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

[Fairline]

Took a quick look at your latest units file Patine. You might want to rethink the Australian units you've picked - two of the most important Aussie aircraft were the Spitfire VIII and Beaufighter, the latter of which was assembled locally. Also their most important armoured vehicle by far was the Matilda which found a new lease of life fighting crappy Japanese tanks. The Woomera, Wirraway and Boomerang were niche aircraft at best.

EDIT: sorry, didn't see the Matilda initially; replace the desert camo one with a green one for the Pacific:

Also, lose the desert Cruiser III tank and replace it with a Stuart for the Aussies

 

[Patine]

Thank-you for the feedback, and unit update. Also, if those three Australian planes are niche, at best, it strikes me that at least one could go to give way for the J2M Raiden, which I tragically and neglectfully forgot.

 

[Patine]

So, implementing Fairline's advice, and making a few other changes, notably to a few aircraft slots, I now have this working file here.

 

[JPetroski]

Looking good, Patine. It's been awhile since you laid out ideas for this. Did you ever land on the start date? I think you were tossing and turning between 1937 and 1941ish if I'm not mistaken?

 

[Patine]

Looking good, Patine. It's been awhile since you laid out ideas for this. Did you ever land on the start date? I think you were tossing and turning between 1937 and 1941ish if I'm not mistaken?

I've decided to take you advice (or was it Tootall's - it's been a while) and start on December 1941, when Japan attack Pearl Harbour, and then the next day, Hong Kong, the Philippines, Papua New Guinea, North Borneo, Sarawak, Singapore, Malaya, the Duch East Indies, and Burma, rapidly turning the Theatre to more than just Japan vs. China.

 

[JPetroski]

I think that's probably a good bet. I'm really looking forward to this one -- it has been far too long since we had another Pacific Grand Campaign.

Is this designed to be played as Japan only, or the Allies too?

 

[Patine]

I think that's probably a good bet. I'm really looking forward to this one -- it has been far too long since we had another Pacific Grand Campaign.

Is this designed to be played as Japan only, or the Allies too?

The plan is, the first release will be for Japan, which was the original design plan, and then I may do a second release with a LUA Events file for an Allied POV game.

 

[Patine]

@Tanelorn Would you be willing to tackle a Tibetan flag shield that those two lonely mountain plateau units on my current Units.bmp file? I've taken good whacks at a lot of flag shields and roundels, as you've seen, but Tibet's Snow Leopard Banner is just a wee bit too intricate.

 

[Patine]

Alright, here's my current units file, with a few adjustments from the last.

 

[tootall_2012]

Hi Patine,

Overall the unit grid looks good though I'm a little surprised that the Japanese seem to have a greater selection of tanks than the US/UK combined. It seems very counter-intuitive given the historical record.

If I may ask, as your development thread has been open for sometime, can we expect to see a release of your project within the foreseeable future, i.e. do you have any timeline in mind? No pressure, I'm just curious to know.

 

[Patine]

If I may ask, as your development thread has been open for sometime, can we expect to see a release of your project within the foreseeable future, i.e. do you have any timeline in mind? No pressure, I'm just curious to know.

I would very much like to. But RL has been busy, and I'm still digesting Professor Garfield, JPetrotski, your, and other's posts on just HOW the possibilities of LUA work.

 

[Fairline]

Seems a bit strange not to have fully fleshed out and distinct ships for the US and Japan in a scenario dealing with the Pacific War. Surely you can lose some of the obscure units you have for tiny/irrelevant to the conflict nations and have proper progression for the US Navy and IJN destroyers, light/heavy cruisers, battleships and carriers. Particularly odd is the omission of all the US carrier types apart from the Yorktown.

Not sure if the 18-pdr saw action in the far east; it was used by the British in 1940 as a stop-gap but thereafter the 25-pdr was the standard Commonwealth field gun.

The first Aussie infantryman you have is dressed in 1940-41 bush jacket and old WW1 webbing as they appeared in N Africa. One of these would be better:

Not having separate distinct units for Chindits, Force Z and Merrill's Marauders is a bit odd given the multitude of other minor unit types.

You're probably missing some of the Japanese aircraft progression: the Ki-44 was an important fighter for the Army and you probably need a later carrier-borne fighter for the IJN, either a later mark of Zero or an A7M if you want to suppose the Japanese sorted out the latter's development issues. As I guess this is a scenario played from the Japanese perspective you probably want some progression from the Val and Kate as well.

I would think a US 105mm should replace the 155mm as all other nations have 105s or similar.

 

[Patine]

Seems a bit strange not to have fully fleshed out and distinct ships for the US and Japan in a scenario dealing with the Pacific War. Surely you can lose some of the obscure units you have for tiny/irrelevant to the conflict nations and have proper progression for the US Navy and IJN destroyers, light/heavy cruisers, battleships and carriers. Particularly odd is the omission of all the US carrier types apart from the Yorktown.

Not sure if the 18-pdr saw action in the far east; it was used by the British in 1940 as a stop-gap but thereafter the 25-pdr was the standard Commonwealth field gun.

The first Aussie infantryman you have is dressed in 1940-41 bush jacket and old WW1 webbing as they appeared in N Africa. One of these would be better: View attachment 677928

Not having separate distinct units for Chindits, Force Z and Merrill's Marauders is a bit odd given the multitude of other minor unit types.

You're probably missing some of the Japanese aircraft progression: the Ki-44 was an important fighter for the Army and you probably need a later carrier-borne fighter for the IJN, either a later mark of Zero or an A7M if you want to suppose the Japanese sorted out the latter's development issues. As I guess this is a scenario played from the Japanese perspective you probably want some progression from the Val and Kate as well.

I would think a US 105mm should replace the 155mm as all other nations have 105s or similar.

Thank-you for the advice. You are probably right about the underrepresentation of ships, and it did concern me, but felt like a shift that would be made sincerely, and not piecemeal, and thus quite a few unit slots would have to made, "negotiable." The Australian units are a great unit, and the artillery bit and the shift to Japanese planes is greatly appreciated. Although, to explain mmy intent about the Chindits, Force Z, and the Maraders, my idea was, on the vast scope and scale of the Pacific Theatre, that their operations would work with, "spy slot," abilities, and there is only one spy slot, even after all the wizardry of the Nameless One and Professor Garfield.

Again, thank-you greatly for the feedback, another go over will certainly be made.

 

[Fairline]

Thank-you for the advice. You are probably right about the underrepresentation of ships, and it did concern me, but felt like a shift that would be made sincerely, and not piecemeal, and thus quite a few unit slots would have to made, "negotiable." The Australian units are a great unit, and the artillery bit and the shift to Japanese planes is greatly appreciated. Although, to explain mmy intent about the Chindits, Force Z, and the Maraders, my idea was, on the vast scope and scale of the Pacific Theatre, that their operations would work with, "spy slot," abilities, and there is only one spy slot, even after all the wizardry of the Nameless One and Professor Garfield.

Again, thank-you greatly for the feedback, another go over will certainly be made.

Fair enough if you don't want to engage with ship progression (although in a Pacific War scenario that seems kinda key), but from a purely visual point of view having distinctly Japanese ships with pagoda masts fight other Japanese ships seems a little incongruous. You would need to free up 4 unit slots to give the US/allies and IJN their own destroyers, lt cruisers, heavy cruisers and battleships. You have 2 slots for Dutch infantry, 1 each for both the Malay and Burma rifles, 2 slots for Thai infantry; even ignoring all the Tibetans, Mongolians and whatever else you have, consolidating these into single units per nation frees up 3 slots. You have 10! Japanese armoured vehicles for a nation that used its scarce steel to produce ships and aircraft rather than tanks. Realistically you need a maximum of maybe 4-5 Japanese tank slots: early tankette and/or Type 89B, Type 95 Ha-Go,Type 97 Chi-Ha and maybe a later prototype tank like the Type 4 Chi-To to upgrade from the Type 97. I'm wondering what is the point of having infantry and cavalry for so many of your minor nations as well.

 

[Patine]

Fair enough if you don't want to engage with ship progression (although in a Pacific War scenario that seems kinda key), but from a purely visual point of view having distinctly Japanese ships with pagoda masts fight other Japanese ships seems a little incongruous. You would need to free up 4 unit slots to give the US/allies and IJN their own destroyers, lt cruisers, heavy cruisers and battleships. You have 2 slots for Dutch infantry, 1 each for both the Malay and Burma rifles, 2 slots for Thai infantry; even ignoring all the Tibetans, Mongolians and whatever else you have, consolodating these into single units per nation frees up 3 slots. You have 10! Japanese armoured vehicles for a nation that used its scarce steel to produce ships and aircraft rather than tanks. Realistically you need a maximum of maybe 4-5 Japanese tank slots: early tankette and/or Type 89B, Type 95 Ha-Go,Type 97 Chi-Ha and maybe a later prototype tank like the Type 4 Chi-To to upgrade from the Type 97. I'm wondering what is the point of having infantry and cavalry for so many of your minor nations as well.

These are good points, and given the Naval focus it is likely justified. I think maybe as a compromise to generouus neutral units is keep the infantry, but have a single, "Steppes Cavalry," unit or some such name. Given the role of the Dutch, seperate KNIL off and def Infantry may be redundant. And I recall reading about an advanced model of Japanese tank or SPG (not the Type 4, but another I can't remeber off-hand) that had serious production kaiboshed because the Navy hogged the stea, so the tank thing is quite a good note, too, and the Type 95 would likey also sum up all the sort of loan vehicles given to Manchukuo, the RRG of China, and Thaland, or just have the Type 94, which seemed to mostly obsolete in the IJA by Pearl Harbour, for that loan vehicle to theatre allies, alone, and remove the Type 92. I will serriously ponder this. Greatly appreciated!

 

[Patine]

And Thailand probably doesn't need two separate slot for Careden-Lloyds and Vickers E, as they have limited numbers of each, would not have a way to replenish them, and both would do the same thing under Royal Thai Army command.

 

[Patine]

Fair enough if you don't want to engage with ship progression (although in a Pacific War scenario that seems kinda key), but from a purely visual point of view having distinctly Japanese ships with pagoda masts fight other Japanese ships seems a little incongruous. You would need to free up 4 unit slots to give the US/allies and IJN their own destroyers, lt cruisers, heavy cruisers and battleships. You have 2 slots for Dutch infantry, 1 each for both the Malay and Burma rifles, 2 slots for Thai infantry; even ignoring all the Tibetans, Mongolians and whatever else you have, consolodating these into single units per nation frees up 3 slots. You have 10! Japanese armoured vehicles for a nation that used its scarce steel to produce ships and aircraft rather than tanks. Realistically you need a maximum of maybe 4-5 Japanese tank slots: early tankette and/or Type 89B, Type 95 Ha-Go,Type 97 Chi-Ha and maybe a later prototype tank like the Type 4 Chi-To to upgrade from the Type 97. I'm wondering what is the point of having infantry and cavalry for so many of your minor nations as well.

So, with your suggestions and my additions, that's potentially 11 or 12 slots freed up for ship progession and those two extra Japanese planes.. I'll look into that! Thanks, again!

 

[Patine]

I had a fall forward onto the concrete near the tali end of November, leading to a dislocated shoulder and my on-hand being in a sling. Typing posts has been doable, with effort (hunt and peck with my off-hand, with a lot more typing time and errors, but as witnessed, I have been making a few posts). Editing bitmaps is possible for small adjustments, and theoretically doable for the edits to the EotRS units file I'd planned, but certainly very frustrating. My abilities are better now, and soon I will be ready to tackle the edits with the advice above, and few more changes of my own. Just in case some thought I had dropped the project or some such.

 

[Tanelorn]

Get well soon buddy. Don't push yourself. You're stronger than concrete, since you made it -and now you know.

 

[Civinator]

Get well soon.