J P Falcon wrote:I was wondering how certain "groups" would be handled in the game. For example the Czech Legion could help or hinder either side as they marched east. Nestor Makhno's Anarchist's drove the "White" General Deniken crazy by disrupting his supply lines and he also had no love for the "Reds", and various Cossack groups shifted loyalties throughout the war...I'm curious if these and other elements will be introduced which could change the fortunes of the war from game to game...
wosung wrote:What about intra-faction struggle as game element?
A little element of Cremlin (board game)?
Did such struggles happen during Russian Civil War? I remember some White Generals were real drama queens.
Think about all those possible political fights in the Politbureau (or White leading board) between Leftists and Rightists just to sabotage your "just cause". So the player would have to fight two wars, one against the contending civil war factions, one against party rivals. The dominating ideological mix in the Politbureau would decide about the ideological correct set of military leaders and political options.
Regards
It was not just an ego problem: Communication were extremely poor, and they never really managed to link up for coordinating their efforts.J P Falcon wrote:Well as far as the Whites are concerned their was a clash of egos between Generals and they did not coordinate their efforts as well as they should...a big advantage for the Reds were their centralized location while you had the Whites scattered about, with Kolchak in the East, Deniken in the South, Yudenich in the Northwest, and the Allied Intervention Force scattered about from Murmansk, Batum, to Siberia.
I will be interested to see how this is reflected in the game, because if a White player is able to coordinate his attacks from the South (Deniken), North (Yudenich, Mannerheim, von der Goltz) East (Kolchak) and West (Pilsudski) better than the real life counterparts, they might get even closer than 200 miles from Moscow... perhaps there is enough delays in the time line for some of these forces to become active which will make such combined efforts difficult....
J P Falcon wrote:I was wondering how certain "groups" would be handled in the game. For example the Czech Legion could help or hinder either side as they marched east. Nestor Makhno's Anarchist's drove the "White" General Deniken crazy by disrupting his supply lines and he also had no love for the "Reds", and various Cossack groups shifted loyalties throughout the war...I'm curious if these and other elements will be introduced which could change the fortunes of the war from game to game...
J P Falcon wrote:Well as far as the Whites are concerned their was a clash of egos between Generals and they did not coordinate their efforts as well as they should...a big advantage for the Reds were their centralized location while you had the Whites scattered about, with Kolchak in the East, Deniken in the South, Yudenich in the Northwest, and the Allied Intervention Force scattered about from Murmansk, Batum, to Siberia.
I will be interested to see how this is reflected in the game, because if a White player is able to coordinate his attacks from the South (Deniken), North (Yudenich, Mannerheim, von der Goltz) East (Kolchak) and West (Pilsudski) better than the real life counterparts, they might get even closer than 200 miles from Moscow... perhaps there is enough delays in the time line for some of these forces to become active which will make such combined efforts difficult....
darzininkas wrote:Besides egos and communication problems, there was difference in goals. At least for Pilsudski:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mi%C4%99dzymorze
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prometheism
Return to “Revolution Under Siege”
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests