RUS Wishlist

[ERISS]

Komuch: they were too revolutionary for the middle-class because they wanted to introduce social reforms after their victory.

That was a promise when they were already victorious (before bolshevik coup), the reforms were promised for after WW1.
But when they 'allied' the Whites, they did the contrary of their promise (they gave lands to the returning kulaks) and become the better party for the middle-class, save yes they had difficulty in levying troops (paesants who were looking for these lands, but Komuch was the better hope ('lesser evil') for them in the White area).
So, I'm ok with Andatiep: Players could want a "'what if' Whites became smart and use the Komuch to talk to paesants?" (the 6 Reforms allowed, which are just promises once lands have already been given to kulaks).

[Athens]

"- To introduce the impact of loyalty in the Regional Decisions, we will "gather" Conscription & Requisitions policies as a same type of "pillage policies" which will both bring Conscripts, money and WS, but the new "Conscription" (to be renamed) will be available only if the loyalty (of the area's main City) is more than 51%, when the new "Requisitions" (to be renamed) will only shows up if the loyalty is less than 50% and more than 10%. The new "Conscription" give 160 Conscripts, 80 Money and 5 WS and cost 25% loyalty. The new "Requisitions" give only 90 Conscripts, 50 Money and 3 WS, and also cost 25% loyalty. Then if an area have less than 10% loyalty, the players really need to perform Tcheka & reforms RGD in the region were they really have no supports before they can get incomes from it. Because for now, if an area is already at 0% loyalty, you can always continue to do requisitions and, if you hold the capital of the area with a strong force, just don't care of the greens around..."

Linking strictly the loyalty and conscription /requisition has no historical roots. White and Red Armies sustained themselves by enrolling and requisitioning in the areas just conquered, because of the breakdown of transports which hindered much of the supply to come regularly and in large quantities from the rear.

In game term doing requisition in areas close to the enemy is a risk because of the possibility of enemy counterstroke, sufficient incentive to place regional decisions mostly in the rear.

[Athens]

That was a promise when they were already victorious (before bolshevik coup), the reforms were promised for after WW1.
But when they 'allied' the Whites, they did the contrary of their promise (they gave lands to the returning kulaks) and become the better party for the middle-class, save yes they had difficulty in levying troops (paesants who were looking for these lands, but Komuch was the better hope ('lesser evil') for them in the White area).
So, I'm ok with Andatiep: Players could want a "'what if' Whites became smart and use the Komuch to talk to paesants?" (the 6 Reforms allowed, which are easy promises once lands have already been given to kulaks).

Peasants wouldn't have listened to them. Why they should have listened Komuch as White Allied when they didn't listened to when Komuch was acting independantly?

Facts are stubborn as said Lenin.

[TheDoctorKing]

The mini-mods are a "what-if" scenario. In fact, the Whites were, as you suggest, mostly pretty racist and Russian nationalist in their political orientation and unwilling to make much effort to reach out to the peasants or non-Russian nationalities. The mod says that if the Komuch uprising is successful by capturing the Volga cities, then it becomes the dominant faction and the other Whites accept their political leadership. Their Western allies were certainly encouraging them to make more democratic reforms in order to appeal to the masses. This scenario presumes that the White military leadership took their advice.

One of the unfortunate things about this game is that both sides historically were pretty repulsive. It's like playing an ASL scenario between SS and NKVD troops. You want to root for buildings to collapse on both sides. Now when I'm playing a game, I realize that I'm playing a game. I can play the SS or the Japanese in WWII games, the CSA in an ACW game, or what have you and not be confused about the nature of the side I'm portraying or the difference between me the player and the historical actors. But it is nice to have some certifiable "good guys" in a game. Maybe more people would buy it if they thought it might have a positive outcome in terms of justice and freedom triumphing over tyranny.

On your point about the AI: I don't want to speak for Andatiep (except that he's on vacation like just about everybody else in France ) but I get the impression that in this mod he isn't worrying too much about AI play. He stated at the beginning of the thread that he is designing a game for PBEM play. I think he just doesn't enjoy playing against the AI in general.

[ERISS]

Linking strictly the loyalty and conscription /requisition has no historical roots.

You mean loyalty does not help in raising troops?

White and Red Armies sustained themselves by enrolling and requisitioning in the areas just conquered, because of the breakdown of transports which hindered much of the supply to come regularly and in large quantities from the rear.
In game term doing requisition in areas close to the enemy is a risk because of the possibility of enemy counterstroke, sufficient incentive to place regional decisions mostly in the rear.

I don't understand: You say something (areas just conquiered) then its reverse (risk incentive to the rear).
EDIT: Ok, you say ingame is the reverse than historically; but what about the rail transport?

Peasants wouldn't have listened to them. Why they should have listened Komuch as White Allied when they didn't listened to when Komuch was acting independantly?

Before SR give paesant just promises, paesants had given power to SR.
Even after SR lost power, paesants still gave them their faith (see elections as a fact where Lenin lost but declare the vote badly counted), as, if SR lied to them (they didn't legalized the land sharing), they didn't prove not keeping their promise for after WW1 (but, ok, afterward in Komuch they gave back the lands to kulaks, but they too let some freedom in agreeing unions and meetings, what the Whites didn't want).
Paesants didn't want to go in Komuch army, but they didn't really turn offensivly Green against them. So, Komuch speaking, even mistrusted by paesant, could be usefull for Whites against Green levies.

[Athens]

Their Western allies were certainly encouraging them to make more democratic reforms in order to appeal to the masses. This scenario presumes that the White military leadership took their advice.

Seems to me unplausible. Brits gave Kolchak and Denikin much support than they gave to pidulski or Balts who were at this time closer to our current definition of democracy...

For AI, ( when SEPRUS will be able to deliver a real working official patch ) RUS will be a 3 factions game: unbalancing AI for one is unbalancing the whole thing and PBEM with 2 players have to take into account AI to get better results. Facts are stubborn: you may consider AI definitly unable to play well, but in this case, RUS PBEM require 3 players, not 2

For the rest, back to winter in 1.02b. Russian winter, an essential feature.

[TheDoctorKing]

You are quite correct, there should be three players. Playing the playtest game as both White factions I have to maintain a little bit of schizophrenia that should be familiar to people who have played board games against themselves. It would be better if we had two different White players. Especially now that the two factions have a land frontier, it is difficult for me to act as if I don't know what my other hand is doing

[Athens]

You are quite correct, there should be three players. Playing the playtest game as both White factions I have to maintain a little bit of schizophrenia that should be familiar to people who have played board games against themselves. It would be better if we had two different White players. Especially now that the two factions have a land frontier, it is difficult for me to act as if I don't know what my other hand is doing

Left hand or the right?

[andatiep]

Let's go...

Komuch: something is profondly wrong in the idea Komuch had a chance to survive. the sad truth is the Komuch was made of the most honest and democratic fraction of the political class of Russia, but they get from people no support. No support at all. Not because bolsheviks won quickly over Komuch or because Whites let them agonize. Bolsheviks won easily because Komuch had no troops, no support and their defeat, apart in the SR ranks, was mourned by none. They were unfortunatly not sufficiently revolutionarty for peasants and workers by delaying any real social reform after the end of the civil war, and they were too revolutionary for the middle-class because they wanted to introduce social reforms after their victory. In civil war, you need one enemy, not 2.

Komuch chance was the Czech incident and support. But even this support was limited as Czech troops began to show signs of weariness from September 18.

So in any case, the probability of a democratic directory is about 0. What is possible in historical terms is a larger influence in the White movement, made possible by a slighter better armed resistance at first, but too by a more enlightened White politic.

Nice historical summary of the situation for newcomers, but i don't see why you didn't post it on the dedicated Historical forum but here.
The only sad truth is that you believe that the probability 0 does exist, which could be a deep limitation for your personnal scientific and philosophical developpement.
Besides this, the mini-MOD simulate exactly what you said : "a larger influence [of the democratic liberal and socialist civil power] in the White movement, made possible by a slighter better armed resistance at first, but too by a more enlightened White politic."

But after all, it add the possibility in the game that the RED player don't succeed to erase the Komouch before it could became the official civil political power of the White factions, mostly thanks to the support of the Allied High Command. And it simulate the consequences of such a historical fiction, which is the purpose of such a game.

"Mini-MOD "Foreign recognitions & alliances"
[...]

Conclusion: Denikin, Kolchak were both mad and dumb when anyone claimed the necessity to ally with ethnic minorities among White ranks...

Back to history:
RealPolitik is unfortunatly always discarded by the masses who prefer good old nationalist or political passions.

Is it possible sometimes to speak with you as a human born with equal rights and abilities in History or you will always communicate with us in this forums like a divinity ?

Your sentence about Realpolitik is a philosophical opinion, not a historical analysis.
There is no evidences that the russian masses (so the peaseants) were ultranationalist in 1917. Maybe a bit in 1914. But in 1917, surely not. The "October Revolution" and the fact that the Kerenski government which decided to continue the WWI didn't got any popular support during this Coup is a perfect demonstration of this evaluation.
Keeping the Empire of the Tsar was not a priority of the majority of the people during the RCW, whatever was the factions it belongs to.

When they were politized, White soldiers backed up their engagment to nationalism and were fighting to restauring Russia in the 1914 frontiers. When they were not politized, and only soldiers of fortune in an unfortunate civil war, White soldiers were just as racist ot at least chauvinistic than common people under any latitude at any time. being Russians, they shouldn't care about the political advantage to abandon territories rules by Russia.

We actually don't speak here about the first wave of white volunteers who was mostly "politicized" nationalists. We care here about the masses of the peaseants that made the majority of the largest faction's armies (and this even don't include the very less motivated peaseants which were enroled by force and which priority was anyway to escape from this fight and go home).
The question here is not that the peasants willing to fight in the white armies did or not care on the wide "political" advantages to abandon those territories, but that they first concretely did care of their own local regions to be free from the Reds and that there is no reasons that their moral and value in combat in the battlefield can decrease by 45% just because their white leaders "gave up" some remote non-russian speaking territories, and especially if they ally after all with them and get their support against the Reds, with the benediction of the Western powers with their war fournitures.

Best point: War against Poles in 1920 surprised Bolsheviks by the sudden raise of a real even if limited nationalist support for war, prefiguring the rise of nationalism which saved Stalin in 1941. Voluntary enlistment was better and motivated not by the desire to expand the Revolution to world, a dream shared by an handful of red intellectuals( Stalin being interestingly much more cautious about as better linked to popular feelings). Behind Brusilov commitment, many jsut fought against Poles for russian nationalist motives.

So in any case, any Enlightened White politics about minorities can't be based on the assertion it would have been popular.

I'm not sure it is your best point : War against Poles generated patriotism in central russia and bielorussia just because the Bolchevik propaganda said the Poles did first attack and invade russian territories like polish nobility did during the middle age (which was mostly true).
Finally, i don't see why we speak about the patriotic feelings among the red troops at this period when we are supposed to speak on the link between the white troops' moral and the independences recognition...

These mini-mods are presented as destined for PBEM. Fine. But for 2 players PBEM or only 3 players PBEM?
[...]
Conclusion: PBEM with these rules only when the 3 playable factions are under player rule. Any AI with such an addition of penalties will crumble shortly.

You could have save the time to list all the IA "bugs" for mini-MODs that are designed for PBEM. I never criticized your quest to improve the IA, so i don't see why you spend time to argue on PBEM MODs. If you like some, just adapt it to the IA if you feel you can, if you don't like it, please don't demonstrate that it is shit just because it don't care of the IA.

But thanks to your post i did noted that the mini-MODs' page are maybe not enough presented like PBEM-only MODs. It need to be more clear.

Ex: Terek cossacks or some other types were not originally from Caucasia. They were brought to Caucasia as an assimilation plan by the Tzar. Like other cossacks and Rus peasants migration to Turkestan/central asia to take natives land/farms. They should be very much racist or extreme nationalist. From this environment it should be difficult to gain support for Komuch and other democrat movements. And they should be less willingly support alliances with minor nations.

And what about the Don & Kuban cossacks and the minorities like the Bakshir which were asking for more autonomy and slow or stop their support to the white Cause because of the White conservative leadership ?
And anyway what are few cossacks and minorities when the Whites did need after all to gather huge quantity of russian peaseants to really challenge the red army in the second part of the war...

Linking strictly the loyalty and conscription /requisition has no historical roots. [...]

??? Are you serious ?? I think till you're in such a state of mind, we will never have the same historical roots, so i prefer don't debate this obvious point.

"Their Western allies were certainly encouraging them to make more democratic reforms in order to appeal to the masses. This scenario presumes that the White military leadership took their advice."

Seems to me unplausible. Brits gave Kolchak and Denikin much support than they gave to pidulski or Balts who were at this time closer to our current definition of democracy...

The chronology should be recalled. Janin was appointed as Allied High Command in all Russia by London and Paris. His personnal political view was close to the Komouch. If he would have arrived in Russia before the Directory or Kolchak's Coup, he would have supported the Komouch as the civil political white leadership. And Paris and London would have been fine with it later because the remaining National Assembly would give a legitimity to their intervention in Russia.
In this conditions, there would be much less probability that a military coup happen in Siberia and that the white military leadership stop any diplomatic options towards independences/new allies or social reforms towards peasants.

This option is enough plausible to be playable.

Brits military advisors in Omsk supported Kolchak because Janin was not yet there, because they believe it would improve the army organization and because they didn't understood the RCW political problems. There is no evidences that London gave them orders to organize such a Coup, but once it is done and Janin dismissed as Allied High Command because of the Kolchak's Coup, then of course the Brits supported it later by pragmatism. I don't see where is the relationship with the Komouch in your sentence, but as you probably know it, Brits did supported Pilsudski and the Baltic states too, but don't need to do it a lot since both got already an enormous support from France and Germany.

For AI, ( when SEPRUS will be able to deliver a real working official patch ) RUS will be a 3 factions game: unbalancing AI for one is unbalancing the whole thing and PBEM with 2 players have to take into account AI to get better results. Facts are stubborn: you may consider AI definitly unable to play well, but in this case, RUS PBEM require 3 players, not 2

For the rest, back to winter in 1.02b. Russian winter, an essential feature.

Why are you always complaining again and again on the SEPRUS services in any kind of threads around more than needed ? I would understand it from a newcomer expecting some perfect product, but you are a big boy now, who perfectly know the limits of the project. Maybe you enjoy a world of discord in which you can shine, but i still hope that one day you will look to build together or at least to work peacefully alone.

A same Human player have always the possibility to play both Whites' factions.
I believe that the game should be played by two players, like in AACW, and i design the mini-MODs with this in mind. I never understood why there is two playable White factions (among ten of them), although it have maybe some advantages in the background code to balance and design the game.
I really can't see why a South White player would enjoy that an IA playing the Siberian corrupt its plans against a human Red opponent, when he can play both Whites. Some would say that it give to much power to the whites, but i would tell them to remember that their troops don't share supply and can't be merged, it's already a big handicap (which is BTW historically not very accurate...).

[Athens]

Nice historical summary of the situation for newcomers, but i don't see why you didn't post it on the dedicated Historical forum but here.
The only sad truth is that you believe that the probability 0 does exist, which could be a deep limitation for your personnal scientific and philosophical developpement.
Besides this, the mini-MOD simulate exactly what you said : "a larger influence [of the democratic liberal and socialist civil power] in the White movement, made possible by a slighter better armed resistance at first, but too by a more enlightened White politic."

But after all, it add the possibility in the game that the RED player don't succeed to erase the Komouch before it could became the official civil political power of the White factions, mostly thanks to the support of the Allied High Command. And it simulate the consequences of such a historical fiction, which is the purpose of such a game.





Is it possible sometimes to speak with you as a human born with equal rights and abilities in History or you will always communicate with us in this forums like a divinity ?

Your sentence about Realpolitik is a philosophical opinion, not a historical analysis.
There is no evidences that the russian masses (so the peaseants) were ultranationalist in 1917. Maybe a bit in 1914. But in 1917, surely not. The "October Revolution" and the fact that the Kerenski government which decided to continue the WWI didn't got any popular support during this Coup is a perfect demonstration of this evaluation.
Keeping the Empire of the Tsar was not a priority of the majority of the people during the RCW, whatever was the factions it belongs to.




We actually don't speak here about the first wave of white volunteers who was mostly "politicized" nationalists. We care here about the masses of the peaseants that made the majority of the largest faction's armies (and this even don't include the very less motivated peaseants which were enroled by force and which priority was anyway to escape from this fight and go home).
The question here is not that the peasants willing to fight in the white armies did or not care on the wide "political" advantages to abandon those territories, but that they first concretely did care of their own local regions to be free from the Reds and that there is no reasons that their moral and value in combat in the battlefield can decrease by 45% just because their white leaders "gave up" some remote non-russian speaking territories, and especially if they ally after all with them and get their support against the Reds, with the benediction of the Western powers with their war fournitures.




I'm not sure it is your best point : War against Poles generated patriotism in central russia and bielorussia just because the Bolchevik propaganda said the Poles did first attack and invade russian territories like polish nobility did during the middle age (which was mostly true).
Finally, i don't see why we speak about the patriotic feelings among the red troops at this period when we are supposed to speak on the link between the white troops' moral and the independences recognition...





You could have save the time to list all the IA "bugs" for mini-MODs that are designed for PBEM. I never criticized your quest to improve the IA, so i don't see why you spend time to argue on PBEM MODs. If you like some, just adapt it to the IA if you feel you can, if you don't like it, please don't demonstrate that it is shit just because it don't care of the IA.

But thanks to your post i did noted that the mini-MODs' page are maybe not enough presented like PBEM-only MODs. It need to be more clear.





And what about the Don & Kuban cossacks and the minorities like the Bakshir which were asking for more autonomy and slow or stop their support to the white Cause because of the White conservative leadership ?
And anyway what are few cossacks and minorities when the Whites did need after all to gather huge quantity of russian peaseants to really challenge the red army in the second part of the war...





??? Are you serious ?? I think till you're in such a state of mind, we will never have the same historical roots, so i prefer don't debate this obvious point.






The chronology should be recalled. Janin was appointed as Allied High Command in all Russia by London and Paris. His personnal political view was close to the Komouch. If he would have arrived in Russia before the Directory or Kolchak's Coup, he would have supported the Komouch as the civil political white leadership. And Paris and London would have been fine with it later because the remaining National Assembly would give a legitimity to their intervention in Russia.
In this conditions, there would be much less probability that a military coup happen in Siberia and that the white military leadership stop any diplomatic options towards independences/new allies or social reforms towards peasants.

This option is enough plausible to be playable.

Brits military advisors in Omsk supported Kolchak because Janin was not yet there, because they believe it would improve the army organization and because they didn't understood the RCW political problems. There is no evidences that London gave them orders to organize such a Coup, but once it is done and Janin dismissed as Allied High Command because of the Kolchak's Coup, then of course the Brits supported it later by pragmatism. I don't see where is the relationship with the Komouch in your sentence, but as you probably know it, Brits did supported Pilsudski and the Baltic states too, but don't need to do it a lot since both got already an enormous support from France and Germany.




Why are you always complaining again and again on the SEPRUS services in any kind of threads around more than needed ? I would understand it from a newcomer expecting some perfect product, but you are a big boy now, who perfectly know the limits of the project. Maybe you enjoy a world of discord in which you can shine, but i still hope that one day you will look to build together or at least to work peacefully alone.

A same Human player have always the possibility to play both Whites' factions.
I believe that the game should be played by two players, like in AACW, and i design the mini-MODs with this in mind. I never understood why there is two playable White factions (among ten of them), although it have maybe some advantages in the background code to balance and design the game.
I really can't see why a South White player would enjoy that an IA playing the Siberian corrupt its plans against a human Red opponent, when he can play both Whites. Some would say that it give to much power to the whites, but i would tell them to remember that their troops don't share supply and can't be merged, it's already a big handicap (which is BTW historically not very accurate...).

When a reply is just full of personal attacks, just one word suffices: bullshit. No need to read the rest. Remember me Lenin's constant quipping and insults against opponents, which BTW wasn't the sign he was always wrong in his tactical and strategical decisions but as a person inspirs me....oh well....

Back to nicer things

[Baris]

And what about the Don & Kuban cossacks and the minorities like the Bakshir which were asking for more autonomy and slow or stop their support to the white Cause because of the White conservative leadership ?
And anyway what are few cossacks and minorities when the Whites did need after all to gather huge quantity of russian peaseants to really challenge the red army in the second part of the war...

Bashkirs were brutal as well. In some sources they were very eager to take revenge(They did actually) from other tribes in which they from alliance with Rus and attacked Bashkirs in 1600-1700's. But historically(from Bashkir sources) time to time they rebel from the Russian empire but the purpose were not the independence. (As they decided to be under Russian Empire rule in the first place). Mainly they were against servile system so they rebelled. Because of the assimilation plan, their relation with Russia were terrible that many bloody wars happened. I find it interesting that Bashkirs have allied with Whites in the first place.
In 1917 they wanted autonomy but it wasn't clear what they wanted I think. Most probably old OE officers had an influence on them. But from my recent readings 500k men army(In Russian Empire times) decreased to 15-20K men in RCW ,which doesn't look much. So whites could be a little quick about their desicion about Bashkirs.

There were not many ammunition for them to use so they rely on bow,sword type weapons mostly in RCW just like the 7 years war that they were not allowed to use rifle type weapons when marching Berlin in Russian army.
So my wishlist is ammo should be more scarce.

[Athens]

Bashkirs were brutal as well. In some sources they were very eager to take revenge(They did actually) from other tribes in which they from alliance with Rus and attacked Bashkirs in 1600-1700's. But historically(from Bashkir sources) time to time they rebel from the Russian empire but the purpose were not the independence. (As they decided to be under Russian Empire rule in the first place). Mainly they were against servile system so they rebelled. Because of the assimilation plan, their relation with Russia were terrible that many bloody wars happened. I find it interesting that Bashkirs have allied with Whites in the first place.
In 1917 they wanted autonomy but it wasn't clear what they wanted I think. Most probably old OE officers had an influence on them. But from my recent readings 500k men army(In Russian Empire times) decreased to 15-20K men in RCW ,which doesn't look much. So whites could be a little quick about their desicion about Bashkirs.

There were not many ammunition for them to use so they rely on bow,sword type weapons mostly in RCW just like the 7 years war that they were not allowed to use rifle type weapons when marching Berlin in Russian army.
So my wishlist is ammo should be more scarce.

You're right Baris.

BTW the Volunteer army in June 18 was around 10,000 strong, Don Cossacks were 30,000. Nuff said from a divinity about the approximations of the mortals

[Baris]

You're right Baris.

BTW the Volunteer army in June 18 was around 10,000 strong, Don Cossacks were 30,000. Nuff said from a divinity about the approximations of the mortals

Very true , scale of the weigher should need a few balance according to those numbers
History is very much debatable and full of irony in it .

[andatiep]

The mini-MODs installation pack is now updated for the patch 1.03a

You can install it by :

1) erasing the file .../RUS/GameData/Models/Models.cached and the file .../RUS/GameData/Units/Units.cached

2) downloading this file, unzip it and copy/paste it in your .../Revolution under Siege/ repository (copy over the original files) :

Mini-MODs for RUS - patch 1.03a : RUS.zip


NB:
- This current pack is a DoctorKing & Andatiep selection from the wiki page)
- this mini-MODs are mostly designed for PBEM games.

[Athens]

SelectFaction = $RED
StartEvent = evt_nam_RED_PolitkomProtectFixGroup|99|1|NULL|NULL|NULL|NULL

Conditions
MinDate = 1918/06/10
TurnIndex = 2;4;6;8;10;12;14;16;18;20;22;24;26;28;30;32;34;36;38;40;42;44;46;48;50;52;54;56;58;60;62;64;66;68;70;72;74;76;78;80;82;84;86;88;90;92;94;96;100

SelectSubUnits = FactionTags RED
EvalSubUnitSel = NULL

Actions
AlterCuSubUnit = ApplyToList;Probability 50;Attempts 40;SetParentGroupFixing 1;SkipAttribs 100 #PoliticalUnit#

GenMsg
DescEvent = evt_desc_RED_PolitkomProtectFixGroup

EndEvent

AGE WIKI

The valid range of TurnIndex depends on TurnsPerYear set in the Scenario definition.

24 turns/year = (0-23)

[Baris]

- Turkmen units (infantry & cavalry) will loose 50% cohesion if they go to Ural theater, and 95% if they go even further. [/I]

The AI doesn't care about areas limitations and penalties.

.

I think in reality there would be no penalty to move outside the theatre. As the main aim for Turkmens were to unify under religous and ethnical terms. So they realise they should form some ties with the Ottomans (if restricted to ural no chance to survive that they realised) starting from Rus-Ottoman wars in 1874(huge disappointment for them) Specially the case for Bashkirs.

[andatiep]

AGE WIKI

The valid range of TurnIndex depends on TurnsPerYear set in the Scenario definition.
24 turns/year = (0-23)

Thank you for your help which hopefully restablish peacefull diplomatic relationships .

According to the AGE modding wiki, maybe the code for this MOD should provide one event pear year which lock randomly a group without a Politkom unit, each 2 turns (up to 23).

But we use it like this in our PBEM with DoctorKing and it works perfectly for the second year now. I guess it is because i set the event to work 99 times, so after each year, the engine reset the turn index to zero. And it finally works like that .
But surelly it is better to have a good code in case of the Engine change its behaviour when it will be updated in the future.

I think in reality there would be no penalty to move outside the theatre. As the main aim for Turkmens were to unify under religous and ethnical terms. So they realise they should form some ties with the Ottomans (if restricted to ural no chance to survive that they realised) starting from Rus-Ottoman wars in 1874(huge disappointment for them) Specially the case for Bashkirs.

I gave up with this penalty for the Turkmens, since there is already a penalty like the one for the cossacks in the game for all this units with their asian "ability".

But i still believe there should be a penalty : pan-turkism in Russian empire's Turkestan & Kazakhstan (if enough strong to be simulated in the game) had anyway a first priority to link its areas of settlements in the southern direction toward Azerbaidjan and then Turky, rather than looking in the North for territories in Oural to care of the tiny Bakshir community.
So anyway, Turkmens' troops shouldn't get a proper cohesion in Oural and Siberian theaters (except the Bakshir troops).

[Athens]

Don't worry, I've understood since a long time even you're wrong, a few dozen sentences later, you're finally always right. That's so just magical I can 't even consider myself how I could have seen in this a bug.

BTW, I noticed this other bug:


RUS All Includes.sctgre

I haven't seen a file named like this in your mod, and it doesn't seem to belong to the official version too.


So the events of the RUS all include file will not be active in your mod.
As this file contains too the path to the following event files:

RUS FlavorEvents.sct
RUS All Scenarios.sct
RUS Poland Auto DOW.sct
FinlandSetup.sct
BalticSetup.sct
RomaniaSetup.sct
PolandSetup.sct
CaucasusSetup.sct
RUS F3 Options Reinforcements.sct
RUS F3 Options Leaders Reinforcements.sct
RUS F4 Options Politics.sct
RUS F5 Diplomatic Options RED-DOWs.sct
RUS F5 Diplomatic Options WHI-DOWs.sct
RUS F6 Options Various.sct
ANAAI.sct
GRNAI.sct
UKRAI.sct
REDAI1918.sct
REDAI1918_2.sct
REDAI1918_3.sct
REDAI1918_4.sct
REDAI1918_5.sct
REDAI1918_6.sct
REDAI1918_7.sct
REDAI1918_8.sct
WH3AI.sct
WHIAI.sct
WHIAI2.sct
WHIAI_3.sct
WH3AI_2.sct
AIAggro_WHI.sct
AIAggro_Red.sct
AIAggro_WH3.sct
AIGar.sct
POLAI.sct
POLAI_2.sct
AIGar.sct
AIGar2.sct
RGDAI.sct

I fear your game experience could be a little uncomplete. Of course, most of the files are those concerning AI ( not only howewer,as there will be no reinforcements, no new leader, no option,etc.). Who would care about AI in a computer wargame? I know the last official patch has solved the bug affecting "Red Verdun" by removing any possibility for the AI to use this option, a solution which has the merit of simplicity. My next version of FY will introduce a dumber treatment of the bug since the AI will play the option but I'm just modding now, not being part of an official team who have to deliver a much professionnal work, requiring high Quality Assurance concerns, especially when patching.

There are some other oddities but I'm sure you will squash them with ease.

Before leaving this forum, a last tip: before posting the mod, run a few turns and at the end of each open both mainlog and scriptreport files. There are thousad lines I know, and this reading will deprive certainly you from the time you're using at writing these long sentences you're enjoying, but it remains the better way to check possible errors, as the AGE script engine has for particularity 3 small letters may destroy almost anything.

But after all, when you're working as member of the official Seprus Team, I'm sure you're applying thse basics, so pardon me to have just mentioned these without necessity, as you can't ignore them.

Oh...There are too AI files. Very complex, but once you have learnt how to read them, you may write really interesting AI events.

[Athens]

I think in reality there would be no penalty to move outside the theatre. As the main aim for Turkmens were to unify under religous and ethnical terms. So they realise they should form some ties with the Ottomans (if restricted to ural no chance to survive that they realised) starting from Rus-Ottoman wars in 1874(huge disappointment for them) Specially the case for Bashkirs.

Hi Baris. You're Turkish, I'm French, so after all it's possible you know a little more than me about history of Turkish populations Please send me evidences about your points and I will look how to integrate them in my own work, with a method compatible with AI behaviour.

[andatiep]

BTW, I noticed this other bug:
RUS All Includes.sctgre

Very important "cat-on-the-keyboard-while-you're-away bug", indeed .
I was already wondering why i didn't get any new leaders during my last turn...

But i can't thank you again anymore , since i can see that it is not a fair help from a MODing comrade but a new arguement in your will to demonstrate that me or SEPRUS team are unable to participate or work on this game, according to our wishes and free time, and that you're finally the only skilled half-god which can improve this game alone against the ugly "professionals" and any slaves that choose to help them.
Obviously you don't want peace. Nothing changed in your state of mind since months now and you're trolling counter-productive in most of your posts:

Don't worry, I've understood since a long time even you're wrong, a few dozen sentences later, you're finally always right. That's so just magical I can 't even consider myself how I could have seen in this a bug.

Who would care about AI in a computer wargame? I know the last official patch has solved the bug affecting "Red Verdun" by removing any possibility for the AI to use this option, a solution which has the merit of simplicity.

I'm just modding now, not being part of an official team who have to deliver a much professionnal work, requiring high Quality Assurance concerns, especially when patching.

But after all, when you're working as member of the official Seprus Team, I'm sure you're applying thse basics, so pardon me to have just mentioned these without necessity, as you can't ignore them.

Oh...There are too AI files. Very complex, but once you have learnt how to read them, you may write really interesting AI events.

----------------------------------------------------

Before leaving this forum, a last tip :...

The holy question is "Why are you still here ?" You always say you will leave us in our swamp, but you're always back to check that people still can see all your advertising that we are in a swamp !
It's a real theater play !
I loved your last faked departure from the forum : http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?t=22085&page=2


Maybe you should ask yourself to be banned if you don't find the will to do what you say and to say what you do .

[NY Rangers]

Ladies, put your handbags away.

[Athens]

Ladies, put your handbags away.

BTW, NY Rangers is a reference to hockey, I suppose?

[NY Rangers]

BTW, NY Rangers is a reference to hockey, I suppose?

Well it was the first thing that came to my mind when I bought BOA back in the day.

[Athens]

Well it was the first thing that came to my mind when I bought BOA back in the day.

BOA was my first AGEOD game too. Very good design, with the right balance between details and necessary abstraction. Happy time indeed

[Baris]

But i still believe there should be a penalty : pan-turkism in Russian empire's Turkestan & Kazakhstan (if enough strong to be simulated in the game) had anyway a first priority to link its areas of settlements in the southern direction toward Azerbaidjan and then Turky, rather than looking in the North for territories in Oural to care of the tiny Bakshir community.
So anyway, Turkmens' troops shouldn't get a proper cohesion in Oural and Siberian theaters (except the Bakshir troops).

Yes quite true. Pan-Turkism most probably an intellectual idea(regarding time frame) between intellects but in practice I suspect local peasant armies would have difficulties marching, adopting different regions towards even Azerbaijan(They are not regular soldiers after all).And they are very seperated regions for centuries. But contradictary part is only logistics were a handicap with current conditions says some Ottoman military records. But I believe the first point is true.

Hi Baris. You're Turkish, I'm French, so after all it's possible you know a little more than me about history of Turkish populations Please send me evidences about your points and I will look how to integrate them in my own work, with a method compatible with AI behaviour.

Hello Athens,
but No ! That is Soviet history ! Doesnt matter to be French, Turk or Argentinian. That is somehow hard to reach part of history with reasons
As far as I have read Soviet historians until 1940's implies Turkestan fought until last hope. In later periods historians change their opinion and say they decided to choose communism without fighting. Maybe they show Sultan Galiyev* as an example. But Sultan Galiyev(Red) and Madamın bek(White) had similar goals. Independent Turkistan.
But in militaristic terms I suspect there weren't a unity even between turkmens supporting white cause. "Alash orda" mainly from kazan originated Kazakh intellectuals while Thachiks are somehow differ.
Overall Firunze was very successfull eliminating both Kolchak and Turkmen movement. At first it look like Turkmens trusted bolsheviks to get rid of the people who took their land in Czar Russia times. But bolsheviks gave arms to the people who took the lands from them and that makes pretty much impossible they support Red movement. And didnt give the time to prepare militia.

*He looks as an interesting leader to be added to the game as a Red propagandist for Turkmens.

Thanks for your attention .

Edit: I think Basmachi movement againt Firunze can be simulated in Drang scenario. There were pretty much uprisings that Reds lose control of some regions for some period.

[Athens]

Very important "cat-on-the-keyboard-while-you're-away bug", indeed .
I was already wondering why i didn't get any new leaders during my last turn...

If you had looked at the Scriptreport file you would have learned why, without needing a half-God.

Name me Hercules Time now to get Nemesis help for my password on this board.

[Pocus]

The problem I see is that you have not solved your love-hate relationship Athens/Clovis... You seem to be unable to work on your mod without firing arrows on the RUS Team.

In the end, this is counter productive. People will judge your merits and prowesses in modding by checking your work, there is no need to say repeatedly: 'see, they make errors and I'm the one fixing it'... You'll again degrade the mood of the forum by saying that, and nothing more.

Mod and show your work, this is what people appreciate in you. not constant mud slinging...

[Rafiki]

Maybe you should ask yourself to be banned if you don't find the will to do what you say and to say what you do .

[color="Blue"]I can be of help if you need this to happen, Clovis

Really, taking every opportunity you get to shoot snide remarks at others hereabouts (and on your blog) is hardly constructive. It makes everyone look bad, you above everyone else. [/color]

[NY Rangers]

Isn't his criticism valid though?

[Rafiki]

Isn't his criticism valid though?

Possibly. I'm not in a position to evaluate that; others closer to RUS development are better suited for that.

I do have to admit, though, that when the criticism gets packaged in self-glorification and the deprecation of others, the quality that criticism carries to me plummets. That's my problem here, not any valid criticism he may or may not have about the game, which in any case gets drowned out in the bile