Looking for beta testers for the next version of TripleA

This is what the rulebooks say:

@AA50:

Step 2: Roll Research Dice
For each researcher you have, roll one die.
Success: If you roll at least one “6”, you have successfully made a technological
breakthrough. Discard all your researcher tokens and continue to step 3.
Failure: If you do not roll a “6”, your research has failed. Keep all your
researcher tokens and continue to the Purchase Units phase of the turn.

and
@Europe40:

Step 2: Roll Research Dice
Roll each of your purchased research dice.
Success: If you roll at least one “6”, you have successfully made a technological
breakthrough. Continue to step 3.
Failure: If you don’t roll a “6”, your research has failed.

So I’m afraid the technology system changed.

I just started a game here:

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=27606.0

G1 went fine so far.

Concerning the tech-change: If it is not too much work,  maybe there can be a game option to either use the AA50 system or the “new” one.
Personally I like the AA50 tech-system more, but if one wants to stick to the rules this should be possible.

I’m still cycling through regular turns and not bothering to move any units, just buying technology tokens.  I like the token concept by the way, it will be good to have tokens instead of die rolls as an option.

Anyway, on US turn 4 during combat moves, a message popped up asking about kamikaze strikes in the sea zone around the Phillippines, sea zone 35.  Since Japan isn’t holding the Philippines it looked a little strange for it to pop up.  On the other hand, a literal reading of the rule on the www.harrisgamedesign.com forum doesn’t have a clause that requires Japan to actually hold the island in the territory matching that sea zone.  I wrote a post there to ask Krieghund if holding the territory in the sea zone was required, it seems reasonable to expect that the land needs to be held.

Saved just after american combat move got offered kamikaze strikes.tsvg

I went a little further and got this

Exception in thread “Triplea start thread” java.lang.NullPointerException
at games.strategy.triplea.attatchments.TriggerAttachment.triggerSupportChange(TriggerAttachment.java:2111)
at games.strategy.triplea.delegate.TechActivationDelegate.start(TechActivationDelegate.java:108)
at games.strategy.engine.framework.ServerGame.startStep(ServerGame.java:567)
at games.strategy.engine.framework.ServerGame.runStep(ServerGame.java:467)
at games.strategy.engine.framework.ServerGame.startGame(ServerGame.java:291)
at games.strategy.engine.framework.startup.launcher.LocalLauncher.launchInNewThread(LocalLauncher.java:99)
at games.strategy.engine.framework.startup.launcher.AbstractLauncher$1.run(AbstractLauncher.java:46)
at java.lang.Thread.run(Unknown Source)

I was buying tech tokens for the UK when this happened.  Autosave file attached.

autosave.tsvg

It’s a bughunt.    8-)

I’m looking forward to the Global 40 playtesting asap, but I ahevn’t downloaded the 1.6 yet as I’ve been too busy this weekend visiting relatives. I will get on the case very soon.

However, I do currently have two instances of TripleA installed: 1_3_2_2 (which I use for 50th Anniversary) and 1_5_2_1 (which I use for Pacific 40). Obviously, I would rather only have the one instance of TripleA so as not to clutter up my C drive too much. What I want to know is, will the new TripleA 1.6 include the previous two versions mentioned above?

Thank you very much in advance.

That makes perfect sense, Veqryn, thank you. Sorry for the confusion. I will keep the stable 1.5.2.1 and delete/uninstall the 1.3.2.2. I will also get the new unstable 1.6 asap so I can crack on with the bughunt (and the enjoyment too, of course)!

Okay, I may have found a bug here. I am playing:

World War II Global 1940 Alpha 3
Engine Version: 1.6 Game: World War II Global 1940 Alpha 3 Game Version:2.9

I am Germany against the AI. I had previously purchased a Minor IC upgrade without realising that I needed to have a Minor IC in an original territory to start with. Therefore, the upgrade sat in my ‘mobilization zone’ (for x number of turns) and could only be placed/used once I built a Minor IC in one of my original territories. No problem with that, but perhaps the game shouldn’t let you purchse an upgrade if it knows that you don’t have any eligible ICs.

Also, I noticed that all of my Minor ICs that I captured from the enemy during the game showed a potential to build/place 4 new units during the MNU phase (instead of the usual 3). Now, I understand that this is because the game knows that I have previously purchased a Minor IC upgrade and therefore is treating my potential build as being: 3 new combat units + 1 upgrade = 4. However! The game should realise that it is not legal to upgrade a captured Minor IC, and therefore the potential of 4 builds should in fact be 3.

I have added a save game here. Look at France. It is doing what I described above and yet Normandy Bordeaux is not. They both have captured Minor ICs on them but France shows a potential 4 builds and Normandy Bordeaux shows a potential 3 (which I believe is correct).

Global 1940 BUG.tsvg

I also noticed something else which could be wrong…

Same game as post above. I purchased a Minor IC in the original German territory of Romania last turn. During the MNU phase of the current turn, I wish to place new Infantry in the territory as well as upgrade the Minor IC. Can I do both in the same turn? Yes and no. If I build the upgrade first and click ‘OK’ it upgrades immediately, no problem. But then if I try to place new Infantry units, I get the message: “Factory in Romania can’t produce until 1 turn after it is created.” However, the game WILL let me do the Infantry placement first (3 units) and then the upgrade. Seems like a contradiction here. It will also let me do both at the same time. So to summarise, I can do one of the following:

1 - Upgrade, say OK and then cannot place any new combat units

2 - Place new combat units AND upgrade simultaneously

3 - Place new combat units, say OK and then upgrade

A bit strange, methinks. Thanks very much for reading!

Thanks very much for looking into this. I appreciate that it is not a bug, and I now understand what constitutes such. Forgive me, I am still very new to TripleA and I’m still learning what the program can and cannot do.  :-)

However, I do still think that the issue of upgrading an original Minor IC (AND placing new units at it during the MNU phase) could be handled better. Of the three options I mentioned above, I think option 1 needs to be eliminated, if possible. Why? Well, because I think it is a mistake/wrong that the game will allow you to upgrade the Minor IC, then click ‘OK’, and then not be able to place the new units.

If this can’t be fixed then fair enough, but I think it may confuse new players (and I hope TripleA gets LOTS of new players in the near future). I mean, I now know how to perform this part of the game process but new players may not, and it could mean making the difference between placing new units in the current turn or waiting till the next. And as we all know, one turn can make all the difference.

Thank you again.

Is there a good forum to suggest changes and such to the program. I have a wish list and a couple of suggestions.

Hi Veqryn,

In a current game we noticed that the value of Okinawa [1] is not displayed on the map… appears as a 0 IPC territory to the eye (though income is still collected from it).

-MIR