elxaime
Brigadier General
Posts: 495
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2008 11:57 pm

Questions on GHQ radius design - and some suggestions for changes

Tue Feb 02, 2016 2:47 am

RUS Gold is a great game and many thanks for designing it. In the interest of constructive criticism from a loyal fan, I had some questions for the designers and some humble suggestions.

First, it seems there are some "dead" areas of the map where GHQ cannot reach. I have not analyzed all sides, but for example while the Reds Northern GHQ in St. Petersburg can cover all the way to the northern border and on to Murmansk, the radius of the Revolutionary Military in Moscow stops at Vologda and there is a long stretch towards Archangel where no Red GHQ can reach. Another example is in the south, where once the Armavir Red GHQ disappears, the next closest Red GHQ, in Tzaritsyn, doesn't cover the Kuban or Caucasus. Is this intentional or a limitation of the game engine? It seems to set up "mismatches" in several parts of the map where one side, but not the other, has the option to get coverage from a GHQ.

Second, there seems a pretty severe a limitation on the number of "corps/armies" that can be attached to each GHQ. I think no more than 5-6 at a time. Is this intentional? In EAW there is no limitation so long as you are in range.

Third, there are some "overlap" areas where several GHQ radius cross each other, the most obvious being around Penza, which is under the radius of three possible Red GHQ (South, Southeast, East). When you try and make a corps/army commander, the game engine seems to select based on which is closest. This is fine in the abstract, but sets up some weird patches (again Penza is an example) where a player has to tolerate corps which report to different GHQ and really has no option to assign which to which other than to take a turn or two to move them around and then back. Having stacks under a corps leader from the same GHQ seems very important, since this decides if they will March to the Sound of the Guns for neighboring combats. Again, is this intentional or a limitation of the design?

Fourth, there are some practical issues with both creating and changing GHQ leaders. One is that the EP cost system for creating them seems bugged - you never seem to get the GHQ created the same turn you spend the EP, it is always a one turn lag. Second, players have little control in choosing who commands a GHQ. This is a departure from other AGEOD games, such as CW2 and EAW, where players can choose to take a penalty if they wanted to put a particular lower ranked three-star (two-stars in this case for RUS) in command. While you can remove a GHQ leader by marching them away, it will cost you 7 EP to (again with the lag) create the GHQ and you still have no control over who gets it. Is this all a limitation of the engine? Why can't it be handled like it is in other AGEOD games?

SUGGESTIONS

I think these reveal a need for some improvements in the next version of RUS Gold. Here are my thoughts:

- consideration should be given to checking over the map so as to eliminate "blind spots" where no GHQ coverage exists (again, assuming this was an oversight and not part of the design)

- consideration should be given to allowing players to choose which GHQ to belong to if the corps leader is in an area with multiple coverages - maybe this can be handled with a pop-up decision each time?

- creation of the GHQ needs some attention - it should not take so long to create them and there should be some control, at a cost, for players to choose who heads them (assuming again this isn't part of the design); if it
remains as is, the EP cost should be lowered - right now 7 EP, especially early game, is a huge commitment just to establish them

- based on approaches to the above, one possibility might be to allow players to use RGD to create "minor GHQ" in some of the more out of the way areas. These "minor" GHQ would be associated with a "major GHQ" (limitation of one per) and have the sole purpose of extending corps creations within their limited areas - they would not have any of the other functions, e.g. creating a HQ that can train troops, etc. You could limit these to towns which have at least a level 2 depot, which would require players to prepare areas if they wanted to establish them. Again, the idea is just to make it so that you can create corps in the "blind spots." If you take this approach, you could probably tweak the coverage of the various GHQ and make them smaller so they don't overlap. The "minor" GHQ can play an admirable role in filling the gaps and would involve some strategy in their creation and deployment.

- I would give some thought to how GHQ leader bonuses are handled. Right now, it seems too random and constricting, given how GHQ coverage works and leaders are put in charge. I would give some thought to converting the leader attributes to ones similar to EAW. In other words, not just attack, defense bonuses, as now, so long as you are near. Instead have impacts like this in EAW (e.g. to defense, cohesion, attack) etc. That would allow players to choose GHQ leaders with attributes based on what they plan to do in that area

Thanks for listening. Again, this all may be off base on my part. Perhaps it is the intention of the design to reflect the chaos and randomness of the Russian Civil War itself - in which case RUS Gold succeeds admirably. But I get the sense some of these may not be design decisions, but simply either issues with how the engine handles things or maybe they slipped through the cracks (and can be revised in the future).

User avatar
ERISS
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1959
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2010 10:25 am
Location: France

Tue Feb 02, 2016 10:57 am

elxaime wrote:First, it seems there are some "dead" areas of the map where GHQ cannot reach. Is this intentional or a limitation of the game engine?

Fourth, there are some practical issues with both creating and changing GHQ leaders. One is that the EP cost system for creating them seems bugged - you never seem to get the GHQ created the same turn you spend the EP, it is always a one turn lag. Second, players have little control in choosing who commands a GHQ. This is a departure from other AGEOD games, such as CW2 and EAW, where players can choose to take a penalty if they wanted to put a particular lower ranked three-star (two-stars in this case for RUS) in command. While you can remove a GHQ leader by marching them away, it will cost you 7 EP to (again with the lag) create the GHQ and you still have no control over who gets it. Is this all a limitation of the engine? Why can't it be handled like it is in other AGEOD games?

SUGGESTIONS
I think these reveal a need for some improvements in the next version of RUS Gold. Here are my thoughts:
- consideration should be given to checking over the map so as to eliminate "blind spots" where no GHQ coverage exists (again, assuming this was an oversight and not part of the design)

- creation of the GHQ needs some attention - it should not take so long to create them and there should be some control, at a cost, for players to choose who heads them (assuming again this isn't part of the design); if it remains as is, the EP cost should be lowered - right now 7 EP, especially early game, is a huge commitment just to establish them

- based on approaches to the above, one possibility might be to allow players to use RGD to create "minor GHQ" in some of the more out of the way areas. These "minor" GHQ would be associated with a "major GHQ" (limitation of one per) and have the sole purpose of extending corps creations within their limited areas - they would not have any of the other functions, e.g. creating a HQ that can train troops, etc. You could limit these to towns which have at least a level 2 depot, which would require players to prepare areas if they wanted to establish them. Again, the idea is just to make it so that you can create corps in the "blind spots." If you take this approach, you could probably tweak the coverage of the various GHQ and make them smaller so they don't overlap. The "minor" GHQ can play an admirable role in filling the gaps and would involve some strategy in their creation and deployment.

- I would give some thought to how GHQ leader bonuses are handled. Right now, it seems too random and constricting, given how GHQ coverage works and leaders are put in charge. I would give some thought to converting the leader attributes to ones similar to EAW. In other words, not just attack, defense bonuses, as now, so long as you are near. Instead have impacts like this in EAW (e.g. to defense, cohesion, attack) etc. That would allow players to choose GHQ leaders with attributes based on what they plan to do in that area

Perhaps it is the intention of the design to reflect the chaos and randomness of the Russian Civil War itself - in which case RUS Gold succeeds admirably. But I get the sense some of these may not be design decisions, but simply either issues with how the engine handles things or maybe they slipped through the cracks (and can be revised in the future).

About your 1 and 4:

No long before release, the engine was changed by Ageod. It was not documented. Few only discovered after the release (we didn't find this in the few remaining time of the beta) that the command radius had been handicaped, I think it was to speed the game. So the manual is wrong, the command radius of GHQ no longer depends on its Strategic ability, but is always exactly 5 regions far, and this seems hardcoded so we can never change it...

I think delay, no choice in command, and EP cost, are all WAI, but Andatiep should tell.
But I'm okay that "It should be better explained in the texts of the game"TM.

User avatar
andatiep
Posts: 1427
Joined: Thu May 01, 2008 10:56 am
Location: Grenoble, France.

Tue Feb 02, 2016 12:07 pm

I was wondering how long it will takes till someone notice that the GHQ ranges are up to 5 regions in the game instead of 15 like it was previously designed and like it is still said in the manual... ;-)

Like said ERISS, the reason is that the engine used for RUS Gold couldn't afford this range of 15 and that it was slowing the game like hell. So finally Pocus fix it at 5 and that's all we could do with the means we have.

So this means that we have to micro-manage a bit (more) to turn around the problem : we have to send fast and alone our 2 stars leaders close to GHQ, make them Corps leaders, and bring them back to the fronts.

Otherwise, all is Working as designed. You can't chose your GHQ leaders, because the Party (for the reds) or the military plots and battles of chiefs (for the Whites) does it for you. And anyway if we give you the choice you will always chose the best ones, but that's never like this that it happen in history :-).

Each GHQ can have only up to 7 corps attached, GHQ where Human beeings without computers. That's why you will need to activate Options to get more GHQ. The EP cost is heavy, that's life... governmental administrations and politics take so much energy to bring us our rulers on earth that there is many other stuff that they don't do during that time, so you don't have enough EP to do all you whish :-)
REVOLUTION UNDER SIEGE GOLD

elxaime
Brigadier General
Posts: 495
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2008 11:57 pm

Tue Feb 02, 2016 11:55 pm

andatiep wrote:So this means that we have to micro-manage a bit (more) to turn around the problem


The question remains - are there better solutions other than requiring players to micro-manage work arounds?

User avatar
ERISS
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1959
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2010 10:25 am
Location: France

Wed Feb 03, 2016 12:49 am

elxaime wrote:The question remains - are there better solutions other than requiring players to micro-manage work arounds?

I think Andatiep did answered to the question: We have to be more carefull with Corps; no better solution for now.
The reach of GHQ command seems to vary between 6 and 8 regions, and it does not seem to depend on the Strategic skill, nor on what numbers we could mod.
Pocus should explain what he did in his engine about GHQ radius command, or we will have to guess more to imagine some genius modding...

User avatar
andatiep
Posts: 1427
Joined: Thu May 01, 2008 10:56 am
Location: Grenoble, France.

Wed Feb 03, 2016 2:22 pm

elxaime wrote:The question remains - are there better solutions other than requiring players to micro-manage work arounds?


No better solution for now. This GHQ radius problem is my main frustration in the final Gold version. And we will have to live with it.

But you still can easy MOD the cost of the Options to make it cheaper if you wish ;)
REVOLUTION UNDER SIEGE GOLD

greatarmchairgeneral
Civilian
Posts: 2
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2016 9:02 pm

Was the original different or was it the same for Gold and 1st Edition?

Wed Jun 29, 2016 7:42 pm

andatiep wrote:No better solution for now. This GHQ radius problem is my main frustration in the final Gold version. And we will have to live with it.

But you still can easy MOD the cost of the Options to make it cheaper if you wish ;)


Just starting to learn game, bought two days ago (Steam Store). Got through tutorials, now looking for update(s) and found none (any?), and was sent here instead and got to reading.

User avatar
Durk
Posts: 2248
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2011 4:36 am
Location: Wyoming

Thu Jun 30, 2016 4:00 am

I think you will love this game.

I think this is the latest patch. Not sure how it works with Steam

http://ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?41741-RUS-Gold-Latest-Patch-(V1-01C)

User avatar
PhilThib
Posts: 13442
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2005 5:21 pm
Location: Meylan (France)

Thu Jun 30, 2016 7:26 am

Yes, it works with Steam (and is currently on Steam)
Image

Return to “Help to improve RUS”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests