Making non-functioning factories work -- RSOC

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
16 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Making non-functioning factories work -- RSOC

DizzKneeLand33
I am playing a couple of test games of Red Sun Over China to get ready for the PBF tourney.  I have found that none of the Nationalist factories work at all (except the capital), and that there is never a prompt to fix the factories.  It is as if they do not exist at all (when placing, there isn't an option of placing zero units, it just doesn't have anything at all listed -- as if you have already placed the max).  When Japan captures the factories, there is also not an option for Japan to fix them, so again no units can ever be placed.

Is this an easy fix in the XML?  I can fix the XML, but I don't understand if this changes the engine somewhat.  I would rather the factories work and that players police themselves on what can be placed there than the factories not work at all (for example, Japanese infantry can be placed in captured Nationalist territories, so this is self-policed).

If it can be fixed, can someone point me in the right direction regarding items to be fixed?  It is a *great* game in terms of look and feel, so I'm hoping this can be done.  An XML only change I can post to a website without having to update the engine.

Thanks!

-- Dizz
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Making non-functioning factories work -- RSOC

Cernel
I would just suggest not using a not fully developed and abandoned (been a while since I saw pulicat) map in a tourney.

Me myself I really don't want to look into it cause it pisses me off that the muslims are communists and that the tibetans got less than they should. Plus some other historical inconsistencies here and there, imo. Those are the only reasons why I don't play this, otherwise very interesting, map.

I also believe communists should be weaker, but I already got some discussions with pulicat about that, and he believes that communists were stronger than they seem.

Anyway, this is not helping you; just wanted to point out that this map is not really definitive, so probably not that good tourney wise (tho I don't really know, cuz never played it).

If you want to fix it, I'm fairly positive you can have the new version uploaded in depot, cause the map is abandoned.
History plays dice
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Making non-functioning factories work -- RSOC

DizzKneeLand33
Well, I have figured out how to fix it.  The production was set to a negative number, so setting it to a positive removes the issue (just tested it for Wuhan).

Has this map been abandoned?  Currently I will upload the fixed version to my small Cellar Gaming website, but I do think it's a good concept for the map.  Most of the maps for the tourney are well tested, but I wanted a few that were less so (people can choose which maps/brackets to play in).

I don't know how to start a factory as damaged.  Of course, if I'm the one making the decisions, I won't start them that way.  I don't know why the Japanese would pay a premium to use them, nor why the Nationalists were too stupid to build more than one unit at a time without paying extra lol.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Making non-functioning factories work -- RSOC

beelee
add   unitDamage=?   to unitPlacement where your factory is to have it start damaged
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Making non-functioning factories work -- RSOC

Cernel
In reply to this post by DizzKneeLand33
The repository refers to Veqryn and Rolf only, but I can't see why an abandoned map shouldn't be taken over by someone else, at least up until Pulicat is back.

Maybe sending Veqryn a mail about a general autorization at taking over the RSOC map. Of course then it would still up to any uploaders to test out if the update is good to go (like they would do normally with any updates by the original mapmakers).

Veqryn or not, I'm positive that if your changes are only bug fixes you can have it updated by going here:
http://tripleadev.1671093.n2.nabble.com/Post-here-to-request-having-your-map-on-the-Map-Repository-uploaded-or-updated-tp7058428.html;cid=1447984054248-787
and posting your request as per these rules:
http://tripleadev.1671093.n2.nabble.com/PRECONDITIONS-FOR-MAP-UPLOAD-tp7587348.html;cid=1447984054248-787

Was just thinking something like "hey Veqryn told me that I'm the new owner of this map" would speed it up and leaving you a bit more freedom. I remember in the past Veqryn was pretty cool about switching ownership around of maps, if the map is not very definitive and the original creator has been missing for a long time.
History plays dice
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Making non-functioning factories work -- RSOC

DizzKneeLand33
Appreciate the help!  I will make a note of that command for the factories if we decide to start with them damaged, and I will drop Veqryn a quick note regarding the map ownership.  There are also a few strange/inconsistent objectives that I may clean up (something that says "Objective 101: British met a national objective for an additional -1 PU, not sure why that is there).

I think I can reason out all of the rail connections and things like that unique to the map.

This isn't exactly the right place, but if anyone has any thoughts on how the map plays let me know!
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Making non-functioning factories work -- RSOC

Veqryn
Administrator
Yes, I am fine with maps that are not being played a lot being taken over and fixed & balanced.

But I would ask that every single line changed in the xml be reviewed by 2-3 people, including someone with more map making experience than a relative new-comer like yourself.

Some of these xml's can be pretty complex, especially Pulicat's, and in any case it is good to have things reviewed by multiple people.


As far as this particular map goes, the original implementation worked and had the chinese factories start out damaged, in order to slow the japanese pace of conquest.  
Since then, the engine has changed, which broke this map.  Damage is now done a little differently in the xml (it is now per-unit, instead of per-territory), and the map was never updated to correct for this.

My personal suggestion would be to do something along the following: Have all factories start out in full health, But when the Japanese conquer them they revert into a building that is only able to produce 1 unit per turn.  If the chinese conquer them back, they revert back into their original factory, which produces 3+ units per turn or whatever they were previously.


In any case, I am hands off these days, so you will need to have someone else review your changes, both the xml and the actual gameplay.
Please contribute to the TripleA 2013 donation drive:
http://tripleadev.1671093.n2.nabble.com/2013-TripleA-Donation-Drive-tp7583455.html
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Making non-functioning factories work -- RSOC

Cernel
Sadly for me the minimum to accept to play this map would be to expand the Tibetan territory to the correct borders, reduce the communist territory to the correct borders, and add a Muslim faction in place mostly of the territory currently owned mostly by the Communists, which it is probably too much of a change of what Veqryn would be fine with, and I can't really help because I know the current borders are not right, but I don't know what are the exactly correct ones, instead (I guess only very few people would have the knowledge to set the exact borders right in this obscure scenario (there is a very big difference, at this point, between the legal borders and the actual ones, in various cases, and Pulicat went mostly for the legal ones)); I may help if Dizz gets stuck with some stuff, if noone else wants to do it, but I won't play it or test for balance, cause it really hurts me when a very detailed map is not as I think it should be, historically, sorry (this is why I can't even force myself to look/play this map; because when I see the muslims not muslims and the tibetans reduced only to the past legal borders it really trows me off so much).

I hope Dizz will find people to playtest and finetune this map.
History plays dice
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Making non-functioning factories work -- RSOC

DizzKneeLand33
Well, I'll be learning this one step at a time, so we will see how this goes, Cernel!  At one point I had the source program downloaded, but currently I am just going to work on XML adjustments, then play test the map in the tourney (the tourney is for fun, not for blood, so it's all good), and then I'll be ready to submit the changes -- that way the people checking the XML won't be bothered with multiple updates.  I'll host it locally for those interested.

Is there a manual for all of the functions that can be changed in the XML?  If so, my following question is probably answered there.  My life would be a LOT easier if I could limit the number of units that can be placed per territory, instead of making every territory a factory/ruralproduction center.  This is why the Japanese are allowed by the engine to place 3 units in Nationalist territories.

Said another way, here are the rules as set for the Nationalists:

                                        '<option name="unlimitedProduction" value="false"/>
                <option name="placementAnyTerritory" value="false"/>
                <option name="placementCapturedTerritory" value="true"/>
                </attatchment>

So, if I could make the PlacementAnyTerritory true *and* set a value for max units that can be placed per territory, I could remove the multiple factories as currently set.  This would be a great first step in getting this to work.  If the number of units can be set, then a second item would be the type of units that can be set -- but this is probably a dream world.  =)

And, just as a side note, if there is such a function, I would want factories to override the unit per territory placement rule (so a factory on a 6 production city would still produce 6, even if the placement per territory limit is 3).

If this isn't possible, then I will go with plan B.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Making non-functioning factories work -- RSOC

DizzKneeLand33
To clarify, I would like to set the max units per non-factory territory by the nation, not by the territory, so that where one nation can place 3 units, another one will not be able to if their PlacementAnyTerritory is set to false (such as Japan).
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Making non-functioning factories work -- RSOC

Cernel
In reply to this post by DizzKneeLand33
Sorry, but I definitively believe this is going in the wrong direction.
The Chinese v3 placement rules are very silly rules that should never be used in any good historical maps (they are OK if you are developing Risk or somesuch). In v3 as well it is very stupid that the western territories can produce the same number of units as the much more populous eastern ones (or, anyway, it makes no sense that a production 1 desert produces as much as production 3 rich territory, in general).
So I much suggest (as long as no developers will make a way to have production in all territories limited to the territory value (or better to a settable per territory value)) keeping using the invisible-hack units to enforce production in all territories, cause atm there is not a good way to have a sensible production in all territories otherwise.
This means, for the Nationalists, sticking with the current rule of 3 units place per non factory territory or up to production value with factory or, even better, change it to having up to production value anywhere (so that you can place 1 in a production 1 territory and 3 in a production 3 territory, etc.).
I really don't like both the fact that the commies can produce 3 units wherever, no matter the importance of the territory, as well as I feel quite unconfortable with that weird thing that all cities are supposed to start with maximum damage. I suggest being able to buy/repair no factories at all, and just having the cities with factories in them already (as it is now, de facto); this way, if all cities have factories, then you can make those too invisible.
Generally, I tend to dislike different specific rules. For example, I suggest giving the communists and the nationalists the same production rules.
Almost all good/xp mapmakers that decided to have maps with production everywhere went for the invisible/marker factories everywhere solution (not the dumb v3 Chinese rules).
If you hate having invisible-hack units anywhere, you can make this solution feeling a little less hacky by changing all invisible units to the little flags (on anything not invisible), so that they will be like the owner markers you place on the conquered territories, when you play the boardgame (I tend to prefer invisible, rather than seeing pointless damn things anywhere).

But if you really (I suggest not) want to do what you want to do, then what you need is:
maxPlacePerTerritory
set to a number.
This way all territories of that player will allow the placement of that set number of units, without needing factories everywhere at all, and without caring if the territory is a desert or Shangai (I much suggest you don't do such an absurd thing).

And, just as a side note, if there is such a function, I would want factories to override the unit per territory placement rule (so a factory on a 6 production city would still produce 6, even if the placement per territory limit is 3).
Sadly, this is exactly the big issue. Currently the maxPlacePerTerritory override everything else.
But, again, I'm very unconfortable that, even on the countriside, you can place 3 all the same in a value 1 desert or in a rich and populous value 3 farm land.

By the way:

All the following 3 rules can be implemented, albeit the first one only partially:

1) Movement from one side of an enemy city to another is technically possible, but is considered ILLEGAL.
2) Manchukwo, Japanese, and British may build ONLY in FACTORIES.
3) British are not allowed to fight Axis for the first 3 rounds (Phase I), unless any Axis country attacks it first.

The first with canals, needing ownership of the city (but this will make impossible to go over in non combat, if the city was enemy at start turn), the second by using "requiresUnits" and having special units for those players (instead of infanty, having "infantry_rural" and "infantry_urban", etc.) or triggering in and out the "requiresUnits" when needed, and the third by having a negating relationship set, and triggers giving the regular War relationship after the time expires.
Also that thing of Phase 1 to Phase 2 should be updated, cause now it's not needed the player to move the damn thing (either a general update, or just making a trigger on top of it, for moving that unit when it is supposed to be moved).

Hope this is of some help/encouragement to you since, as all Pulicat's maps, this map looks so sweet and the general concept so interesting you totally wanna play this outstanding game by just looking at it!

Cheers

(but after having looked at it a bit more, I would definitively say this is a map that should not be used in any soon to be starting tournaments)
History plays dice
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Making non-functioning factories work -- RSOC

DizzKneeLand33
Yes, as far as the tournament is concerned, after looking at this further, I have decided to wait until these issues are fixed until this game is added -- hopefully next December.  There would just be too many player enforced rules otherwise.  So, LOTR will take that last slot now.

Now, there is a difference between making the game adhere to the original intent, and changing the rules to a new concept.  So, changing the function from 3 per territory for Nationalist placement to the number of the territory value would be a concept change (but one that I must admit makes a lot of sense).  The problem is that when everything is a factory, then Japan is allowed to place there when the territory is captured.  I realize that this function can be set to "no" on placing in captured territories, but then Japan will *not* be able to use the factories that start out as British (such as Hong Kong).  So, that "quick" solution becomes another long route for implementation -- hence, before embarking on that journey, I want to make sure that the actual game rules make sense.

(There is a note that sets the original control of such territories to Japan, so I will see if this will allow them to place only in such territories, and if so go through those settings for each.)

Not allowing the Chinese to place in factories takes a significant part of the railroad function away (since the Communists are currently also not allowed to place in cities, on the countryside), so I think allowing placement in all cities for those nations would not be objectionable to anyone.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Making non-functioning factories work -- RSOC

Cernel
This is up to Veqryn to give some guidelines about how much has to be worshipping the original intent or not, but my personal belief is that when a map is totally abandoned for years should be freely takeable and the new owner should be give total freedom just like he did the map in the first place. But this is just my personal opinion.

After all, Veqryn didn't really stick to the original concept when he took over Napoleon, did he?

As for implementing the Japs limit I've already explained it in my previous post by using "requiresUnits" and having special units for those players (instead of infanty, having "infantry_rural" and "infantry_urban", etc.) or triggering in and out the "requiresUnits" when needed. Meaning that you can have an "infantry_rural", used by all rural countries, that can be placed anywhere, and an "infantry_urban", used by all urban countries, that has the "requiresUnits" = city or whatever (thus not place on countryside).

Also, for that thing of no liberating stuff, I would suggest having the original ownership set as Neutral, instead of Japanese, but both work (just looks strange reading that everything is Japanese).

(just don't use the Chinese v3 placement rules, because those are stilly; stick with having "invisible" factories everywhere)

Cheers
History plays dice
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Making non-functioning factories work -- RSOC

Cernel
As for making the map historically sensible, to explain a bit better, west sikang should not be Chinese, but Tibetan (impassable as Tibet I suppose would be allright). In the north, there should be the Chinese Muslims ruling vaste regions, and fighting against the japanese; in particular, Lanchow was an important Muslim, not that much Communist, stronghold, but, sadly, I don't exactly know what would be the correct factual borders, between Communists and Muslims; it is true that Lanchow was subjected to an high degree of soviet influence (and was the key point of the Soviet-Chinese "lend-lease"), and kind of formally recognize as being in the Communist sphere of influence in setting the borders for fighting together the Japs, but it was mainly the Guominjun Muslim Generals Ma Hongkui and Ma Bufang that defended it with their cavalry, as well as overall taking an active role in frontier fighting the Japanese all over the northern borders; this is why I think muslims deserve to be represented, not just made half Communists and half Neutral (I really hate seeing the Muslims being Communists and am not really confortable with seening them just plain neutrals either), which doesn't really make sense (but sadly I don't know the exact bonduaries). Also the situation in the north was somehow fluid, so not sure if Marchuria should have Suiyan and Ordos, or they should be Muslim or Communist, but I strongly believe some troubles in controlling those regions should come from the (now neutral) west.
History plays dice
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Making non-functioning factories work -- RSOC

Cernel
In reply to this post by Veqryn
Anyway, in my opinion, the requirement of "every single line changed in the xml be reviewed by 2-3 people" looks ridiculously cautious for a broken map (no offence, just my view), if I got it right that you have to provide full detail about the changes and have them checked one by one.

What I would do, and my suggestion to you, is to simply leave the original RSOC alone and copy-paste it as another map, call it "Red Sun Above China" or "RSOC-2" or whatever and have it uploaded as a different map, your are the only creator, and that's it.

This way you don't need to have 2-3 people Veqryn trusts rewieving all your changes, that's not gona happen anyway, but the map will only need being playtested and uploaded, like whatever new maps.

And the currend RSOC can as well stay there broken forever.

Easy enough, and surely much easyer for you (or more likely probably to only way to actually get things done at all).
History plays dice
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Making non-functioning factories work -- RSOC

aaalafayette
Administrator
In reply to this post by Cernel
top line:   The maps have versions for a reason. If a map is abandoned, do feel free to start owning it, and to publish an updated version if the map can be improved, or a potential "mod" if you think it would be better for there to be a completely different set of play options.



perhaps of interesting, but slightly off topic:
Open source follows the homesteading principle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_principle, interestingly enough basically John Locke's theory of property: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_theory_of_property


So, to put it simply, if you create it, you own it. If someone created it and then gave it to you, then you own it. Thus any claim of ownership is resolved by tracing that lineage, potentially all the way to the original author.

Alternatively, for unclaimed property, to paraphrase, you can stake a claim to unclaimed property by publicly announcing your intent. If nobody else comes along, then you may homestead that property yourself and then acquire ownership. (IE: just finding something abandoned doesn't make it yours, but if you find it, try to find the owner, and also improve it, then it is yours). The more public the search and the longer the search has been conducted makes the ownership claim stronger.