Chilperic
Posts: 964
Joined: 3/21/2010
Status: offline
|
Why Regional decisions aren’t available on the first turn in FY?
As the question has been raised in another forum I will not use anymore ( except for reading because of patches and bugs reports), I will reply here. He would have been much simpler to ask directly to me or on a forum where I may reply, but there are so much things bizarre in life :-)
First, for the Southern Whites, the question is irrelevant as they don't control anyone of the key regions for implementing conscriptions or requisitions at the start off the GC.
Then , Siberians: as I've explained, they begin the game with huge new units coming by events into play in the first turns of the game. These units aren't equipped, armed and fed from nothing. So, to balance the game, with overpowered Siberian, I decided to allow RGDs for this faction from the 4th tuern.
Last, Reds. Bosheviks were convinced to have won the Civil war in May 18. They were struck by surprise with the Czech Legion incident, Komuch appearance, and unexpected offensive in the Kuban with the tiny Denikin's force. As Rgds represent abstractly an eexceptional effort to support larger war operations, it wasn't right to allow Bolsheviks to undertake them before the danger erupted, ie at the beginning of the second turn.
This change hasn't a relation to AI behaviour. One point some are missing is FY isn't an AI mod. It's a mod whose first objective belongs to enhancing my gaming experience. Yes, mine. A good mod or a good game is always one his creator/dev/modder plays and like playing. If not, it becomes either a pure engine development, and a great engine isn't producing by itself great games, or a simple way to earn money. AACW or BOA were very enjoyable game because the GC were great scenarios. Hannibal is a game which has obviously been played by his dev.
SO where is my pleasure? First by having something close too reality. Mileage may vary of course on the exact level of realism. Let's say I'm convinced a great game isn't the most detailed but the one seizing even by abstract ways, the flavour of the period.
Let me take one example: the official RUS version limits requisitions and conscriptions to areas where loyalty is 51% at worst for you...Game killer for me. Why requisitions, which are just stealing goods, can't be done in conquered regions? Realism is for me dead here, and I wouldn't play it, as I will never play a Paradox game, not because they are poor games but because they have turned down for long any real care for the minimal realism concern I expect.
Then, and only then, I enjoy games when the opposition is strong. Playing ROP 1.1 or NCP, I just felt I had won against AI after the first 15 turns, the glossy errors of my computer opponent being not only fatal for it, but just incredible, the worst general in the history having never actedas poorly.
A good AI is for me the condition to have a credible simulation of the reality of the war. When boardgame values belongs only in the rules, the computer wargame has to deal with AI behaviour to create this feeling of simulation of RL I'm looking for.
I know how to reach partially the second point. If not, I would play other games.
I could add many things: the King AAR is vbased on the idea it's gamey to provoke Green revolts by gds on regions about to be conquered by another faction. I just think this idea is historically wrong; most of the requisitions and conscriptions were done immediatly in the vicinity of the fronts and both sides used agitators and propaganda to raise peasants revolts without having on them a crisp political and military control. Often, the armed bands would reveal themselves a future annoyance for those having helped to create them... And a green revolt was sometimes just the result of a Bolshevik subversion effort undertaken under a fake ideological identity, when communism wasn't popular. Politics are complex, and I've learnt how Russians are gidted in politics, shadow hands and all this stuff...
So the practice is just gamey in his mind. On gameplay purpose, it's of course a player's rational decision when the reality was just a blend of necessity, bad luck, wrong appreciation of reality, or unexpected defeat. In any case, it reinforces the realism of FY. Talk to Denikin of the Green bands on the rear of his advancing forces in October 19, or to trotski about the armed bands of Siberia, who plagued the country with rampant banditism until 1924-1925. The Makhno history, once you have debunked myth, is just that: a band of peasants Reds tried to use because of necessity but who had their own agenda. the only difference with some Green movements was the Anarchist ideology they adopted. Other Green movements were used by Reds, or Whites. That's all.That's much about the differences between FY and the regular RUS.
< Message edited by Chliperic -- 8/25/2011 5:41:22 PM >
_____________________________
|
Printable Version
RE: Fatal Years for 1.03 - 
). But I'm as any touchy looney 
and this forum has interesting smileys . 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread