Can anyone explain why I lost the campaign?

[Kulak Scum]

Well shit.. I have spent the last weeks (losing many hours of good sleep) trying to get my head around this game. In particular I had a huge struggle learning how to play the Western White faction (I am a huge White army fan because Communists are evil and they imprisoned my grand grandfather). I had to restart the campaign several times but finally I manged to find out the proper strategy to play as this faction. Still, my last campaign was full with ups and downs. Nevertheless at some point I manged to make some huge gains (like capturing Petrograd and arriving at the gates of Moscow itself). What really sucks is that I managed get one region away from Moscow but just on the last turn. Additionally the enemy somehow teleported a 2k stack army in/near Moscow and I am pretty sure they had 90% of their forces in Tsaritsyn (because I was also besieging that city with a huge force) and /or dispersed in eastern Russia fighting Kolchak's faction. None of the white factions managed to conquer 15 objective cities (I got 9 or 10 and I think I could have got more and finished the game sooner if the Ukrainian Nationalists and Poland didn't suddenly leave the war and thus force teleported my armies just north of Crimea). The reds of course didn't manage to get their 20 objective cities (I think that in the end they had 9). Some of the objective cities were held by various factions that were previously on my side before leaving the war. Nevertheless, I thought to myself that I will still win by points . At this point in time even my own faction managed to surpass the Reds in victory points (I had 2089 to the Red's 1926). The Eastern Whites managed to get the most points in the end (2184) although before Ukraine and Poland left our side I managed to accumulate more VP than the Eastern Whites. As soon as Ukraine and Poland decided to say fuck you to us the lead was tipped back in the favour of the Eastern Whites and they managed to accumulate more points than me again. But this shouldn't have mattered because the game specifically says that if none of the factions manage to reach their given objectives, then, at the end of the scenario in order to "fix the winner, the victory points score of the Red faction is compared to the cumulated Victory Points scores of the Eastern and Western White factions. As I said, even I managed to get more points then the Reds (and I ended up on the second place) so our cumulated scores should well have surpassed the Reds'. But here comes the last turn with me being satisfied that I finally managed to win a very hard scenario and surprise surprise.. THE REDS WIN BY VICTORY POINTS WHAT!? At this moment I was seriously temped to penetrate the screen with my fist. So you are telling me that the godless and hellfire deserving communists still win after I managed to smash them into a pulp?
Shit.. This was really a crap pie thrown in the face.. And it's not the first time when the game slaps me like this and I can't even realise what has happened..
What really sucks is that I think I lost because I didn't capture Moscow (and I was so close). The game says that "IF the victory SHOULD be determined between the Eastern White and the Western White factions: it is of course the first White faction which enter Moscow with one of it's warlords which win the game". But I must insist on that "SHOULD". Could this imply that the both White factions win the game by having more points but if you really want to decisively win the game with one of those two (your personal White faction) then you have to capture Moscow? In the end I really don't care which White faction wins overall as I love both General Denikin and Admiral Kolchak. This is really complicated and stressing.. I think that the Reds too have different outcomes if they win the game: either they are ruled by a dictatorship or are united between Bolsheviks, Revolutionary Socialists and Libertarian Socialists (however I think none of these outcomes is determined by holding a city or not). So the question would be: Do you only win the game by accumulating more points than the enemy faction AND also achieve this apparent bonus objective to determine the different outcome in case of victory? But then again, the game specifically says that I lost because I "have less Victory Points than the enemy" WHICH IS BULLSHIT. As I said, it seems really unnecessarily complicated and frustraiting..
Here are the pics. Please leave your thoughts below. Sorry if this post is too long or if I am too unjustifiably angry. I am still relatively new to AGEOD games although I have played To End All Wars and English Civil War as well.

[ERISS]

The AGE game engine is not good here as is was not made for more than 2 sides, but there may be a bug in your game too. Too, like so many other features, the end game is not enough well explained, many texts should be added/completed.

If nobody can win by city numbers main goal, then that's by victory points.
Whites win if their total is superior to the Red.
Then the real king among the whites is who entered Moscow first (cossaks and others 'false white' don't count, it must be 'true white' unit). If none, the true white winer is who has the most VPs.


About the 'united reds', I think the main dev was politically too kind, as in April 18, the few times when there was this red unity, it was made against the russians anarchists that were surprisely raided by both bolcheviks and socialists hand-in-hand:
Like in Spain 36, anarchists were too naive about the left so brotherhood; the left allies with anarchists to smash them first. Left means being republican, and so since more than 2 thousand years, republicans are against democracy (despite what they say since 2 hundred years, bourgeois and even monarchists telling lies like then commies following them).

[Kulak Scum]

The AGE game engine is not good here as is was not made for more than 2 sides, but there may be a bug in your game too. Too, like so many other features, the end game is not enough well explained, many texts should be added/completed.

If nobody can win by city numbers main goal, then that's by victory points.
Whites win if their total is superior to the Red.
Then the real king among the whites is who entered Moscow first (cossaks and others 'false white' don't count, it must be 'true white' unit). If none, the true white winer is who has the most VPs.


About the 'united reds', I think the main dev was politically too kind, as in April 18, the few times when there was this red unity, it was made against the russians anarchists that were surprisely raided by both bolcheviks and socialists hand-in-hand:
Like in Spain 36, anarchists were too naive about the left so brotherhood; the left allies with anarchists to smash them first. Left means being republican, and so since more than 2 thousand years, republicans are against democracy (despite what they say since 2 hundred years, bourgeois and even monarchists telling lies like then commies following them).

Thank you for the answer. It is a shame that this potentially awesome game has these cringe worthy issues like lazy and poorly coding and scripting. On top of that it also has poorly optimization and ugly aesthetics (UI and textures). Now, it would be understandable for the game to have these issues because it was one of their early games but since the Gold Pack release in 2015 there should be no excuse for not addressing this issues. Some of their recent while having improved on those aspects (like aesthetics) still have reminiscent issues.

[Durk]

I do have a suggestion for you if you prefer playing against the AI, play both White factions. There is no reason you can only play a single faction.

To do this, select one faction, say Western Whites. Make their move and save. Exit the game
Then come in as the Eastern Whites and make their move and save, then run the turn.
If you next move the Eastern Whites and save, then go to the Western Whites and run the game, you will be able to watch every other turn of each faction resolve.

This way you can play and coordinate the White factions. While they are not able to actually support each other, you can make a much more coordianted offense.

I think you will not mind the minor flaws once you begin to enjoy the play of the game. It is one my favorite titles because is has acurracy and depth not available in any other game which examines this era.

[Kulak Scum]

I do have a suggestion for you if you prefer playing against the AI, play both White factions. There is no reason you can only play a single faction.

To do this, select one faction, say Western Whites. Make their move and save. Exit the game
Then come in as the Eastern Whites and make their move and save, then run the turn.
If you next move the Eastern Whites and save, then go to the Western Whites and run the game, you will be able to watch every other turn of each faction resolve.

This way you can play and coordinate the White factions. While they are not able to actually support each other, you can make a much more coordianted offense.

I think you will not mind the minor flaws once you begin to enjoy the play of the game. It is one my favorite titles because is has acurracy and depth not available in any other game which examines this era.

Good sugestion but it would be more time consuming. You are right about the uniqueness of this game but I still think it could have been massively improved by the addition of some less complicated features.

[Stratman]

I think you will not mind the minor flaws once you begin to enjoy the play of the game. It is one my favorite titles because is has acurracy and depth not available in any other game which examines this era.

Durk, your post was ahead of mine. But I couldn't have said it better, especially in English
Kulak Scum, you scored more VPs than reds. Do not pay attention to the message on the game screen.
You are the winner!
I want to add that in AGEod games the process is much more important and fun than the result!!
Another words - it does not matter "who is a winner".

[Kulak Scum]

I think you will not mind the minor flaws once you begin to enjoy the play of the game. It is one my favorite titles because is has acurracy and depth not available in any other game which examines this era.

Durk, your post was ahead of mine. But I couldn't have said it better, especially in English
Kulak Scum, you scored more VPs than reds. Do not pay attention to the message on the game screen.
You are the winner!
I want to add that in AGEod games the process is much more important and fun than the result!!
Another words - it does not matter "who is a winner".

Thank you for the answer, good sir. Now, in regards to "the process is much more important and fun than the result!" there is some truth to that but it should be noted that it's far less motivating to go through the process if the result is obscure and relative. One of the reasons I play turn based strategy games like Total War and especially Ageod is that it allows me to achieve a different What If, alternate historical scenario (something which may be as irrelevant and problematic as it is fun). You don't get this satisfaction if the end game and victory screen is botched up. I mean, it's not as if playing a game of chess where you have only black and white and the two may just well be interchangeable, thus forcing you to concentrate only on the process and strategy of winning. Sure, Chess improves your discipline and intellect and that is good but when it comes to historical factions it should be noted that they have depth: they have a certain ideology, a set of principles and beliefs that drives them forward to achieve their final results through various processes. You can't really get any desire to play either the White and Red army if you treat them just like White and Black in Chess. This is the reason why I think Turn Based Strategy Games should just offer a sandbox scenario experience. Now it should be noted that AGEOD does a much better job at this than Total War. Their games offer a large amount of depth which is something you really don't see on 99% of games. In that case I may actually be too pretentious but I guess I'm just trying to keep up the quality of these games
So note to developers: This post is not meant to throw shit at you. Just wanted to make you aware on some issues.

[Durk]

Good sugestion but it would be more time consuming. You are right about the uniqueness of this game but I still think it could have been massively improved by the addition of some less complicated features.

It is the complicated features which draws players to this game. It is not a bubble gum nor beer and pretzel game but one you learn, and learn and then learn to love.

[ERISS]

it would be understandable for the game to have issues but the Gold Pack release in 2015

Rus-Gold started as a mod of RUS (like Espana1936, they were not made by Ageod devs but by fans), and RUS was based on old ACW, so Rus-Gold even released late is based on an old engine.

FieldOfGlory:Empires :
RUS Platinum, España 1936 Cloth Edition

[Stratman]

Thank you for the answer, good sir. Now, in regards to "the process is much more important and fun than the result!" there is some truth to that but it should be noted that it's far less motivating to go through the process if the result is obscure and relative.

Agree. "It does not matter who is a winner" is a hyperbola.
I had in mind, that in RUS there is a traditional system of the VPs, and victory conditions been described in Manual (but not very clearly!). However, what you saw in the End most likely is a Bug.

One of the reasons I play turn based strategy games like Total War and especially Ageod is that it allows me to achieve a different What If, alternate historical scenario (something which may be as irrelevant and problematic as it is fun). You don't get this satisfaction if the end game and victory screen is botched up.

Me too! Moreover, I always play for all sides. A lot of fun play both Reds & Whites!!
... Ok, one of my great grandfather fought in a Red Army, but another one owned two apartment houses in St. Petersburg. I pass one of them every day on my way home.

IMO, Total War more videos-game than a serious strategy

[Baris]

Game should have more clear goals and balance in pbem. VP should be well thought. Rus Gold designed by volunteer Andatiep. If more further support would have been given to him may be it would be popular as Strategic Command in Matrix forum. Because it is unique topic and engine. Competitive pbem is the most important value in forum activity I think.

[Durk]

I do think this game has very clear goals and objectives. I do find it odd to compare it to Strategic Command, which is a lot of fun and which I play, as Strategic Command is kind of a historical simulation with a lot of fudging and fluff, while Russia under Siege gold is historical simulation where a good study of the Russian conflict helps you play better.
Do not get me wrong, I love games like Strategic Command because it is accessible and easy to play. But there is a difference between historically imaginative games which almost yield historical what ifs and historically grounded games which allow historical parameters of outcomes and possibilities.
Part of why RUS Gold may not be as popular, which I do not have any idea about popular or not, is that it is very challenging. This is not a simple game to play. Just managing the Red political challenges is a whole commitment of engagement. But if a player wishes to learn the history of the Russian Revolution, play this game with a solid text as a supporting document.

[Baris]

I agree. But my point wasn't about how much historical RUS is.
It was about balance in VP for pbem about the difficulty for the RED side to win the game against similar level opponents. There is a goal for sure but not realistic in pbem for the Reds capture those locations with this army size. Historically they took control of those. But won't have sufficient numbers in game. Another example is capture of Bulgaria. Too short time and difficult both pbem and maybe vs AI. Maybe good thinking in theory.

[Durk]

If the Red player understands how to form divisions and armies under political officers, which is a mystery to most players for a long time, then the game is very balanced. Maybe it is even slightly favorable to the Red side as a solid Red player can take advantage of the optimum options/cards. These are hard for a casual player to play well, as it is hard for a casual player to keep armies in political control.
The Red player must deploy his motivated units in such a way as to win early and then to shift to fronts which matter. Between three players of equal abiltity, the Reds ought to win baring really unfortunate luck.
I should amend this to say, between three players who all understand RUS well, the Red should win. Between three equally matched players who are not familiar with the unique production, recruitment (of prisoners) and such, the Whites will win.

[Edorf74]

I do think this game has very clear goals and objectives. I do find it odd to compare it to Strategic Command, which is a lot of fun and which I play, as Strategic Command is kind of a historical simulation with a lot of fudging and fluff, while Russia under Siege gold is historical simulation where a good study of the Russian conflict helps you play better.
Do not get me wrong, I love games like Strategic Command because it is accessible and easy to play. But there is a difference between historically imaginative games which almost yield historical what ifs and historically grounded games which allow historical parameters of outcomes and possibilities.
Part of why RUS Gold may not be as popular, which I do not have any idea about popular or not, is that it is very challenging. This is not a simple game to play. Just managing the Red political challenges is a whole commitment of engagement. But if a player wishes to learn the history of the Russian Revolution, play this game with a solid text as a supporting document.

I haven`played the game yet, but:
As far as I can understand the devs of RUS Gold didn`t rely on solid texts only as background material for the game but they seemingly also relied heavily on Wikipedia(!) as a historical source. In that case I can understand that some people may find some areas of the game debatable. This surfaced on a thread on the RUS forum on Steam.

[Stratman]

In that case I can understand that some people may find some areas of the game debatable. This surfaced on a thread on the RUS forum on Steam.

This game doesn't perfectly simulate historical details.
Another words detalisation is not enough.
But it's only a game! And not very simple for understanding game even on this detalisation level.
We may remember that even around the real history events there are disputes among historians!

RUS is probably the only PC game about the Russian revolution and one of my favorite AGEod games.

[Nikel]

I haven`played the game yet, but:
As far as I can understand the devs of RUS Gold didn`t rely on solid texts only as background material for the game but they seemingly also relied heavily on Wikipedia(!) as a historical source. In that case I can understand that some people may find some areas of the game debatable. This surfaced on a thread on the RUS forum on Steam.

Which are those blatant historical fails in the game?

[Edorf74]

I haven`played the game yet, but:
As far as I can understand the devs of RUS Gold didn`t rely on solid texts only as background material for the game but they seemingly also relied heavily on Wikipedia(!) as a historical source. In that case I can understand that some people may find some areas of the game debatable. This surfaced on a thread on the RUS forum on Steam.

Which are those blatant historical fails in the game?

As I haven`t played the game yet I can not from personal experience tell what may be debatable in the historical setup within the game. I just stumbled across this thread on Steam where one of the devs was backing up his historical arguments by using Wikipedia sources and he also supported the idea that Wikipedia has less errors than any paper encyclopedia. To me this was quite surprising to learn, tbh. The period that this game is reflecting was a very intricate and political complex one and I would personally not rely on unreliable sources for fact checking. Other than that the game seems interesting and I`m planning to play it soon.

[ERISS]

I haven`played the game yet, but:
As far as I can understand the devs of RUS Gold didn`t rely on solid texts only as background material for the game but they seemingly also relied heavily on Wikipedia(!) as a historical source. In that case I can understand that some people may find some areas of the game debatable. This surfaced on a thread on the RUS forum on Steam.

No, the devs relied on all texts, from books and wikipedia. That's fun who don't relie on wikipedia doesn't either really read books, and go spit on wikipedia users who do read the best books.
And, mind this, you blame wikipedia but you rely on steam users...

I'm okay wikipedia can be very wrong, but it tends to be corrected in the long time.
Like books can be wrong, unintentional propaganda for being wrote by waged writers, or writers protecting their loot.
For centuries there was no internet, and writers couldn't be trolled so they wrote scandaleous texts, like those our governments are based on (they falsely told being based on carebear texts); even now the riches capture back the medias.

" I am Prohibited of Believing what I read. " fnord

[Nikel]

Other than that the game seems interesting and I`m planning to play it soon.

I hope you enjoy it

[Baris]

If the Red player understands how to form divisions and armies under political officers, which is a mystery to most players for a long time, then the game is very balanced. Maybe it is even slightly favorable to the Red side as a solid Red player can take advantage of the optimum options/cards. These are hard for a casual player to play well, as it is hard for a casual player to keep armies in political control.
The Red player must deploy his motivated units in such a way as to win early and then to shift to fronts which matter. Between three players of equal abiltity, the Reds ought to win baring really unfortunate luck.
I should amend this to say, between three players who all understand RUS well, the Red should win. Between three equally matched players who are not familiar with the unique production, recruitment (of prisoners) and such, the Whites will win.

I know the rules very well. In late beta test I played 3 player pbem with the other testers. Red player resigned because of lack troops and lack of leaders to command Red troops.

I played another 2 pbem game with good players - each game has 3 players- recently as Reds maybe a year ago, they command whites. Still not convinced all these years Reds have the numbers and the power to defeat All Whites Poles and both Whites too much to handle for Red player. I think Eastern Whites a bit overpowered. The other White faction is ok. Recruitment poool of Reds is not enough with all factories build. Still it is fun to play despite the result.

[ERISS]

In late beta test I played 3 player pbem with the other testers. Red player resigned because of lack troops and lack of leaders to command Red troops.

I played another 2 pbem game as Reds with good 3-players maybe a year ago, they command whites. Still not convinced all these years Reds have the numbers and the power to defeat All Whites Poles and both Whites too much to handle for Red player. I think Eastern Whites a bit overpowered. The other White faction is ok. Recruitment pool of Reds is not enough with all factories build.

Sure the mini-patch is to be used, did you? or you think it is not enough?
viewtopic.php?f=280&t=41741
viewtopic.php?f=280&t=53123#p402119

[Baris]

Yes I think I've used in last game. Although I don't remember dictatorship event happened in game.
My theory is more about defense stronger -maybe stronger than in should be- in previous Ageod games including Rus. Newer titles have more higher offensive ratings than the defensive one in unit models. And less max entrenchment. Maybe Whites should be limited to level 2. Engineer unit is the most important unit in game, I remember including in a stack entrenchment goes up to level 3 next turn. It is like who goes to the important locations first have great defense bonus in next turn. I think defensive wars a bit overpowered especially with artillery units in a force.

I remember training all brigade level conscripts-via Commander in Chief- and red guards but it wasn't possible to train half of them in a limited time.