Newbie Questions

[Stoertebeker]

Hello everybody.

I'm new to the Forum, new to AGEOD's and, of course, new to RUS. I've read the manual, but there are still so many questions to be answered ...

To get started: What about the "armored support" trait of armored trains: the manual indicates, that it's "applicable only to the unit to which an element belongs". As I can't merge a train into a Division: Am I right to say, that the trait is quite useless for armored trains?

[OneArmedMexican]

Welcome to the forum!

What about the "armored support" trait of armored trains: the manual indicates, that it's "applicable only to the unit to which an element belongs". As I can't merge a train into a Division: Am I right to say, that the trait is quite useless for armored trains?

Yes, it is not as useful as it could be since the only unit that profits from the trait is the train itself. The developpers once stated though that they are considering some changes to solve this issue.

[Stoertebeker]

Welcome to the forum!



Yes, it is not as useful as it could be since the only unit that profits from the trait is the train itself. The developpers once stated though that they are considering some changes to solve this issue.

Thank you for the answer. It makes me confident that I'll master the game one day.

[Stoertebeker]

Okay, next question:

I read that the penalties for troops being commanded by a "stranger" is a CP-Penalty.

What about penalties for Units that refuse to fight outside certain regions (Don Cossacks etc.): Same thing or does their combat strength suffer?

[Seb]

Okay, next question:

I read that the penalties for troops being commanded by a "stranger" is a CP-Penalty.

What about penalties for Units that refuse to fight outside certain regions (Don Cossacks etc.): Same thing or does their combat strength suffer?

Their combat statistic (discipline for example) will suffer... and it will work fine in the next patch

[Yarpen]

Lame newbie question, but is it possible in RUS to change names of corps, armies ect.? If so, how?

Edit: I mean change names in-game, not predefine list of possible ones in files.

[Hohenlohe]

Lame newbie question, but is it possible in RUS to change names of corps, armies ect.? If so, how?

Edit: I mean change names in-game, not predefine list of possible ones in files.

To change any name of an army or a corps or any independant force is very simple sofar.
Just click the following: "ALT"+mouse-click on any tab with the related force you want to change the name. In most cases you can change the name, but some Army names seems not to be changeable ingame, but you can change the names inside a given file I am just not remember correctly, but it is possible and it is even possible to add a new army name inside that proper file which you can use with any given army commander aka AC.

I hope I am helpful...

greetings

Hohenlohe

[Yarpen]

Another noobie question. Having read about chain of command I thought I got it, but apparently not. Starting GC as Southern Whites I got several already composed divisions (kornilovtsy, drozdovtsy, markovtsy ect.). But their commanders are not divisional commanders (I have an option to enable them to such). Should I do it or not? What is better? When I enable them as division commander they loose their stats considerably. Anyway, what is their status afterall? They seem to lead divisions but are not divisional commanders? Does it affect their combat abilities (CP ect.)?

And one more. I'm fighiting with Don Cossacks outside Don region, but I cannot see any icons/toolips on battle reports showing penalty for using them outside Don region. Is it hidden or doesn't work at all?

[General01]

Leaders only have a 1-turn drop in stats when you enable divisional command - it lasts until you've paid the costs for setting up the division, 1 conscript, 10 money, and some WSU. You should certainly activate those leaders: it'll enable you to move units in and out of the division easily, which you probably can't do right now.
The reason you create divisions is for reductions in CP need: most units with 1 element take 1 CP, but if you create a division, the whole thing only costs 4 CP, no matter it's size. Thus, unless you have a lot of high-ranking officers commanding armies (who have effectively unlimited CP limits until you get towards the end of the game), low-level divisional commanders are most useful.
I'm not totally certain about regional units: I know that if you try to command a regional unit with a non-regional commander, you need 4x the CP's, but I haven't seen much evidence that the discipline/cohesion penalties are applied. Here's a thread with some information chucked up: draw your own conclusions :P.
http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?t=20266

[Yarpen]

Thank you all for help.

Just one more, general and strategic issue. I'm playing my first GC as WHI now. All goes OK, Red Ukrainian Front is crushed, I'm moving towards Tsaritsyn. But... Having read about loyalty affecting many things (i.e. supply system efficiency) I wonder how can you actually raise loyalty of rural areas? I need almost all of my troops on first line, so if I move towards Tsaritsyn and further I'll leave behind a large area with many rural regions (without a town/city) still under Red military control or even if controlled by me - with high Red loyalty. Will they ever switch loyalty if I'm holding main cities in a given region? Maybe it's happening but if so, it must be painfully slow and hardly noticeable. Do you usually garrison cities that you leave far behind the front? If so, with what and how many units? Right now I have an impression that I would need gazillion troops everywhere to obtain a good level of control over whole areas, which is impossible.

On a side note, having read many books on RCW, one thing is especially striking - total passivity of peasants. It was a war of ancien regime elites on White side against "professional" revolutionaries backed by forced conscripts on the other side. In rural areas control and "loyalty" switched in an eye-blink. Peasants didn't care at all. Whoever armed enough happened to come by - red commissar or white ataman - immediately was taking control of the village and getting "loyal" support. Of course, in fact it didn't mean much. But in the game terms I think in rural regions loyalty and military control should switch MUCH quicker if a given side is somehow present nearby and controls main cities/towns in whole area.

[Hohenlohe]

Thank you all for help.

Just one more, general and strategic issue. I'm playing my first GC as WHI now. All goes OK, Red Ukrainian Front is crushed, I'm moving towards Tsaritsyn. But... Having read about loyalty affecting many things (i.e. supply system efficiency) I wonder how can you actually raise loyalty of rural areas? I need almost all of my troops on first line, so if I move towards Tsaritsyn and further I'll leave behind a large area with many rural regions (without a town/city) still under Red military control or even if controlled by me - with high Red loyalty. Will they ever switch loyalty if I'm holding main cities in a given region? Maybe it's happening but if so, it must be painfully slow and hardly noticeable. Do you usually garrison cities that you leave far behind the front? If so, with what and how many units? Right now I have an impression that I would need gazillion troops everywhere to obtain a good level of control over whole areas, which is impossible.

On a side note, having read many books on RCW, one thing is especially striking - total passivity of peasants. It was a war of ancien regime elites on White side against "professional" revolutionaries backed by forced conscripts on the other side. In rural areas control and "loyalty" switched in an eye-blink. Peasants didn't care at all. Whoever armed enough happened to come by - red commissar or white ataman - immediately was taking control of the village and getting "loyal" support. Of course, in fact it didn't mean much. But in the game terms I think in rural regions loyalty and military control should switch MUCH quicker if a given side is somehow present nearby and controls main cities/towns in whole area.

Dear Yarpen, I understand that as a newbie you will have some problems to have a clear look behind the situation, but believe me the solution is very simple.
You must only do some clicking.In this case just click F7 and you will be enlightened. You get about the F-buttons access to the political/economical/production/special operations -area.
On the map you will see with F7 you can do some actions on loyality or recruiting or gaining money aka rubels. But please remember each action have some certain cost. And influencing loyality in enemy regions will cost you about 10 rubels each.Influencing loyality in your own regions will cost you money and conscripts on the red side and so on. Give even the other menu points a decent try, but remember all actions have some costs which will be subtracted from your resources.

I hope I could be helpful...

greetings

Hohenlohe aka Michael

[Yarpen]

Of course, I use ledger The problem for me playing WHI is I can't see practicaly no action I could take to raise loyalty quicker. All I can do for now are requisitions, conscription ect. - having exactly opposite effect on loyalty.

Anyway, just asking for advise. Do you leave many troops behind as garrisons? How big they are? Regulars or rather militia? Observing how much time it takes for a single regiment to raise military control or loyalty of a given region, I'm afraid I will never paint even Kuban or Don areas white, even if at the time my main forces will be already at the Moscow gates.

[ERISS]

On a side note, having read many books on RCW, one thing is especially striking - total passivity of peasants. It was a war of ancien regime elites on White side against "professional" revolutionaries backed by forced conscripts on the other side. In rural areas control and "loyalty" switched in an eye-blink. Peasants didn't care at all. Whoever armed enough happened to come by - red commissar or white ataman - immediately was taking control of the village and getting "loyal" support. Of course, in fact it didn't mean much. But in the game terms I think in rural regions loyalty and military control should switch MUCH quicker if a given side is somehow present nearby and controls main cities/towns in whole area.

I think you don't talk about loyalty: For you Military control should be much faster.
Why would you want paesants being active with a red/white rifle aiming at them?? Passivity was their main defense, that was their main 'activity' against Red or White invaders.
Peasants where active when they could, or when desperate: some turned Green, i.e. fought for themselves.
Perhaps you're brash, not many paesants were.
And, why talking about just paesants? That was the same with the few in town.

[General01]

Winning (major) battles also really helps with the loyalty: it's the main way that you break the 0% loyalty problem in entirely virgin areas. From what i've seen, it is the largest single contributor to the loyalty of a region: followed by special operations, then troops holding cities (NOT militia: Those actually alienate the populations of cities thanks to their Harsh Occupier trait), then leaders with 'propagandist' skill. I've had ~20% loyalty gain throughout a region when crushing a sizeable enemy force: but trying to do Reforms or Cheka in that same region, 0% loyalty, just won't work: you seem to need some loyalty to get any more with those.
Edit: With garrisons, I tend to put either 1-2 regiments of local troops (white) or 1 2-3 regiment garrison (reds) in town with either: depots, important rail links, or resource incomes. Mostly just to protect them from raiders, but I guess it could affect loyalty too.

[Yarpen]

I think you don't talk about loyalty: For you Military control should be much faster.
Why would you want paesants being active with a red/white rifle aiming at them?? Passivity was their main defense, that was their main 'activity' against Red or White invaders.
Peasants where active when they could, or when desperate: some turned Green, i.e. fought for themselves.
Perhaps you're brash, not many paesants were.
And, why talking about just paesants? That was the same with the few in town.

I'm talking about rural population cause it made well over 90% of Russian society back then. Passivity was their defence but also to some degree it was something exceptional for Russia.

Anyway, it's not my point - it's not so much about how it was, but how it is reflected in RuS, a game. Military control can be established quickly, it's OK. I mean loyalty. I just find it strange that i.e. you can trash all Red forces in Southern Russia, be marching on Moscow ect. and still have dozens regions behind you - in areas secured long time ago - with 70-90% Red loyalty. Or vice versa. I just think that loyalty could change quicker, as it happened in real life.

[TheDoctorKing]

Population loyalty changes very slowly in the AGEOD model. In RUS, it can change faster because of the regional options - Subversion, Cheka and Reforms raise loyalty, while requisitions and recruiting lower it. I haven't noticed that garrisoning troops in a region raises loyalty. I think that increasing national morale (by winning battles, for instance) gives you a general (but small) increase in loyalty in all provinces where you have some degree of military control. I haven't noticed that this effect is regional.

One gamey thing you can do as the Reds is refrain from taking control of a region and do subversion missions over and over again there. If you wait a couple of months before capturing the provincial capital, you can have population loyalty in the 70s and do six months' worth of requisitions there before you have to send in the Cheka (and pay the national morale hit). This is a good strategy to use in the non-Russian areas (Ukraine, Baltic states, etc.) Unfortunately, the Whites have no corresponding tactic.

Mostly, loyalty in rural areas is going to tend to Green. Both sides are doing requisitions and recruiting as fast as they can and the peasants are getting more and more upset with them. Ultimately, I find that you have to keep about 1/3 of your army in the rear area garrisoning cities and running around playing whack-a-mole with the Green forces. The Whites have lots of cavalry, which is really good at wiping out the Green militia forces. The Red rebel-stomping forces are the Vokhr brigades, infantry and guns, and normally they just chase them away without killing a whole lot. The Red force pool is low on cavalry and they need most of what they have at the front to fight the cavalry-heavy Whites and Poles.

[ERISS]

Military control can be established quickly, it's OK. I mean loyalty. I just find it strange that i.e. you can trash all Red forces in Southern Russia, be marching on Moscow ect. and still have dozens regions behind you - in areas secured long time ago - with 70-90% Red loyalty. Or vice versa. I just think that loyalty could change quicker, as it happened in real life.

In RUS, captured areas can not be secured long ago (i.e. 20 years: Yes, Red used for them revolutionnary loyalty which started long before 1917*). In war times where you can do few politics and fewer economic deals, loyalty takes many times to be bought. People could hope for better (maybe this hope is what you call 'loyalty') when the other side was coming, but this other side (especialy the Whites, who had no plans) had few time to do politics and make things better with evidence for people. Military goal is to kill and destroy: politics times are before war and after. During war, politics are just other military tool made for cheating: The loyalty you make with lives not long times, and is to obtain first military then police control (then cheated people back unloyal are trapped).

What bother you is that Whites had few people to do this police, so you think RUS must make people loyal in order Whites no longer needs police?
(But, as I almost don't play RUS, maybe I really didn't understand your problem)

* Edit: Okay, 'White' loyalty (tsarist, even some Whites were not) had started far long before revolutionnary one. But in RUS times, people had usually become unloyal to tsarism (and I think people usually saw the Whites as the coming back of tsarism).

[Hohenlohe]

In RUS, captured areas can not be secured long ago (i.e. 20 years: Yes, Red used for them revolutionnary loyalty which started long before 1917). In war times where you can do few politics and fewer economic deals, loyalty takes many times to be bought. People could hope for better (maybe this hope is what you call 'loyalty') when the other side was coming, but this other side (especialy the Whites, who had no plans) had few time to do politics and make things better with evidence for people. Military goal is to kill and destroy: politics times are before war and after. During war, politics are just other military tool made for cheating: The loyalty you make with lives not long times, and is to obtain first military then police control (then cheated people back unloyal are trapped).

What bother you is that Whites had few people to do this police, so you think RUS must make people loyal in order Whites no longer needs police?
(But, as I almost don't play RUS, maybe I really didn't understand your problem)

The main problem I have seen sofar related to Yarpen's Post is that especially the Southern Whites have no garrison or military police forces at hands.Only the Siberian get after the Event with the Czech Legion(where this forces retreat from Russia) some Czech garrison units in the area behind the Ural and they have additionally some decent support by Japanes forces which garrison some Far East cities.
In one way we should consider to introduce White garrison forces consisting one or two elements and eventually some additional police units like the cheka one. But historically there were no such forces, only some cossack units which stayed behind.
So I would suggest that we should introduce white garrison units consisting of two elements: one regular cossack and one military police element for the Don Cossacks and the same for the Siberian Whites. For the White Russians a white garrison unit should consist two or three elements of one or two conscripts elements and one military police element, but these units should be a little bit limited or get introduced by a slightly expensive option for the Whites because it means a certain change in politics.
At the same time the Reds should have their garrison units for a cheaper price in ressources to balance then the situation.

Thats my six pence sofar...

Hohenlohe

[ERISS]

the Southern Whites have no garrison or military police forces at hands. historically there were no such forces, only some cossack units which stayed behind. Only the Siberian get some.

Some cosaks were in this duty, but its effect was spoiled by White rear garrison who theft the paesants.

we should consider to introduce White garrison forces consisting one or two elements and eventually some additional police units like the cheka one.

Ok. But, as I already wrote elsewhere, it must cost EP and NM before 1920 (or before they start to very loose the war) (Whites didn't want to see and correct their own flaws), and only some EP after (when realty make them starting to think about their actions).
So, this police should mainly to maintain law and order in the own White army in rear area!, then only after that, they would more easily doing police on people, preventing them turning Green.

[TheDoctorKing]

The whites have plenty of conscript infantry regiments who will do fine for garrisoning towns. The lack of units with the "police" characteristic is a problem but it is balanced by the higher overall quality of their units. They can recruit regular infantry, which the Reds cannot do, for example. And their artillery is somewhat cheaper I think.

[Pat "Stonewall" Cleburne]

The whites have plenty of conscript infantry regiments who will do fine for garrisoning towns. The lack of units with the "police" characteristic is a problem but it is balanced by the higher overall quality of their units. They can recruit regular infantry, which the Reds cannot do, for example. And their artillery is somewhat cheaper I think.

I didn't notice any problems with the southern whites either. The land reform option works pretty well in keeping all my regions at >50% loyalty (or at least the regions that aren't bugged).