The scenario's preview image is incorrectly displaying the big world scenario, but I had already added the correct one.

https://raw.githubusercontent.com/triplea-maps/axis_ascension/refs/heads/master/preview.png

How to solve the issue?

Thanks.

Im only bothered about 2.6 map repository as it works differently to 2.5

I have been continuing to upload scenarios for months while waiting for the problem to be fixed.

• I've had a trouble to find the correct cost for submarines.

• I'm considering giving Japan a harbour in Indochina, Malaya or Truk. Japan can be further buffed too if Axis looks like disadvantageous.

No Submarines? Germany starts out with 4 and more can be added, to Germany, through triggers, but no player can purchase them.

The idea of not being able to use a captured factory is nice, and factories/harbors cannot be produced. But the axis starts out with 3 each and the allies have 10 factories and 11 harbors. So all the axis production comes for their capitals. Germany and Italy are well protected, but...

Sea zones 140, 148 and 149 have no starting units, a lone infantry stands guard and there are only 2 transport, each costing half of Japan's starting PUs to replace, also The_United_States may receive free destroyers in the pacific.

Advantage Allies!

Cheers...

Balance suggestions are welcome.

• I would like to re-integrate bombers but after figuring out the correct cost.

• A more interesting set-up may be needed.

https://i.ibb.co/6gyPDqM/fortress.png

As you can see, naval invasions are harder in here due to expensive transports and enhanced effectiveness of air units over the naval ones. I just didn't want SBR OP.

TripleA has been bent pretty far to do some cool stuff, but there are things it couldn't really have anticipated when it was being put together. For example the A&A phase order is something that hasn't changed much since the thing launched in the mid 80s. The one big thing that happened was that a damage/repair aspect was introduced to SBR in v3 the ruleset. Prior to that bombing just removed money from the opponent's purse directly, with no intermediate input from the player, or any choice there about whether or not to repair, cause it just didn't work like that back then in A&A.

Similarly, units being in the game, but not part of a universal purchase roster, is something that would have been hard to see coming. Outside of the Iron Blitz PC translation of Classic technology advances, or China post v3, the only A&A game to mess with that idea was A&A Pacific in the early 2000s, with the introduction of the USA's Marine unit. And that one was sort of a one off.

For my part, I find that having different unit rosters for different player nations makes a game much harder to parse at a glance. It means you have to be familiar not just with your own unit roster, but all the unit rosters of every other player nation, in order to play effectively. It can work alright if all you have to worry about is one nation getting Marines, but the more units like that you have, the harder it is for the player to make sense of what they're seeing displayed on the board when they launch. Especially if going in cold.

I would caution against designing the balance of a scenario around features that are busted, or which don't currently exist, cause there's no way to know when someone might be able to address that stuff. Like it could be a while, if ever, so just something to consider when planning out the broad strokes.

1. If an unit cannot be bough and doesn't present in the map, they don't appear in calculator. I do believe they should appear in any situation.

2. If incomes are collected at the start of rounds, it is not possible to reduce enemy incomes by bombing their factories. Because they already start with 0 income.

You may want to give a large movement bonus to ships starting at a friendly naval base.

My second question is; Was being defensive in naval warfare advantageous as much as it was in land warfare? For example, it is realistic for destroyers, cruisers and battleships having the same attack and defense values?

• Kuybyshev is the capital of the Soviets.

• Incomes are collected at the start of rounds.

• Iran had to be impossible otherwise AI Britain tries to reinforce the Caucasus even though they are not permitted to enter the Soviet soils.

• The flagged sea areas are naval points which has a 25% to spawn a submarine each round. Unfortunately they spawn at the end of rounds to not break AI compatibility.

• At what point should the Axis start outproducing the Allies for a balanced gameplay in your opinion? Currently; If Axis holds all their starting territories, takes Baku, Rostov, all the Mediterranean and a few extra Pacific Islands, they start outproducing the Allies.

I think adding the Danish straits is necessary for gameplay reason. Same as having ANZAC part of the US rather than the UK. Sydney worth only 3 ipc so USA would still need to use California factory to reinforce the Pacific.

Balance is the complicated part. I mostly try to mimic v6 set up. But still progressing.

I think I'have made a decent relief for sea zones. But creating a relief for land territories is a whole other beast for me right now.

Here is the new base image

https://i.ibb.co/ZG2zgyM/fortress-world-sea-relief.png

And an incomplete relief with stroked lines only.

https://i.ibb.co/xMT8KW0/fortress-world-transparent-stroke.png