RE: Fatal Years for 1.03

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: Fatal Years for 1.03

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War I] >> Revolution Under Siege Gold >> Mods and Scenarios >> RE: Fatal Years for 1.03

Page: << < prev 22 23 24 [25] 26 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Fatal Years for 1.03 - 9/11/2011 7:22:53 PM

JJKettunen

Posts: 3530
Joined: 3/12/2002
From: Finland
Status: offline

Yay!

_____________________________

Jyri Kettunen

The eternal privilege of those who never act themselves: to interrogate, be dissatisfied, find fault.

- A. Solzhenitsyn

(in reply to Chilperic)

Post #: 721

RE: Fatal Years for 1.03 - 9/11/2011 7:56:05 PM

Chilperic

Posts: 964
Joined: 3/21/2010
Status: offline

I've got a new idea for the Absorbfaction command, for Anarchist/Bolshevik alliance.

The alliance could be simulated by absorbtion of Anarchists by Reds.

The end of the alliance would be much more tricky, because there's not Splitfaction command. But what could be done:

- recreating a new ANA faction
- killing ana units turned Red
- creating new anarchist units in a region which would become the ANA heartland, that could be Huliapole or another, if Huliaipole is under White control.

Of course, depleted Ana Red units would come back at full strenght ( no possibility to link both) but it would be more satisfying than the current option and would avoid gamey tactic to send Ana units to certain death...

What do you think?

_____________________________

(in reply to JJKettunen)

Post #: 722

RE: Fatal Years for 1.03 - 9/11/2011 8:57:21 PM

JJKettunen

Posts: 3530
Joined: 3/12/2002
From: Finland
Status: offline

Interesting. From what I've read wouldn't deleting all ANA-units be the most "historical" choice?

edit: with all ANA-units I mean those that had allied with the Reds.

< Message edited by Keke -- 9/11/2011 9:17:07 PM >

_____________________________

Jyri Kettunen

The eternal privilege of those who never act themselves: to interrogate, be dissatisfied, find fault.

- A. Solzhenitsyn

(in reply to Chilperic)

Post #: 723

RE: Fatal Years for 1.03 - 9/11/2011 10:36:04 PM

Chilperic

Posts: 964
Joined: 3/21/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Keke

Interesting. From what I've read wouldn't deleting all ANA-units be the most "historical" choice?

edit: with all ANA-units I mean those that had allied with the Reds.

Alliance: all ANA units become Red. Played by Red.

Alliance broken: all ANA units under Red control are removed. New ANA faction is created, driven by AI, with new ANA units. BTW, Grigoriev reappears as Green and no more Anarchist: so he becomes a Makhno opponent

Of course, alliancemay occur only until the end of 1920: Kronstadt anarchists will be spared by alliance.

The alliance will be broken by an event at the end of 1920 if Red or Anarchists haven't yet chosen to break the alliance...

_____________________________

(in reply to JJKettunen)

Post #: 724

RE: Fatal Years for 1.03 - 9/11/2011 10:47:21 PM

JJKettunen

Posts: 3530
Joined: 3/12/2002
From: Finland
Status: offline

So you have done it already?

I was thinking that the anarchists were such an independent force that the current implementation is the best approach.

I hope you are just not too keen to use the Absorbfaction command.

_____________________________

Jyri Kettunen

The eternal privilege of those who never act themselves: to interrogate, be dissatisfied, find fault.

- A. Solzhenitsyn

(in reply to Chilperic)

Post #: 725

RE: Fatal Years for 1.03 - 9/11/2011 10:58:32 PM

Chilperic

Posts: 964
Joined: 3/21/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Keke

So you have done it already?

I was thinking that the anarchists were such an independent force that the current implementation is the best approach.

I hope you are just not too keen to use the Absorbfaction command.

Maybe

. The current system isn't sufficiently incentive to push Red player to use alliance option, because there are no possibilities to control ANA moves during the allinace period. Now, Red will get this reinfort, with NM cost, a possibility ANA breaks alliance, a strenghtened ANA once allinace is broken, and some large vP losses if ANA units are destroyed. As much to avoid gamey tactics. And in some ways, the recreation of a new anarchist military force will avoid other gaey use of ANA. But in other hand, alliance with ANA will limit Red desertion to Anarchist when the Alliance is enforced in Southern Ukraine,that being a real bonus at start when reds haven't yet mobilized a large force during 1918 and the first part of 1919.

_____________________________

(in reply to JJKettunen)

Post #: 726

RE: Fatal Years for 1.03 - 9/11/2011 11:17:18 PM

JJKettunen

Posts: 3530
Joined: 3/12/2002
From: Finland
Status: offline

I have not played the Reds so I was not aware of that problem. The change sounds sensible to me.

_____________________________

Jyri Kettunen

The eternal privilege of those who never act themselves: to interrogate, be dissatisfied, find fault.

- A. Solzhenitsyn

(in reply to Chilperic)

Post #: 727

RE: Fatal Years for 1.03 - 9/12/2011 2:31:53 AM

Gnaeus

Posts: 22
Joined: 4/15/2011
Status: offline

Got the victory screen, not sure why since although the Siberian Whites were below 20 NM, the Southern Whites and Poland were very much alive. When I tried to access the victory screen from the message box, I got a CTD. Files attached.

AI observations: The main Southern White force in Novorossisk seemed pretty passive. The Siberians allowed me to send a corps along the northern rail line and take Omsk behind their main force.

Overall, the game seems to be working very well.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to JJKettunen)

Post #: 728

RE: Fatal Years for 1.03 - 9/12/2011 7:10:41 AM

Chilperic

Posts: 964
Joined: 3/21/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gnaeus

Got the victory screen, not sure why since although the Siberian Whites were below 20 NM, the Southern Whites and Poland were very much alive. When I tried to access the victory screen from the message box, I got a CTD. Files attached.

AI observations: The main Southern White force in Novorossisk seemed pretty passive. The Siberians allowed me to send a corps along the northern rail line and take Omsk behind their main force.

Overall, the game seems to be working very well.

That's because Freikorps has lost...Little factions were triggering premature victories and I believed to have cured this trouble...

It will in the next one.

_____________________________

(in reply to Gnaeus)

Post #: 729

RE: Fatal Years for 1.03 - 9/12/2011 7:26:18 AM

Krot

Posts: 25
Joined: 9/2/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Krot

quote:

ORIGINAL: Keke

quote:

ORIGINAL: Krot

Still have snow in Black Sea regions in late May 1919 but I will wait for the Sun, no problem.

Do note that I haven't changed the weather in and around Black Sea (it is not in the North or South Continental weather zone), so you are just having bad luck with the default values.

OK. Thank you for clarification.

Excuse me for revival of this topic. The Black Sea regions I mentioned vaguely in my post was in fact sole Novorossiysk region which belongs to the South weather zone in RUS and so it had snow in late May. Other unusually snowy littoral Southern regions were Azov Sea and Caspian Sea regions. I forgot to say that most of other Russian and Baltic regions turned green only in June.

(in reply to Krot)

Post #: 730

RE: Fatal Years for 1.03 - 9/12/2011 8:31:30 AM

Krot

Posts: 25
Joined: 9/2/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chliperic

quote:

ORIGINAL: Keke

So you have done it already?

I was thinking that the anarchists were such an independent force that the current implementation is the best approach.

I hope you are just not too keen to use the Absorbfaction command.

Maybe. The current system isn't sufficiently incentive to push Red player to use alliance option, because there are no possibilities to control ANA moves during the allinace period. Now, Red will get this reinfort, with NM cost, a possibility ANA breaks alliance, a strenghtened ANA once allinace is broken, and some large vP losses if ANA units are destroyed. As much to avoid gamey tactics. And in some ways, the recreation of a new anarchist military force will avoid other gaey use of ANA. But in other hand, alliance with ANA will limit Red desertion to Anarchist when the Alliance is enforced in Southern Ukraine,that being a real bonus at start when reds haven't yet mobilized a large force during 1918 and the first part of 1919.

This new perspective of temporary ANA-Red alliance looks rather tempting. In fact RCW saw other "unthinkable" coalitions:

Latvians, Freikorps and Russian Western army against Reds to capture Riga.

Ukrainians (Petlyura) allied with Poles against Reds.

Bolsheviks allied with Ukrainian Galician Army and Lithuanians to fight Poles.

Bolsheviks allied with Greens (in RUS terms) in Ukraine and Novorossia (Grigoriev) in 1919, Crimea (Orlov) in 1920.

In 1919-1920 Bolsheviks allied with anti-Kolchak SRs (whole divisions of ex-Kolchak turncoats fought for Red cause after anti-Kolchak coup) and Greens (peasant partisans) in Siberia.

To fight Whites Bolsheviks allied with anti-Russian religious and nationalist movements in North Caucasus (anti-Russian Moslem tribes like Chechens), Bashkiria and Central Asia.

There were also potential "unholy" alliances which are not present in RUS - most probably between Denikin and Ukrainians and/or Poles.

So implementing this feature has great potential on one hand and opens the can of worms on the other.

(in reply to Chilperic)

Post #: 731

RE: Fatal Years for 1.03 - 9/12/2011 9:03:08 AM

Chilperic

Posts: 964
Joined: 3/21/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Krot

So implementing this feature has great potential on one hand and opens the can of worms on the other.

You're right, but fortunately, I'm not about to use anymore the absorbfaction command

because it would create much more problems with other factions.

In FY, Russian western Army and Freikorps are belonging to the same faction. Latvians aren't indeed but changing them in independant faction would deprive Southern Whites from real control about Balt regions, creating large gameplay problem.

Ukraine and Poland alliance seems to me not necessary as Poland and Ukraine are only AI factions. There's a new event warming relations between both if Ukraine has lost heavily.

Galician Army alliance with red is covered by FY prisonner recruitment rules, with new units.

Grigoriev will be first ANA, and so allied to red, then Green opposing Reds.

Red alliance with green is somewaht taken into account by subeversion RGD, Red partisans rules; Not really close to reality, but working.

SR desertions are simulated by prisoners rules too

Southern Whites may all with Ukrainian in FY since long ( January 2010). I will not use absorb command because it would be a nightmare to break the alliance and this sort of alliance would have been more a purely opportunistic one, when Red and Ana had at least in common some ideological common beliefs. So a simple ceasefire would be closer to reality without direct control of Ukrainina units by Whites.

_____________________________

(in reply to Krot)

Post #: 732

RE: Fatal Years for 1.03 - 9/12/2011 11:58:33 AM

JJKettunen

Posts: 3530
Joined: 3/12/2002
From: Finland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Krot

quote:

ORIGINAL: Krot

quote:

ORIGINAL: Keke

quote:

ORIGINAL: Krot

Still have snow in Black Sea regions in late May 1919 but I will wait for the Sun, no problem.

Do note that I haven't changed the weather in and around Black Sea (it is not in the North or South Continental weather zone), so you are just having bad luck with the default values.

OK. Thank you for clarification.

Excuse me for revival of this topic. The Black Sea regions I mentioned vaguely in my post was in fact sole Novorossiysk region which belongs to the South weather zone in RUS and so it had snow in late May. Other unusually snowy littoral Southern regions were Azov Sea and Caspian Sea regions. I forgot to say that most of other Russian and Baltic regions turned green only in June.

Novorossiysk is indeed in the South Continental weather zone and Baltics in the northern. It sounds like the problem I had with the first version of the weather mod, ie. May being too wintery. It may be that Clovis hasn't included the latest version, so just in case I attach it here. Extract the contents into the Weathers-folder.

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Jyri Kettunen

The eternal privilege of those who never act themselves: to interrogate, be dissatisfied, find fault.

- A. Solzhenitsyn

(in reply to Krot)

Post #: 733

RE: Fatal Years for 1.03 - 9/12/2011 12:07:25 PM

Krot

Posts: 25
Joined: 9/2/2011
Status: offline

I see your points Clovis. Playing RUS I often forget that it is just a game with its inherent limitations and simplifications. These are unavoidable. Sigh.
The only difference of RUS (FY mod version) from other PC games is that it is the best game to my taste so far.

(in reply to Chilperic)

Post #: 734

RE: Fatal Years for 1.03 - 9/12/2011 12:13:14 PM

Krot

Posts: 25
Joined: 9/2/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Keke

quote:

ORIGINAL: Krot

quote:

ORIGINAL: Krot

quote:

ORIGINAL: Keke

quote:

ORIGINAL: Krot

Still have snow in Black Sea regions in late May 1919 but I will wait for the Sun, no problem.

Do note that I haven't changed the weather in and around Black Sea (it is not in the North or South Continental weather zone), so you are just having bad luck with the default values.

OK. Thank you for clarification.

Excuse me for revival of this topic. The Black Sea regions I mentioned vaguely in my post was in fact sole Novorossiysk region which belongs to the South weather zone in RUS and so it had snow in late May. Other unusually snowy littoral Southern regions were Azov Sea and Caspian Sea regions. I forgot to say that most of other Russian and Baltic regions turned green only in June.

Novorossiysk is indeed in the South Continental weather zone and Baltics in the northern. It sounds like the problem I had with the first version of the weather mod, ie. May being too wintery. It may be that Clovis hasn't included the latest version, so just in case I attach it here. Extract the contents into the Weathers-folder.

Thank you Keke.

(in reply to JJKettunen)

Post #: 735

RE: Fatal Years for 1.03 - 9/12/2011 12:43:52 PM

Krot

Posts: 25
Joined: 9/2/2011
Status: offline

Southern Whites may all with Ukrainian in FY since long ( January 2010). I will not use absorb command because it would be a nightmare to break the alliance and this sort of alliance would have been more a purely opportunistic one, when Red and Ana had at least in common some ideological common beliefs. So a simple ceasefire would be closer to reality without direct control of Ukrainina units by Whites.

[/quote]

Good news (for me at least

). I am yet to see that option as Southern Whites. I have just approached Kiev and may hope that it will make Petlyura wise enough to ask for an armistice.
As for the possibilities of such temporary ceasefires between minor factions it would be great if AI could cope with it. In my current game Poles, Freicorps and NW Whites allied with Balts bleed each other clearing the way for Bolshevik onslaught. May be it could be triggered via events. For example: Freicorps in peace with Balts and NW Whites (BTW the latter never fought against Freikorps) if the Reds keep Riga and/or Tallinn and/or Vilnius.

(in reply to Chilperic)

Post #: 736

RE: Fatal Years for 1.03 - 9/12/2011 12:54:22 PM

Chilperic

Posts: 964
Joined: 3/21/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Krot

Southern Whites may all with Ukrainian in FY since long ( January 2010). I will not use absorb command because it would be a nightmare to break the alliance and this sort of alliance would have been more a purely opportunistic one, when Red and Ana had at least in common some ideological common beliefs. So a simple ceasefire would be closer to reality without direct control of Ukrainina units by Whites.

Good news (for me at least

I know, rather costly, but mandatory

I will study your proposal. Poland and Freikorps will not ( Germany and Poland were in the same time at war for Silesia) but it could indeed be added for Freikorps/S; Whites ( and its subfactions of course

)

_____________________________

(in reply to Krot)

Post #: 737

RE: Fatal Years for 1.03 - 9/12/2011 1:15:44 PM

Krot

Posts: 25
Joined: 9/2/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chliperic

quote:

ORIGINAL: Krot

To ally with Ukraine, you must play first Recognize independance option

I know, rather costly, but mandatory

Oh no, it is too great sacrifice for my old good Ice March veterans. In fact Petlyura after series of defeats in Summer and Autumn of 1919 became rather modest and talked about confederation. But not a big deal.

(in reply to Chilperic)

Post #: 738

RE: Fatal Years for 1.03 - 9/12/2011 1:19:24 PM

Krot

Posts: 25
Joined: 9/2/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chliperic

[
As for the possibilities of such temporary ceasefires between minor factions it would be great if AI could cope with it. In my current game Poles, Freicorps and NW Whites allied with Balts bleed each other clearing the way for Bolshevik onslaught. May be it could be triggered via events. For example: Freicorps in peace with Balts and NW Whites (BTW the latter never fought against Freikorps) if the Reds keep Riga and/or Tallinn and/or Vilnius.

)

Absolutely agree with you on Poles and Freicorps. I meant armistices:
1) between Freicorps and Balts/NW Whites and 2) between Poles and Balts/Whites. The latter is rather dubious and needs some research and tweaking because Poles may oppose Whites in Ukraine and Belorussia.

(in reply to Chilperic)

Post #: 739

RE: Fatal Years for 1.03 - 9/12/2011 2:05:08 PM

JJKettunen

Posts: 3530
Joined: 3/12/2002
From: Finland
Status: offline

This is a really strange problem. I have tried to overrun Ekaterinodar with overwhelming forces, but my 2 armies have refused to move into the region for 2 turns now!

Saves attached.

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Jyri Kettunen

The eternal privilege of those who never act themselves: to interrogate, be dissatisfied, find fault.

- A. Solzhenitsyn

(in reply to Krot)

Post #: 740

RE: Fatal Years for 1.03 - 9/12/2011 3:54:37 PM

Chilperic

Posts: 964
Joined: 3/21/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Keke

This is a really strange problem. I have tried to overrun Ekaterinodar with overwhelming forces, but my 2 armies have refused to move into the region for 2 turns now!

Saves attached.

I don't understand why for now. maybe it's tied to the Kuban problem now solved after White unfication.

Next version soon. Will deliver the new ANA alliance and a way to counterbalance lack of war declaration b Reds against Balts.

If Reds don't declare war to Balts, and if the AIL is at least 6, there's a small random chance Balt, Yudenich and possibly Finland will enter war, as REd passivity will be interpreted by France and Great Britain as sign of weakness. The Reds will lose too a lot of NM. If Red has played before the Concession to Balt option, the AIL will need to be at least 9.

Until now, the lack of Red declaration of war is a large advantage as it stops much of the activity around Petrograd when Whites are limited in their activity by lack of proper territory and the independance prerequisite. The possibility of a large Western Allied action in the Baltic, comparable to the aborted French attempt in Ukraine in ate 18, is sufficient to offer this new challnege for Reds, as the Red passivity could have been seen as a promise of short and decisive action against a debilitated foe.

_____________________________

(in reply to JJKettunen)

Post #: 741

RE: Fatal Years for 1.03 - 9/12/2011 3:59:20 PM

JJKettunen

Posts: 3530
Joined: 3/12/2002
From: Finland
Status: offline

Regarding the Balts I wouldn't mind if the Red AI declaration of war was near automatic.

_____________________________

Jyri Kettunen

The eternal privilege of those who never act themselves: to interrogate, be dissatisfied, find fault.

- A. Solzhenitsyn

(in reply to Chilperic)

Post #: 742

RE: Fatal Years for 1.03 - 9/12/2011 4:10:06 PM

Chilperic

Posts: 964
Joined: 3/21/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Keke

Regarding the Balts I wouldn't mind if the Red AI declaration of war was near automatic.

I prefer let the choice to the Red. More variety

_____________________________

(in reply to JJKettunen)

Post #: 743

RE: Fatal Years for 1.03 - 9/12/2011 4:26:20 PM

JJKettunen

Posts: 3530
Joined: 3/12/2002
From: Finland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chliperic

quote:

ORIGINAL: Keke

Regarding the Balts I wouldn't mind if the Red AI declaration of war was near automatic.

I prefer let the choice to the Red. More variety

Yes, it is a decision for the Reds, but what I meant is that when it is AI controlled, the probability for declaration of war against the Balts could be a bit higher.

_____________________________

Jyri Kettunen

The eternal privilege of those who never act themselves: to interrogate, be dissatisfied, find fault.

- A. Solzhenitsyn

(in reply to Chilperic)

Post #: 744

RE: Fatal Years for 1.03 - 9/12/2011 5:48:33 PM

Chilperic

Posts: 964
Joined: 3/21/2010
Status: offline

This version will not be compatible with ongoing games.

2 major changes:

- first the Red/anarchist alliance has been reworked: when the option is enforced, Red player will control Anarchist units, until he ends the Alliance or the Anarchists break it. Yes they can, especially if you try to use Anarchist units outside Ukraine theater.

When the Alliance is denounced, Anarchists find back their independence and units. Your own Anarchist units will disappear.

This will seem a little cumbersome but the engine doesn�t give possibility to give some units to another faction. You have to destroy the units and create new with same name. Better than nothing and it should give real incentive for Reds to ally with Makhno.

2nd major change:

If Red player doesn�t attack Balt, there�s a chance Balt and possibly Finns enter war against Red, with Yudenich army. Freikorps will not be active in this situation ( Western Allied having cured the Freikorp problem). Reds will lose NM and face a dangerous situation , especially if Finns are joining the fight.

The event will fire only if AIL is 6 or more, or 9 and more if Reds have played the option concession to the Balts.

This new rule will help to counterbalance the bonus Red player gets by letting the Balt front in peace to concentrate against other opponents. It�s now a bet, Red having some tools to limit the risk by lowering the AIL.

Other changes affect Southern Whites AI and some glitches fixed.

When this version will be stable, I will open a new thread

_____________________________

(in reply to JJKettunen)

Post #: 745

RE: Fatal Years for 1.03 - 9/13/2011 2:07:16 AM

SirGarnet

Posts: 11
Joined: 4/10/2010
Status: offline

I downloaded an update on the 7th of September last week - is there a more recent version available that is still compatible with an ongoing game?

Thanks!

(in reply to Chilperic)

Post #: 746

RE: Fatal Years for 1.03 - 9/13/2011 6:16:35 AM

Chilperic

Posts: 964
Joined: 3/21/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: MikeKO

I downloaded an update on the 7th of September last week - is there a more recent version available that is still compatible with an ongoing game?

Thanks!

Hi,

you will find on my blog a file named Version for MikeKO. It's the last version of FY compatible with ongoing games.

_____________________________

(in reply to SirGarnet)

Post #: 747

RE: Fatal Years for 1.03 - 9/13/2011 9:43:46 AM

SirGarnet

Posts: 11
Joined: 4/10/2010
Status: offline

Thank you Sir!

(in reply to Chilperic)

Post #: 748

RE: Fatal Years for 1.03 - 9/13/2011 12:13:32 PM

Chilperic

Posts: 964
Joined: 3/21/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: MikeKO

Thank you Sir!

It needed just 2 minutes

_____________________________

(in reply to SirGarnet)

Post #: 749

RE: Fatal Years for 1.03 - 9/13/2011 9:32:33 PM

gamer78

Posts: 536
Joined: 8/17/2011
Status: offline

Fixing the ammo expenditure in battles did really made difference in ROP and WIA that I have tested. So no wild ideas or fantasies about ammo depends on foreign intervention !

After some battles ammo just get scarce as much as in ROP as in WIA to almost zero percent after heavy skirmish

. It will delay some quick counter offensive battles , I hope They also make a quick fix about that in Rus if Rus devs coordinate or read the forums about the hotfix!

(in reply to Chilperic)

Post #: 750