Red Sun Over China (RSOC) - Official Thread

redrum

@loveplayingaaa You need to check the "Show Map Details" option in that menu.

Cernel

@redrum That setting should really be per map, not general.

redrum

@cernel Agree.

LovePlayingAAA

Thanks! That was the solution, I had to activate "map details".

mattbarnes

Is it just me or does it seem as though there’s no land link from Calcutta to Chittagong?

redrum

@mattbarnes there is but the canal is causing it to be blocked. I'm planning to fix it in the next version.

mattbarnes

Does the game still have the auto declaration of war at turn 4? I’m only on turn 2 in my PBEM so don’t yet know. It would help if the Game Notes could please make this clear in the next version.

redrum

@mattbarnes Yeah. And good catch. I'll look to add that in the notes.

mattbarnes

I don’t know if others have played the game yet but I’m finding the Nationalists are effective by spamming Fighters+Conscripts. Do others do the same?

And Axis has a fair chance of squashing a weak UK by around turn 7 if they direct their focus that way. True?

redrum

@mattbarnes Conscripts are definitely strong and essential to Nationalists defense. I actually used tanks+heavy artillery as the attack power rather than fighters as they are a lot cheaper. But fighters do have more flexibility.

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.

mattbarnes

How do you use tanks&arty as nationalists exactly? I see two problems: (a) you can’t produce them fast enough unless you waste funds repairing all the factories and (b) they die in counter attack which is an expensive loss. In contrast, the fighters kill Japanese troops while the conscripts are fodder and one or two survive to take the ground. The fighters live to fight again every turn. Note I’m describing how to preserve a no mans land across the whole front to stop the Japanese advance. I agree that tanks/arty late in the game would be necessary to attack any main Japanese army.

redrum

@mattbarnes For trading, fighters are definitely better. I guess I found I needed to build up attack power in order to counter the main Japanese stacks. I mostly just use conscripts to trade back and forth along with the few starting fighters. Guess it depends somewhat on how the Japanese are playing and if they are trying to have a doom stack march through the main cities or if they are trying to win on a wide front.

Hepps

@redrum What do you think on these for the 2 different cavalries for Manchuria?

0_1543707260521_Proposed cavalry.png

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

redrum

@Hepps I think they look good.

mattbarnes

Hey, I don’t seem to be able to place Fighters on Carriers when building new Fighters. Is that deliberate?

mattbarnes

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?

redrum

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.

mattbarnes

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.

beelee

@mattbarnes sorry to jump in but Red rum just needs recognition : )

redrum

@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.