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  17 18 [19] 20 21   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Fatal Years for 1.03 - 9/2/2011 10:55:13 PM   
Chilperic


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikel


quote:

ORIGINAL: Chliperic

Kalmykov and Svec will be in the next version



I wonder why you use ones but not others



Next the forgotten general, who is he?



Who are others?

_____________________________


(in reply to Nikel)
Post #: 541
RE: Fatal Years for 1.03 - 9/2/2011 11:02:03 PM   
JJKettunen


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chliperic


quote:

ORIGINAL: Keke


quote:

ORIGINAL: Chliperic

From my tests and your files, the RC seems to work without major troubles


There's one really odd thing. Battles don't seem to affect National Morale as they used to. For example the latest unfortunate confrontation with Stalin cost no NM to me.

I'll attach the save and backup1 to my next post for you to check.



Humm...There's nothing in my mod which may affect NM gains or losses during battles. NM are lost or won only if units are destroyed. I will look at, but it's either a rare occurence or a bug of the official version. However, the latter seems to be uncertain as the exe is the same since a few weeks.


Yes, it is really odd. It has affected my current game throughout though. There have been only 1 point affects to the NM from battles, and even those have been rare. Now this oddity became obvious, since my above loss should have affected NM about -4 points at least.


_____________________________

Jyri Kettunen

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

- A. Solzhenitsyn

(in reply to Chilperic)
Post #: 542
RE: Fatal Years for 1.03 - 9/2/2011 11:19:42 PM   
Chilperic


Posts: 964
Joined: 3/21/2010
Status: offline
You should have lost NMs indeed...There is a possible bug then. i've looked at my last save file too and no battle triggered a NM change...So who will mention it on the official forum?

_____________________________


(in reply to JJKettunen)
Post #: 543
RE: Fatal Years for 1.03 - 9/2/2011 11:40:12 PM   
Chilperic


Posts: 964
Joined: 3/21/2010
Status: offline
I wonder if the 1.03 patch has such a problem. I will do a test tomorrow with. After all, I may live with the 1.03 bugs, including ammo.

Edit: I've tried asap with the precedent patch by running again your turn: same results, no NM changes. so either it's a feature, or a bug unnoticed... We'll have to live with. wonder if present in PON

< Message edited by Chliperic -- 9/2/2011 11:55:46 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Chilperic)
Post #: 544
RE: Fatal Years for 1.03 - 9/2/2011 11:57:00 PM   
Nikel

 

Posts: 355
Joined: 3/24/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Chliperic

Who are others?



The others posted in the thread, Kudinov, Bischoff,...


The forgotten general added


< Message edited by Nikel -- 9/2/2011 11:58:11 PM >

(in reply to Chilperic)
Post #: 545
RE: Fatal Years for 1.03 - 9/3/2011 12:06:44 AM   
Chilperic


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikel

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chliperic

Who are others?



The others posted in the thread, Kudinov, Bischoff,...


The forgotten general added



Unvoluntary, I've just overlooked them. Will add the next time


_____________________________


(in reply to Nikel)
Post #: 546
RE: Fatal Years for 1.03 - 9/3/2011 12:28:38 AM   
JJKettunen


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chliperic

I wonder if the 1.03 patch has such a problem. I will do a test tomorrow with. After all, I may live with the 1.03 bugs, including ammo.

Edit: I've tried asap with the precedent patch by running again your turn: same results, no NM changes. so either it's a feature, or a bug unnoticed... We'll have to live with. wonder if present in PON


Do note that there were no such problems with Southern Whites: the NM fluctuated according to battle success. I remember gaining 9 at best and losing 6 at worst.

_____________________________

Jyri Kettunen

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

- A. Solzhenitsyn

(in reply to Chilperic)
Post #: 547
RE: Fatal Years for 1.03 - 9/3/2011 8:23:14 AM   
Chilperic


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Keke


quote:

ORIGINAL: Chliperic

I wonder if the 1.03 patch has such a problem. I will do a test tomorrow with. After all, I may live with the 1.03 bugs, including ammo.

Edit: I've tried asap with the precedent patch by running again your turn: same results, no NM changes. so either it's a feature, or a bug unnoticed... We'll have to live with. wonder if present in PON


Do note that there were no such problems with Southern Whites: the NM fluctuated according to battle success. I remember gaining 9 at best and losing 6 at worst.



Thanks to you, as I've learnt about a feature I didn't known: only some subunits are causing NM losses during battles, like Elite Infantry elements. Siberian are just lacking such units. Next version.

So, it's not a bug of the engine

_____________________________


(in reply to JJKettunen)
Post #: 548
RE: Fatal Years for 1.03 - 9/3/2011 8:29:23 AM   
Chilperic


Posts: 964
Joined: 3/21/2010
Status: offline
In the next version, will cost NM losses for Siberian for:

-Czech subunits destroyed
- Elite Komuch subunits destroyed
- Eastern Cossacks subunits destroyed.

Should help to balance unhistorical path. I will remove some events for historical path to avoid other morale losses for Siberians.

_____________________________


(in reply to Chilperic)
Post #: 549
RE: Fatal Years for 1.03 - 9/3/2011 8:52:26 AM   
Sodei

 

Posts: 34
Joined: 9/3/2011
Status: offline
It is not a bug but I now understand why Siberian White don't seem to manage it's NM as well as I do with SW. Any way, I am 19 turns in and I admit I am enjoying this 3 front war. The Archangelsk-Perm front is doing fine for so few units commited there. The Kazan-Saransk one is my strongest front with a 50 000 men strong army pushing the Reds. My southern front is aimed at Tzarystin from Saratov ( 25000 men, Komuch remnants with SB renforcement). Finally, I'm going to bluff the AI with the rest of my force coming from Penza toward Tambov without engaging ( another 25 000 men of ragtag Czechs-Komuch-Whites ). I will face some green revolts soon since a did some Requisitions and conscriptions. Murmansk's army is moving slowly but surely, I don't think the Reds have any force commited to stop me there or anywhere North.

Overall, I should win this soon. I am ready to stop a vicious offensive and have reinforcement coming from Omsk ( average of 4 000 per turn). That alone is not enough but Poland and Baltic nations have entered the war and those fronts are pretty much undefended I think. Even the Ukrainien are taking some land . The only AI that can't do anything is the SW and I don't even think they have that much commited against them. They are waiting for Koltchak, obviously.

It's a cool game anyway

EDIT: I am playing with the historical path, forgot to mention it.


< Message edited by Sodei -- 9/3/2011 9:21:48 AM >

(in reply to Chilperic)
Post #: 550
RE: Fatal Years for 1.03 - 9/3/2011 8:55:44 AM   
Chilperic


Posts: 964
Joined: 3/21/2010
Status: offline
Since yesterday, the first reports about players having chosen to go through the unhistorical path for Siberian Whites have showed the game was unbalanced and too easy.

NM is quickly raising to such a level most of the negative events can’t fire. So Siberians Whites, without any internal dissensions, are entering a virtuous circles, gaining NMs by victories which hinder NM to fall…

On the Matrix forum, Keke, has found the cause of the trouble , where I wouldn’t have looked for.



Indeed, for myself, I’m currently checking mainly in my test, the features I’ve introduced in FY, not the general AGE engine ones.

I didn’t know, or forgotten, NM losses or gains after a battle weren’t tid to the destruction of any unit, but only those having a POL value in their definition.



The sound observations by Keke has reminded me this point. Indeed, Siberian units had no POL value. Now, Czech, Cossacks and Elite Komuch infaantry will have.



So using and losing them will cause NM losses :-) A huge step forward for balance.

2 lessons:



- I’m confirmed my mod needs players feedback to my own pleasure. This point would have remained unknown to me for a long time.

- Having good betatesters is unvaluable. I’m lucky to have several ones. :-) A good betatesters isn’t someone who talk essentially on the new features to implement and rarely on bugs ( That’s current in some team….). Not those playing FY haven’t ideas, they do proposals and they are interesting. However, they haven’t forgotten first to look at BUGS…



Thanks to them.



Next version soon :-)

< Message edited by Chliperic -- 9/3/2011 8:56:17 AM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Chilperic)
Post #: 551
RE: Fatal Years for 1.03 - 9/3/2011 9:25:02 AM   
Chilperic


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sodei

It is not a bug but I now understand why Siberian White don't seem to manage it's NM as well as I do with SW. Any way, I am 19 turns in and I admit I am enjoying this 3 front war. The Archangelsk-Perm front is doing fine for so few units commited there. The Kazan-Saransk one is my strongest front with a 50 000 men strong army pushing the Reds. My southern front is aimed at Tzarystin from Saratov ( 25000 men, Komuch remnants with SB renforcement). Finally, I'm going to bluff the AI with the rest of my force coming from Penza toward Tambov without engaging ( another 25 000 men of ragtag Czechs-Komuch-Whites ). I will face some green revolts soon since a did some Requisitions and conscriptions. Murmansk's army is moving slowly but surely, I don't think the Reds have any force commited to stop me there or anywhere North.

Overall, I should win this soon. I am ready to stop a vicious offensive and have reinforcement coming from Omsk ( average of 4 000 per turn). That alone is not enough but Poland and Baltic nations have entered the war and those fronts are pretty much undefended I think. Even the Ukrainien are taking some land . The only AI that can't do anything is the SW and I don't even think they have that much commited against them. They are waiting for Koltchak, obviously.

It's a cool game anyway




Hi

Southern Whites are performing better in another current game with a Siberian player. Southern AI has tough task if Red AI chooses to concentrate first on Southern Theater. But I will keep this possibility. Forcing Red AI to go always first in force on the Volga would create for Southern Whites faction an huge bonus. Moreover, Ais, and especially the Red ones, are much more resilient than in other games, and they may couterstrike rather unexpectedly

The NM losses for the best Sib units I will add should balance better the game, and by a very nice way, as simple than efficient. It represents well how much Elite units are precious and their losses are as much blows for Factions with few resources.

Thanks for the feedback. I should be able in the next days to raise challenge for Siberian Whites in this alternate path to the level of the other factions.

_____________________________


(in reply to Sodei)
Post #: 552
RE: Fatal Years for 1.03 - 9/3/2011 9:26:51 AM   
Sodei

 

Posts: 34
Joined: 9/3/2011
Status: offline
Not sure if this is a bug but I can't seem to have the possibility to create an Army out of a 3-star general, Miller and Ironside North are not armies commanders. I have promoted Gaida to 3 stars and the same thing goes for him. So already 3-stars and promoted general don't seem to have that possibility BUT Koltchak can... I have the three starting guy as Army commander but they are decent at there job.

EDIT: The thing is that the Red seems to be using to much force there as I am assaulting them from 3 angles. BTW I am playing the historical path since being new to that faction, I wanted the simple one... yes simple indeed. From my experience, the SW are doing ok when human played ( overachieving some would say) but now it's been a year, I am moving close to Moscow in the North and the Red took, IMO too long to come at me. They couldn't kill the SW but now I am moving almost freely on the Volga.

< Message edited by Sodei -- 9/3/2011 9:32:46 AM >

(in reply to Chilperic)
Post #: 553
RE: Fatal Years for 1.03 - 9/3/2011 9:42:18 AM   
Chilperic


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sodei

Not sure if this is a bug but I can't seem to have the possibility to create an Army out of a 3-star general, Miller and Ironside North are not armies commanders. I have promoted Gaida to 3 stars and the same thing goes for him. So already 3-stars and promoted general don't seem to have that possibility BUT Koltchak can... I have the three starting guy as Army commander but they are decent at there job.

EDIT: The thing is that the Red seems to be using to much force there as I am assaulting them from 3 angles. BTW I am playing the historical path since being new to that faction, I wanted the simple one... yes simple indeed. From my experience, the SW are doing ok when human played ( overachieving some would say) but now it's been a year, I am moving close to Moscow in the North and the Red took, IMO too long to come at me. They couldn't kill the SW but now I am moving almost freely on the Volga.


There's a cap on the number of Army for each factions. I will raise it a bit for Sib. Next version.

Send me your game save to look at Red AI behaviour. Without I can't do much.

As I've said, a player will have always the upper edge on AI. The goal is to reach the real Victory conditions, ie winning to the points. A Southern player will do better against Reds, but winning to the points is the real challenge

_____________________________


(in reply to Sodei)
Post #: 554
RE: Fatal Years for 1.03 - 9/3/2011 9:50:37 AM   
Sodei

 

Posts: 34
Joined: 9/3/2011
Status: offline
Look like the Red didn't like my bragging and sent Trotsky with about hmm 100 000 men. I learned the had way that I prefer the SW's getting killed then my men. They stopped every offensives from the Volga, at least for now. I will regroup and counter-attck to see how well the AI do with the initiative. I can send you my savefiles just tell me what you want exactly and I will find it.

BTW, very impressive work you have done without using cheats for the AI. I know they will eventually back off to support other fronts but they can, and probably will, undermine my effort for half the year just by massing itself on one point, forcing me to do the same. A smart move at least, a great one if they take some units down before going.


< Message edited by Sodei -- 9/3/2011 9:51:02 AM >

(in reply to Chilperic)
Post #: 555
RE: Fatal Years for 1.03 - 9/3/2011 9:55:03 AM   
Chilperic


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

ORIGINAL: Sodei

Look like the Red didn't like my bragging and sent Trotsky with about hmm 100 000 men. I learned the had way that I prefer the SW's getting killed then my men. They stopped every offensives from the Volga, at least for now. I will regroup and counter-attck to see how well the AI do with the initiative. I can send you my savefiles just tell me what you want exactly and I will find it.

BTW, very impressive work you have done without using cheats for the AI. I know they will eventually back off to support other fronts but they can, and probably will, undermine my effort for half the year just by massing itself on one point, forcing me to do the same. A smart move at least, a great one if they take some units down before going.




I've replied you on the blog but it's not unnecessary to write the same here for anyone :

- go to the save folder. Inside there are several folders, one by game. In this subfolders, there are files and subfolders named Backup1, backup2,etc.

I need the files and Backup1 subfolder. Zip or rar them. It will allow me to go back to your last turn if needed for replay.

Thanks

< Message edited by Chliperic -- 9/3/2011 10:01:22 AM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Sodei)
Post #: 556
RE: Fatal Years for 1.03 - 9/3/2011 10:19:15 AM   
Sodei

 

Posts: 34
Joined: 9/3/2011
Status: offline
Just doing some indirect publicity for the blog, I swear I was not looking for attention. Seriously, I didn't want to load it up with my comment and this forum looked appropriate for my mini-AAR.






Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Sodei -- 9/3/2011 10:24:43 AM >

(in reply to Chilperic)
Post #: 557
RE: Fatal Years for 1.03 - 9/3/2011 10:30:29 AM   
Chilperic


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sodei

Just doing some indirect publicity for the blog, I swear I was not looking for attention. Seriously, I didn't want to load it up with my comment and this forum looked appropriate for my mini-AAR.








Not a critic . It's difficult to follow info on two sites. Itry as much as possible to duplicate infos on both forum and blogs for this obvous reason.

Thanks for the file. Going to look at.

BTW, the max number of armies for Siberian WHites will be raised in the next version.

Regards

_____________________________


(in reply to Sodei)
Post #: 558
RE: Fatal Years for 1.03 - 9/3/2011 10:37:18 AM   
JJKettunen


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chliperic

In the next version, will cost NM losses for Siberian for:

-Czech subunits destroyed
- Elite Komuch subunits destroyed
- Eastern Cossacks subunits destroyed.

Should help to balance unhistorical path. I will remove some events for historical path to avoid other morale losses for Siberians.


Sounds good. Glad to be of help!

_____________________________

Jyri Kettunen

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

- A. Solzhenitsyn

(in reply to Chilperic)
Post #: 559
RE: Fatal Years for 1.03 - 9/3/2011 10:44:00 AM   
Sodei

 

Posts: 34
Joined: 9/3/2011
Status: offline
I don't think this is the problem. While assaulting Orenburg, my 3-star officer Martynov(?) died leading a courageous assault, I still can't create an Army with any other 3 star general. I could do so with Koltchak, which I did before Martynov died. When I have the opportunity, I will try to switch leader, see if it is working. By the way, with the SW I use to have something like 4-5 Army leader, maybe six (Denikin, Krasnov, Mai-drunkard, Wrangel and one officer from the start that I don't remember the name). More testing must be done, though.

Once again, a great job you have done. Like I originally believed, Trotsky is not charging at me blindly, a mistake I would have made him pay painfully. Right now I am at the gate of Petrograd, no Reds relief force at the horizon but I have faith they will show up, they always do.

EDIT: You should take a look at my Komuch force created in Omsk. The Conscript I built there seems to be of WHI affiliation and not WHI2. I don't know if reinforcement work or not with them.

< Message edited by Sodei -- 9/3/2011 10:53:02 AM >

(in reply to Chilperic)
Post #: 560
RE: Fatal Years for 1.03 - 9/3/2011 10:48:14 AM   
Chilperic


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

I've begun to look at your save. Nice strategy

I will need time to read the scriptreport and AI log files. However, I may say by looking at the military situation RED AI has a NM of 112 and you 94. We're in April 19 and the growth of the Red Army has just begun, Reds should get more and more units in the next months

Red AI has concentrated indeed much of its force against Penza and Tzaritsyn, under your menace. The Moscow road is less defended indeed, because it lacks units.

Southern AI are maybe on the way to recover too. Maybe, but Southern Whites AI is yet active and Red hasn't let much units in Kuban area.

Let me know how the next months will go.

BTW, the REd AI will be in the next version much more concerned by Olonets

_____________________________


(in reply to JJKettunen)
Post #: 561
RE: Fatal Years for 1.03 - 9/3/2011 11:04:58 AM   
Sodei

 

Posts: 34
Joined: 9/3/2011
Status: offline
Yup, I confirm that some units created by me, the conscripts I am pretty sure, become SW affiliated when they upgrade after being trained. Now most of my main force is composed of such units and I can't replace them. We know where this is going... Ohh and you said you didn't give the AI some cheats pff


< Message edited by Sodei -- 9/3/2011 11:33:09 AM >

(in reply to Chilperic)
Post #: 562
RE: Fatal Years for 1.03 - 9/3/2011 11:18:14 AM   
Chilperic


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sodei

Yup, I confirm that some units created by me, the conscripts I am pretty sure, become SW affiliated when they upgrade after being trained. Now most of my main force is composed of such units and I can't replace them. We know here this is going... Ohh and you said you didn't give the AI some cheats pff




Strange indeed. A mismatch in the database. Going to look at.

Seriously, AI has some cheats:
- the garrison events (my version of the Autogarrison feature of the AGE engine)
- a small reduction of cost for new units, as the AI routines in the exe aren't working well ( AI buils some units without much usefulness, especially militia and cruisers, yes cruisers and AI is fond to create units in cities about to be captured by enemies)
- the +2 fOW bonus ( player may deactivate this in the game option panel)
- here and there a few less EPs are needed for choosing some options ( I work silently to reduce this one)

However, AI doesn't cheat in movement, battles, unit formation. That's IMHO the essential



_____________________________


(in reply to Sodei)
Post #: 563
RE: Fatal Years for 1.03 - 9/3/2011 11:32:42 AM   
Sodei

 

Posts: 34
Joined: 9/3/2011
Status: offline
I believe that this is only a fair balance if you take into account what it can and cannot do. On the other hand, by giving to an AI some cheating options, most of the time you only sabotage your own work. I have seen so many exemple of that, AI that, given so much bonus, always act in a frontal assault, knowing (or thinking...) it as the upper hand. Let it push too much and it will end trapping itself... It make things far from interesting and somewhat insulting. Your AI, on the other end, is forcing me to work around the clock just to keep up with what she as in reserve. Anyhow, Petrograd will be mine now, it's only a question of activation.

Those little white force not replaceable will do perfect as garrison. There's no problems, only unknown solutions.

(in reply to Chilperic)
Post #: 564
RE: Fatal Years for 1.03 - 9/3/2011 11:36:15 AM   
Chilperic


Posts: 964
Joined: 3/21/2010
Status: offline
Bug fixed. Next version. A I rather than a 3 in a model Sorry.

You're right about AI: the best quality for AI is to play as a player would, with its mistakes and days of glory. AI will have more of the former and less of the latter in FY, and will be trapped too, fortunately not too often. But cheats with bonus on main parts, ie movement, supply or battles creates unbelievable situations which destroy the necessary feeling to simulate the reality, without generally giving in the end real difficulties for players. I would add AI does errors and that's why it's certainly better, because a part of them are unexpected by player and creating a new menace...

< Message edited by Chliperic -- 9/3/2011 11:41:02 AM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Chilperic)
Post #: 565
RE: Fatal Years for 1.03 - 9/3/2011 11:56:11 AM   
JJKettunen


Posts: 3530
Joined: 3/12/2002
From: Finland
Status: offline
One more thing: Why Siberian NM doesn't raise with significant victories? I just captured Tambov destroying 12 subunits, but there were no NM raise...

_____________________________

Jyri Kettunen

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

- A. Solzhenitsyn

(in reply to Chilperic)
Post #: 566
RE: Fatal Years for 1.03 - 9/3/2011 12:11:18 PM   
Chilperic


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

ORIGINAL: Keke

One more thing: Why Siberian NM doesn't raise with significant victories? I just captured Tambov destroying 12 subunits, but there were no NM raise...



Because Many Red units don't cost NM losses when destroyed. Only leaders and Latvian have such a value. I'm thinking to add a very few to Cheka and heavy Armored Trains, but not for the rest: the Red losses are always appalling, and the result would be a RED NMgoing in the bottom in a few turns. Then, I guess we have to take into account for Reds their sheer mass of poor troops have no value in itself, when for Whites losses are more difficult to replace..

Now you may disagree

< Message edited by Chliperic -- 9/3/2011 12:14:13 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to JJKettunen)
Post #: 567
RE: Fatal Years for 1.03 - 9/3/2011 12:22:18 PM   
JJKettunen


Posts: 3530
Joined: 3/12/2002
From: Finland
Status: offline
It makes sense so I won't disagree.

_____________________________

Jyri Kettunen

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

- A. Solzhenitsyn

(in reply to Chilperic)
Post #: 568
RE: Fatal Years for 1.03 - 9/3/2011 12:32:42 PM   
Sodei

 

Posts: 34
Joined: 9/3/2011
Status: offline
I would argue this to be too harsh on the Whites. I am getting into intense fighting with the Red and my only option is too try to keep what I already have but it gradually become impossible. Even with my initiale military success, the NM is destroying me. The problem is that the Reds get the number without the cohesion hits while the SibW gets a hit on the cohesion almost every turn. The difference, I believe, is that Whites have no option to boost there morale except through the control of the cities and that alone don't bring enough to balance the Red advantage in number. Maybe by making the holding of the strategic cities a NM bonus each 2 months or something.

EDIT: More testing must be done on my part before giving any good idea. Anyway, I understand the concept for the military units not giving back some NM but I think that there should be a way for the Siberian faction to obtain some NM back without deleting the lost per turn that represent the complexe nature of the faction.

< Message edited by Sodei -- 9/3/2011 12:55:23 PM >

(in reply to Chilperic)
Post #: 569
RE: Fatal Years for 1.03 - 9/3/2011 1:16:25 PM   
Chilperic


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

ORIGINAL: Sodei



I would argue this to be too harsh on the Whites. I am getting into intense fighting with the Red and my only option is too try to keep what I already have but it gradually become impossible. Even with my initiale military success, the NM is destroying me. The problem is that the Reds get the number without the cohesion hits while the SibW gets a hit on the cohesion almost every turn. The difference, I believe, is that Whites have no option to boost there morale except through the control of the cities and that alone don't bring enough to balance the Red advantage in number. Maybe by making the holding of the strategic cities a NM bonus each 2 months or something.

EDIT: More testing must be done on my part before giving any good idea. Anyway, I understand the concept for the military units not giving back some NM but I think that there should be a way for the Siberian faction to obtain some NM back without deleting the lost per turn that represent the complexe nature of the faction.



Now, introducing more NM losses isn't a bad idea. But the engine allows just to give 1 or more NM value for a subuunit. I could too raise NM value for leaders and heavy artillery. Going to think after.

When I read books on Siberian Whites, I was frightened I would never be able to create for this faction a set of interesting rules. I must admit I 've rarely seen such great concentration of egotism, incompetence, lack of political skills, vicious internal dissensions, blunders, favortism and corruption. IMHO, the most amazing point is this regime lasted so long ( yes so long) and why the Western Powers, especially Great Britain, saw in Kolchak regime the major card to play in RCW...Maybe because Kolchak was an Admiral ?

Events giving Sibe NM is something I can't do because it would be blatant violation of realism. The alternate path has some bonus, but limited because I don't think a simple initial agrrement between the Siberians political cotteries would have lasted long.

Now, the current rules give to Siberian the possibility to reach a victory level, ie the "Allied Recognition" giving boost in NM and disabling some bad events. If not, the Siberian may yet win because of the VPs gained for owning some key cities from 1920. All this has yet to be balanced, but I feel Siberians are a faction with a great deal to realize and in case of failure a possibility to win by playing defensively against a large enemy mass. Not that bad,as it's a different experience from Southern Whites and Reds and without creating a set of events which will transform Sib in a highly organized faction conquering Russia.

That's a choice between 2 conceptions of balance in a game: either you advantage the weaker one to create equal possibility of winning for all sides, or you adapt the Victory conditions to fit the real discrepancy between enemies. I've always favored the latter ( even if the former isn't in itself bad).

Of course, much has to be done to adapt event effects to get better balance betwwen faction. I've maybe been slighty too harsh with Kolchak and you're right to point out some adjustments are yet necessary




< Message edited by Chliperic -- 9/3/2011 1:38:07 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Sodei)
Post #: 570
Page:   <<   < prev  17 18 [19] 20 21   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War I] >> Revolution Under Siege Gold >> Mods and Scenarios >> RE: Fatal Years for 1.03 Page: <<   < prev  17 18 [19] 20 21   next >   >>
Jump to:





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
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.109