AGEOD Forums

In 1.05b RUS version PBEM have a case when Whites Armoured train passed through area under Anarchists control, so area Military control became 50% white, 50% Anarchists. But Anarchists DIDN't allied Reds as a result. In previous versions I think it was triggering alliance with RED.

1. Is it bug?
2. Is it fixed in current version?
3. What is a exactly a condition to trigger Red and Anarchist Alliance?
4. Is it possible to trigger war between Red and Anarchists? (I think - not possible, double checking)

Another issue - by about turn 35 Anarchists are STARVING, when locked. There is NOT SUFFICIENT supplies for them to survive 2nd winter.

1. It is necessary to give them more supplies or reduce their consumption to let them survive to turn 86 theoretically

2. I suggest to make Signing Alliance with Anarchists cheaper for Reds. -1NM per turn is to hard - sugges to set it to -1NM every 6 monts.

If it's -2 per annum, the alliance with the Anarkos is a no-brainer. As it is, you have to carefully weigh the cost and benefits.

Yes, -5 NM at once and -2 per annum sounds fare to me. Compare with cost of Balt, Finland etc alliance for White.

Currently cost of Alliance per year is -5 - 24 = -29 (OACH!!!!) and going - it's UNACCEPTABLE price for about 1500 pw who can fight in Ukraine ONLY(can't be included into divisions ! + suffer penalty when mixed with regular reds). This Alliance event actually REALLY HAPPENED and consequences for Reds were not so drastic - event was historical.

Even fighting at its very best Anarchist will UNLIKELY earn 29 NM OR close per year just to cover its cost.

4. Is it possible to trigger war between Red and Anarchists? (I think - not possible, double checking)

It should be made possible, but never by a White plot (white spies were easily discovered in ana propinquity ranks, and even simple peacefull white messengers were immediatly shot).

Another issue - by about turn 35 Anarchists are STARVING, when locked. There is NOT SUFFICIENT supplies for them to survive 2nd winter.
1. It is necessary to give them more supplies or reduce their consumption to let them survive to turn 86 theoretically

It could simulate the typhus where two thirds (not all) ana combattants were removed?

2. I suggest to make Signing Alliance with Anarchists cheaper for Reds. -1NM per turn is to hard - sugges to set it to -1NM every 6 monts.

As already said many times, it should never cost NM (it even should give some!), but, at start, mainly VP (it's a loss in bolshevik politic) and some EP (ana propaganda could ambarrass bolshevik politic), and maybe some WSU and money; then 1 VP and mainly EP per turn. DAVAI mod is different: http://www.ageod.net/agewiki/Davai_MOD#039.29

Whites attacking Anarchists won't happen if they pass through the area without stopping.
The Whites must end a turn in Anarchist territory, as defined by the regions:

$Nova Odessa|$Ochakov|$Olviopol|$Elizavetgrad|$Inulets|$Nikolaiev|$Berezvika|$Huliaipole|$Orikhiv|$Dobropole|$Berdjiansk|$Volnovakha|$Shaplino|$Mariupol|$Alexandrovsk|$Vasylivka|$Melitopol

Red alliance and/or white attack result in a change of relationship between RED and ANA from -100 [War] yo +20 [Peace, not Allies]
Whites remain at War with ANA in all cases...

This means that RED/ANA will stop fighting, nothing more...

Depots to prevent starving were added at Nova Odessa and Huliapole in beta patch 1.05b for the Grand Campaign, appear when German Retreat starts..
..but not added in the November 1918 Campaign.... wil add them there too.

Ongoing cost of the Red/ANA Alliance is -1NM per Turn to RED....
..does seem high, will change to -1NM per 6 months

Thank you!

lodilefty wrote:Ongoing cost of the Red/ANA Alliance is -1NM per Turn to RED....
..does seem high, will change to -1NM per 6 months

Then it becomes very small and we can't understand why Bolsheviks wanted to get rid of those cheap allied as soon as they could [alliance was broken 3 times with big bolshevik propaganda efforts (I'll translate: to prevent loss of NM by the braking of alliance)].
I really think you should add VP, EP, money in the costs of ana alliance instead of NM (all that you want, but NM lol).

ERISS wrote:Then it becomes very small and we can't understand why Bolsheviks wanted to get rid of those cheap allied as soon they could (alliance was broken 3 times with big bolshevik propaganda efforts).
I really think you should add VP, EP, money in the costs instead of NM.

It costs 5EP and 20 Money to create the Alliance.

What specifically can we set for ongoing costs?

A starting proposal, so everyone is compaining about the same thing:
4 times per year: -1NM, -50 Money, -5 EP, -50 VP

lodilefty wrote:It costs 5EP and 20 Money to create the Alliance.

What specifically can we set for ongoing costs?

A starting proposal, so everyone is compaining about the same thing:
4 times per year: -1NM, -50 Money, -5 EP, -50 VP

We should make a thread about this, not hurrying in modifing the game, as nowadays communists would say the reverse:
that people wanted to get rid of anarchists and should not allying with.
But Red and Ana combattants were the same people, drinking and partying brotherly together, when they were in the same army... When not in the same army they were reluctant to fight each other: Ana tried to only shot the officers, Red needed big red slanders
We touch here a sensitive politic in the game lol

No need for separate thread...

I really like the Davai mod you've referenced, so perhaps that's the best way.....

Another issue - I suggest to make a more sensitive trigger to cause war with whites (and Alliance with Reds) for Anarchists. Current trigger:

>>The Whites must end a turn in Anarchist territory, as defined by the regions: ....

can be easily avoided by whites. Whites can gain military control with Armoured trains without stopping on that areas and use reailroad afterwords.

I suggest to create trigger (if possible) as follows:
- If there is 1% or more White military control in defined regions - trigger Alliance with Reds for Anarchists.

This way at least whites can't gain control and use railroads in anarchist areas without triggering war.

DarkGarry wrote:Whites can gain military control with Armoured trains without stopping on these areas and use railroad afterwards.

I suggest to create trigger (if possible) as follows:
- If there is 1% or more White military control in defined regions - trigger Alliance with Reds for Anarchists.

This way at least whites can't gain control and use railroads in anarchist areas without triggering war.

There was inertia in triggering an actual war where people organize against white army abuses.
And I don't think just a train could bring anarchists in red command.
However the MC trigger is not a bad idea, but the alliance trigger is to be more than 1%! I'll say 51%?? It depends on what this alliance means ingame: the actual one, or a way to give a better control of ana to red PLAYER?
If the second reason, then the MC% should be less, maybe 30%
[These Red-Ana alliances were not so welcome for the 2, for Ana knew they would be in danger in Red army (many were machinegunned by tcheka before the official cancelling of each treaty), and Red didn't want Ana propaganda in their ranks (many red soldiers, even regiments, throve to join ana ranks). So this alliance should not be so easily triggered (but it can if game balance needed).]

Whites need only 25% to use railroads, they don't need MC for other reasons. Currently there is anarchists region on the reail line Taganrog - Donbas - Kiev. This way anarchists existence brings minor inconvinience preventing fast train movement. If whites capture 25% of MC along this line they may forget about anarchists existence at all.

ERISS wrote:[These Red-Ana alliances were not so welcome for the 2, for Ana knew they would be in danger in Red army (many were machinegunned by tcheka before the official cancelling of each treaty), and Red didn't want Ana propaganda in their ranks (many red soldiers, even regiments, throve to join ana ranks). ]

Deserters are shot, that's the normal procedure.

le Anders wrote:Deserters are shot, that's the normal procedure.

lol, if deserters were shot in young Red army, there would be few soldiers left, as so much had deserted.
Nope, normal procedure is Tcheka is behind the army, and threathen catch escaping deserters: they will be shot if they don't enter back in the Red army. Maybe you confound with Red army in WW2.
Tcheka was not frontline unit, for they would be killed by friendly lost bullets, or aimed firstly by ennemy.
About anarchists, they were shot when becoming no longer welcome (to shut their mouth, politics/propaganda was for anarchists a condition to being allied), when big danger was gone for bolsheviks and treaty was to be cancelled. Maybe some anarchists deserted when they read the slanders given to soldiers about them, to prepare the cancelling of treaty, but most stayed with their red soldier brothers. So, each time, bolsheviks succeeded in killing many anarchists for the cancelling.
Obviously, nowaday commies prefer believe in bolshevik propaganda (Trotsky leaflets, Trotsky who said he had to lie) and shout for desertion. And, even, they were allied, not bolsheviks, if they must be shot, that's by their own.
Too, a bolshevik politic could be to give orders that they know they won't be obeyed, such as going to (invade) Polland for an ukranian (at least those makhnov ones).

Good riddance to the anarchists. They're only good for cannon fodder and raids anyway.

le Anders wrote: anarchists 're only good for cannon fodder and raids anyway.

Again you confound with WW2.
In WW2, french army did not need to shot their 'republicans' soldiers: only 5% survived in the end of the war, as they were always volountary to scout or launch firstly the attacks. So much that they were the more trusted soldiers, and were thanked by being 1st guards of DeGaulle (4 halftracks, and an armoredcar opening) when parade in just delivered Paris.
In RCW, common red soldier was the cannon fodder. Where big Red army was marking time, anarchists were sent succesfully; without so much losses, so cheka had to murder them.

ERISS wrote:always volountary to scout or launch firstly the attacks.
In RCW, common red soldier was the cannon fodder.

As I said, connon-fodder.

Where big Red army was marking time, anarchists were sent succesfully; without so much losses, so cheka had to murder them.

That looks like bourgeoise revisionism, Comrade...

le Anders wrote: looks like bourgeoise revisionism,

EDIT: It comes from N.A. Efimov, Moscow, 1926...
Oh beware, we're on the bolshevik Goldwin Point!
What I warned:

ERISS wrote:We touch here a sensitive politic in the game lol

lodilefty wrote:What specifically can we set for ongoing costs?
A starting proposal, so everyone is compaining about the same thing:
4 times per year: -1NM, -50 Money, -5 EP, -50 VP

It must be very expensive, for Ana in towns can be the result of abuses of bolsheviks, so Red player is encouraged to spoil people if he can be allied with the result of his spoilling!
So, to prevent Red player from cancelling the treaty before the next cost happens, a cost should occure each turn.
Red and Ana are 'enemy (step-)brothers', and the alliance should be though.
If well balanced (it won't be easy), it should render up a very interesting feature, and maybe more historical where bolsheviks succeeded in spoiling people while talking like the anarchists who were fulminating against (the basic common Left politics like in our bourgeois republics).

Anarchists are just Communists who don't realize they can't run a complex society without some form of central government. So not really that different, thus no need for excessive cost. Anyone wanting to change the current setup is just politicizing.
The current 1NM per turn is fine, as long as the Anarchists are actively brought into the alliance, and not as a result of White terror.

lodilefty wrote:A starting proposal, so everyone is compaining about the same thing:
4 times per year: -1NM, -50 Money, -5 EP, -50 VP

Too expensive. If things go to hell for the Reds, the 1NM per turn is hard enough to pay. If things go well, you shoot the Anarchists.
The Anarchists do feed themselves in the Ukraine, after all, so no need for money or EP to keep them going. Perhaps just 1 EP + 1 NM, or 5 VP + 1NM per turn. Keep the NM cost moderately high as it is, but no need to bleed the Reds white.

le Anders wrote:Anarchists can't run a complex society without some form of central government.

Yes, for bolsheviks forbid and destroyed what was substituting it (the soviet congress of ukranian people). When you murder someone you can tell the dead is not able to live.

So not really that different, thus no need for excessive cost. Anyone wanting to change the current setup is just politicizing.
The current 1NM per turn is fine, as long as the Anarchists are actively brought into the alliance, and not as a result of White terror.

Not only politics, history too. As anarchists are competitors for bolsheviks, letting anarchists show their truth in the bolshevik ranks should cost much for the bolsheviks (i.e. VictoryPoints and/or EP, and even Conscripts!).

le Anders wrote:The Anarchists do feed themselves in the Ukraine, after all, so no need for money or EP to keep them going.

Bolsheviks didn't sent the ammo supplies, nor guns or machineguns** promized in the treaties (so in fact they were cancelling it but the ana stayed (4 months the 1st treaty), and ammoless in the red army they could be beatten* by the whites), so ok, it should not cost money each turn. Or, if it removes Morale, then it should also cost EP or Money (the cost of big propaganda of Trostky in the whole red army: Trotsky demoralize his own army).
* That's why, as ana waited still for bullets on the front (2 thirds of the ana attacks were in fact to supply on the whites), Denikin find them not though as they had to retreat, and he didn't care guard well his supply lines in Ukraine, which costs him the victory (for him, mujiks, with or without ammo, count for the same: nothing).
** Not redeeming the treaty was a bolshevik strategy, written by general Skatchko, superior of Makhno. Makhno was too to be integered in a division, to lessen his command and bring many red officers and comissars in the ana ranks, but this was done late (maybe at first bolsheviks feared for comissars being killed?).

DarkGarry wrote:Whites need only 25% to use railroads, they don't need MC for other reasons. Currently there is anarchists region on the reail line Taganrog - Donbas - Kiev. This way anarchists existence brings minor inconvinience preventing fast train movement. If whites capture 25% of MC along this line they may forget about anarchists existence at all.

Yes, we could (in theory, and in practice with more time) add this MC condition to unlock the ANA units and activate the RED/ANA alliance just because Whites use this railroad.

But remember that if the RED and ANA spend to much time to ally, it is normal that the Whites get some advantages (which can be this one : Whites crossing some territories using a railroad line, because ANA whitout a RED support/alliance would not control its territories enough to avoid that transit move).

If as a Red player, you really think that this use of the Taganrog-Donbass-Kiev railroad line is really painfull (and we probably share this opinion ), then it 's up to you to spend the political cost for a real alliance with the ANA which will give you the possibility to move the ANA towards the strategic points you feel like a priority.

So i mostly wonder : how long it need to the Whites to get more than 25% MC in this 3 regions, using the most armored trains they could have in the areas ? Hopefully enough time so that the Reds can gather most of the cost to activate the option before the use of this railroad become a painfull highway to Moscow or Kiev. Then it will be a player choice, and you already have it, to send the ANA to cut this strategic supply line or not.

Single armoured train would capture more than 25% MC in one region in ONE turn. You just give it a repetitive order to move into region and out of region. The last move order should be out of region.

DarkGarry wrote:Single armoured train would capture more than 25% MC in one region in ONE turn. You just give it a repetitive order to move into region and out of region. The last move order should be out of region.

OK. Thank you.
Quiet short time indeed. I will have a look during the balance tests if the Red is not too far from to be able to pay the ANA/RED alliance option cost when it appear. So that the player have the choice to let this Whites using this damned railroad or not.

Thanks! I believe that even peaceful existence of Anarchists should bring some inconveniences for Whites.

And as discussed above current costs of Red alliance is prohibitively high.