Moscow SR rebellion - allied war materials

[OneArmedMexican]

I am currently reading Figes "A People's Tragedy" again. While it usually is rather weak on the military side of the Civil War, I stumbled upon some interesting information:

1) The SR rebels in Moscow which arrive early in the Grand campaign: Current OOB: Popov + 1 element of Militia (Moscow Anarchists) + 1 element of volunteers (Moscow Rebels).
According to Figes (p. 634): the SR rebels actually outnumbered the Bolshevic garrision in the city: they had the 2.000 well-armed and trained men of the Cheka Combat Detachment at their disposal (strangely enough that Cheka detachment was formed exclusively of Left SR members). At the same time the Bolshevics had only 700 men to defend Moscow. The bulk of the Latvian Rifles (the only loyal defensive force available) had left for the outskirts of Moscow.

In game terms that means: The Moscow SR rebels should be regular infantry, if not elite. At the same time the garrision of Moscow is much bigger than it historically was.

2) Siberian Commanders: are way to good in this game. I can understand that the Southern White had some first rate commanders but with few exceptions that wasn't the case with the Siberians (many of them were young and/or lacked front experience).
Take for example Popov: the man had Moscow in his hands but instead of taking the Kremlin, the SR leader waited idly until his chance had passed. In other words, he lacked aggression and initiative. In game terms one would expect a 2-0-0 general not a 4-1-1 one.

It might be worth considering reducing Siberian commanders statistics across the board: make the average general 3-1-1, 3-0-0 or even 2-0-0.

3) Allied war supplies: I found some numbers (Figes, p. 652): in the first six month of 1919, the Kolchak regime received 1 million rifles, 15.000 machine guns, 700 field guns, ...

In game terms: Perhaps the Siberians should receive some artillery units for free in addition to the tanks and supply trains they currently receive?


I know that some of this goes against my own words stating that the Siberians are overpowered. But that issue has been adressed in the latest patch (perhaps in a slightly crude manner, but effective nevertheless).

[Athens]

I am currently reading Figes "A People's Tragedy" again. While it usually is rather weak on the military side of the Civil War, I stumbled upon some interesting information:

1) The SR rebels in Moscow which arrive early in the Grand campaign: Current OOB: Popov + 1 element of Militia (Moscow Anarchists) + 1 element of volunteers (Moscow Rebels).
According to Figes (p. 634): the SR rebels actually outnumbered the Bolshevic garrision in the city: they had the 2.000 well-armed and trained men of the Cheka Combat Detachment at their disposal (strangely enough that Cheka detachment was formed exclusively of Left SR members). At the same time the Bolshevics had only 700 men to defend Moscow. The bulk of the Latvian Rifles (the only loyal defensive force available) had left for the outskirts of Moscow.

In game terms that means: The Moscow SR rebels should be regular infantry, if not elite. At the same time the garrision of Moscow is much bigger than it historically was.

2) Siberian Commanders: are way to good in this game. I can understand that the Southern White had some first rate commanders but with few exceptions that wasn't the case with the Siberians (many of them were young and/or lacked front experience).
Take for example Popov: the man had Moscow in his hands but instead of taking the Kremlin, the SR leader waited idly until his chance had passed. In other words, he lacked aggression and initiative. In game terms one would expect a 2-0-0 general not a 4-1-1 one.

It might be worth considering reducing Siberian commanders statistics across the board: make the average general 3-1-1, 3-0-0 or even 2-0-0.

3) Allied war supplies: I found some numbers (Figes, p. 652): in the first six month of 1919, the Kolchak regime received 1 million rifles, 15.000 machine guns, 700 field guns, ...

In game terms: Perhaps the Siberians should receive some artillery units for free in addition to the tanks and supply trains they currently receive?


I know that some of this goes against my own words stating that the Siberians are overpowered. But that issue has been adressed in the latest patch (perhaps in a slightly crude manner, but effective nevertheless).

1) could create strange situation where Moscow would be in WH3 hands. Opens a can of worms of alternate histories; WH3 faction and left SR aren't synonymous so the situation would be in itself a very strange distorsion. Then gamplay wise, it would maybe for a Red player to understand why he should immediatly lose Moscow...

2) You're right.

3) don't forget these figures are those send. But how much vanished in Semenov hands and more genrally betwwen Valdivostock and the Urals? Then, even when stocked in omsk, a large part was affected by rampant corruption, a part being even sold to Reds....

[OneArmedMexican]

1) could create strange situation where Moscow would be in WH3 hands. Opens a can of worms of alternate histories; WH3 faction and left SR aren't synonymous so the situation would be in itself a very strange distorsion. Then gamplay wise, it would maybe for a Red player to understand why he should immediatly lose Moscow....

It would be WH2 troops, not WH3. But I agree, Moscow shouldn't fall into Komuch hands. Which it won't since the Red player still has the Latvians to defend the city. The game doens't distinguish between the city and its outskirts.

3) don't forget these figures are those send. But how much vanished in Semenov hands and more genrally betwwen Valdivostock and the Urals? Then, even when stocked in omsk, a large part was affected by rampant corruption, a part being even sold to Reds....

Very true. I just wanted to point out that a different composition of the units received as allied supplies might be more realistic (less tanks, but a few artillery units instead?)

[Athens]

It would be WH2 troops, not WH3. But I agree, Moscow shouldn't fall into Komuch hands. Which it won't since the Red player still has the Latvians to defend the city. The game doens't distinguish between the city and its outskirts.



Very true. I just wanted to point out that a different composition of the units received as allied supplies might be more realistic (less tanks, but a few artillery units instead?)

Edit: done in Fatal Years, with the creation of the Left SR as a new Anarchist Subfaction. Left SR will represent the Moscow insurrection. Making Left SR Green has no real basis, when Popov, the military leader of the insurrection, achieved the war as Makhno's subordinate.

Of course, ANA, RED and WH3 AIs has been updated in Fatal Years to cope with this new change. After all RUS is a computer wargame for most of us , except for the one taking the AGE engine as Triumph of Chaos under Vassal engine.

Here a screen of a game in FY: Reds are chasing Left SR from Moscow ( Reds destroyed them the next turn...)



I've too begun to lower Ratings of Siberian leaders. Now the xls files are open, ( not the AI files howewer, that shows how much Seprus is taking care of AI stuff...) this work should fasten significantly.

[ERISS]

It would be WH2 troops, not WH3. But I agree, Moscow shouldn't fall into Komuch hands.

Left-SR is the SR minority who can't be White, Right-SR are the main SR who decided they couldn't be Red (those build the Komuch).
So, this Left-SR uprising in RUS should be ANA, as many anarchists joined the Cheka (and left it after some months) and these anarchists could have join the Left-SR uprising against bolsheviks, and afterward many Left-SR joined (or even became) anarchists and makhnovists (Left-SR must have split half-ANA half-GRE).

[Kev_uk]

Left-SR is the SR minority who can't be White, Right-SR are the main SR who decided they couldn't be Red (those build the Komuch).
So, this Left-SR uprising in RUS should be ANA, as many anarchists joined the Cheka (and left it after some months) and these anarchists could have join the Left-SR uprising against bolsheviks, and afterward many Left-SR joined (or even became) anarchists and makhnovists (Left-SR must have split half-ANA half-GRE).

It was such a small rising anyway, figures I have read say between 800-2000, with some anarchists and sailors. It was over in several hours. They had according to Victor Serge '..60 machine guns, half a dozen field guns and three armoured cars. Some squads of anarchists and Black Sea sailors joined their forces'.

Also, whilst we are here, Antonov-Ovseyenko should be present in Moscow as he was in charge of the Red Guards in Moscow at that time.

Green I can see, because of the Left SR peasant support.

[ERISS]

Green I can see, because of the Left SR peasant support.

Green ok, but at least for ANA is now sadly a total subfaction of RED.
AGE shows its adaptative limit with the complexity of RCW.

[Kev_uk]

Green ok, but at least for ANA is now sadly a total subfaction of RED.
AGE shows its adaptative limit with the complexity of RCW.

Well, RUS managed to pull off various factions quite well, Siberian, Southern, and I must plug Clovis' Fatal Year mod for more faction mess!

Yes, but in the stock campaign Anarchists are devoid of control from Reds with Kronsdadt uprising, so maybe they could work this into Left SR Revolt in July. I suggest for stock campaign maybe several elements; one of anarchists, a low strength artillery element, a low strenght armoured car element, volunteers combined with anarchists and sailors. Whatever, the Latvians (or Lettish as Serge calls them) and Bela Kuns Hungarian prisoners (which is what they were) are going to win regardless, and this is historical because of the low numbers involved. They cannot win this revolt - unhistorical, but they should be changed to be *more* historical.

What I noticed also from Stock Campaign is the absence of Antonov-Ovseyenko. He, from what I was reading today about Left SR revolt, took command in Moscow as he was head of the Red Guard. He only appears (if lucky) with recruit Red General. He should be on board from the start in Moscow. A good leader, ex Tsarist, leader of the initial Revolution in 1917. Very important figure.

[andatiep]

I join both of you when you say this uprising should be Green and not pro-Komouch or pro-White-Siberians !

The left-SR didn't planed to start a war against the bolcheviks. They planed this action like a (probably stupid) limited political coup to force the majority of the Bolcheviks to declare war against Germany.

But for now, whatever is the colour of this units in Moscow, they will be destroyed immediatly anyway... So this point is maybe more to improve the historical description of the RCW in the game than the historical military balance...

What could have much more changed the situation, would be in fact if no left-SR uprising did happen. Here could be a way to MOD it if you want :

- http://www.ageod.net/agewiki/A_RUS_wishlist_mini-MODs_workshop#Mini-MOD_.22The_Left_SR_uprising.22

- http://www.ageod.net/agewiki/A_RUS_wishlist_mini-MODs_workshop#Mini-MOD_.22Lenin_Assassination.22

[ERISS]

The left-SR didn't planed to start a war against the bolcheviks. They planed this action like a (probably stupid) limited political coup to force the majority of the Bolcheviks to declare war against Germany.

. Lenin did a so succesful political (and strategical) blietzkrieg on Russian power, that few understood quickly the nature of the new power.
. In France, after Pétain signed the June 1940 peace treaty of Compiègne, French Vichy government would too have crushed resistants if uprising... but in this case the new power was maybe less sneaky at start (even it was official 1 month later), and resistants could move to allied England.
. We can say too that Paris communards were idiots, as they refuse the Versailles peace and were killed by French army (and not German army) ??

[andatiep]

We can say too that Paris communards were idiots, as they refuse the Versailles peace and were killed by French army (and not German army) ??

I didn't said their aim was stupid, but the way they acted to reach it could be.

I still wonder if to continue the fight against Germany would have been a clever choice or not for the Russian Red revolution (Bolcheviks + Left-SR).
They had anyway much more ressources and spaces to continue the fight with Germany than the communards surounded in Paris !
This could be an interesting "What if" scenario like Drang nach Osten ones...

But there is something we could agree : you need to be half an idiot to believe that the Bolcheviks leaders we let you in peace as left-SRs (which were specialized in the political assassinations since decades against the Tsarist regim) after their Coup in Moscow.
Ignoring the Soviet Congress resolutions, left-SR leaders moved back as out-laws. Bolcheviks leaders were too afraid, and as soon as they get back the control of the Cheka, they did what did any Revolutionary faction in Paris in 1789 or 1871 : erase the other factions which are obviously dangerous for them.