Red Sun Over China - Possible Bugs (RESOLVED)
-
@mattbarnes So decided to take a shot at some of these. Here is the PR that is merged and if you redownload the map then you can test them out: https://github.com/triplea-maps/red_sun_over_china/pull/5
Here are the ones that should be fixed:
- nationalists cant build in their factories (except the capital)
- nationalist factories are supposed to start damaged and require a premium to repair but this isn't functioning; neither the nationalists nor japan (after capture) can repair/use them
- nationalists can build in the countryside but japan can "damage" the countryside with strat bombing, which is probably not intended
- 2 hit battleships fail to repair
- communists seem to get "no allies in my territory" bonus regardless of where allies are
closed Fix Several Map Bugs Part 1 #5
-
@mattbarnes @wirkey @erik542 So I started reviewing the objectives in the XML vs the notes and here are the discrepancies:
- British: Phase II is ON. - 40 in the notes and 30 in the XML
- Thailand: Territorial Intergrity - 10 in the notes and 5 in the XML
- Thailand: Indochinese resources - 10 in the notes and 5 in the XML
- Japanese: Operation Ichi-Go - 30 in the notes and 20 in the XML
Any thoughts on which is correct?
Also there are 2 weird objectives that I'm not sure what they are for or if they were just for testing?
<!-- Functional NOs --> <!-- UK Cap --> <attachment name="objectiveAttachment101" attachTo="British" javaClass="games.strategy.triplea.attachments.RulesAttachment" type="player"> <option name="objectiveValue" value="-27"/> <option name="alliedExclusionTerritories" value="Phase II" count="1"/> </attachment> <attachment name="objectiveAttachment101" attachTo="British" javaClass="games.strategy.triplea.attachments.RulesAttachment" type="player"> <option name="objectiveValue" value="-1"/> <option name="alliedOwnershipTerritories" value="Myitkyina" count="1"/> </attachment>PR for a few more fixes: https://github.com/triplea-maps/red_sun_over_china/pull/6
- nationalists are supposed to only be able to make infantry and cavalry in the countryside but the engine allows anything to be built
- TripleA now enforces "Manchukwo, Japanese, and British may build ONLY in FACTORIES."
PR for another round of improvements: https://github.com/triplea-maps/red_sun_over_china/pull/7
- TripleA now enforces "Movement from one side of an enemy city to another is technically possible, but is considered ILLEGAL."
- Fixed missing images in the notes unit table
PR for another round of improvements: https://github.com/triplea-maps/red_sun_over_china/pull/8
- TripleA now enforces "British are not allowed to fight Axis for the first 3 rounds (Phase I), unless any Axis country attacks it first."
closed Fixes part 3 #7
closed Fixes part 4 #8
-
@mattbarnes @wirkey @erik542 @Hepps So the next thing I'd like to address now that bugs and player enforced rules have been fixed are trains. The trains in this map are pretty funky as Pulicat had to work around lots of TripleA limitations that no longer exist now.
The idea is merging the train concepts from Civil War (cleaner version of the existing ones in RSOC) and Total World War. This leaves a system where the following can be done:
- Trains move on 'rails' which are static units defined in certain territories instead of only station to station
- There are no separate station territories just station units in the city territories and trains are now land transports
- Trains can only load units if they start where there is a 'station'
- Trains can unload units in any territory they move to along the 'rails'
- Trains are either captured or destroyed when an enemy moves into the territory they are in
The main pros of this system are:
- More flexible train movement
- No more weird dummy territories in top left
- No longer need trains to be sea units or have separate station territories
- Trains still should strive to end their turn in territories with stations so they can load the next turn
- Trains can unload units in places besides stations
- Avoids weirdness of trains still being alive in stations when enemy captures the city
Thoughts?
-
@redrum sounds good, although I'd like to keep some sort of rail lines, like in CW and not the way it is in TWW
-
@wirkey Yeah, my idea is to have a much lower percentage of territories with rails (essentially those that it runs through now) vs TWW has rails in just about every territory (mostly due to its scale).
Thoughts on my previous post around the NOs?
Really looking for some more insight from those that originally helped test this map when Pulicat was around as I don't have any experience on it yet.
-
@redrum i really can't remember what we had, but as the Axis were overpowered anyway, I'd go with the lower values for them
-
@wirkey Alright. I'll at least make the XML and notes in sync to start and lean towards helping China. After I rework the trains, want to start up a game?
-
@redrum If there is the intention to redraw the rail connections based primarily on historicity, I may provide a draft (tho there would still be the other main issue of no Muslims and Lanchow and Sian Communist, if it is an issue, as I'm almost sure it is).
However a fully correct representation would likely require the use of canals, because with the allow-movement units' way you cannot represent the case of two adjacent territories both having rail lines, yet not connecting to each other (almost sure there would be a few cases, maybe also important ones).
-
@redrum sure. Does the current engine allow the "land canals"? Moving from one side of a city your side controls to the other with only one movement point? Territory A (adjacent to City C) has a connection to Territory B (also adjacent to C) but only usable if you own C
-
@wirkey It fully supports it since more than 5 years, but it would need some playtesting to proof, since it's a fair bit of coding, so easy to maybe getting a couple connections wrong.
And, as I was saying, you can use canals for railways too (just make a canal that excludes everything but trains and with the condition of owning both territories). Since redrum allowed for parallel canals, you can also have them requiring only one of the two territories, if you think you should be able to push your trains in attack, where the enemy has railway lines.
-
@wirkey @Cernel I already added all the land canals to enforce the special city movement rules: https://github.com/triplea-maps/red_sun_over_china/pull/7. Tested a few to ensure it worked but odds are I didn't get every single one right the first time so testing is appreciated.
@Cernel Probably going to keep with generally the existing rail lines and yes a few may end up adjacent so allow movement kind of across lines. I might consider trying to add land canals to prevent train movement between certain territories if I want to have more "pure" rail lines (haven't tried that but assume it would work).
closed Fixes part 3 #7
-
@redrum said in Red Sun Over China - possible bugs:
@Cernel Probably going to keep with generally the existing rail lines and yes a few may end up adjacent so allow movement kind of across lines. I might consider trying to add land canals to prevent train movement between certain territories if I want to have more "pure" rail lines (haven't tried that but assume it would work).
Ok. If you change your mind and would rather redraw the railways representing the hub at the time, let me know. It's fairly feasible, since they are pictured as a decoration.
Adding canals on top of the units based system feels a touch hacky. In that case, I would rather go full with canals, even tho that means spamming tons of never passable canals for all connections without rails.
-
@cernel Well, I just noticed I was not correct on that as, in case of changing any railway connections at all, there would be actually the challenge of providing something graphically acceptable to cover the rail connection box on top-left, that is currently connecting the rails with a lot of spaghetti, and I assume you intend to leave it be as purely informative, removing all those boxes. That would be a pretty big graphical challenge, as it would need to come up with something that feels at least decent with the rest, challenge made all the more difficult by the really good and peculiar graphic this map has (tho it would be possible to leave it as a black rectangle in the corner, and wait for someone to eventually volunteer for that graphic work thereafter).
-
@cernel said in Red Sun Over China - possible bugs:
@redrum If there is the intention to redraw the rail connections based primarily on historicity, I may provide a draft (tho there would still be the other main issue of no Muslims and Lanchow and Sian Communist, if it is an issue, as I'm almost sure it is).
I remember when I played with Puli long ago, he said that the railroads as is are historical.
-
@erik542 They are at least mostly historical, especially in the east, and maybe just what I have is not correct, also since I have WW2, tho I would very surprised if anything was changed between that and 1937.
Even if useless, I guess I should just make a simple draft based on my sources (not necessarily correct; I wasn't there at the time), in case pulicat comes back anytime and want to confront. -
@redrum The design sounds promising...
-
Seems like the added flexibility and draw-backs to the proposed system would be in-line with the spirit of the current system.
-
You can leave the rail (unit) system as indestructible so that blocking rail lines would only prevent odd maneuvers created by the current system.
-
Would REALLY streamline the current station system.
-
Would clean up the movement phase considerably.
-
-
@wirkey @erik542 Any idea if there was supposed to be a decrease in British income until Phase II is activated? There are triggers in the XML:
<!-- Functional NOs --> <!-- UK Cap --> <attachment name="objectiveAttachment101" attachTo="British" javaClass="games.strategy.triplea.attachments.RulesAttachment" type="player"> <option name="objectiveValue" value="-27"/> <option name="alliedExclusionTerritories" value="Phase II" count="1"/> </attachment> <attachment name="objectiveAttachment101" attachTo="British" javaClass="games.strategy.triplea.attachments.RulesAttachment" type="player"> <option name="objectiveValue" value="-1"/> <option name="alliedOwnershipTerritories" value="Myitkyina" count="1"/> </attachment> -
So, this is what I have, trying to adapt it to the map design and limited only to what is in China, Korea and north of Hanoi (Indo-China). Be warned that I just did it, and the maps (original 1940 to 1945) I used are quite busy, thus I could have easily missed something or got something wrong. The red lines are what I have, drawn over the referring map, not including what is given under construction:
I'm not saying that this is all correct, but mainly the matter is that I'm lacking all the railways in Chungking, Kweiyang, Kunming and Nanning, except only the line from Kunming to French Indo-China, and I've only a short railway going west of Sian, that is not reaching Lanchow, and nothing at all going south to Chungking. So all this would need research to determine if most of the western part of the railways this map shows were actually there (could be my sources are wrong/outdated/incomplete).
Searching in internet briefly, I've not been able to find any original period maps showing the railways, or anything looking original, exhaustive and reliable (if someone wants to try searching for it). -
@cernel Minor note, on my atlas the Shanghai - Changsha railway connects not to Changsha, but rather to Pinghsiang, then linking to the railway between Changsha and Canton, about 40 km south of Changsha, but I guess the Changsha circle represents a proportionate territory around it, not the city only (if it is the city only, then that red line should end in the Siangtan territory).
Generally, in the dubious cases, I've kept the option corresponding to the map. -
@redrum don't think so
