The Battle of Midway - Playtest/Feedback/Release Thread

[Prof. Garfield]

Thinking out loud here: would it be possible via Lua to allow the player to add 'marker' or 'waypoint' units? I'd like to keep track of where on the map I engaged your aircraft and maybe plot a course to where I think your carriers might be turn by turn.

Definitely possible, we've done that in OTR for radar and combat markers. The difficult part is making sure that the other tribes don't 'see' the markings.

I'm thinking that for this scenario the best thing to do is to make use of unused terrain types as markers. Have some bright colours that will show up on the minimap (I just tested and a single square will be visible), which would be quite useful in this scenario. As a bonus, player maps are immediately updated to reflect changes to the underlying terrain (in OTR, we teleport units away when making a change, which is a bit of a hassle), so it should be as simple as changing the terrain of the tile.

There might be a bit of work to make sure that nothing unfair happens (e.g. a player marks a tile to stop an enemy unit from reacting or something), and the player would have to clear a marker before moving in a ship of his or her own, but this shouldn't be too difficult to get working. Maybe marking should be forbidden near Midway itself, to prevent some kind of exploit.

The locations and type of terrain markers could be stored in a table, probably just as the terrain number of the marker type. Since only ocean will be replaced, there is no need to save underlying terrain values, or anything like that. Perhaps just have a 'list' of tiles of each marker type for each player.

 

[Fairline]

Banzai! hardy US carrier Enterprise survives multiple divebomb attacks. An escort DD also narrowly escapes. Meanwhile intrepid Val pilots bomb the oil tanks on Midway Island.

F4F and Devastator shot down.

I had a message telling me my reinforcements had arrived but no sign of any new ships.

Is it possible to have extra unit graphics for bombers that have expended their payload? I'm going to find it a bit tricky working out who still has a bomb.

 

[Prof. Garfield]

Is it possible to have extra unit graphics for bombers that have expended their payload? I'm going to find it a bit tricky working out who still has a bomb.

Unfortunately, we'd have to replace the bomber with a 'different' unit type. In and of itself, that is no big deal (and is the way to differentiate the kind of payload a bomber is carrying), but the problem is that we can't access the piece of memory where the remaining number of turns aloft is stored. Therefore, if we replaced the bomber after it makes an attack, the new unit would have its full flight range left to return to the carrier, which isn't desirable.

I guess you'll just have to glance at the unit status window to see its home city. This never seemed like much of an issue in OTR, but maybe it is in this context.

 

[JPetroski]

The ones who have a home city still have a payload. Will play in a bit

 

[JPetroski]

Still no sign of your fleet? My reinforcements came through so I'm not sure what is going on...

Many bombers attacked. Still no clue where your fleet is! I think I made this a bit too much cat and mouse like but we'll see!

 

[tootall_2012]

Hi John,

As you know, multiplayer as never really been my cup of tea but as I was very intrigued by the potential of your Midway scenario I was very desirous to have a go at it. Therefore, I wondered since you released it this week how could I make it enjoyable and challenging if I wanted to play it solo.

As such, for now I came up with a simple solution by modifying the base scenario file in two ways (I've attached a screen shot below to give you an idea):

• I removed all the rectangles coordinates from the map (from A1 to S26), and
• I re-instituted the fog of war to the entire map (except a few tiles around Midway Island for the Americans and 1 tile around each home city).

In this manner, as I’m playing in hot seat mode and this is a fairly large map, without these map coordinates I’m finding I only have very a general idea of where the opposing forces are located at any given moment, especially since both forces are constantly moving. As I’ve mentioned in a post in OTR, when playing solo in a multiplayer game, I always try my best to win for each power when it’s their turn to play.

Though I’ve only played to turn 7 so far, I’ve already had a dozen or more air combats and even though the units are in close proximity I still have difficulty locating them (after each attack I typically still have 1 MP left and therefore move my air unit 1 tile away from the defending unit. Thus when it’s the other power’s turn, I don’t automatically see the enemy’s units and their exact location can be difficult to remember when you had multiple battles involving many units).

For now, I have just 4 questions/observations:

• I’ve received Reaction Fire message boxes when enemy fighters engage each other but so far I haven’t detected any damage to the attacking air unit. Does that seem right?
• How do you avoid basing too many planes on each carrier without running the risk of going over its city’s support limit? Do you have to check the city in question before landing a plane on the carrier?
• I’m not certain if it’s a consequence of my modifying the base scenario but when it was the Americans first turn, the game disbanded the PBY-5 based at Midway. This seems to be correct, as the city in question can only support 8 units but it starts with 9. Can you validate if I’m correct or not? (NOTE: For now, I simply increased the Airfield tile shield value from 4 to 5 in the rules.txt)
• I was able to kill an American sub from a torpedo launched by a Japanese sub. Should that be allowed?

So far, I’m quite enjoying the experience. It’s too early to tell for now, assuming this is something you would be prepared to do, if recommending adding the OTR random takeoff/attack mechanism would be a good possible addition for solo play. I’ll have to let you know how it goes when the opposing fleets get closer and the battle really heats up.

Congratulations to you, McMonkey and Grishnach!

 

[Prof. Garfield]

I had a message telling me my reinforcements had arrived but no sign of any new ships.

Still no sign of your fleet? My reinforcements came through so I'm not sure what is going on...

Line 1546 displays a 'secondFleetArrival' message on turn 8, but no fleet is created. Elsewhere, (starting at line 1266) there is code for the 2nd fleet to arrive with a 1 in 20 chance each turn, which seems to be the 'true' fleet arrival function. Personally, I would recommend that the fleet generation code is moved to the after production trigger (instead of the on turn trigger) so that the message to the Japanese will appear within the Japanese turn instead of 'between' turns.

 

[techumseh]

Why not just mark a latitude/longitude grid on the map, using the landmark feature?

(edit) Sorry, I just checked and can see that you already have a grid marked on the map. Is that not enough? I think that's about all the aviators of the time would have available.

 

[JPetroski]

I’ve received Reaction Fire message boxes when enemy fighters engage each other but so far I haven’t detected any damage to the attacking air unit. Does that seem right?

Well, it seems "in line with what I would expect when fighters engage fighters." Does it seem "right?" I'm not really sure about that yet. F4Fs and Zekes have a hard time going up against each other and shooting the other down with actual ammo or reaction. It might not be right where I want it (I really need people testing for that, so I appreciate your efforts), but it does seem to be "working as written."

How do you avoid basing too many planes on each carrier without running the risk of going over its city’s support limit? Do you have to check the city in question before landing a plane on the carrier?

Unless I have messed up the copy and paste, what Prof. Garfield did with OTR was he did not allow a unit to rehome if the city couldn't support it. So, I believe this is still in this scenario, unless I've messed up.

I’m not certain if it’s a consequence of my modifying the base scenario but when it was the Americans first turn, the game disbanded the PBY-5 based at Midway. This seems to be correct, as the city in question can only support 8 units but it starts with 9. Can you validate if I’m correct or not? (NOTE: For now, I simply increased the Airfield tile shield value from 4 to 5 in the rules.txt)

I'm playing as the Americans and haven't had this issue - I am uncertain why you would and can't think of a game mechanism that would cause this?

I was able to kill an American sub from a torpedo launched by a Japanese sub. Should that be allowed?

Well, it was probably pretty rare, but, I don't think I'll change it because you don't really want to use up a bomber's payload attacking them, and, in current state anyway, there aren't many vessels out there. I made a last minute decision to decimate both fleets to make it more cat and mouse as it really wasn't hard to find the fleets with accurate sizes for one, and secondly Japan would probably just pummel Midway in every game for two, but I'm not sure if this decision was good or not. I might allow a few more ships back in, or make more aircraft see x2. I also might need to add in a few more scouts for each side to compensate. I'm having a really hard time finding Fairline's forces.

As such, for now I came up with a simple solution by modifying the base scenario file in two ways (I've attached a screen shot below to give you an idea):

• I removed all the rectangles coordinates from the map (from A1 to S26), and
• I re-instituted the fog of war to the entire map (except a few tiles around Midway Island for the Americans and 1 tile around each home city).

In this manner, as I’m playing in hot seat mode and this is a fairly large map, without these map coordinates I’m finding I only have very a general idea of where the opposing forces are located at any given moment, especially since both forces are constantly moving. As I’ve mentioned in a post in OTR, when playing solo in a multiplayer game, I always try my best to win for each power when it’s their turn to play.

Though I’ve only played to turn 7 so far, I’ve already had a dozen or more air combats and even though the units are in close proximity I still have difficulty locating them (after each attack I typically still have 1 MP left and therefore move my air unit 1 tile away from the defending unit. Thus when it’s the other power’s turn, I don’t automatically see the enemy’s units and their exact location can be difficult to remember when you had multiple battles involving many units).

Would you mind sending me the save where you've done this? If you've taken the time, I could add in an option without the gridlines. I'd hate to duplicate what must have been a monumental effort

Line 1546 displays a 'secondFleetArrival' message on turn 8, but no fleet is created. Elsewhere, (starting at line 1266) there is code for the 2nd fleet to arrive with a 1 in 20 chance each turn, which seems to be the 'true' fleet arrival function. Personally, I would recommend that the fleet generation code is moved to the after production trigger (instead of the on turn trigger) so that the message to the Japanese will appear within the Japanese turn instead of 'between' turns.

Woops. Yes, originally I had the fleets show up at designated times and cut that back so that no two games would play the same. The Americans are pretty likely (1 in 4) to get their carriers quickly, though it did take several turns for one to show up for me. The Japanese are guaranteed to get their carriers on turn 1, but there's a real chance (maybe too high of a chance) that they won't get the rest of their fleet timely. 1 in 10 might be better. Anyway @Fairline, it seems you got a "ghost" message, but your fleet should show up the second time you receive a message.

(edit) Sorry, I just checked and can see that you already have a grid marked on the map. Is that not enough? I think that's about all the aviators of the time would have available.

Well, it depends on how much time you want to spend with a piece of paper next to your game. It's enough if you write down coordinates, and for a scenario this small, that might be fine. I guess it depends how deeply everyone feels about it

 

[Fairline]

Unfortunately, we'd have to replace the bomber with a 'different' unit type. In and of itself, that is no big deal (and is the way to differentiate the kind of payload a bomber is carrying), but the problem is that we can't access the piece of memory where the remaining number of turns aloft is stored. Therefore, if we replaced the bomber after it makes an attack, the new unit would have its full flight range left to return to the carrier, which isn't desirable.

I guess you'll just have to glance at the unit status window to see its home city. This never seemed like much of an issue in OTR, but maybe it is in this context.

Ah OK. It's arbitrary, I know, but what about spawning the unit with 50% flight range, on the assumption that 50% of fuel is the maximum that could be reasonably be used by a bomber to reach its target and still expect to return to its carrier?

 

[Fairline]

Bombing of Midway continues with little effect. DD sunk and Dauntless downed. I neglected to take into account the loss of fuel as a result of a fighter attacking and one on my zeroes came to an ignominious end by ditching in the pacific. Hope the pilot can swim!

 

[JPetroski]

A Zeke and a bomber shot down. Still can't find the carriers!

 

[tootall_2012]

Hi John,

Well, it seems "in line with what I would expect when fighters engage fighters." Does it seem "right?" I'm not really sure about that yet. F4Fs and Zekes have a hard time going up against each other and shooting the other down with actual ammo or reaction. It might not be right where I want it (I really need people testing for that, so I appreciate your efforts), but it does seem to be "working as written."

Ok, thanks for the clarification. I will keep a close eye to see if the results vary during the scenario.

Unless I have messed up the copy and paste, what Prof. Garfield did with OTR was he did not allow a unit to rehome if the city couldn't support it. So, I believe this is still in this scenario, unless I've messed up.

Ok, I’ll test this during the scenario and let you know if I run into any problems.

I'm playing as the Americans and haven't had this issue - I am uncertain why you would and can't think of a game mechanism that would cause this?

When I start with your original file, the unit doesn’t get disbanded, and I think this is related to the fact that the “Navy” government is in actuality the “Fundamentalist” government which in your rules file is set to support 1 base unit:

1 ; Fundamentalism pays support for all units past this (max 8)

This would explain why the Midway city can “support” 9 rather than its base 8 units.

What is less clear is why it doesn’t seem to do so in my modified scn file, which has the exact same settings. I'll see if I can figure out why later.

Not a major issue, as I stated for now I simply reset the Airfield tile shield value from 4 to 5 in the rules.txt file and that fixed the problem.

Well, it was probably pretty rare, but, I don't think I'll change it because you don't really want to use up a bomber's payload attacking them, and, in current state anyway, there aren't many vessels out there...

Not a big deal, just wanted to check.

Yes, I noticed that the IJN carriers, in particular, were only supported by a destroyer screen, instead of their historical complement of cruisers and battleships.

I think it was probably a very wise decision on your part. It makes the game more manageable and avoids having the scenario turn into a battleship vs battleship slug fest.

Would you mind sending me the save where you've done this? If you've taken the time, I could add in an option without the gridlines. I'd hate to duplicate what must have been a monumental effort

It wasn’t that bad, maybe a little over an hour or so of work including testing the changes to make sure I didn’t break anything (other than the PBY getting disbanded, everything else appears to work perfectly).

No problem (see attached file), though a note it’s the scenario scn file I modified. On my projects, I always work off of the scn file when making any changes to a scenario.

 

[Fairline]

Hornet spotted! The carrier begins to list heavily following a concerted torpedo attack by 5 Kates; she yet still lives though.....

Destroyed AA gun on Midway

Still no sign of reinforcements. Must be having engine trouble.

 

[JPetroski]

Sub sunk, several bombers destroyed. Still no sign of your carriers!

 

[Fairline]

Enterprise appeared out of the Pacific haze right in front of one of my subs. Many torpedo hits later she was barely clinging onto life, but divine intervention caused my two final torpedo attacks to leap out of the water and attack Wildcats parked on the stricken carrier's decks! たわごと (tawagoto)!

 

[Prof. Garfield]

Enterprise appeared out of the Pacific haze right in front of one of my subs. Many torpedo hits later she was barely clinging onto life, but divine intervention caused my two final torpedo attacks to leap out of the water and attack Wildcats parked on the stricken carrier's decks! たわごと (tawagoto)!

Better a plane than a truck...

 

[JPetroski]

We attack the Kaga (or was it the Soryu)!? We are unable to sink it, and the idiot pilots who do attack realize they are completely out of range of carriers...

I think this playtest is teaching me a few things:

1. I think the defensive strength of all aircraft needs to be upped (so everything realistically has a chance of making it to and from an attack at least once)
2. I "might" want to either
A) Make fighters also have a payload so they can only attack once per sortie; or
B) Make fighters only be able to attack once per turn (expend all their MP on their first attack).
3. I probably want to make it so that fighter attacks can't sink subs.

Edit 4. Given I got rid of most of the surface fleet, it probably makes sense to up the range/speed of both the scouts too so they can cover more water.

I shot down a bunch of your aircraft and have lost many of mine, so I'm not certain either of us can win with air power at this point, but we can see how the points shake out before we are non-operational! Hopefully my shore batteries can ward off your surface fleet it if ever shows up...

 

[Fairline]

Stumbled across another carrier when I attacked a Devastator that was stacked above it. Amusingly my Zero's gunfire missed the aircraft and attacked the carrier with no effect, so I attacked the carrier (I thought) with a Val which proceeded to miss the carrier and attack the aircraft

I would err towards option B for the fighters John; multiple attacks from my fighters have rarely occurred as I usually have to travel most of the range of the aircraft before attacking. I'd agree with your 'fighters not being able to attack subs' for obvious reasons

I'd probably up the damage of dive bombers as they invariably do little damage to ground targets (those damn oil tanks on Midway are made of 12 inch face-hardened steel!)

I guess there is nothing you can do about stacking and proritising which targets certain ammo attack? If you up the defensive stats of aircraft won't this make things worse from this perspective as they are more liable to be treated by the game as the main defender in a stack(?)

With a few tweaks this scenario will be a classic. It's already great fun to play.

 

[Prof. Garfield]

I guess there is nothing you can do about stacking and proritising which targets certain ammo attack? If you up the defensive stats of aircraft won't this make things worse from this perspective as they are more liable to be treated by the game as the main defender in a stack(?)

There is the possibility of using the unit activation event to up the defence of certain units when a particular unit/munition is activated, which would increase the likelihood of having the 'correct' unit defend. Although the attack/defence stats of the units can't be changed during combat, events can specify which unit should lose, and what the remaining health of the winner should be. Combat rounds can be 'simulated' in Lua, using the desired attack and defence stats, and the results used to choose the results of combat.

There might be an easier trick of giving ships a defence bonus versus air and missiles, and adjusting the torpedo attack accordingly.