Maybe, as a quick fix, I will give all train stations, a bonus of 1 for land movement.

Not sure what "centers" is all about. Maybe something needs updated in the xml.

It looks way better, some unit images are missing btw.

The units folder is just the same as the original map, so no images should be missing if they are not missing in the original.

Just pushed the latest version live and here are the changes:

v3.1.0

• Overhaul many unit images (credit to @Hepps)
• Fixed Calcutta to Chittagong connection
• Added several starting British infantry (make it more difficult for Japan to take the UK out early)
• Removed a few bombers/fighters from Japan (decrease Japanese air power as Axis seem a bit OP)
• Added political clarifications to notes

I've just updated my "Big Skin" map-skin of this, also to take advantage of the new units by @Hepps.

Everyone can download it from here:
https://github.com/Cernelius/red_sun_over_china-big_skin

The map skin is just a 200% zoomed game-board version of the original, mostly to leave more space for the units and also to have the units about 48% bigger (the units themselves are zoomed at 0.8333, instead of 0.5625 for the original).

Anyone let me know what you think. Might this be something worth adding to download list?

The movement through cities is a bit strange in the moment you consider retreating.
If all your units are moving through, you can retreat to the starting territory but not to the city, that really makes no sense.
If all your units are from the city, you can retreat to the city but not to any bordering territories, which doesn't make sense as well, since units moving through the city from more far away would be able to retreat back more, and there is no reason why the ones only coming from the city can't.
Maybe this game would be better with 1 combat round only, not only for solving the above. Practically, the scenario is almost a late WWI army (Japanese) against poor WWI army (Chinese), and it was indeed grindy.
Moreover, if it is true that Japs are OP, 1 combat round may be what's needed to rebalance.

Now that territory effects support movement cost, cities can be reworked as having a "urban" territory effect giving -1 movement cost, so that entering cities is a free move, since using canals is substantially a workaround (and it makes no sense that a unit moving through a city to attack doesn't retreat to the city, while a unit attacking from the city does). However, since movement costs are charged upon entering, this would imply that enemies can attack cities with a free movement if you can move into a movement cost 0 territory when you have remaining movement 0, or friendly units could reach it if exhausting movement in a nearby territory, that would be a major departure from the current rules. So this may be feasible only either if units with remaining movement 0 cannot enter territories requiring 0 remaining movement or by making urban giving -0.5 additional cost and having a property that allows moving into the movement cost 1 territories (that are all territories not having the "urban" effect) when you have 0.5 movement capacity left.

The fighter placement on carrier issue was actually an engine bug as since the map uses advanced placement rules with "requiresUnits" attribute, that attribute didn't work properly with placing new fighters on carriers. This will be fixed in the latest pre-release: https://github.com/triplea-game/triplea/pull/4433

@redrum Thanks again for supporting this fun map and dealing with all enquiries.

See the attached saved game. I'm afraid you need to wind back to see the Turn 6 history for UK where I couldn't place the fighter and had to Edit it in. Thinking about it, I wonder if the issue could be a broken link from Chittagong to the sea??

By the way, I think there's another broken link: from East Assam to Manipur. Do you agree?

I'm keen to look at the new images and game balance but I can't load the new map till I've finished my current game on the old map. Hopefully by the weekend.

I'll be interested in your thoughts on the updated images and the balance changes.

v3.1.0

• Overhaul many unit images (credit to @Hepps)
• Fixed Calcutta to Chittagong connection
• Added several starting British infantry (make it more difficult for Japan to take the UK out early)
• Removed a few bombers/fighters from Japan (decrease Japanese air power as Axis seem a bit OP)
• Added political clarifications to notes

@mattbarnes Here are the current fighter/carrier placement rules:

    <property name="Produce fighters on carriers" value="true" editable="false">
      <boolean/>
    </property>
    <property name="Produce new fighters on old carriers" value="true" editable="false">
      <boolean/>
    </property>
    <property name="Move existing fighters to new carriers" value="false" editable="false">
      <boolean/>
    </property>
    <property name="Land existing fighters on new carriers" value="true" editable="false">
      <boolean/>
    </property>

I agree that v3.0.1 seems to favor the Axis powers. I made a few balance adjustments to give the UK a few more starting infantry and remove a few fighters/bombers from Japan. I think that should help ensure the UK stays alive a bit longer and reduce the insane starting air force for Japan which should force them to decide whether to invest in more air units vs land units.

I had designed the other cavalry for a WWI game designed loosely on... but it might work well for this scenario as well.

I think if Japan focuses on UK then they can probably take them out around 7-8. But they probably sacrifice a lot of pressure on the Nationalists if they do.