[Abandoned] - Russian Revolution

[Industrial Helix]

Hey guys, i appreciate the help with the names. I already PMed Dako about the names and expect I should be getting a list sometime in the future. Just keep posting the revisions here and I'll hit them up with an update when I get the chance... I just wanted you to know I was reading and paying attention Thanks again!

[theBastard]

Helix, what about add High population also to any regions in Ukraina? I think Kiev Oblast, Kharkovskij, maybe Chernigov should have it...

[Evil DIMwit]

A) Please put the latest version of the map in the first post. I almost listed a bunch of things for you to fix that you've already addressed.

B) I think however you plan deployment on the high-population territories you can't prevent the first player from having a dramatic advantage in those areas. This is just a problem that plagues collection bonuses. The usual solution is to have specific neutral-starting territories that unlock the collection bonus (that's what they did in Napoleonic Europe, and Ian and I suggested it for Switzerland). So, for example, start the commanders neutral and only let a player get the high-pop bonus if they hold a commander. Or start the cities neutral and only let players get benefit from high-population territories if they own a city in that or a neighboring territory.

C) There doesn't seem to be a way to reach the British Navy.

D) Please put the railroads in the legend somewhere.

[Industrial Helix]

@ thebastard... In general I agree. But I'm stuck cause Ukraine has its own bonus... I dunno, I need to figure this out. Any suggestions appreciated.

@Evil Dim

1) Damn... sorry about that
2) Good idea... I will try to figure something out for this then.
3) ... Good point.
4) Will do.

[lt_oddball]

I will like this map.

a) Though I question why the two british invasion troops should be awarded (relatively) high bonustroops.
Their actual numbers were first of all small (non effective fighting/occupation/control forces on territory scale), and secondly they were never renewed or refreshed. So the idea of making those two points an auto- bonus area is a bit un-historical.
Game-map-wise it does fill a need and makes the map interesting.

Maybe you should consider the auto-bonus of the two british forces only effective when some other territory is under the player's control (like "player should control "british admiralty AND 6th battalion to receive +1 bonus" or "player should control BOTH british navy AND 6th battalion to receive +1 on both locations per turn).


b) There are railway lines on the map.
The railways were already a very important asset in those campaigning days.. can't you incorporate some bonus / effect in your map regarding this aspect ?


c)

Looky here, a Russian on CC! Go and have a peek at the Stalingrad map in Final Forge. That thing has a whole bunch of mistakes that I told the mapmaker (the legendary Cairns) about but he won't correct them. Says he doesn't think many Russians visit this site. Prove him wrong!

That had more to do with the very late timing of you and the other russian bloke in the game design process.
Also because many english translated russian names (or Thai, or chinese for that matter) are always disputable.
There is no absolute consistency globally.
At least in this map you are involved early, here you can have a positive effect.

[natty dread]

It's been a while since I've taken a good peek at this... looking good so far! However I'd like the cities to be more important in the gameplay.

Currently you need 5 of them to get a bonus. That makes them the hardest bonus to acquire... you could easily increase their bonus a bit. I'd suggest making a dynamic scale bonus for the cities - similar to seas on my lunar map. Something like:

+3 for 5 cities
+7 for 10 cities
+11 for 15 cities

[Industrial Helix]

Hmm... i see what you mean. I think that I am stuck with a problem of wanting the cities to be very important to the map but then I have troubles with people starting with bonuses.

I hear you on this one and I'll play with it some. The trouble with a scale bonus is I don't have room! I'll see what I can do.

@It_oddball

1) You're right the British didn't do a whole lot except sit there. But they had the major potential to supply the whites, which the whites didn't take advantage of. But the idea is that this is where British Supplies are being dropped off, so you have to first obtain them (conquer the neutral) and then move them into the field of operations, ie reinforcements. So that's my thinking/reasoning on that, what do you think?

2) Well, i want the railways to illustrate a) the importance of Moscow in terms of connections and b) the fact that many of the white armies simply rode the railways into red territory and fought a battle rather than marched their way to the battle.

Something in terms of territory connections could be done to illustrate the connections, ie stretches of land extending in place of rail lines, but this would decrease the vital role that cities played. It would also make the land and marching, versus moving via rail, to be the same thing. Which is not what I wish to convey.

3) I'm gonna stick to as close an interpretation as possible given, hopefully, by Russians on the site. I'm not opposed to changing names even in Beta process.

@Jastnostj - The thing with Poland is that I don't want to get the Russo-Polish war too involved in the map, so hence the crop. I want to have it there to show that the Poles had an influence over the outcome of the war, but not enough to make Poland a major player in the map.

@ Evildim - The problem I have with using the commanders to unlock the high pop bonus is that I don't want commanders to start neutral. I want a player to be assigned a commander and take on that role the commander had during the war. But its a good point and one I shall think on... there's got to be a way to figure this out.

Other changes to the new version that I ought to mention: Ukraine is now a double dip bonus as it is high population territory as well. If a player takes the Ukraine nationalist route and succeeds in uniting the country against the Soviets, its gonn apay off big time, especially considering the British are there supplying as well.

One downside of this though is that the Ukraine might become the core area of conflict, rather than high pop zone Russia... perhaps they will be both equally an area of conflict. I dunno till Beta I suppose. Alternatively, it might portray the Ukrainian dilemma. Once a player looks to gain major troops for uniting the Ukraine, most players will gang up on that Ukrainian player... presuming they are astute enough. Then again, other players might just be dumb... thus reflecting the error a commander could have made about the Ukraine during the war. All in all, I think its a fair set up though, like all games, a lot depends on the player's ability.

Click image to enlarge.

[lt_oddball]

.... So that's my thinking/reasoning on that, what do you think?

I am glad you give all aspects (design, gameplay, historical relevance) a very good thinking. I see the map is in skilled hands

[iancanton]

2) The points that a commander attacks: should they start at a low number or perhaps neutral 1 or no difference at all?

Hmm... i see what you mean. I think that I am stuck with a problem of wanting the cities to be very important to the map but then I have troubles with people starting with bonuses.

@ Evildim - The problem I have with using the commanders to unlock the high pop bonus is that I don't want commanders to start neutral. I want a player to be assigned a commander and take on that role the commander had during the war. But its a good point and one I shall think on... there's got to be a way to figure this out.

let each region that a commander attacks be called an hq. for the cities or the high-pop areas to give bonuses, we can require that any commander-plus-hq combination is held.

since the 8 commanders are start positions, with open deployment elsewhere, each player is likely to have a slightly different total number of troops in the high-pop area. i cannot immediately see a way round this, unless we specify which regions start with each commander - many mapmakers like chance to have a greater role at the start. the imbalance in total troops might be the lesser of two evils, as long as each player starts with the same bonus.

a historical note: before 1954, crimea was part of russia, not of ukraine. perhaps u can exclude crimea from the ukraine bonus and have the british navy supply odessa instead of crimea?

The agenda of the session of the Presidium of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, which took place January 25, 1954, contained a question about the delivery of the Crimean region to the structure of the Ukrainian SSR. The discussion of the question took only 15 minutes. The participants of the meeting approved the decree, and the region was given away to Ukraine for free.

http://english.pravda.ru/russia/history/19-02-2009/107129-ussr_crimea_ukraine-0

ian.

[Industrial Helix]

1) I like it... I'll see what I can do about working it into the map.

2) Well, one possibility I was thinking of was that I could set the High Pop zone as having starting positions, that way it gets sorted at the beginning of the game evenly and outside the rest of the map. But then this presents a problem... the starting positions for the commanders would get grouped in with the high pop zone, destroying the each player gets a commander concept. I wish there was XML for creating specific starting positions for players

So regarding the High Pop zone, are the gameplay mods willing to accept that each drop will not be the same and there will be some variance?

I think that if themap stays as it is in regards to this, I can lower the high population zone reward and lower further the Low Pop zone reward so as to emphasize the Commanders, which each player gets a very equal distribution of. Would this be a fair compromise?

3) Interesting note about the Crimean... I'll make the change.

@It_Oddball - Thanks for the support!

[iancanton]

2) The points that a commander attacks: should they start at a low number or perhaps neutral 1 or no difference at all?

when doing all that cut-and-paste stuff, i didn't paste my answer to this question: neutral-1!

So regarding the High Pop zone, are the gameplay mods willing to accept that each drop will not be the same and there will be some variance?

I think that if themap stays as it is in regards to this, I can lower the high population zone reward and lower further the Low Pop zone reward so as to emphasize the Commanders, which each player gets a very equal distribution of. Would this be a fair compromise?

in combination with neutral-1 starts for each hq and underlying neutral start positions for the commanders (so that no-one can start with a commander-and-hq pair, while the underlying neutrals stop someone from having more commanders than his opponents), i believe that lowering the high-pop and low-pop initial troops will lead to a start that is better, or at least no worse, than in dust bowl. i assume that the normal +1 for every 3 regions does not apply (the legend isn't clear on this).

ian.

[Industrial Helix]

1) ok.. that sounds good.
2) +1 for three regions does apply in the brown regions, see the middle left rule in the lower legend.

The next version of the map is gonna have some numbers on it to make the initial start obvious, stay tuned.

[Industrial Helix]

Alright, here's the new version:

The ONLY starting positions are the commanders. Each player gets one.
I also removed the Ukraine from double dippin in the high pop bonus... their regional bonus should be enough.

Click image to enlarge.

[MarshalNey]

I don't have much to say other than... holy crap I moan to think that I'll have to wait months to play this map. The gameplay is looking very good.

I do have one question, more historical than anything I guess... the Czech Legion seized trains and used them to get around, or am I wrong? I'm basing this off of a vague memory of seeing an old photo of the Czechs with guns sprouting out of railcars. If that's correct, shouldn't they at least connect to a railroad somewhere?

EDIT: One other thing... it's a bit odd now that I think about it, that the Czechs seem to be less important than the British on this map, even though historically the British had far less impact on the actual fighting.

[theBastard]

I do have one question, more historical than anything I guess... the Czech Legion seized trains and used them to get around, or am I wrong? I'm basing this off of a vague memory of seeing an old photo of the Czechs with guns sprouting out of railcars. If that's correct, shouldn't they at least connect to a railroad somewhere?

the question is from which year/years are this map. CzechoSlovak legion seized Transiberian rail, but mostly from Ural to Vladivostok.

EDIT: maybe there could by one way attack CzechoSlovak legion to Orenburg...?

Helix, just to know, are cities part of region bonuses? for example: Wilno in Poland, Kiev in Ukraina, Moscow in high population?

about Volhynia - I like your idea in German/Italian Unifications where "striped" territories are bonuses for two regions. did you think to do bonus for Poland/Ukraina +1 for both with Volhynia?
or Poland includes Volhynia, Ukraina, Ukraina includes Volhynia?

[Industrial Helix]

Ok, I've had some time to update this map and hopefully streamline some more.

Here's what has changed:
Removed 1 territory.

Got rid of the old City bonus system because those +whatever for whatever systems are a pain in the ass to evaluate when looking at a map and even worse if you don't have BOB. Autodeploy should work well enough as it represents the power of the Imperial arms depots and players face the logistics issue of moving them from the city to wherever the front is. As you will see, they're lightly guarded (neutral 2) as well, I chose such a low number because 1) that was the situation at the time and 2) it will put the cities quickly into the game.

Stalin, unlike his allies and enemies, faces 3 neutrals for his HQ given that his is the only city which is also an HQ. I tried shifting him to either side of the future Stalingrad, but it put him too close to another HQ.

I also added that rivers are impassable.

I also clarified that cities are not part of any regional bonus, cities bridge rivers and that cities are rail junctions as well.

Click image to enlarge.

So, what do you think of the auto-deploy?
Should there be a reduction of territories? I'm thinking 1 from Ukraine and maybe two out of the High pop zone.
Does Stalin's situation make sense and still keep things somewhat even?

[iancanton]

Autodeploy should work well enough as it represents the power of the Imperial arms depots and players face the logistics issue of moving them from the city to wherever the front is. As you will see, they're lightly guarded (neutral 2) as well, I chose such a low number because 1) that was the situation at the time and 2) it will put the cities quickly into the game.

the auto-deploy certainly fits the theme of the map. good!

Stalin, unlike his allies and enemies, faces 3 neutrals for his HQ given that his is the only city which is also an HQ.

this makes perfect sense.

is the +1 for three territories outside high population areas simply a restatement of the default number of deployable troops each turn? if so, then why does the legend need to say so? if this is an additional bonus, then i'm not seeing why u need to have such a bonus, which bumps up the initial deployment in 2-player and 3-player by 4 troops each, thereby boosting the normal first-mover advantage for no good reason. virtually all of the light brown regions of russia can assault a special region of some sort, so they're not without a purpose.

moscovy ought be be muscovy and novogorod ought to be novgorod.

http://www.history.ac.uk/reviews/review/129
http://www.watford-novgorod.org.uk/

ian.

[Industrial Helix]

Thanks Ian. I'll make the name changes to the map.

As for listing the normal bonus for the regions outside the high pop zone, I thought it might help to improve clarity. I can take it out if you want it out, or I might just hang on until i know whether i need the space.

[iancanton]

As for listing the normal bonus for the regions outside the high pop zone, I thought it might help to improve clarity. I can take it out if you want it out, or I might just hang on until i know whether i need the space.

i thought it was confusing rather than helpful, since most other maps don't explicitly list the +1 for every 3 regions.

ian.

[Industrial Helix]

Hmm... I guess I'll pull the bit about the bonus and add in something about the cities sitting on top of territories.

[Kabanellas]

Congrats on the map Helix!! I see some very interesting gameplay ‘nuances’ that will definitely make this a fun map to be played.

I have some doubts though:

-where are exactly the starting positions? Only the commanders?

-I’m thinking that (maybe) not all Commanders have equal advantages.... Kolchak for instances: his headquarters will give access to 1 city and will have immediate access to the Check legion. But comparing to Kolchak, Stalin will start winning having his HQ on a city...

-You’ll only get Ukraine’s or Poland’s bonus owning Volhynia right? Not sure if that is obvious enough... guess so.

- Owning Poland, for instances, will render all those regions in Ukraine useless. Shouldn’t they also yield territory bonus like the high or low populated areas?

[iancanton]

where are exactly the starting positions? Only the commanders?

yes, since they have auto-deploy bonuses. most other regions have random deployment.

I’m thinking that (maybe) not all Commanders have equal advantages.... Kolchak for instances: his headquarters will give access to 1 city and will have immediate access to the Check legion. But comparing to Kolchak, Stalin will start winning having his HQ on a city...

that's a good point. we'll have to consider this when fine-tuning the bonuses and neutrals.

Owning Poland, for instances, will render all those regions in Ukraine useless. Shouldn’t they also yield territory bonus like the high or low populated areas?

if u hold only part of poland or ukraine, then u'll receive the default +1 for every 3 regions that is standard for most maps (there isn't really a separate low-population area with a special bonus). perhaps the poland and ukraine bonuses (in the legend, calling them national bonuses instead of regional bonuses will help to illustrate one of the reasons behind the fighting) are best done in the manner of unification germany, so that poland and ukraine both exclude volhynia, but an additional +1 is given if either national bonus is held with volhynia.

ian.

[Kabanellas]

if u hold only part of poland or ukraine, then u'll receive the default +1 for every 3 regions that is standard for most maps

ok, I just got confused because in the legend you can read: '+1 for three territories of high populated areas' with a dark brown square...

What I'm thinking now is (putting the high populated areas aside, I think that's well understood):

if I hold any 3 territories in the brown area I'll get a +1 troop (beside the usual territory number bonus). I won't be getting this extra 1 troop (for 3 terr) in the Baltics, Poland or Ukrayne. Is this right?

[Industrial Helix]

Thanks Kab and Ian.

Hmm... the legend should read "+1 for every territory outside of high population area"

I think you would be reading into this correctly as the map, outside of the high pop zone, just yields the normal bonus.

The tricky thing about Ukraine/Poland is that I want a player to not be able to get both bonuses. The bonuses need to counter each other. If there was a strong Ukraine, then Poland might not have attacked during the war because her territorial ambitions at the expense of the Ukraine couldn't have been fulfilled. So hence, if a player holds Ukraine then the Poland bonus is null and void (see Volyhnia). Likewise, if Poland is strong and has the bonus, then Ukraine becomes a weak power.

Other changes include Stalin starting on Saratov, as opposed to Tsaritsyn.

The Volchak starting near the Czech legion is a good point and one I hadn't considered... especially as Yudenich and Kaledin start near the British areas as well. Perhaps the immediate starting game advantage could be nullified if there were a different bonus system there... Secure both British flags for foreign support for +4, +6 if including Czech legion. I figure make it really high to always be tempting, but a player would have to be in the right situation to take advantage of it and always in the later part of the game rather than the early.

Here's the new version:

Click image to enlarge.

[MarshalNey]

...Perhaps the immediate starting game advantage could be nullified if there were a different bonus system there... Secure both British flags for foreign support for +4, +6 if including Czech legion. I figure make it really high to always be tempting, but a player would have to be in the right situation to take advantage of it and always in the later part of the game rather than the early...

I like this a lot. Perhaps, though, lower the neutral values to 3's then, since they're all so spread out?

Just to make sure that there's room on the map, maybe you should include a title sometime in the near future...

One last thing, and that's the "low-population" areas. I really like the uniqueness and historical aspect of the idea, but in terms of gameplay I'm not convinced that it won't be imbalancing. It's conceivable in 8 player games, for instance, that an unlucky bugger could start with 3, 4 or even 5 fewer troops than most of the other players. On team games, the troop differential could become even more pronounced.

The troop differential is okay if there were a balancing advantage to having the low-population areas, but there isn't. In fact, the opposite is true: the high pop areas have the juicy bonuses, a wealth of cities and rapid movement through rail junctions. You said in your original reasoning that the low-pop areas gave players a chance to build up men to take the high-pop, but I can't see how in an actual game that a player could win such a build-up unless one is assuming that the high-pop players attack each other and ignore the low-pop. This last reason isn't a good one, to my mind, because it assumes that players' strategy/behavior will cover up an imbalance in the map dynamic.