Question regarding Feature request

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
13 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Question regarding Feature request

hepster
I have recently returned to playing Triplea and I was examining some of the developments that have happened over the last year or so.

I have a question regarding new features that may exist or that I'd like to see created.

I)  sea ports.  My thought is a unit that can be placed into a land territory that is adjacent to a sea zone.  The sea port would then hold naval units within the land territory and could only be attacked if the territory were directly attacked (thus gaining the defense of all the land units within that zone).   My though is that it'd act like a (stationary) sea transport,  meaning that the naval units would not participate in combat  (as they'd be considered harboured) but could be chosen as casualties during battle or be destroyed if the territory were captured.  Additionally territories containing an industrial complex and a sea port (harbour, naval yard, or whatever) would be the only place where new naval units could be produced.  New units would go directly into the sea port instead of going into the sea zone.  Moving into and out of the seaport would constitute one movement.

The general idea is to create a method where-by teams (mainly for Germany, Italy, Britain, France) that have little to no naval presence (due to losses) can still attempt to rebuild its naval presence slowly without diverting all of its PU production.  It would be a system of limiting the "Oh well I lost my navy, now I'll just buy bombers and fighters".  Or as a way to have safe haven (submarines) in an area containing overwhelming opposition.

II)  Air bases  would operate basically in the same manner as sea ports.  These units would be the only places where air craft could take off and land other than on carriers.  The difference here is that aircraft would still defend the territory and be taken as casualties during battles.

This is meant to reflect the need for fuel, maintenance and runways for the aircraft to operate and there-by make using air units a much more strategic factor in the game (from a movement planning perspective) and make territories that contain them even more strategically valuable) .  This would limit teams ability to simply stack any territory with fighters unless players plan out where they are going to have airbases.

III)  Neutral countries revisited.  I want to create neutral territories that are either "Pro-Ally Neutral","Pro-Axis Neutral" or Neutral.  They'd now be dealt with very differently.  

"Pro-Ally Neutral Territories" could only be attacked by Axis players.  If an attack fails then the Neutral territory joins the Allies automatically (joins the Ally team whose capital is closest) with its existing units.

"Pro-Ally Neutral" could be acquired by the Ally teams through financial compensation.  Once per game turn the Allies have the opportunity to choose to persuade (buy) a new member to join the Allied forces.  It would involve the Pro-Allied Neutral being paid for: the value of its territory, and the value of all the units within the Territory.  The Allies (all the teams combined) would have only one opportunity per game turn to do this.  I would think it'd be easiest to add a new phase to the game turn (at the start) where you choose whether or not to buy (like tech options) and then select which Ally team is doing the buying and which neutral territory is being bought.  The neutral would join the war after the unit placement of the Ally that bought them.  

"Pro-Axis Neutral" can only be attacked by Allied forces.   If an attack fails then the Neutral territory joins the Axis automatically (joins the Axis team whose capital is closest) with its existing units.   This is the only way the Axis can gain its neutrals.  They may neither persuade (buy) or attack its neutrals.  The Axis can only attack a "Pro-Axis Neutral" if it has already been conquered by Allied forces.  It would join the Axis only if liberated.

"Neutrals" would be a select few territories that are staunchly unaligned.  They could be attacked by either team and would not join either side.  They could only be occupied via military victory.    

As is traditional neither side may move forces through any neutral territory until it has been forced into joining the war one way or another.



I have to assume most of this would be fairly labour intensive, but if one of the guru developers is excited about this then i think it'd be well worth the effort.  These requests are meant to accompany a map that I have developed.  If some one who is capable of creating these modifications is interested then let me know.  I can share my idea's with you directly and look at creating a new variation that will be very advanced, different and challenging.
“A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition”― Rudyard Kipling
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Question regarding Feature request

ZjelcoP
Hey,

I like your idea about the neutrals.
I'd like to add an idea I developped for a mod of the boardgame.
It's called diplomacy. Neutrals cannot be attacked.
However every turn nations get an attempt to "bribe" the neutral country.
It costs about 5 or 10 pu's. You throw 1 dice. A 5 or 6 makes the country turn to you.
On a 1 the country turns to the enemy. On 2,3,4 nothing happens.
In my version all neutrals held 2 infantry and 1 armor.
It makes it a bit risky but possibly very rewarding.
Allies and enemies can pop up all over the board which made for interesting gameplay.

 Zjelco

 
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Question regarding Feature request

erik542
In reply to this post by hepster
The primary effect of seaports, which is to allow navy rebuilding, can be done fairly simply. At the places where you want a seaport just put a second seazone embedded into the regular seazone with access restricted by a canal. It's not strictly identical and would require player enforced placement of navy. If there's not too many then player enforced rules can work out such as the red dot units in NWO and TRS.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Question regarding Feature request

hepster
Thanks for the suggestion.  If that is the only way to manage it then it may be the method I will have to try and use.  It was my intention to make them a far greater part of my mod because I wanted to have them as an eligible target for strategic bombing  so enemies could attempt to cease naval production until repairs were carried out, much like how some mods deal with industrial complexes. If a successful attack is registered then the bomber(s) roles again to determine the damage.  On the players next turn (the owner of the damaged port) they have to pay whatever the damage was in PU's prior to being able to produce new naval units out of that port.  I have very ambitious idea's that are probably daunting amounts work from a programming stand point.  I figured I'd ask at any rate, just to see how many of my ideas could possibly be created.


Here's another question.  If it is possible for attacking forces to withdraw, is it possible to create the option for defending troops to withdraw as well?  It has always seemed very limiting from a game play standpoint that you can't withdraw from a territory when faced with overwhelming odds or a disastrous first round of an engagement (or as a strategic move to draw a semi-depleted or under strength enemy army deeper into your territory for subsequent counter attack).  The situation of completely loosing a major force is often the immediate end to a game and is highly unrealistic in terms of real battlefield situations.   When I incorporated this concept into my board game version it added a whole new dimension and made major fronts (Russia-Germany, Japan-China) much more challenging and eventful.   The option to withdraw was added after the the attacking roll was completed and casualties had been selected.  Before your defensive roles you'd be given the option to retreat.  If you chose to retreat, then only the casualties got their defensive roles.  All other forces forgo their role as they flee the territory into an adjacent owned or allied territory.




   
“A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition”― Rudyard Kipling
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Question regarding Feature request

RogerCooper
In reply to this post by hepster
Your suggestions are similar to the rules for the new 1940 series of games, so they are likely to be incorporated during the coming year.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Question regarding Feature request

hepster
Thanks for the response.  I look forward to seeing these additions.
“A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition”― Rudyard Kipling
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Question regarding Feature request

yj2133011
Banned User
This post was updated on .
In reply to this post by hepster
CONTENTS DELETED
The author has deleted this message.
ice
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Question regarding Feature request

ice
plz ban this guys ip
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Question regarding Feature request

Maherdogg
any idea on when the 40 rules will make it into tripleA?
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Question regarding Feature request

Maherdogg
In reply to this post by RogerCooper
you say that, but Pac40 has been out for 8 months now with no movement on the TripleA front to show for it other than a nice looking map that is of no use.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Question regarding Feature request

ComradeKev
Administrator
Well, we wouldn't want to step on the sensitive toes of Hasbro now, would we?
If emailing me at ComradeKev at yahoo.com , please add TripleA to the subject line
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Question regarding Feature request

Maherdogg
adding features to the engine that allow it to load maps which are similar to any new AA games should not be actionable by Hasbro.

they weren't the first to come up with the idea of airbases adding movement, or convoys, supply raids, whatever you want to call them.    Gary Grigsby's used supply long before A&A.

As long as you don't host the map files on the same site, they shouldn't be able to do anything about it.  

Look at all the portal sites for DL'ing files through usenet that are out there.   Look at all the usenet services.  Much bigger targets for much bigger organizations and they can't be stopped.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Question regarding Feature request

Maherdogg
not to mention that pac40 is completely playable right now w/that map as long as you use the editor to makeup for where the engine fails.  problem is this does not allow for a good multiplayer experience.