Roger's Scenario Thread

RogerCooper

@wc_sumpton said in Roger's Scenario Thread:

@rogercooper said in Roger's Scenario Thread:

Map glitches (I saw Germany land move from Koln to Dover

Through Belgium I suspect, as Dover does connect there (and Lille), as is stated in the game notes.

Cheers...

Land units seem to be able to move through during non-combat movement. It is supposed to be an air-only link.

wc_sumpton

@rogercooper said in Roger's Scenario Thread:

Land units seem to be able to move through during non-combat movement. It is supposed to be an air-only link.

This is player enforced, as the is nothing in the xml doing otherwise. The AI can move though during both combat/non-combat movement.

Cheers...

RogerCooper

@wc_sumpton said in Roger's Scenario Thread:

@rogercooper said in Roger's Scenario Thread:

Land units seem to be able to move through during non-combat movement. It is supposed to be an air-only link.

This is player enforced, as the is nothing in the xml doing otherwise. The AI can move though during both combat/non-combat movement.

Cheers...

Support of air-only links would a useful improvement of the game.

wc_sumpton

@rogercooper said in Roger's Scenario Thread:

Support of air-only links would a useful improvement of the game.

<attachment name="canalAttachmentDoverLilleAirOnly" attachTo="Dover" javaClass="CanalAttachment" type="territory">
  <option name="canalName" value="DoverLilleAirOnly"/>
  <option name="landTerritories" value="Himalaya"/>  <!--isImpassable, so can not be owned -->
</attachment>
<attachment name="canalAttachmentDoverLilleAirOnly" attachTo="Lille" javaClass="CanalAttachment" type="territory">
  <option name="canalName" value="DoverLilleAirOnly"/>
  <option name="landTerritories" value="Himalaya"/>
<attachment name="canalAttachmentDoverBelgiumAirOnly" attachTo="Dover" javaClass="CanalAttachment" type="territory">
  <option name="canalName" value="DoverBelgiumAirOnly"/>
  <option name="landTerritories" value="Himalaya"/>
</attachment>
<attachment name="canalAttachmentDoverBelgiumAirOnly" attachTo="Belgium" javaClass="CanalAttachment" type="territory">
  <option name="canalName" value="DoverBelgiumAirOnly"/>
  <option name="landTerritories" value="Himalaya"/>
</attachment>

Real quick before the game!

Cheers...

RogerCooper

@wc_sumpton said in Roger's Scenario Thread:

@rogercooper said in Roger's Scenario Thread:

Support of air-only links would a useful improvement of the game.

<attachment name="canalAttachmentDoverLilleAirOnly" attachTo="Dover" javaClass="CanalAttachment" type="territory">
  <option name="canalName" value="DoverLilleAirOnly"/>
  <option name="landTerritories" value="Himalaya"/>  <!--isImpassable, so can not be owned -->
</attachment>
<attachment name="canalAttachmentDoverLilleAirOnly" attachTo="Lille" javaClass="CanalAttachment" type="territory">
  <option name="canalName" value="DoverLilleAirOnly"/>
  <option name="landTerritories" value="Himalaya"/>
<attachment name="canalAttachmentDoverBelgiumAirOnly" attachTo="Dover" javaClass="CanalAttachment" type="territory">
  <option name="canalName" value="DoverBelgiumAirOnly"/>
  <option name="landTerritories" value="Himalaya"/>
</attachment>
<attachment name="canalAttachmentDoverBelgiumAirOnly" attachTo="Belgium" javaClass="CanalAttachment" type="territory">
  <option name="canalName" value="DoverBelgiumAirOnly"/>
  <option name="landTerritories" value="Himalaya"/>
</attachment>

Real quick before the game!

Cheers...

Where is the option that restricts this to air units only?

wc_sumpton

@rogercooper said in Roger's Scenario Thread:

Where is the option that restricts this to air units only?

Air units (and subs) can use canals without restrictions, the object here is to permanently restrict land units, so by setting landTerritories to an impassable territory that cannot be captured, no alliance will ever possess, so land units will never be allowed to cross.

Can use "excludedUnits" if you want, but the default is all air and subs.

Hope that explains how this works.

Cheers...

RogerCooper

Name 270BC Tertiered
Description 270BC scenario with much lower unit density
https://axisandallies.fandom.com/wiki/270BC_Tertiered

Good Points

Low unit density
Not another WW2 game
Nice unit art

Bad Points

No victory conditions
No sense of the conditions of ancient warfare

RogerCooper

Name World War II Pacific 1940-2nd Edition
Description A port of the new edition of the board game
https://axisandallies.fandom.com/wiki/World_War_II_Pacific_1940_2nd_Edition

Good Points

Port of the boardgame

Bad Points

Favors the Axis (although interesting puzzle to play as the US against the AI)
Too much Japanese air
China falls too quickly

RogerCooper

Name A Song of Ice and Fire
Description Wars of Westeros
https://axisandallies.fandom.com/wiki/A_Song_of_Ice_and_Fire

Good Points

Thematically appropriate units
Beautiful map
Some political rules
Different units for some kingdoms

Bad Points

The lack of any kind upkeep costs results in huge stacks
Politics tends to be random and usually all against all
Image glitches

RogerCooper

Name Classic: Iron Blitz 1939A Historical
Description World War 2 starting in 1939 on Classic map
https://axisandallies.fandom.com/wiki/Classic:_Iron_Blitz_1939A_Historical

Good Points

Easy to understand rules set

Bad Points

Strongly favors the Allies

Cernel

@rogercooper said in Roger's Scenario Thread:

The lack of any kind upkeep costs results in huge stacks

I think that this game has truly dramatic stack numbers issues which really ruin it for PvP. I would add that this is particularly bad for a FFA because in such games you tend to try to conserve your forces a lot more than in the usual two-sides ones.

I wonder if this is the worst game of TripleA in this regard?

RogerCooper

@cernel said in Roger's Scenario Thread:

@rogercooper said in Roger's Scenario Thread:

The lack of any kind upkeep costs results in huge stacks

I think that this game has truly dramatic stack numbers issues which really ruin it for PvP. I would add that this is particularly bad for a FFA because in such games you tend to try to conserve your forces a lot more than in the usual two-sides ones.

I wonder if this is the worst game of TripleA in this regard?

I have seen worse mods in this regard, but I don't recall the exact mod off the top of my head.

There is lot of potential in this mod, but is has issues that need to be resolved. Any mod covering pre-industrial conflicts needs to have some method of limiting army sizes, such as upkeep costs, stacking limits or build caps.