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).