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

[techumseh]

What is that and where might I find it?

 

[Patine]

What is that and where might I find it?

Give me a bit to get my mess of files organized. My apologies.

 

[Patine]

What is that and where might I find it?

Alright, while it seems the save where I cleaned up all the old units now has some inexplicable error I'm going to have to sort through, the one where you last de-fortressized does work, and at least let's you peruse the map.

 

[Patine]

One last fix. Since I haven't implemented, or finalized, my new terrain graphics, I've made this new upload version with the original terrain graphics for bearability of viewing. Please note, some cities may swap players, and Thailand (yellow, or fourth player slot) is going to be resurrected.

 

[Patine]

Now, I want to ask a question of @Prof. Garfield @JPetroski or others more fluent in LUA. A big stumbling block with my original edition was that the original ToT MacroLanguage would not spawn land units on top of one or more transports spawned at sea to make amphibious assaults. Only the transports ever appeared, empty. Is the feat of spawning I'm looking for doable with LUA script?

 

[Prof. Garfield]

Now, I want to ask a question of @Prof. Garfield @JPetroski or others more fluent in LUA. A big stumbling block with my original edition was that the original ToT MacroLanguage would not spawn land units on top of one or more transports spawned at sea to make amphibious assaults. Only the transports ever appeared, empty. Is the feat of spawning I'm looking for doable with LUA script?

Yes, it can be done.

The function civ.createUnit will do it no questions asked. If you use gen.createUnit, you will have to set the parameter overrideDomain=true in the options table. (If this is clear as mud at the moment, feel free to ask for specific help when you actually get around to coding.)

 

[techumseh]

If I might ask another question that may be relevant to Pat's scenario in particular: Is it possible to create events that return carrier aircraft to their originating carrier after a attacking a target? This would solve a major issue for modern naval scenarios, since the AI (surely a misnomer, given recent technological developments) is hopeless handling carriers. I experienced this when developing Sea Lion, where carrier planes left the carriers and rebased to cities whenever they were in range. The planes themselves ended up as essentially missile units, since they never returned to their carrier.

 

[Patine]

If I might ask another question that may be relevant to Pat's scenario in particular: Is it possible to create events that return carrier aircraft to their originating carrier after a attacking a target? This would solve a major issue for modern naval scenarios, since the AI (surely a misnomer, given recent technological developments) is hopeless handling carriers. I experienced this when developing Sea Lion, where carrier planes left the carriers and rebased to cities whenever they were in range. The planes themselves ended up as essentially missile units, since they never returned to their carrier.

Excellent point! Thanks for that, tech.

And, I think, "computer player," is still a valid term.

 

[Prof. Garfield]

If I might ask another question that may be relevant to Pat's scenario in particular: Is it possible to create events that return carrier aircraft to their originating carrier after a attacking a target? This would solve a major issue for modern naval scenarios, since the AI (surely a misnomer, given recent technological developments) is hopeless handling carriers. I experienced this when developing Sea Lion, where carrier planes left the carriers and rebased to cities whenever they were in range. The planes themselves ended up as essentially missile units, since they never returned to their carrier.

I wrote a bit of proof of concept code here and here a few years back. Giving a flying bomber a goto order usually worked as long as there wasn't something else for the bomber to attack. Teleporting the bomber back to the carrier was an option to stop the bomber being "distracted," although techumseh objected at the time that that would prevent using your own aircraft to block enemy bombers from landing safely.

 

[Patine]

I had a bout of being very busy the last month, or so, but I'm here to reassure this project is still alive.

 

[Patine]

So, I had my computer die recently, but fortunately was well-backed up on a portable HD. I have the new one set up, and most of my favourite games (including Civ2 ToT) up and running again.

I'm asking for advice on a few issues, and how to manage them.

Aside from, "thou shalt do this and and that!" house rules, is there any way to incentivize small isolated southern islands to be captured (and thus face events-generated amphibious invasions and bombings by carrier aircraft). In a version of this scenario years ago, before I shelved it due to frustration at getting it to work, and much later took it up again with the advent of ToTPP, AGRICOLA in playtesting just simply ignored many of those islands.

With the stacking built into every square, and border defense of Democracy government for happiness purposes moot, the only use of the Fortress terrain improvement is a defense bonus for units in it (200%, I think?). I have thought about using the pillbox as a stand-in, as they were far more ubiquitous in descriptions of Pacific Theatre military actions than actual, "fortresses," (except maybe in the Chinese Front). There are plenty of pillbox graphics out there, but I recall something, somewhere, about a problem if the Fortified and Fortress improvement do not have, "semi-transparent," graphics. Is this actually a thing, and, if so, what issue would it cause?

I'm also looking for advice on getting American commerce raiding subs viable. Tech mentioned something about a, "narrow straits," idea in his Sino-Japanese scenario, but I don't have such a luxury.

Any advice here?

 

[techumseh]

Can you expand on what you are looking for wrt capturing small isolated islands. What exactly are you wanting to incentivize? Also, you're doing this with lua events, right?

I have no idea what you're on about with fortresses. Were you able to remove them in the end? btw, with ToTPP you can change the defense multiplier for both fortified units and fortification improvements to whatever you want.

I did have a devil of a time getting US AI subs to attack Japanese shipping. I don't remember the ultimate resolution, other than Prof Garfield was very patient and helpful.

 

[Patine]

Can you expand on what you are looking for wrt capturing small isolated islands. What exactly are you wanting to incentivize? Also, you're doing this with lua events, right?

I have no idea what you're on about with fortresses. Were you able to remove them in the end? btw, with ToTPP you can change the defense multiplier for both fortified units and fortification improvements to whatever you want.

I did have a devil of a time getting US AI subs to attack Japanese shipping. I don't remember the ultimate resolution, other than Prof Garfield was very patient and helpful.

On the first one, I'm trying to find a reward or reason to entice the player to attack and capture those small islands in the first place.

On the second, I'm referring to using a pillbox graphic for a fortress land improvement, but I recall reading something long ago about a visual issue if the fortress graphic is not semi-transparent - that is, where you just see a v-shaped or diamond base - but I can't remember the issue brought up. But, thanks for alerting me to adjustable defense bonuses.

For the third, I hope Professor Garfield will be as patient and for me, then.

 

[techumseh]

1. Ask yourself: Why did the historical protagonist attack them in the actual war? Then build that into the scenario. Or just give the player VPs for capturing them.

2. These are the relevant graphics I used in Burma Campaign. I have never heard of "semi-transparent" graphics.

 

[Patine]

1. Ask yourself: Why did the historical protagonist attack them in the actual war? Then build that into the scenario. Or just give the player VPs for capturing them.

2. These are the relevant graphics I used in Burma Campaign. I have never heard of "semi-transparent" graphics.

View attachment 740869
View attachment 740870

You see, the two bottom-left ones have a v-shaped base border, with a pink, units file filler within. Most, "fortified," or, "fortress," graphics are just border, v-shapes, or sometimes diamonds (like some castle walls graphics from some Medieval scenarios) with the pink filler in the middle. The bunker graphic, above, is what I had my eye on using for my fortress graphic. The thing I I heard a long while ago ("semi-transparent," may have been their concocted term to describe something they didn't know the actual term for), where, when a land unit is in a fortress with a solid graphic, the rendering when the unit is attacked, or ready to act, gets bunged up due to graphic overlapping. But, I'm actually going to do a test scenario where the fortress graphic is the bunker above, and place a sample infantry, armoured vehicle, tank, artillery, and AA-gun with a graphic from the EotRS roster each within, and then activate and attack each, and I'll let everyone know, with screenshots, shortly.

 

[Fairline]

You see, the two bottom-left ones have a v-shaped base border, with a pink, units file filler within. Most, "fortified," or, "fortress," graphics are just border, v-shapes, or sometimes diamonds (like some castle walls graphics from some Medieval scenarios) with the pink filler in the middle. The bunker graphic, above, is what I had my eye on using for my fortress graphic. The thing I I heard a long while ago ("semi-transparent," may have been their concocted term to describe something they didn't know the actual term for), where, when a land unit is in a fortress with a solid graphic, the rendering when the unit is attacked, or ready to act, gets bunged up due to graphic overlapping. But, I'm actually going to do a test scenario where the fortress graphic is the bunker above, and place a sample infantry, armoured vehicle, tank, artillery, and AA-gun with a graphic from the EotRS roster each within, and then activate and attack each, and I'll let everyone know, with screenshots, shortly.

What did any of that mean?

 

[Patine]

What did any of that mean?

Sorry, I was tired and about to turn in early when I typed it. It was one of the last things I did before I brushed my teeth.

 

[Patine]

What it comes down to is, if I replace the fortress graphic with the solid pillbox graphic, above in Tech's post, as opposed to one with a v-shaped base with filler colour inside, will a unit in the fortress have a bunged up graphic display when they're activated or attacked due to overlapping with a more solid fortress graphic? And, by, "solid," I mean where the centre is not filler colour, like it tends to be in most fortress graphics.

 

[techumseh]

By "filler colour", do you mean the transparent color (in this case the ubiquitous pink)? If you used the pillbox graphic above for the fortress, it would hide the unit occupying the fortress, which is why these graphics are usually relegated to the bottom edge.

 

[Patine]

By "filler colour", do you mean the transparent color (in this case the ubiquitous pink)? If you used the pillbox graphic above for the fortress, it would hide the unit occupying the fortress, which is why these graphics are usually relegated to the bottom edge.

That's what I've been clumsily asking about. Thank-you!