VP Victory threshold needs fine-tuning?

[Stauffenberg]

I just suffered a stunning defeat as the Reds vs AI in January 1922, informed that "The Red, Black and Green armies have been almost eradicated and the Revolution is now crushed. The Whites are ready to establish a new regime."

VPs:

Reds: 1765 (+38)
E. Whites: 2354 (+14)
W. Whites: 1279 (+6)

The Red Army is certainly not "eradicated"; on the contrary it is immensely strong on all fronts. On the map the Reds control their entire original area plus Kiev, Odessa and the entire Ukraine. An unstoppable Red offensive is sweeping into the Donbas and Crimea, with Donetsk captured. Tsaritsyn held. Points east: Ufa, Perm, Ekaterinburg, Chelyabinsk and the White capital of Omsk taken in December. Rostov is certain to fall in a month or two. Only Kronstadt holds out in the north although it is about to be leveled with 9 batteries of siege artillery finally arriving. The Eastern Whites control the Tashkent/Samarkand area and all territories east of Omsk. Equally puzzling, the Greens control large areas of the Caucasus and Samarkand areas and are hardly eradicated.

There has been no need to raise troops in over 6 months. Industry is built up to the max.
There are more troops available than needed, including replacements. It's clear the eastern Whites are doomed as they were not able to mount an effective defense in front of their capital. The western Whites are likewise threadbare as I expected them to be given the very poor AI play in clearing out a hinterland for themselves in the Caucasus area.

The Cheka terror and revolution 'red fist' options were used extensively in Ukraine and in the far east. I am wondering if I used this too late.

As well, I could easily have converted EPs for VPs in the last 6 months. I didn't think I needed to given clear Red dominance on the ground. Perhaps I will go back and try it from the early summer of '21 using this option extensively to see if I can avoid this mystifying result.

Any insights appreciated.

[ERISS]

I just suffered a stunning defeat as the Reds vs AI in January 1922, informed that "The Red, Black and Green armies have been almost eradicated and the Revolution is now crushed. The Whites are ready to establish a new regime."
VPs:
Reds: 1765
E. Whites: 2354
W. Whites: 1279
The Red Army is certainly not "eradicated"; on the contrary
the Greens control large areas
, I could easily have converted EPs for VPs in the last 6 months. I didn't think I needed to, given clear Red dominance on the ground.
this mystifying result. Any insights appreciated.

You lost the political war. What you heared is the White propaganda, yours is not believed or cared. Learn that you can overwhelmly win a military war, but lose nonetheless (example France in Algeria...).
Koltchak is suited internationaly to be the best representant of Russia, soon in exile... Never sell the bear pelt before killing it... (You need to convert EPs for 50VPs per turn)
The Whites had sold it, they had lost.

Or maybe yes there's some bug or unbalancing somewhere? (when will arrive those patchy days?)

[Stauffenberg]

I wasn't talking about a bug I was talking about victory conditions that seem skewed to me in an admittedly new Campaign, game #2.

"Politics" you say re the Reds? What politics? You were either with them or against them, and they fought off all comers with only their internal domestic resources. The Reds would fight on to the end no matter what as Hitler discovered a few decades later. "Politics" in the game of course is another issue, but then that was the point of my post. In my game, and most I would hazard, the Reds do not even have a viable deep sea port to the world two years into this vicious civil war--what politics, other than treaties of convenience which I enacted asap re the Baltic States, Poland, and the Anarchists.? The Cheka did their nasty work and I had few revolts. No historical Red Army ascendant on all fronts in January 1922 would have surrendered to a defeated White host based on any sort of victory point rubric. They would have fought on, and in my game, won. And I say this against an admittedly rather lame AI (or as I more accurately refer to it as the PO: Programmed Opponent). There was no historical clock ticking for the Reds historically--they would have fought on to 1925 to get their victory whether it seemed possible or not.

I suggest the VP rubric be more nuanced and balanced.

[Baris]

In late Summer 1919 in my current game as Reds with 'United Reds option':
Reds: 758 (+29) NM: 90
Western Whites: 309 (+10) NM: 98
Eastern Whites: 443 (+8) NM: 86

As it is a PBEM game Whites have strong armies and on the attack, Reds in war with Balts also. How did VP evolve during the game?

Maybe there is a bug in some date. Save game would be helpfull.

[ERISS]

What politics?

I don't say for sure. I was trying to explain. I don't enough know the game.
Maybe you have an army of slaves which would turn in another revolution to remove the bolshevik government. You have a nice brand Red toy, but it's rotten inside. The game is not made to simulate this future, VPs are to summarize it.
Many VPs (mainly the losses) in the game have nothing to do with military success.
Sure the AI is not good, but maybe you have made too much bad 'political' choices in the game and it does not balance your miltary victories?
The game must be unbalanced/broken as you feel it (it should be this, to explain the bad ending of yours);
But maybe you deserve the loss as you didn't take enough care of the VPs?? Sure it would be very annoying to be own so by a wargame lol. But RCW without politics is not interesting for me (However you can make without those VPs, by reaching the difficult sudden-death victory).
We miss Andatiep view here.

[ERISS]

Oh, it reminds me some bad move discovered by players in beta:
Don't kill your reputation in your levy towns (no bad Regional Decisions), or you would no longer build units here...
The game has freedom and can let the player make big mistakes.

[andatiep]

Well, well, well.

All the problem of this thread is link to the AGE engine version we had to use for the RUS Gold. We couldn't remove this "Victory screen Windows" which pop up and don't give all the time the right text we wanted and which fit to the party.

So, to make it simple : ignore this "victory windows" when it say stupid and meaningless texts.
As said in the manual, what you have to check to know who win the game, it is the Victory conditions, in the big book ledger page called "Scenario Background" (F10 Key)

In your situation, you should first check if you got the Victory with the control of the required objective Cities (Objectives and Scores (F9 Key).

Then if you didn't, you should check the VP score.

A PBEM game like the one Baris speak shows that the VP production are balanced. If any of the 2 sides succeed a victory with their Objective Cities list, it is still hard to see who will win with the VP.

But here, Stauffenberg is speaking about the very last stage of the campaign scenario against an AI where there is a huge difference between the AI VP production and the Reds Human played.
For sure, we were not able to do enough testing late in the game to check well if the VP production of the Whites' AI is not weird somehow on the long term. AI is always cheating anyway .

It would need to check what all along your game what could have gave them so much VP. See in the manual what gives VP and try to see how the Whites in your game could have produce it. If it is normal or not.

Finally, if there is something wrong or suspect, it would be maybe more sure to declare new victory conditions when you are playing against the AI : no more VP victory. It's for kids anyway. You should win (or not) with the Objective Cities list only .

[ERISS]

All the problem of this thread is link to the AGE engine version we had to use for the RUS Gold. We couldn't remove this "Victory screen Windows" which pop up and don't give all the time the right text we wanted and which fit to the party.
So, to make it simple: ignore this "victory windows" when it say stupid and meaningless texts.
As said in the manual, what you have to check to know who win the game, it is the Victory conditions, in the big book ledger page called "Scenario Background" (F10 Key)
In your situation, you should first check if you got the Victory with the control of the required objective Cities (Objectives and Scores (F9 Key).
Then if you didn't, you should check the VP score.

Finally, if there is something wrong or suspect, it would be maybe more sure to declare new victory conditions when you are playing against the AI: no more VP victory. It's for kids anyway. You should win (or not) with the Objective Cities list only .

So, maybe these End screen window texts have to be rewritten in a more neutral mood, less puzzling, and explain to the player that he must first see with the Objective Cities list, then only with VPs.

[Stauffenberg]

Well, well, well.

All the problem of this thread is link to the AGE engine version we had to use for the RUS Gold. We couldn't remove this "Victory screen Windows" which pop up and don't give all the time the right text we wanted and which fit to the party.

So, to make it simple : ignore this "victory windows" when it say stupid and meaningless texts.
As said in the manual, what you have to check to know who win the game, it is the Victory conditions, in the big book ledger page called "Scenario Background" (F10 Key)

In your situation, you should first check if you got the Victory with the control of the required objective Cities (Objectives and Scores (F9 Key).

Then if you didn't, you should check the VP score.

A PBEM game like the one Baris speak shows that the VP production are balanced. If any of the 2 sides succeed a victory with their Objective Cities list, it is still hard to see who will win with the VP.

But here, Stauffenberg is speaking about the very last stage of the campaign scenario against an AI where there is a huge difference between the AI VP production and the Reds Human played.
For sure, we were not able to do enough testing late in the game to check well if the VP production of the Whites' AI is not weird somehow on the long term. AI is always cheating anyway .

It would need to check what all along your game what could have gave them so much VP. See in the manual what gives VP and try to see how the Whites in your game could have produce it. If it is normal or not.

Finally, if there is something wrong or suspect, it would be maybe more sure to declare new victory conditions when you are playing against the AI : no more VP victory. It's for kids anyway. You should win (or not) with the Objective Cities list only .

Oh well my bad in in even saying "I suggest the VP rubric be more nuanced and balanced." Was I frustrated at slogging that far against a really inept AI (PO=Programmed opponent) and then getting the victory panel telling me I lost? Perhaps the PO cheats or has a sense of humour? I'll take it that way at this point and thanks for the response.

Adding up VPs for victory is for kids or the naïve as you say, and should always be taken cum grano salis. No more VP victory henceforth against an unscrupulous AI/PO able to announce bogus victories in a half legible panel bleeding off the bottom of the screen--nice try though!

I would like to see the PO play a far better game of controlling it's own hinterland bases, east and west. Apart from that in my game I have seen it pull off some very nice offensives and counter-offensives. This game is destined to be another classic alongside AACW.

[Stauffenberg]

I don't say for sure. I was trying to explain. I don't enough know the game.
Maybe you have an army of slaves which would turn in another revolution to remove the bolshevik government. You have a nice brand Red toy, but it's rotten inside. The game is not made to simulate this future, VPs are to summarize it.
Many VPs (mainly the losses) in the game have nothing to do with military success.
Sure the AI is not good, but maybe you have made too much bad 'political' choices in the game and it does not balance your miltary victories?
The game must be unbalanced/broken as you feel it (it should be this, to explain the bad ending of yours);
But maybe you deserve the loss as you didn't take enough care of the VPs?? Sure it would be very annoying to be own so by a wargame lol. But RCW without politics is not interesting for me (However you can make without those VPs, by reaching the difficult sudden-death victory).
We miss Andatiep view here.

Yes I agree and see my response above to andatiep.
I think in playtesting they realized this late-game trend in VP accumulation and added the convert EPs to VPs option to address this. My guess.

[Baris]

I highly suggest this game should be played in Pbem for the extensive irregular movement and for best use of unit abilities against real opponent. Sure there was good AI scripting in the past but it got much complicated for that. Overall political talk will matter less in battlefield !

[ERISS]

I highly suggest this game should be played in Pbem

We all know that, but solo game is pleasant too for we don't have to care about the playing time. Nobody is waiting for us to pushing the End of Turn button.
The unbalances or difficulties of the solo game don't have to be ignored. The RUS-Gold solo gaming has not to be abandoned.

[Baris]

Yes definetely. Clovis improved AI behaviour in the past and it can be done again with new scripts maybe. May need a bit volunteer work if anybody willing to look at it. If nobody available to play these games in future (I hope not ! ) PBEM there should be good AI as alternative, as this game deserves it.

[ERISS]

ignore this "victory windows" when it say stupid and meaningless texts.
when you are playing against the AI: no more VP victory. It's for kids anyway. You should win (or not) with the Objective Cities list only.

Beware not to remove the seriousness of the political options. If VPs mean nothing, then many historical options you have included are just for the laugh...

[czert2]

how about extending timelinr to 1924 - lenins death? with forgein interventions after 1923? and these shoul be based on decision played earlier, and on military situation.
did white player suceded in granting indepence to ex-tsarits states ? and are they still figthing and/or signed peace with reds? well, let whites get renewed support from west, uncluding freedom liking us. so whites get chance to end reds terror once for all.
did red player suceded in exporting world revolution to some states and failed in some others ? well, let him get some resources, but mainly volunters from all commies suporters all around europe (especialy germany?) . did he lost to poles ? let him to get revenge war but he will need to win this time.