Group Details Private


"TripleA" Moderators Group

  • RE: TOTAL GLOBAL WORLD WAR II- fusion & clean-up PROJECT

    @ebbe Especially since this seems to be a so much very rare case of a map getting territory names right (you even spelled "Rumania" correctly, first TripleA game I see), I really hate to see the name "Benelux". That is a construct that I don't believe existed in a WW2 map or before (let me know if I'm wrong). I took a look at Wikipedia (of course), and it says that the term was invented in 1944 (which is several years after your starting time), but I think anyone will really associate such a name with post-WW2 reconstruction. I don't think I would use it anyways, as I don't feel it is a map name.

    I think any time you have multiple countries per territory, you can just name the most important country (you have Switzerland, not Switzerland Liechtenstein), so I suggest calling the territory as "Low Countries" (instead of "Benelux").

    Also, technically, "Belgium" is part of the "Low Countries", in a wider sense of the term. Besides, "Netherlands" (like Spain and a others) is a wrongly named country, that should have really been called "Northern Low Countries" since Belgium seceded.

    Wondering whether Roma is in North Italy or South Italy. Anyways, North Italy was way more important than South Italy: It should be more than twice the value of South Italy.

    posted in Map Making
  • RE: Usage of "Submarines Defending May Submerge Or Retreat"?

    @Trevan Yeah, this is a very old problem. V1.III is not something I can be sure, but I'm almost sure you should be able to submerge regardless whether or not you are able to retreat.

    As far as "Submersible Subs" goes, my suggestion was to keep the name as an archeproperty and split it into a series of new properties.

    posted in Development
  • RE: Testing Help Needed for 2.3 - 1.8 maps will be back!

    With all of the above being said, now that 1.8 maps are supported again, help is needed to ensure that we have all of the legacy 1.8 rules correctly ported in the code and that we're not missing anything.

    posted in Announcements
  • RE: Testing Help Needed for 2.3 - 1.8 maps will be back!

    @RogerCooper The way the XML export was being done was not sustainable. In combination we were getting a decent number of bug reports of players playing 1.8 maps that were crashing on them and there is a desire to expand and simplify the XML structure. With all that being the case, in 2.3 we have redesigned the architecture of how map XML parsing is done.

    The new design introduces an intermediate step into the parsing that allows us to more easily create XML tag aliases and is bi-directional so we can read and write XML data from a single data structure. This was certainly in part inspired by the bug report you submitted: A surgical fix there would not be worth that much as it's unlikely for it to remain correct, hence a deeper fix where the system can just export data natively from the intermediate format that is used to also read data. This will help ensure that the read and write paths of XML stay in sync since the data structure is now unified, it is bi-directional.

    With all that being said, the export functionality will hopefully be expanded, but in the meantime we now have the capability to instead of saying "1.8 maps do now work", they can now work.

    There is some history behind this as previously there was a somewhat broken strategy for all maps to always work. Essentially the game bundled all previous versions of the game in itself and would launch old game versions. This was a bit of a broken strategy as there is not enough information to always know exactly which version to launch, and beyond that there were other issues. As of 1.9 we dropped this as that functionality had some major breakages where the fix really was beyond the capabilities of that design (so we dropped it and decided to do a hard-cutover of maps). Now as of 2.3, we can support changes and differences in the XML natively and with far less intrusion. The two layer approach allows for the lowest XML layer to deal with tags that might be spelled differently and unify this for the next layer. This means changes to at least the XML spelling is isolated to one layer that now has automatic testing. This implies we can make changes there, they are now isolated and no longer require manual regression testing where we verify that hundreds of maps still can be loaded, that is done automatically now. Furthermore, this opened a door for bi-directionality where no only can we read from this layer, but we can write to it as well.

    posted in Announcements
  • RE: Big World 3

    @Schulz First things that come to my mind:

    • Now you see that the game looks good also without relief tiles.
    • I would split Germany in West and East about on the post war borders.
    • I suggest removing the Tambov zone, giving its area to the zones around it, so to make them bigger (those territories are really too small), or anyway remove 1 or 2 zones around there, to make the remaining zones bigger.
    • No idea what you are planning for that lake east of Stalingrad, but I don't think you can really represent rivers at this scope and, in case, that lake should be connected to the Caspian sea.
    • Yugoslavia (here called Balkans) was really not dominated by the Italians (the Italian protectorate over Croatia was a joke), so it would be more realistic as a German territory.
    • Even though the Italians controlled most of Greece, I think the Germans were getting most money out of it, but this would need research.
    • The Black sea divided into 3 west to east looks too much split with respect to the sea zone dimensions elsewhere (is the Black Sea going to be as wide as the Atlantic Ocean?).
    • About German Trieste (on whatever), I get that you want the Germans to be able to place ships in the Mediterranean, but this is exactly what they were not able to do, so I don't like any such "No Man's Land" style historical absurdities for gameplay (there should be a limit).
    • The sahara didn't allow to move like that, as there were almost impassable zones, so movement of major units was mostly limited to the coastline: I suggest merging El Alamein and W.Desent into a single territory, since they are also too small, and make this territory not connected to Sudan, at least.
    • You can have Tunisia as a single territory.
    • Make Gibraltar as big as feasible if Iberia is just impassable (thus useless space).
    • Sicily and especially Malta should probably not be adjacent to the same sea zone as Gibraltar.
    • I find very inopportune to put as much as two sea zones between Britain and western Europe, since that is a strait that should, rather, allow direct movement of air units (I don't think it can make sense that, from N.France, only movement 6 air units can bombard Britain, which is the same distance as between Britain and Germany).
    • Not a fan of the Guadalcanal land connection.
    posted in Map Making
  • RE: quick save button

    @SilverBullet ctrl s is the only one I know of. gotta hit enter 3 times too

    posted in Feature Requests & Ideas
  • RE: quick save button

    @ff03k64 well i like to manually save in case the room or saves go missing.

    posted in Feature Requests & Ideas
  • RE: Is there a way to make a permanent host using a VPS serivce?

    That IllegalArg is likely the bot trying to connect to lobby. Do you know which URI you have configured for the lobby?

    The arg for lobby URI should be something like "triplea.lobby.uri" with value ""

    posted in Player Help
  • quick save button

    many of my video games have a "quick save" button that i use before and after boss fights,,, do we have that or can we get that? F5 or F9 are popular "quick save" keys.

    posted in Feature Requests & Ideas