@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.

1 Aggression 1941
2 Domination 1914 No Man's Land
3 Camp David
4

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.

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.

WARNING! The balance hasn't extensively tested yet. Still progressing and this post will be edited constantly.

A WW2 scenario loosely based on 1941. Victory condition is economic which is exceeding 1500 production power for Axis and 2000 for Allies

Axis: Germany, Italy, Japan
Allies: America, England, Russia, China

Turn Order
Germany,Russia,Japan,England,Italy,America,China

-6 sided dice, no national objectives, no tech, no triggers, no multiple resources.

Unique Rules

1) Upkeep: Every units except factories requires upkeep which range from 3%-10% of their costs per round.

2) New anti-air rule: Every unit except transports have anti air ability which 1/6 shot down chance per attacker air units. Further stacks have no impact on their anti-air abilities.

3) Very Cheap Air and Naval Units: To preserve fighter's effectiveness and their relative upper hands against naval units; unit costs in both of these branches decreased massively which losing fighter is just as bad as losing extra infantry or the most expensive naval units are not more expensive than armours.

4) New Factory Rule: No nation can use occupied factories and no nation can build new factory.

5) Draw: Games can end without victor which occurs only if no side achieve its victoy condition until the end of round 20.

6) New Capital Rule: Nations do not lose their all remained incomes or unit mobilizing abilities as long as they have still unoccupied factories. But all capitals provide +1 defense to all units in the area (except Germany which provides +2 defense).

Plans and Ideas

1) Balance related updates: Including changing starting set-up and starting incomes only. Unit stats and territory values will mostly likely remain as what they are.

2) Victory condition related updates: Still trying to find out the most appropriate round for draw option. There could be still some changes in this topic but victory will always come with economic victory and there will be always draw possibility unless I will came with better draw idea.

3) Making draw supportable by the engine: Still not sure if it is possible to end games forcefully in a certain round.

4) Auto-Intercept: Just automatically letting all defender airs to intercept to speed up the game. Not sure if it is supported by the engine either. But I would want to add it as optional rule.

5) Sounds: I would definitely add unique sounds, still waiting developers to fix sound overlapping issue.

6) Showing upkeep in the purchase screen: If there is an easy way.

7) Showing date in the top-right corner: Maybe in one day.

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?

If casual players want to contribute improvement of AI should they only come with save games that uses fully A&A rules without any exception? But also A&A rules are different in each versions but most popular-casual maps are based on strickly v3 rules.

For example I've tested AI in Aggression 1941 despite slighly different rules than v3 rule-set, AI mostly makes the same mistakes and even have problem to understand v3 rules.

10rounds.tsvg

Germany

• Does not use starting submarines.
• Too obsesive to overdefending capitals and resulted very weak push in the Eastern Front and remaining armies always switch around Germany-W.Ukraine and Hungary.
• No interest to defend France.
• Never buys naval units despite cheaper costs.
• Doesn't know how do naval blockades and intercept work.

Russia

• Prefers stacking Moscow-Bereznik instead of Ryazan without any benefit
• Overdefeding Sinkiang and W.India despite zero Japanese threat.

Japan

• Sending transports undefended
• Does not attack China.
• Doesn't use the navy effectively in anywhere.
• Buys too much fighter without effectively using, can't even sacrifice losing a few fighters for better trades.
• Still thinks its main purpose is fighting with Russia.
• Doesn't buy any naval units.
• Doesn't know how do naval blockades and and intercept work.

England

• Overdefending India, Africa and Sinkiang.
• Almost no commitment in Europe.
• Sending transports undefended.
• Does not buy naval units.
• Doesn't know how do naval blockades and intercept work.

Italy

• Sending transports undefended.
• Not thinking about protecting German transports.
• Sending armies to Hungary and Yugoslavia without a reason
• Overdefending Germany despite zero Allies threat.
• Does not buy naval units.
• Doesn't know how do naval blockades and intercept work.

America

• Sending transports undefended.
• Overcommitment to Africa.
• No intention of invading Europe or bombing.
• Not using navy effectively.
• Does not buy naval units.
• Buys too much transports.
• Doesn't know how do naval blockades and intercept work.

China

• Not caring much outside of Sinkiang.

It is really good idea.

@Hepps Thanks!

It would be still fully functional.

I couldn't really see any downside in here. In this example total 30-40 pixel wideness (approximately %15-%17) could have been used for the screen.

If there will be a concern then the current one could be kept as default but allowing map makers to shrink it a bit more.

Currently its possible to track 3 different type of units with their amounts if they move together assuming the right bar shrinked in its maximum capacity like it is in NAP. But its still possible to track them while allowing map makers to shring it a little bit.

For example:

Its the most shrinked one as seen and its not possible to see the amount of 4.th units hence I could assume that the most important one in here is being able to check three units .

In this case there would be more space for gameplay without any lose plus the discances which shown as blue in right and left side would be more balanced and looked better.

1. Replacing medium flags from bottom right with their smaller versions.

2. 200 minimum wide pixel limit can be safely %20 decreased to 160. I know it had been discussed before but I would like to present my proposal as well. Lets take a look Napoleonic Empires which has the smallest right bar.

I'd say %20 of right bar unnecessarily occupy %90 of maps even in Napoleonic empires its totally unneeded. The player names could be replaced with their small flags as well. If maps needed bigger right bar they can already do that but the opposite one is not possible.

While its possible to play without the right bar but personally I would feel very uncomfortable without it hence I would want to decrease its minimum wideness requirement.

I would like to learn how to generate teritory names like exactly in v3/v4/v5/v6 series? I've just found some sites that allows to generate transparent backround stylized texts but colurs, brightness etc... do not match.

I think both of you are actually right at your arguments.

Hight tech military investments do not necessarily mean to conserve manpower in WWII timeline. The difference that they soak up overwhelmingly non-combatant manpower compare to like an infantry regiment as Roger rightfully said. The confusion is here that the game do not reflect non-combatant manpowers which would be imposible to run and replace these high tech military vehicles without them.

On the other hand, high tech miliary units could preserve manpower as well because majority of the manpower would be in home area rather than dangerious frontline plus there would be higher change to melt enemy manpower on the filed by right tactics.

I would like to take a look before I could estimate how much can I help.

Victory condition can be vary which already implemented in most map like economic victory, victory cities or capturing capital.

Of course both sides had reasons to continue because unlike TripleA there were another goals other than total victory.

Games mostly ends way before the victory conditions achieved even if you make expanding less rewarding. It is anti-climatic if one side surrenders way before they lost almost all lands. I believe there should be some good reasons for loser side to continue even if somethings went really badly. It could be giving a change to the loser side turning the tide of war or pursuind draw hence possibility of to achieve total victory gone.

For example German military production peaked in 1944 due to Speer's intervention of the military armament after losing in the Stalingrad and their main hope was achieving good bargaining chips to force either W.Allies or the Soviets separate peaces. I understand its very hard and probably not possible to represent but my point is they have rational reasons to continue the war and would be realistic even if it was represented in abstract way.

@ebbe Just wondering did you find any solution to prevent sound overlapping issue?

@Hepps Thanks!