Drang Nach Osten observations and questions

[Jagger2013]

I am experimenting with various options as the Reds in Drang Nach Osten, which looks like a fascinating scenario even though huge, and noticed a few things and have a few questions.

If I accept the German ultimatum and genuinely accept peace, I have noticed that all Red units in the Ukraine will disappear from the game if not evacuated from the Ukraine immediately. I would suggest that the game messages make it absolutely clear that the player must remove all units from the Ukraine if they chose to genuinely accept the German ultimatum or have the game automatically redeploy the units back into Russia. If the Red player does not evacuate those troops in Ukraine on turn 1, large numbers of troops just evaporate. (Also there are some locked troops which can't be evacuated out of the Ukraine including the Red Don River fleet plus admiral. I would suggest they be unlocked to allow evacuation if the Reds genuinely accept peace to allow their evacuation.)

Even after evacuation, I noticed the Ukrainian areas just evacuated are still designated as under Red control. On the next turn, I could move Red troops back into the red controlled parts of the Ukraine if I wanted but not the regions originally controlled by the Ukrainians at the start of the game. Is this intentional or should the evacuated regions convert to Ukrainian control and become off limits to Red entrance-until war is officially declared by the Reds at a later time?

I have noticed that the Germans and Reds have access to each other across their border between Russia and Poland where the Belarus and Mazollia provinces intersect-even though they are at peace with each other. Attacks can be launched through those two provinces even during peacetime. I assume it is a bug. Shouldn't crossing into enemy provinces be off limits to unfriendly troops until a state of war exists?

If the Reds genuinely accept the German ultimatum and later declare war against the Balts or the Finns or the Ukrainians or the Transcaussians, are the Reds automatically at war with the Germans? I declared an attack on the Baltic states and noticed that the Red-German relations dropped to 20, which is low, but I assume still not technically at war. I am guessing if I attack another country other than Germany or German troops, even a client country, a state of war doesn't technically exist until the Germans select a diplomatic "go to war" option? Is that correct? (I am partially asking this question because of the access between Reds and Germans at the intersection between the Belarus and Mozollia provinces.)

(IIRC, relations are described on the objectives page and +100 means allies, 0 means neutral and -100 means enemies at war.)

[Jagger2013]

I double-checked last night, as the reds I can attack the germans from belarus into Mozillia and then into rest of german Poland even though we are at peace. I can't enter Ukraine, Balt states or Finland without a declaration of war because we are at peace. And relations with Germany are +20. Definitely Reds and Germans are at peace. It is clearly a bug of some sort. The AI has sent some German troops into belarus but didn't attack and then withdrew.

This is a fascinating scenario. Whoever designed it was a genius. In particular, the diplomatic options are well thought out in terms of how the scenario plays out.

[Revan]

The same thing happens when the reds try to lure the germans and choose the false acceptance, germans can simply invade by the Bielorussian road and i think this is not WAD because Germany have no more casus belli.

[Jagger2013]

And unfortunately, the diplomacy decisions are not working properly. Hopefully they will be fixed in RUS Gold. It is a very interesting scenario but without the diplomacy options, the Reds cannot pick off the isolated small nations before facing the monster German army. I strongly suspect the Reds can't win if they can't delay facing the Germans until after they have taken out most of the potential German allies first.

[andatiep]

Noted. We'll have a look at this.

[Jagger2013]

Thanks Andatiep! Here is a thread concerning the issue: http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?26964-Wierd-outcomes-in-the-DNO-scenario&highlight=drang+nach+Osten+ultimatum.

According to PhilThib, the core of the problem is that minor nations are subfactions of Germany. So either you are at war with all of them or none of them which eliminates the one enemy at a time strategy of the diplomatic options.

[PhilThib]

Indeed... no way to solve the issue really, unless to make the minors indie factions and then it's no fun for the German player as he can no longer play with them...but there might be a "complex" trick using this + some of the Absorbfaction special script used in AJE for instance...it's going to be a lot of work for probably the minor benefit of a few players trying the strategy...not worth it IMHO unless you are willing to spend 30+ hours on that...

[Kensai]

I too agree that this what-if scenario is simply amazing. Probably the best what-if scenario I have ever encountered in a war game.

[James D Burns]

Totally agree, I actually prefer it to the civil war scenarios in the game. I just wish they would address the morale crashing problem due to such huge forces causing morale to crash far too soon in game. At most battles in DNO should only shift morale by one point. Any more than that and it only takes one successful campaign to force your opponents morale so low the game ends far before it should.

Jim

[andatiep]

Totally agree, I actually prefer it to the civil war scenarios in the game. I just wish they would address the morale crashing problem due to such huge forces causing morale to crash far too soon in game. At most battles in DNO should only shift morale by one point. Any more than that and it only takes one successful campaign to force your opponents morale so low the game ends far before it should.

Jim

This problem should be solved with a special set of events in all scenarios, including Drang Nach Osten.

[DarkGarry]

May be don't change National Morale at all as result of battle?

I propose to change it by taking/losing victory objectives (several NM) and level of Total casualties (-1NM for every 20000 or so). There are too many cases when NM is wasted. Current penalties for destroyed unit and when city surrenders are not balanced.

[Kensai]

I think the loss of NM by the loss of large armies is quite a good abstraction, albeit the excessive effects. Remember that this is the 7th year of the war (1914-1921) and there have already been tons of dead. Both Germany and Russia have lost a lot of people, a big convincing defeat might indeed destroy their will to further fight.

I like this scenario because it is a convincing what-if. If the Americans did not enter the war in 1918 and the German Spring Offensive had succeeded (difficult, but not impossible), this scenario might have been the result in real life!

[DarkGarry]

Huge changes in NM is the reason why DNO scenario is not playable, same reason - Grand campaign after 1920. When large armies emerge and destruction of units affect NM so drastically game goes out of balance very fast.

NM is Win-or-Lost criteria + affects max cohesion, it should be affected by casualties slightly, that's my opinion.

[Jagger2013]

I think the scenario is probably still pretty good against the AI. Although I suspect w/o the diplomacy options, a pbem game would probably be pretty one-sided. However 30 hours to create new events does sound like quite a task.

[DarkGarry]

Oh, Jagger2013 ... Don't tell me about AI

It is VERY basic. In DNO I went straight to Moscow (Minsk - Smolensk ... Moscow) and met just NO resistance at all along the way. AI don't mobilize, don't regroup forces, build new units rarely, don't defend Strategic objects, does not care about Supply... very BASIC, good for Beginners only.
Experiment - try DO nothing, just finish turn, and see that AI will do for the sake of fun.

[James D Burns]

This problem should be solved with a special set of events in all scenarios, including Drang Nach Osten.

Glad to hear it may finally be fixed. I would suggest if it is fixed, that the scenario be lengthened to at least double its current length. Without most games ending due to NM loss now, I think players will find the scenario is too short to achieve a decisive result in human play.

It’s very hard to make headway vs. a well entrenched strong enemy and breaking a line like that leaves the attacker devastated, so recovery times are long too. I see no issue with the scenario being too long, after all who wants to win just because time runs out. Better to make it so time is never the deciding factor by giving players more than enough time to achieve a decisive result via force of arms.

Jim

[andatiep]

Glad to hear it may finally be fixed. I would suggest if it is fixed, that the scenario be lengthened to at least double its current length. Without most games ending due to NM loss now, I think players will find the scenario is too short to achieve a decisive result in human play.

It’s very hard to make headway vs. a well entrenched strong enemy and breaking a line like that leaves the attacker devastated, so recovery times are long too. I see no issue with the scenario being too long, after all who wants to win just because time runs out. Better to make it so time is never the deciding factor by giving players more than enough time to achieve a decisive result via force of arms.

Jim

RUS is actually designed to be win with the control of a big majority of strategic towns among the list in the Objectives panel. This is the main way to win a clear victory. This should be more clear in the tooltips of the next patch/upgrade.

The NM level should not be concerned (any more).

The official chronological date limit of the scenario is in fact only a "checkpoint" where player should count VP if they want to score in a "historical" situation. Technically, they can always continue to play after this date. But the game will be less "historically balanced" since after this date, no more historical events and Options are designed, and many of the game options will not work for long time after.

[Kensai]

I think time should be of issue. Time pressure gives an extra challenge for the player, forcing him to make moves that perhaps are too risky and audacious. Without time restrains, every movement will be too meticulous and conservative. The risk of advancing fast to achieve goals in some certain time frame is an extra layer of challenge.

[andatiep]

I think time should be of issue. Time pressure gives an extra challenge for the player, forcing him to make moves that perhaps are too risky and audacious. Without time restrains, every movement will be too meticulous and conservative. The risk of advancing fast to achieve goals in some certain time frame is an extra layer of challenge.

+1.
Besides this, historical games should also simulate the amazing rythm and frame of events and of choices which had to be done each month like in the reality. That's why, for example, the 3 campaign scenarios should be designed with "time windows" where you don't have time to lose to reach some objectives if you want to have more political/strategical options later. Here the scenarios fix the date of the end of the civil war in late 1921. That is already one year more than in the reality : The last main events of the civil war was the Kronstadt and Tambov revolts, but both of them would happen only with the condition that the Whites are already almost completely defeated (and that the Reds are ruled by a Bolshevik Dictatorship). So players have currently one year more to finish the game. If in early 1922, the Reds and the Whites are still fighting and sharing a similar amount of forces and territories, i think it should be stop unless a complete check up of the world situation is done and new events and option should be designed.