@redrum I'm not saying... "do what Hepps says". I just wanted to point out that the priorities of map makers like Hepps should have more weight than the priorities of players. The reason is.. the mapmakers will actually use what they are suggesting... whereas a lot of "wish" features made by players are actually useless until a map is made utilizing the new feature.

The system which you dont like is a 500% improvement over the olden days. In the past, you had to edit the enemy values to create balance. One idea I have is to add a "Challenge" check box. When checked, it will give all NPC factions a %bonus to their PU income equal to the percentage in which they lag behind the Highest PDU nation after turn #5. It should be set to a maximum of 200% income.

Example) In classic Axis and Allies, Russia starts with 24 PUs and Germany starts with 32 PUs. On turn #5... Russia has fallen to 12 PUs. While Germany has risen to 39 PUs. If Russia is an NPC... it will gaine a 39/12 % bonus on its income. 39/12 = 3.25 or 325% income, but since bonus income would be limited to 200%... Russia would only gain an extra 12 PUs.

This "challenge" checkbox option would help prevent runaway games vs the AI.

I think that a scenario that will survive the coming ages needs to be "Fun to play" first. Secondly, it should represent a major historical incident or confict in a simulatory way. Third, it can't be hard to figure out for a first-time downloader. Fourth, but not uninportaint... is that the map/scenario must have depth.

Depth can be accomplished through perfect PvP game balance -or- through complexity which makes every game feel different.

I think the best way to do this is to make a wiki entry. This way it can be modified, sorted and arranged, and branched out easily over time. Accompany it with a "Flagged" post here with a summary of getting started, with the link, and then Q&A and feedback. Volunteers can assign themselves to various content in the forum in order to more efficiently transfer data or create sections.

I would remove the exclamation point! at the end of "No game selected"

OR make the map one sea zone extended to the left to make room for it and put it in its place.

@beelee

The basics (in a guide or guides) can always be improved. I'm for this but not willling to take on the enormous task.

The thing I think is even more important is problem and coding Q & A . There are a lot of posts with dozens of replies that result in the initial question being answered. This is the kind of stuff that it will hurt to lose... but actually be an advantage to capture in one location.

@helsinkiharbour If there is anyplace that players can petition to to keep content active... let us know.

@redrum Thanks for all your hard work and dedication redrum. They are not just of duty, but obviously come from love of the game. After Veqryn stepped down there are many of us who feared that TripleA was soon dead. I was one, and am delighted you have proven us wrong. Thanks again.

@redrum said in Query about the Engine:

@Hepps Alright. I would say there isn't much being currently pursued in regards to engine/features. I'm primarily following the map development threads and trying to make improvements based on comments/issues reported there.

I would like to create a better prioritized list of changes folks would like to see.

IMO, this is the right course. Right now, players need to become comfortable with and accept the new forum and download method which give weird extraneous information 'to a common downloader' . Get this right first. Then, each version should include 1 prioritized new feature + bug fixes and minor adustments or UI tweaks.

@Cernel That is how I like playing solo games... making the AI robust instead of squishy, but limiting the run-away effect.

@Black_Elk: Great suggestion about showing the power ratio between attacker and defender while selecting units.

Since we are on the topic, here is another counter-argument suggestion:

Create an option for "EXTREME LUCK" - This would be normal dice rolls as well as random casualty selections.

Hold on Hepps: There is actually another option. Make it "Optional Luck" instead instead of "Medium Luck". This setting would allow all players to choose between "Luck(Dice)" and "Insurance(Low-Luck)" at the start of every battle.

Advantages: If you are about to be defeated... you can opt for "Luck" as a last resort. You can use "Insurance" to lessen the chance of loosing a territory or high value unit when in a position of superiority.

Disadvantages: ????

@CrazyG

Imagine attacking with 6 units that have an attack of 5. (average results would be 5 strikes). You have bad luck and roll a 2 and five sixes. This is similar to the probability of a bunch of attacking infantry all hitting..

To minimize the extremes, you could use Low Luck rules... combining the 1s, 2s, 5s, and 6s, and then roll all d3s and d4s normally.

Even though this would create a more average spectrum of results.... a stack of tanks and bombers attacking at 3 and 4 would still be subject to a wide range of results;

When I was a kid, our home rules allowed us to place as many AA guns as we wanted and to use them as casualties. The first AA gun gave D1 defense vs every air unit. Additional AA guns added additional single D1/6 defender shots.

@David_VanDyke: I understand what you want. Keep in mind that "medium luck" should be something any player can visualize and play out on a board game without using a calculator.. Another possiblility, besides CrazyG's which might cause a lobby to argue over what settings to use.... would be to make it Low Luck per specific engaging unit type:

4 armor defending at 2
8 infantry defending at 2

The defending player would get 3 automatic hits. Remaining armor would hit on a 2. Remaining infantry would hit on a 4.

The Hepps suggested method is a logical middle ground between Luck and LL.

As far as playability... it offeres more luck that some players prefer, while at the same time, eliminating the possibility of a stack of 20 attacking infantry getting lucky with 8 or 9 hits. Everyone hates stacking luck of the 1s.

@redrum said in Marketing:

Agree. Figuring out how to spread the word around TripleA to recruit more users would be great. I'm open to any and all ideas on the best ways to do that.

Before we do that... it is vital to remove maps with bugs or need updates off of the main download list. There is no easier way to lose a new player than an error message. Most will not even post or ask for help. They will just be gone, and remember to never try it again.

Not sure how to edit posts in this new forum, so sorry for the double post. Just wanted to add that I "was" an avid mod maker for TripleA: Made Stellar Forces, Pacific Solo Challenge, Fantastic Forces, and a few other mods that I wanted to perfect. The AA change, along with the slow-down of AI wait time is specifically why I abandoned my projects. I do love TripleA, however, and will probably always follow it.

@Cernel or Redrum: Units with AA shots (not AAgun), used to be moved by the AI as a normal attack unit until after version 1.3.2.2 Has this been resolved? I had a number of games I was working on where (as a PvE game maker), this became a huge constraint. The ability to add AA first shots to select unit types added a huge factor to TripleA, but not if the AI wont move those units in attack movement.

An example would be an archer unit that has a small AA capability versus air units. There is no reason an archer unit would not move with a combat unit on offense and also contribute.