Fatal Years for 1.03

[Chilperic]

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 [:D]

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 [:)]

[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 where this is going... Ohh and you said you didn't give the AI some cheats pff [:D]

[Chilperic]

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 [:D]

Strange indeed. A mismatch in the database. Going to look at. [:D]

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 [8D]

[Sodei]

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.

[Chilperic]

Bug fixed. Next version. A I rather than a 3 in a model [:D] 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...[:)]

[JJKettunen]

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...

[Chilperic]

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..[:D]

Now you may disagree [:)]

[JJKettunen]

It makes sense so I won't disagree. [;)]

[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.

[Chilperic]

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 ? [:D]

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 [8D]

[JJKettunen]

With "reconnaissance" you mean "recognition", don't you?

Otherwise it doesn't make sense. [:'(]

[Chilperic]

I will just stress this point: FY is designed to be played until the last turn.

I believe we have lost in computer wargaming this point because too many games end more or less quickly when the AI is sinking in the bottom, or because some others, fortunately a few, are designed to be never achieved [:D]

Of course, there's PBEM, but we knows all after 50 turns only a few PBEM games are yet active. That's why most games are against AI: safer, faster...

Have you noticed how few are discussions on forum about Victory conditions, except for the real wargames designed to be played until the last turns?

FY has victory conditions based not on the idea Human player will eradicate his AI opponent but will have to earn more VPs than the AI. Especially for the Whites which were the weaker in RL, and which suffer from a part of their real penalties in the game. A Red player will certainly smash his White opponents, but will need to get this result in the same time than in RL, ie around the 1920 Summer.

[Chilperic]

ORIGINAL: Keke

With "reconnaissance" you mean "recognition", don't you?

Otherwise it doesn't make sense. [:'(]

Oh yes. [:)]

Thanks

In any case, it's always a great pleasure to talk about design. I've my ideas [:D] but they have evolved with the years thanks to the discussions like this. After, sure, my own likings will remain the basis of the mod, but they aren't written in stone or the best over. They are just what I like the most in wargaming [:)] Needless to say I may be faulty too in their implementation in FY [;)]

[Sodei]

I have backed up a couple of turn and tried something else, once again I don't know if the ahistorical path would be different. I still find this extremely difficult simply on a gameplay basis to counter-act the NM bleeding but I didn't get the Archangelsk-Perm axis, maybe that would have helped. Now, my point is that Koltchak's faction don't seem to get enough from is initial military conquest. In a way, no matter how far in one direction I pushed ( except for Moscow as the computer didn't really seem to react to my attack there but I didn't want to achieve victory that way), I would end up on the defensive but without anyway to hold off the Reds attack past a few months. There is no tolerance for a mistake for this faction.

I have a few ideas, some better then others IMO and yet again, maybe they won't fit your view on what you wish this faction look like. They are only there to give gameplay options to a player that choose the historical path with Siberian Whites. First one is to limit the moral bleeding to a minimal value, it could still go down from other factors but would stop at a set value so that a defensive war, a win to the victory point, would be made possible. That way, maybe a Red distraction could give you a chance to counter-attack a weak enemy position etc. My second idea would be to give an event to the SibW that would cost EP and lock for a set number of turn some units in exchange for NM. When it end, it would be repeatable at the same cost. You explained that Koltchak didn't even try to solve is party internal issues, well maybe the player is ready to try it and thus, giving a chance (ahistorical indeed) for a Siberian White victory. The cost in EP and the locking effect for a number of turn would simulate that the faction is working on her internal issues and that there is a limited attention on military affairs. My third idea would be to give military objective to the player each years that, until they are achieved, would drain is NM. This would reflect that the military success gave Koltchak a temporary solidified political status.

These are only rough ideas that maybe some are good  or are all terrible and that you have all the rights in the world to reject. I still think this faction should be hard to play, the effect should be felt and they should pressure the player to act aggressively. That being said, I also believe that the player should have a possibility of winning even if he didn't get all is strategic objective by the early 1919 without weakening the Red Army or boosting the SibW.

Again, I would need to test my game more, having only repeated a few turns to test if I could have a different outcome after 1918 with the advance I had at that time. Maybe Keke is having a different experience with is Siberian White game.

[JJKettunen]

It's December '19, and I like the look of this:

[8D]

[JJKettunen]

Do note that I started that game with, by then, somewhat unbalanced ahistorical option.

[Chilperic]

That's why I've created an unhistorical path for Siberian. In this one, the Sib player gets 2 periods without much of the negative events, one after playing the option, the second after Kolchak's rise to power, to the conditions to have a high NM and some EPs in reserve ( the latter representing political activity to attenuate infighting.

The exact level of NM is yet to be fine tuned for balance. But it gives the desired effect: if you're victorious, you will have sufficient authority to keep internal bitterings under acceptable level. If not, the subfactions will begin to contest your power, like Gadja putsh, Dietrichs resignation as commander in chief a few days before the Omsk loss, the SR agitation after Summer 18...

Thinking at your ideas anyway .

Thanks for the feedback [:)]

[Chilperic]

Murmansk railroad problem solved. As a reminder, Murmansk railroad to Segezha was broken and needed long months of repair.

So Segheha region will be blocked for a random time at start, simulating the need to repair the rail. [:)] Next version soon.

[Chilperic]

New version released on my blog ( see my sig). yet named RC even if I'm now sure this version isn't causing CTDs or huge bugs.

What's new?

- portraits from Nikel and Jack54 ( I had overlooked these ones on the AGEOD forum).
- some Red and WH3 units will now cause NM losses when destroyed: Czechs, Cossacks, Elite and Latvian Reds, Red Heavy armored trains, Red heavy artillery ( 152mm).
- The rail between Segezha and Murmansk is now severed at start ( Segezha is then a blocked region). Segezha will come back to normal status randomly , before December 18. yes, at this time,weather should be very cold [:D]
- modified some probabilities here and there for balance purpose, the Siberian faction balance being yet a work under progress.

For those playing Siberian, some remarks about Southern White AI performance will be helpful.

Note from Keke's search: the main reason for slow advancement from Murmansk to Segezha (locations in game terms) was destruction of railroads and facilities in the area by a Finnish Red detachment, led by Alexander Wastén on July 1918. The front didn't advance until next spring.

[JJKettunen]

Cheers!

ORIGINAL: Chliperic

For those playing Siberian, some remarks about Southern White AI performance will be helpful.

I've seen Wrangel and Denikin in turns besieging Tsaritsyn with no success.

I may not have time to continue playing today, but here is the latest save and backup1 for you to check: