Review TCancer reviews Revolution under Siege

[Malakal]

Why are you suprised that Poland can't conquer Russia?

He's not complaining about that, but about the victory conditions of the scenario.

Point taken, but

a) The Poles could inlict a military defeat
b)However they could not defeat Russia. Even if every Pole killed 10 Russians, they would run out of people
c)The point of Poland, at least to the Entente Powers, was to be a friendly Bulwark vs Russia and Germany. To the Poles it was obviously their homes / families etc.
d)The Entente would not allow a new Germany to take the place of the old one
e)Without the support of these powers, Poland could not exist? Where was it before? What happened in 1939?
f)If you accept the above, Polish victory in the war would require the subjugation of Russia. The Reds wouldn't want you, the Whites wouldn't want you, the European Great Powers would not want a new Germany. They would all fight you (plus the Reds) to restore the balance of power.
g) The end result would have been a devastated, subjected Poland, at themercy of anotherforeign power. Not waht the nationalists want.


But have a nice game.

This is so wrong on so many levels I dont know where to begin...

1. First of all for Poland victory meant remaining independent while controlling as much as possible from former Polish lands. Thats all, no occupation of Russia or whatever. Not even fully regaining Polish former lands.
2. Entente support for Poland was small at best. Military mission yes (but not overpowered general W... his stats are ridiculous in this game, shows its French made), some supplies and mainly Hallers army coming back after fighting for Entente, also some diplomatic support against Germany. But Entente was opposed to Polish war with Russia as it expected Whites to win. For Entente White Russian Ally>>>Poland. This is why Entente propsoed Curzons line as Polish eastern border... By the way as long as all partitioners lost the war as they did Poland would reappear on worlds map at least for some time.
3. Poland could help defeat Red Russia if it cooperated with Denikin and marched on Petersburg. But it didnt want to as for Poland Whites were worse than Reds.
4. For France (UK didnt care about Poland at all) Poland was a substitute ally instead of Tsarist Russia. Nothing more, nothing less, somethign similar to Czechoslovakia.


Finally I dont see why you are so obsessed with Poland, my points were purely from technical side of things, I already accepted lack of realism in OOB and history for this game.

 

[Crooked Bee]

Thanks for the review, sounds very inspiring. Being very interested in the period, I'll definitely check this game out.

 

[ZombyWoof]

My other points:
command chain needlessly complicated - I cant arbitrarily promote leaders nor can I make up my own armies: some eladers are made to lead, others are made to follow. Why? In a game without political aspect this doesnt make sense.
reinforcements - they are bad because I cant simply reinforce my forces from a single screen-ledger or whatever
units appearing out of thin air - have you even played this game? At each turn I get new forces but no information I got them. So for example reserve army becomes active in Warsaw but if I am not scrolling all over the map/log I wont know its there! Especially since there is no 'armies' map

First, I don't quite understand how you find the chain of command needlessly complicated, all it comes down to is the experience of your generals and their seniority. You can promote whoever you want as long as they have the necessary experience (i.e., a few victorious battles under their belt), but if you pass over generals with higher seniority, there will be fallout (in the form of a national morale hit, if I'm not mistaken). Sometimes, however, you need to bite the bullet and require the more capable generals. Otherwise, all requirements for, say, creating an army, a corps or a division are all explained if you highlight the relevant button.

I do wish I could direct which forces receive reinforcements (maybe in a patch?), but otherwise there is a single screen that handles that: the reinforcements/reserves screen in the ledger, F2 is the hotkey. You simply request x number of reserve regiments or whatever, they are trained in 1 turn, and are distributed to your forces (probably to the weakest regiments on the map) in the next turn.

I will agree to an extent on your third point, as it seemed that, after a certain point in my last game, even when I recruited new Komuch or Siberian White generals, they either wouldn't appear or would appear in random places (minor bugs, I'm guessing). However, otherwise, any arrival/departure of major players and their respective forces - Janin's arrival, the departure of Allied forces, etc. - was announced in the events screen, and there are several filters to help you keep track of various things.

As for the entire Polish-Soviet War scenario and its victory conditions, I haven't played it yet, but I can see why some people would find taking Moscow a little extreme. On the other hand, maybe it's supposed to reflect the support for Pilsudski's Prometheist foreign policy and the creation of a proposed Intermarum federation? Suffice it to say, there were some major figures in Poland during that era who wanted more than just to preserve Poland's independence.

 

[oscar]

I do find it doubtful though that the Bolsheviks wouldn't grant Poland independence after going that far into Russia. Hell Lenin signed away most of West Russia to the Germans so he could gain peace.

 

[Burning Bridges]

These small scenarios are more of an afterhought. The grand campaign is where the real action is.

 

[ZombyWoof]

I do find it doubtful though that the Bolsheviks wouldn't grant Poland independence after going that far into Russia. Hell Lenin signed away most of West Russia to the Germans so he could gain peace.

Maybe, but you also have to remember that the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk lasted under a year (not to mention the obvious tension that would exist in treaty negotiations between old world conservative monarchists on the one hand, and revolutionary communists on the other) and when the treaty was renounced by the parties involved, Lenin declared the need for "war socialism" or something along those lines, with the aim of defending the Soviets' territorial integrity, and continuing with world revolution.

On the other hand, perhaps the most important result of the Polish-Soviet War and subsequent Treaty of Riga was the halting of Soviet advances further west, and the Soviet abandonment of achieving world revolution, until World War II, at least.

On that note, I think I'm actually gonna try the Bolsheviks for my next grand campaign. I figure the initial disorganization and lack of leaders should make for an interesting game.

 

[Fuck_The_Banks]

Aye, that it did.

As I said earlier, the Poles stopped the Reds moving westward.

But what did for the Russian Revolution was a combination of the Civil War (the revoltionary class enlisted and died), and that classes failure to spread westward - Hungary, Berlin, UK 1919 were a failure.

 

[Annonchinil]

Would having all the nationalists as one faction make any sense? Considering that many of the groups made overlapping claims on different land and at different times fought one another.

Anyways are you sure that you actually need to take Moscow to win and its not just a possible objective?

 

[Malakal]

Would having all the nationalists as one faction make any sense? Considering that many of the groups made overlapping claims on different land and at different times fought one another.

Anyways are you sure that you actually need to take Moscow to win and its not just a possible objective?

I took Odessa and Kiev and all land west of that, I kept my initial lands but failed to push for Minsk - my two offensives there failed. Still I achieved more than Poland did IRL and got stalemate. Moscow was the only high point target left for capture. Perhaps its that Minsk after all, but Warsaw is worth 60 VPs while Moscow is 20, Kiev 10 IIRC and Minsk 5? Either I was really close or they expect me to capture Moscow/alternatively Belarus and Ukraine.

And no, making nationalists one factions makes no sense. But grouping the with Whites makes even less sense - nationalists often fought each other but ultimately their goal was to defeat Russia (White or Red), siding with Russia was out of the question unless Whites accepted their independence, and they did not. So its less of a bad solution.

 

[Burning Bridges]

Well, that scenario has like 15 or so turns? To be honest I never play anything that short. I also think that in so few turns it may be impossible to get the sort of national moral breakdown thats needed for a clear victory (around 40NM a faction can break down).

So, perhaps these scenarios just don't work so well in this games' framework, and it may be harder to win.

Why didn't you simply choose one of the Russian Civil War campaigns? It's definitely possible to win them. I am currently in mid 1919 and Petrograd and Moscow can already hear my guns.

Lastly, the Polish-Soviet war was largely a stalemate, so why should the game make it easy to achieve much more than Poland did in real life? Especially since the stalemate was practically a victory for Poland all the same.

 

[Elwro]

Missed the point again, it seems. In strategy games, a real "stalemate" does not necessarily, and frequently should not, equal a "stalemate" in terms of scenario victory conditions.

Eh, what the hell, I'm happy that for the first time in the history of computer games I can command Pilsudki's forces and lead them to a victorious stalemate

 

[Malakal]

Frankly I'll have to agree with BB. 15 turns seem too little for the scenario and it seems unbalanced in ways of national morale/manpower/victory locations. Capturing Moscow is unfeasible and it should be.

About GC. Well I always start with smaller scenarios. Besides I am not that interested in the civil war itself, Polish-Soviet or Finnish-Soviet wars are more interesting for me. Smaller scale too, I hate when my turns last for hours.

 

[Burning Bridges]

15 turns is really not much. But I am sure not too far in the future someone will mod the Polish-Soviet War, and it will have a sufficient number of turns, and perhaps then it'll be more what you'd like it to be.

But the problem right now is, among hundreds of threads at the official forum I can not remember a single one discussing one of the small scenarios. Everyone is concerned with the Grand Campaign.

But if you post your criticism in the ageod forum, I am sure it will not be lost on the developers (who always have an open ear to problems) and perhaps they will realize a mistake.

I generally recommend the ageod forum as a place where you can get your questions answered directly by one of the developers. Now that the 1.01 patch is out (which fixes the requisition system among a lot of things), they are currently discussing improvements to the replacement system. The developers have already half admitted that they have to do something about that, and my feeling is that we will see it in the next patch.

I also expect at least three or four patches in the next months.

I always start with smaller scenarios. Besides I am not that interested in the civil war itself, Polish-Soviet or Finnish-Soviet wars are more interesting for me. Smaller scale too, I hate when my turns last for hours.

Of course you gotta realize how time intensive the Grand Campaign can become. If I play a turn it can last up to an hour. This because I like to think about every move, and I like to check every possibility before I proceed. I'm sure other people will play much faster though.

I agree that the large scenarios are overwhelming. That's one of the reasons why I am not that interested in the Drang Nach Osten campaign. The fun in AGEOD games is to start with a small army and slowly build it up. The fun is also to have a lot of maneuvering space on a huge map. That was what made AACW fun (starting in 1861 when boths sides had just a few brigades), and that makes RUS fun as well.

You should start with the Southern Whites, they begin with two armies on a small area (Don and Kuban). They also have control over the Allied invasion from Murmansk, but no problem at all. Rebuild the railroads going out from Murmansk, land troops in Archangelsk, slowly work your way south through the wilderness, and you will have a very manageable north front.

Besides, with the sole exception of the Don Cossacks, you do not control any of the nations armies. You can later chose political options like 'involve Finland in the War', 'involve the Baltic in the War', which gives you control over their armies, but these options are very expensive, may have a possibility to backfire, so frankly, I have not used them a single time.

But I think that if I could bring Finland into the war my current current campaign would be over in a few turns, because Petrograd is already threatened from the south.

 

[revolutionundersiege]

Hello,

first thank you all for taking an interest in our game. And thank you for the nice, balance review.



I register on the Codex forum to be able to answer your question, because I found it legitimate:

I took Odessa and Kiev and all land west of that, I kept my initial lands but failed to push for Minsk - my two offensives there failed. Still I achieved more than Poland did IRL and got stalemate. Moscow was the only high point target left for capture. Perhaps its that Minsk after all, but Warsaw is worth 60 VPs while Moscow is 20, Kiev 10 IIRC and Minsk 5? Either I was really close or they expect me to capture Moscow/alternatively Belarus and Ukraine.

I will have to check, but I think the victory conditions are mostly determined by the difference in National Moral (NM) at the end of the game. Then by looking at the VP.

I would be interested to know what was the NM of the Poles vs. the NM of the Reds in your game. However, I think in some scenario, the NM targets are too low/high. Please report it on our "Help to Improve RUS" forum, and we will take care of it:

http://www.ageod-forum.com/forumdisplay.php?f=290

The reason NM is so important is that we want to avoid "gamey" Pyrrhic victory. Hence you may have lots of VP, but the NM may be so low that your country will take years to recover, with national unrest and the like.

Cheers,

Cat

PS: I may not come here as regularly as I want or should, to be able to answer people, as I already have my fair share of forums to cover. Apologies in advance.

 

[revolutionundersiege]

Is there even a boxed version?

You can buy a box version from Matrix, but it's really just the downloadable version burnt on a CD.

No fancy color-printed manual I am afraid, this was too expensive for our production budget.

Cat

 

[Elwro]

Is there even a boxed version?

You can buy a box version from Matrix, but it's really just the downloadable version burnt on a CD.

Thanks for the honest answer!

 

[revolutionundersiege]

Its a good wargame with very limited economy and politics, comparing it to Paradox games, which have bigger scale and ambitions is a joke really.

Hmm, having "worked" on both sides of the fence (you will see my name and/or pseudo in a lot of Paradox games' credits, especially Crusader's King ), I think the two kinds of game are quite different, and cannot really be compared (beyond even the PRTS/turn base engines).

Do I enjoy AGE game ? Hell yes. How would I classify them: Historical Wargames.

Do I enjoy Civ V ? Hmmm, one more turn please, just one more turn. How would I classify them: 4X fun game, with an historical excuse for a background.

Paradox games are somewhere between the two, especially their latest installments (I love them all the same, btw).

(Funnily, budget wise, this is probably a good scale as well, with us working on shoestring budgets, when I am sure even Paradox would love to have 2kgames' ones ).

Cheers,

Cat

 

[revolutionundersiege]

Is there even a boxed version?

You can buy a box version from Matrix, but it's really just the downloadable version burnt on a CD.

Thanks for the honest answer!

You are welcome.

As far as I know, even as only a smaller scenario than a Grand Campaign, this is the first wargame on PC about the Polish-Soviet war, at the operational level. So I need happy Polish players, because word of mouth will be our only marketing tool in Poland ! :D

And how often can you play the great Piłsudski ?

Cat

PS: For all the non-Poles here, if you want to read a small book on the conflict, I used Adam Zamoyski's "Warsaw 1920". A good introduction, with enough maps to not get lost in the conflict when you are not familiar with Eastern Europe geography.

 

[Burning Bridges]

I already read Zamoyskis excellent '1812', so I am sure that's a fine recommendation for this conflict.

Do you think you could raise the number of turns and scope so that the Polish players can actually win the scenario? Just so we know what may be expected in 2011, possibly.

 

[Malakal]

Actually now that I know that NM matters so much (yeah, I skimmed manual and ignored tutorials, sue me, I learn games by playing them) I think I am going to try playing again but focusing more on glorious victories rather than conquering lands. Perhaps that approach will yield victory...

By the way in such a short scenario including turns in winter is a huge mistake. AI prefers hiding in the cities and it effectively cuts scenario length by 4 turns.

 

[Burning Bridges]

One of the most satisfiying things is to capture enemy equipment like artillery, ships, airplanes etc. For example I just destroyed Stalins column and made this nice little prize his fighter planes, and several supply wagons.

 

[Fuck_The_Banks]

The third patch is out now

http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?t=19707

 

[Malakal]

I noticed some guy complaining on AGEODs forums about unrealistic victory conditions for... Reds. He captured all of Poland bar two cities (smaller ones) and yet got stalemate. Definitely needs fixing.

 

[Burning Bridges]

I think all the campaigns will need more fixing and fine tuning in terms of scripting, missing or scrambled texts, balance issues.

Right now you will scratch your head at times and some things may simply not work. But on the other hand it's no detriment to the immense enjoyment playing this game, definitely not for me.

I'm also hopeful there will be mods that introduce fundamental changes to the campaigns (in spite of the AIs performance, some of the Grand Campaigns are already too easy for experienced players).

In the case of American Civil War the improvements were introduced through a long string of patches, with practically all missing leader portraits, gameplay adjustments (forming of Divisions, Kentucky neutrality, ..) and so on.

So who is concerned about perfection should get ACW now with the latest updates and wait perhaps a year until this game here is in the same state.

 

[revolutionundersiege]

Hello,

the first official patch of the game is out:

http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?t=19755

Cat