TripleA Logo TripleA Forum
    • TripleA Website
    • Categories
    • Recent
    • Popular
    • Users
    • Groups
    • Tags
    • Register
    • Login

    Mixed Questions

    Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Map Making
    130 Posts 12 Posters 68.7k Views 10 Watching
    Loading More Posts
    • Oldest to Newest
    • Newest to Oldest
    • Most Votes
    Reply
    • Reply as topic
    Log in to reply
    This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
    • SchulzS Offline
      Schulz
      last edited by

      Do these AA attachments perfectly work in land and sea battles?

      C 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • C Offline
        Cernel Moderators @Schulz
        last edited by Cernel

        @Schulz They work neither better nor worse that they do against air units. Targeting all air units only is merely the behaviour you get when you don't specify any targets (just a legacy item, likely).

        If you want to knock yourself out:
        https://forums.triplea-game.org/topic/989/aa-fire-casualty-selection-issues-in-revised-and-other-versions?page=1

        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • SchulzS Offline
          Schulz
          last edited by Schulz

          I doubt it would make better combats. Expensive units are already mostly redundant and this property would make them even worse since they could get hit too before sacrificing cannon fodders. But the on the other hand battles would force people to adopt more different situations plus no cheesy boring attaks like 2 inf+1 fighter anymore.

          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • SchulzS Offline
            Schulz
            last edited by

            Is there any way making unable to build factory on original enemy territories and being unable to produce units in captured factories with just only modifing XML?
            It is probably something to do with <option name="special" value="canOnlyPlaceInOriginalTerritories"/>

            B 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • B Offline
              beelee @Schulz
              last edited by

              @Schulz "unitPlacementRestrictions" should work but you'll probably have to make player specific units

              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
              • SchulzS Offline
                Schulz
                last edited by

                Is there any way to separate production lines as percentages without adding new type of resources?

                For example x nation has 50 PUs but coded to spend 30% to land (15), 30% air (15) and 40% naval (20) units.

                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • SchulzS Offline
                  Schulz
                  last edited by Schulz

                  Can the current engine handle having 33 nations proplerly? (Only 2-4 selectable combatants, some of them aren't even present in the set up)

                  Z 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                  • F Offline
                    ff03k64
                    last edited by

                    I have 18 on my current map, and besides my coding errors, it has worked fine. My guess is that it would work fine. i see another one with 26.

                    1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                    • Z Offline
                      Zaroph @Schulz
                      last edited by

                      @Schulz
                      Frostions Warcraft Heroes has ~36? different players, 8 main and the rest are in the background so it should probably be ok in your case as well.

                      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                      • SchulzS Offline
                        Schulz
                        last edited by

                        I have issues to launch Warcraft thinking is has something to do with the heavy game.

                        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                        • SchulzS Offline
                          Schulz
                          last edited by Schulz


                          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                          • SchulzS Offline
                            Schulz
                            last edited by Schulz


                            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                            • SchulzS Offline
                              Schulz
                              last edited by Schulz


                              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                              • SchulzS Offline
                                Schulz
                                last edited by Schulz


                                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                • SchulzS Offline
                                  Schulz
                                  last edited by

                                  So how could we give reasons to seemingly losing side to continue to fight? Any good ideas? Maybe giving an income bonus only once if their income significantly lowered and introducing draw option other than losing or winning?

                                  F B 2 Replies Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                  • F Offline
                                    ff03k64 @Schulz
                                    last edited by

                                    @Schulz what would your goal with this be?

                                    1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                                    • B Offline
                                      beelee @Schulz
                                      last edited by

                                      @Schulz so people won't quit as soon as things go bad ? If so, I'd have a tiered victory system. TKO. Major, Minor, Draw. It would work best in a league system or tournament. Deciding what the requirements of each are would be the challenge. Could go by X rounds and X territories controlled, number of PUs or resources. etc...

                                      You still need to crunch that all out. Lots of test games or just games in general would be the way to go. You should be able to start out with something basic and adjust accordingly.

                                      You could also give a Mulligan of one redo of a battle. Or 3 rerolls per game. I'd say only one reroll per battle though. I've seen people who play that way, or something similar, but don't remember who. Personally when things go bad, I look at it as a challenge.

                                      I may have misunderstood you though 🙂

                                      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                                      • SchulzS Offline
                                        Schulz
                                        last edited by

                                        The purpose is preventing anti climatic ends because currently even if losing side lost slighly it momemtum it becomes clear that nothing can turn the tide of war. Even a few mistake in initial rounds can lead unavoidable defeat it may be good for people expecting the course of war decided in a few rounds but I wouldn't want it.

                                        CrazyGC F 2 Replies Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                        • CrazyGC Offline
                                          CrazyG Moderators @Schulz
                                          last edited by

                                          @Schulz
                                          I think an aspect that might help is high maintenance costs, something like 50% of the cost to build. I also don't like how often a single loss in a large battle of just one theater decides a long game on a very large board.

                                          Maintenance costs would make losing units less bad. Like if someone killed 10 of my fighters while losing 5, on a typical map that's a 50 TUV loss for me. But with 50% maintenance costs, I would save 25 PUs by the next turn, it could help a nation recover after a serious loss.

                                          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                          • F Offline
                                            ff03k64 @Schulz
                                            last edited by

                                            @Schulz You could have the territories commonly under contention not be worth nearly as much (or zero). Then you could take the time to fall back and regroup without it costing that much.

                                            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0

                                            Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.

                                            Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.

                                            With your input, this post could be even better 💗

                                            Register Login
                                            • 1
                                            • 2
                                            • 3
                                            • 4
                                            • 5
                                            • 6
                                            • 7
                                            • 6 / 7
                                            • First post
                                              Last post
                                            Copyright © 2016-2018 TripleA-Devs | Powered by NodeBB Forums