• Trying to make War of the Roses Revamp

    36
    0 Votes
    36 Posts
    9k 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
    66k 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
    82k 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
    0 Votes
    62 Posts
    30k 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
    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
    981 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
    8k 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
    898 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
    866 Views
    No one has replied
  • 0 Votes
    2 Posts
    780 Views
    wc_sumptonW
    @slendymctendies All Cheers...
  • Hi Is there a way to print out a map?

    3
    1 Votes
    3 Posts
    911 Views
    SlendyMcTendiesS
    @rufy-0 In game under the "Export" tab, you can export a full board image "Export Gameboard Picture"
  • Remove building AA? (Factory, Airfield, Harbour) [Solved]

    6
    0 Votes
    6 Posts
    1k Views
    SlendyMcTendiesS
    @wc_sumpton Yeah, I initially wanted to figure out how to remove AA when disabled, but then I figured removing the AA capabilities of buildings would incentivize purchasing AA guns to protect them. I initially tried using "isAA" = "false", but this has the side-effect of making the game think it was an actual combat unit and therefore players could use them as sacrificial pawns and immediately deny the enemy their spoils if facing an overwhelming force, which was something I definitely didn't want either. You understood the original post correctly. I just decided to take a different route a day or two after posting.
  • World At War - V2.1.1 or 3.0 ? Game Unplayable

    3
    0 Votes
    3 Posts
    915 Views
    Falkon PowersF
    @falkon-powers Disregard, game as intended, I was mistaken V2 rather than V3 ruleset. Rusty memory on this map, been a few years... cheers!
  • PvP Scenario Review Thread

    34
    3 Votes
    34 Posts
    12k Views
    TheDogT
    @mattbarnes and others Any more reviews?
  • Middle Earth, Oil Wars, Forty Thousand

    8
    3 Votes
    8 Posts
    2k Views
    NinjaWolfHybridN
    @thedog I made a new map, thanks for the encouragement. It's called Alexander350 (world conquest set in 350BC). .zip in Maps & Mods, tell me what you think. It does use modern region names (Oil Wars map), and units from Middle Earth with only minor tweaks.
  • Added Relationship Types

    4
    1 Votes
    4 Posts
    1k Views
    TheDogT
    The PoliticalStateOverview.java file has the color coding for the three relationship archeTypes, meaning this functionality could be added but of course its not accessible from the mapmaking point of view. As there is no Devs working on TripleA at the moment this will not change any time soon.
  • d12 alagaesia

    3
    1 Votes
    3 Posts
    762 Views
    C
    @thedog tooltips.properties is what I was missing. I'll have to review that map further. Looking right off, arena has a very accessible xml file. Thanks for the welcome and help!
  • v6 connection error

    1
    1 Votes
    1 Posts
    593 Views
    No one has replied

Recent Posts

  • @KurtGodel7 said:

    Germany sends four fighters and four dive bombers to attack a Soviet territory. The Soviets defend with 4 fighters. Neither nation can send more because they are both at the cap. (The attacker is limited to four bombers + four escorts; the defender is limited to 4 fighters.)

    Step 1: a dogfight between German and Soviet fighters. This lasts two combat rounds. Each side's fighters fire at their dogfight value.
    Step 2: Any Soviet fighters which survived the dogfight get to attack the German dive bombers. The Soviet fighters fire at their interception value, the dive bombers fire back at their air defense value. Destroyed units are removed.

    In this case, if you want to have all Soviet fighters firing both at the German fighters and (if surviving) at the German bombers and do not want to have different dogfight values for escorts and would-be interceptors, then I would say that the change which I would suggest to this system is having the surviving German fighters firing during step 2 too, meaning that (during step 2) the surviving German fighters fire against the Russian fighters with their dogfight value at the same time as the German bombers fire with their air defence value (meaning that this time any fighter downed by other fighters get to fire at the bombers anyway).

    To achieve this, the rule may be that on phase 2 up to as many surviving fighters as the number of enemy bombers fire at bombers with their interception value and the rest of the surviving fighters (if the surviving fighters are more than the enemy bombers, meaning them all if the other side has no bombers) fire at fighters with their dogfight value (or do nothing if there are no more enemy fighters at this point). Alternatively, the rule may be that all surviving fighters fire at bombers if one or more bombers are present and fire at fighters otherwise. I think the best would be having a prompt to decide how many fighters are firing at enemy bombers (the prompt being given only if the enemy has both bombers and fighters at this point).

    If both sides have fighters but no bombers, this would be the same as having an additional dogfight round.

    (The attacker is limited to four bombers + four escorts; the defender is limited to 4 fighters.)

    I really don't like the number limit and don't understand why having it.

    read more

  • @Cernel said:

    @KurtGodel7 Before I truly reply, it would be good to clarify if the dogfight phase of your system lasts until only the fighters of one side remains, or it is just a single round of fire in which fighters hit each other (so there may be fighters surviving on both sides) before the surviving fighters proceed hitting the bombers.

    What I guess is that it is the latter. Am I right?

    To keep it simpler, let's assume that one side has fighters and bombers and the other side has only fighters.

    This way, all fighters of the side with only fighters are interceptors (at least after the first phase), and all fighters on the opposite side are escorts.

    If my guess is correct, what your system is depicting is that there is a first phase during which the bombers are still far away, and fighters try to kill each other in fighters-only engagements (dog-fights) until this phase ends, I guess because they eventually reach the bombers or to represent that fighters can slip through and get to attack the bombers without having to down all opposing fighters first. When they reach the bombers, the dogfight phase ends because the escorting fighters stop firing once and after the enemy fighters reach the bombers, whereas the now intercepting fighters now fight against the bombers alone and get fired back by the bombers only.

    Of course, I get that the fact that the escorting fighters do not fight when the bombers fight is just because their previous fight is meant to cover this too for simplicity instead of having them firing twice (like the interceptors instead do, because they first fire in the dogfight and then again against the bombers). Right?

    In this simplified example, are the escorting fighters at least firing with a higher power than the fighters on the other side during the dogfight phase, in order to balance the fact that they are later doing nothing while the interceptors fire against the bombers (and I would say also because of the fact that the other fighters have to worry about getting to the bombers while they are fully focused only on downing the fighters should give them some tactical advantage)? My understanding is that they do not (right?), which would be arguably fine in a more symmetrical example like the case in which both sides have the same number of fighters and bombers.

    I think your system needs at the very least a dynamic by which fighters which are not going to be interceptors after the dogfight have a higher power during the same than the fighters which do, and I believe it is missing this.

    Is my understanding all correct?

    Okay. I will give an example.

    Germany sends four fighters and four dive bombers to attack a Soviet territory. The Soviets defend with 4 fighters. Neither nation can send more because they are both at the cap. (The attacker is limited to four bombers + four escorts; the defender is limited to 4 fighters.)

    Step 1: a dogfight between German and Soviet fighters. This lasts two combat rounds. Each side's fighters fire at their dogfight value.
    Step 2: Any Soviet fighters which survived the dogfight get to attack the German dive bombers. The Soviet fighters fire at their interception value, the dive bombers fire back at their air defense value. Destroyed units are removed.
    Step 3: if there are Soviet aa guns present in the territory these get to fire. Each aa gun gets one shot only regardless of the number of aircraft. It fires on a 2. Destroyed aircraft are removed from play.
    Step 4: If a German dive bomber was destroyed previously it doesn't get to attack. If it was damaged but not destroyed, it is aborted and doesn't get to attack. But if it's still at full health it gets to attack the land units present.

    This next part is very new, as in today. If a dive bomber is strafing a land target it gets a +1 bonus. Depending on the nation this can be upgraded to at least +2 with tech. Maybe +3. Likewise, a torpedo bomber gets a +1 bonus when attacking naval targets and, depending on the nation, it can be upgraded to +2 or even +3 with tech.

    Normally an air battle would have a maximum of four fighters and four bombers for the attacker, and four fighters for the defender. There are two situations in which the four air maximum does not apply: air defense against strategic bombing raids, and naval battles. If it's a strategic bombing raid, the attacker is limited to 4 bombers and 0 fighters. The defender can send fighter type aircraft to the raid without restriction. For a naval battle there are no restrictions on either side's air participation. If you want to sink a big fleet and you have 20 air, send all 20!

    The United States (both halves) has a tech called P-51 Mustang, which adds +2 to the range of its advanced fighters, and allows it to send a maximum of four advanced fighters as escorts for each factory it wants to strategically bomb. This does not make American bombing raids invincible, but it does make them a lot tougher.

    read more

  • @Vendetta said:

    @KurtGodel7 West Prussia and Posen should trade names on your map. Vienna's border is also drawn kind of wacky, that strip at the north should probably be part of Bohemia.

    I've added these things to my list. No more work on the list for the next 3 - 4 days, because I'm at 94% of my weekly usage limit.

    read more

  • @KurtGodel7 Before I truly reply, it would be good to clarify if the dogfight phase of your system lasts until only the fighters of one side remains, or it is just a single round of fire in which fighters hit each other (so there may be fighters surviving on both sides) before the surviving fighters proceed hitting the bombers.

    What I guess is that it is the latter. Am I right?

    To keep it simpler, let's assume that one side has fighters and bombers and the other side has only fighters.

    This way, all fighters of the side with only fighters are interceptors (at least after the first phase), and all fighters on the opposite side are escorts.

    If my guess is correct, what your system is depicting is that there is a first phase during which the bombers are still far away, and fighters try to kill each other in fighters-only engagements (dog-fights) until this phase ends, I guess because they eventually reach the bombers or to represent that fighters can slip through and get to attack the bombers without having to down all opposing fighters first. When they reach the bombers, the dogfight phase ends because the escorting fighters stop firing once and after the enemy fighters reach the bombers, whereas the now intercepting fighters now fight against the bombers alone and get fired back by the bombers only.

    Of course, I get that the fact that the escorting fighters do not fight when the bombers fight is just because their previous fight is meant to cover this too for simplicity instead of having them firing twice (like the interceptors instead do, because they first fire in the dogfight and then again against the bombers). Right?

    In this simplified example, are the escorting fighters at least firing with a higher power than the fighters on the other side during the dogfight phase, in order to balance the fact that they are later doing nothing while the interceptors fire against the bombers (and I would say also because of the fact that the other fighters have to worry about getting to the bombers while they are fully focused only on downing the fighters should give them some tactical advantage)? My understanding is that they do not (right?), which would be arguably fine in a more symmetrical example like the case in which both sides have the same number of fighters and bombers.

    I think your system needs at the very least a dynamic by which fighters which are not going to be interceptors after the dogfight have a higher power during the same than the fighters which do, and I believe it is missing this.

    Is my understanding all correct?

    read more