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
ERISS wrote:You mean the russian peasants, who were not plundered in Ukraine by the germans.
In Ukraine peasantry hatred those monachists.
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.
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.
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.
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."?(from ultra-nationalist Charles Maurras)
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.
Return to “Revolution Under Siege”
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests