barbarossa is expected to reduce the Soviet MP income by about 7, from 28 down to 21.

    The Soviet plan is basically to have huge numbers of conscripts, and then to combine them with tanks, field guns, and heavy guns to enhance their firepower. The Red Army is very fierce on this map.

    Germany has some advantages also. At least initially it has air superiority over its eastern front. It can thin Soviet ranks a little by using dive bombers. The Soviets need to research some piston tech to realistically challenge Germany over the sky. Late game, Germany will have Speer's Industrialization. This causes German SPCs to produce a free Panther every other turn, in addition to their normal production. Germany's King Tiger tank is the best tank in the game--significantly better than the Soviet Union's IS-2. The assault rifle and Panzerfaust techs improve the quality of German Strumtruppen.

    read more

  • @KurtGodel7 said:

    Only China, the U.S.S.R., and Italy can buy conscripts.

    I get that the conscript is just a label to identify particularly poorly trained, paid and/or equipped troops in general, but the word "conscript" itself just identifies everyone who has been forced to serve in the armed forces, meaning someone who is in the armed forces but has not voluntarily joined the armed forces (as a volunteer, professional, mercenary, contract...).

    Asking the Google AI "During World War 2, what percentage of men from the United Kingdom itself who were serving in the British Army were conscripts?" (I'm trying to exclude the Indians and such, but I don't know if that did it.), the answer is

    During World War II, conscripts made up approximately 80% of the men serving in the British Army.

    For "During World War 2, what percentage of men who were serving in the United States Army were conscripts?", the answer is

    During World War II, approximately 61% to 66% of all men who served in the United States Army were conscripts (draftees).

    For "During World War 2, what percentage of men who were serving in the Japanese Army were conscripts?", the answer is

    During World War II, approximately 90% of the men serving in the Imperial Japanese Army were conscripts.

    Now, as I'm not sure exactly what a conscript is meant to be in your game, I'm not sure what would be a better word for it. I'm just saying "conscript" is not quite that word.

    (I know this might sound like quibbling: if you want to call them conscripts, it's fine. As I said, I don't actually have a better word to suggest you.)

    Also, I'm not sure if the German bodenständige Divisionen would fit into your idea of "conscripts" (guess not but just checking).

    read more

  • @KurtGodel7 Yes, I recalled the MP division and that does put a cap on infantry production. I thought there was a chart somewhere in the thread that listed the starting MP/PU income rates for the different powers but I'm having trouble finding it again. That will be helpful to see again to figure out roughly what each power can buy per turn.

    If I take your word that 1 MP should be treated as worth 2 PU, then we can compute 1 Infantry + 1 Field Gun as being equivalent in purchase value to 1 Tank.

    In a 1 vs 1 + 1 matchup, the battle odds are pretty even - the tank has a good chance of winning if it manages to score a hit on its first roll. If it misses the first shot, it usually gets killed.

    However, because of your sticky hits rule, the more you scale this up, the more likely the tanks are to lose because they don't get to spread hits out among themselves to preserve their firepower. In a battle of 5 Tanks against 5 Infantry + 5 Field Guns, the infantry and artillery win 70% of the time when they're attacking, and 84% of the time when they're defending.

    The Medium Tank would probably become more viable at a price of 7 PU, or if it had its attack stat raised to 4 while defense was left at 3.

    The Light Tank is in desperate need of way to justify its existence, and I think I've come up with a solution for that.

    Keep the price at 5 PU, and and raise its default stats to 3 Attack / 2 Defense. However, give the Medium Tank (and the Heavy, Panther, King Tiger, etc) all a trait that causes enemy light tanks to drop by 1 attack or defense if they fight each other (to the 2/1 value they currently have).

    Now the Light Tank can actually be dangerous against infantry that doesn't have heavy armor support, but when it does run into real tanks, it turns into fodder.

    This gives Italy and Japan a reason to actually buy them, while still giving them a reason to want to unlock the Medium Tank as a replacement.

    read more