ERISS wrote:The AGE game engine is not good here as is was not made for more than 2 sides, but there may be a bug in your game too. Too, like so many other features, the end game is not enough well explained, many texts should be added/completed.
If nobody can win by city numbers main goal, then that's by victory points.
Whites win if their total is superior to the Red.
Then the real king among the whites is who entered Moscow first (cossaks and others 'false white' don't count, it must be 'true white' unit). If none, the true white winer is who has the most VPs.
About the 'united reds', I think the main dev was politically too kind, as in April 18, the few times when there was this red unity, it was made against the russians anarchists that were surprisely raided by both bolcheviks and socialists hand-in-hand:
Like in Spain 36, anarchists were too naive about the left so brotherhood; the left allies with anarchists to smash them first. Left means being republican, and so since more than 2 thousand years, republicans are against democracy (despite what they say since 2 hundred years, bourgeois and even monarchists telling lies like then commies following them).
Durk wrote:I do have a suggestion for you if you prefer playing against the AI, play both White factions. There is no reason you can only play a single faction.
To do this, select one faction, say Western Whites. Make their move and save. Exit the game
Then come in as the Eastern Whites and make their move and save, then run the turn.
If you next move the Eastern Whites and save, then go to the Western Whites and run the game, you will be able to watch every other turn of each faction resolve.
This way you can play and coordinate the White factions. While they are not able to actually support each other, you can make a much more coordianted offense.
I think you will not mind the minor flaws once you begin to enjoy the play of the game. It is one my favorite titles because is has acurracy and depth not available in any other game which examines this era.
Durk wrote:
I think you will not mind the minor flaws once you begin to enjoy the play of the game. It is one my favorite titles because is has acurracy and depth not available in any other game which examines this era.
SMikh wrote:Durk wrote:
I think you will not mind the minor flaws once you begin to enjoy the play of the game. It is one my favorite titles because is has acurracy and depth not available in any other game which examines this era.
Durk, your post was ahead of mine. But I couldn't have said it better, especially in English
Kulak Scum, you scored more VPs than reds. Do not pay attention to the message on the game screen.
You are the winner!
I want to add that in AGEod games the process is much more important and fun than the result!!
Another words - it does not matter "who is a winner".
Kulak Scum wrote:
Good sugestion but it would be more time consuming. You are right about the uniqueness of this game but I still think it could have been massively improved by the addition of some less complicated features.
Kulak Scum wrote:it would be understandable for the game to have issues but the Gold Pack release in 2015
ERISS wrote:FieldOfGlory:Empires :
RUS Platinum, España 1936 Cloth Edition
Kulak Scum wrote:Thank you for the answer, good sir. Now, in regards to "the process is much more important and fun than the result!" there is some truth to that but it should be noted that it's far less motivating to go through the process if the result is obscure and relative.
Kulak Scum wrote:One of the reasons I play turn based strategy games like Total War and especially Ageod is that it allows me to achieve a different What If, alternate historical scenario (something which may be as irrelevant and problematic as it is fun). You don't get this satisfaction if the end game and victory screen is botched up.
Durk wrote:I do think this game has very clear goals and objectives. I do find it odd to compare it to Strategic Command, which is a lot of fun and which I play, as Strategic Command is kind of a historical simulation with a lot of fudging and fluff, while Russia under Siege gold is historical simulation where a good study of the Russian conflict helps you play better.
Do not get me wrong, I love games like Strategic Command because it is accessible and easy to play. But there is a difference between historically imaginative games which almost yield historical what ifs and historically grounded games which allow historical parameters of outcomes and possibilities.
Part of why RUS Gold may not be as popular, which I do not have any idea about popular or not, is that it is very challenging. This is not a simple game to play. Just managing the Red political challenges is a whole commitment of engagement. But if a player wishes to learn the history of the Russian Revolution, play this game with a solid text as a supporting document.
Edorf74 wrote:In that case I can understand that some people may find some areas of the game debatable. This surfaced on a thread on the RUS forum on Steam.
Edorf74 wrote:I haven`played the game yet, but:
As far as I can understand the devs of RUS Gold didn`t rely on solid texts only as background material for the game but they seemingly also relied heavily on Wikipedia(!) as a historical source. In that case I can understand that some people may find some areas of the game debatable. This surfaced on a thread on the RUS forum on Steam.
Nikel wrote:Edorf74 wrote:I haven`played the game yet, but:
As far as I can understand the devs of RUS Gold didn`t rely on solid texts only as background material for the game but they seemingly also relied heavily on Wikipedia(!) as a historical source. In that case I can understand that some people may find some areas of the game debatable. This surfaced on a thread on the RUS forum on Steam.
Which are those blatant historical fails in the game?
Edorf74 wrote:I haven`played the game yet, but:
As far as I can understand the devs of RUS Gold didn`t rely on solid texts only as background material for the game but they seemingly also relied heavily on Wikipedia(!) as a historical source. In that case I can understand that some people may find some areas of the game debatable. This surfaced on a thread on the RUS forum on Steam.
Edorf74 wrote: Other than that the game seems interesting and I`m planning to play it soon.
Durk wrote:If the Red player understands how to form divisions and armies under political officers, which is a mystery to most players for a long time, then the game is very balanced. Maybe it is even slightly favorable to the Red side as a solid Red player can take advantage of the optimum options/cards. These are hard for a casual player to play well, as it is hard for a casual player to keep armies in political control.
The Red player must deploy his motivated units in such a way as to win early and then to shift to fronts which matter. Between three players of equal abiltity, the Reds ought to win baring really unfortunate luck.
I should amend this to say, between three players who all understand RUS well, the Red should win. Between three equally matched players who are not familiar with the unique production, recruitment (of prisoners) and such, the Whites will win.
Baris wrote:In late beta test I played 3 player pbem with the other testers. Red player resigned because of lack troops and lack of leaders to command Red troops.
I played another 2 pbem game as Reds with good 3-players maybe a year ago, they command whites. Still not convinced all these years Reds have the numbers and the power to defeat All Whites Poles and both Whites too much to handle for Red player. I think Eastern Whites a bit overpowered. The other White faction is ok. Recruitment pool of Reds is not enough with all factories build.
Return to “Revolution Under Siege”
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest