@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

It is really good idea.

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.

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?

The upkeep codes are already exist and -1 upkeep is minimum number for every unit. But sometimes especially in small/medium maps even -1 upkeep is so high for such as conscripts or infantries. This method is great at preventing stack problems but it also force players to buy expensive units. So what about adding fractionel numbers for upkeep? Wouldn't -0.5 more realistic upkeep for cheap units rather than -1?

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#_

I don't like having Russia significantly weaker than Japan either. But I do believe Germany should always be stronger than Russia even in pre-barbarossa borders and Germany should be 75% or 2 times stronger than Russia in 1942 set up.

No idea why do they always nerf the USA to too much. They could still make balanced games with USA nerfed more moderately.

WW1 Datas but it has to be remembered that with a realistic 1914 scenario, Allies overall income shoul still be reduced not just because of balance purpose, because the stats do not show some CP advantages like being able to rapidly shift troops from one to another, isolated Russia with Ottomans entry into war, British naval/colonial expenses and American unpreparedness etc...

They give some tactical options to all nations considering it is the only unit without factory requirements. but I can still consider to remove them.

Why the engine does not accept setting up an air unit with having less air defence than air attack?

What about this unit set-up?

Infantry: 1/4/1 AA 3Pu
Trench: 0/1/0 2HP, free placement, 3Pu
Artillery: 2/4/1 AA 4Pu
Armour: 4/4/1 AA 5Pu
Fighter: 2/3/4 (2/3 for bombing campagins too) 5Pu
Bomber: 2/1/6 (2/1 for bombing campaigns too) 6Pu
Transport: 0/0/2 5 cap 7 Pu
Destroyer: 2/2/2 anti-stealth, AA 8 Pu
Cruiser: 3/3/2 bombard, AA 10 Pu
Carrier: 1/2/2 2 cap, AA 16 Pu
B.Ship 4/4/2 bombard, AA 2HP 20Pu

Special units:

Tiger: 5/5/1 2HP AA, 9Pu Germany only (to preserve HP because there is neither building new factory nor using captured factories)
Submarine: 3/3/2 stealth 6Pu Germany only (To give reasons to invest them for Germany instead just fighter coverage)
Tankette: 1/4/2, AA 3PU Italy only (to help in the Eastern front)
L.Cruiser: 2/2/2 AA 6PU Japan only (to compensate Japan's low income and to use it more cost effectively in blockade zones.
Kamikaze: 4/0/3 4PU suicide unit, attacks both air and land, ignores trench, 1 carrier cost, suicidal bomber. Japan only (to give more stragic options to Japan)

Siberian 3/4/1 AA 3PU, Russia only can be placed only in the east of Urals (Slowing down Japan in the East Asia)
Boat 1/2/1 AA, transport 6PU Russia only (Reinforcing Leningrad via Ladoga, Same for Stalingrad via Caspian.

I know Axis special units are too good but I would want to achieve the balance with this way rather than buffing Japan and Italy too much.

Its correct but I wouldn't want to have a unit that has only one purpose like strategic bombing. I have been toying with these ideas after discussings what would you think?

AAgun is removed and instead all units get AA ability except transports and submarines. Fighter becomes 2/3/4 with 6 cost. Bomber 3/1/6 8 cost.

Submarine: 2/2/2 6 cost same features with v3.
Destroyer: 2/2/2 8 cost same featrues with v3
Crusier: 3/3/2 10 cost, bombard
Carrier: 1/2/2 16 cost 2 cap.
B.Ship: 4/4/2 20 cost bombard.

Sounds like it became way harder to perform amphibious invasion but it can be compensated by increasing handicapped side's production.

There is also trench with 0/1/0 'HP, it gives various options but it totally negates bombardment abilities when cruiser is already realtively bad unit.

Could there be way to make them useless against naval bombardment?

I wonder what should be the correct costings between naval and air units for medium sized WWII maps that using v3 rules?

Basically should fighters be more cost efficient at destroying cruisers, carrier/fighters and battleships or not?

In Anniversary edition, I feel cruiser's and battleship's naval bombardment abilities no not outweight destroyer/carrier/fighter combo, the naval bombardment even became less effective if bunkers are exist.

If I would want to create a Falkland War scenario, should Argentina really has to invade Britain to end the war?

I've decided to implement a few things actually to achieve that but they are still not enough.

-No building new factory
-No using captured factory
-Even if nations lost their capital, they still continue to collect incomes and mobilize units as long as they are still controlling their original factories.

Its good idea keeping values low as much as possible in battle fronts to flexibilty but everything still revolving around incomes. I like maintenance too but not really higher than %10 to achieve that we need fractional numbers.

By simplifying, for example in a WWII scenario Axis has no chance to avoid total defeat ( I emphasize avoiding total defeat not pursuing total victory) if they are pushed back Jun41/Dec41 borders even if they start exactly with the same position.

I am going to agree that triggering a bonus incomes for nations once or twice depends on their positions and differet results like total victory/lose conditional victory/surrender and draw. I am welcome to more idea.