Red Sun Over China (RSOC) - Official Thread
-
@redrum Actually, I missed that armour can land transport heavy_artillery, so that is actually a +28 TUV swing and 51% win probability (killing all and saving your fighter) (and the autoselect should make you land transport the heavy_artillery, preferentially to the infantry, if a fix to transporting highest attack units first can be made).
Moreover, the fact that armour is a land transport implies that the armour unit is not even representing the infantry organic of the Japanese tank regiments, that makes the current infantry ratio even more incredibly ahistorical (as you would have to actually subtract a number of infantry equal to the number of armours etc., in confronting with the historical data on divisions, regiments etc., that usually have more than enough infantry you can transport in organic, and a bunch actually keeping up with bicycles). -
@cernel Ok, I just tested and got the +28 TUV now. I totally missed armor are land transports! Feel like on this map that makes them extremely strong at 6 TUV and feels kind of weird. And yeah a 50/50 battle with that many units round 1 is not an ideal setup IMO. I'm almost definitely going to remove isLandTransport from armor in the next version.
-
@redrum said in Red Sun Over China (RSOC) - Official Thread:
And yeah a 50/50 battle with that many units round 1 is not an ideal setup IMO.
Yeah, that really makes the game hard to be taken seriously with dice, since a huge dicing there is going to have a massive snowball effect, and liking dice doesn't necessarily mean it's great to be down to 10% chances to win the game after 5 minutes of playing. I think it's not a problem at all for LL gameplay, instead. Anyways this still doesn't beat or come close to 270BC Lilybaeum with the city.:face_without_mouth:
-
@cernel said in Red Sun Over China (RSOC) - Official Thread:
Yeah, I guess that pulicat made the Japs so high tech to feature the material superiority with respect to the Chinese, but to me it feels that has been pushed too far, since, while the Japanese had surely much more hardware than the Chinese, they were mainly an infantry army with very minor and limited mechanization, relying mainly on infantry charges and close combat.
Pulicat did want the contrast in army composition to accentuate the attrition gap between China and Japan. That being said, it always felt a little off. The Japs should probably have some infantry if only to absorb some of the the initial casualties.
Honestly, it feels like the map would be better served if things were adjusted so Japan could go first since in most other maps the "aggressor" usually goes first in a particular theater.
-
@redrum said in Red Sun Over China (RSOC) - Official Thread:
I'm almost definitely going to remove isLandTransport from armor in the next version.
I'd wait for the opinion of the actual and possibly veteran players of this map on this, I believe, but I think it makes sense armour being land transports (or at least it would if the starting units would be representative, which means very few armour thus very few infantry that you can transport). Usually armours have an organic of motorized infantry, and you can also pack a dozen men on top of the armour itself; so, in the moment you have different units for artillery and infantry, I think it makes sense to separate the armour from their infantry too.
If armours would be unable to transport, then I believe it would be necessary to represent motorization in other ways.
The Japanese have mobile infantry, but everyone else that got armour lack it, even the British, and anyways I don't really like mobile infantry as a unit, since you are not actually driving your trucks in the battlefield, so it doesn't really make sense that they have to die with the infantry they are motorising.
Personally, I'm far more perplex on the matter why the light artillery is movement 2, and would rather change that to 1, unless somebody can explain me why is that (if it is horse artillery, then ok, but probably should be called that way and be represeted accordingly; motorized artillery doesn't need to be light, so I guess it's not that).
But just giving some off the cuff opinions, as I've still to decide if I really like the game (sorry but it has a bunch of items that are really making me perplex).
Same matter, if armour cannot transport artillery, then you should have a way to motorize your artillery (I don't believe the light artillery is representing that, and, anyways, same matter as with the infantry, I don't see why the motorization must be forcefully part of what it moves, especially in the moment you have a game with railways). -
Alright so found the first bug! So it appears from the notes that:
"Communists produce all their units outside of factories, and may also build on newly captured territory. Communists may produce up to 3 units in each territory. Communist have no capital, the flag in the map is merely decoration."But the Communists can't actually produce units in newly conquered territory and I had to edit to achieve it. I'm guessing this bug has always existed but I'll let some of the veterans chime in.
-
@redrum said in Red Sun Over China (RSOC) - Official Thread:
Alright so found the first bug! So it appears from the notes that:
"Communists produce all their units outside of factories, and may also build on newly captured territory. Communists may produce up to 3 units in each territory. Communist have no capital, the flag in the map is merely decoration."But the Communists can't actually produce units in newly conquered territory and I had to edit to achieve it. I'm guessing this bug has always existed but I'll let some of the veterans chime in.
It's been like that since release, always had to edit that.
-
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. -
Alright v3.0.1 uploaded to fix rules attachments:
- Communist production should now allow them to properly place in conquered territories
-
@erik542 I’m sure I’ve built in newly captured territories with the Communists in the most recent map (before Redrum’s latest revamp). I just rarely wanted to as that turf is often in the midst of the Japanese. My Communists tended to get pushed back a long way (as that was my opponent’s focus) so in the end I had to capture neutrals just for a place to build.
-
@mattbarnes I'd be a bit surprised if that was the case as there was an issue in the XML which I think was always there but ya never know.
-
I see that in the folders there are:
ruralproduction.png
ruralproduction_hit.png
I assume that the hit version is useless, correct?Anyways, now that the thing has been implemented properly (rather than with the hack of having the image being blank), I suggest to remove all blank images from the folders.
-
@redrum Save game attached based on old game, showing communist builds in captured territory.0_1535705555478_M&M2B.tsvg
-
@redrum Take a look at the big skin at the previous link. It is still very pixelated, so not proposing it (but, actually, it is the original relief that are pixelated; just it becomes evident when you enlarge them, as you can see there are borders that are not pixellated); just saying I've redo the 200% enlargement of the relief with a different algorithm that looks a bit better to me (the previous one was too aggressive against the halo).
-
The referring ruleset, as well as all rules exceptions to it, should be specified in notes.
For example, users should know if factories block (v2) blitz or don't (v1).
As a matter of historicity, another think I've a huge problem with is that you need to conquer the Burma road. That remembers me of conquering the Panama canal in WAW. I guess the conquest is to represent the efforts to build the road, as it wasn't available already in December 1937, but I would rather just delay its activation of a sensible number of rounds and give correct ownerships (maybe 2).
-
@erik542 said in Red Sun Over China - Possible Bugs (RESOLVED):
Well looking at the game notes, the Thai-UK NAP is represented by "3) British are not allowed to fight Axis for the first 3 rounds (Phase I), unless any Axis country attacks it first."
I cannot find this in notes anymore. I believe all stuff like this should be detailed in notes. The objectives don't give the info about when stuff happens. Not sure I'm overlooking something.
Also, realistically, British would never attack Thailand until it declares on Allies and Thailand would not declare on Allies until conquered by Japan.
-
Well it probably got removed with the addition of the politics implementation.
-
@erik542 Maybe I'm missing something or I'm not sure you noticed that British (still?) goes automatically at war on round 4. I'm not seeing where the user can know that (maybe I'm blind and I'm ovelooking some info).
Also, a line in notes about the fact that Axis can declare war on British.
Personally, even with this very basic representation of British involvement, I think 3 rounds of netrality is way too few. That would represent 1938, 1939, 1940 and 1941, a total of 4 full years (map starts end of 1937 and Pear Harbor is end of 1941) represented by 3 rounds, that would imply 1 round is more than 1 year. Due to the scope of this map, and the unfolding events, 1 round should be 1 to 3 months of real time. Thus the British entry into the war should be delayed until round 17 to 49.
-
@cernel Yeah, I'll eventually clean up the image folders just not high priority.
Yeah, the notes could use some more clarifications on some of the rules and politics. Just haven't added that in yet. Mostly just fixed the existing notes and reformatted the content to make it readable.
So I'm open to considering adjusting British involvement but obviously 17 to 49 rounds is just ridiculous... I think a turn represents closer to 6-9 months given I expect the game to last on average around 10 turns and cover 1938-1945.
-
@redrum Well, 6 months per round would mean British is at war on round 9. I guess that may be a compromise between playability and realism. The war in China ended up in stalemate for a long time, with the Chinese holding on Hunan, that the Japanese managed to break only in 1944, even to they were trying since 1941 (failing again and again).
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login