• Gundam - One Year War

    9
    3
    2 Votes
    9 Posts
    4k Views
    RogerCooperR
    @luhhlz I was able to download sucessfully, so I will eventually put on github if no one else does.
  • Error when clicking on "Download Maps" button

    error download maps
    3
    1 Votes
    3 Posts
    1k Views
    U
    @thedog said in Error when clicking on "Download Maps" button: @unternehmer Im on Windows TripleA 2.5.22294, downloads work. So its probably your PC. I would deinstall TripleA and reinstal, hope that helps. Thanks for information! :folded_hands:
  • New blank map for mappers

    17
    1
    5 Votes
    17 Posts
    12k Views
    SchulzS
    The Northernmost Europe is also added. https://i.ibb.co/f8BhVvZ/National-Borders-1914.png
  • Proposed Map: Flames and Steel

    17
    1 Votes
    17 Posts
    4k Views
    RogerCooperR
    @kurtgodel7 said in Proposed Map: Flames and Steel: @rogercooper said in Proposed Map: Flames and Steel: @kurtgodel7 If you multiple HP units, where the damaged units take hits first, you basically have the effect of multiple 1 HP units with a weaker combat strength. Correct. Imagine a WWII nation doing a poor job of arming its soldiers. They lack heavy weapons, and can't do much against tanks. Many of them are not given any weapons at all, and are told to grab what they can from dead soldiers. They don't have much in the way of ammunition. In a real war, this would be a bad idea, unless this level of armament really was the best you could possibly do. But in a typical TripleA map, soldiers like this would be considered "conscripts." The ability to build them would be an absolute godsend for whichever nation was lucky enough to have them. They are the best of all possible best things: a cheap source of cannon fodder. In the rules set I envision, the ability to build infantry would be limited by a nation's population size. So yeah, you're getting cannon fodder through your infantry build. But any cannon fodder you want over and above that would have to come from some other way. Think about the difference between a tank and a piece of artillery. Both are heavy hitters, intended to do a lot of damage. But of the two, only the tank is intended to actually soak up damage. So, it's realistic to imagine a tank not just as a good source of firepower, but also as a good source of hitpoints. There are at least two ways of handling units with multiple hitpoints. There's the way which currently exists: all units with multiple hitpoints get injured before any of them actually get killed. Then there's the way I've proposed, in which one unit with multiple hitpoints must die before the next can be injured. This latter approach is a sort of nerf to multiple hitpoint units. In particular, it prevents battles from being too one-sided in favor of the victor. Currently, at least in most maps, all units have just one hitpoint, except for battleships and (in some cases) aircraft carriers. If however you nerf the multiple hitpoint thing, as I propose, then that opens the door to having a lot more units with multiple hitpoints. That in turn opens up a whole new area of strategic depth. Think about the technologies you've seen in TripleA. In particular, think about those techs which improve units. Normally you'd be improving their offense, their defense, or (in some cases) their mobility. All that's well and good. But what if you could also improve their hitpoints? Imagine a conscript: a unit which attacks and defends on a 1. In the type of map we're used to, a heavy tank might attack and defend on a 5. But, it would have just 1 hitpoint. If it's 5 conscripts versus 1 heavy tank, both sides would have equal firepower, but the conscripts would be 5 times tougher to kill. But now imagine if that heavy tank could have multiple hitpoints, reflecting the fact that it has good armor. Imagine if technology could unlock additional hitpoints for it. Now, the hitpoint situation just became a lot less one-sided. Moreover, the tech system got richer, because unlocking those extra hitpoints is one more option for your research effort. I would give the conscript unit an attack of 0. It would be useless attacking on its own. About right for the Chinese army and even some units of the Soviet army. I would hesitate to give a heavy tank more hit points. Any tank, regardless of armor is vulnerable without supporting infantry. A heavy tank trades off mobility for protection. Just make it a 4-4-1 unit as compared to regular tank as 3-3-2. There is a limit of how much tactical detail can be handled by TripleA.
  • Units and tech: Domination 1941

    9
    1 Votes
    9 Posts
    2k Views
    K
    [image: 1700805838844-ef87ac73-ced6-40e3-9b69-9a83102532a5-image.png]
  • TAW - Total Ancient War

    2
    1 Votes
    2 Posts
    933 Views
    ubernautU
    @falkon-powers missed this one sounds interesting
  • World War II v3 1941 Balanced Mod

    6
    0 Votes
    6 Posts
    2k Views
    Jason Green-LoweJ
    @beelee It is; I'll take a look. Thanks for the bug report.
  • Gundam - The Gryps Conflict

    gundam maps new maps
    1
    1
    0 Votes
    1 Posts
    2k Views
    No one has replied
  • Civil War 2028 - Official Thread

    6
    2 Votes
    6 Posts
    1k Views
    TheDogT
    For me its boring killing everything on the map, as it comes to a point when I know I have won, but I want the map to tell me have Economic Victory is probably the way to go. If there is a total of 300pu on the map then my formula is 300 x 66% = 200pu. For the losing side only having 33% of the pu there is usually no coming back. In xml terms you will need; <property name="Economic Victory" value="true" editable="true"> <boolean/> </property> <property name="Democrats Economic Victory" value="200" editable="true"> <number min="150" max="300"/> </property> <property name="Republicans Economic Victory" value="200" editable="true"> <number min="150" max="300"/> </property>
  • Trying to make War of the Roses Revamp

    36
    0 Votes
    36 Posts
    8k Views
    RogerCooperR
    @ted-self Uploaded to Github, https://github.com/triplea-maps/War_of_the_Roses_Revamp
  • Steampunk 1915

    6
    1 Votes
    6 Posts
    2k Views
    board 3659B
    @mattbarnes Caribbean would mean you need to take the Yucatan so you can even take 2 of the 3 Cuban Territories which allow you to try threatening the US South East. you would have to do it fast though before US builds up its navy b/c they have a huge naval advantage. Austrians can go down in Central America and usually sweep it. South America can be done once you go to Cuba and have the US pinned down to not be able to build a navy or once you take Yucatan. You go to Panama, or the Galapagos Islands (better choice) and take them. You move in position to then try to take Lima and reinforce it. If you can fight of a Martian Counter Attack, you basically build a factory to make gas and wipe out the remaining force or brute strength your way. Pacific can be done if you go south and Island Hop to some remaining German Islands. You have to reinforce Solomon Islands or get lucky that Samoa isn't taken. On Turn 2 your bring your force there and you can begin your Island Hopping ... remember reinforcements take 2 turns (going back to Mexico and back) and the US will not be threatened as a result. You can however with great routing, slow down Nemo Pirate Expansion or screw the British in defending south pacific. you can move to the North the threaten Japan if you want as well
  • World At War - Official Thread

    95
    0 Votes
    95 Posts
    63k Views
    L
    @fabulous-ferret The way it works is there’s the game engine logic (for all maps) and there’s the map files, so yes if one map has some feature, you can make any map can have that feature, by editing the map files (mainly the xml). You’d open up the two maps in a text editor and start copying stuff over. Anyone can do it, but I don’t know how difficult the diplomacy option is to implement or how tech-y you are
  • Trying to put age of tribes engine on alexander 350 world map

    147
    0 Votes
    147 Posts
    78k Views
    RogerCooperR
    @ted-self Read this https://docs.github.com/en/repositories/working-with-files/using-files/downloading-source-code-archives
  • Age of Tribes - Official Thread

    62
    3
    0 Votes
    62 Posts
    28k Views
    Ted SelfT
    @ted-self Hi, how are you? I was wondering how you made those wooly mammoths able to be captured? I am trying to do a war of the roses scenario and I have some royal units who need to be captured.
  • 🏛 Britannia: Roman Invasion v2+ - Official Thread

    maps thedog
    10
    2
    1 Votes
    10 Posts
    2k Views
    TheDogT
    Rounds 1-24, no TT owned, no units on the map. Then round 25, place them on the map. To me it does not sound a good idea, as players will avoid the new nations territory, knowing they will appear. The AI will not have a clue. But ...
  • Change Unit Ownership? [Re-opened]

    23
    0 Votes
    23 Posts
    7k Views
    SlendyMcTendiesS
    @wc_sumpton I'm confused about what you mean by players only being allowed "one" player attachment. You have two in your code example, yet it worked at the time. @wc_sumpton said in Change Unit Ownership? [Resolved]: @slendymctendies The following seems to work: <!-- Remove Capital Requirement --> <attachment foreach="$AllPlayers$" name="playerAttachment" attachTo="@AllPlayers@" javaClass="games.strategy.triplea.attachments.PlayerAttachment" type="player"> <option name="retainCapitalNumber" value="0"/> <option name="retainCapitalProduceNumber" value="0"/> <option name="giveUnitControl" value="$AllPlayers$"/> <option name="giveUnitControlInAllTerritories" value="false"/> </attachment> <attachment foreach="$Territory$" name="triggerAttachment_Germans_SurrenderTo_Russians_@Territory@_ChangeOwnership" attachTo="Germans" javaClass="games.strategy.triplea.attachments.TriggerAttachment" type="player"> <option name="trigger" value="conditionAttachment_Germans_SurrenderTo_Russians"/> <option name="when" value="before:germansEndTurn"/> <option name="changeOwnership" value="@Territory@:Germans:Russians:false"/> <option name="uses" value="1"/> </attachment> <!-- change military units canBeGivenByTerritoryTo --> <attachment name="triggerAttachment_canBeGivenByTerritoryTo_GermansToRussians" attachTo="Germans" javaClass="TriggerAttachment" type="player"> <option name="conditions" value="conditionAttachment_Germans_SurrenderTo_Russians"/> <option name="unitAttachmentName" value="UnitAttachment" count="unitAttachment"/> <option name="unitType" value="$AllUnits$"/> <option name="unitProperty" value="canBeGivenByTerritoryTo" count="-reset-Russians"/> <option name="when" value="after:germansPolitics"/> <option name="uses" value="1"/> </attachment> <!-- Give unit control Germans to Russians --> <attachment name="triggerAttachment_GiveUnitControl_GermansToRussians" attachTo="Germans" javaClass="TriggerAttachment" type="player"> <option name="conditions" value="conditionAttachment_Germans_SurrenderTo_Russians"/> <option name="playerAttachmentName" value="PlayerAttachment" count="playerAttachment"/> <option name="playerProperty" value="giveUnitControl" count="-reset-Russians"/> <option name="when" value="after:germansPolitics"/> <option name="uses" value="1"/> </attachment> <!-- Give give captured units Germans to Russians --> <attachment name="triggerAttachment_GiveUnitControlInAllTerritories_GermansToRussians" attachTo="Germans" javaClass="games.strategy.triplea.attachments.TriggerAttachment" type="player"> <option name="trigger" value="conditionAttachment_Germans_SurrenderTo_Russians"/> <option name="when" value="after:germansPolitics"/> <option name="playerAttachmentName" value="PlayerAttachment" count="playerAttachment"/> <option name="playerProperty" value="giveUnitControlInAllTerritories" count="true"/> <option name="uses" value="1"/> </attachment> Cheers... So what do you mean by players only having one player attachment?
  • How are the map files kept current in TripleA after downloading?

    2
    0 Votes
    2 Posts
    934 Views
    PantherP
    @poptech Once a map has been updated on the server, you usually will notice it by the "Updates Available" register to be found when you hit "Download Maps". You can then start the update from there. This applies to current pre-release versions of TripleA. I haven't used the old stable for a while, but here IIRC the updated maps are represented by the map name showing in italics. Hit that name and a button to start the update will appear. Note that savegames always run with the map-status at the time the game has been started. In other words: Updates of maps do not affect existent games.
  • UPDATED: Alexander 350BC

    23
    0 Votes
    23 Posts
    7k Views
    NinjaWolfHybridN
    @ted-self that's great. I don't mind. Today I noticed a missing connection between South China Sea and Arafura Sea. Modern canals (Egypt, Panama) were removed from 350BC, fyi.
  • New World Order

    2
    0 Votes
    2 Posts
    840 Views
    RogerCooperR
    @mrquadratic Checkout "New World Order Variants", which has neutrality as an option. You could also place a bunch of bunkers on the frontier, and then remove them when you are ready to fight.
  • Set Territory as Unclaimed? [RESOLVED]

    1
    1 Votes
    1 Posts
    593 Views
    No one has replied

Recent Posts

  • @alkexr I primarily play evil on the map. Currently, it seems to have too much of an advantage because of the multi-hit units and more units than in prior version. I suppose some balance changes are coming?

    Also, do ranged units still do a hit on flying units like they used to? If so, I think keeping flank is a must because that is pretty much one of the main strategies for evil to counter massed archers responding to flying nazgul/dragons. Also, having cheap goblin archers in a stack is probably one of evil's best ways to deal with eagle spam.

    read more

  • Hi @alkexr, thanks for the update!

    Hope things are going well for you and you can spend a bit of time on the map 🙂

    One question on the removal of mechanical variety. You are planning to remove flanking vs ranged but you want to introduce/keep/adapt charge vs. spearwall. This seems a little weird to me. I think I understand where you are coming from but charge is very similar to flanking in that it's mechanically different but not strategically (in your sense of the word).

    "Ambush" seems like an interesting idea to add a strategic option. It seems to be delivering what you want to achieve. "Scouting" on the other hand has the problem that there is no upside to it. It is purely a reaction while ambush has no downside. (And please don't buff the elven rangers even more by giving them another ability, they are already arguably the best unit in your map.)

    Retreating heroes might work well. I don't think it will make bringing a mage or a balrog the right move but it can make it less of a bad investement (in particular if the balrog can finally affect the foes it will actually be fighting). If dragons can retreat like submarines, though, they will be way too strong/unkillable imho.

    The changes to charge seem a mixed bag. I might be thin ice to comment without having seen/tested the prototyp but ithe new charge seems overly complicated for a mechanic that was very weak and easy to counter in the past (the targeted attack against them meant "charge" was a liability and it was better not to build chargers at all in many circumstances). The new charge is a lot stronger just by not making formation/spearwall a targeted attack (excellent change) but the rest seems very hard to keep in mind/consider when doing some rough calculations. It just does not seem to add much in terms of depth to balance it out.

    Siege was/is an excellent ability from a mechanical point of view imho. I would not make it weaker in caves and so on. It just adds complexity without much benefit. It seems this is targeting very niche scenarios or no scenarios at all.

    I hope you had a chance to look at my explanation on how to simplify the user interface/nomenclature for terrain effect and "tactic" modifiers without loosing any functionality. Some house keeping would really help on that front.

    read more

  • @djggml
    Do have a map.yml in the the_pact_of_steel folder, if not it sholuld look like this

    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}
    read more

  • Hi everyone! I forgot to post it here, but there is a new video where I talk about upcoming changes, mostly to unit abilities. Some abilities were removed, some are now affected by territory effects, and there are also some entirely new abilities, too.

    read more