After playing through all the RCW Scenarios, i've been fully taken in by Drang Nach Osten-writing AAR's, Battleplans and the such
All the existing elements i praise highly, but that's besides the point
The Ally with the Whites option is realistic given the anti-german orientation of the Volunteer army-but could that be said of other White forces.
Bear in mind, family history and political orientation mean i cant stomach playing as the reds-so this post will be anti-Red heavy
Six points for possible improvement
1-Yudenich army (with full compliment) an option after taking Gdov for Germans
2-Northern army an option after taking Murmansk/Archangelsk
3-Southern Alternatives (Astrakhan army/SW army/Kuban Cossack Rada) an option after taking (Astrakhan/Kursk/Ekaterinodar) (at cost of war with Volunteer Whites)
4-Far Eastern scenarios (Japan/Siberian Whites)
5-Austro-Hungarian Collapse scenarios
6-Demobilisation Scenarios for Germany
The first four are just adding more to the game, and i can understand if the additional stress of the situation would mean they are unavailable even regarding an army cap. Managing all the German armies alone is ambitious,
The fifth is a bit further from RUS, as there are effectively six AH areas-but there would still be some options available, the Reds and Germany would hardly collapse in the same way. Either AH would be a separate player or it would add more options to the German side
Sixth one seems to be an option rarely taken-I tend not to use the Reserve corps very often (III & XIV armies). Bearing in mind the German agricultural system was crippled by taking quite so many men out of cultivation disbanding or turning these armies into reserves (which would theoretically keep working the land-allaying a food shortage) would be an option for a player seeking to have a smaller more replenisheable army.
I've a few ideas on how the details of such demobilisation would work, and as to whether it would be undo-able but it's certainly better than having them moping around the danube for no good reason.
I do realise it's quite a load, and perhaps ought to be divided into two (if not six) separate threads, i suppose one has to start somewhere
Roughly, concerning the whites-either the armies appear in German territory at the beginning of the game, they are set up within german territory as an option, or are available as an option after seizing (Astrakhan/Kursk/Murmansk-Archangel/Gdov)
It would probably make sense to tailor the approaches differently (doesnt make much sense to have a puppet Murmansk government)
Granted in the Alternate history Rodzianko, the SW and Astrakhan armies may have been swept away by 1918's end but Yudenich would have a far better chance at taking the north if he had German rather than British backers, plus-at least a year's more of preparation wouldnt damage his chances, under German control there would be no question of falling out with the Estonians or Finns.
The Northern army would have been set up on a smaller basis, barely even a divisional strength let alone an army.
I'd like to hear your thoughts about it
The Lev wrote:After playing through all the RCW Scenarios, i've been fully taken in by Drang Nach Osten-writing AAR's, Battleplans and the such
All the existing elements i praise highly, but that's besides the point
The Ally with the Whites option is realistic given the anti-german orientation of the Volunteer army-but could that be said of other White forces.
Bear in mind, family history and political orientation mean i cant stomach playing as the reds-so this post will be anti-Red heavy
Six points for possible improvement
1-Yudenich army (with full compliment) an option after taking Gdov for Germans
2-Northern army an option after taking Murmansk/Archangelsk
3-Southern Alternatives (Astrakhan army/SW army/Kuban Cossack Rada) an option after taking (Astrakhan/Kursk/Ekaterinodar) (at cost of war with Volunteer Whites)
4-Far Eastern scenarios (Japan/Siberian Whites)
5-Austro-Hungarian Collapse scenarios
6-Demobilisation Scenarios for Germany
The first four are just adding more to the game, and i can understand if the additional stress of the situation would mean they are unavailable even regarding an army cap. Managing all the German armies alone is ambitious,
The fifth is a bit further from RUS, as there are effectively six AH areas-but there would still be some options available, the Reds and Germany would hardly collapse in the same way. Either AH would be a separate player or it would add more options to the German side
Sixth one seems to be an option rarely taken-I tend not to use the Reserve corps very often (III & XIV armies). Bearing in mind the German agricultural system was crippled by taking quite so many men out of cultivation disbanding or turning these armies into reserves (which would theoretically keep working the land-allaying a food shortage) would be an option for a player seeking to have a smaller more replenisheable army.
I've a few ideas on how the details of such demobilisation would work, and as to whether it would be undo-able but it's certainly better than having them moping around the danube for no good reason.
I do realise it's quite a load, and perhaps ought to be divided into two (if not six) separate threads, i suppose one has to start somewhere
Roughly, concerning the whites-either the armies appear in German territory at the beginning of the game, they are set up within german territory as an option, or are available as an option after seizing (Astrakhan/Kursk/Murmansk-Archangel/Gdov)
It would probably make sense to tailor the approaches differently (doesnt make much sense to have a puppet Murmansk government)
Granted in the Alternate history Rodzianko, the SW and Astrakhan armies may have been swept away by 1918's end but Yudenich would have a far better chance at taking the north if he had German rather than British backers, plus-at least a year's more of preparation wouldnt damage his chances, under German control there would be no question of falling out with the Estonians or Finns.
The Northern army would have been set up on a smaller basis, barely even a divisional strength let alone an army.
I'd like to hear your thoughts about it
I don't know about Ageod, but for option 3 there were three armies in the south of Russia with a pro-German orientation that later became part of the Armed forces of South of Russia:
1. Astrakhan Army. They fought in the Manych steppes in 1918, and many officers would leave the Volunteer army since the Astrakhan Army had a Monarchist political orientation.
2. Russian People's Army(Saratov Corps): This army too was pro-German and fought near Tzaritsyn. Too became part of the Armed Forces of South of Russia.
3. South Army: Again pro-German, it fought between Novocherkassk and Voronezh. It received extensive support from Skoropadsky's Ukrainian Government both in money and in conscripts. Again Monarchist, it had greater popularity than the Volunteer army.
Realistically speaking, I heard that by the time these troops retreated each of these armies would have around 3000-4000 men in line. I am currently working on modding the Grand Campaign and what I did was in 1918 these armies join the Volunteer army as three brigades, each representing it's army.
At the same time, the political ideology of the Monarchist pro-German armies was far more attractive to both the peasantry, administration and the officers. Quite a number of officers left the Volunteer army and entered the pro-German armies, despite their antagonism to the Germans whom they still considered their enemies after 3 years of fighting and peace not signed by their recognized government.
For united Russia!
ERISS wrote:You mean the russian peasants, who were not plundered in Ukraine by the germans.
In Ukraine peasantry hatred those monachists.
As far as I know, Ukraine inclusive. Often if the people were ready to support anything that in their eyes was similar to the Czar. The Vorskla kingdom by Poltava is an example of this.
And I have not heard much on the Ukrainian population being plundered by the Germans, nor do I see the connection of the Germans to how much the people loved the Czar.
For united Russia!
Orel wrote:And I have not heard much on the Ukrainian population being plundered by the Germans, nor do I see the connection of the Germans to how much the people loved the Czar.
"the political ideology of the Monarchist pro-German armies": you told about the connection.
Don't you think Germany needed Ukraine for the peace&love? Makhnovists were known by paesants to give them back the lands of big owners who were supported by the Germans and monarchists. And some months later, peasants hurried the long german rout from Ukraine. Maybe paesants loved the tsar, but they disliked the monarchists: a tsar without monarchy would be ok I think
.ERISS wrote:"the political ideology of the Monarchist pro-German armies": you told about the connection.
Don't you think Germany needed Ukraine for the peace&love? Makhnovists were known by paesants to give them back the lands of big owners who were supported by the Germans and monarchists. And some months later, peasants hurried the long german rout from Ukraine. Maybe paesants loved the tsar, but they disliked the monarchists: a tsar without monarchy would be ok I think
The armies I mentioned were Russian, but they held a pro-German political orientation unlike Denikin's pro-Entente orientation.
Towards the large land owners: their lands were different than the peasant lands in terms of what they produced.
Makhno by the way, had support from the peasants also because he was the person closest to resembling the "Good Czar-father" that the peasants remembered. Even his title "Bat'ka" means father and is almost the same as what Czar was called before the revolution.
For united Russia!
Orel wrote:Makhno by the way, had support from the peasants also because he was the person closest to resembling the "Good Czar-father" that the peasants remembered. Even his title "Bat'ka" means father and is almost the same as what Czar was called before the revolution.
Czar is the respected father. Batko is more: the beloved, the one you talk about indeed.
Makno nobility comes from actions, nobility from parentage is short.
"Monarchy is anarchy plus one."?
(from ultra-nationalist Charles Maurras)ERISS wrote:Czar is the respected father. Batko is more: the beloved, the one you talk about indeed.
Makno nobility comes from actions, nobility from parentage is short.
"Monarchy is anarchy plus one."?
Eriss, you want to argue with me about the definitions for Russian words?
For united Russia!
-
The Lev
- Sergeant
- Posts: 67
- Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2012 10:15 pm
- Location: All over the place, Mostly Britian
Oh it would certainly be a costly procedure to expand these to anything like the army stacks the Germans start off with. Glad to hear you're modding the thing-
From what i've picked up in snippets of RCW sources, i think it was the South Army that seized/threatened Kursk at one point-Perhaps the best way to represent these units would be to copy the "Raise Finnish Division", with modifications-and enable it after holding any land in the "South Russia" grand region
Certainly having them as an additional political option would be a massive plus in the 1918 campaigns-there was much infighting amongst the southern whites in the early days before it was clear the AFSR became dominant
From what i've picked up in snippets of RCW sources, i think it was the South Army that seized/threatened Kursk at one point-Perhaps the best way to represent these units would be to copy the "Raise Finnish Division", with modifications-and enable it after holding any land in the "South Russia" grand region
Certainly having them as an additional political option would be a massive plus in the 1918 campaigns-there was much infighting amongst the southern whites in the early days before it was clear the AFSR became dominant
-
The Lev
- Sergeant
- Posts: 67
- Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2012 10:15 pm
- Location: All over the place, Mostly Britian
Orel wrote:
And I have not heard much on the Ukrainian population being plundered by the Germans, nor do I see the connection of the Germans to how much the people loved the Czar.
The "Plundering" was more mismanagement than anything-Germany made a deal with the Rada, the Rada did a poor job of delivering the grain it had promised, and tried to use the peasantry against the Germans, thus there was chaos-and the German and Austro-Hungarian units were told to make up for the Rada's shortfall by taking the food by force. The pro-Tzar regime of Skoropadsky lost a lot of support due to the difficult position it was installed under, despite earlier support from the breadmakers (Guild?) and various rural organisations, and the Rada kept on stirring up the peasants to revolt
Oh and all along the Rada disbanded anyone "Tainted" with military experience amongst officers, as well as dissuading organisations like that of the Free Cossacks (those veterans too old for front-line service who volunteered to keep the peace) due to their nationalist leanings
-
The Lev
- Sergeant
- Posts: 67
- Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2012 10:15 pm
- Location: All over the place, Mostly Britian
In Rural based economies traditional figures of authority would indeed be welcomed-problem with that would be that the decisions were mostly made in the urban centers, The paralell is an apt one-as the basic idea of the Tzar with regard to peasants would be a similar brand of paternalism. Essentially it's a similar type of authority in practice, while being a bit further away in theory.
-
The Lev
- Sergeant
- Posts: 67
- Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2012 10:15 pm
- Location: All over the place, Mostly Britian
I would as well, problem is i'm rather deficient in the programming side of modding, i've an idea of what and how-now i need to find a modder/modders with the skill to make it happen
Oh only after the appropriate decision, money, EP, war supply and what not
The Reds, well it stands to reason they should be able to create socialist republics in Romania, Hungary, Baltic states and what not-all at a cost-plus, sponsoring rebellions should definately be looked into
Oh only after the appropriate decision, money, EP, war supply and what not
The Reds, well it stands to reason they should be able to create socialist republics in Romania, Hungary, Baltic states and what not-all at a cost-plus, sponsoring rebellions should definately be looked into
The trainers don't train if they move in a given turn. Is that the issue?
One trainer will change two elements from conscript to regular (not up to elite, though). (A trainer will also change two elements of militia to conscript instead if that is all that is available.)
I'm not sure about the advisory unit. If I remember correctly it shows the trainer trait icon but has never worked for me either.
One trainer will change two elements from conscript to regular (not up to elite, though). (A trainer will also change two elements of militia to conscript instead if that is all that is available.)
I'm not sure about the advisory unit. If I remember correctly it shows the trainer trait icon but has never worked for me either.
Sorry, you solved it. I start a new one with the now actual patch 1.06c and this bug isn't there. So it was in 1.06 there, but in 1.06c it is solved.
I have a question about "ex-imperial officier". There is written that you get 10 Cohesion Bonus for regulars. What are regulars?
In my actual PBEM with the reds the inf and conscript inf didn't get some bonus and the elite in Moscow didn't get it, too.
I have a question about "ex-imperial officier". There is written that you get 10 Cohesion Bonus for regulars. What are regulars?
In my actual PBEM with the reds the inf and conscript inf didn't get some bonus and the elite in Moscow didn't get it, too.
If I remember correctly it just is your normal line infantry, not conscripts. It won't add cohesion points on automatically, if I understand it correctly, but rather raises your cohesion maximum up a bit. So you will have to wait a turn (with the unit resting) to see the benefit in cohesion points. But you can see the maximum potential raise immediately to test it.
All abilities concerning change of cohesion applied to specific types of units are currently not working (because of an AGE upgrade which was not yet updated in RUS).
Just imagine it work, while waiting for the next gold version which will fix it...
.
I can send some fix on demand but i would prefer to do it only for PBEM players preparing a long game. Otherwise it will delay the issue of the next global patch.
Just imagine it work, while waiting for the next gold version which will fix it...
.I can send some fix on demand but i would prefer to do it only for PBEM players preparing a long game. Otherwise it will delay the issue of the next global patch.
REVOLUTION UNDER SIEGE GOLD
Return to “Revolution Under Siege”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 23 guests