Who wins the most?

[Captain]

Now quite possibly it is my inferior play as the Reds, but having played around 6 times vs players and AI (and being a very seasoned AACW player) I am continually having difficulty comining anywhere near replicating the historical success of the Reds. Now I have some observations but prefer to hang fire until I have amassed a credible powder keg so as not to cry wolf.
So to begin can we get a vote or feedback from the crew how many wins players have had with which sides?
I think this would be invaluable in regards to assessing play balance. Probably best if we keep this to just player games with no AI's.
thanks in advance.

[ERISS]

You seem being right: There's another post somewhere (don't remember) in this forum, saying Whites easily win the game.

[OneArmedMexican]

I have participated in 5 Grand Campaign PBEMs (one still ongoing). No Red victories so far. Even a member of the SEPRUS team wasn't able to win with the Reds.

In my opinion the main reason for this is the recognize independance option that opens the raod towards Baltic, Finnish and Caucasian troops descending upon an already stretched Red army.

It is anything but easy but without foreign intervention a Red player can at least hang on. He will lose a lot of territory but eventually he would have a chance to turn his fortune around. FI intervention is instant death to that hope.

Personally I recommend the Short Campaign it is well balanced. The perfect scenario for a PBEM.

[Captain]

Now depite my posts heading I think this is a great game. Given that caveat it behooves all of us to push for the best possible product avaliable, i.e. a simulation that reflects historical reality but balanced by the fact that 'some' players may be brilliant enough or have a poor enough oponent to upset an historical outcome.
This clearly doesn't seem to be the case with RUS.
How many people would play AACW if it was nigh impossible for the north to win?
Now I am a campaign man always have been. A campaign always is the true test bringing in all the variables of an historical simulation, scenarios simply don't cut it except as a learning or training exercise.

I was really hoping it was just my play but I was already suspect on numerous details which didn't fit with my university studies on the Russian Civil War. Now nobody wants to throw the baby out with the bath water as this game has fantastic potential (bit like Aegod's WWI game, a great subject but given the hiatus I just couldn't bring myself to buy it no matter how much I wanted to, the criticisms were just too strong).

So as a community perhaps we can all give aegod some input to correct the game imbalance? You want change , you have to make it happen
For my suggestions I draw heavily on the boardgame "Triumph of Chaos" which seems much better balanced, i.e each side can regularly win, (note that is also not historically accurate as 50:50 ratio simply does not reflect history. We can debate the ratio (and I think we should), but I would put it at something like Reds70%:whites30%.
Anyway that ratio is simply to kick off a play balance debate but gives us an "area" we should be aiming for. If we don't have that ratio than maybe the game should be renamed to somthing else cause it sure doesn't reflect the Russian Civil War

Now in comparison to TOC, RUS obviously as a military game is vastly superior (and that is its strength). Politically though I believe RUS comes off a very poor second.
My suggestions are as follow;
1. It is in the political field that the game mainly needs to be play balanced. I welcolme suggestions. TOC had "BOTH" reds and whites capable to influence other parties, this would be a step in the right direction.
2. Co-operation between anti-red forces is ludicrous it simply didn't happen as easy as it does in the game and it seems to happen frequently in RUS in both a military and political context.

Now I have cajoled gaming friends or bought as gifts some 5 copies of RUS now and I have no wish to be harrassed by friends over a poor recommendation or to shelve the game and look for another production. RUS "can be" the difinative Russian Civil War game, but the play balance needs to be seriously addressed to be at least remotely reflective of historical accuracy.
Over to you crew.

[Captain]

Another suggestion is what TOC did. TOC added the third player as Poland (which historically in terms of influence and military might is absolutely correct). Now the white split as is seems ok but what about options for other players as Poland, Ukraine and Finland?
Also the other minors should follow their own goals not merely be an extension of the whites as in reality their goals were far from compatabile. Solution maybe is make all other minors AI (like greens) with variable influence factors to trigger participation.
The other factor is those minors vps should not count towards the whites! Historically the whites may have got some lilitary benefit fro the enemy of my enemy is my friend theory, but politically no minor was going to surrender one master for another whatever the colour of their flag.

[OneArmedMexican]

In my opinion the issue lies with the recruiting capability of the Bolsheviks, it should be vastly superior to their White foes but it isn't. True, the Southern White can use special operations only in a few areas but the Siberians with their huge hinterland make up for that. Moreover partial mobilization and money printing are available to both White factions at the same rate as to the Reds (which means they get double the returns).

This is what I would propose:

- special operations should yield different returns for White and Reds (Whites should receive no more than 50% of what the Reds get).

- Partial mobilization and money printing should yield different returns for White and Reds (again Whites should get considerably less, perhaps 50%).

- one might also consider workers rallying to arms if key cities are threatened by White forces: like in PON garrisions could automatically spawn in cities like Moscov, Pertrograd, Orel, Tula, ...). This is what historically happened. The population hated both Reds and Whites. But in the instances where the revolution was truely threatened, their choice was to side with the Reds as the smaller evil (i.e. the one that gave them at least some sort of land reform). Unlike PON these spawned garrision should be of considerable size: up to 30.000 men in the big cities.

- give the Red Army more free units by event: in particular foreign intervention should be balanced with free Red troops. (No research is needed since the appropriate units are already in the Short Campaign OOB).

- foreign intervention should only be possible if the Southern White are in a desperate situation (low NM). The leaders of the Volunteer Army wouldn't have even considered recognizing the independance of former Russian territory unless they were losing the war (historically even that wasn't enough for them to abandon their Greater Russian dreams).

Sidenote: I think Clovis has implemented very similar ideas in his mod. Another solution is of course the Short Campaign.

[Highlandcharge]

I am playing 2 pbem, one as the Siberian whites and one as the reds, in my Red's game I have just been attacked by a 100,000 strong horde of Siberians, its 1919 march, is that historically correct?

Does the fatal years mod address the point problems you have mentioned?

sorry about the questions but I have one more

How does the short campaign scenario differ from the longer one?

Thanks in advance...

[OneArmedMexican]

I am playing 2 pbem, one as the Siberian whites and one as the reds, in my Red's game I have just been attacked by a 100,000 strong horde of Siberians, its 1919 march, is that historically correct?

Yes it is actually historic correct. At the height of their power in 1919 the Siberian White army had a fron-line strength of 100.000 men.

What isn't historically accurate however is that there is no way for the Red Army to field a considerably bigger army and still out-number the Southern Whites on their other fronts.

Another factor underplayed in RUS is desertion. By the end of the summer of 1919 Kolchak's army had shrunk to 15.000 men. I don't think the rate at which the Siberians (and all other factions in the civil war) were losing soldiers to desertion and defection can't really be displayed in a game. It would be unbelievably frustrating to lose 10% of your total fighting strength each turn.

Like I wrote earlier, a more accurate rendition of history would require increasing Red recuritment capabilities. The White factions can get their armies to the historic size, the Red side can't.

Does the fatal years mod address the point problems you have mentioned?

I skimmed through the rule-book but haven't played it since a very early version. It seems that Clovis should have achieved a better balance.

How does the short campaign scenario differ from the longer one?

The campaign starts in May 1919 (almost a year after the Grand Campaign), it lasts 64 turns. The starting positions are slightly different. But most importantly the armies are a lot bigger. Especially the Red army is already a mass army. On the Siberian front alone it is about 150.000 men strong (facing roughly 120.000 White soldiers). Last but not least the Southern White don't get the option to draw the Finnish, Baltic and Caucasian armies into the conflict.
From my experience with Short Campaign PBEMs, a Red victory is just as likely as a White one. When I first played it, after 30 turns, the Red army had 350.000 men on the Siberian front alone. Probably more than it historically had.

If you want to know more: I started an AAR for the Short Campaign on the Paradox froum. Life for the Siberians is very different from a GC game:

http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?571687-Who-put-the-stranded-Admiral-in-charge-Siberian-White-Short-Campaign-PBEM&p=13120971#post13120971

[wijse]

IMHO, there should also be major worker uprisings if the whites take over large cities, who are loyal to the reds. So far i have not seen any.

[Narwhal]

special operations should yield different returns for White and Reds (Whites should receive no more than 50% of what the Reds get).

I don't agree with this. White and Reds should bring exactly the same number of troops for both side.
On the other hand :
- Special Operations in Siberian White lands should yield less resources
- There should not be mobilisation / money printing for ANY side. It "doubles" the system to get money / resources that already exist (special operation), without bringing anything. I see it as a left-over of the system used by other AGEOD games for generating ressources, but it has no point with the "special operation" system.

- one might also consider workers rallying to arms if key cities are threatened by White forces: like in PON garrisions could automatically spawn in cities like Moscov, Pertrograd, Orel, Tula, ...). This is what historically happened. The population hated both Reds and Whites. But in the instances where the revolution was truely threatened, their choice was to side with the Reds as the smaller evil (i.e. the one that gave them at least some sort of land reform). Unlike PON these spawned garrision should be of considerable size: up to 30.000 men in the big cities.

That would be VERY frustrating for the Whites.
Maybe reinforce the "fixed garrison" with "Red Workers", but NOT 30 000 men. I believe untrained workers would disband at the first shoots.

- give the Red Army more free units by event: in particular foreign intervention should be balanced with free Red troops. (No research is needed since the appropriate units are already in the Short Campaign OOB).

Again, I believe it is useless with the "special operation" system.

- foreign intervention should only be possible if the Southern White are in a desperate situation (low NM). The leaders of the Volunteer Army wouldn't have even considered recognizing the independance of former Russian territory unless they were losing the war (historically even that wasn't enough for them to abandon their Greater Russian dreams).

I agree. Moreover, the Finns and Balts should be under the control of the AI. They would not have cooperated well with the Whites (with the possible exception of Mannerheim).
As for the Caucasians, for geographical reason, they would never have joined the Whites. They might be able to fight the Reds if the Southern Whites collapse, though.

Sidenote: I think Clovis has implemented very similar ideas in his mod. Another solution is of course the Short Campaign.

Any news from Clovis ? He has not updated his mod.

[ERISS]

White and Reds should bring exactly the same number of troops for both side.

Nope: People had some hope with Reds (until they really know them), not with Whites. Who wanted to go with Whites were the landowners, kulaks, etc, they were far less than common people.

[OneArmedMexican]

I don't agree with this. White and Reds should bring exactly the same number of troops for both side.
On the other hand :
- Special Operations in Siberian White lands should yield less resources

Not really a disagreement since the result would be the same. However your proposal would be far more difficult to implement since it would require seperate scripts for each area. Mine is something Clovis has already done in his mod.

Nope: People had some hope with Reds (until they really know them), not with Whites. Who wanted to go with Whites were the landowners, kulaks, etc, they were far less than common people.

That is the historical justification, I had in mind, too. I am not sure whether it is entirely correct. While the initial armies seem to have been volunteer based, by 1919 volunteers were few and the armies had to be filled by forced conscription.

- There should not be mobilisation / money printing for ANY side. It "doubles" the system to get money / resources that already exist (special operation), without bringing anything. I see it as a left-over of the system used by other AGEOD games for generating ressources, but it has no point with the "special operation" system.

Mobilization seems indeed a superflous. I can't agree with you on the money printing though. There is a difference between raising taxes/requisitioning supplies and the printing of money. Both systems exist in ACW, too. In particular, I like the inflation triggered by money printing.

That would be VERY frustrating for the Red.
Maybe reinforce the "fixed garrison" with "Red Workers", but NOT 30 000 men. I believe untrained workers would disband at the first shoots.

30.000 was a random number I picked with Moscov in mind. But my idea is not that far off from reality. When Orel and Tula were threatened by White forces in 1919 the Bolsheviks received a considerable inflow of volunteers (workers, peasants and party members). A dozen Red Guards Militias spawning in these cities if they are attacked would actually be realistic.

I believe untrained workers would disband at the first shoots.

You might have the wrong idea about the civil war armies. These weren't the trained armies of WW I. In many cases the newly pressed conscripts didn't even get taught how to fire a gun (on the Red side many didn't even receive a gun). In consequence desertion was horrendous. Like I wrote earlier, Kolchak's army went from 100.000 to 15.000 within five months. Combat losses only made up for a small part of the missing 85.000 soldiers.

[barbu]

I am willing to spend 1 hour or 2 on a modification that doubles the required number of conscripts for ALL white units. This would have the effect of reducing the number of White soldiers on the field.

Anybody interested in trying it after I'm done?

Edit: here it is. Backup your Models folder first by copying it to another location on your computer, and then unzip the contents of the archive into the Models folder. ALL White units (WHI, Komuch, Siberian, Don, etc.) need 2 times more recruits to build.

[Narwhal]

Not really a disagreement since the result would be the same. However your proposal would be far more difficult to implement since it would require seperate scripts for each area. Mine is something Clovis has already done in his mod.

If your solution is easier, as the result would be (mostly) the same (except if the Siberians take control of a "main" Russian region), I would be in favor for your solution.

That is the historical justification, I had in mind, too. I am not sure whether it is entirely correct. While the initial armies seem to have been volunteer based, by 1919 volunteers were few and the armies had to be filled by forced conscription.

Indeed. The method and the effect of conscription was exactly the same for both sides.

Mobilization seems indeed a superflous. I can't agree with you on the money printing though. There is a difference between raising taxes/requisitioning supplies and the printing of money. Both systems exist in ACW, too. In particular, I like the inflation triggered by money printing.

I conceed the point Nonetheless, I have a problem with this option. The Russian economy was with little money, and I saw the "money" icon as showing how much not only money but mostly "non War" supplies there were. Requisition would just be this : stealing cattle, clothes, whatever, to give to the army. In this case, creating more money would not help (as the Reds could not buy to other countries anyway).

30.000 was a random number I picked with Moscov in mind. But my idea is not that far off from reality. When Orel and Tula were threatened by White forces in 1919 the Bolsheviks received a considerable inflow of volunteers (workers, peasants and party members). A dozen Red Guards Militias spawning in these cities if they are attacked would actually be realistic.
You might have the wrong idea about the civil war armies. These weren't the trained armies of WW I. In many cases the newly pressed conscripts didn't even get taught how to fire a gun (on the Red side many didn't even receive a gun).

Good point, but remember that during the October / November revolution, the "Red Guards" disbanded and retreated everywhere they met the slightlest resistance. Moreover, I believe the most fit soldiers were already conscripted by mid 1919, so the actual efficiency of the "voluunters" would be low.

In consequence desertion was horrendous. Like I wrote earlier, Kolchak's army went from 100.000 to 15.000 within five months. Combat losses only made up for a small part of the missing 85.000 soldiers.

Of course, but unfortunately this is hard to represent in game without killing the fun to play. Desertion should be higher for everyone, though.

Any news from Clovis, OAM ?

[OneArmedMexican]

You do have a fine mind Narwhal. I agree with everything you wrote.

Perhaps the solution to the money printing option could be to make it less efficient (100 money instead of 200, but the same effect on inflation). Both sides did print money during the civil war but these currencies weren't appreciated anymore. Large parts of the economy altered to money-less trade.

Desertion is a sour point indeed. A realistic representation would kill the fun in the game. I think the current solution is adequate. It hurts without killing the fun enturely. What I miss are defections (certain units, e.g. the Bashkir troops changed sides at critical points of the civil war). This could be done by event.

Like you I have no idea what Clovis is currently working on. Sorry.

[Pat "Stonewall" Cleburne]

I fully intend on proving that the Reds can win a grand campaign in my current pbem

There's no doubt though, that the Reds are weaker than they should be. I'm finding the lack of generals to be a major problem in the early going. I don't know if this is historical or gets better down the road though. It sucks having to spend all of my EP on recruiting generals. I could always use more troop strength, but I'm not feeling severely lacking yet. That will probably change after foreign intervention though.

[Narwhal]

Like you I have no idea what Clovis is currently working on. Sorry.

Well, the new version of KFY is out just now.

Thank you Clovis for this !

[Captain]

Glad I started an healthy and robust debate. Lots of good ideas, especially from Mexican and Narwhal
So far you blokes have concentrated on the eco/production side (which is a major fault) for me the glaring weakness is in the Dip game unable to reflect historical accuracy. TOC runs rings around RUS on that front (as FY mentions).
Anyway I am now starting to examine FY which seems to be on the right track (btw anyone got the link to the latest version?)
However whilst FY is trying to basically address the same issues we are surely this goes way beyond being a mere mod. I mean we are basically talking the nuts and bolts of the game here its core guts, that of play balancce and historical accuracy. To be frank if it wasn't for you blokes with your healthy interest and efforts like the FY mod I would regretfully throw RUS in the bin. Sad but then having a degree in history (including Russian history) I have a penchant for accuracy and if the Reds can't win an historcial ratio of games than it simply becames a poor simulation and you might as well go back and play abstracts like Stratego (regardless of how clever the mechanics of the game are).
Surely this must be the number on issue on this forum to be fixed? Everything else is mere frills and whistles.
Anyway keep the ideas coming in.
The will come the next step...what to we do with the ideas to implement a concrete change (not mod but actual game reprogramming)?

[Old Fenrir]

Absolutely agree that the balance of power in a grand campaign is unfavorably to the Reds and does not correspond to historical reality. Scenario quite well reflects situation for Whites, but Reds military power is underestimated.

For instance, in July 1919, Reds had 2300000 men in army, more than 300000 of them - active "bayonets" and "sabers" at the fronts. In same time Whites had 830000 men in their armies, 240000 active "bayonets" and "sabers" of them.

Absolutely agree that the ability to receive more reinforcements must be granted to Reds. But, IMHO, must add certain considerations in terms of the historical realities.

1. Technical equipment of the Reds was not inferior to that of Whites. In fact, Reds, who controlled central regions with most industries and military depots of old imperial army, despite the collapse of industry, in 1918 was equipped better than Whites, who mainly obtained weapons and ammunition capturing them from the Reds. In the beginning of 1919 situation straightened due to the supply from the Allies, but level of technical equipment of the both sides was about the same.

2. The Reds must be able to receive internationalist forces: Hungarians, Chinese, Germans, etc. In fact, there is 250-300 thousands of them participated in war and this was most reliable forces of Reds.

3. Allied forces must be blocked in the harbor regions, because in reality they did not actively participate in war.

4. Czechoslovak forces were not eager to actively participate in the Civil War - they just fought their way east to Vladivostok and and were in hostile relations with the Bolsheviks. They must have severe penalties when they operating west of the the Volga.

5. Don Cossacks participation in the battles in the Kuban region in 1918, leads to a rapid and guaranteed massacre of the Reds Caucasian Army. In fact, Don cossacks did not take part in 2nd Kuban March in june 1918. Don cossack must be blocked for first 2 turns.

6. More green and red uprisings and guerrilla movement in Siberia. This is one of the important factors which determined the failure of Kolchak regime.

[Narwhal]

I beg to disagree about the fact that the Reds had "more chance" than not to win the war - but this is a debate for the history forum. Let's just say we tend to see the Red victory as more probable because the Reds actually won. For this reason, I am not upset at all if the Reds lose more often than not (I have not done any PBEM with 3 players, so cannot say).


In any case, Clovis has modified part of his mod as you suggested

[Old Fenrir]

In any case, Clovis has modified part of his mod as you suggested

Yes, I see. Glory to Clovis.

[Captain]

The answer is obvious FY is an historical game simulation RUS is an abstract I don't know what.
Time it was fixed!

[Pat "Stonewall" Cleburne]

The answer is obvious FY is an historical game simulation RUS is an abstract I don't know what.
Time it was fixed!

FY is a collection of good and historical concepts. It's hardly close to being balanced though. From what I've seen, I don't even think a PBEM would last a year in FY right now. I hope both FY and vanilla can add some improvements. It's nice to have 2 different flavors to try.

I'm playing my first vanilla PBEM and it still seems pretty balanced without foreign intervention. That seems to be the primary issue that people complain about. Set up some house rules and the whites won't roll the reds from what I've seen so far.

[DarkGarry]

I just won a 1.04 RUS PBEM. It was very hard and on the edge of defeat.

The general strategy was to preserve as much as possible on the South at the beginning and stop/delay Siberians on Volga.

I thrown most firepower on Denikin early. Siberians went on blitzkrieg putting forces into bigger stacks, but had almost empty rear areas. Denikin forces made couple mistakes - they divided and attacked several targets at once. Reds went to counteroffensive and had decisive victory in Tihoretsk area casualties were almost same, but most of elite White regiments were destroyed.

Holding Ekaterinodar, counterattacking towards Azov, Bataisk, Rostov, Novocherkassk.

Intervention started! Whites made mistake of provoking conflict with Anarchists. Mahno takes Rostov. Concentrated Red forces take Novocherkassk and repel all attempts to retake it.

There is a standoff - Siberians took Kazan and hold Volga towns (except Saratov, Tsaritsin). They assembled a big forces and go winter offensive, having 80000 against 45000 entrenched Reds. Offensive failed. Red went into counteroffensive and failed too.

Allied Intervents split - half went to Kiev, another tried to retake Rostov. Anarchist Mahno defeated allied forces and captured Crimea region.

With a swift maneuver Siberians evaded Red forces and went straight to Moscow. Take Nizjni Novgorod and clashes happened around Moscow. Forces vere brought to Moscow in a big rush. Siberians made it - they lay a siege and defeated big army that went to relieve Moscow. Red had about 200 000 casualties losing Moscow battle. As a caunter measures Red tried to took over is Siberia and Middle East.

At the moment Southern Whites take Kiev and approve Independence of Finland and Balts. They besieged Petrograd and took it after bloody assault.

The situation became critical - Petrograd lost and Moscow besieged. Winter started and in few turns food be depleted in Moscow.

Anarchists together with Red forces assaulted Kiev and taken it from allied forces. Red tried to counterattack finns but with no success. After that Reds assembled around the Moscow.

The final disposition was: about 3000 points of Siberian Whites on siege of Moscow. About 2000 points Southern whites at Petersburg area.

Red forces were 1500 points garrison in Moscow. About 2500 in armies outside around Moscow.

Reds managed to capture supply from Siberians and successfully smuggled supply into starving Moscow. By the end of winter Siberians army started to starve. Red went destroyed all allied forces in Ukraine. Went on offensive in Caucasus, captured Kaunas, repelled offensive of Finland to Novgorod. Siberian Whites had to call off the siege because of starving army.

At this point NM of Southern Whites National Morale became 0. After discussion we decided that game was won, there are no chances to capture Moscow anywhere soon as well as oppose Reds on any front (with exception of Fins - the only remained big army may hold Petrograd).

Red NM was about 75; VP 3000
Siberians NM 135; (total VPs of all Whites were less than 3000)
Southern NM 0;

[ERISS]

GG!
Lol you remind me about this, you were about to: http://www.ageod-forum.com/showpost.php?p=199337&postcount=3

[Pocus]

Nice to see some kind of AAR about RUS!