@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#_

What is the most accurate map of the Midle East and Africa in 1914?

I mean making just the map itself and allowing/encouring the others making their scenarios. The most important thing is territories should be divided perfectly to be suitable for any kind of major conflicts in history. Example scenarios;

Modern Day, War on Terror, War on Drug, Cold War, WW2, Inter-war, WW1, 1900, Napoleon Wars, Seven Years Wars, 6 days war etc...

For example some specific territories such as Low countries, Israel, seas around Europe and the Middle East, the Middle East,Papua new Guinea, Eastern China, Germany etc should contain more territory per area than other territories. The rest is not much important even better making them as big as possible. There is absoultely no reason having Brazil or Australia more territory than Germany.

Why wouldn't there be a single world map that appropriate to become almost all kind of scenarios which would provide new strategic options and more playability due to new design? Some maps have noticably better designs in their specific areas wondering how awesome would be this project.

Central powers are almost doomed to lose in any WW1 map in AI play unless map heavily favours them.

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.

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

In a set up that player is unable to pick his casualties while some units have lower chances to get hit representing thier higher HP. They have still the same HP but harder to kill because they require more specific dice numbers to die.

There are normal units and double HP units. I'v asked if there would be any way making an unit with a hp between them by altering dices or somethings.

Will there be more variety about unit HP systems?

Doubling unit costs and setting up games dice would definitely help too.