What's with the economy?

[Mehring]

Playing the campaign as Bolshevik, there is nothing to tell a player how much money, recruits etc they should be getting each turn. This is what I find playing a handful of campaigns into 1919, and I cannot explain any of it.

Requisitioning does not necessarily deliver any money as the rules state.
Requisitioning MAY deliver war materials in vast quantities, hundreds of points. (one game I accumulated 500 plus war materials fof no apparent reason.

You can buy recruits, Cossack Cavalry, partial mobilisations etc, but don't expect them to arrive, you MAY just be throwing your money away. Why they sometimes arrive and sometimes don't, I don't know.

You can only print money twice in 1918-9.

Income fluctuates for no apparent reason and with no explanation.

The cost of replacements fluctuates (perhaps units too, I haven't checked.)

My money increased in two game turns DURING a turn. One second I had less than or next to nothing, the next I had 60+

I don't get this, I think it's broken.

[Clovis]

Playing the campaign as Bolshevik, there is nothing to tell a player how much money, recruits etc they should be getting each turn. This is what I find playing a handful of campaigns into 1919, and I cannot explain any of it.

Requisitioning does not necessarily deliver any money as the rules state.
Requisitioning MAY deliver war materials in vast quantities, hundreds of points. (one game I accumulated 500 plus war materials fof no apparent reason.

You can buy recruits, Cossack Cavalry, partial mobilisations etc, but don't expect them to arrive, you MAY just be throwing your money away. Why they sometimes arrive and sometimes don't, I don't know.

You can only print money twice in 1918-9.

Income fluctuates for no apparent reason and with no explanation.

The cost of replacements fluctuates (perhaps units too, I haven't checked.)

My money increased in two game turns DURING a turn. One second I had less than or next to nothing, the next I had 60+

I don't get this, I think it's broken.

Requisition: fixed in the next patch

Recruits: you're the first to report this problem, and you do it without save and with so few details we can't search anything. We need a save and a precise descriptio of the bug, if any

Money: WAD; After first use, More money option will be available on turn 6 and 18 of each year ( late April and early october as first turn is numbered 0). No bug here

Income fluctuates with NM for example, as explained in the manual.

Replacements cost fluctuates too, with inflation, as explained in the manual.

On the whole: one bug, one undetermined assertion, 3 WAD

Thanks for the input

Regards

[Mehring]

Well, believe it or not, I don't play a game making and labeling a save every turn in the expectation that something will go wrong. Never mind, from now on I will.

Neither do I know what you need to identify the problems, I'm not a game programer or psychic, and I don't expect the indifference and sarcasm that I receive from the likes of you and CatLord. Your arrogance is phenomenal.

........................

Cossacks are supposed to Appear in Tsaritsyn, according to the purchase info. These appeared in Moscow.

[Cat Lord]

Mehring, believe us or not, we are neither liars, nor sarcastic, and definitely not indifferent to players' problems, as do the many threads around here proves, and the high reputation of customer support that AgeOD and its partners like us have. Ask players around, and you will read it is not usurped.

I can understand your frustration and impatience to see your problems fixed, as all players wants when they buy a game.

But that does not give you a right to insult us and treat us the way you are. Neither here, nor on Matrix forum. On the other hand, you need to help us if you want us to help you.

Best regards,

Cat

[Sean E]

With the printing of new money, I have only seen that once as well and am nearly up to 1920 in my campaign now.

[Mehring]

"On the whole: one bug, one undetermined assertion, 3 WAD

Thanks for the input"

In other words, "what are you complaining about?" Just one example.

You treat me with respect and it will be returned. But I don't need to ask anyone about the way you (collectively) tell me I haven't found bugs in the game when I know I have, or just ignore what I say.

Here are two files. One is the last turn of requisition in 6 provinces, all but one 70+ loyal. The other is the following turn. You will see from the production record and money pool that I have not received anything from the requisition. A turn later, which I haven't uploaded, still nothing.

Further, the tooltip over money indicates a change of 28 and 25 per turn respectively. I'm not getting 25 roubles a turn, more like 5 or 6. Where is the money?

To add to the confusion, I notice that sums paid for forming divisions and various ledger payments are not immediately deducted from the money total.

[TheDoctorKing]

It seems that I've seen in several places an admission that requisitions aren't working as intended - maybe they were even intentionally taken down for the 1.00 release. So they know they need to work on that. And I think that the Red economy is going to be tweaked, too.

I've noticed the same things you have - the Reds don't have real good chances in the Grand Campaign because of their inability to raise money. I'm sort of waiting for the 1.01 patch to come out.

AGEOD is way better than any other game company I've dealt with in patching their games consistently and continuing to support them for years. Hell, AACW has been out for about four years and they are still planning another patch.

[wosung]

For redressing the economical draught or imbalance Clovis created an ad hoc tool to be found in the mod section here. This, I think, is good service.

As somebody else also wrote in another thread here: Some of the later events (Red grand campaign 1920/21) indeed don't seem to work, like partial mobilization. And apparently it's not because some of the required preconditions (money, WSU, etc.) are missing. As for for a proofing save game, Clovis, just take the "Kronstadt-possible-issue" ones I uploaded last on Monday in the main section of RUS here. Albeit in those save games I already spent all currencies at hand, when I figured out I can't get this mobilization event happen anyway. True war time Communism.

Mehring: Do you have all the required money, engagement points, war supplies, moral to buy those mob. & cossack events? As it is now, IIRC, you can decree those events even if some of the requirements are missing. But next turn you'll figure out, the events just didn't happen.

Regards





Regards

[Rafiki]

You treat me with respect and it will be returned. But I don't need to ask anyone about the way you (collectively) tell me I haven't found bugs in the game when I know I have, or just ignore what I say.

Mehring, I can assure you that no-one means any disrespect. Anyone who has spent some time on these forums can tell you that we don't do "disrespect" around here

In the days that have passed since RUS was released, we have received much feedback and a number of reports on possible bugs. Some of these reports are based on misunderstandings about game mechanics, some are disagreements with design decisions made by the team and a good number of the reports are based on actual bugs in the game. Getting these separated from one another can be a bit tricky at times, and at times things will become a bit rushed in the effort to cover as much ground as possible. This may leave answers a bit lacking in elaboration and in-depth explanation, but again, I assure you, this should by no means be taken as disrespect.

Just so there is no doubt; the feedback and the bug reports we are receiving is invaluable, and already in the next patch you will start getting something back for the effort you are putting in. Hopefully you'll consider it worth your while to report these bugs and feel that you have something in return for doing so

One thing I'd like to ask, is that you also keep in mind that basically no-one on the RUS team has English as their primary language, and it is easy for things to become "lost in translation". Assume good will on everyone's part, and make room for language differences causing misunderstandings

[Alexor]

"On the whole: one bug, one undetermined assertion, 3 WAD

Thanks for the input"

In other words, "what are you complaining about?" Just one example.

You treat me with respect and it will be returned. But I don't need to ask anyone about the way you (collectively) tell me I haven't found bugs in the game when I know I have, or just ignore what I say.

Here are two files. One is the last turn of requisition in 6 provinces, all but one 70+ loyal. The other is the following turn. You will see from the production record and money pool that I have not received anything from the requisition. A turn later, which I haven't uploaded, still nothing.

Further, the tooltip over money indicates a change of 28 and 25 per turn respectively. I'm not getting 25 roubles a turn, more like 5 or 6. Where is the money?

To add to the confusion, I notice that sums paid for forming divisions and various ledger payments are not immediately deducted from the money total.

Requisition is bugged, they have said it several times now, it will be fixed in the next patch...no need to send screens about it.
But I agree that the whole economy and ledger system is not very clear sometime.
As the White I tried to enlist prisoners, there was a cost in $ and EP and I needed to have at least 5000 prisoners. Only the Prisoners box on the F9 page is not clear...there is a 0 going out of the prisoner box and I don't know if the number is in hundreds, tens or in units.

[Mehring]

"Mehring: Do you have all the required money, engagement points, war supplies, moral to buy those mob. & cossack events? As it is now, IIRC, you can decree those events even if some of the requirements are missing. But next turn you'll figure out, the events just didn't happen"

I was beginning to figure that this may have some part in the problem and am paying close atention to this in a new game. I've recently done a successful part-mobilisation with all the funding in place.

"One thing I'd like to ask, is that you also keep in mind that basically no-one on the RUS team has English as their primary language, and it is easy for things to become "lost in translation". Assume good will on everyone's part, and make room for language differences causing misunderstandings "

Having lived in a non english speaking country I'm aware at first hand of the misunderstandings language can cause. I will indeed bare that in mind.

"Money: WAD; After first use, More money option will be available on turn 6 and 18 of each year ( late April and early october as first turn is numbered 0). No bug here"

I'm not sure what you mean here or whether you have understood what I'm saying. In 1918, the Reds get to print money twice (see saves). In the last 3 campaigns I played, I don't recall an instance of their being able to print at all in 1919. That is the issue and as my current campaign progresses, I'll check what happens.

[Mehring]

saves

[Mehring]

I've noticed the same things you have - the Reds don't have real good chances in the Grand Campaign because of their inability to raise money. I'm sort of waiting for the 1.01 patch to come out.

Exactly, but the questions are, is it because the resources are too low by design or because the designed resources are not arriving?

I don't pretend to be familiar with this system and I can't find anything of detail in the manual to help. What I have discovered is the tool tips which show when you hover over money and war materials for example. They do not indicate a movement up or down, just a change. Given that resources are presumably being created during turn resolution and I can see no reference to army upkeep expenditure, I think the 'change' indicated should be a rise in resources.

But I do not get the generation of resources indicated by the tool tip each turn, only a fraction of them. Maybe there's something under the hood I don't know about, but this makes me think the resources allocation may not be that bad, but because the game is broken they are not arriving. If that is the case, increasing the resource allocation will not solve the problem because it lies elsewhere.

[Flop]

I can't help but think that some sort of a budget page in the ledger would really help clear a lot of this up. At least then we'd be able to see where the money we do have comes from, as well as see how much we get from printing, events and requisitioning (once that's been fixed).

I don't suppose this is at all possible?

[Cat Lord]

I would have loved an economic summary page in the ledger. I asked for it during the design, but we had a limited budget, and that was one of the harshest choice we had to make.

Cat

[Flop]

I would have loved an economic summary page in the ledger. I asked for it during the design, but we had a limited budget, and that was one of the harshest choice we had to make.

Cat

Ah, alright. Nothing to be done about that, I guess.

[Clovis]

Ah, alright. Nothing to be done about that, I guess.

except higher income from the game

[Gray_Lensman]

Software designs are of necessity budgeted. Extra graphics pages such as needed for a budget page in the ledger are one of the most expensive parts of the design. It's not surprising that it was left out.

[Chief Rudiger]

I would have loved an economic summary page in the ledger. I asked for it during the design, but we had a limited budget, and that was one of the harshest choice we had to make.

Cat

If you need a budget page to play a boardgame does it not mean the game is too elaborate? I want to Cure Bolshevism with Bullets not count beans!

[Clovis]

If you need a budget page to play a boardgame does it not mean the game is too elaborate? I want to Cure Bolshevism with Bullets not count beans!

war without money? Not sure it have worked in the past... And in computer game field, the most commercially successful games are those blending war, economy and sometimes social stuff. And curiously, whereas regularly some are advocating for simpler game, most of the simplest designs sell poorly.

[Kev_uk]

war without money? Not sure it have worked in the past... And in computer game field, the most commercially successful games are those blending war, economy and sometimes social stuff. And curiously, whereas regularly some are advocating for simpler game, most of the simplest designs sell poorly.

For gods sake, dont dumb down

[Clovis]

For gods sake, dont dumb down

Let's imagine we had do te reverse for replacements. One generic infantry chit by faction, for example. I bet you the debate here would be hot about oversimplification and unhistorical use, say, to reinforce beyond measure Northern Whites...

Wargaming is a niche.A niche filled with grognards expecting the maximum of details.

We understand perfectly there are certainly progress to be made in the handling by players of such a complexity. AGE GUI is perfectible of course. But that's totally another matter than simplifying the game mechanisms themselves.

oh, the patch should be released in the next days.....

My english is yet far from being perfect, but I' doing some progresses .

[poweraxe]

oh, the patch should be released in the next days.....

That's great to hear, thanks!

[Chief Rudiger]

If AGEODs products were aimed at Grognards only there'd be no need for a big graphical budget. Tells me that its not just Grogs that buy these games. I bet you loose a significant number of potential customers when they realise the complexity and micromanagement in these games - look at the number of posts these forums saying "how do you form divisions... wait, forget it". Similarly, for every poster that demands a 20 year grand campaign there's one lurker waiting for a host of smaller scenarios to be released - ones that you can complete in an evening.

There's already plenty of difficulty options in the game so why not add some more to streamline further elements, on an optional basis? My suggestion in the other thread was for a generic infantry replacement chit in addition to the specific (faction/class) replacement elements, not 1 replacement for all. Such an option would allow those players who don't want to micromanage to play the game at faster pace.

Look at Naval Box Handling - what a nightmare that was in AACW! If that the blockade boxes could have been entirely handled by a "Implement Anaconda Plan. Cost: 100 WS per turn" ledger option that'd probably please a lot of people who just want to fight the land battles (and only those in the East).

You can't ignore the fact that many of your (loyal) customers aren't Grognards.

[Clovis]

If AGEODs products were aimed at Grognards only there'd be no need for a big graphical budget. Tells me that its not just Grogs that buy these games. I bet you loose a significant number of potential customers when they realise the complexity and micromanagement in these games - look at the number of posts these forums saying "how do you form divisions... wait, forget it". Similarly, for every poster that demands a 20 year grand campaign there's one lurker waiting for a host of smaller scenarios to be released - ones that you can complete in an evening.

There's already plenty of difficulty options in the game so why not add some more to streamline further elements, on an optional basis? My suggestion in the other thread was for a generic infantry replacement chit in addition to the specific (faction/class) replacement elements, not 1 replacement for all. Such an option would allow those players who don't want to micromanage to play the game at faster pace.

Look at Naval Box Handling - what a nightmare that was in AACW! If that the blockade boxes could have been entirely handled by a "Implement Anaconda Plan. Cost: 100 WS per turn" ledger option that'd probably please a lot of people who just want to fight the land battles (and only those in the East).

You can't ignore the fact that many of your (loyal) customers aren't Grognards.

My last words on this: I'm practicing wargaming since now almost 30 years. Since my beginnings in the hobby, boardgames first and now mainly computer, I've listened to so many advices about more straightforward design was necessary to get larger audience. I've seen boardgames,like Battle for Moscow designed for this in the 80, and regularly new attempts. Wargaming is today a niche market and will remain a niche market.

Even larger success aren't based on simplicity of the design. Paradox games aren't the simplest I tried. From time to time, Paradox is searching the right combinaison between complexity and the contrary: Victoria I was a micromanagment nightmare which was a commercial failure, Rome too simple to be a success too.

Whatever the design intrication, Paradox success or failure isn't tied to complexity or avoidance of micromagement.

As much I know, War in the Pacific is certainly the most complex wargaming design of the market, and eventually the most popular G. Grigsby product. World at war as highly rewarded too, and it is much simpler. Here too, design level of details has no relation with business outcome ofseveral products of the same author.

On the contrary, Panther games are certainly the easiest to play, as AI, the best in wargaming market, can do the job for you once you have given a few orders at the start of the small scenarios. It doesn't seem to sell much.....

So I really think new blood in our niche isn't depending of design. it depends mainly of external factors, like degree of education, general interest for strategic questions, and so on.

[Gray_Lensman]

<snip>

Similarly, for every poster that demands a 20 year grand campaign there's one lurker waiting for a host of smaller scenarios to be released - ones that you can complete in an evening.

<snip>

If you think you can complete a scenario in an evening, Have at it. Last ones I did took about 3 months and those were alterations of pre-existing campaign scenarios (re: the AACW w/KY add-on scenarios).

...

There's already plenty of difficulty options in the game so why not add some more to streamline further elements, on an optional basis? My suggestion in the other thread was for a generic infantry replacement chit in addition to the specific (faction/class) replacement elements, not 1 replacement for all. Such an option would allow those players who don't want to micromanage to play the game at faster pace.

Look at Naval Box Handling - what a nightmare that was in AACW! If that the blockade boxes could have been entirely handled by a "Implement Anaconda Plan. Cost: 100 WS per turn" ledger option that'd probably please a lot of people who just want to fight the land battles (and only those in the East).

You can't ignore the fact that many of your (loyal) customers aren't Grognards.

Of course they're not all grognards. However, AGEod has based an ENTIRE set of games around a single game engine design to save redesigning the entire program each and every time they come out with a new game. This allows them to save money in the design process, which if they didn't save the money, they wouldn't exist. As they upgrade the game engine to accomodate new features they are slowly backfitted into the earlier games, something no other software publisher even bothers with.

I get extremely amused at those that think everything is a simple change of a line here or quick insertion of a line there, or graphics screens that just grow out of nowhere instantly at no cost. Only in a programmer wannabee mind does it work like that.

[Chief Rudiger]

Do you understand that i'm asking for an option to simplify certain things? AACW introduced options to simplify aspect of its gameplay (Naval Box Handling) so what's the problem? I understand that different people want different things from games but AGEOD and yourselves wouldn't have invested all the time and money in beautiful artwork of this series if they didn't want to attract new casual gamers to make a profit.

Also, i assure you, Panthers games are not easy to play! I'm a great fan and a proponent on leaving a lot of the decisions to the AI but if you put "garbage in" to the order settings the AI will give you "garbage out".

Many Panther games series players micromange the units, negating the point of the advanced AI. If those gamers want to play the game in that way then there is a simple option to turn Orders Delay off. This allows orders to be given and enacted instantly; allowing a totally different style of play. However, people who play in this way might as well play a hex based game as they are not playing the game the way its meant to be player.

The above is my opinion but if Panther Paul thought similarly and decided to remove that option from the next game he'd loose a lot customers. So he allows the option. Similarly, you can't afford to ignore people who don't agree with your design choices.

[Chief Rudiger]

If you think you can complete a scenario in an evening, Have at it. Last ones I did took about 3 months and those were alterations of pre-existing campaign scenarios (re: the AACW w/KY add-on scenarios).

There are plenty of BOA/WIA scenarios playable in an evening. Some of the smaller campaigns in AACW are too. RUS has the mini campaigns!

I've had at it and want more!


Of course they're not all grognards. However, AGEod has based an ENTIRE set of games around a single game engine design to save redesigning the entire program each and every time they come out with a new game. This allows them to save money in the design process, which if they didn't save the money, they wouldn't exist. As they upgrade the game engine to accomodate new features they are slowly backfitted into the earlier games, something no other software publisher even bothers with.

Thanks, i know there is an entire series - i own all of them bar ROP!

I get extremely amused at those that think everything is a simple change of a line here or quick insertion of a line there, or graphics screens that just grow out of nowhere instantly at no cost. Only in a programmer wannabee mind does it work like that.

And I am amused at this line! You must misunderstand my comments of this product/series - it is constructive critiscism - is this not obvious? Having followed every release of the series i obviously understand the pressures AGEOD are under but also that without such excellent feedback fom the community many of the features in the engine would never have worked properly.

EDIT: Just re-read an understood your comment about scenario creation! These smaller scenarios are, IMO, certainly worth the investment and i got put off buying ROP and playing NCP for the lack of them. The Trans Mississippi scenario was certainly my favourite in AACW - how long did this little gem take to create?

[Gray_Lensman]

Adding options to the game are not easy either. The underlying code to allow for the option's differing effects/alterations depending on choice are quite complicated and takes time away from the development of other features of the game. AGEod has gradually added quite a number of options since the original AGE game engine design and will probably add more in the future. In the meantime, you will just have to enjoy the game as is.

Incidently, there's a whole thread (i.e. http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?t=19388) filled with posts from player/gamers that are well enough impressed with the game already and they know that over time they'll see more improvements as has been the case with all the previous AGEod games.

[Chief Rudiger]

A thread praising an AGEOD release?

Were many people given the choice of new extra's, such as limited airwarfare, or refinement of existing game features i think many would go for the later. To use the example of Panther Games, their latest release was to include new minefield code but this seems to have been cut to get the game out on time. Fair enough. A grand campaign was never on the cards either, thats understandable. But what my mind boggles at is not simply rearraging the dozen odd scenarios on the spash screen into chronological order or as icons on some back-of-a-fag-packet map as suggested well beforehand on the forum so you had some idea of what was involved in each and whats its significance was on the strategic level.

But anyway, i'll cut my unrelated rant short there and finish with a quote from Rommel's Papers which the word precedent reminded me of:

"I had made heavy demands throughout the action [in Cyrenaica], far more than precedent permitted, and had thus created my own standards. One is forced again and again to re-learn the fact the standards set by precedents are base on something less than average performance, and , for that reason, one should not submit to them."

So I'll expect all these problems sorted by the morning Mr Lensman. You have your orders. Carry On.