Replacements?

[GlobalExplorer]

Playing the Whites, I need to allocate replacements for six different nationalities, with approx 5-15 unit types each, so I currently have 50-60 replacement options, ( and with currently only 60 conscript companies at my disposal, I could realize for maybe 6-8 of the available 50-60 ). As a consequence most of my units will get no replacements at all!

I think this is one example where the replacement system in AGE may not work well. Could this be simplified a bit? For example, why can an artillery piece bought for the Southern Russian Army not used by Northern Whites or Don Cossacks?

[Clovis]

Playing the Whites, I need to allocate replacements for six different nationalities, with approx 5-15 unit types each, so I currently have 50-60 replacement options, ( and with currently only 60 conscript companies at my disposal, I could realize for maybe 6-8 of the available 50-60 ). As a consequence most of my units will get no replacements at all!

I think this is one example where the replacement system in AGE may not work well. Could this be simplified a bit? For example, why can an artillery piece bought for the Southern Russian Army not used by Northern Whites or Don Cossacks?

That's indeed the right problem Whites suffered: most units didn't get replacements

Common pool for Southern and Siberian would be unhistorical and could lead to undesired side effects.

Siberian of course can buy replacements for Czech which will retire quickly from the game, Komuch, rather crap troops. So you have yet 2 subfactions not really attractive for buying replacements...

[barbu]

GlobalExplorer, at first when reading your post I thought you were right. But then, I thought about it: to use your example, the Northern Whites, Don Cossacks and Southern Russians are three different forces, three different leaderships, temporary allies really.

The multitude of options that you mention is the effect of the choice that AGEOD has made. They had two extremes at their disposal: either display each White force separately (which would create about ten White factions - Cossacks, Kolchak, Denikhin, Allies, Czechs, etc and make for an unpleasant gameplay experience) or one White force (which would make what you described even worse). I think they thought of gameplay first and made a good choice.

[GlobalExplorer]

That's all right, but I ask myself how players are supposed to handle it. Most people will get overloaded if they have to make that many calculations on paper. I cannot just say, historically those units did not get reinforcements, so my units will not get them either, and brush it off. Of course I want my most important forces reinforced first, so I need to optimize ALL decisions about replacements, and that will result in an incredible amount of tedious work and micro management.

And, since I notice that answers to most such questions seem to get handled in the same pattern, i.e. "yes it's annoying, but it would be unrealistic otherwise". Please don't think we can live comfortably in an ivory tower, we need to be able to recommend this to average players without a bad conscience!!

[Clovis]

That's all right, but I ask myself how players are supposed to handle it. Most people will get overloaded if they have to make that many calculations on paper. Of course I want my most important forces reinforced so I need to optimize all replacement options, and that will result in an incredible amount of tedious work and micro management.

You're mentionning a real concern, and I understand your point of view. But historicity is another one, balance isn't always easy to determine between both. Then simplifying game is unquestionably a major trend since some years now, and whlile it's generally a good move, it's too a major risk of washing out the necessary complexity a wargame must keep to get as much interest than authenticity , 2 other major concerns. Why simple wargames don't sell well on computer? We would have done the contrary, I suppose someone would post about the contrary...

[GlobalExplorer]

C'mon spare me these explanations , I belong to communities that have been fighting the fight against dumbing down of games for years. And we support companies like AGEOD, especially AGEOD.

But there is a difference between complexity in terms of flexible strategic/tactical choices, and complexity that simply results from bad design or an overcomplex interface.

Personally I find the replacement screen too complex, at least if playing the Whites (I did not have problems with it in AACW). Especially since the interface does not give me any visual cues as to what is important and what not (e.g. through colors).

Example: So I want to allocate reinforcements primarily to certain, important divisions. That will mean I have to check first if I need to purchase replacements for a Don Cossacks unit, a Northern Whites unit or Southern Whites units .. and this will get very tedious!

I will however not turn this into a long exchange of arguments. It was just a suggestion as to where the game might fall flat for a lot of people, not a boner breaker for me. Personally I am certainly able to handle the problems I mentioned.

[Clovis]

C'mon spare me these explanations , I belong to communities that have been fighting the fight against dumbing down of games for years. And we support companies like AGEOD, especially AGEOD.

But there is a difference between complexity in terms of flexible strategic/tactical choices, and complexity that simply results from bad design or an overcomplex interface.

Personally I find the replacement screen too complex, at least if playing the Whites (I did not have problems with it in AACW). Especially since the interface does not give me any visual cues as to what is important and what not (e.g. through colors).

Example: So I want to allocate reinforcements primarily to certain, important divisions. That will mean I have to check first if I need to purchase replacements for a Don Cossacks unit, a Northern Whites unit or Southern Whites units .. and this will get very tedious!

I will however not turn this into a long exchange of arguments. It was just a suggestion as to where the game might fall flat for a lot of people, not a boner breaker for me. Personally I am certainly able to handle the problems I mentioned.

Not me too, i've yet some work on RUS tio do; but I notice you have evolved from a suggestion changing the way the engine gets replacement stuff to suggestions about graphical presentation. and on this one, I agree with you, something should be done to help. So discussion was useful

[GlobalExplorer]

Sounds good. Some visual cues would help immensely, especially if the current replacement system stays for good.

But after hearing the arguments, I currently still don't think that it would be ahistoric or unrealistic if I invest money and other resources into replacements (for let's say cavalry, air or heavy artillery units) and the game then (for the sake of players convenience) abstracts the actual allocation of funds, recruits and weapons in a way that the right replacements get channelled to the right armies.

Otherwise this could drive a lot of people nuts, if they want to replace their most valuable units.

The system in AACW was just about complex enough. For me at least, but this is subjective.

Moreover, I remember that in AACW there was discussion about division HQs, and in the end they were discarded, and I personally never missed them.

[Tamas]

yes but then there is the problem of certain factions having much less pool of replacement than others... Not easy to find a middle ground.

[OneArmedMexican]

My suggestion: implement a tooltip into the replacement ledger that indicates the need of each type replacement kit.

ex: Southern White elite infantry
abailable for building: x
built: y
needed: z

z being the number of replacements needed to refill depleted elements.

I guess that would make the planning a lot easier without deeper changes to the AGE engine.

But please don't misunderstand me here. I am happy with the recruitment and replacement system in RUS. Both have improved considerably over RoP.

[GlobalExplorer]

I would consider using colors, size and font types (bold, italic, small font size etc), to help the player find out which replacements are more important than others.

Even if the replacement screen got much "gayer" as a consequence, it would be absolutely worth it.

P.S. I would also suggest using more distinctive colors for Corps and Armies (or an option to select the colors manually, as in the new Matrix wargame Decisive Campaigns: Warsaw To Paris).

[GlobalExplorer]

That's indeed the right problem Whites suffered: most units didn't get replacements

Common pool for Southern and Siberian would be unhistorical and could lead to undesired side effects.

Siberian of course can buy replacements for Czech which will retire quickly from the game, Komuch, rather crap troops. So you have yet 2 subfactions not really attractive for buying replacements...

Sorry to be a pain in the butt. But the problem is identical if playing as Germany (Drang nach Osten), and I think the German armies would have received replacements !

[Clovis]

Sorry to be a pain in the butt. But the problem is identical if playing as Germany (Drang nach Osten), and I think the German armies would have received replacements.

That is not thecase: the scenario is depicting a victorious but bleeded white Germany which can't afford to replace losses...Scenario design decision. And a wise one, IMHO : that's the only real weak point of Germany against a weaker opponent.

[GlobalExplorer]

Ok, you make the decisions, I must understand them.

But shouldn't a "bleeded white" Germany be better modeled over the conscripts variable, instead of a detour over the replacement screen?? (Same for the White armies)

[Clovis]

Ok, you make the decisions, I must understand them.

But shouldn't a "bleeded white" Germany be better modeled over the conscripts variable, instead of a detour over the replacement screen?? (Same for the White armies)

In this uchrony, Germany has won in 1918, after 4 years of war. In the real outcomes Germany was unable in 1918 to fill the losses. Then you forget Germany would have to keep ome forces in 1921 facing Fance which would have certainly known a great political agitation with the defeat. communist movement was rather strong in vxtorious France from 1919 to 1921, so I imagin it would have been stronger with a defeat, ad so a threat h for Germany...