Altaris wrote:We discussed this in our game thread some, but wanted to move the discussion here.
Two things I think this game would benefit from greatly:
1) Reducing the amount of firepower than can be placed into one combined unit (player created "divisions"). Right now, most infantry elements are regimental in size, and there is a hard-coded limit of 33 elements per combined unit. That can lead to a huge number of troops in one combined unit, costing only 4 CP. If we take the smallest infantry units of 4 infantry regiments + 1 field arty regiment, you can pack six of these under one 1-star general, and still have room for two support units like armored cars and tankchatas.
2) Reducing the command point limits of generals. Right now it caps at 48. Considering #1 above, you can put 12! of those divisions into one stack - that's theoretically 24 divisions, or over 200K troops in one stack. In my mod, I used 12 as my cap, and gave all 3-star generals a special ability to allow them another +12 on top of that. So you could have 24 CP in a stack led by a 3-star general, but only 12 in a regular corps (well, you could over-stack if you wanted, but of course that bring penalties).
As I'm experiencing in our game, the Southern White player can pretty easily stick 4500 CP worth of troops into an attack force, mostly through combining units per #1 above. The Reds have no way to counter this at every point across their front, which is why I'm guessing the Reds tend to get stomped by experienced White players. Once you lose big to the super-stack in one or two battles, it's all over. It's not so much not having enough troops (though that's part of it), it's that there's not nearly enough 1-star generals around to build up combined units capable of absorbing the impact from a stack that big.
Altaris wrote:I'm not referring to the units, but the sub-units/elements inside them. So for example, the Markhov Regiment is a unit type $uni_WHI_Rgt9, which is composed of 1 element/sub-unit a model type $mdl_WHI_Inf14 which is an elite infantry regiment. All stats are tied to the element/sub-unit, such as hits, offensive fire, defensive fire, etc. What I am suggesting is leaving the unit alone, (so it's still a regiment) but instead of only having 1 sub-unit, break it out into multiple sub-units. B/c combined units can only have a maximum total of 33 sub-units in it (1 of which is the leader, so 32 other elements) it will limit how many units can be combined under a 1-star general. Combined units have two caps, one is a "unit cap" where only 8 units can be combined with the leader, the other is a "sub-unit cap" which is 33 sub-units. Right now what can happen is you can have 6 divisions (each with 4 "regiment" infantry and 1 field artillery sub-units, so total of 30 sub units) all combined under a single 1-star leader, plus two single element units like armored cars or tankchatas. Say if you have 6 of the smallest divisions + 1 armored car + 1 tankchata, that is a total of 8 units, and 32 elements, it will combined under 1 leader. That's a huge amount of firepower for a 1-star major general, or even a 2-star lt. general. Consider that combined unit now only costs 4 CP, so you can stick 12 of these in a 48 CP capped stack - that's enormous. You're talking potentially 72 actual divisions in one stack, without any sort of command penalty, that's the same as saying the entire French Army at the beginning of WW1 could've just marched cohesively into one battle.
But that is just my 2 cents, good luck with your mod however you approach it!
Altaris wrote:Yes, it in some ways helps the Whites, and probably for historical reasons, but they still take higher losses since the individual elements have fewer hits (thus more destroyed battalions and longer recovery time). But considering that the Whites already are able to quickly max out stacking, this will still make them less powerful in individual stacks since those stacks aren't as potent. I also advocate lowering the CP limit down, maybe to 24 - 48 is just way too high.
I don't so much take issue with the battles I've lost being lost - it's the fact that I can't even dent the White juggernauts in the process that bugs me. That is partly due to inexperience with the Reds on my part, but even knowing what I know now, I don't see how I could possibly build up a defense capable of containing multiple 4500+ CP stacks for very long. The Siberians are coming just as hard from the east, and while those big stacks open up possibilities like taking your capital, it also puts me in extreme peril of being cut off, and essentially makes it easier for you guys to just shrug and push those juggernaut stacks straight on Moscow.
I also don't really find super-stacks to be very enjoyable from a strategic gaming standpoint. Not much strategy in simply sticking everything in one stack and pushing the forward button over and over.
Altaris wrote:MTSG won't solve the problem you are stating above. If you have two stacks involved in a battle, each stack fights independently of one another. Due to the gigantic size of battles in RUS, this usually means that each one gets destroyed piece-meal. So relying on MTSG to even the playing field and extend a front isn't going to pan out well.
One potential solution is to simply create a generic leader unit, and allow this to be bought through the general option every single turn (for the Reds, maybe even allow two or three per turn so they can keep pace with the Whites). It could be a crap 1-0-0 general so as to not take away from the Whites leadership advantage but still allow for combined units for the Reds.
Back to the stacks, you can still have big battles with multiple, smaller stacks, it's just not as bloody and lop-sided (which is a good thing IMO). Say if I have a stack of 1500 CP, and you attack me with 3 separate stacks of 1500 CP, the first stack will probably take higher losses than me (and be out of commission for a while), the second stack will get the upper hand but suffer some losses, and the third stack is probably going to be in pretty decent shape after the battle.
Entrenchment levels make a big difference on this too. Personally, I'm not a big fan of anything over lvl 2 entrenchment unless you're trying to represent true trench warfare (ala WW1). Lvl 4 entrenchments are VERY powerful, they negate about 1/3 of the hits suffered by the defense. Heck, even lvl 2 entrenchments are no joke, they negate about 18% of hits, but that's more in line with what I think of during this war for a defensive advantage.
It is a fine balancing act. I guess at the end of the day my thought is that the more it varies the war and opens strategic possibilities the better. Right now I feel like it's a matter of making sure my super-stack(s) are positioned in just the right spot to hopefully repel you're super-stack, which doesn't feel much like strategic planning.
Orel wrote:I have a question for you:
In the first versions of the game there was no prohibition for leaders to command divisions having troops of other factions(Don for example to Southern Whites). How could I make this possible again?
Altaris wrote:Supply is something of an issue for the Siberians, due to their really long lines, but I've never had any issue keeping the Southerns supplied. Siberians aren't too bad either, you just have to focus on buying lots of rail capacity. In my experience, supply isn't a slowing factor in the long run, if properly accounted for.
Speaking of supply though, one thing that really bugs me is how easy it is to keep an isolated unit supplied via supply wagon units indefinitely. It might be interesting to have supply units be rail bound in the same fashion that armored trains are. If my understanding of how supplies move by rail and river is correct, this would also make rail lines critical for keeping supply flowing between cities. Changes of this sort would make securing the rail lines absolutely critical and increase the risks of extended lines, particularly ones held on only 1 line.
Altaris wrote:The rail-bound supply should work... I may tinker around with that on my own and see. IIRC, it's a bit obscure and tricky how to make a unit rail-bound, but it should be possible for any unit. You are correct that this is the way they handled Trotsky's movemment.
Altaris wrote:IIRC, you need to change [rulCrossNationGHQ = 0 to rulCrossNationGHQ = 1 in the GameRules.opt file in the Settings folder.
Altaris wrote:Most of the ideas I've run by are things I could mod into the game very quickly (like in a weekend). I've done very similar exercises for my WW1 mod, it wouldn't take long. If you're interested, when we wrap up our current game we could try out a game with a few of these changes and just see what kind of impact it has, the stuff you like and want to keep I'd be happy to provide for your mod.
Here's the list of things I'd suggest. These would be doable in a very short period of time:
1) For the sub-unit/element level, use battalions rather than regiments, and adjust those SU stats appropriately (i.e. less hits, weight, etc). For each previous regiment, it would now be either 2 or 3 "battalions" (would need to decide on actual composition - keeping in mind that combined units, which seem to be meant to represent Corps in this game, can contain up to 32 sub-units - in my mind this is 2 divisions plus support units and artillery).
2) Reduce max command for any individual stack. I'd recommend moving from 48 to 24, 24 was the number used in older AGEOD games and seems to work a bit better.
3) Allow for generic 1-star generals when regular pool runs out. These guys would be 1-0-0 generals, not very good but allowing for combined units. Maybe for Reds, allow their general option to provide two generals instead of one so they could keep pace.
4) Optional: Make supply units capable of travelling by rail only. This would make logistics of prime importance for big armies in forward areas. An alternative option is to simply make Supply Wagons only 1 sub-element, effectively 25% of their supply storage value that is currently there, this will make it much harder to keep big stacks supported.
Altaris wrote:I won't have time to play another game until we wrap up our current one (though I don't see that taking much longer given the situation).
I think there should be at least either the supply tied to rail lines, or a reduction in the CP limit. Something needs to be in place to limit the effectiveness of gigantic stacks just freely roaming around wherever they want. In a position like what you have with Skhuro, you can threaten a huge range of territory with complete impunity - there's no counter to that except perhaps blind luck that I manage to put a bigger defensive force in its way, but I can't afford to guard my heartlands with 6-7 stacks of 2000ish CP.
Altaris wrote:You make some good points, Orel, and probably better not to change too much too quickly. For a first pass, let's see what kind of impact the regiment -> battalion change makes, we can always re-evaluate later.
Regarding the MTSG, I've got to say I'm very leary of the adding of cohesion. This has a lot of potential for abuse, IMO. For defense, it's not going to make a difference since the cohesion is capped at max, but on offense, it makes it possible for the attacker to regain cohesion after a long march in some cases. Also, I don't think this alleviates the super-stack situation, if I was going for an attack, I would still stick everything in one stack til I hit the CP limit rather than split it up and rely on MTSG. It's still better to have everything in one stack, particularly for a big assault.
I think making MTSG always succeed sounds good though.
Altaris wrote:I don't think you're going to be able to simulate flanking in the AGE engine as it stands today. These changes you're looking at, nothing would stop the player from simply splitting into multiple stacks in the same region and getting the flanking bonuses without actually flanking the region. Also, I don't think it really gives incentive to do so anyway... the only reason to split into multiple stacks is to extend a front or b/c of command limits. A 48 CP stack is going to be a whole lot more effective than four 12 CP stacks, b/c each of the four would fight one at a time whereas the 48 CP stack fights all at once (frontage does limit it to some degree, but a 48 CP stack has much more ability to spread out damage and thus inflict higher damage over the course of the battle).
I get where you are coming from, I just don't think it's feasible given the game engine limitations. I think the only way you can make it important to guard your flanks is to somehow limit supply if rear lines are cut.
Altaris wrote:Here's a thought I had over the course of the day. I always thought the Cheka option on F7 screen shouldn't cost the Reds NM points (since, IMO, NM represents the leadership and army's morale, which wouldn't have been effected by the Cheka). For the Whites, it makes sense since they are compromising their leaders beliefs by caving into peasant demands. Also, from a practical standpoint, it really hurts the Reds to lose NM, but they can't afford to let their loyalty drop in their key areas. By 1919, this becomes a crucial issue and is part the reason the Reds can't ever really meet the same output level as the Whites.
So I was thinking Cheka could be changed to not use NM (maybe cost some money and conscripts instead). To balance things out a bit, the options to recruit more generals for the Reds could instead cost NM. Maybe make it cost 1 NM and increase the output to 3 1-star generals, per use. This could represent the turning to ex-tsarist generals (which would represent an adequate going against Bolshevik principles to warrant the morale hit). In turn, these generals would allow for more combined units (the tsarist generals giving their professional experience to organize the troops into proper corps). It would be easier for the Reds to manage their morale levels this way too, while still being able to create a decently historical army (via requisitions followed by brutal Cheka repressions).
Thoughts?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests