A totally stupid question :) which faction is more difficult?

[GlobalExplorer]

Are the Reds easier to play than the Whites?

I started with the Southern Whites ( mostly because they start with the most manageable and straightforward starting situation ) and I am beginning to wonder if it should not in fact be much easier to play the Reds with their endless resources. Of course they are hampered by lack of organization but I think I am experienced enough to bring their stacks to full efficiency.

The answer to this is important for the question of a higher difficulty - in ACW I once tried 'hard' but did not like it, somehow the AI only got unfair advantages in combat resolve.

Or perhaps this is a question to more experienced players, in which way would you order the three sides, by difficulty.

1.
2.
3.

?

[Clovis]

Are the Reds easier to play than the Whites?

I started with the Southern Whites ( mostly because they start with the most manageable and straightforward starting situation ) and I am beginning to wonder if it should not in fact be much easier to play the Reds with their endless resources. Of course they are hampered by lack of organization but I think I am experienced enough to bring their stacks to full efficiency.

The answer to this is important for the question of a higher difficulty - in ACW I once tried 'hard' but did not like it, somehow the AI only got unfair advantages in combat resolve.

RED have rather few good leaders, and that's a big disadvantage.

They have more ressources theorically. But to use them, they will have to use requisition and conscription very often; these policies will cost them National morale and loyalty, leading to revolts and several penalties in production, battle,etc.

Now, i would indeed think Red should be easier, but that's just a guess for now. only time, and reprots, will say the definitive truth, considering also balance is yet under work

[GlobalExplorer]

But if I only think of the monetary income from Moscow and Petrograd, like 25 per turn for Moscow ..

Perhaps another reason why I play the Whites is, you are on the offense and must conquer a lot of territory, somehow that's most fun. But I guess the Reds could get quite interesting in their turn because of politics, and personalities (Trotski, Lenin etc) and internal revolt.

[ERISS]

another reason why I play the Whites is, you are on the offense and must conquer a lot of territory,

That's why Reds is far easier side. I always wonder how the game plays, so I take Reds and click on some buttons aimlessly, just trying to reinforced (I don't see wether I succed this), then on the end of turn.

[Kev_uk]

I have not really had much time with the Whites, but put it this way, my last campaign (under version 1.00) I lost to NM failure as Reds. I faced heavy White stacks of 30k+ troops to my 20k stacks, lost almost all battles due to poor leaders and other factors. I found it hard to play as Reds, or at least I found it difficult to develop an offensive strategy with them and to take on those stacks. I think maybe it was my gameplay that hindered me, perhaps.

I found it hard, as you not only have to gain more manpower and money via requisitioning, but also have to deal with threats from east and south (and west too later on), so you need to continually have to produce divisions and recruit generals etc etc ....

Might try a White game next. Heh

[Flop]

I have not really had much time with the Whites, but put it this way, my last campaign (under version 1.00) I lost to NM failure as Reds. I faced heavy White stacks of 30k+ troops to my 20k stacks, lost almost all battles due to poor leaders and other factors. I found it hard to play as Reds, or at least I found it difficult to develop an offensive strategy with them and to take on those stacks. I think maybe it was my gameplay that hindered me, perhaps.

I think it was probably the economy bugs that hindered you most. I've found that with the new patch, I can actually raise some decent armies as the reds. The leaders still suck, though (mostly, anyway).

[OneArmedMexican]

I think it is not so much a question of which side is easier in RUS as too which weakness is easier to cope with:
- the Southern Whites are extremely poor in 1918 but they have the best leaders and troops.
- the Reds (especially with the new patch) have the ressources, inner lines and are not multinational (easier to manage replacements) but they lack decent leaders and have few high quality troops.
- in 1918 the Siberian White is the most balanced side. In my opinion that makes it easiest to play.

1919 changes things: the Siberian White gets a lot harder (loss of elite Czech troops) whereas the Southern White gets easier (new allies).

And that is exactly the great thing about RUS: there is no faction that is easiest - just shifting balances, advantages and disadvantages. It depends on your ability to adept to these challenges which faction proves easiest for you to play.

[GlobalExplorer]

This sounds good, although I from my experience woudn't say the Southern Whites were difficult in whatever stage. I am just a bit short of money.

[OneArmedMexican]

This sounds good, although I from my experience woudn't say the Southern Whites were difficult in whatever stage. I am just a bit short of money.

I agree. I have played two campaigns as Southern White so far. In both cases by autumn 1919 the Red was crushed. Especially the final part of my drive to Moscov was usually too easy.
But there are challenges: you have to take the offensive - but at the same time can't afford big losses.

However, with more ressources allocated to the Bolshevics after the new patch things might actually get more difficult.

One related remark concerning the AI: When I push north I conquer little more than one railway line. Which basically leaves me overstreched and extremly vulnerable. However, the AI never exploits that vulnerability: No cavalry raids to blow up tracks. Hardly any attempts to conquer weakly protected cities. Against a human player my strategy would have been a recipe for desaster.
Clovis just a suggestion: it might be worthwhile teaching the AI a bit of raiding.

[Clovis]

One related remark concerning the AI: When I push north I conquer little more than one railway line. Which basically leaves me overstreched and extremly vulnerable. However, the AI never exploits that vulnerability: No cavalry raids to blow up tracks. Hardly any attempts to conquer weakly protected cities. Against a human player my strategy would have been a recipe for desaster.
Clovis just a suggestion: it might be worthwhile teaching the AI a bit of raiding.

I've just raised Red offensive probabilities for the RC2. I've been indeed certainly too much conservative in assessing conditions to allow Red to lauch offensives, especially in Ukraine. I will look too at your suggestion, but It should yet be the case, so there's certainly something wrong. Could you post me a save of your games for closer look at?

Thanks for the report. Optimization is a long process, but fortunatly Athena is yet on part on drawing board...

[OneArmedMexican]

I would love to, but after extensive modding in the mdl files (new leader graphics), it would probably be incompatible.

[Clovis]

I would love to, but after extensive modding in the mdl files (new leader graphics), it would probably be incompatible.

I don't think so, Ishould just have some curiuos gfx here and there.

[OneArmedMexican]

Tried it on a clean install. The game crashed.

[Clovis]

Tried it on a clean install. The game crashed.

even in debug setup?

[OneArmedMexican]

I think the reason is not the mdl files I changed (the most that could do is indeed some strange graphics), but the fact that I added two additional mdl and unit files each in order to test new graphic sets.
There are some generals you rarely see in game - adding "leader X" and "leader Y" seemed to be the easiest way to test if graphics work.

[Clovis]

I think the reason is not the mdl files I changed (the most that could do is indeed some strange graphics), but the fact that I added two additional mdl and unit files each in order to test new graphic sets.
There are some generals you rarely see in game - adding "leader X" and "leader Y" seemed to be the easiest way to test if graphics work.

so send me your new mdl and units files and the model aliase and unit aliase files in your Aliase subfolder.

BTW, frst try to solve this in the RUS mod section