• RE: CrazyG's Big World War One

    @CrazyG Things like gas would probably need a new AA system in which you can have each AA hitting all targets and rerolling a number of dice for each target equal to as many AA you have (that at 1 hitpoint equals saying rerolling the dice). For example, with 1 AA on 10 targets you would roll 1/6 per target, while with 3 AA on 10 targets you would roll 3 dice at 1/6 per target. I think this would be a cool feature, that is currently not disposable.

    I suppose you, instead, are going for a system in which you can use only 1 gas unit each time? Sort of the reverse of how the basic AA gun of v3 work?

    posted in Maps & Mods
  • RE: Air Superiority

    @CrazyG I don't believe there is a current way to achieve what you described. The best alternatives are using either air attacks, AA attacks, support attachments, or a combination of them. You could do something like have air units have AA attacks against other air units (simulating them attacking each other for superiority) and have them support land/naval units to represent whoever has more air units giving more support to their land/naval armies.

    posted in Map Making
  • RE: Air Superiority

    @CrazyG This doesn't answer your question, but I would get rid of condition number 2, going for "air presence", instead of "air superiority". You don't actually need superiority to perform a good recoinassance, and the one who is inferior is probably already going to suffer higher casualties for keeping its presence in the air. Moreover, as long as it is support attachment, while air vs air is either by air battle or targeted attacks, you already need to have that single air unit surviving past those.

    Also, side note, what you are describing (only one side having air units operating in the territory) is air supremacy, not air superiority.

    Since air superiority is already rewarding enough in terms of making relatively more casualties in air vs air confrontations, I guess the aim here, from the description, is inducing the defender to have at least a few air units, to try to deny air supremacy, despite the unfavourable attrition, due to exposing oneself to air battles in condition of numerical inferiority.

    Though I think it would be better to make the defender stronger in air battles, then giving an air presence bonus to incentive the attacker to still use air, while exposing itself to higher air attrition.

    Anyways, I believe there is not a clean and proper way to do what you want, at least from a coding standpoint, so this is probably rather a feature request (to have support denial if an enemy unit is present).

    posted in Map Making
  • RE: Connected Empire: Contiguous Landgrab vs Can Opener Criss-Cross?

    @Black_Elk I suppose my second proposal would be very easy to implement, for a developer (I forgot to clarify it would be related to land units only). One would just need to check if all territories you can retreat to are all owned by the same power (as that is the list of friendly territories your land units came from). If so, that power will conquer the invaded territory, if the battle is victorious (otherwise, the units' owner does). All the exceptions would apply normally, for the conquering player (it would liberate it if originally allied, etc.). Other than this, it would also be better excluding not allied territories (this rule would not apply if you are coming from a territory you are Neutral with).

    Of course, this would be a feature request.

    posted in Maps & Mods
  • RE: Connected Empire: Contiguous Landgrab vs Can Opener Criss-Cross?

    @Black_Elk I don't think this topic really fits the Maps & Mods category, as it is not about a specific map. What do the admins think? Should this thread be moved somewhere else?

    Regarding the silly phenomenon of having "those patchwork checkerboard expansion patterns", I agree that, for example, it is really silly that in v3 the Italians may conquer a piece of Russia, and that they go ahead declaring it Italian territory, cause they took it (I can quite see Adolf Hitler face there). This would never happen, in practice, that the Italians go and conquer a piece of Ukraine and declare it Italian territory. The matter is even more laughable in maps like World At War, where you can see Russia turning into a chaotic mess of German, Italian, Romanian and Finnish occupation zones, like if it was the Scramble for Africa, and often the Germans getting a rather small piece of the cake.

    However, I don't really see a premium production for contiguous direct ownerships as a good, or even workable, solution to this issue, and it really wouldn't address the actual problem at its roots.

    Of course, this matter is, by definition, solved in the moment in which, for example, you make Romania a minor of Germany, so that all that Romania produces are German units, that will simply go and conquer in the name of Germany (and you cannot even tell them apart from the actual made-in-Germany units). This is substantially a lame solution, or not really a solution at all, that is closer just not having such other players at all, like in the basic games, where Germany would just be all that is Axis in Europe and Africa. Consequently, this is not going to solve the issue in the moment you want to define the various Axis powers more in detail, as you are probably not going to make Italy a minor of Germany, having and producing only German units.

    Maybe someone here would suggest creating predefined spheres of influence, so to practically have up to two instances of original ownership, one for each alliance. So that, for example, no matter who conquers Ukraine, it will always go to the Germans (it would be practically like saying that Ukraine is originally owned by both Russians and Germans, all Allies liberating it for the Russians, and all Axis "liberating" it for the Germans). However, I don't like creating pre-defined sphere of influence, to determine what conquers what, because, at the end, as we have seen in Europe, it is mostly who takes takes (and then some bartering). I wouldn't even trust the Germans actually liberating Italy, if they would take it back from the Allies (pretty sure they would set up a nominally independent puppet state)!

    I see two possible solutions only, to address the matter to a good degree:

    The first, and likely more complex, solution would be to allow for multi-powers attacks, where units coming from a territory owned by an allied can attack together with such ally, the owner taking for itself whatever gets conquered out of it. This would likely need to be coupled with rules enforcements against can openers (for example, blocking moving-through territories until the start of the turn of the new owner), so that you would, for example, use the Italians to reinforce German attacks, the reverse being impossible as long as the Italians don't have any ownerships next to a Russian territory (so this would strongly or totally limit the "patchwork" phenomenon). Of course, this would still allow players to turn the Germans as Romanian reinforcements, and conquer all Russia on behalf of Romania, instead, if starting at a point when Russia and Romania share a border. This could be solved by just defining hierarchies, in that, for example, Romanians can reinforce Germans, but not vice versa (I cannot see Hitler putting his armies under supreme Romanian command anyways).

    The second, and likely easier, solution would be simply having an option or property (or both) for determining that the conquering player is only secondarily the attacking units owner, but primarily the owner of the territory whence those units came from. This way, for example, if Italian units conquer East Ukraine coming from a German West Ukraine, East Ukraine becomes German too; or if German units conquer Egypt coming from an Italian Libya, Egypt becomes Italian too. This would need to define what happens in case not all units come from territories having the same ownership or all of them are sea borne (I would simply say that in this case the conquered territory goes to the units owner). Of course, this would create arguably wrong situations, as well, as there would be cases in which it may make some, or even more, sense for those units to conquer the territory for their own power, rather than for the one they were guest of, but changing the engine behaviour to this dynamic (as an option, of course) probably would make much more things right than wrong, thus improving historicity and realism, especially for maps having many contiguous allied players, like World At War or New World Order (of course not talking about changing those, but allowing new maps of such a scope to behave more sensibly, instead).

    posted in Maps & Mods
  • RE: Best game for AI

    @forthebirds I would think @Black_Elk might shed some light on this... as historically he has provided a great deal of input on games specifically designed with AI opponents in mind.

    posted in Help & Questions
  • RE: Best game for AI

    @Captain-Crunch Right on.

    @forthebirds The AI tends to play best on smaller maps that are close to standard revised and v3 rules. It does ok on larger maps that follow close to those rules like WaW/NWO/NML/270BC/Napoleonic. It does fairly well on most of Frostion's maps like Iron War. It performs the worse on maps that have unique/complex rule sets like Total World War, Civil War, etc.

    posted in Help & Questions
  • RE: Revised Tournament of Champions (ToC 14) -- St. Nazaire Raiders !!

    bayder (Allies) defeats panpal (Axis +8) in round 8 of a pbem game. Allies sealed Africa and the Med early with some first round luck and sacrificing the UK bomber. Germany could never quite recover from the lost income. Japan harassed USA's coastline all game, but was not able to advance far into Asia. Germany became isolated, and Allies surrounded Berlin, making its fall inevitable when panpal surrendered. Panpal, as always, was a gracious, fun, and fast opponent. Thanks for the game!

    posted in Revised Tournament Of Champions
  • RE: unloading bug

    @ubernaut I think this was fixed in the pre-release as it appears to be the same issue as https://github.com/triplea-game/triplea/issues/874.

    posted in Bug Reports