North Africa - TripleA Module
-
ps. @victoryfirst said in North Africa - TripleA Module:
As for the name of the game, I am not a fan of adding "World War II" as the majority of the games have this. It will become buried in the list of available maps among all the other ones that also have World War II. My idea is to call it A&A North Africa or AnA North Africa so that everyone knows it's based on the Axis and Allies game (and thus WW2).
For the naming conventions, I think everyone has just followed the rubric that Veq laid out for out for this stuff about 10 years ago.
If the game has "World War II" written out fully with a Roman numeral that indicates it's an OOB scenario, or using one of the base maps for that, whereas if it's abbreviated with an Arabic numeral "WW2" that indicates a custom scenario using an original concept set during that time period or with a WW2 theme. The v indicates which ruleset OOB. v1 is Classic (second/third edition), v2 is Revised, v3 is AA50 and so on, at least for the midscale boards. Global I guess was it's own beast, and also because that game is a combination of two boards, Pacific and Europe. v5/v6 and Global are understood to be basically the same ruleset.
I guess if there is a new ruleset introducing novel mechanics, say an entirely new class of unit is introduced, it should probably feature a v7 maybe? Although the tactical boards are sorta different I suppose. I think the whole v = game edition convention could get confusing if it's not associated with one of those midscale boards that are like era defining. I guess other examples would be stuff like World War II D-Day, or Pacific/Europe 2000, which are all v1 rules, though that's not really specified, since they came out before Revised which didn't drop until 2004. We didn't really get many new tactical scenario boards again until after the big change over to the v3 ruleset with defenseless transports, cheaper bombers etc introduced in AA5 and carried into v4 spring 1942. I think the issue there for v5/v6/Global is that those are not really different rulesets, or at least not in the way that say v3 was different Revised, or Revised from Classic. So I don't really know, I feel like v7 would be logical, since it's the next board to release after 1941 and the first new board since like 2012, unless we count Zombies hehe.
I don't know though, this stuff was established around the time when the engine was separated from the specific scenarios. Prior to that they were part of the base download, with somewhat more familiar names, but had to be removed and relegated to a separate depot only available locally, probably because of GTO, although that spot has been defunct for like a decade or more now it's probably good form to avoid stepping on toes with the OOBs. I think what's missing is something like the word "Mod" in the game titles, for scenarios which modify one of the OOB maps, since there are quite a few of those and that might help for the clustering together. Of course it's always sorta of a can of flying wyrms right, anytime names come up it's hard settle on. Or I find that to be the case for me at least. I always pick kinda goofy sounding names hehe
I wish I had more time lately for tipleA, just kinda pinballing around and into 2025 so not sure I'll be much help, but hopefully it's fun!
-
@black_elk Axis & Allies & Zombies does quality to be v7. If you remove the Zombies it has a significant difference from v6, the introduction of personnel centers in India & China that can only build infantry.
I am not found of many scenarios starting with "World War II" which can make it hard to locate a scenario. The TripleA versions of Axis & Allies: D-Day have started with "D-Day". I suggest that we continued to use "North Africa".
-
@domanmacgee There is no mod for Battle of the Bulge.
-
@black_elk said in North Africa - TripleA Module:
ps. @victoryfirst said in North Africa - TripleA Module:
As for the name of the game, I am not a fan of adding "World War II" as the majority of the games have this. It will become buried in the list of available maps among all the other ones that also have World War II. My idea is to call it A&A North Africa or AnA North Africa so that everyone knows it's based on the Axis and Allies game (and thus WW2).
For the naming conventions, I think everyone has just followed the rubric that Veq laid out for out for this stuff about 10 years ago.
If the game has "World War II" written out fully with a Roman numeral that indicates it's an OOB scenario, or using one of the base maps for that, whereas if it's abbreviated with an Arabic numeral "WW2" that indicates a custom scenario using an original concept set during that time period or with a WW2 theme.
I did not know that "WW2" was generally usable by whoever was making a completely original World War 2 game. I assumed that was for custom modifications of "World War II" maps, so (for example) "WW2" was just indicating that the game was a modification of a "World War II" game, not a game set in World War 2 regardless.
Examples:
WW2 V3 Build Caps & Upkeep
WW2v3_11N
WW2v3_Variants
ww2v4_variants
WW2v5 Variants
ww2v6_variantsAre you saying that "Total World War" could (and maybe should) have been called "WW2 Total"? I'm very much doubtful.
However, I think that you are misusing the term "OOB". For example, Revised LHTR is not OOB, yet it is called "World War II Revised LHTR", and I'm quite certain that is not a mistake, so the usage of "World War II" does not depend on being OOB, meaning that all OOB games are "World War II", but not all "World War II" games are OOB (an other example being the various alpha of the first edition of the 1940 series).
With reference to
https://triplea-game.org/maps-list/maps/
what do you think about these names:
World War II Empty Start
World War II Global 1940 Ryuzaki Setup
World War II v3 1941 Balanced Mod
Zombies-World War 2Am I understanding correctly that they are in violation of the principle which you detailed?
In particular, "Zombies-World War 2" is neither "World War II" nor "WW2" as written and has also the oddity of having that part at the end of the name instead of at the start of it as usual.
Should have it been called "World War II Zombies" or "WW2 Zombies"?
Also, how about "wwi1939"?
-
@cernel I was asked to call it Zombies-World War 2. I want to call it World War II v7.
Names have been handled inconsistently. There are too many scenarios starting with W.
There are also some sorting issues with names. Case should be ignored when sorting. Currently "wwi1939" is the end of the list.
-
Yeah I mean that could be too. It's all a bit over my head, plus I wasn't really around when that all went down so not really sure if its consistent.
I imagine that maybe those other entries just didn't exist at the time when Veq and Bung put stuff together and did the names for whatever was available at the time. I think Roger made a good point about v7 for zombies and something else for the tacticals, cause that makes sense.
I think problem is that if there is a prefix then that will group stuff together in a column, but if it comes at the end of the name, then that breaks up those clusters and kinda excacerbates the difficulty of finding related stuff even further. Not sure what's best. I don't think it was designed initially to be particularly convenient for new users browsing, unless one already knows what they're looking for. I think the idea was to highlight or topline the custom stuff that's powered by the rulesets, whereas the actual OG boards sorta grouped together near the bottom of the list. OOB was just the way I refer to those scenarios, I don't think it's consistent in the list, but just sorta a shorthand.
-
Some xml questions, why so many different infantry, tanks, trucks, etc... All infantry are 2/3/1 their cost may be different, players can buy the same unit at different cost.
<productionRule name="buyItalianInfantry"> <cost resource="PUs" quantity="2"/> <result resourceOrUnit="infantry" quantity="1"/> </productionRule>Doing this will help because only 1 unit needs to be defined.
Why are all units considered constructions?
These are just a few.
Cheers...
-
@wc_sumpton That is only partially correct.
Italian Infantry are 2-cost/2-attack/2-defense.
French Infantry are placed and move immediately (despite being owned by the Americans). Additionally, they do not consume supply when fighting like other units do.
I believe all units were designated as Constructions as a band-aid fix due to the nature of this game. There are no ICs ("factories" as we call them in TripleA) here. Rather, units are built in a number of different locations dependent on circumstances:
-
Most units go in the "Convoy Zones", are staged there for the following round (where they can be attacked by enemy units), and are then deployed to the relevant territory on the first phase of the controlling player's next turn.
-
Naval Units go in designated locations on the map. I don't remember them all off the top of my head but they are specified in the XML. You cannot but ICs in Sea Zones as far as I'm aware.
-
Some special case units (the French and land/sea mines) go in a number of locations depending on certain conditions.
-
-
@domanmacgee said in North Africa - TripleA Module:
ou cannot but ICs in Sea Zones as far as I'm aware.
I'm guessing you mean build here. I'm not entirely certain but i think one can. If that's what you meant
Welcome to the site
-
Thank you for your kind and quick response!
@domanmacgee said in North Africa - TripleA Module:
Italian Infantry are 2-cost/2-attack/2-defense.
Cost is handled through purchase, differences in attack/defense/movement can be changed through techAdvance, as was done with Japanese Cruiser/Destroyer in GCD '41. The French Units are controlled by German/American, depending, and should be placed in the "unit" folder and shared by both players. Because American can buy both units along with their own, they could be labeled B-Infantry/Tank. Also, a B-Tank would be placed in the British/German folder to represent Sherman/Tiger units. You have matilda/tiger but you have F-tank and not somua U35.
@domanmacgee said in North Africa - TripleA Module:
I believe all units were designated as Constructions as a band-aid fix due to the nature of this game. There are no ICs ("factories" as we call them in TripleA) here. Rather, units are built in a number of different locations dependent on circumstances:
This is what I thought, but is not a true statement, all units can be placed without factory/production units. rulesAttachment has placementAnyTerritory, placementAnySeaZone, placementCapturedTerritory, etc... Also, there is the option "Place in Any Territory". Calling these units construction may cause more problems with limited construction placement on territories.
Restricting unit placement can be governed by unitPlacementRestrictions, unitPlacementOnlyAllowedIn which would need option "Unit Placement Restrictions" set.
Don't get me wrong. I'm just trying to understand why the xml is set the way it is, I'm not saying it's wrong or bad. Just looking for a little understanding, and some different ideas.
Again, welcome here, and thanks for the quick reply!!
Cheers...
-
@beelee said in North Africa - TripleA Module:
@domanmacgee said in North Africa - TripleA Module:
ou cannot but ICs in Sea Zones as far as I'm aware.
I'm guessing you mean build here. I'm not entirely certain but i think one can. If that's what you meant
Welcome to the site
Thanks for the tip, I'll have to go back and give it a try when I have more free time to get back into working on this. We did the bulk of the work that's here so far from September-early-November last year. Work got very busy for both of us after that and we discovered the need for JAVA coding work on the engine, which led us on a wild goose chase that eventually landed here on the forums.
Happy to be aboard! I've been enjoying TripleA/A&A for going-on 20 years now so finally being able to help contribute even a little bit has been a very nice feeling.
-
