Red Sun Over China (RSOC) - Official Thread
-
Hey, I don’t seem to be able to place Fighters on Carriers when building new Fighters. Is that deliberate?
-
Observation from current games: I think the balance favours Japan at the moment. I crushed my opponent when I was Japan whereas he’s giving me a good game with him in Japan (and I’m the more experienced player). In particular, Japan has a strong chance of knocking UK completely out of the war and still its PUs. The Nationalists are having to send supporting troops to help India which seems a bit counter-historical. Should UK be slightly stronger?
-
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
@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.
-
Red rum, thanks for your efforts on this and consideration of the feedback. My carrier/fighter fail related to a new fighter on an old carrier, so according to your code ought to have been true, but wasn’t.
-
@mattbarnes sorry to jump in but Red rum just needs recognition : )
-
@mattbarnes If you have the save game then I can take a look at the fighter/carrier placement. If not then I'll start up a game and see if I can place new fighters on old carriers.
I'll be interested in your thoughts on the updated images and the balance changes.
-
@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.
-
@mattbarnes Correct on both of those. I just added the missing connection for East Assam to Manipur in the latest map version.
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
closed Fix requiresUnits carrier placement bug #4433
-
@Cernel said in Red Sun Over China (RSOC) - Official Thread:
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.
-
@Cernel In any case, this would change the current rules in that, then, you could move for free through a city that you captured on the same turn.
-
@redrum said in Red Sun Over China (RSOC) - Official Thread:
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_skinThe 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?
-
It looks way better, some unit images are missing btw.
-
@Schulz said in Red Sun Over China (RSOC) - Official Thread:
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.
-
So, I wanted to play Warlords FFA and have a little fun but it would not load for me. I then thought that RSOC was not working and tried opening that, only for it to load up perfectly. So is there something wrong with Warlords FFA? I uninstalled and reinstalled it multiple times and even went the manual route. I am right now stumped.
-
@ben-grorich there is an existing bug report for this https://github.com/triplea-game/triplea/issues/8166
Not sure what "centers" is all about. Maybe something needs updated in the xml.
-
@beelee Ah, okay.
-
I am investigating a bug report for Warlords_FFA. The xml for Warlords contains a lot of code for train stations that is not in Red Sun Over China that is causing errors because it references non-existent territories. Can I just drop that code and the train stations?
-
@rogercooper This may be a good question for @redrum as I remember he updated the map away from the old "train" system. Maybe he didn't update all games of the map.
-
@cernel I got the map working by commenting out all the train stuff. I didn't bother trying to merge the code in RSOC with Warlords.
Maybe, as a quick fix, I will give all train stations, a bonus of 1 for land movement.
