Empire of the Rising Sun - ToTTP/LUA Remake Official Thread

[Patine]

I thought it was about time, as the New Year is less than 4 days, to start this thread formally. My remake, which formally starts at the beginning of the Second Sino-Japanese War in 1937, which approach many things from the original version in new and expanded ways - including triggering Allied nations into belligerence (other than China, which starts with war having just begun with) - and how and when, the Atomic Bomb issue (giving it more punch and profoundness than just two B-29 units with the "nuclear" flag and Move orders to Nagasaki and Hiroshima), the need for resources from Southeast Asia, and the potentially crippling ability of American Submarines, raising troops in collaborator "East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere" puppet states using an inspiration from @tootall_2012's Napoleon scenario's "forced allied created kingdom" troops generation, and more. Here is the current units.bmp file to have a look at for starters.

 

[Patine]

Please note that the second last functional unit (right before the Free French Infantry) is NOT a Soviet unit with an American-style uniform and firearm. The yellow sickle-and-hammer just need to redrawn into a yellow bull's head to produce the "yellow bull's head on a red shield," used by the Filipino Scouts during their resistance to the Japanese occupation. I just thought that Soviet shield icon was the easiest base to work from and make a few graphics touch-ups to produce it.

 

[CurtSibling]

Will be interesting to see what you do with this new version, Patine...But I must give my feedback, with all due respect...

Only one Brit infantry unit, but a plethora of multinational soldiers and obscure vehicles that were built in the single digits?

I would personally give each faction an organic roster of troops that each serve a puropose...
A little scale I'd use when deciding on what troop types I'll include:

Defenders, (1-Move Def units) EG: Brit Riflemen/Red Army
Assault Troops, (1 and 2-Move Att units) EG: Waffen SS/Red Guards
Marines, (Seaborne High Att units) EG: US Marines/SNLF Marines
Paratroopers, (High Def units) EG: Fallschirmjager/US Airborne
Guerillas, (High Def, High Mob units) EG: Gurkhas/Soviet Partisans
Special Forces, (One of a kinds, or events units) EG: Spies, Generals, etc.

 

[Fairline]

Random thoughts about your unit choices:

No Indian troops? No US subs? No Iowa Class to counter the Yamato? P-35 but no P-47? No British tanks (assuming you include Burma in this)? No Ki-84? No B5N, D4Y or Ki-51? No Essex carriers? No Hurricanes or Spitfires but Boomerangs and Wirraways?

Why have the Hosho as a carrier unit?

The US army trooper has ETO uniform rather than green denims (I'd replace him with N13 in the US WW2 compilation I posted)

The Ki-27 graphic is really old - see the Japanese compilation for a replacement. Likewise the truck pic you've used.

Personally I would have equivalent graphics for Japan and the US for each naval unit type in a scenario where naval forces are so important.

 

[Patine]

Random thoughts about your unit choices:

No Indian troops? No US subs? No Iowa Class to counter the Yamato? P-35 but no P-47? No British tanks (assuming you include Burma in this)? No Ki-84? No B5N, D4Y or Ki-51? No Essex carriers? No Hurricanes or Spitfires but Boomerangs and Wirraways?

Why have the Hosho as a carrier unit?

The US army trooper has ETO uniform rather than green denims (I'd replace him with N13 in the US WW2 compilation I posted)

The Ki-27 graphic is really old - see the Japanese compilation for a replacement. Likewise the truck pic you've used.

Personally I would have equivalent graphics for Japan and the US for each naval unit type in a scenario where naval forces are so important.

I decided to leave out the Burma Theatre for three important reasons - 1) To free up unit slots, 2) It seemed a bit "isolated" strategically as almost a microcosm of operations, and 3) Because, even though different Civ2 scenarios can't affect each other in result or play, obviously, @techumseh's planned project covers a very complex and intricate situation very well. My map has a western edge in the western part of Thailand.

But, both you and @CurtSibling's initial feedback will certainly be considered for a next draft (as I'm not married to this one, certainly).

 

[Patine]

Will be interesting to see what you do with this new version, Patine...But I must give my feedback, with all due respect...

Only one Brit infantry unit, but a plethora of multinational soldiers and obscure vehicles that were built in the single digits?

I would personally give each faction an organic roster of troops that each serve a puropose...
A little scale I'd use when deciding on what troop types I'll include:

Defenders, (1-Move Def units) EG: Brit Riflemen/Red Army
Assault Troops, (1 and 2-Move Att units) EG: Waffen SS/Red Guards
Marines, (Seaborne High Att units) EG: US Marines/SNLF Marines
Paratroopers, (High Def units) EG: Fallschirmjager/US Airborne
Guerillas, (High Def, High Mob units) EG: Gurkhas/Soviet Partisans
Special Forces, (One of a kinds, or events units) EG: Spies, Generals, etc.

Random thoughts about your unit choices:

No Indian troops? No US subs? No Iowa Class to counter the Yamato? P-35 but no P-47? No British tanks (assuming you include Burma in this)? No Ki-84? No B5N, D4Y or Ki-51? No Essex carriers? No Hurricanes or Spitfires but Boomerangs and Wirraways?

Why have the Hosho as a carrier unit?

The US army trooper has ETO uniform rather than green denims (I'd replace him with N13 in the US WW2 compilation I posted)

The Ki-27 graphic is really old - see the Japanese compilation for a replacement. Likewise the truck pic you've used.

Personally I would have equivalent graphics for Japan and the US for each naval unit type in a scenario where naval forces are so important.

I'm going to start looking over this with your guys' feedback over New Year's (since I have no big parties planned). I think a lot of the "clutter" is me getting carried with graphics, especially aircraft, many of which, as Curt pointed out, had minimal production runs. Also, it's quite obvious, with outside input, that my prioritization of units is slightly "wonky." I think I may need to streamline things, perhaps even reassemble the units.bmp from a clean template.

 

[Fairline]

I decided to leave out the Burma Theatre for three important reasons - 1) To free up unit slots, 2) It seemed a bit "isolated" strategically as almost a microcosm of operations, and 3) Because, even though different Civ2 scenarios can't affect each other in result or play, obviously, @techumseh's planned project covers a very complex and intricate situation very well. My map has a western edge in the western part of Thailand.

But, both you and @CurtSibling's initial feedback will certainly be considered for a next draft (as I'm not married to this one, certainly).

I think leaving Burma out may be a mistake; it was a significant drain on Japan's fighting forces which imho should be a concern for the player, if the player is Japan. Invading India and effectively kicking Britain out of the war in the east was an important strategic goal for Japan, and whether or not the player pursues this goal, they should still have to defend their gains in Malaya and Singapore from the Allies. In addition to this the northern Burmese road / air route was a key source of supply for China which the player should have to deal with. I understand your reasoning with respect to Tech's scenario dealing with the CBT theatre in great detail, but that shouldn't prevent you from including a simplified version of the Burma campaign.

Have you played Kobayashi's DST scenario btw? It covers the War from Japan's perspective extremely well and would be a useful source of ideas and inspiration for your scenario.

 

[Patine]

I think leaving Burma out may be a mistake; it was a significant drain on Japan's fighting forces which imho should be a concern for the player, if the player is Japan. Invading India and effectively kicking Britain out of the war in the east was an important strategic goal for Japan, and whether or not the player pursues this goal, they should still have to defend their gains in Malaya and Singapore from the Allies. In addition to this the northern Burmese road / air route was a key source of supply for China which the player should have to deal with. I understand your reasoning with respect to Tech's scenario dealing with the CBT theatre in great detail, but that shouldn't prevent you from including a simplified version of the Burma campaign.

Have you played Kobayashi's DST scenario btw? It covers the War from Japan's perspective extremely well and would be a useful source of ideas and inspiration for your scenario.

I played it several years ago, but still it have in my custom scenarios I've downloaded folder. I'll have another look at it. As I said, I think I'll have to reassemble by units.bmp file on a fresh new template anyways, so this input is VERY helpful at this early stage, and I can take constructive criticism well.

 

[JPetroski]

Hi Patine,

Great to see you breaking ground on this one again. I have a suggestion that you may wish to consider before going too far. This is coming from a good place and from someone who has completed his share of scenarios, some quite large. It also considers some of the issues I've had to grapple with for my "upcoming" (take that with a grain of salt) Hinge of Fate, where I considered a 1936 and 1939 German start but ultimately landed on May, 1940.

I think you ought to sit down and ponder if you truly want to go with a 1937 start date. One question I'd ask you is "what is the meat of the scenario supposed to be?" If that answer is the fight against the United States, I would implore you to consider a start date closer to December 1941. A 1937 start date will pose significant challenges. Though not insurmountable, they may make this project much more than you can, or would ultimately want to, chew. Some things to consider:

-Balancing the scenario will be much more difficult. You are basically proposing to have a build-up scenario where the player presumably has 40+ turns to grow before the main opponent unlocks. Consider that Red Front was only about 48 turns in its entirety and what buildup was possible there. While you can adjust build times and shields, that's a lot of turns to leave any player to figure out how to min-max.

-Playtesting the scenario will be enormously more time-consuming as little changes that you implement available from turn 1 can dramatically affect how the early 1940s go, necessitating you to play potentially dozens of turns over and over again just to get to the part where America starts and the real meat begins. You might be able to get away with mid-point save starts for some things you change (such as events that only fire mid-game), but more often than not I'd suspect you're going to be restarting and will feel your eyes glaze over as you go through it.

-You are limiting the useful and fun units you can use by forcing yourself to use earlier units. You can minimize this issue with a batch file and rules updates but then you're creating massively more work.

-It is much less likely that you will finish the scenario, given the grand scope. This isn't simply a matter of units or rules files to consider but the very delicate maneuvers you must force the AI to adopt.

How much do you really want to see the 1937-1941 conflicts? Is this what is going to hook most players, or are people going to be sitting around waiting for the main one to start?

Might I suggest an alternative:

Use a 1941 start date but still have a "choose your own adventure" buildup where the player gets to decide how the war went from 1937 until 1941. Achieve this by using a lua event such as I'm using in Midway. There, I present the player with a dialogue box on turn one with three options. I'm using it simply to add some fog of war and allow the player to choose where their units deploy (north, south, center) so the other side isn't quite sure where the enemy is. The concept, however, could easily be expanded and you might have a series of dialogue options that describe an event from 1937 to 1941, and present the player with a few options (Occupy Indochina, Leave it Be); ("Abide by the Washington Naval Treaty; "Ignore It"). Then, depending on the decision, the starting map is different and the units are different. All of this is easily achievable in lua with scenarios that are either currently released and available or that should be released well before you're ready to start plugging away with this.

This would be much work on the front end, as it would require you to keep track of many coordinates and figure out what the ramifications of each choice would be, but it would save you considerable work on the back end with playtesting, given that you wouldn't need to replay the first 40-odd turns repeatedly just to finally get to the part you really need to test for balance.

Anyway, it's your baby--do what you want and I'll be glad to play it regardless--but I thought I'd lay some of this out there because you might not know some of the roadblocks ahead of you. If (and this is a total assumption on my part) the main reason you want 1937 is for the fun of the buildup (like in Hearts of Iron) you might achieve this via the abstract (but fun, interesting, and unique) way I laid out without losing all your hair, sanity, and sleep.

 

[Patine]

Hi Patine,

Great to see you breaking ground on this one again. I have a suggestion that you may wish to consider before going too far. This is coming from a good place and from someone who has completed his share of scenarios, some quite large. It also considers some of the issues I've had to grapple with for my "upcoming" (take that with a grain of salt) Hinge of Fate, where I considered a 1936 and 1939 German start but ultimately landed on May, 1940.

I think you ought to sit down and ponder if you truly want to go with a 1937 start date. One question I'd ask you is "what is the meat of the scenario supposed to be?" If that answer is the fight against the United States, I would implore you to consider a start date closer to December 1941. A 1937 start date will pose significant challenges. Though not insurmountable, they may make this project much more than you can, or would ultimately want to, chew. Some things to consider:

-Balancing the scenario will be much more difficult. You are basically proposing to have a build-up scenario where the player presumably has 40+ turns to grow before the main opponent unlocks. Consider that Red Front was only about 48 turns in its entirety and what buildup was possible there. While you can adjust build times and shields, that's a lot of turns to leave any player to figure out how to min-max.

-Playtesting the scenario will be enormously more time-consuming as little changes that you implement available from turn 1 can dramatically affect how the early 1940s go, necessitating you to play potentially dozens of turns over and over again just to get to the part where America starts and the real meat begins. You might be able to get away with mid-point save starts for some things you change (such as events that only fire mid-game), but more often than not I'd suspect you're going to be restarting and will feel your eyes glaze over as you go through it.

-You are limiting the useful and fun units you can use by forcing yourself to use earlier units. You can minimize this issue with a batch file and rules updates but then you're creating massively more work.

-It is much less likely that you will finish the scenario, given the grand scope. This isn't simply a matter of units or rules files to consider but the very delicate maneuvers you must force the AI to adopt.

How much do you really want to see the 1937-1941 conflicts? Is this what is going to hook most players, or are people going to be sitting around waiting for the main one to start?

Might I suggest an alternative:

Use a 1941 start date but still have a "choose your own adventure" buildup where the player gets to decide how the war went from 1937 until 1941. Achieve this by using a lua event such as I'm using in Midway. There, I present the player with a dialogue box on turn one with three options. I'm using it simply to add some fog of war and allow the player to choose where their units deploy (north, south, center) so the other side isn't quite sure where the enemy is. The concept, however, could easily be expanded and you might have a series of dialogue options that describe an event from 1937 to 1941, and present the player with a few options (Occupy Indochina, Leave it Be); ("Abide by the Washington Naval Treaty; "Ignore It"). Then, depending on the decision, the starting map is different and the units are different. All of this is easily achievable in lua with scenarios that are either currently released and available or that should be released well before you're ready to start plugging away with this.

This would be much work on the front end, as it would require you to keep track of many coordinates and figure out what the ramifications of each choice would be, but it would save you considerable work on the back end with playtesting, given that you wouldn't need to replay the first 40-odd turns repeatedly just to finally get to the part you really need to test for balance.

Anyway, it's your baby--do what you want and I'll be glad to play it regardless--but I thought I'd lay some of this out there because you might not know some of the roadblocks ahead of you. If (and this is a total assumption on my part) the main reason you want 1937 is for the fun of the buildup (like in Hearts of Iron) you might achieve this via the abstract (but fun, interesting, and unique) way I laid out without losing all your hair, sanity, and sleep.

Sage advice, there, @JPetroski, and a lot of factors in the 1937-1941 part of the game I hadn't considered at that level (like calculating the actual number of turns :S ). I can see how this turn into a tedious prelude for novice players, and exposition of min-maxing for more masterful hands, now that you mention it in those terms. I'm very glad I asked for feedback before laying down any major or concrete work. And, I think, as you said, not having to have all those obsolete (by '41) units (mostly aircraft) will open slots (such as for fancy end-game innovations, and Burma theatre units). And, no, my sanity and sleep are at a premium as is, and I'm proud of having a natural full head of hair in my '40's, thank-you. This, as well as @CurtSibling and @Fairline's advice, leads to new directions that I think should be looked at very seriously. Thanks, all, for the input. I am probably still not to pounce into serious development until a bit into the New Year's, so any more such input from any and sundry is certainly welcome.

 

[techumseh]

Less is better. I agree that Burma was a strategic sideshow, except as it relates to the supply of China, or rather the US 14th Air Force, based there. However, the US eventually realized that the defeat of Japan would be realized by the naval/air campaign in the Pacific, and not by the land war in China. It was nevertheless critical to keep China in the war till the end. And the Burma Campaign scenario will be posted tomorrow or the day after, if you wish to review it.

 

[CurtSibling]

The focus first should be on making an interesting and challenging theatre of play, and then deciding the roster of units for each civ.

As for units, we have so many great fairline creations to use. I would go back to the drawing board, create a set of units for each
civ that includes defence, attack, marine, paras and specials...With upgrades that make sense to the period. Crazy units like the
amphib tanks can be an option for the Japanese player...But including the important units and war machines from the far East
theatre is essential...And include Burma, as it is like having the WW2 Euro theatre without the Balkans...

 

[CurtSibling]

And another thought...I wonder if a re-creation of a Japanese scen idea might be in order?
Instead of the entire WW2 theatre, perhpaps focus on one campaign? How about the final
conquering of the Japanese islands? With a good map, and a fun design, it could be a
really great challenge for lua, multiplay and a seldom-covered aspect of WW2...

 

[JPetroski]

And another thought...I wonder if a re-creation of a Japanese scen idea might be in order?
Instead of the entire WW2 theatre, perhpaps focus on one campaign? How about the final
conquering of the Japanese islands? With a good map, and a fun design, it could be a
really great challenge for lua, multiplay and a seldom-covered aspect of WW2...

I found a good map if anyone wants to try this. It is on my "to do" list but unlikely to be started any time soon.

 

[CurtSibling]

Nice!

Far be it from me to force Patine's hand, but I think he could get his teeth into a scenario that covers one big battle,
instead of a very complex theatre like the Far East/Pacific. The final storming of Japan would allow for various Japanese
last-ditch defence and home-guard units, versus an array of US forces, with openings for interesting siege tactics, etc.

I am thinking along the lines of Nemo's famed "2nd Front", but with up to date units and on ToT...

It could be great, Patine!
Even more so with Lua...Many possibilities...!

 

[tootall_2012]

Might I suggest an alternative:
Use a 1941 start date but still have a "choose your own adventure" buildup where the player gets to decide how the war went from 1937 until 1941. Achieve this by using a lua event such as I'm using in Midway. There, I present the player with a dialogue box on turn one with three options. I'm using it simply to add some fog of war and allow the player to choose where their units deploy (north, south, center) so the other side isn't quite sure where the enemy is. The concept, however, could easily be expanded and you might have a series of dialogue options that describe an event from 1937 to 1941, and present the player with a few options (Occupy Indochina, Leave it Be); ("Abide by the Washington Naval Treaty; "Ignore It"). Then, depending on the decision, the starting map is different and the units are different. All of this is easily achievable in lua with scenarios that are either currently released and available or that should be released well before you're ready to start plugging away with this.

Yes, I'm actually using the same concept in my Battle of Alesia scenario whereby on the first turn the Gallic Relief force has to choose one of three possible points of entry along the map. If they start in the west the relief force units arrive sooner but face more formidable Roman defensive works. If they choose one of the other 2 options they start arriving later but get a chance to attack along some of the weaker defensive works (and just like I tried to do in my Battle of Iwo Jima it hopefully gives the scenario more replayability).

The dialog box is a relatively simple technique to implement in lua but it gives you so many more potential options to play with.

 

[Patine]

Less is better. I agree that Burma was a strategic sideshow, except as it relates to the supply of China, or rather the US 14th Air Force, based there. However, the US eventually realized that the defeat of Japan would be realized by the naval/air campaign in the Pacific, and not by the land war in China. It was nevertheless critical to keep China in the war till the end. And the Burma Campaign scenario will be posted tomorrow or the day after, if you wish to review it.

The focus first should be on making an interesting and challenging theatre of play, and then deciding the roster of units for each civ.

As for units, we have so many great fairline creations to use. I would go back to the drawing board, create a set of units for each
civ that includes defence, attack, marine, paras and specials...With upgrades that make sense to the period. Crazy units like the
amphib tanks can be an option for the Japanese player...But including the important units and war machines from the far East
theatre is essential...And include Burma, as it is like having the WW2 Euro theatre without the Balkans...

I found a good map if anyone wants to try this. It is on my "to do" list but unlikely to be started any time soon.

Yes, I'm actually using the same concept in my Battle of Alesia scenario whereby on the first turn the Gallic Relief force has to choose one of three possible points of entry along the map. If they start in the west the relief force units arrive sooner but face more formidable Roman defensive works. If they choose one of the other 2 options they start arriving later but get a chance to attack along some of the weaker defensive works (and just like I tried to do in my Battle of Iwo Jima it hopefully gives the scenario more replayability).

The dialog box is a relatively simple technique to implement in lua but it gives you so many more potential options to play with.

I think that Downfall alone, in terms of subject matter, wouldn't be enough to hold my interest. But, now that I've taken in all this feedback, I think a Dec. 1941 start, with maybe a few dialogue box choices and Burma, but doing things in much broader strokes to reflect the scope that this is a whole theatre, not just a battle, operation, invasion, or even front, might make it more workable. I think my initial problem with my basic first premise was that I was trying to create a big theatre, but having not having enough sense of relative proportion and perspective of certain units and other elements' in importance to one another. I do definitely see wisdom in @CurtSibling's "broad strokes for a big game," idea, even if multi-player isn't the intention, like it is in most of Curt's recent games (with the notable exception of Grand Moff).

 

[CurtSibling]

Thanks for being so open to our suggetions, dude. I am sure you'll create something good...Just keep us posted along the way.

 

[Patine]

Thanks for being so open to our suggetions, dude. I am sure you'll create something good...Just keep us posted along the way.

I always try to be open to suggestions from people whose opinions I respect and show them constructively. And, I will keep everyone apace with this project.

 

[Patine]

So, after going into, and going through, the advice given, and reconsidering the parameters of this scenario, both in starting date, and operational scope, I have assembled a second working unit.bmp file, practically from scratch, but from the same pool of units, which is thus. It's organization is also a lot less random in structure. Again, as always, any constructive comments, criticism, and advice are always welcome.