True north strong and free
Somebody break out the bubbly... four quality experimental maps all being upgraded and released in roughly the same week.
Can't remember the last time I logged on to 3 map makers launching new and exciting games!
To those about to roll... we salute you! 
In the spirit of the season I have created a new unit for ze germans...
This unit is only good for today!
Unit name: der Weihnachtsmann
Att/Def/Mov : 0/0/400,000,000
Special Abilities :
-20 Att. & Def. to all units on map
Can SBR with "present drop" does 1-100 joy damage
Merry Christmas to all, and to all a good fight!
So a long time ago I had begun work on a variation to Domination as it seemed like a game with great potential.
I had used the original map and heavily modified it to work with some new ideas and mechanics that would solve some of the things I felt made the map hokey.
One of the map concepts involved creating a political system that made the game feel more like WWI and eliminate all the "farming" as well as making the Bolshevik uprising far more sensible to game-play.
Here is an example of the political landscape...
Now the original design also incorporated sweeping changes to how units functioned as well, but that can wait.
What I am offering here is for someone to partner with to make the game. Between work and life I do not have the time to commit to making this map by myself.
So if anyone who is proficient at map making wants to partner up... drop me a personal message and we can discuss the finer details of the design.
Otherwise if you have any questions... shoot away.
The first ever production of...
The game shall feature...
4 Major Entente Powers with 6 associated Minor Powers
3 Major Central Powers with 3 associated Minor Powers
2 Major Neutral Nations with 2 associated Minor Powers
18 Minor Neutral Nations
2 separate types of Production Facilities
Full arrangement of Tech Development for all Major Nations
3 or 4 Terrain types
6 Seasonal Weather Patterns
Limited Combat Rounds
Russian Revolution
Naval Mines
Global Shipping Lanes
and much much more...
Core resources for creating or updating a map
Assets/Images for Maps
If you want to use these for your map feel free. If there is something you need and want them kept in the same look, post a request and I will try to make one for you.
Cheers.
So here is my attempt at the main login page.
Even the vaunted German Wehrmacht are getting in the spirit...
Merry Christmas to all the Triple A warmongers. May all your offensives be merry and bright.
@cernel Perhaps we could just add everything to the POS 2 map.
I have been thinking for sometime now that we should rename POS2 and create a separate map folder for it to make it a purely fictitious instructional map. If we name it something like "A Map Makers Guide to the Triple A Universe".
Thus we would not need to front load the code with these kinds of things and that everything a map maker could need would be contained in one map that cannot be mistaken as a legit competitive playable game. Then only people whom have an interest in map making will need to down load it.
Additionally the map folder would be an ideal place to show-case ALL the different things that can be done in a map... all the folders, Txt files, etc etc. Then we could also place instructional files PDF, pics, links and instructions for the repository etc etc that guide a person through the map making process.
Ok so a bit more work than I had hoped for.
France is now done with a couple other isolated areas...
France before...
Taking a break and will get back to it later.
@beelee No problem... figure if the code developers can improve the engine... there might as well be a map developer who helps the map makers improve the maps.
Especially since I can't do what they do. 
Otherwise I'm just a "cone de l'orange" 
@Unternehmer said in Lend-Lease (in singleplayer, not multiplayer games):
Dear @Hepps,
I am the least qualified individual to answer ANY question about the AI.
You are one of the most experienced veterans of TripleA. No wonder that such rookies like me need your clever advice.
While I may be a Triple A veteran... I have little to no knowledge of the AI. My experience with it might as well be what a new born could make of an abacus.
However, it does not initially address the L&L issue while Japan and Russia are neutral.
In my mod I have cancelled any opportunity for the Pacific lend-lease route by creating "neutral to all" Soviet Far East-faction and have tried to focus the AI on the 2 lend-lease routes:
- long and less-risky lend-lease route through Persia;
- or short and risky lend-lease route through Arkhangelsk;
An obvious down side to this approach.
I thought the Hard AI will chose which route to go concerning current position of German subs on its way.
But unfortunately the Hard AI sends troops only directly. If I were the Hard AI, I personally would choose the Persia lend-lease route even if it takes more game rounds.
The day the AI can see long term goals over immediate ones... is the day Skynet is born. I'll take a dumb AI any day! 
The only flaw I see in your approach is that what incentive is there to expand? If you earn what you earn... why invade anything ever?
I place victoryCities on the map for the squares I think historically important for the game to go historical way.For example,
the Germans have spent so much time on Stalingrad.
Before the WW2 the Stalingrad was one of the biggest production centers of the USSR. But after the battle of Stalingrad the entire area, even hundreds kilometers from the city, laid in ruins and ashes.If I give some important number of PUs to the Stalingrad area, then in the game after Germany eats the Stalingrad area, it will add extra income to the Germany. But it should be no benefit to Germany as the only thing the Germans get are ruins and ashes - no additional manpower and no additional PUs' income.
The Germany is not an amoeba that can "eat => grow => eat => grow => eat ..." Production facilities of conquered areas are completely destroyed, basic infrastructure is destroyed, everywhere there is famine and devastation, population sabotages the invaders, etc.
Good concept. I'd be interested in how you are executing such a goal. For it would need to be implemented on a grand scale to be viable.
Also if the Soviets reconquer their land (and the Allies reconquer the Western Europe) they can also not increase their PUs' income and manpower resources due to the same reasons.
This is a bigger question for me. A liberated state would inherently benefit a liberator more than it had the occupier.
So I mod it the following way:
I give Germany the fixed income 600 PUs every round and the manpower resources (the manpower resources are given only once at the start and cannot be supplied any more during the game. So if the faction runs out its initial manpower resources, the game is over like it is historically.)
And each territory receives only 0-5 PUs' value. This difference I need to have the minimum requirement to be able to place different production facilities. For example, the square with the 2 PUs' value allows me to place only small infantry barracks whereas the square with 5 PUs' value allows me to produce heavy tank-destroyers and battleships.
Seems reasonable.
Therefore if the Germany conquers all Europe from London to Moscow, the Germany will be able to place the production facilities on all these squares according to the PUs' values of the correspondent territories. But the total production output will still not be more than fixed 600 PUs (the Germany gets every round) + small number of PUs from the conquered territories - PUs spent on upkeep - PUs spent on fuel (in my mod Japan and Germany are charged PUs every movement in order to represent their oil shortage of WW2).
Seems like a steep penatly if you are also trying to represent a more historical economic structure.
but being worth nothing?!? Seems counter intuitive to the philosophy of taking foreign territories in the first place.
Colonies are worth occupation and exploitation, major powers are not. Major industrial powers are worth stopped and defeated but not occupied.
Im my current mod I add to the fixed German income the income of Germany, Austria, Czechoslovakia, Scandinavia and some eastern European minor countries (based on their GDP values). But not the income of France.
Why? Because French contribution to the Germany during WW2 was only nominal. Maybe 1% of what France could have given to Germany or even less. "De Gaulle saved French honor and Petain saved French purses."Also I do not boost the PUs' fixed income of any other factions if they conquer or reconquer any territories.
If any faction is losing territories I also do not change the fixed income the faction receives every turn. Because with the reduced number of territories the remaining production facilities get more limited. And the fixed income helps the losing faction to start production of small numbers of high-tier units. And therefore to boost the resistance of the losing faction.
For example, if Germany expands it focuses on huge numbers of cheap infantry and PzIV-tanks whereas if Germany has only Berlin left it focuses on Jagdtigers and 128mm-Pak44 guns with huge defensive stats.
Also I should say I don't like Axis and Allies to be equalized like in the most TripleA games. Historically Allies have been multiple times superior to Axis in all terms (GDP, manpower, oil).
I try to use historical GDP and manpower ratios and additionally charge Germany and Japan with fuel costs.
And it makes me so much fun to play for Axis and to be under steady growing pressure.
All I can say is that if you are making a game where expansion is less rewarding... and the Axis are getting "taxed" for being under supplied... I fear the playability of this game might be so daunting that none but the most ardent facist would never want a match as the Axis.
@Unternehmer said in Lend-Lease (in singleplayer, not multiplayer games):
@Hepps said in Lend-Lease (in singleplayer, not multiplayer games):
Dear @Hepps,
thank you very much for your feedback.I would tell you to check out Total World War as I feel it is the one game that exemplifies L&L in a truly historical way. However, the AI cannot play the game at all.
The Total World War mod is one of the greatest mods currently in the game and I have learned many new mechanics from there. And unfortunately I fully agree with you that the AI cannot play this mod at all.the game is relatively uninteresting when you are forced to have only one strategy as Japan.
In my games I make the USSR-faction a normal member of "Entente" while keep the Soviet Far East-faction neutral to every faction with the rule "neutrals are impassable". If I want USSR to enter the war against Japan, I manually (through the editor) change the Soviet Far East-faction from neutrality into the "Entente"-member and then ally allied troops can use the Soviet Far East territories in their actions against Japan.
A viable work around for dealing with the regional situation. However, it does not initially address the L&L issue while Japan and Russia are neutral.
So in my games this Soviet Far East-faction neutrality helps the Soviet AI to concentrate on the Eastern Front and Japan AI to concentrate on non-Soviet fronts.
Yes I can see where this would be an effective way to keep the AI focused on its immediate priorities.
The second factor is economics... either the game is designed for Russia to earn enough to fight a one front war or a two front war.
I don't like the principle of "eat and grow" like in all TripleA maps. I usually give every nation a fixed amount of bonus income every round (according to the WW2 Wiki data on countries' GDP) and use the territory values only to separate production opportunities of different territories. The result is that, for example, Germany cannot eat USSR and then have 2 times more income every round or Japan cannot eat USA and then have 5 times more income every round.
An interesting approach and certainly along the lines of what I had planned for Global Domination. The only flaw I see in your approach is that what incentive is there to expand? If you earn what you earn... why invade anything ever?
I agree that occupying a foreign land should not be as fruitful for you as it may have been for the original nation... but being worth nothing?!? Seems counter intuitive to the philosophy of taking foreign territories in the first place.
Dear @Hepps,
Do you know whether the Hard AI (the best AI currently in the TripleA game) is able to evaluate the unit position on the other side of the map far away from its own units?
For example, whether the Hard AI playing US/Canada can evaluate the current situation in Europe if Europe is 10 squares away from North America?
I am afraid that the Hard AI stops its calculations like it stops sending lend-lease convoys through the South-African route.
I am the least qualified individual to answer ANY question about the AI.
@Unternehmer Lots of good points here.
As far as maps go... I really think it depends on what map you are playing when comes to territories and sea zones that get used during the course of a game. Many certainly have "dead zones".
Lend & Lease is a fairly limited thing in most games. I would tell you to check out Total World War as I feel it is the one game that exemplifies L&L in a truly historical way. However, the AI cannot play the game at all.
The Russian issue is really a question of game design and balance. The issue really comes down to fun & play-ability.
Often times a map relies on Japan and Russia to be at odds simply because without it the game is relatively uninteresting when you are forced to have only one strategy as Japan.
The second factor is economics... either the game is designed for Russia to earn enough to fight a one front war or a two front war. And if you design it as a one front war then you end up having to force Russia - Japan to stay neutral... and again... it kind of limits players from having game play options.
We flirted with the idea of creating a neutrality rule while designing Total World War... but found creating a balanced game without a hard coded neutrality rule ... fraught with challenges. In short it felt very heavy handed and ultimately took away from the game experience.
The other thing was that while historically Russia and Japan remained neutral throughout the war... that could have changed at any point... the outcomes of things like the Battles of Battle of Lake Khasan 1938 and Khalkhin Gol in 1939 could have changed the face of the war had things played out differently. And if other things had gone differently for the Japanese in other areas as well as the other Axis powers half a world away... who can say if that neutrality pact would have even been worth the paper it was written on. Stalin certainly didn't hesitate to tear it up when he saw the writting on the wall in 1945.
We played 1 multi game in the lobby which ended in r2 with Entente victory. Too early to say but the game looked us to significant Entente advantage or probably Central powers have not much luxury to make mistake in r1.
A game that is decisively over in round 2 does not bode well for game balance, unless the round 1 moves on the part of the Central Powers were catastrophic blunders.
@Contango You can tailor that to ensure both your goals are achievable.
@Contango said in One Time PU Capture For Certain Events:
So, the only gap currently is that any newly created factory after the start of the game would not trigger the lost PUs, only the positive ones.
You could make 2 types of Factory.
Unconquered Factroy would be all your existing factories at game start as well as any newly built ones by players. This is the unit that would be in the production frontier for every player.
Conquered Factory would be what the above turns into if captured. It cannot be bought and would be what all Unconquered Factory is turned into if and when they are captured.
You could then also have the Unconquered Factory produce a unit (at the time it is captured) that has a maintenance cost of 2 PU and is removed automatically at the end of the players next turn.
You could do the exact same thing with Victory Cities... just have an unmovable "Dummy" unit in each City that when the territory is captured turns into the same unit as the factory.
Most of this is (reasonably) achievable. The only real complicated part is the negative PU's to the looser.
It becomes fairly complex to try and subtract PU's from a player who's not actively playing (their own turn).
Moreover... it also becomes a question of how drastic this measure is as it relates to the game... it seems to me that loosing a territory which contains a factory is already a significant loss... stripping a nation of more PU while also rewarding your opponent for capturing it seems a fairly steep penalty.
