@Cernel I don't think it is in the repository. I got it from the wiki anyway.

I actually downloaded it after reading his map thread!

@DaveBall068 said in Cold War 1965 - Official Thread:

@mattbarnes @Cernel The concept was for both sides to be able to launch nukes in response to each other, thus, ICBMs would need to survive the initial strike in order to retaliate. Think of them being in hardened underground silos.

Well, good to know and it makes sense (this is what I would say it should happen too if I were the mapmaker). However (as you can test it), this is not what it is happening. A pretty mandatory opening on this map, actually, is to use the USSR ICBM to attack Northeast United States. As long as the AA fire fails to kill the ICBM, this implies killing the two USA ICBM for free! Actually, they will suicide even if the attacking ICBM is destroyed by AA fire (but this is clearly a problem with program)! And this makes the map rather non-serious as playability, since hitting that 1 on the AA fire, when defending against the USSR ICBM, makes a huge difference (a huge lucky shot right at the start of the game) (but at least the bug that makes the USA ICBM suicide anyway tempers this).

Still, if defending ICBM would not suicide (for nothing) against offending ICBM, but would still defensively suicide against other units, then, as long as you are in range, you would send 1 air unit to cause them to suicide (as they are more costly of any air unit, comprising the movement 10 NuclearBomber).

@SkyGawker v3

@The_Good_Captain said in TripleA - a request from a player to a designer:

First, in both '41 and '42 versions of Anniversary, the official errata optional rule regarding SZ 16 (the Dardanelles rule) was omitted.

The problem here is that the TripleA program doesn't allow for having a direct setting that enables/disables a canal. This could be hacked in a number of ways, but probably should rather be a feature request for the program to support such a possibility, before changing any maps (so, one would need first to find a developer to add the feature to the program, another developer to review such feature, then someone willingly to modify the map's games, and, finally, an administrator accepting the changes (all this besides any considerations about copyrights over the existent map, whose creators are likely not all active any longer)).

Meanwhile, you can use my "WWIIv3 1941 Tech Advance" variant. Just be sure to customize it back to standard WWIIv3 rules, before enabling the "Canal Turkey" option.

Second, I know this is a map in development but the destroyer units in Europe '99 (“Europe - Alpha” map as its called in TripleA)

This (as well as "Pacific") is more like a map abandoned during development. It may be more than 10 years nobody is working on it.

@RogerCooper This scenario has been fixed can be downloaded

@Hidde2k You need to change the B in the version number to 2.

@Cernel Not necessary. Providing the link like you just did is absolutely fine.

@Marc-Sarzi Yeah it's a real bummer that simultaneous movement is not possible. You can do a lot with the xml, but there are just some core concepts that can't be changed.
As developers we're in a long process of modernising the code and TripleA itself in multiple areas, but core gameplay is simply not a priority. There are tons of more pressing problems to solve and simultaneous movement isn't just something one can implement in an afternoon. TripleA is open source after all, so if you're ambitious enough, at least in theory, you could contribute for this to eventually become a reality.

@Cernel For example, if I'm making a game that is not exactly "chess", I would call it "chess" if the ultimate aim is for it to be exactly like "chess", and maybe this is just impossible, due to the limitation of the program. On the other hand, I would not call it "chess" if it is a game inspired to "chess" but deliberately made different in some ways.

The best WWII maps are New World Order (European theater), Rising Sun (Pacific), and World at War (the whole world). They are all part of the same series. I'll focus on New World Order, as this is the one with which I'm most familiar.

The attached picture shows New World Order at the start of a game. Germany is supposed to expand quickly, conquering Paris on G3, and conquering most or all of neutral Poland by G3 as well. Early in the game Italy is supposed to conquer southern France, the Balkans, central and western North Africa, and potentially Greece. It's also supposed to expand into eastern Spain. Britain is supposed to expand in the Middle East, conquering neutral Iran, Iraq, and possibly neutral Turkey. There are no diplomatic or other penalties whatsoever for attacking neutrals.

Axis nations are Germany, Italy, Finnland, and Romania. Allied nations are U.S.S.R., France, Colonial France, Britain, and the U.S. Contested areas are Scandinavia (if UK or US go north) France (if UK or US go middle), Spain (if Britain or US go south) or northern Africa. Over in the east, Turkey can be contested between Britain and Italy. If Britain wins that struggle it will seek to advance into Greece and the Balkans. If Italy wins it will seek to take Iran/Iraq from Britain, perhaps even conquering Britain's factory in Cairo and driving Britain out of the east Mediterranean entirely. Sometimes Allies will go Kill Italy First, in which case Axis will often respond with Kill Soviet Union First. In this map Italy is at least as important to the Axis as the Soviet Union is to the Allies. To give you a feel for the scale of this map, it's perfectly normal for Germany to have an income of 130 and Italy to have an income of 80, and for Allied incomes to balance out Axis.

Starting on round 4 you will be able to build special, more technologically advanced units: harder hitting, long ranged bombers for Britain and the U.S., Katyushka for the Soviet Union, jets for Axis, big armor and bunkers and super subs for everyone. This map includes some land and air unit types not seen in Larry Harris maps.

alt text

alt text

@Frostion and @deanroy it is one of the reasons I love this map

@felizardo You should also check out the Fast AI. It plays almost as well and it usually much faster.

@RogerCooper Hi Roger, Actual Cernel answered my question for me. I had inadvertently left some of the original authors units in the unit folder. That is why they were appearing in "unit help". I think my version is ready to go.

@Michael-Hoover Very well spotted! (🦅👁) This is now fixed if you remove and redownload the map. There were actually 3 dragon notification mix-ups that I had to fix. 😛

Oh, that fixed it! I feel dumb now haha

The battle calculator stops working above 512 inf. Maybe changing it could improve things.

Sorry for not posting in a while. I'm currently quite busy. I'll post again when I finish the units, as there are a few things to iron out.

Thanks @Michael-Hoover for the notification. I appreciate that you came here to the forum and not just fixed your own local copy 😛

Yes, there was a flaw in the XML. Actually there were two connections in the XML between the two territories. But this was not the problem. There has recently been an implementation of “Air connections” to the map as an alternative to bridge connections. (Credit to @Cernel 👍) The two territories had gotten an air connection (even though it shouldn’t) and this was preventing normal unit movement. You probably flew over the connection but could not walk over it with another unit.

It should be fixed now when v1.2.8 Dragon War is downloadable/updateable.
I hope you return and notify if you find other flaws. 😉