Good luck, and have fun! And as you said a few years back: May the best German win ;-)
The best of luck to you too, may the best Anglo-Saxon win ;-)
The_Good_Captain (Axis) vs. VictoryFirst (Allies) | North Africa, Rommel's Last Push
-
@VictoryFirst said in The_Good_Captain (Axis) vs. VictoryFirst (Allies) | North Africa, Rommel's Last Push:
@The_Good_Captain No, I removed the black mines because the land mines are technically generic. And also this way it is much easier to check for the land mine stack/piece limits. Otherwise there are two separate unit types. In that case, mines would have to be placed via triggers in Sahara Desert 1 just like the supply and the sea mines to get the total number of units on the board, and this would make the module even more computation heavy. But it could be done though. If you really liked the Axis mines, I could put them back in.
How do we discern who’s landmines are whose when we both lay them on the same boarder?
-
@The_Good_Captain You can use the comment log for that. If you go to View>Show Comment Log you can write comments. Every time you place a mine, you should specify which territory it came from. This way, if you are unsure whose mine belongs to who, you can take a look at the comment log.
It’s not the most elegant way unfortunately, that would be to have the border territories split up into two, which one half belonging to one territory and the other half to the other. Then you would know to which territory the mine belongs. I experimented with this but the mines don’t fit very well into a half-circle. They overlap and it looks very messy. So I decided to stick with the larger full circles and then using the comment log to keep track of the ownership of the mines.
-
@VictoryFirst said in The_Good_Captain (Axis) vs. VictoryFirst (Allies) | North Africa, Rommel's Last Push:
@The_Good_Captain You can use the comment log for that. If you go to View>Show Comment Log you can write comments. Every time you place a mine, you should specify which territory it came from. This way, if you are unsure whose mine belongs to who, you can take a look at the comment log.
It’s not the most elegant way unfortunately, that would be to have the border territories split up into two, which one half belonging to one territory and the other half to the other. Then you would know to which territory the mine belongs. I experimented with this but the mines don’t fit very well into a half-circle. They overlap and it looks very messy. So I decided to stick with the larger full circles and then using the comment log to keep track of the ownership of the mines.
excellent! I will be sure to cover this in the video. NICE
-
Sorry for the mines, that mistake did have a large impact on the game. There is no way to prevent the player from placing more than one mine per territory. The only way would be to get rid of the border territories and have mines be placed in territories directly, then have a bunch of different mine units with the name of the territory they are placed along in their name, so e.g. landmine_BEN, landmine_BIR, etc. Then you could hover over the landmine and then you can see against which territory the mine defends.
Pros
- The limit of one mine per territory can be enforced by the engine
- Control of land mines would be immediately clear.
- Powers would be able to buy mines themselves, no need for the extra player “Mines”
Cons
- It is not immediately clear along which border the mines are placed (you’d have to hover over the unit to see, and the mine would be placed somewhere randomly in the territory, not necessarily along the correct border)
- There would be a lot of different units for the mines, so the purchase or edit screens would be bloated
- It’s harder to check for the mine limits (although not undoable, it can be done in the same way as supply).
- You will not be able to place mines directly in uncontrolled territories, so you would have to place them in a territory you own and then use edit to place them in an uncontrolled territory.
A possibility is that the “Mines” player still exists, and that it controls all the different mine units and that the normal powers can only purchase just the generic landmine and that afterwards they need to be replaced by a mine controlled by “Mines” that has the name of the territory included. This would not bloat the purchase or edit screen of normal powers, only the edit screen of the “Mines” player
What do you think?
-
By the way, I propose the following changes to correct my mistakes:
- One mine is removed BIR-JAL
- One mine is removed from MAT-TOB
- I will redo the UK purchases to fix the mistakes that happened this turn (that will probably included one less mine in Tobruk).
-
@VictoryFirst said in The_Good_Captain (Axis) vs. VictoryFirst (Allies) | North Africa, Rommel's Last Push:
By the way, I propose the following changes to correct my mistakes:
- One mine is removed BIR-JAL
- One mine is removed from MAT-TOB
- I will redo the UK purchases to fix the mistakes that happened this turn (that will probably included one less mine in Tobruk).
I’ll keep the Bir-Jal mine for the Axis, lol. I need something for eating the extra mine hits from earlier.
the others sound good. it’s all good. were mostly just trying to make sure the engine runs well enough.
the mines issue is a bit confusing to me so I might just advise you do what you think is best. I didn’t have an issue with keeping track of them myself when the mines were black and tan. But i get what you’re trying to do in having TripleA assist the player as much as possible.
That being said, I cannot visualize your solution. Honestly, I wasn’t even aware there was a “mines player” in tripleA.
-
@VictoryFirst this playing community is spoiled rotten by TripleA and people like you lol. in every other gaming community, we use VASSAL.
And there is ZERO expectation in other gaming communities that a program is developed to keep players from having to know the rules lol
-
@The_Good_Captain Alright! Yeah I tried my best to explain the mine issue. I think it’s best to keep it the way it is currently and just give a small note about this in the game notes. I think the pros outweigh the cons, with the biggest drawback being that the map would have to be redrawn again…
The mines now all having the same color is not to make them more easy to track for the players, but for the engine. The stack/piece limits are now very easy for the engine to check and require little computational power. Otherwise, it would need a lot more and could cause delay between game phases. Another reason I didn’t mention is that only one mine image nicely fits in the border territories. If you have two different mine images then it looks really weird (I tested it). This is cleanest looking way to deal with this.
-
@The_Good_Captain said in The_Good_Captain (Axis) vs. VictoryFirst (Allies) | North Africa, Rommel's Last Push:
Honestly, I wasn’t even aware there was a “mines player” in tripleA.
Lol, I did explain this feature in the game notes for anyone who would be confused about it.
There doesn’t necessarily exists a “mines player” in TripleA. Eric and I created one. You can create players and give them any name you want. From Germans to Russians, and from Mines to Dwarf Warriors.
The reason we have this is because it allows mines to be placed directly inside border territories. To place a unit in a territory, you always must control the territory. This is a little difficult with four different players. You can’t give control of a territory to all four powers at the same time. If you have one dedicated power that places the mines and controls all the territories they can be placed in, that solves it.
-
I removed a mine from MAT-TOB, and moved a mine from BIR-TOB to CAI-MAT.
-
@VictoryFirst all of what you said makes perfect sense. thanks for clarifying. all this will make the demonstration video much smoother
-
@The_Good_Captain How is that video going actually? Did you start recording?
-
Here is one with also two Axis supply removed from Benghazi (forgot about that)
-
Here is one with also two Axis supply removed from Benghazi (forgot about that)
-
we are sharing ben-tob; one mine is yours, one is mine. i saw the notes section but wasnt sure best way to record it.
-
@VictoryFirst said in The_Good_Captain (Axis) vs. VictoryFirst (Allies) | North Africa, Rommel's Last Push:
@The_Good_Captain How is that video going actually? Did you start recording?
No, not yet. Doing this helps you with cleaning up the module and it helps me gain confidence in using it which will make the video look and feel smoother. My intent is to make it look simple and easy and that anyone can master it so practicing in this/these games with you help a lot.
-
Btw I don’t know if you know already but I added some pop-ups for the players when certain events happen. This one is for the British. You will get some too as the Axis once the USA joins the war :)
This will help new players to bring attention to special events!
-
@The_Good_Captain said in The_Good_Captain (Axis) vs. VictoryFirst (Allies) | North Africa, Rommel's Last Push:
we are sharing ben-tob; one mine is yours, one is mine. i saw the notes section but wasnt sure best way to record it.
The moment you place mine, you should go to view>Show Comment Log. If it’s already enabled but not showing you have to disable it and then enable it.
Then write: “1 mine in BIR-BRE comes from Mersa Brega”
Then place the next mine and write: “1 mine in BIR-SIW comes from Bir Hacheim”.This way it is clear in which territories these mines are. If it’s not specified I would have to dig in the history to figure it out.
-
Looking at the German turn, I can see one mine must have been placed in Tobruk and the other in Bir Hacheim.
Just like with the Italian turn, you can write “1 mine in BEN-TOB comes from Benghazi”.
Another way to record this is to specify how many mines there are in a territory.
Benghazi: 1
Tobruk: 1
Mersa Brega: 1
Bir Hacheim: 3
Mersa Matruh: 1
Cairo: 4If you know this information, you can also deduce which mine belongs to what territory. I am not sure what works better, but we can always try both.
-
@VictoryFirst regarding your pop up. Very cool! The game refers to them as Shermans so I don’t think you can change it but those were actually M3 “Grants”, not Shermans.
But like I said, the game refers to them as Shermans and the piece itself is a Sherman so it should stay Sherman.
But when I make my YouTuve video series, they will be the Grant tank, hah!
Suggested Topics
