@RoiEX

Thank you for the detailed answer. I will start to learn basic programming then Java and finally the engine.

My obsession is firstly simultanous rounds then fog of war.

I will probably have been reviving this topic from time to time.

Advantages of simultane round system;

1. More strategy; In this way you will have to predict your opponent's movements as much as possible.

2. Joint operations; Separate allies nations will be able to attack anywhere together.

3. Less stacks: More dynamic game.

4. Faster game: You won't need to wait your opponent's movements.

5. Reversibilty: In the current engine you can simply lose the game easily if you are even slighly behind your opponent in terms of TUV or production, but i this way you can reverse the game in every rounds.

The problem might be specific to me only since in my native language there are two separate letters as "ı" and "i". The similar problem had occured when I downloaded v3,v4,v5 and revised. They are all downloaded like wwıı not wwii then I had edited them manuelly.

I've completed the map, it is my the first experient at modding on medium map.

Having playing a few games against both players and myself I felt pretty close to balance, maybe Allies would need bid but I am not sure.

https://www.sendspace.com/file/o7u5w4

I belive triplea should really need functional air warfare which may be took place in any territory not only Factory territories. Just I want to detect my wish list before pulling any request.

1. What are the optimal air attack/air defense powers for fighters/bombers

2. Would they need additional technologies?

3. Would we need more fighter models such as

-close air support (low range-supports land units),

-light fighter (normal range-protect fighters/fights with enemy fighters),

-NAV (attacks enemy ships only),

-Bomber (High range-strategic bomber),

-Tactical Bomber (High range, supports land units/attack ships/strategic bomber but thye perform worse in all of these categories.)

4. Should AA be destroyable with strategic bombings?

5. Ay more ideas?

Actually ww1 was more balanced than ww2 and it is possible to make relatively balanced and historical great war scenario. The Centrals would have won if Germany had taken Paris regarsless of date. Even If Germany had knocked France out of war in 1918, Allies would sue peace since Normandy style liberating France would be unimaginable. The Allies did even fail to knock out the Ottomans out of war by naval invasion.

Even Italian neutrality could bring Central victory. With Italy, Centrals would achieve definitely total victory.

Another problem is Italy and Romania could have joined the Centrals and hard to represent it in Triplea Engine. But USA would always join Entente regardless of the Zimmerman telegram or unrestricted submarine warfare.

I agree the Ottomans are represented way too strong. But the problem is if you make the Ottmans 1/10 Germany then Entente would take the Ottomans within a few rounds but in reality they would only do it after 4 years with Arab rebels. In this scenario you will have to give thr Ottomans so much defensive bonuses since Gallipoli isn't the only Ottoman victory. Ottomans did win more battles such as First battle of Gaza or battle of Kut etc.

Simply taking the Ottomans should not be too easy realistically.

@cernel said in How would you rate countries and territories considering realism in big WWII maps.:

The energy consumption ones seem really good enough for a linear mono-resource production representation, except only that thing of missing India (not a terrible obstacle, but annoying; plus I really don't understand why it is missing before 1947

The energy comsumptions is not good enough, the Soviets were even stronger than the British Empire let alone the United Kingdom.

India is missing because it wasn't independent country.

Germany has to focus on east while slowly giving up west, Austria should focus on taking on Italy. Turkey should take Egypt and naval dominance is too imprtant in Eastern Mediterranean.

Hi all.

I have ben working on a ww1 map with mix of ww1 and ww2 techs. It is a bit fictional map I need suggestions for to achieve a decent balance. I can't compare my map (actually Grazy German's) to another ww1 maps because it is so big and the us is not present.

I need suggestions for especially PUs distributions, starting incomes and TUVs etc...

https://files.fm/u/wpytkdeh#_

Really no possibity to implement it as optional thing for games no matter how many players request?

Or is it jus because it would be very hard to implement?

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

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)

I was able to upload my modified versions of downloadable maps (with new names) to bots and it was not required for people to download something. Having the original game was enough for every player to play them. Including to chance XML only.

For example I have a mod with just upkeep system I was able to save it locally in r1 than upload it to bots to play the others. But now I can't do it.

When will it be possible again?

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.

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"/>

My mods aren't but the original ones are. I was able to do it in previous version.

Like any modified XML with different games. For example I have mods for NML,v3 and big world none of them work.

I am not even sure if its bug or intentional jut wanted to share.