@husky81 said: One thing that worked well on the minimap, was showing it examples of "Good" play, and having it try to extract rules from what it saw. If you have any save files of completed games on world_war_ii_v5_1942, they could be useful. That's a great idea! Unfortunately, I've never played that map beside maybe once against the AI when @zjelcop was doing those AI challenges many years ago (and I don't kown anyone who plays it). I remember that it was one rare map which the Hard AI was playing quite well, whereas the same AI was much worse at playing V6 (which is the closest map to V5 by rules). To be clear, "world_war_ii_v5_1942" is a map, so you cannot play it unless in the sense of playing either of its games, but I know that you mean the "World War II v5 1942 SE TR" game of that map (not the other one) unless maybe you actually meant that you are interested in game-saves of either "World War II v5 1942 SE TR" or "World War II v5 1942 Second Edition" (probably not)? On a second thought, if this AI is optimized on V5, maybe it will be better to call it "WW2v5 AI" or something like that. Anyway, I'm overreaching.

@KurtGodel7 said: Take the Pearl Harbor attack for example. Japan brought 6 carriers with it to Pearl. Those carriers allowed it to have 8 torpedo bombers and 4 fighters present for the battle. Had there been a dogfight, those 4 fighters would have played an important role. (Fighters dogfight on a 3, compared to a 1 for torpedo bombers or dive bombers.) After the (nonexistent) dogfight, the 8 torpedo bombers attacked, doing 8 hitpoints of damage to the Pearl Harbor fleet. All this happened during the air phase. On Japan's turn, its navy came in to finish off the Pearl Harbor fleet. But, without those carriers, Japan could not have launched the air attack on Pearl. Still, sorry if I say something wrong, need more infos but... If I know that Us fighters can dogfight VS my japanese attacking planes so... I will try to attack Us fleet with naval units only, probably a lot of subs. I do not think india and Chine will purchase a lot of bombers so fighter won't be a valid purchase until usa has a strong fleet and move it across the pacific ocean so not before round ? 6/7 maybe ? Ite depends on map and other factors that I still ignore

Update: loading fills own transports first, allied ones only take the rest stats tab shows a total row per alliance with more than one nation battle calculator resets the chosen attacker when another nation's turn starts Thank you

@black_elk you are the only one. Help us BlackElk

Presently, the behaviour of the game when both sides lose all Soldiers is that the defender wins, and all attacking lords and relics are captured. I tend to think that that is a wrong behaviour, so I've opened an issue about it: https://github.com/triplea-game/triplea/issues/15090

@RogerCooper said: more sense to have the executive module set a broad plan and then the other modules figure how to execute the plan. I was thinking that the plan would be more emergent rather than preset if it was set by local processes, but maybe you're right. I will try both ways. The issue with global plannig i think will be getting the nescessary information to the executive and have it analyze that info appropriately without just simulating all possibilities (which isn't possible.) My account is drained of tokens now, so progress is on temporary hiatus.

@ubernaut cloudflare is comprehensive, IIRC you can toggle it so any new IP needs to do a captcha style challenge first. If we get attacked for real, then setting up cloudflare would likely be the only thing to restore the forum. OTOH, our data is what most people really want, I doubt very many really want to simply DDOS TripleA

@Vendetta That might be hard to implement in the engine.

@panther said The fact that the installation now went flawlessly shows, that the MS service behind is 'learning'. I agree. I am inclined to think that it is based on the number of downloads Microsoft has in its SAC database, too few and it is a risk, enough and it passes. So from our point of view, we will need to keep a SAC viable downloads list @cowey To confirm, please find out your friends TripleA version, I will guess it is 2026-10.16.15815 ? Just need the last 5 digits, so its probably 15815

@GREGOREK Yah, scrolling both edges sure is cool. I wish this could be possible in an actual (spherical) world (like ours) with some sort of projection, but unfortunately it is not (as far as I know).

@beelee I would suggest erasing the flags which is easy to do in Paint. There is no reason to have flags in unit images, as you can turn flags on with View/Flag Display/Small.

@VictoryFirst I replaced all references to "placeNoAir" to "place" and added <attachment foreach="$All-Players$" name="rulesAttachment" attachTo="@All-Players@" javaClass="RulesAttachment" type="player"> <option name="placementAnyTerritory" value="true"/> </attachment>

@ubernaut said: @malmessi no reason to be playing 2.8 imo I am playing 3.0 But still checking old 2.8 pdf manual and I was looking for a place to find all the changes joined together, the online game help is perfect

@alkexr hi gent, I’d like to report 2 issues 1: Saruman’s mountain troops are unable to pass through friendly mountainous territory to launch an attack. Is this intended behavior? same thing happens in mordor's turn when a non-mountainer tried to move and attack gondor. 2: i think the acient tower and acient walls and fortress are goood in old versions, why are u removing them? btw, i'd like to join the map test if u agree. thanks

@beelee said: right after I post this it starts working normally classic 🫡