User avatar
Orel
Brigadier General
Posts: 442
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 8:28 pm
Location: Port-Arthur

Orel Mod

Sun Jan 27, 2013 5:27 am

Orel Mod

This mod generally deals with adding new units for all factions, increasing power of White Elite infantry, decreasing cost for building infantry for the Reds and much more...

Specifics:

Overall for sides:

Machine guns

There will be a machine gun unit in the game for each side. I will probably create 2 new units in the game and will include the tachanka in their ranking below to show how they will work:

Machine gun: this unit represents the Maxim, Colt and other heavy machine guns employed by all sides. It will have a low offensive value, a moderate defensive value but it will have a high rate of fire. It will inflict little losses in strength points, but its' hits will be very damaging to cohesion. The chips used for replacements are light infantry chips. It is possible to capture machine guns.

Light Machine gun: this unit is currently planned to be available only for Whites. It represents mostly the Lewis machine gun, it is like the heavy machine gun but it has a higher offensive fire rating. In everything else it is the same as its heavy cousin.

Tachanka: this unit is already in the game, but I plan to mod it to make it capable of moving quicker as the other machine gun types and having a higher initiative, but at the same time it will have a lesser chance to hit than the stationary machine guns.

Armored Trains

Armored trains will now be considered artillery, and could be included in divisions. They will consist of an armored locomotive and armored platforms. Armored trains will have higher chances to hit than the field artillery they represent. They will also have armor, and the heavy artillery will also inflict greater damage in ranged combat but will be useless in the assault phase. Also, it will be possible to capture them as a unit. Below are the types with current pictures:

Machine Gun platform
[ATTACH]21439[/ATTACH]

76mm cannon platform
[ATTACH]21440[/ATTACH]

107mm cannon platform
[ATTACH]21441[/ATTACH]

120mm cannon platform(same portrait as for 107mm cannon)

152mm cannon platform
[ATTACH]21442[/ATTACH]

Armored locomotive(necessary to form an armored train out of platforms above)
[ATTACH]21443[/ATTACH]

Recruiting prisoners now brings not just conscripts but also money. This is to account for the prisoners being captured in overcoats, good boots having rifles, all of which can later on be used to build new regiments.

There are also plans of making the NM double of the current amount with the reduction of its' effect on cohesion also by 2.
Attachments
mdl_WHI_Amt10a.png
mdl_WHI_Amt9a.png
mdl_WHI_Amt8a.png
mdl_WHI_Amt7a.png
mdl_WHI_Amt5a.png
For united Russia!

Altaris
Posts: 1551
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2011 8:20 pm

Sun Jan 27, 2013 4:38 pm

We discussed this in our game thread some, but wanted to move the discussion here.

Two things I think this game would benefit from greatly:
1) Reducing the amount of firepower than can be placed into one combined unit (player created "divisions"). Right now, most infantry elements are regimental in size, and there is a hard-coded limit of 33 elements per combined unit. That can lead to a huge number of troops in one combined unit, costing only 4 CP. If we take the smallest infantry units of 4 infantry regiments + 1 field arty regiment, you can pack six of these under one 1-star general, and still have room for two support units like armored cars and tankchatas.
2) Reducing the command point limits of generals. Right now it caps at 48. Considering #1 above, you can put 12! of those divisions into one stack - that's theoretically 24 divisions, or over 200K troops in one stack. In my mod, I used 12 as my cap, and gave all 3-star generals a special ability to allow them another +12 on top of that. So you could have 24 CP in a stack led by a 3-star general, but only 12 in a regular corps (well, you could over-stack if you wanted, but of course that bring penalties).

As I'm experiencing in our game, the Southern White player can pretty easily stick 4500 CP worth of troops into an attack force, mostly through combining units per #1 above. The Reds have no way to counter this at every point across their front, which is why I'm guessing the Reds tend to get stomped by experienced White players. Once you lose big to the super-stack in one or two battles, it's all over. It's not so much not having enough troops (though that's part of it), it's that there's not nearly enough 1-star generals around to build up combined units capable of absorbing the impact from a stack that big.

User avatar
Orel
Brigadier General
Posts: 442
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 8:28 pm
Location: Port-Arthur

Sun Jan 27, 2013 6:58 pm

Altaris wrote:We discussed this in our game thread some, but wanted to move the discussion here.

Two things I think this game would benefit from greatly:
1) Reducing the amount of firepower than can be placed into one combined unit (player created "divisions"). Right now, most infantry elements are regimental in size, and there is a hard-coded limit of 33 elements per combined unit. That can lead to a huge number of troops in one combined unit, costing only 4 CP. If we take the smallest infantry units of 4 infantry regiments + 1 field arty regiment, you can pack six of these under one 1-star general, and still have room for two support units like armored cars and tankchatas.
2) Reducing the command point limits of generals. Right now it caps at 48. Considering #1 above, you can put 12! of those divisions into one stack - that's theoretically 24 divisions, or over 200K troops in one stack. In my mod, I used 12 as my cap, and gave all 3-star generals a special ability to allow them another +12 on top of that. So you could have 24 CP in a stack led by a 3-star general, but only 12 in a regular corps (well, you could over-stack if you wanted, but of course that bring penalties).

As I'm experiencing in our game, the Southern White player can pretty easily stick 4500 CP worth of troops into an attack force, mostly through combining units per #1 above. The Reds have no way to counter this at every point across their front, which is why I'm guessing the Reds tend to get stomped by experienced White players. Once you lose big to the super-stack in one or two battles, it's all over. It's not so much not having enough troops (though that's part of it), it's that there's not nearly enough 1-star generals around to build up combined units capable of absorbing the impact from a stack that big.


I must account for the historical aspect in RUS. In both the White and Imperial army, the unit having a personal name and banner is a regiment, not a batallion. So, the Markov, Kornilov, Beloozerskiy, Avarskiy, Astrakhanskiy and other are regiments, they may be batallion sized but they are supposed to be able to grow up to regiments.

But on the up side, I recognize that the Reds should get advantages of their own. Which ones are in the first post, I will update it in a second.
For united Russia!

Altaris
Posts: 1551
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2011 8:20 pm

Sun Jan 27, 2013 7:49 pm

I'm not referring to the units, but the sub-units/elements inside them. So for example, the Markhov Regiment is a unit type $uni_WHI_Rgt9, which is composed of 1 element/sub-unit a model type $mdl_WHI_Inf14 which is an elite infantry regiment. All stats are tied to the element/sub-unit, such as hits, offensive fire, defensive fire, etc. What I am suggesting is leaving the unit alone, (so it's still a regiment) but instead of only having 1 sub-unit, break it out into multiple sub-units. B/c combined units can only have a maximum total of 33 sub-units in it (1 of which is the leader, so 32 other elements) it will limit how many units can be combined under a 1-star general. Combined units have two caps, one is a "unit cap" where only 8 units can be combined with the leader, the other is a "sub-unit cap" which is 33 sub-units. Right now what can happen is you can have 6 divisions (each with 4 "regiment" infantry and 1 field artillery sub-units, so total of 30 sub units) all combined under a single 1-star leader, plus two single element units like armored cars or tankchatas. Say if you have 6 of the smallest divisions + 1 armored car + 1 tankchata, that is a total of 8 units, and 32 elements, it will combined under 1 leader. That's a huge amount of firepower for a 1-star major general, or even a 2-star lt. general. Consider that combined unit now only costs 4 CP, so you can stick 12 of these in a 48 CP capped stack - that's enormous. You're talking potentially 72 actual divisions in one stack, without any sort of command penalty, that's the same as saying the entire French Army at the beginning of WW1 could've just marched cohesively into one battle.

But that is just my 2 cents, good luck with your mod however you approach it!

User avatar
Orel
Brigadier General
Posts: 442
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 8:28 pm
Location: Port-Arthur

Sun Jan 27, 2013 7:52 pm

Individual Faction Changes

Red faction:

Reds are allowed more special operations than currently. How much I have not yet determined for sure, but at the moment I am thinking of allowing the Reds to have 1.5 times of the number allowed to the Siberians and Southern Whites combined.

Also, the Reds will start their campaigns with more War Supplies, to account for them controlling the warehouses where the Imperial army munitions are. Their division composition will be revised to exclude 105mm field artillery, and replace with something else(probably 76mm field artillery).

Reds will be considered to have numerous resources but poor troops due to the revolutionary character of their army. To account for this, the Red player will be able to build his infantry at half the cost the Whites have to pay. But at the same time, their regular troops will be inferior in quality to White regiments. So Reds get regiments having the combat values of 1917/1918.

Southern White faction:

Southern Whites will get the opportunity to have 12 more elite infantry regiments: (so overall 4 of each of the coloured regiments: Kornilov, Markov, Drozdovsky and Alexeiev) as it occurred in reality. The elite infantry also becomes far more powerful in terms inflicted damage and combat values.

Also Southern Whites will have their infantry be of 1920+ combat values. But will cost twice as much as the Red infantry.

Maybe the same thing as with infantry will be later applied to cavalry.

Siberian Whites:

Siberian Whites get to form 6 brigades of elite infantry that though is better than the one Komuch provides currently yet is of lower quality than the colourful regiments of the Southern Whites.

[ATTACH]21444[/ATTACH][ATTACH]21445[/ATTACH]

Siberian infantry too will be better than Red infantry, but this applies only to regular infantry: so Siberian conscript troops are just as good as Red conscript troops.

Siberians in the Kolchak coup campaign will also get a huge money supply to account for their ownership of the Imperial gold reserves.

Will continue this from the middle of next week.
Attachments
mdl_WH3_SibInf2.png
mdl_WH3_SibInf3.png
For united Russia!

User avatar
Orel
Brigadier General
Posts: 442
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 8:28 pm
Location: Port-Arthur

Mon Jan 28, 2013 3:09 am

Altaris wrote:I'm not referring to the units, but the sub-units/elements inside them. So for example, the Markhov Regiment is a unit type $uni_WHI_Rgt9, which is composed of 1 element/sub-unit a model type $mdl_WHI_Inf14 which is an elite infantry regiment. All stats are tied to the element/sub-unit, such as hits, offensive fire, defensive fire, etc. What I am suggesting is leaving the unit alone, (so it's still a regiment) but instead of only having 1 sub-unit, break it out into multiple sub-units. B/c combined units can only have a maximum total of 33 sub-units in it (1 of which is the leader, so 32 other elements) it will limit how many units can be combined under a 1-star general. Combined units have two caps, one is a "unit cap" where only 8 units can be combined with the leader, the other is a "sub-unit cap" which is 33 sub-units. Right now what can happen is you can have 6 divisions (each with 4 "regiment" infantry and 1 field artillery sub-units, so total of 30 sub units) all combined under a single 1-star leader, plus two single element units like armored cars or tankchatas. Say if you have 6 of the smallest divisions + 1 armored car + 1 tankchata, that is a total of 8 units, and 32 elements, it will combined under 1 leader. That's a huge amount of firepower for a 1-star major general, or even a 2-star lt. general. Consider that combined unit now only costs 4 CP, so you can stick 12 of these in a 48 CP capped stack - that's enormous. You're talking potentially 72 actual divisions in one stack, without any sort of command penalty, that's the same as saying the entire French Army at the beginning of WW1 could've just marched cohesively into one battle.

But that is just my 2 cents, good luck with your mod however you approach it!


That is actually an interesting idea. I could separate each of those regiments in two batallions, but I will have to research the matter to see how historic this would be.

Technically though, this would be of help more to the Whites than the Reds, since the Whites have many officers but few troops, while the Reds have the opposite.

I will research the idea for the future, for now I have to say that even the few things I am working on are too numerous, plus I need to see how the changes I have already made will affect the game. But the idea doubtlessly demands attention from my side.
For united Russia!

Altaris
Posts: 1551
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2011 8:20 pm

Mon Jan 28, 2013 3:50 am

Yes, it in some ways helps the Whites, and probably for historical reasons, but they still take higher losses since the individual elements have fewer hits (thus more destroyed battalions and longer recovery time). But considering that the Whites already are able to quickly max out stacking, this will still make them less powerful in individual stacks since those stacks aren't as potent. I also advocate lowering the CP limit down, maybe to 24 - 48 is just way too high.

I don't so much take issue with the battles I've lost being lost - it's the fact that I can't even dent the White juggernauts in the process that bugs me. That is partly due to inexperience with the Reds on my part, but even knowing what I know now, I don't see how I could possibly build up a defense capable of containing multiple 4500+ CP stacks for very long. The Siberians are coming just as hard from the east, and while those big stacks open up possibilities like taking your capital, it also puts me in extreme peril of being cut off, and essentially makes it easier for you guys to just shrug and push those juggernaut stacks straight on Moscow.

I also don't really find super-stacks to be very enjoyable from a strategic gaming standpoint. Not much strategy in simply sticking everything in one stack and pushing the forward button over and over.

User avatar
Orel
Brigadier General
Posts: 442
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 8:28 pm
Location: Port-Arthur

Mon Jan 28, 2013 4:57 am

Altaris wrote:Yes, it in some ways helps the Whites, and probably for historical reasons, but they still take higher losses since the individual elements have fewer hits (thus more destroyed battalions and longer recovery time). But considering that the Whites already are able to quickly max out stacking, this will still make them less powerful in individual stacks since those stacks aren't as potent. I also advocate lowering the CP limit down, maybe to 24 - 48 is just way too high.

I don't so much take issue with the battles I've lost being lost - it's the fact that I can't even dent the White juggernauts in the process that bugs me. That is partly due to inexperience with the Reds on my part, but even knowing what I know now, I don't see how I could possibly build up a defense capable of containing multiple 4500+ CP stacks for very long. The Siberians are coming just as hard from the east, and while those big stacks open up possibilities like taking your capital, it also puts me in extreme peril of being cut off, and essentially makes it easier for you guys to just shrug and push those juggernaut stacks straight on Moscow.

I also don't really find super-stacks to be very enjoyable from a strategic gaming standpoint. Not much strategy in simply sticking everything in one stack and pushing the forward button over and over.


I would not be so sure. To defend you need far less troops than to attack. And, I of course may be able to simply/plainly/stupidly charge at all troops I see, yet that will definitely bring me to destruction. The challenge with Southern Whites are the replacements: the Southern player must NEVER lose even a single battle otherwise he will be destroyed. He will simply not have enough money to reinforce his units. Too costly victories too must be avoided.

Plus, I will note that there are certain locations in the game that allow to decrease the frontline. Ufa is an example for the Reds.

I hate super-stacks no less than you do, but I view command points decrease as entailing too many problems for the Reds with their limited generals. What I will probably do is I will make Marching to the Sound of Guns have a 100% rate of success to arrive to the battle. That will probably do the same thing as your offer of decreasing command points. Currently there is too much risk to divide the troops in small corps: they have too high of a chance not to arrive in time. Under Ufa in our game, I heard was such as situation. But then again: you have to know where and why to make a gigantic stack, so there is some strategy incorporated.

Now another thing comes to mind, there are a few very irritating "features of the game engine" similar to the Stalin army not storming Tzaritsyn, with which we have not come across, yet which can be caused by decreasing the elements' strength. For example, if one division out of 8 that are attacking in a single stack gets destroyed, the whole stack retreats even if they are still capable of fighting and the enemy is ready to collapse on the ground. So our decrease of division size can bring to undesirable consequences.
For united Russia!

Altaris
Posts: 1551
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2011 8:20 pm

Mon Jan 28, 2013 5:39 am

MTSG won't solve the problem you are stating above. If you have two stacks involved in a battle, each stack fights independently of one another. Due to the gigantic size of battles in RUS, this usually means that each one gets destroyed piece-meal. So relying on MTSG to even the playing field and extend a front isn't going to pan out well.

One potential solution is to simply create a generic leader unit, and allow this to be bought through the general option every single turn (for the Reds, maybe even allow two or three per turn so they can keep pace with the Whites). It could be a crap 1-0-0 general so as to not take away from the Whites leadership advantage but still allow for combined units for the Reds.

Back to the stacks, you can still have big battles with multiple, smaller stacks, it's just not as bloody and lop-sided (which is a good thing IMO). Say if I have a stack of 1500 CP, and you attack me with 3 separate stacks of 1500 CP, the first stack will probably take higher losses than me (and be out of commission for a while), the second stack will get the upper hand but suffer some losses, and the third stack is probably going to be in pretty decent shape after the battle.

Entrenchment levels make a big difference on this too. Personally, I'm not a big fan of anything over lvl 2 entrenchment unless you're trying to represent true trench warfare (ala WW1). Lvl 4 entrenchments are VERY powerful, they negate about 1/3 of the hits suffered by the defense. Heck, even lvl 2 entrenchments are no joke, they negate about 18% of hits, but that's more in line with what I think of during this war for a defensive advantage.

It is a fine balancing act. I guess at the end of the day my thought is that the more it varies the war and opens strategic possibilities the better. Right now I feel like it's a matter of making sure my super-stack(s) are positioned in just the right spot to hopefully repel you're super-stack, which doesn't feel much like strategic planning.

User avatar
Orel
Brigadier General
Posts: 442
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 8:28 pm
Location: Port-Arthur

Mon Jan 28, 2013 6:09 am

Altaris wrote:MTSG won't solve the problem you are stating above. If you have two stacks involved in a battle, each stack fights independently of one another. Due to the gigantic size of battles in RUS, this usually means that each one gets destroyed piece-meal. So relying on MTSG to even the playing field and extend a front isn't going to pan out well.

One potential solution is to simply create a generic leader unit, and allow this to be bought through the general option every single turn (for the Reds, maybe even allow two or three per turn so they can keep pace with the Whites). It could be a crap 1-0-0 general so as to not take away from the Whites leadership advantage but still allow for combined units for the Reds.

Back to the stacks, you can still have big battles with multiple, smaller stacks, it's just not as bloody and lop-sided (which is a good thing IMO). Say if I have a stack of 1500 CP, and you attack me with 3 separate stacks of 1500 CP, the first stack will probably take higher losses than me (and be out of commission for a while), the second stack will get the upper hand but suffer some losses, and the third stack is probably going to be in pretty decent shape after the battle.

Entrenchment levels make a big difference on this too. Personally, I'm not a big fan of anything over lvl 2 entrenchment unless you're trying to represent true trench warfare (ala WW1). Lvl 4 entrenchments are VERY powerful, they negate about 1/3 of the hits suffered by the defense. Heck, even lvl 2 entrenchments are no joke, they negate about 18% of hits, but that's more in line with what I think of during this war for a defensive advantage.

It is a fine balancing act. I guess at the end of the day my thought is that the more it varies the war and opens strategic possibilities the better. Right now I feel like it's a matter of making sure my super-stack(s) are positioned in just the right spot to hopefully repel you're super-stack, which doesn't feel much like strategic planning.


True. But at least it will make MTSG a bit more reliable. Plus, I will probably try to make it advantageous somehow, for example I will probably attempt to make the cohesion loss from MTSG into a cohesion gain.

Well, what can happen is simply the addition of a bunch of generic leaders to a super-stack with insufficient command and that solves the command point dilemma. Or adding someone like Stalin to Trotsky's superstack, or on the White side, someone like Diterikhs or Pepeliaev to Khanzhin's superstack.

The real problem, which both of us recognize, is that there is no incentive for a player to separate his troops in smaller stacks. This also combines with the lack of a point to conduct encirclements in the game: they give no advantage, while the supply carried allows to remain fully supplied for months if you have enough supply trains.

Very interesting information on entrenchment levels. Before I did not understand anything beyond that they gave extra protection.

I have a question for you:
In the first versions of the game there was no prohibition for leaders to command divisions having troops of other factions(Don for example to Southern Whites). How could I make this possible again?
For united Russia!

Altaris
Posts: 1551
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2011 8:20 pm

Mon Jan 28, 2013 6:23 am

Orel wrote:I have a question for you:
In the first versions of the game there was no prohibition for leaders to command divisions having troops of other factions(Don for example to Southern Whites). How could I make this possible again?


IIRC, you need to change [rulCrossNationGHQ = 0 to rulCrossNationGHQ = 1 in the GameRules.opt file in the Settings folder.

User avatar
Philo32b
Captain
Posts: 182
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 5:36 am

Mon Jan 28, 2013 6:45 am

I'm a new player, of course, but I think the balancing concept to the super stack is supply. Every time I have played Siberians against the AI and built up super stacks supply becomes a major challenge limiting me. I can only imagine that it will be ten times worse against a human Red. (As it is in this game I have partisans multiplying like mad in my rear, and I can't seem to do anything to even slow them down.) It is a long way to Moscow, and a super stack can become very difficult to keep properly supplied.

That being said for the game play as it now stands, the Reds did stop the Siberians pretty early on in real life. I am weak on history, but it sounded as though the Siberians/Komesh/etc. from the East did not fight well together, which gave them unity of command issues. Maybe forcing all their troops to be regional might simulate actual history a little better, as well as greater limits on the number of brigades they can buy.

Altaris
Posts: 1551
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2011 8:20 pm

Mon Jan 28, 2013 2:31 pm

Supply is something of an issue for the Siberians, due to their really long lines, but I've never had any issue keeping the Southerns supplied. Siberians aren't too bad either, you just have to focus on buying lots of rail capacity. In my experience, supply isn't a slowing factor in the long run, if properly accounted for.

Speaking of supply though, one thing that really bugs me is how easy it is to keep an isolated unit supplied via supply wagon units indefinitely. It might be interesting to have supply units be rail bound in the same fashion that armored trains are. If my understanding of how supplies move by rail and river is correct, this would also make rail lines critical for keeping supply flowing between cities. Changes of this sort would make securing the rail lines absolutely critical and increase the risks of extended lines, particularly ones held on only 1 line.

User avatar
Orel
Brigadier General
Posts: 442
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 8:28 pm
Location: Port-Arthur

Mon Jan 28, 2013 5:28 pm

Altaris wrote:Supply is something of an issue for the Siberians, due to their really long lines, but I've never had any issue keeping the Southerns supplied. Siberians aren't too bad either, you just have to focus on buying lots of rail capacity. In my experience, supply isn't a slowing factor in the long run, if properly accounted for.

Speaking of supply though, one thing that really bugs me is how easy it is to keep an isolated unit supplied via supply wagon units indefinitely. It might be interesting to have supply units be rail bound in the same fashion that armored trains are. If my understanding of how supplies move by rail and river is correct, this would also make rail lines critical for keeping supply flowing between cities. Changes of this sort would make securing the rail lines absolutely critical and increase the risks of extended lines, particularly ones held on only 1 line.


Thanks for the tip, but unfortunately it did not work.

I could probably make rail-bound supply trains by adding supply supply capacity to the armored locomotive. Or make a special supply train unit that would carry supplies(as I proposed about 6 months ago). Maybe an analogy of Trotsky's train?

I suppose, that with the character of the Civil war supplies would be more easily manageable than in the Great war. There are simply less soldiers in the campaign while the number of cities is far greater.
For united Russia!

Altaris
Posts: 1551
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2011 8:20 pm

Mon Jan 28, 2013 6:04 pm

The rail-bound supply should work... I may tinker around with that on my own and see. IIRC, it's a bit obscure and tricky how to make a unit rail-bound, but it should be possible for any unit. You are correct that this is the way they handled Trotsky's movemment.

User avatar
Orel
Brigadier General
Posts: 442
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 8:28 pm
Location: Port-Arthur

Mon Jan 28, 2013 6:16 pm

Altaris wrote:The rail-bound supply should work... I may tinker around with that on my own and see. IIRC, it's a bit obscure and tricky how to make a unit rail-bound, but it should be possible for any unit. You are correct that this is the way they handled Trotsky's movemment.


No, my bad for not being specific, I meant this had not solved the problem:

Altaris wrote:IIRC, you need to change [rulCrossNationGHQ = 0 to rulCrossNationGHQ = 1 in the GameRules.opt file in the Settings folder.
For united Russia!

Altaris
Posts: 1551
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2011 8:20 pm

Mon Jan 28, 2013 6:21 pm

That may be the rule that allows corps to be attached to different nationality GHQ then (i.e. attaching Siberians to Czech Legion). Not sure if there is a rule that can be set for 1-star general combines - don't see anything that would indicate so. You are right that it used to be different in older versions, may be a hard-coded change.

User avatar
Orel
Brigadier General
Posts: 442
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 8:28 pm
Location: Port-Arthur

Mon Jan 28, 2013 8:20 pm

I just had another thought about Altaris' idea of dividing regiments into smaller units: that would make the 1918 small scale fighting far more realistic than it is right now. In 1918, there were very few full regiments on the field, often there were companies or battalions at most taking their role. So if we make the units smaller that could increase the realism.
For united Russia!

Altaris
Posts: 1551
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2011 8:20 pm

Mon Jan 28, 2013 9:19 pm

Most of the ideas I've run by are things I could mod into the game very quickly (like in a weekend). I've done very similar exercises for my WW1 mod, it wouldn't take long. If you're interested, when we wrap up our current game we could try out a game with a few of these changes and just see what kind of impact it has, the stuff you like and want to keep I'd be happy to provide for your mod.

Here's the list of things I'd suggest. These would be doable in a very short period of time:

1) For the sub-unit/element level, use battalions rather than regiments, and adjust those SU stats appropriately (i.e. less hits, weight, etc). For each previous regiment, it would now be either 2 or 3 "battalions" (would need to decide on actual composition - keeping in mind that combined units, which seem to be meant to represent Corps in this game, can contain up to 32 sub-units - in my mind this is 2 divisions plus support units and artillery).
2) Reduce max command for any individual stack. I'd recommend moving from 48 to 24, 24 was the number used in older AGEOD games and seems to work a bit better.
3) Allow for generic 1-star generals when regular pool runs out. These guys would be 1-0-0 generals, not very good but allowing for combined units. Maybe for Reds, allow their general option to provide two generals instead of one so they could keep pace.
4) Optional: Make supply units capable of travelling by rail only. This would make logistics of prime importance for big armies in forward areas. An alternative option is to simply make Supply Wagons only 1 sub-element, effectively 25% of their supply storage value that is currently there, this will make it much harder to keep big stacks supported.

User avatar
Orel
Brigadier General
Posts: 442
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 8:28 pm
Location: Port-Arthur

Mon Jan 28, 2013 10:15 pm

Altaris wrote:Most of the ideas I've run by are things I could mod into the game very quickly (like in a weekend). I've done very similar exercises for my WW1 mod, it wouldn't take long. If you're interested, when we wrap up our current game we could try out a game with a few of these changes and just see what kind of impact it has, the stuff you like and want to keep I'd be happy to provide for your mod.

Here's the list of things I'd suggest. These would be doable in a very short period of time:

1) For the sub-unit/element level, use battalions rather than regiments, and adjust those SU stats appropriately (i.e. less hits, weight, etc). For each previous regiment, it would now be either 2 or 3 "battalions" (would need to decide on actual composition - keeping in mind that combined units, which seem to be meant to represent Corps in this game, can contain up to 32 sub-units - in my mind this is 2 divisions plus support units and artillery).
2) Reduce max command for any individual stack. I'd recommend moving from 48 to 24, 24 was the number used in older AGEOD games and seems to work a bit better.
3) Allow for generic 1-star generals when regular pool runs out. These guys would be 1-0-0 generals, not very good but allowing for combined units. Maybe for Reds, allow their general option to provide two generals instead of one so they could keep pace.
4) Optional: Make supply units capable of travelling by rail only. This would make logistics of prime importance for big armies in forward areas. An alternative option is to simply make Supply Wagons only 1 sub-element, effectively 25% of their supply storage value that is currently there, this will make it much harder to keep big stacks supported.


Ok, let's schedule this for this week then.

I will have spare time starting from the middle of the week.

My main focus currently is the Kolchak Coup campaign, as with the lack of time I cannot deal with modifying the Grand Campaign and the changes you are offering make more of an impact on the GC while my additions are more influential for the 1919 period. Also, I want to test the major concepts I have already said of and I do not think I will finish them this week. So since, we both have excellent ideas, I would suggest to separate our directions of work into two:

1. Kolchak Coup(short run). This part will be mine, and will incorporate the initial changes with which I came up. So armored trains, machine guns, etc. These changes are scheduled to be most influential when the armies are established in the game(1919).

2. Grand Campaign(long run). I would appreciate if you would take care of this part, it deals first and foremost with the change towards a smaller element structure(from regiments being the smallest to battalions or even companies, though these will be together in regimental sized units). These changes make the greatest impact in 1918, so to test them the GC is most applicable, although they will probably also have a significant impact on 1919.

Currently, I am debating what is better to have: batallions of 500 men(10 hits) of which can be 4 per regiment or companies of 250(5 hits) of which there could be as well 4 per regiment.

Towards the max command and supply unit ideas, thorough thinking is needed so I would ask to postpone the decision for them for a while.
For united Russia!

Altaris
Posts: 1551
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2011 8:20 pm

Tue Jan 29, 2013 4:04 am

I won't have time to play another game until we wrap up our current one (though I don't see that taking much longer given the situation).

I think there should be at least either the supply tied to rail lines, or a reduction in the CP limit. Something needs to be in place to limit the effectiveness of gigantic stacks just freely roaming around wherever they want. In a position like what you have with Skhuro, you can threaten a huge range of territory with complete impunity - there's no counter to that except perhaps blind luck that I manage to put a bigger defensive force in its way, but I can't afford to guard my heartlands with 6-7 stacks of 2000ish CP.

User avatar
Orel
Brigadier General
Posts: 442
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 8:28 pm
Location: Port-Arthur

Tue Jan 29, 2013 4:31 am

Altaris wrote:I won't have time to play another game until we wrap up our current one (though I don't see that taking much longer given the situation).

I think there should be at least either the supply tied to rail lines, or a reduction in the CP limit. Something needs to be in place to limit the effectiveness of gigantic stacks just freely roaming around wherever they want. In a position like what you have with Skhuro, you can threaten a huge range of territory with complete impunity - there's no counter to that except perhaps blind luck that I manage to put a bigger defensive force in its way, but I can't afford to guard my heartlands with 6-7 stacks of 2000ish CP.


Shkuro's cavalry has supplies for two turns maximum, unless I replenish the stocks somewhere. He has no supply units with him, so tying supply to railroad is not a solution to this problem. So chaining supplies to railroads I find hardly necessary.

Command point limit does not need to be touched since if we make the company or battalion the element sized formation instead of the regiment, then we will automatically have the CP required for each division rise.

I think I may have the solution to making players not use superstacks:

I just made a quick test where I had made cohesion be added rather than subtracted as it is currently for each day of Marching to the Sound of Guns(MTSG). As well, I made it impossible for MTSG not to occur if there is a chance of it. But this is a rough idea, however I would be interested in whether it could work. What do you think, Altaris?
For united Russia!

Altaris
Posts: 1551
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2011 8:20 pm

Tue Jan 29, 2013 2:15 pm

You make some good points, Orel, and probably better not to change too much too quickly. For a first pass, let's see what kind of impact the regiment -> battalion change makes, we can always re-evaluate later.

Regarding the MTSG, I've got to say I'm very leary of the adding of cohesion. This has a lot of potential for abuse, IMO. For defense, it's not going to make a difference since the cohesion is capped at max, but on offense, it makes it possible for the attacker to regain cohesion after a long march in some cases. Also, I don't think this alleviates the super-stack situation, if I was going for an attack, I would still stick everything in one stack til I hit the CP limit rather than split it up and rely on MTSG. It's still better to have everything in one stack, particularly for a big assault.

I think making MTSG always succeed sounds good though.

User avatar
Orel
Brigadier General
Posts: 442
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 8:28 pm
Location: Port-Arthur

Tue Jan 29, 2013 6:28 pm

Altaris wrote:You make some good points, Orel, and probably better not to change too much too quickly. For a first pass, let's see what kind of impact the regiment -> battalion change makes, we can always re-evaluate later.

Regarding the MTSG, I've got to say I'm very leary of the adding of cohesion. This has a lot of potential for abuse, IMO. For defense, it's not going to make a difference since the cohesion is capped at max, but on offense, it makes it possible for the attacker to regain cohesion after a long march in some cases. Also, I don't think this alleviates the super-stack situation, if I was going for an attack, I would still stick everything in one stack til I hit the CP limit rather than split it up and rely on MTSG. It's still better to have everything in one stack, particularly for a big assault.

I think making MTSG always succeed sounds good though.


Very true, Altaris. It does pose a number opportunities for exploits. However I do not see any other solution.

On the other hand, what could be done is the increase in cohesion per day of march along with a decrease in the chance to arrive. So, something similar to: when it is x(few) days, the chance is a 100% while beyond that the cohesion increases but the chance to arrive decreases(imitates a deep outflanking, the deeper it goes the better opportunity to attack but also the lesser chance to arrive in time).
For united Russia!

Altaris
Posts: 1551
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2011 8:20 pm

Tue Jan 29, 2013 6:52 pm

I don't think you're going to be able to simulate flanking in the AGE engine as it stands today. These changes you're looking at, nothing would stop the player from simply splitting into multiple stacks in the same region and getting the flanking bonuses without actually flanking the region. Also, I don't think it really gives incentive to do so anyway... the only reason to split into multiple stacks is to extend a front or b/c of command limits. A 48 CP stack is going to be a whole lot more effective than four 12 CP stacks, b/c each of the four would fight one at a time whereas the 48 CP stack fights all at once (frontage does limit it to some degree, but a 48 CP stack has much more ability to spread out damage and thus inflict higher damage over the course of the battle).

I get where you are coming from, I just don't think it's feasible given the game engine limitations. I think the only way you can make it important to guard your flanks is to somehow limit supply if rear lines are cut.

User avatar
Orel
Brigadier General
Posts: 442
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 8:28 pm
Location: Port-Arthur

Tue Jan 29, 2013 7:04 pm

Altaris wrote:I don't think you're going to be able to simulate flanking in the AGE engine as it stands today. These changes you're looking at, nothing would stop the player from simply splitting into multiple stacks in the same region and getting the flanking bonuses without actually flanking the region. Also, I don't think it really gives incentive to do so anyway... the only reason to split into multiple stacks is to extend a front or b/c of command limits. A 48 CP stack is going to be a whole lot more effective than four 12 CP stacks, b/c each of the four would fight one at a time whereas the 48 CP stack fights all at once (frontage does limit it to some degree, but a 48 CP stack has much more ability to spread out damage and thus inflict higher damage over the course of the battle).

I get where you are coming from, I just don't think it's feasible given the game engine limitations. I think the only way you can make it important to guard your flanks is to somehow limit supply if rear lines are cut.


True, that is why I said that I understand that this could be exploited which makes me be careful about whether this is the best choice.

I would agree but at the same time, in the civil war there was essentially not much of a frontline. Frontlines were in general existent by major railroads. Forcing the player to spread his troops to make a frontline may be an overkill due to the very small number of troops.

But then there is another opportunity:

What if the regions without cities become the chief producers of supplies rather than the depots in major cities? If we make them take that role, there will be a scramble for who gets the supply producing areas. But this will also demand a modification of the current foraging system, with which I am practically unfamiliar but have not noticed it help my starving troops.

As well, we will need to increase patrol and evasion values for everyone, to make it possible for small units to capture large territory.

Though looking at the point above, I say we have an opportunity for creating a frontline that is not like in WWI but is still acceptable: as far as I understand, if we make the patrol values higher this will allow the troops to have a greater zone of control which in turn will not permit non-partisan units of the enemy to pass through neighboring areas.
For united Russia!

Altaris
Posts: 1551
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2011 8:20 pm

Tue Jan 29, 2013 9:47 pm

It won't be WW1 style front no matter what, the front's just too long and there's not enough forces on any side to adequately cover their length.

Some of what you are talking about regarding supplies is actually already mirrored in game. Loyalty impacts how much supply is produced by cities, and particularly as the Siberians I notice this have an impact the further I push into high Red loyalty territory. National Morale also impacts the amount produced, I believe.

It's probably best to limit how much is modded, tbh. I don't think there's inherently that many things wrong with RUS, just a bit of balancing that needs to be done. Keep in mind that to end up with a balanced end result, you have to fully test every change, which can become a huge undertaking.

Altaris
Posts: 1551
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2011 8:20 pm

Wed Jan 30, 2013 12:22 am

Here's a thought I had over the course of the day. I always thought the Cheka option on F7 screen shouldn't cost the Reds NM points (since, IMO, NM represents the leadership and army's morale, which wouldn't have been effected by the Cheka). For the Whites, it makes sense since they are compromising their leaders beliefs by caving into peasant demands. Also, from a practical standpoint, it really hurts the Reds to lose NM, but they can't afford to let their loyalty drop in their key areas. By 1919, this becomes a crucial issue and is part the reason the Reds can't ever really meet the same output level as the Whites.

So I was thinking Cheka could be changed to not use NM (maybe cost some money and conscripts instead). To balance things out a bit, the options to recruit more generals for the Reds could instead cost NM. Maybe make it cost 1 NM and increase the output to 3 1-star generals, per use. This could represent the turning to ex-tsarist generals (which would represent an adequate going against Bolshevik principles to warrant the morale hit). In turn, these generals would allow for more combined units (the tsarist generals giving their professional experience to organize the troops into proper corps). It would be easier for the Reds to manage their morale levels this way too, while still being able to create a decently historical army (via requisitions followed by brutal Cheka repressions).

Thoughts?

User avatar
Orel
Brigadier General
Posts: 442
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 8:28 pm
Location: Port-Arthur

Wed Jan 30, 2013 1:38 am

Altaris wrote:Here's a thought I had over the course of the day. I always thought the Cheka option on F7 screen shouldn't cost the Reds NM points (since, IMO, NM represents the leadership and army's morale, which wouldn't have been effected by the Cheka). For the Whites, it makes sense since they are compromising their leaders beliefs by caving into peasant demands. Also, from a practical standpoint, it really hurts the Reds to lose NM, but they can't afford to let their loyalty drop in their key areas. By 1919, this becomes a crucial issue and is part the reason the Reds can't ever really meet the same output level as the Whites.

So I was thinking Cheka could be changed to not use NM (maybe cost some money and conscripts instead). To balance things out a bit, the options to recruit more generals for the Reds could instead cost NM. Maybe make it cost 1 NM and increase the output to 3 1-star generals, per use. This could represent the turning to ex-tsarist generals (which would represent an adequate going against Bolshevik principles to warrant the morale hit). In turn, these generals would allow for more combined units (the tsarist generals giving their professional experience to organize the troops into proper corps). It would be easier for the Reds to manage their morale levels this way too, while still being able to create a decently historical army (via requisitions followed by brutal Cheka repressions).

Thoughts?


The Cheka mission is Red Terror in the areas from which the soldiers are conscripted from. And it is quite motivating for soldiers on the frontline to hear how their home area has a witch hunt for those that could be suspected of supporting the enemy. So it is logical that Cheka loses NM.

Towards the Generals being recruited for NM, I suppose that could be applicable though I would think VP points are better since they barely play any role in the game and using them to pretty much promote colonels/general-majors from the regiment is similar to promoting general-majors to general-lieutenants in the game.

The concept of Tzarist generals in the Red army is very difficult to explain: Tzarist officers, or in the case of the Red army it is more applicable to say "people with a military education", were all perceived as enemies of the proletariat that could be working for the enemy(which though was often true). They were not given full rights to issue orders and instead were considered "Military specialists" and were placed under the supervision of so called Commissars, who held all the power and could cancel the orders of Tzarist officers.

As a result, the discipline and character of the Red army was the one of a revolutionary army that was composed often of simple gangs and had gang leaders as the division commanders. Many of these gangs in the Red army were composed of the soldiers that murdered the officers in their regiments in 1917. The units would often neglect even the simplest procedures, such as patrols which allowed the Whites to frequently capture off-guard even the most loyal Red units such as the sailors. Red commanders were no better, for example famous comrade Zhloba had, despite Sorokin's orders, abandoned the North-Caucasian army and left to Tzaritsyn which saved it from being captured and became his famous feat of the war.

Plus, sometimes there even was internal fighting between Red commanders, coming to the point when they would murder each other(Schors I believe is the most famous example). Orders from Moscow were sometimes openly rejected, for example when articles of war were sent from Moscow in 1919, the Army's Military Council decided not to introduce the army with them, since they "go against the revolutionary character of the army" this written and sent in a telegram to Moscow. Even who is truly the head of the Red army was debated between the Revolutionary Military Council of Trotsky, Council of Work and Defence of Lenin and the Highest Military Council of Podvoiskiy.

Hardly could it benefit much from military professionals who were taught to operate with an army having a regular and orderly character and now were under persistent threat of being accused of "counter-revolutionary activity" making them lacking initiative. Plus most had no desire to fight against their comrades-at-arms from the Great War. So their influence could change little in the army. If I would do anything, then I would represent them by a military mission similar to the British ones the Whites receive.

But I agree with you, the NM problem is probably the main one Reds have in 1919. I think we have two problems:
1. Morale declines a bit too quickly from battles.
2. There is what I call "NM drain" caused by special operations of all sides that take out of the game a sufficient portion of the NM.

I thought what could be done are two options simultaneously:
1. Starting and Maximum morale values become twice the amount they are right now, as well having their effect on cohesion reduced by two.
2.. The creation of events that increase NM depending on which cities are controlled by the sides by what time. So for example, at the end of 1918 Reds get the event "Tzaritsyn holds in 1918" increasing the NM by X.


I suppose the two things above should solve the NM scarcity.
For united Russia!

Altaris
Posts: 1551
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2011 8:20 pm

Wed Jan 30, 2013 2:06 am

I guess my thoughts on the Tsarist officers was that they would be represented by the generic 1-0-0 leaders we discussed, basically not adding anything except how to organize the army into combined units. As you pointed out, this is the reason why the Reds get slaughtered so badly, their non-combined units get butchered by the Whites combined ones. A combined units commanded by a 1-0-0 leader is still going to be somewhat crappy, but at least it has the ability to absorb some of the blows so that we don't have situations like what we saw occurring in our game of the Whites not losing a single element, but the reds losing several divisions worth (this imbalance of destroyed units is what causes those massive morale losses, btw).

Return to “RUS Mods”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests