Questions on House Rules for Recognize Independence

[Altaris]

From various readings on this board and discussions with other RUS players, it's my understanding that most players find the Recognize Independence option the Southern Whites can take to be broken and unbalanced. In the little exposure I've had to MP games, we've always played with it off.

I am about to start up a new game with some buddies, and we're discussing whether to allow it, and if so, what house rules might be needed.

Just as a first-draft idea, I was thinking of this set of possible house rules, but I'm not familiar enough with the game to know whether it's a decent solution or not, looking for feedback here.

Proposed House Rules
- Only 1 of the sub-factions can be activated per year, and Finns cannot be chosen prior to 1/1/1920. So, for example, Baltics could be activated in 1919, then Finns in 1920, and lastly Georgians in 1921.
- Each time a sub-faction is activated, the Southern Whites must be lower than 75 NM, and the Reds must be higher than 80. In this way, it won't be quite so much a dog-pile on the Reds, and would make more sense from a historical standpoint.
- Ukrainians are not subject to these house rules (since they have a pretty harsh penalty already, for fairly small benefit).

[lodilefty]

I can understand the feeling that this set of options creates an imbalance, but WHAT is it that is "broken"?

Be sure you apply tehe latest QwikFix, as at least one of the tooltips for this was incorrect...

I can't fix what I can't see.....

There are some significant penalties to the White NM when they choose these.

If the community can reach a consensus, I'm willing to add constraints to the "activation" options [NM below/above, earliest starting date, more/less penalty/benefit].

[Baris]

As playing Southern whites in SP against Reds I have only called balts and formed 80 k men army near Psikov. Antonov formed about the same size and defated me (Denikin) near Luga. In siberia Red AI control KAzan,Samara,Perm and Ekaterinburg with NM 119. I have 57 and Siberians have 75 NM. I control Don,north Caucasia and most of the Ukraine except Krakov.
I think Siberian performance in Pbem can be important. But southern whites NM penalty I think ok.

[Altaris]

I'm not familiar enough with the game to speak to exact details, but my understanding is that the Reds are stretched thin enough as it is at the beginning of 1919, and if the Southern Whites activate this option, they quickly overwhelm the Reds unless the Red player is both lucky and already doing well against his opponents. I also hear the Finns are the biggest issue, as they can quickly bring several thousand CP to bear under very good leadership on Petrograd (the loss of which would significantly even the morale penalty for activating the Finns).

To me, it seems that there are some better approaches that could take place with this event. Historically, the Whites would not have taken these options unless they really felt the situation was dire. I think there should be a significant VP hit in addition to the NM hit, and a per-turn reduction in VP as well, to represent the hit to the White "cause" this would make. This would be a good reason for requiring NM to be below a certain level too... if Denekin had been winning against the Reds, there's no way this option would have even been under consideration. Also, spacing out how quickly the various sub-factions could be activated might help too... as it stands, the big CP penalty is in choosing to recognize independence in the first place, if you're going to do that, you might as well activate both the Finns and the Balts at the same time to maximize military benefit.

But that's just a rough opinion, I've only played one PBEM up to that point. I agree the NM penalties are pretty staunch, but if the Whites are already ahead in morale by 20 points or so, it's not nearly as big a deal.

[Baris]

Trainers should be added to Reds to get rid of concripts as it will make a difference. That can be a step.
Curently Low NM and a higher one doesn't make much of a difference related to cohesion. Whites have can have better cohesion via trainers even with much lower NM. And they have populated troops available for construction just like reds.
IMHO Balts,Fins and Caucasians are dangerous in that order. I think there is no need for an option for Ukraine neutrality as it is useless if not played by player.

[Pat "Stonewall" Cleburne]

I don't think it needs to be complicated. The only time FI is really dangerous is if the whites bring the Finns in as soon as possible. You could delay when they come in for a simple solution. If you wanted to be more complicated, you could phase their army buildup or unlocking.

[Searry]

It's not unbalanced. AGEOD games are always about the choices you make, so you can decide first to wipe out the Northern enemies and then start an offensive in the south and east for example, or you can just stay on the defensive on the north and have just enough troops to contain the enemies there. The Red player should always remember that it's recruit or die for him. Just remember that your forces grow bigger and bigger every year and you have to have patience to wait for the right time to strike against the enemy.

[le Anders]

The Reds problem is that they will lose the entire South up to an including Tzartsyn in the GC, with the way the Red Verdun activation now works. With that loss, they are significantly strategically weakened on the entire eastern front, and are too thinly spread across a much too large front.

TL;DR: Please bring back the Red Verduns the way they used to work.

Giving Reds more "Training Officers" is also a good idea, bupersonally I would perhaps add a new, buildable, "drill instructor" unit to the game, that will increase experience faster, or function in the way the trainers do.