|
Chilperic -> RE: Fatal Years for 1.03 (8/19/2011 10:43:07 AM)
|
Red military reform option and the Fatal Years design
The militray reform initiated by Trotsky is hard to simulate.
Not for the effects, ie better quality for Red units. That’s simple.
What’s difficult is such an event is a no-brainer. Which player will play without a full game? Whatever the cost of the option, any Red player will try to enforce it soon.
Giving a very high cost is detrimental for balancing, as much resources will be devoted to fulfill the conditions, and anyway it doesn’t feel right. After all, most of the negative effects caused by a great cost were created by the reform rather than the contrary. Bolsheviks were divided about this reform for ideological and personal reasons ( Trotsky being unpopular), but the crude truth was a reform was necessary and I bet it would have been done anyway a few months later, even if Trotsky hadn’t existed or if he has lost this political struggle.
So the option must be playable quickly, during the first turn. It must yet be a player choice, because an automated upgrade of units doesn’t fulfill the game axiom, which is you’re Lenin when you’re playing Reds, or the Politburo. For the sake of simulation, this remains a choice you have to make.
That’s more. We know, in retrospect , the reform was necessary and did much for the Red success. neither Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin did known. They faced the unknown and some of the arguments of the Military Opposition weren’t worthless. To simulate the conditions of this critical choice of the military reform, Fatal Years must reintroduce some of the uncertainty Politburo was confronted.
Hence the choice of negative then positive random consequences of the military options. You know the reform will reinforce your units, but you ignore exactly at which cost in NM, other penalties.
Once the option chosen, you have to cope with possible harsh results. The plan isn’t perfect as in real life. At least, each game will be different.
|
|
|
|
