• 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on Github maps Missing from your list, but on Github maps Settlers: Fallen Empire Shogun Advanced Ansalon was superseded.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
    560 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

  • @malmessi said:

    @KurtGodel7
    Ok, I need to know more about rules to avoid silly questions but...
    Bombers of each type... they can only bombard or can also partecipate to battles involving land(naval units ?
    Because when you say about your scenario, Russia is forced to purchase fighter thet will be used just to defend against Sbr, while (maybe, I am asking) german bombers can play battles.

    Also, if Ger has a lot of bmb, then Russia purchase fighter, and then Hitler move his bompers to Uk leaving Stalin with a lot of useless and expansive fighter (Russia will never be so rich to buy bombers so fighter will be useless)
    germany can force 2 different powers to spend on fighters investing less money (I dunno teh costs but 6 bombers will cost less that 6+6 fighters I suppose)

    Bomber attacks fall into one of three categories:

    Attacks against armies Attacks against ships Strategic bombing raids

    There are different types of bombers depending on the job you need done. Dive bombers are your best bet for attacking armies, and can also be used to attack surface ships. Torpedo bombers are great at attacking surface ships, and can also be used to attack land units or subs. Strategic bombers are at their best when strategically bombing, but can also be used to attack land armies. Medium bombers can be used against armies, surface ships, subs, or for relatively weak strategic bombing raids.

    Consider the air war between Germany and the Soviet Union. Neither nation is attempting to strategically bomb the other. Instead, each one wants to use dive bombers to strafe the other's armies. Unlike traditional Axis and Allies maps, armies don't get to fire back when being strafed. To the extent one side is able to assert control over the sky, it can use that control to strafe the armies of the other.

    To take the example you gave, suppose the Soviet Union builds a bunch of fighters to prevent Germany from having control over the eastern front. The Luftwaffe then exits the eastern front and goes elsewhere. This makes the Soviet Union happy for two reasons. 1) His armies are no longer being strafed by German dive bombers. 2) Now the Soviet Union can build dive bombers of its own to strafe German armies. For each dive bomber the Soviet Union builds, Germany will lose 1 infantry per turn on its eastern front. In my example game the U.S.S.R. had an income of 171 PUs and 22 MPs at the end of round 3. There's plenty of money in that for the Soviets to build some dive bombers.

    Think of the air war as being fought separately from everything else. Building air superiority aircraft is a big part of winning the air war. To the extent you're able to gain air superiority, you can use it to either a) inflict punishment, or b) defend yourself from the punishment someone else would inflict. The punishment being inflicted includes strafing armies, strafing surface ships or subs, as well as strategic bombing raids. Your bomber aircraft will always be able to inflict punishment of some sort, as long as they're in range.

    read more

  • @KurtGodel7 said:

    Take the Pearl Harbor attack for example. Japan brought 6 carriers with it to Pearl. Those carriers allowed it to have 8 torpedo bombers and 4 fighters present for the battle. Had there been a dogfight, those 4 fighters would have played an important role. (Fighters dogfight on a 3, compared to a 1 for torpedo bombers or dive bombers.) After the (nonexistent) dogfight, the 8 torpedo bombers attacked, doing 8 hitpoints of damage to the Pearl Harbor fleet. All this happened during the air phase. On Japan's turn, its navy came in to finish off the Pearl Harbor fleet. But, without those carriers, Japan could not have launched the air attack on Pearl.

    Still, sorry if I say something wrong, need more infos but...
    If I know that Us fighters can dogfight VS my japanese attacking planes so... I will try to attack Us fleet with naval units only, probably a lot of subs.
    I do not think india and Chine will purchase a lot of bombers so fighter won't be a valid purchase until usa has a strong fleet and move it across the pacific ocean so not before round ? 6/7 maybe ? Ite depends on map and other factors that I still ignore

    read more

  • @KurtGodel7
    Ok, I need to know more about rules to avoid silly questions but...
    Bombers of each type... they can only bombard or can also partecipate to battles involving land(naval units ?
    Because when you say about your scenario, Russia is forced to purchase fighter thet will be used just to defend against Sbr, while (maybe, I am asking) german bombers can play battles.

    Also, if Ger has a lot of bmb, then Russia purchase fighter, and then Hitler move his bompers to Uk leaving Stalin with a lot of useless and expansive fighter (Russia will never be so rich to buy bombers so fighter will be useless)
    germany can force 2 different powers to spend on fighters investing less money (I dunno teh costs but 6 bombers will cost less that 6+6 fighters I suppose)

    read more

  • @malmessi said:

    @KurtGodel7 said:

    The next step is to allocate fighters (including fighters, advanced fighters, and jets). These are air superiority units. They can only shoot down other enemy aircraft. They can never attack land or naval units

    Ok for a different approach but... this will decrease their utility. If I understood fighter can only help during Sbr (when defending or playing an attack) but not on land or naval battles... They should cost fewer IPCs...
    Res.Cen. are not located on the map so hey cannot be bombed, Aa can hit whan attacker tries a Sbr plus, structures located deep inside enemy's lines are very hard to be reached and bombed so...
    Also, Aircraft carrers, why should I still land planes (not defending) on them ?

    These are good questions.

    Imagine that Germany builds some dive bombers and Japan builds torpedo bombers. Germany plans to use its dive bombers to strafe the Red Army. Japan plans to use its torpedo bombers to attack the U.S. Navy.

    It's very difficult for the Soviet player to defend against this threat with aa guns. If he had 6 aa guns in a territory, those would automatically take out one German dive bomber. (The 6 aa guns would produce 2 hits, and a dive bomber takes 2 hits to kill.) The problem the Soviet player faces is that he might have several armies which would need to be defended against dive bombers. Germany can choose which army to strafe. Unless each army had a bunch of aa guns, Germany would just choose to strafe an army that didn't have a bunch of aa guns. Or he could strafe individual Soviet units which weren't part of a larger stack. Land units do not fire back against air, except for aa guns firing. Therefore, it's very tempting for bombers to strafe land units. Dive bombers are especially good against land units, but really you can use any type of bomber for this.

    The Soviet player has two options in a situation like this. 1) Concede control over the sky to the Luftwaffe, and absorb whatever damage the German dive bombers deliver. 2) Build air superiority planes, such as fighters, to fight back against the Luftwaffe.

    Suppose the British player decides to dump cash into strategically bombing Germany. There are a number of German factories within range of British strategic bombing attacks. If Germany wants to defend against this using aa guns only, it would need to have 9 aa guns on each factory territory within range of those British bombers. Those 9 aa guns would generate 3 hits, killing a bomber per raid. Germany's other option would be to put fighters on the "bomb Germany" theater, thereby defending all its factories at once. A fighter costs 10 PUs, has a dogfight value of 3, and takes 2 hits to kill. A strategic bomber costs 18 Pus, has a dogfight value of 2, and takes 3 hits to kill.

    There are three types of air theaters. Land, coastal, open ocean. To allocate air to a land theater, you need a landing spot within range of that theater. To allocate to coastal, you need either a land location within range of the theater, or carriers in that theater. For open ocean, it's carriers only.

    Take the Pearl Harbor attack for example. Japan brought 6 carriers with it to Pearl. Those carriers allowed it to have 8 torpedo bombers and 4 fighters present for the battle. Had there been a dogfight, those 4 fighters would have played an important role. (Fighters dogfight on a 3, compared to a 1 for torpedo bombers or dive bombers.) After the (nonexistent) dogfight, the 8 torpedo bombers attacked, doing 8 hitpoints of damage to the Pearl Harbor fleet. All this happened during the air phase. On Japan's turn, its navy came in to finish off the Pearl Harbor fleet. But, without those carriers, Japan could not have launched the air attack on Pearl.

    read more