Here is the list of mini-MODs or House Rules Andatiep and DoctorKing selected for their PBEM).
If any PBEM players are interested to implement some for their games, just go on this page where it is explained how to set it on you computer : http://www.ageod.net/agewiki/A_RUS_wishlist_mini-MODs_workshop
You can install all the following selected Mini-MODs by
1) erasing the file /RUS/GameData/Models/Models.cached and the file /RUS/GameData/Units/Units.cached
2) downloading this file, unzip it and copy/paste it in your .../Revolution under Siege/ repository (copy over the original files) :
Mini-MODs for RUS (DoctorKing&Andatiep selection) - patch 1.03 : [ATTACH]16081[/ATTACH]
You can also find the AARs of this PBEM here :
- DoctorKing (ENG) : http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?t=20673
- Andatiep (FR) : http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?t=20706
------------------------------------------------------------
Mini-MODs "The Whites' political agendas"
----------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------
THE KOMOUCH
The Komouch and its remaining deputies from the Russian Constitutional Assembly is the only "liberal" and democratic legacy that the Whites factions can keep. Its centre of power is Samara on the Volga.
Here are the advantages the Komouch gives to the White factions untill it is destroyed by the red conquest of its 4 main towns on the Volga (Samara, Saratov, Simbirsk & Kazan) :
- It increase the political support from the middle classes and from the western powers : Each turn, it give 1 EP to the Siberian White (WH3) and 1EP to the Southern White (WHI) players.
- It allow 6 "Reforms" regional decisions per turn for the Siberian White faction.
---------------------------------
THE DIRECTORY
If the Reds succeed to take the 4 Komouch main towns on the Volga, the remaining Komouch political power is kidnapped step by step by the conservative military White leaders. It start with the creation of the "Directory".
The Directory in command means :
- a new probability (50%) of desertions start among all the Komouch units (WH2) each turn.
- the White Siberian faction loose popular support which have consequences on the moral of its peasants conscripted troops : -5 NM.
- the number of Reforms regional decisions is reduce to a maximum of 1 region in the same time on the map.
- a military coup probability will start when the Admiral Kolchak arrive in Omsk.
-------------------------------------------
THE KOLCHAK DICTATORSHIP
The arrival of a major former officer of the empire in Omsk is the event the Whites' conservative military leaders was waiting for to establish an autocracy. But this event was not a fixed date. First, the arrival of the Admiral Kolchak could arrive between the 1918/09/15 and the 1918/11/15, with a probability of 50%.
Then the event that this major officer accept to delete the Directory (which is already an oligarchical power that could be enough for him) is also not a fixed date. So once Koltchak is in Omsk, a military Coup can happen but with a probability of 50% each turn.
After all, the Whites' military leaders would probably not organize a Coup if they did know that it will lead to less and less support from the western Powers. So if the officially appointed western Allied Command in Chief in Russia did already arrived in Omsk, the Coup can't happen anymore, since this major officer, Janin, commanding the Czech legion and coordinating the european war fournitures from Vladivostok, was against a military autocracy and planed to support the Komouch or the Directory powers.
The Kolchak autocracy means :
- the White Siberian faction loose popular support which have consequences on the moral of its peasants conscripted troops : -5 NM.
- Whatever are the wishes of Kolchak about the topic, its Coup is understood by all factions Whites' military leaders as a green light for a conservative geopolicy which refuse to end the Russian Empire : Till Koltchak unit is in Omsk and till Denikin is on the map, the diplomatic options to be allied with the Ukraine, Caucasus, Baltic and/or Finland States, are not allowed.
- Without liberals & "right" SR political support, Whites leaders loose their last bridge of communication with the peasant world which will really not trust them when/if they ever pretend to agrarian reforms : the regional decision "Reform" in the ledger is not anymore available for the Siberian White and South White factions.
- the Koltchak coup event means no more new Komuch units faction available in the pool, and it start other regular events with many strong desertions among the Komuch faction units (WH2 units).
- The Bakshir volunteers loose their hopes for a national Bakshir political autonomy, their units will give up the White Armies with a 25% chance till end 1919.
- the Koltchak coup means also more conscripts (200) to the Reds, since many of the Komouch remaining infantry forces directly joined the Reds, especially after Koltchak Coup.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THE WESTERN ALLIED HIGH COMMAND IN RUSSIA
If the Koltchak Coup happen before the appointed Allied High Command in Russia general Janin arrive in Omsk, Janin refuse to take its command of all the allied forces in Russia and to deal with the new military autocracy. He choose to stick to its last mission which was to coordinate the Czech Legion evacuation. That means :
- Janin leader unit don't appear in the game. The infantry and artillery units coming with him should be locked in Vladivostok.
- Janin and the Czech Legion use the transiberian railroad and trains in priority for themself, which means that the Siberian White faction loose 50 points in the railroad transport capacity pool.
If the Koltchak Coup still don't happen when Janin arrive in Omsk he would then support for sure the Komuch parliament/government or even the Directory leaded by the "republican" general Boldyrev if already created. Since Janin was send as the High Allied Command in Russia, Koltchak Coup should not happen anymore in the game because even "right" white generals admitted they need foreign help (pro-Koltchak British advisors may not listen to Janin as usual but would not oppose to him and support a Coup if he is there, especially without clear orders from London for a military Coup, which obviously never existed).
An allied High Command in Russia means :
- it don't allow a Kolchak Coup
- Janin unit group should be renamed "Allied High Command in Russia" and should arrive randomly and directly in Omsk, not in vladivostok. It is locked in Omsk and provide a level 6 trenches in the region... The infantry and artillery units coming with him should be locked in Vladivostok.
- if Samara is a second line safe area and if South-East Whites' territorial union is done, then Janin group move to Samara and bring also a level 6 trenches there. It means the Reds should not control Rostov, Tsaritsin, Saratov, Samara, Penza, Stavropol-on-Volga, Simbirsk, Ufa, Chelyabinsk & Omsk.
And after all, it allow a better foreign support if the players succeed to establish connexions on the map between the South White and the Siberian White factions. It should increase their political unity and give them advantages, as well as changing major geopolitical facts :
- A North connexion - so each turn the Siberian Whites (WH3) control Viatka, Perm, Ekaterinburg and Omsk and the South Whites (WHI) control Arkhangelsk & Kotlas - give 1 EP, 1 VP and 3 WS to the 2 whites factions (WHI & WH3). It is also a condition for the North-East White Army to get more units available in the Unit Pool from April 1919 (as well as if they own Petrograd).
- A South connexion - so each turn the Siberian Whites (WH3) control Samara, Saratov, Ufa, Chelyabinsk and Omsk and the South Whites (WHI) control Tzaritsyn & Rostov - give 2 EP, 2 VP and 6 WS to the 2 whites factions (WHI & WH3).
- If there is a north or south Whites territorial connexion in january 1919, the Czech have a big chance to stay (75% each turn) till late march 1919 (when red revolutions in Germany and Hungary start to be a menace on their new independent state), then the Czech units are removed from the game.
Nota Bene :
- All the events like "evt_nam_WH3_JaninDoubleFace", which decrease everywhere all the siberian White troops cohesion, should be remove, or at least with a Conditions that Koltchak unit be on the map. It give too much importance to the Janin supposed "bad" activities. The only realistic influences would be its priority use of the transiberian railroad for the Czech, which could be simulated by a lower Railroad transport available in the pool.
- The Y. Syrovy (Czech Legion) army unit should be removed with the current list.
- The Gaida volunteer troops which stay should be WH3 faction so that they can receive russian replacements later.
-----------------------------------------------------
Whites' military political leadership
If the Komouch regim survive on the Volga and an operational Western Allied High Command (and its War fournitures supply) support it, the Whites' military leaders would have to care more about political reforms to challenge the Reds as well as to perform a pragmatical diplomacy to look for new allies among the new national states from the former Empire.
This changes could be done by two leaders, Krasnov and Wrangel.
Krasnov (which was already a CiC under the Kerensky government) should be in Command of all the South Whites in late january 1919 (instead of Denikin) if :
- The Western Allied High Command in Russia is operational (Janin didn't give up because of the Military Coup) and give support first to the White leaders promoted by the Komouch or the Directory governments, with more liberal or more Cossacks-friendly, or more ready for independances recognition political views, like Krasnov and Wrangel...
- A southern territorial connexion between the South Whites and the Siberian Whites did happen at least once to coordinate the White factions (Rostov & Tsaritsin (WHI), Saratov, Samara, Ufa, Chelyabinsk and Omsk (WH3)).
Wrangel should be in Command of all the South Whites if :
- Koltchak, if he ever came in power, is now defeated and removed from Omsk (Koltchak as CiC would always prefer a Denikin-like subordinate and oppose all possible alternative policies a Wrangel or a Krasnov may propose).
- Before 1920/01/01, Krasnov is dead or already retired and if the South White NM is lower than 50NM (like currently).
- After 1920/01/16, Krasnov is dead or already retired.
Only Krasnov or Wrangel as High Commander of the south Whites allow the South White faction to use regional decision "Reform" (up to 6 in the same time). There is no way that Denikin as High Commander could do it. He never even think about it...
If Krasnov is ever in Command, it allow more Don Cossack units in the Unit Pool. It simulate the political negotiations and agreements the Komouch and Krasnov could have done with the Don and Kuban Cossacks and their wishes for a political autonomy. (Besides this, the current Don Cossack starting pool unit is already huge, so it's more realistic if next reinforcements are more difficult to get).
Nota Bene :
- "Krasnov retires" with a probability of 50% each turn only if the Koltchak unit is still in power in Omsk.
- "Wrangel retires" with a probability of 50% each turn if from 1920/01/01 there is still Denikin on the map and if the Koltchak unit is still in power in Omsk (and if the South White NM is less than 70, like currently).
- don't remove the first Wrangel unit but change only the seniority to keep the XP.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Mini-MOD "RCW War Productions"
Reds had huge problems of ammunition production during the year 1919, they had sometimes to move back whole corps/front because of that. The Whites first depend also totally on the foreign help, not on local production. The towns should then get a very low ammo production untill players build Arms Factories, so that during the first year the players have to try to save and spend carefully the number of battles he starts. The depots should be used like easy to build workshops which still bring a small production, but the new factory structures should bring most of the production needed for big armies.
- To simulate this, all ammo production of the game's structures are cancelled except for the depots (5 per level), for the Forts (5) for the Arms factory (200), the Naval Base (100) and Tank factory (100).
- To simulate the lack of population in Siberia and its highest density in central Russia, the White Siberian faction (WH3) should get only 4 Conscriptions and 4 Requisitions Regional Decisions available per turn instead of 6, and the Red faction (RED) will get 8 Conscriptions and 8 Requisitions Regional Decisions available per turn instead of 6.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mini-MOD "Massive seasonal desertions"
For each year of the conflict, from early spring to late summer, there should be for all 3 factions massive desertions events which happen for sure each year, like in the History (currently, there is a chance - that is too important IMHO - that no desertions happen at all, or not the first years):
- 1 standard good season desertion event (from 03/01, 25% probability each turn it happen till 09/01)
- For each Desertion event : The Red get 50 milicias, regular infantry or cavalry units which have 50% to be touched, but they can avoid it (100% chance) if in a stack with a political unit which protect the stack from desertions (for now, this units protect a force only with only 50% chance).
- The Whites get 15 milicias, regular infantry or cavalry units touched. A unit which suffer desertions loose a value of 20 of its cohesion and 5 of its health (mens) (South Whites get desertions too).
--------------------------------------------------
Mini-MOD "Political units"
- '''The Political Commissar''' main role was more focused to the control of the military hierarchy, to be sure the commanders (leaders) will follow the orders of the government (it wasn't to hunt alone deserters in the woods). They brought the fair and the chaos in the army command (changing often the seniority system) but they also helped a lot to reduce the passive behavior of old military leaders which were not very motivated by the Bolchevik regim (so here it could be the possible inactive or locked status of the leader's stacks). I would not use anymore the current Attribute *PoliticalUnit* of the Political Commissar units against massive desertion (and let this kind of feature only to the Line Cheka military units). The Attribute *PoliticalUnit* should be only used to protect the RED forces to one new kind of epidemic events : this event will target each 2 turns randomly (50%) 40 units which whole stack will be locked for one turn except if they have a Political Commissar unit (or leader with the same attribute and color) in the stack.
- '''The Line Cheka military units''' were used mainly like special "guard" or "military police" which could improve the cohesion of big unit and reduce the desertions of a whole force. So i would rather give them an other attribute, like *guard* which would protect the stacks against massive desertions events (see the "Massive Desertions" mini-MOD). I will let it the current Political_Unit ability which is in fact a BattleBonus ability.
- '''The VOKhR units''' were supposed to be the "new model" police or prison/goulag camp guards. It would be better to set the 2 types of VOKhR as units which are specialized in the fight against all the insurrectionnal troops (+25% strenght), so all kind of "Green" faction units and all the White/Red Guards (milicias). The Whites cavalry cossacks were also used like police units and should have the same feature (and this way it balance the game about the fight against the Greens).
- Only the political Options "Party Members join the Army" should increase the Political Commissar, the VOKhR and the Cheka line units in the units' pool (see Mini-MOD "Political struggles"). This elite units should be much more rare than the previously 30+ immediately available. The events which warn the player that there is new Cheka and VOKhR units (evt_nam_RED_ChekaCombatUnits & evt_nam_RED_VOKhRCreation) should happen in the same time like the political Options "Party Members join the Army" (start of the game), but it just bring 1 prototype unit of each (nothing in the Unit pool).
- Only few (5) Political commissar units should be available in the pool before the political Options "Party Members join the Army" can be activated.
- The global bad aspect of the Political Commissar in the Army will be simulated in the game by an other epidemic event which will target each 3 months randomly (50%) 10 Red Leaders which then could loose -1 seniority.
-----------------------------------------------
Mini-MOD "Lenin Assassination"
Lenin assassination event is not a scientific fact. If the Left SR rebellion (and repression...) happen, its consequences are :
- There is 20% probability per turn that he survived on attempt of assassination,
- There is 5% probability per turn for a new event "Lenin died assassinated" ("evt_nam_LeninDiedAssassinated") were the Red player loose 25 NM (less than if captured and executed by the White after surviving an assassination attempt - The Lenin cult of personnality started after he survived). The Lenin unit is removed, as well as the Trotski & Zinoviev units (Both would come back from the battlefield to siege in the Sovnarkom...).
- In both cases, it allow 6 Cheka Regional Decision in the Bolchevik player pool, and the leader Dzerzhinsky is available in Moscow (but with only 1 star rank and 2-0-0 stat's)
- The new events "evt_nam_LeninDiedAssassinated" should not happen if the events "evt_nam_Flavor_CMN_LeninAssassination" and "evt_nam_CMN_LeninKilled" were Lenin is captured and executed by the Whites did happen. And the event "evt_nam_CMN_LeninKilled" in the /RUS/Event/RUS FlavorEvents.sct file should have also as Conditions that the new event "evt_nam_LeninDiedAssassinated" did NOT happen.
-----------------------------------------------
Mini-MOD "New Armored Trains"
- give the armored train a zero command cost. So that it can patrol with little forces without reducing drastically their fighting values because of their huge command costs (which makes that currently armored trains are mostly used gathered in few big stack with a Corps/Army leader).
- give them the Attributes = *winterized* 100 to resist winter attrition.
- Specialize the heavy armored train in artillerie support with the Artillerist ability (+25 fighting value for artillery units in the stack) and reduce its supply/ammo capacity to 10/10
- Specialize the light armored train in the supply/ammo transport with a 200/200 supply/ammo capacity and reduce all the supply wagons units capacity to 20/20 (5/5 per element)
- Set all armored trains units to Support units (like Supply wagons, artillery, etc.) with a capture percentage of 100% if defeated and half their money price.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Mini-MOD "The Transbaikal Japanese puppet state"
- From january 1919, Semyonov rules Transbaikal and Mongolia areas for himself with the Japanese support. This areas should not be under administrative and concrete control of the white siberian faction's government anymore : no more regional Decisions there are allowed.
- Semionov leaders as well as Baron Ungern-Sternberg should not be able to leave the far eastern theatre
Balance game note : it will then reduce the conscript/money production of the Siberian White side which seems anyway currently bigger than in the reality.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Mini-MOD "Keep the Transiberian railroad"
- Each turn all 12 regions with a town between Omsk & Vladivostok are controled by the White siberians, they get 12 VP and 1 EP. This is to push the partizan to cut the Transiberian railroad and give a reason to the White to garrison the main trainstations. Except to drive fiew bonus supply units coming from Vladivostok, the white player currently don't care if the railroad is cut or not.
-----------------------------------------------
Mini-MOD "Regional Decisions"
- All factions should have at least 2 or 3 leader with abilities which increase the loyalty up to 16% to be sure that, if no (more) Tcheka & reforms are available for their faction, they still can increase the loyalty of at least one capital's area so that it don't stop any production of units (like Wrangel (Propagandist) and Krasnov (Unforgiving) for the WHI, Boldyrev (a true SR Komouch leader which disappear if Koltchak comes in power) and Kappel (which stay even if there is Kolchak but still was popular and moderated) for the WH3).
- Remove the money cost of the Reforms, Tcheka and Subversions Regional decisions and replace it with a cost of 50 conscripts (because it is also more logical that this kind of policies don't have to be limited by the money but by the number of men you send in the country side to implement this policies instead of sending them to the front or looking for missing conscripts).
- remove the cost in NM for the Reforms (no reasons why the peaseants in the white armies would loose moral if there is agrarian reforms...).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mini-MOD "Political struggles"
This mini-MOD deals with the improvements or variants of Political & Diplomatic options. It aims to really use the EP concept for politics & diplomatic affairs and the NM concept mostly for affairs which affect the troops' moral or the population productivity. EP should represent the credit of actions to perform new policies the government got with the time and the means it have, which depend also on the supports it get or not from the population or from the ruling classes.
EP should be get like currently (http://www.ageod.net/agewiki/Engagement_Points), but if after watching the balance of the game it is not enough, some events should give more from the regions with a major % of loyalty (and especially in the big towns) and from the region with ports which bring foreign support and influence.
- It is senseless that the alliance with Finland or the Baltic or Caucasus States decrease the NM of the Whites : why would the whites soldiers/peasants/workers moral on the battlefield be much less than before they got the news that they have now huge reinforcements from abroad ? The only thing which should cost/be required here are a huge amount of EP, which represent the whites ruling classes and military leaders which oppose to it. So be changed the cost of global independences recognition (-30 EP and remove NM cost) and the cost of each independence (-20 EP and remove NM cost).
- If the Whites don't recognize the independences, they should loose (and not win like currently) 3 NM each 3 months, because the white troops don't understand why the White leaders don't do anything to find more allies... But in terms of game's Victory Conditions, the White Cause should also win 15 VP each 3 months to reward the challenge of keeping the Russian Empire...
- Since most of the Party and left "opposition" (if still any...) claim to spread the Revolution westward, if from 1919/01/01 the Reds don't declare war to Finland (when they control Petrograd, Olonets & Murmansk), or to the Caucasus States (when they control Grozny, Rostov & Novorossyisk), or to the Baltic States (when they control Pskov, Minsk, Yamburg), they should loose 1 EP per turn for each of this Foreign faction.
- For the same reason : if the Reds declare war to Finland, or to the Caucasus States, or to the Baltic States, they should win 15 EP instead of wining 2 NM like currently. Besides this, like it is currently well designed, since most of the troops are not motivated to fight abroad, especially when the civil war in Russia is not finished, they should loose 1 NM per turn up to 15 turns for each capital which is not controlled. But in terms of game's Victory Conditions, the Red Cause should also win 2 VP per turn up to 15 turns to reward the challenge of keeping the Russian Empire... (Check this "bug" too : in the events "evt_nam_RED_FinnishDOW_ON", "evt_nam_RED_BalticDOW_ON", "evt_nam_RED_CaucasianDOW_ON", remove the EvalEngagementPts = >=;5)
- The Political Option "Party members join the Army" should cost 10 EP and give 2 NM (This is logical, it boost the moral of the troops). Each time it is activated, it should also be the way to bring 8 more Political Commissar units and 4 elite Cheka line units available in the unit pool, as well as 4 rgts and 2 brigades of the "police" VOKhR units (which pool should be almost empty form the start). This way all this powerful units will increase in the Red Army according to the cost and priorities choose by the player. But this Political Option "Party members join the Army" should also cost 10 VP each time (many of this workers will die and it is the main political support of the Bolcheviks among the population).
- The Prisoners recruitment Political Option text say it create some confusion in the army, but it miss the concrete effect, which could be a randomly selected 15 units which loose 15 points of cohesion when this policy is activated. The Options is available only few times in some fix turns (so if the player don't have the conditions at this precised turn, he miss the train. Besides this he can't understand how it is functioning, so the option should be always regenerated (no limit and no fix turns).
- That's a pity that there is many nicely customized Red leaders waiting to be recruited in the Reinforcement Options pool, when you can hardly recruit all of them because you can buy maximum only 1 per turn on 76 turns.
So the Leader Reinforcements option should cost only 1 EP instead of 4EP.
- The 2 Red Cossack Divisions reinforcements in Don and Kuban capitals should come only if the Red player did performed the Political Options "Red Cossacks Join".
- The Left SR uprising could be also MODed :
1) The Left SR rebellion could be random (25% chance each turn), and only between the early July Soviet Congress and the Early november 1918 WWI Armistice (after, it wouldn't happen before a long time, since the Bolcheviks adopted for sometimes the "Expend Revolution westward" policy and invaded the Baltic States).
2) The Left SR rebellion is mostly a political question of expending the Revolution westward, even against Germany, or not. The Left SR and a big part of the Bolcheviks are for it. So if the SR rebellion did not happen before the WWI Armistice, the Red player should win a big political support, such like 15 EP.
3) If the SR rebellion happen, it allow 3 Cheka Regional Decision in the Bolchevik player pool (and if Lenin Assassination event happen, 6 are allowed, like currently). The Bolchevik player should have anyway 1 Cheka Regional Decision available after the WWI Armistice Event (The Revolution is Under Siege !).
4) Popov and all the left SR can't be with the Komuch/Whites. They were more "extremist" than the Bolcheviks ! (E.g. Popov was leftSR/Anarchist and joined Makhno later, not the Whites...). So all the units which pop up with the event "evt_nam_Renforts_CMN_SRUprising" should be Greens and not Whites. (NB: and should pop up OUTSIDE the towns to not be trapped...)
5) Muraviev leader would not revolt and be killed if left SR rebellion don't happen. So the event "evt_nam_RED_MuravievExecuted" should only have as Conditions the event "evt_nam_Renforts_CMN_SRUprising".
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mini-MOD "Abilities & Statistics units improvements"
- Give to the airplanes and Observation balloon units the ability "$Artillerist" (+25% strenght to arty in the stack) (and maybe remove this ability from all the leaders). This will maybe simulate a better role of this units in the WWI warfare. Open each file named with "Air Recon Squadron.mdl" in the file.../RUS/GameData/Models/ and add this line : Ability0 = $Artillerist
- Add a line "Attributes = #PoliticalUnit#" and change their line color like this "Color = $colREDPolice" to /RUS/GameData/Models/ files of this leaders, which was or acted like Political Commissar and efficient propagandist (or "terrorists") : Stalin, Zinoviev, Lenin, Bela Kun, Antonov-Ovseenko, Kirov, Frunze, Blucher, Dzerzhinsky, Raskolnikov, N.G. Markin, Piatakov. And also add this ability line "Ability0 = $Propagandist" for Zinoviev.
- If player want to play with the desactivation game option, the current Strategic Statistics of the standard Red leaders are far too low : Change all standard Red leaders with 2 in Strategic value by 3 (except really "political" leaders like Lenin, Zinoviev & Djerzinski which should have 2).
- About Dzerzhinsky, there is maybe a problem : there is 2 ability of the same Kind ($abiLoyAdjust), that is Occupier & Unforgiving, so i wonder which one the Game will choose, if any... (i would let only unforgiving, like Stalin, Occupier is too soft).
- The "Propagandist" and "Unforgiving" abilities need some improvements : the Propagandist should give 5 point of loyalty each turn till it reach 50% loyalty in the region, after it give only 1 point till 75%. The Unforgiving ability give 5 point of loyalty each turn till it reach between 10% and 50% loyalty in the region but it will always reduce it till 50% if it's up. Both abilities don't require anymore the leaders to be inside a town to work...
- All factions should have at least 2 or 3 leader with abilities which increase the loyalty up to 16% to be sure that, if no (more) Tcheka & reforms are available for their faction, they still can increase the loyalty of at least one capital's area so that it don't stop any production of units (like Wrangel (Propagandist) and Krasnov (Unforgiving) for the WHI, Boldyrev (a true SR Komouch leader which disappear if Koltchak comes in power) and Kappel (which stay even if there is Kolchak but still was popular and moderated) for the WH3).
- The Mountainers ability should apply only to the moutain unit itself, not to the whole stack. It's sensless that one single unit could improve the whole stack strenght in mountains.
- currently, red partisan units have not the partisan ability (which increase their strenght in hard terrain. So i give them this ability but modifie it so that it apply only to the unit itself, not to the stack (Appliance = Self).
- Staline deserve a "1" for strategic value instead of "3".
- To improve the engineer units (which are currently almost useless and not working) :
* Improve its Siege_Engineer ability so that it really speed the stack level to entrench to +45% (like in AACW), it really give a +1 one bonus in a siege (for now it miss the Param2 and PAram3 lines).
* give them an attribute which decrease its time to repair railroads by 50%.
* give them the Pontoneer ability (no movement penalties with rivers)
- The Green insurrectionnal forces should have their units completely autonomous with improved evasion and hide values and which don't need supply. Green & Red Partisan units should have a normal Move ratio = 100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mini-MOD "Nationalities geographical & economical limitations"
- WHI or WH3 should never be allowed to use Regional decisions in CAU, BAL, FIN and POL areas (and thus get Whites russian conscripts from this areas...) because it is then independent states... this areas are loyal to their nationality, and are supposed to keep their own money from their own requisitions, and get conscript only from their nationality. If it's really a balance necessity, Independent countries could get replacements by events.
- In any case, it would be also absurd that the Russian players get from this areas russian conscripts/units which could go everywhere on the map when all the units from this areas have now a limited range around their lands. It slow down also a bit the huge boost for the Whites if they got new alliances.
- National limited ranges :
- FIN troops should better stay in northern theater and will loose 50 cohesion if in Central Russia, Volga & Bielorussia theaters.
- CAU troops should better stay in Caucasus and will loose 50 cohesion if in Volga, central Asia & Ukraine theaters, and in Don & Saratov areas.
- BAL, GER troops should better stay in Bielorussia and northern theaters and will loose 50 cohesion if in Central Russia, Volga & Ukraine theaters.
-------------------------------------------
Mini-MOD "The Baltic States"
- The North-West White army should not appear at all if the Baltic States didn't join the Whites or if the Reds didn't declared war to the Baltic States. The Baltic States wouldn't have allowed such an operation through their borders, which means a declaration of war to Red Russia, without one of this 2 conditions. Baltic States helped the White russian in 1919 although they didn't recognized their independances only because the Reds invaded the Baltic States since late 1918. Remember that even Finland didn't declared war to Red Russia without the recognition of its independence by th Whites, why the even weakest Baltic States would did it if they are not attacked by the Reds ? Finally, this make it more simple to solve the problem of a double Yudenitch army (just remove the event "evt_nam_Renforts_CMN_NorthWestArmy").
- Give the North-West Army units' pool at the start of the game to be sure they are available in all cases. The WHI can only get more WH4 North-West units in the unit pool if they own Petrograd in April and in December 1919.
-------------------------------------------
Mini-MOD "Ukrainian Nationalists & Anarchists"
- Set all UKR forces playable to WH3 faction and place them out of Makno, Grigoriev, WHI and French-Greek places and give some free replacements,
- all Ukrainian troops should loose -50 cohesions if outside Ukraine,
- The Ukrainian Nationalist troops should be automatically removed if south White (WHI) faction attack the region where they are locked, unless it check the Alliance with Ukrainian Nationalist.
- The South White (WHI) and the Bolchevik (RED) players, if they choose to ally with each the UKR and the ANA, will loose immediatly 25 EP and then -1EP each turn the alliance exist.
But if they have more than 110 NM, they can choose to break this alliance and then will win 100 VP and loose -15NM.
- Among the former UKR faction regions, set all main regional towns to the WH3 faction and the rest to the Green faction to not let the railroad and lands too easy to conquest by the Whites.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mini-MOD "French-Greek expeditionary corps"
The French-Greek expeditionary corps arrive unlocked and randomly in the game from February 1919 : but in the History this corps arrived from December 1918... and leave in April 1919 when the Red army arrived in the neighboring regions and when mutiny happen among its troops. During this short time they just pushed away the local Reds along the sea coast, but in the game, Odessa and all Ukraine is occupied by the nationalist Ukrainians, so the player can use, probably not in a realistic way, this foreign forces in a deep northern campaign against the Nationalist Ukrainian faction, as well as against big Reds or Blacks forces. But in the reality, the French Command decided very soon to stay on the coastal regions for many good concrete reasons. Besides this, the Berthelot corps (named Army of the Danube of the Front d'Orient) was mostly settled in Roumania and especially in Bessarabia (Moldavia) to protect this country from the Reds menace from Ukraine and after April 1919 from the Red Hungaria which just started its communist revolution.
- I would set automatically all the various French & Greek forces which arrive on the map as locked troops.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mini-MOD "Reserve system (March to the sound of the guns)"
- Improve the role of the Army unit in the reserve system (+25% if adjacent to army HQ, +45% if the army HQ itself)
- Increase the cohesion lost per day for the reserve to come (-3 cohesion for each day of marching)
-----------------------------------------
Basic Game Options & other House Rules :
A. Generals' Desactivation Options :
The DesActivation Option is set to "Average" (Desactivation without locked units)
B. Delayed Combat Options :
The delay is set to the maximum.
C. Attrition Options :
Attrition is set to "Historical" (most Difficult).
D. Playable factions :
The White player play the South Whites AND the Siberian Whites.
New mini-MODs will comes during the game so that : The Polish (POL), Roumanian (ROU) and Ukrainian (UKR) factions will also be playable by the South Whites player, and the Anarchists (ANA) faction by the Bolchevik (RED) player.
E. Leaders' requirements :
When players send forces in ennemy territory (less than 50% MC), if not with a leader, they should set this forces in Passive (Green) Order.
This rule does not apply to partisan units.
DoctorKing & Andatiep PBEM
REVOLUTION UNDER SIEGE GOLD
-
TheDoctorKing
- Posts: 1664
- Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2008 12:56 pm
- Location: Portland Oregon
For Kolchak/Komuch alternative and Krasnov/Wrangel activity in the south:
I think that the "Reforms" political action is still rather weak in its effect. This is especially true if we are going to sharply restrict the Whites' ability to use it. Let's make it more effective to balance the limitations.
Am I correct in understanding that Siberian Whites can use "Reforms" without restriction so long as the Komuch has not been overturned?
Should we allow the Komuch to use "Subversion" as well? After all, they at least hoped to appeal to the peasants, even if they were ultimately unsuccessful (because they lost their territorial base).
I think that the "Reforms" political action is still rather weak in its effect. This is especially true if we are going to sharply restrict the Whites' ability to use it. Let's make it more effective to balance the limitations.
Am I correct in understanding that Siberian Whites can use "Reforms" without restriction so long as the Komuch has not been overturned?
Should we allow the Komuch to use "Subversion" as well? After all, they at least hoped to appeal to the peasants, even if they were ultimately unsuccessful (because they lost their territorial base).
Stewart King
"There is no substitute for victory"
Depends on how you define victory.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
"There is no substitute for victory"
Depends on how you define victory.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
-
TheDoctorKing
- Posts: 1664
- Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2008 12:56 pm
- Location: Portland Oregon
On supply and ammunition production:
I agree with your suggestion that all towns should produce 20 food indiscriminately. With a lot of time invested, we could try to modify this to reflect the actual food production of the surrounding areas, e.g., Kiev or Kursk would produce more than Vyatka or Vologda. But 20 each is fine as an approximation.
On ammo: this greatly increases the role of arms factories, which I like. I almost never build them in vanilla.
I agree with your suggestion that all towns should produce 20 food indiscriminately. With a lot of time invested, we could try to modify this to reflect the actual food production of the surrounding areas, e.g., Kiev or Kursk would produce more than Vyatka or Vologda. But 20 each is fine as an approximation.
On ammo: this greatly increases the role of arms factories, which I like. I almost never build them in vanilla.
Stewart King
"There is no substitute for victory"
Depends on how you define victory.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
"There is no substitute for victory"
Depends on how you define victory.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
-
TheDoctorKing
- Posts: 1664
- Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2008 12:56 pm
- Location: Portland Oregon
On Red and Green insurrections:
I'm not clearly understanding how this revises the current situation. It appears that this would dramatically reduce the frequency of appearance of Green rebellions while making them larger in terms of the number of troops they create and the geographical area they affect. In addition, if a rebellion triggers, it could produce Red troops if the area has a high level of Red population support and is not under Red military control. Is this correct?
If so, I have the following thoughts:
I have discovered now in two CG's carried into the late stages that the presence of Green rebel units in the interior of the Red territory becomes a big handicap. Green units appear randomly (apparently two or three regiments) in regions where Green has significant loyalty. I have to station at least a regiment in each town and provide each province with a "flying column" of a brigade or division with Tachanka support (A cavalry division with a horse artillery battery works really well) to crush the Greens as they arise. If you let them be, after a while they grow to tens of thousands and require a major field army to suppress. In my current game (using the Fatal Years mod) Budenyy and about 15000 troops are up in the Vyatka area, diverted from fighting the Whites near Yekaterinburg in order to crush at least 25000 Greens that I ignored for too long.
This is not really historical - there were only a few such Green uprisings, Tambov being the best-known, but you could also count the Anarchists in the south - and mostly only after the main struggle against the Whites was nearly over. Small-scale local resistance to the Reds by peasants, taking place throughout the war, was normally expressed in minor violence - guerrilla warfare - and non-cooperation rather than by raising large bodies of semi-formed troops and fighting field battles against Red formations.
I'm playing a quick CG as the Siberian Whites and finding that they experience similar problems.
So my thought is that your suggestion is very historical but we need some way to make sure that this doesn't leave players free to tax the peasants with impunity. Maybe your changes in the regional decisions will restrict things enough, only a playtest will show.
I'm not clearly understanding how this revises the current situation. It appears that this would dramatically reduce the frequency of appearance of Green rebellions while making them larger in terms of the number of troops they create and the geographical area they affect. In addition, if a rebellion triggers, it could produce Red troops if the area has a high level of Red population support and is not under Red military control. Is this correct?
If so, I have the following thoughts:
I have discovered now in two CG's carried into the late stages that the presence of Green rebel units in the interior of the Red territory becomes a big handicap. Green units appear randomly (apparently two or three regiments) in regions where Green has significant loyalty. I have to station at least a regiment in each town and provide each province with a "flying column" of a brigade or division with Tachanka support (A cavalry division with a horse artillery battery works really well) to crush the Greens as they arise. If you let them be, after a while they grow to tens of thousands and require a major field army to suppress. In my current game (using the Fatal Years mod) Budenyy and about 15000 troops are up in the Vyatka area, diverted from fighting the Whites near Yekaterinburg in order to crush at least 25000 Greens that I ignored for too long.
This is not really historical - there were only a few such Green uprisings, Tambov being the best-known, but you could also count the Anarchists in the south - and mostly only after the main struggle against the Whites was nearly over. Small-scale local resistance to the Reds by peasants, taking place throughout the war, was normally expressed in minor violence - guerrilla warfare - and non-cooperation rather than by raising large bodies of semi-formed troops and fighting field battles against Red formations.
I'm playing a quick CG as the Siberian Whites and finding that they experience similar problems.
So my thought is that your suggestion is very historical but we need some way to make sure that this doesn't leave players free to tax the peasants with impunity. Maybe your changes in the regional decisions will restrict things enough, only a playtest will show.
Stewart King
"There is no substitute for victory"
Depends on how you define victory.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
"There is no substitute for victory"
Depends on how you define victory.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
-
TheDoctorKing
- Posts: 1664
- Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2008 12:56 pm
- Location: Portland Oregon
On desertions and political units:
I think that the idea for mass desertions is a good one. Maybe the trigger for the additional desertions in case of major defeat should be higher - I suggest 3. Two NM is pretty easy to lose when big armies get on the map.
Your rule about the Vokhr units being police is interesting. Giving an extra point of recruits is pretty powerful. I would surely build all of them I possibly could if this were true - each one would pay for itself in four months. Does the "recruiting officer" advantage work properly in this game?
Red Guards appear to promote pretty quickly to conscript and then regular infantry. At least it is working that way in my current game using Fatal Years. This is fine but I wonder if they would lose this special characteristic if they did. I make a point of putting them under commanders with the "training officer" characteristic because I find they fight much better once they get some training.
Would this characteristic limit loyalty in the affected areas to 50% like the martial law action in AACW? Or would it just increase loyalty to 25% minimum? I wouldn't think a hard 50% maximum would be appropriate. After all, these units were raised in industrial cities where many of the population were loyal Bolsheviks. They would have a negative impact on rural areas if they were sent there, maybe. Don't know how to simulate that.
I think that the idea for mass desertions is a good one. Maybe the trigger for the additional desertions in case of major defeat should be higher - I suggest 3. Two NM is pretty easy to lose when big armies get on the map.
Your rule about the Vokhr units being police is interesting. Giving an extra point of recruits is pretty powerful. I would surely build all of them I possibly could if this were true - each one would pay for itself in four months. Does the "recruiting officer" advantage work properly in this game?
Red Guards appear to promote pretty quickly to conscript and then regular infantry. At least it is working that way in my current game using Fatal Years. This is fine but I wonder if they would lose this special characteristic if they did. I make a point of putting them under commanders with the "training officer" characteristic because I find they fight much better once they get some training.
Would this characteristic limit loyalty in the affected areas to 50% like the martial law action in AACW? Or would it just increase loyalty to 25% minimum? I wouldn't think a hard 50% maximum would be appropriate. After all, these units were raised in industrial cities where many of the population were loyal Bolsheviks. They would have a negative impact on rural areas if they were sent there, maybe. Don't know how to simulate that.
Stewart King
"There is no substitute for victory"
Depends on how you define victory.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
"There is no substitute for victory"
Depends on how you define victory.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
-
TheDoctorKing
- Posts: 1664
- Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2008 12:56 pm
- Location: Portland Oregon
On armored trains:
I agree with your suggestions. Does giving them a supply component mean that they could function as supply wagons? That would be a good idea.
I'd like to do more with armored trains but I don't know as modders if there is anything we can do.
The armored train is the iconic symbol of this war. But in three or four games I think I have bought maybe five total. And the ones I get at the beginning often find themselves left behind the lines defending fixed positions. In addition to the ones you cite, the other reasons are:
- They move very slowly, especially when rail lines are broken.
- They can't be combined into divisions so their morale bonus is essentially useless.
- They cost the earth to maintain.
I would like to see them still be rail-bound (obviously) but move at the same speed as the infantry. So if they are entering an area with a broken rail line or under enemy military control they can still keep up with the troops. Historically, these units were used aggressively by commanders. They had a lot of rail repair equipment and could lay track very quickly if needed.
Their replacement points should cost a lot less. I notice that White armored train replacement points are a good deal cheaper than Red - 20 as opposed to 40 WS, I think. But I think they should be cheaper even than this. Make the replacement points equal to a field artillery replacement point.
They ought to have an integral infantry escort - probably not changing their values but reporting them as having 500 men in the unit or some such. Perhaps they could cost 3 or 4 companies of conscripts instead of the current 1. I think historically they almost never operated without significant numbers of riders. Losses among the riders would be a major cause of "mission kills" forcing the unit to retire and refit, justifying a cheaper cost for replacement points.
And it would be nice to make the armored morale bonus affect the entire stack instead of just the unit.
I agree with your suggestions. Does giving them a supply component mean that they could function as supply wagons? That would be a good idea.
I'd like to do more with armored trains but I don't know as modders if there is anything we can do.
The armored train is the iconic symbol of this war. But in three or four games I think I have bought maybe five total. And the ones I get at the beginning often find themselves left behind the lines defending fixed positions. In addition to the ones you cite, the other reasons are:
- They move very slowly, especially when rail lines are broken.
- They can't be combined into divisions so their morale bonus is essentially useless.
- They cost the earth to maintain.
I would like to see them still be rail-bound (obviously) but move at the same speed as the infantry. So if they are entering an area with a broken rail line or under enemy military control they can still keep up with the troops. Historically, these units were used aggressively by commanders. They had a lot of rail repair equipment and could lay track very quickly if needed.
Their replacement points should cost a lot less. I notice that White armored train replacement points are a good deal cheaper than Red - 20 as opposed to 40 WS, I think. But I think they should be cheaper even than this. Make the replacement points equal to a field artillery replacement point.
They ought to have an integral infantry escort - probably not changing their values but reporting them as having 500 men in the unit or some such. Perhaps they could cost 3 or 4 companies of conscripts instead of the current 1. I think historically they almost never operated without significant numbers of riders. Losses among the riders would be a major cause of "mission kills" forcing the unit to retire and refit, justifying a cheaper cost for replacement points.
And it would be nice to make the armored morale bonus affect the entire stack instead of just the unit.
Stewart King
"There is no substitute for victory"
Depends on how you define victory.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
"There is no substitute for victory"
Depends on how you define victory.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
-
TheDoctorKing
- Posts: 1664
- Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2008 12:56 pm
- Location: Portland Oregon
On regional decisions:
I understand this to mean that there is one undifferentiated regional decision that brings $, conscripts, and WS. If the loyalty in the capital region for your faction is over 50%, the effect of this decision is doubled. The 25% reduction in loyalty is spread across the whole province, presumably randomly but pretty equally divided. Provinces have 12-25 regions so an average reduction of 1-2% loyalty per region (given to competing factions in proportion to their current loyalty there). Is this correct?
I bascially agree with this approach. I'd like to see a more subtle relationship between loyalty and income from regional decisions but I imagine that that is not possible in a mod. So this is fine.
I understand this to mean that there is one undifferentiated regional decision that brings $, conscripts, and WS. If the loyalty in the capital region for your faction is over 50%, the effect of this decision is doubled. The 25% reduction in loyalty is spread across the whole province, presumably randomly but pretty equally divided. Provinces have 12-25 regions so an average reduction of 1-2% loyalty per region (given to competing factions in proportion to their current loyalty there). Is this correct?
I bascially agree with this approach. I'd like to see a more subtle relationship between loyalty and income from regional decisions but I imagine that that is not possible in a mod. So this is fine.
Stewart King
"There is no substitute for victory"
Depends on how you define victory.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
"There is no substitute for victory"
Depends on how you define victory.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
-
TheDoctorKing
- Posts: 1664
- Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2008 12:56 pm
- Location: Portland Oregon
On political struggles and territorial unification:
We've already discussed the political struggles rules and I agree with your suggestions.
On territorial unification, these would be events that would fire once when the conditions are satisfied (Reds lose the last of the named cities)? Or should there be a regular income for the Whites if they satisfy the conditions, thus rewarding the Reds for breaking the link once again? I don't know if the latter would be harder to program but I would prefer it if possible.
We've already discussed the political struggles rules and I agree with your suggestions.
On territorial unification, these would be events that would fire once when the conditions are satisfied (Reds lose the last of the named cities)? Or should there be a regular income for the Whites if they satisfy the conditions, thus rewarding the Reds for breaking the link once again? I don't know if the latter would be harder to program but I would prefer it if possible.
Stewart King
"There is no substitute for victory"
Depends on how you define victory.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
"There is no substitute for victory"
Depends on how you define victory.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
-
TheDoctorKing
- Posts: 1664
- Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2008 12:56 pm
- Location: Portland Oregon
Nationalities and Baltic States:
Hurrah, hurrah! I have treated the locality restrictions as "house rules" in games I have played but I did notice that Cossacks were free to roam about the country and the other guys too, presumably. Have you succeeded in modding the game to make this effective?
I experienced the "double Yudenich" effect in one game. It was quite frustrating. "Where the heck did he come from? I thought we already shot him? Dzherzinsky, did you let that guy go for some reason?..."
Hurrah, hurrah! I have treated the locality restrictions as "house rules" in games I have played but I did notice that Cossacks were free to roam about the country and the other guys too, presumably. Have you succeeded in modding the game to make this effective?
I experienced the "double Yudenich" effect in one game. It was quite frustrating. "Where the heck did he come from? I thought we already shot him? Dzherzinsky, did you let that guy go for some reason?..."
Stewart King
"There is no substitute for victory"
Depends on how you define victory.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
"There is no substitute for victory"
Depends on how you define victory.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
-
TheDoctorKing
- Posts: 1664
- Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2008 12:56 pm
- Location: Portland Oregon
Foreign expeditionary forces:
I'm OK with the rules you propose. In the previous section, you said you wanted to have the foreign forces lose lots of cohesion if they get away from the beach resorts they occupy when they arrive
. This might fix some of the problem.
On the Poles, Anarchists, Ukrainians, etc. In the next official patch, these forces will be under the control of their historical allies - southern Whites or Reds? I'm concerned that the Poles if under the direct control of the southern Whites will be too cooperative. After all, they had goals that were diametrically opposed to those of the whites if the whites had ended up winning the larger war. Maybe they should be under the control of whichever faction (between Southern Whites and Reds) that controls the fewest provincial capitals of provinces bordering on Poland (maybe throw in the Baltic states too?). So the Poles would come under the control of the Reds if the Southern Whites were doing very well and controlled most of western Russia. Because then one presumes that the Poles would be battling the Whites for control of the disputed territories in Ukraine and Belarus. But in either case there would have to be "limited cooperation" rules in effect - their forces wouldn't leave their intended area of operation, or would lose much cohesion as you suggested above, they couldn't coexist with forces of their allies in the same province (maybe excepting small garrisons, so they couldn't coexist with any force with more than 10-15 elements), they couldn't draw supply from their allies' depots, etc.
Maybe the same sort of thing for the Anarchists. They come under the control of the Whites (maybe you could give them to the Siberians) if the Reds control the majority of provincial capitals in the Ukraine/Donbas region where they are active. And strict non-cooperation rules for them as well.
Don't know if any of this is moddable; probably requires some changes in the .exe. Might not be worth the effort given the rarity (in my experience) of Polish entry into the war.
I'm OK with the rules you propose. In the previous section, you said you wanted to have the foreign forces lose lots of cohesion if they get away from the beach resorts they occupy when they arrive
. This might fix some of the problem.
On the Poles, Anarchists, Ukrainians, etc. In the next official patch, these forces will be under the control of their historical allies - southern Whites or Reds? I'm concerned that the Poles if under the direct control of the southern Whites will be too cooperative. After all, they had goals that were diametrically opposed to those of the whites if the whites had ended up winning the larger war. Maybe they should be under the control of whichever faction (between Southern Whites and Reds) that controls the fewest provincial capitals of provinces bordering on Poland (maybe throw in the Baltic states too?). So the Poles would come under the control of the Reds if the Southern Whites were doing very well and controlled most of western Russia. Because then one presumes that the Poles would be battling the Whites for control of the disputed territories in Ukraine and Belarus. But in either case there would have to be "limited cooperation" rules in effect - their forces wouldn't leave their intended area of operation, or would lose much cohesion as you suggested above, they couldn't coexist with forces of their allies in the same province (maybe excepting small garrisons, so they couldn't coexist with any force with more than 10-15 elements), they couldn't draw supply from their allies' depots, etc.
Maybe the same sort of thing for the Anarchists. They come under the control of the Whites (maybe you could give them to the Siberians) if the Reds control the majority of provincial capitals in the Ukraine/Donbas region where they are active. And strict non-cooperation rules for them as well.
Don't know if any of this is moddable; probably requires some changes in the .exe. Might not be worth the effort given the rarity (in my experience) of Polish entry into the war.
Stewart King
"There is no substitute for victory"
Depends on how you define victory.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
"There is no substitute for victory"
Depends on how you define victory.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
-
TheDoctorKing
- Posts: 1664
- Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2008 12:56 pm
- Location: Portland Oregon
Leadership:
In addition to being able to recruit more leaders, I think the inherent disparity in leadership between the factions is probably a little excessive. Having the average starting Red leader be a 2-0-0 makes them even more hapless than the average Yankee in AACW. I'd like to increase them to 3-1-1 or so. The average White is 4-1-1, so this would still give the Whites an advantage, but maybe not so impressive a one.
If we are allowing both sides to raise sufficient numbers of leaders, maybe we should reinstitute the house rule on leadership we used in AACW. No stack can enter "enemy territory" without a leader. Enemy territory in this case would be defined by province - a province where neither the population loyalty nor military control in the capital region is greater than 50% for your side. This rule does not apply to partisan units (and of course not to the AI-controlled factions, specifically the Greens). If you find yourself with a unit in this situation due to changing conditions it can remain in place indefinitely but if it moves it has to move closer to a province where it can operate (so small garrisons can remain in place even if the capital region is occupied by the enemy but if they try to leave they have to head for friendly territory).
And by "standard" activation do you mean that stacks whose leaders are not active can still move but suffer some penalties in movement and combat? That's the way I usually play but I notice that the default value is "no effect". That makes life way too easy on the Reds with their crappy leadership. And completely locking stacks with inactive leaders makes life way too hard on them.
Did we ever figure out about the "propagandist" leader characteristic? Does it work at all? If so, do we want to have a few more "propagandist" leaders? The "propagandist" effect should probably be a random add similar to that caused by Cheka and/or Reform missions (effects a random territory within the province) instead of just in the region where the leader is located. Otherwise you will end up with Moscow, for example, with 100% loyalty and every other region at 0%...
Lenin should be a leader so his effect will work in Moscow. I would say that we should create three new leaders with this characteristic, one for the Communists (Kaganovich) one for the Anarchists (Goldman) and one for the Komuch (Chernov).
Kaganovich would be active throughout the war. Goldman would be active January 1920 to December 1921, and Chernov would appear with the Komuch uprising event and remain active until the Komuch was defeated.
If the Anarchists are just going to be Red allies then we can delete Goldman (though it would be funny to have an American leader working for the communists...)
In addition to being able to recruit more leaders, I think the inherent disparity in leadership between the factions is probably a little excessive. Having the average starting Red leader be a 2-0-0 makes them even more hapless than the average Yankee in AACW. I'd like to increase them to 3-1-1 or so. The average White is 4-1-1, so this would still give the Whites an advantage, but maybe not so impressive a one.
If we are allowing both sides to raise sufficient numbers of leaders, maybe we should reinstitute the house rule on leadership we used in AACW. No stack can enter "enemy territory" without a leader. Enemy territory in this case would be defined by province - a province where neither the population loyalty nor military control in the capital region is greater than 50% for your side. This rule does not apply to partisan units (and of course not to the AI-controlled factions, specifically the Greens). If you find yourself with a unit in this situation due to changing conditions it can remain in place indefinitely but if it moves it has to move closer to a province where it can operate (so small garrisons can remain in place even if the capital region is occupied by the enemy but if they try to leave they have to head for friendly territory).
And by "standard" activation do you mean that stacks whose leaders are not active can still move but suffer some penalties in movement and combat? That's the way I usually play but I notice that the default value is "no effect". That makes life way too easy on the Reds with their crappy leadership. And completely locking stacks with inactive leaders makes life way too hard on them.
Did we ever figure out about the "propagandist" leader characteristic? Does it work at all? If so, do we want to have a few more "propagandist" leaders? The "propagandist" effect should probably be a random add similar to that caused by Cheka and/or Reform missions (effects a random territory within the province) instead of just in the region where the leader is located. Otherwise you will end up with Moscow, for example, with 100% loyalty and every other region at 0%...
Lenin should be a leader so his effect will work in Moscow. I would say that we should create three new leaders with this characteristic, one for the Communists (Kaganovich) one for the Anarchists (Goldman) and one for the Komuch (Chernov).
Kaganovich would be active throughout the war. Goldman would be active January 1920 to December 1921, and Chernov would appear with the Komuch uprising event and remain active until the Komuch was defeated.
If the Anarchists are just going to be Red allies then we can delete Goldman (though it would be funny to have an American leader working for the communists...)
Stewart King
"There is no substitute for victory"
Depends on how you define victory.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
"There is no substitute for victory"
Depends on how you define victory.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
TheDoctorKing wrote:For Kolchak/Komuch alternative and Krasnov/Wrangel activity in the south:
I think that the "Reforms" political action is still rather weak in its effect. This is especially true if we are going to sharply restrict the Whites' ability to use it. Let's make it more effective to balance the limitations.
To be honest, with all the changes since my last testing campaign, i really don't know which values would balance the situation. I propose that we start with the Vanilla settings to see how it's going on with the mini-MODs. This are bonus/malus anyway really easy to change and pay back during the game to re-balance it.
TheDoctorKing wrote:Am I correct in understanding that Siberian Whites can use "Reforms" without restriction so long as the Komuch has not been overturned?
Yes, the Siberian player, thanks to the Komuch, can have the standard 6 Regional Decision "Reforms" ...untill the Koltchak's Coup (if it happen...).
TheDoctorKing wrote:Should we allow the Komuch to use "Subversion" as well? After all, they at least hoped to appeal to the peasants, even if they were ultimately unsuccessful (because they lost their territorial base).
I wouldn't do this.
The Komuch and its propaganda tried to be close to the people, but it wasn't such efficient, especially in enemy territory.
Komuch was really between the Whites and the Reds in terms of propaganda invests and policies towards the masses.
So if we let them also the "Subversion", they would be the equal as the Reds in terms of abilities to convince the people. But they wasn't.
REVOLUTION UNDER SIEGE GOLD
TheDoctorKing wrote:On Red and Green insurrections:
I'm not clearly understanding how this revises the current situation. It appears that this would dramatically reduce the frequency of appearance of Green rebellions while making them larger in terms of the number of troops they create and the geographical area they affect. In addition, if a rebellion triggers, it could produce Red troops if the area has a high level of Red population support and is not under Red military control. Is this correct?
Yes, it's not clear,
There is no changes with the current automatical insurrection system. Just the historical big revolts which should hapen (like the automatical ones) according to the loyalty % of the concerned faction. I will change the mini-MOD explication like this :
Most russian theaters have already designed historical big reds and green insurrections which happen behind the lines of the players.
But this big historical insurrections happen mostly in fix dates or randomly, when the choice of the faction which lead this revolts should depend on their loyalty % in the area.
This way it give a bigger effect and sens to the regional decisions which decrease or increase loyalty (E.g. The red have more interest to use the subversion policy so that the potential big revolts in Whites' territories be first the Red ones instead of Green ones...).
- The historical big Green revolts should only randomly happen according to their loyalty % (if green loyalty is >= 35% then there is a 25% probability each turn, if green loyalty is >= 55% then there is a 35% probability each turn). Tambov revolt spreading events probability should be set to 20 instead of 10.
- The historical big Siberian, Turkestan and Far eastern Red revolts can happen only if there is at least 35 % Red loyalty.
- All Revolts should pop up randomly in a list of regions,(to avoid gamey tactics which occupy the previous single or very few regions were some revolts pop up currently) or the revolt should be allowed to pop up even if there is enemy in the region.
- The Green insurrectionnal forces should have their units completely autonomous with improved evasion and hide values and which don't need supply.
- Green & Red Partisan units should have a normal Move ratio = 100
- If this command : InCS = 1 means that the created group is placed inside the town of the region, then remove all this lines from all the events which create new stacks : it makes the AI forces far too much easy to trapp inside towns and exterminate... especially the Greens...
REVOLUTION UNDER SIEGE GOLD
TheDoctorKing wrote:On desertions and political units:
I think that the idea for mass desertions is a good one. Maybe the trigger for the additional desertions in case of major defeat should be higher - I suggest 3. Two NM is pretty easy to lose when big armies get on the map.
Yes, you're right. I changed to 3.
TheDoctorKing wrote:Red Guards appear to promote pretty quickly to conscript and then regular infantry. At least it is working that way in my current game using Fatal Years. This is fine but I wonder if they would lose this special characteristic if they did.
Yes, they will loose it.
TheDoctorKing wrote:Would this characteristic limit loyalty in the affected areas to 50% like the martial law action in AACW?
Yes.
TheDoctorKing wrote: Or would it just increase loyalty to 25% minimum?
Yes too. Both.
TheDoctorKing wrote:I wouldn't think a hard 50% maximum would be appropriate. After all, these units were raised in industrial cities where many of the population were loyal Bolsheviks. They would have a negative impact on rural areas if they were sent there, maybe. Don't know how to simulate that.
Reds and Whites guards was a pain in the a... for all the urban populations too, which are not only made up with the classes they come from, but with all the remaining middle classes and bourgeoisie, artisans/traders, etc (including the prosecuted minorities, jewish, churchmen) which suffer from this milicias.
REVOLUTION UNDER SIEGE GOLD
TheDoctorKing wrote:On regional decisions:
I understand this to mean that there is one undifferentiated regional decision that brings $, conscripts, and WS. If the loyalty in the capital region for your faction is over 50%, the effect of this decision is doubled.
That's it.
TheDoctorKing wrote: The 25% reduction in loyalty is spread across the whole province, presumably randomly but pretty equally divided. Provinces have 12-25 regions so an average reduction of 1-2% loyalty per region (given to competing factions in proportion to their current loyalty there). Is this correct?
I didn't change anything about this mecanism. But i thought the average results of a reform or a subversion policy give you around 5-10% for each region of the area. That's what i saw, but maybe i'm wrong. We will see...
TheDoctorKing wrote:I bascially agree with this approach. I'd like to see a more subtle relationship between loyalty and income from regional decisions but I imagine that that is not possible in a mod. So this is fine.
Yes, me too, but this is all i can do...
REVOLUTION UNDER SIEGE GOLD
TheDoctorKing wrote:Hurrah, hurrah! I have treated the locality restrictions as "house rules" in games I have played but I did notice that Cossacks were free to roam about the country and the other guys too, presumably. Have you succeeded in modding the game to make this effective?
Yes, we succeed to do it in the RUS Dev Team, it will be used for next patch(es). But actually, i think i will not create all this events right now for our PBEM to save some times, because ...it's a PBEM
and on this topic, it's more easy to apply House Rules .REVOLUTION UNDER SIEGE GOLD
TheDoctorKing wrote:Leadership:
In addition to being able to recruit more leaders, I think the inherent disparity in leadership between the factions is probably a little excessive. Having the average starting Red leader be a 2-0-0 makes them even more hapless than the average Yankee in AACW. I'd like to increase them to 3-1-1 or so. The average White is 4-1-1, so this would still give the Whites an advantage, but maybe not so impressive a one.
I didn't check all the Strategic values in the list of the 59 Red leaders in the .../RUS/GameData/Models/ file.
Let us play, and if we really see that the Reds have 90% 2-0-0 leaders, we can hack it during the game.
TheDoctorKing wrote:If we are allowing both sides to raise sufficient numbers of leaders, maybe we should reinstitute the house rule on leadership we used in AACW. No stack can enter "enemy territory" without a leader. Enemy territory in this case would be defined by province - a province where neither the population loyalty nor military control in the capital region is greater than 50% for your side. This rule does not apply to partisan units (and of course not to the AI-controlled factions, specifically the Greens). If you find yourself with a unit in this situation due to changing conditions it can remain in place indefinitely but if it moves it has to move closer to a province where it can operate (so small garrisons can remain in place even if the capital region is occupied by the enemy but if they try to leave they have to head for friendly territory).
Why not. I don't still don't know if this fit to RUS, but we can try.
Remember that at the end, i think the rule becames that you always can enter in ennemy territory, but if not with a leader, you should be in Passive (Green) Order !
TheDoctorKing wrote:And by "standard" activation do you mean that stacks whose leaders are not active can still move but suffer some penalties in movement and combat? That's the way I usually play but I notice that the default value is "no effect". That makes life way too easy on the Reds with their crappy leadership. And completely locking stacks with inactive leaders makes life way too hard on them.
Yes, of course, we play like the AACW standard "Low desactivation". Not locked desactivation.
TheDoctorKing wrote:Did we ever figure out about the "propagandist" leader characteristic? Does it work at all? If so, do we want to have a few more "propagandist" leaders? The "propagandist" effect should probably be a random add similar to that caused by Cheka and/or Reform missions (effects a random territory within the province) instead of just in the region where the leader is located. Otherwise you will end up with Moscow, for example, with 100% loyalty and every other region at 0%...
Lenin should be a leader so his effect will work in Moscow. I would say that we should create three new leaders with this characteristic, one for the Communists (Kaganovich) one for the Anarchists (Goldman) and one for the Komuch (Chernov).
Kaganovich would be active throughout the war. Goldman would be active January 1920 to December 1921, and Chernov would appear with the Komuch uprising event and remain active until the Komuch was defeated.
If the Anarchists are just going to be Red allies then we can delete Goldman (though it would be funny to have an American leader working for the communists...)
Well, for all the leaders stat' & abilities, i propose that we start to play, and as soon as we see some leaders that need changes, you tell me and i will do it.
And ...i'm sorry, (please Emma, don't beat me :crying
but i will not create new leaders, it's too big work ...and finally Emma Goldman had no influences in the RCW. As she said herself, she was an observer and had to leave because she was not able to change anything because of the Bolcheviks.But if there is one day a SCW (Spanish Civil War!) AGE game : i will advocate for Emma as political foreign leader of the CNT which boost the poor bureaucratic skills of the anarchists
....REVOLUTION UNDER SIEGE GOLD
TheDoctorKing wrote:On political struggles and territorial unification:
We've already discussed the political struggles rules and I agree with your suggestions.
On territorial unification, these would be events that would fire once when the conditions are satisfied (Reds lose the last of the named cities)? Or should there be a regular income for the Whites if they satisfy the conditions, thus rewarding the Reds for breaking the link once again? I don't know if the latter would be harder to program but I would prefer it if possible.
You will say that i'm lazy now, but i'm not motivated to change this
...Yes there is only two events, it's a one shot bonus for each connexion. But if i set a regular event which give each turn EP, NM and WS supply bonus as long as the Whites stay connected, it will give them a huge support.
The main advantage of the South connexion is not economical but political : it is a condition to the early promotion of Krasnov or Wrangel as High commander, ...and thus to the independences recognitions. It's already very powerfull !
The north connexion already bring few ships and many more units available in the pool for the north army. I don't think we could put more stuff : remember the northern ports are supposed to be blocked by the ices during months...
REVOLUTION UNDER SIEGE GOLD
TheDoctorKing wrote:On the Poles, Anarchists, Ukrainians, etc. In the next official patch, these forces will be under the control of their historical allies - southern Whites or Reds?
It's still works-in-progress. I still don't know the final version, but it would be much more funny for sure,
...What i wanted to say, it's that whatever the official patch about it is out or not when our PBEM game will reach early 1919 (for the ANA & UKR) and early 1920 (for the POL), i could anyway MOD the game if it's necessary at this stage so that we could play this factions.
TheDoctorKing wrote: I'm concerned that the Poles if under the direct control of the southern Whites will be too cooperative.
After all, they had goals that were diametrically opposed to those of the whites if the whites had ended up winning the larger war.
We had a big discussion about it (in French, sorry, i can't quote it the details for you ...) but to summarize :
You said : "Because then one presumes that the Poles would be battling the Whites for control of the disputed territories in Ukraine and Belarus." We suppose that such scenario wouldn't happen :
A) because the Polish army and war efforts are massively supported at this times by the British and the French and after all that the final goal of the Poles is an international recognition of its borders (the more east as possible, of course) by ...the Western Powers, NOT by any defeated White or Red Russian Power, which they don't care because they don't expected any durable warranties from both of them...
B) In the other hand, the Whites depend also on the support of the British and the French. So it exclude any large scaled conflict during the RCW between the Whites and Polish factions, both helped with French & British WS and military advisors which would be in both sides of the fronts
. Clearly absurd.The polish geopolitical agenda in the RCW was in fact simple :
1) Occupy "just" most of Bielorussia and get the International recognition of this eastern borders from the WWI Allies.
2) Warranty the "independences" of the Baltic States and Ukraine (in fact as a big brother with its feodal allies).
To succeed : no needs to go to Moscow and battle its way among the Russian Reds or Whites ! On the contrary : As long as the russian Whites and Reds fight each other, as long as the Communism stay a menace for Europe and as long as Poland could show itself like the main tower in the stonewall of states which protect the West, the faster they will get their international eastern borders recognition, even if the Russian Whites desagree with it...
In terms of game, it is very simple to simulate : the Polish troops should never go more east than North, Bielorussia, Baltic States and Ukraine theaters. Inside this geographical limitation, the White player can do whatever he wants with this Polish troops, it can not be an absurd historical conflict of interests.
TheDoctorKing wrote:Maybe the same sort of thing for the Anarchists. They come under the control of the Whites (maybe you could give them to the Siberians) if the Reds control the majority of provincial capitals in the Ukraine/Donbas region where they are active. And strict non-cooperation rules for them as well.
Don't worry, Seb is designing a nice mecanism about the ANA faction. Something like "they stay locked if the Whites don't enter in their territories, but they still can be activated by the Reds if they pay for this alliance", which keep a persistent menace on the Whites, even if they decide to avoid Ukraine.
So you can count on this kind of rules for our PBEM game.
For the Nationalist Ukrainian faction, i can set them to the White faction, but they will stay locked, unless the Whites does recognize the independancies AND pay for the alliance with the Ukrainians.
TheDoctorKing wrote:Don't know if any of this is moddable; probably requires some changes in the .exe. Might not be worth the effort given the rarity (in my experience) of Polish entry into the war.
Do-not-panic
! The Poles will REALLY come into this war... 
ompom:REVOLUTION UNDER SIEGE GOLD
TheDoctorKing wrote:On armored trains:
I agree with your suggestions. Does giving them a supply component mean that they could function as supply wagons? That would be a good idea.
I'd like to do more with armored trains but I don't know as modders if there is anything we can do.
The armored train is the iconic symbol of this war. But in three or four games I think I have bought maybe five total. And the ones I get at the beginning often find themselves left behind the lines defending fixed positions. In addition to the ones you cite, the other reasons are:
- They move very slowly, especially when rail lines are broken.
- They can't be combined into divisions so their morale bonus is essentially useless.
- They cost the earth to maintain.
I would like to see them still be rail-bound (obviously) but move at the same speed as the infantry. So if they are entering an area with a broken rail line or under enemy military control they can still keep up with the troops. Historically, these units were used aggressively by commanders.
I will try some hacks about it during the game (but don't cry if your trains are flying instead...:w00t
TheDoctorKing wrote:They had a lot of rail repair equipment and could lay track very quickly if needed.
This is already simulated.
TheDoctorKing wrote:Their replacement points should cost a lot less. I notice that White armored train replacement points are a good deal cheaper than Red - 20 as opposed to 40 WS, I think. But I think they should be cheaper even than this. Make the replacement points equal to a field artillery replacement point.
Maybe let's wait a bit to decide their final cost : if we greatly improve their abilities and role in the game, maybe they will still need to be expensive too.
TheDoctorKing wrote:They ought to have an integral infantry escort - probably not changing their values but reporting them as having 500 men in the unit or some such. Perhaps they could cost 3 or 4 companies of conscripts instead of the current 1. I think historically they almost never operated without significant numbers of riders. Losses among the riders would be a major cause of "mission kills" forcing the unit to retire and refit, justifying a cheaper cost for replacement points.
I think it's up to the player to add its custumized escort, especially cavalry if he have it, and to pay more RR transport if he want it to follow the armored train speed.
TheDoctorKing wrote:And it would be nice to make the armored morale bonus affect the entire stack instead of just the unit.
The current ability concern already the whole stack (it's improving the infantry).
We could give them the Artillerist ability (+25% strenght for all the artillery units of the stack) : it will simulate the big guns on the trains, and the fact that this armored trains were able to escort safelly and bring back speedly many ammunitions to the batteries in the region, which had an influence on the power of the artillery during the battles, as far as i know about artillery.
I anyway would prefer to remove this ability from the leaders, since i never understood how a single man could improve the strenght by 25% of all the guns of one region
REVOLUTION UNDER SIEGE GOLD
-
TheDoctorKing
- Posts: 1664
- Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2008 12:56 pm
- Location: Portland Oregon
andatiep wrote:To be honest, with all the changes since my last testing campaign, i really don't know which values would balance the situation. I propose that we start with the Vanilla settings to see how it's going on with the mini-MODs.
Agreed. A Komuch with both subversion and reforms would be way too powerful.
Stewart King
"There is no substitute for victory"
Depends on how you define victory.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
"There is no substitute for victory"
Depends on how you define victory.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
-
TheDoctorKing
- Posts: 1664
- Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2008 12:56 pm
- Location: Portland Oregon
andatiep wrote:Reds and Whites guards was a pain in the a... for all the urban populations too, which are not only made up with the classes they come from, but with all the remaining middle classes and bourgeoisie, artisans/traders, etc (including the prosecuted minorities, jewish, churchmen) which suffer from this milicias.
So the Red player would be well advised to send his Red Guards units to the front or just disband them? When playing the Reds I usually try to garrison places with conscript regiments but there are always a few of those Red Guard guys hanging about.
I fear that this will make them more trouble than they are worth.
Stewart King
"There is no substitute for victory"
Depends on how you define victory.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
"There is no substitute for victory"
Depends on how you define victory.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
-
TheDoctorKing
- Posts: 1664
- Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2008 12:56 pm
- Location: Portland Oregon
andatiep wrote:I didn't check all the Strategic values in the list of the 59 Red leaders in the .../RUS/GameData/Models/ file.
Let us play, and if we really see that the Reds have 90% 2-0-0 leaders, we can hack it during the game.
Well, for all the leaders stat' & abilities, i propose that we start to play, and as soon as we see some leaders that need changes, you tell me and i will do it.
Can we make Lenin a leader instead of a support unit?
I'm pretty confident that the standard Red leader is a 2-0-0. Play the Reds and find out how annoying that is.
Stewart King
"There is no substitute for victory"
Depends on how you define victory.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
"There is no substitute for victory"
Depends on how you define victory.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
-
TheDoctorKing
- Posts: 1664
- Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2008 12:56 pm
- Location: Portland Oregon
andatiep wrote:I will try some hacks about it during the game (but don't cry if your trains are flying instead...:w00t
When looking at the model file, I saw a line
Move Ratio = 200
Infantry have
Move Ratio = 100
Maybe if we just make the armored trains equal 100 that would solve the problem.
I didn't know they currently affected all infantry in the stack. I might have used them more frequently...
Stewart King
"There is no substitute for victory"
Depends on how you define victory.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
"There is no substitute for victory"
Depends on how you define victory.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
-
TheDoctorKing
- Posts: 1664
- Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2008 12:56 pm
- Location: Portland Oregon
So basically we appear to be in agreement except on the following points:
I would still like to make Lenin a normal leader (he can still be locked).
Improve the standard Red leader (I'm willing to edit half of the model files if you will do the others!)
Make the Red and White Guard units either not so troublesome or give some way to avoid their most terrible effects.
Change the movement of the armored trains and give them the supply unit advantage if possible.
Oh, and I'm OK with adding artillerist to the armored train abilities (maybe only for the heavy ones? Or make the heavy ones even better?) There's got to be some reason why we would have those things.
Pick a side.
I would still like to make Lenin a normal leader (he can still be locked).
Improve the standard Red leader (I'm willing to edit half of the model files if you will do the others!)
Make the Red and White Guard units either not so troublesome or give some way to avoid their most terrible effects.
Change the movement of the armored trains and give them the supply unit advantage if possible.
Oh, and I'm OK with adding artillerist to the armored train abilities (maybe only for the heavy ones? Or make the heavy ones even better?) There's got to be some reason why we would have those things.
Pick a side.
Stewart King
"There is no substitute for victory"
Depends on how you define victory.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
"There is no substitute for victory"
Depends on how you define victory.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
-
TheDoctorKing
- Posts: 1664
- Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2008 12:56 pm
- Location: Portland Oregon
TheDoctorKing wrote:So the Red player would be well advised to send his Red Guards units to the front or just disband them? When playing the Reds I usually try to garrison places with conscript regiments but there are always a few of those Red Guard guys hanging about.
I fear that this will make them more trouble than they are worth.
Mmmh, i forgot a detail i will add in the description :
The units with Brutal occupier ability will always increase gradually (+5% each turn !) the loyalty up to 25%, but they will not allowed more than 50% loyalty in the region.
So there is still 2 positive stuff with this unit :
- They increase the low loyalty in a region at a very really good speed. And you still can move them away when they reach the 25% (so after they did all their bad hobbies in the region :neener
- As you said, they are cheap and will transform later for free in more expensive regular infantry units
Of course, if you place it in the capital of an area, you won't be able to perform the best Regional Decision which need more than 50% ...but you are not obliged to garrison them in this specific towns... (except if they are already a locked garrison there at the start of the game, but this are the guardians of the Revolution, man ! You can't kick all of them out like this
!Since the Reds have much more units of this type, i wonder if all the Whites' cavalry cossacks units don't deserve this ability too, to simulate all the mess they done all around (pogroms against religious & political minorities, violent requisitions, etc.)
REVOLUTION UNDER SIEGE GOLD
TheDoctorKing wrote:When looking at the model file, I saw a line
Move Ratio = 200
Infantry have
Move Ratio = 100
Maybe if we just make the armored trains equal 100 that would solve the problem.
I didn't know they currently affected all infantry in the stack. I might have used them more frequently...
Move ratio = 200 is better than 100... i'm not sure it's there we should MOD if we want that it goes faster as currently. We will test it.
BTW, yes, they are now supposed to behave like supply chariots too.
REVOLUTION UNDER SIEGE GOLD
TheDoctorKing wrote:I would still like to make Lenin a normal leader (he can still be locked).
Of course.
TheDoctorKing wrote:Improve the standard Red leader (I'm willing to edit half of the model files if you will do the others!)
OK
, let's do it...I will do it, we will loose more time to merge our files.
TheDoctorKing wrote:Make the Red and White Guard units either not so troublesome or give some way to avoid their most terrible effects.
Hope you agree now with the forgotten details above, if not, we do like you wish.
OK. To test immediately on the field at the start.TheDoctorKing wrote:Change the movement of the armored trains and give them the supply unit advantage if possible.
TheDoctorKing wrote:Oh, and I'm OK with adding artillerist to the armored train abilities (maybe only for the heavy ones? Or make the heavy ones even better?) There's got to be some reason why we would have those things.
I'm gathering all the last changes in this Mini-MOD :
http://www.ageod.net/agewiki/A_RUS_wishlist_mini-MODs_workshop#Mini-MOD_.22Abilities_.26_Statistics_units_improvements.22
Wait a bit that i finish to brainstorm and list them before validating.
TheDoctorKing wrote:Pick a side.
Give me a good reason to do so
TheDoctorKing wrote:Oh, and we should do AAR's. You can do yours in French; plenty of people read French around here for some strange reason...
Aliens and cockroaches are French, so we are everywhere
!Let's do AARs, with pleasure.
TheDoctorKing wrote:We promise not to read each other's AAR's of course. Until afterwards.
Come on, of course : we are "old school" & loyal gentlegamers
REVOLUTION UNDER SIEGE GOLD
-
TheDoctorKing
- Posts: 1664
- Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2008 12:56 pm
- Location: Portland Oregon
andatiep wrote:
Aliens and cockroaches are French, so we are everywhere
The villain in the science fiction novel I'm working on is always cursing in French. She is Québécoise, though...
The aliens are sort of British. Very imperial and colonial and pretty much at a loss to understand all these weird humans.
Stewart King
"There is no substitute for victory"
Depends on how you define victory.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
"There is no substitute for victory"
Depends on how you define victory.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Return to “PBEM and multiplayer matchups (all games)”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 21 guests