[Abandoned] - Russian Revolution

[Industrial Helix]

Took me some research and reading, but I think I want to do a "Rise of Communism" map pack. This would include the last years of the Chinese Civil War, the map of which you've seen, and now the Russian Civil War.

The starting details:
All territories will start as random deployment 2s.
Cities start neutral 2.
Oren, Kuban, Orel, Novgorod, Herson, Latvia, Muscovy and Saratov start neutral 1.
Czech legion, 6th Battalion and British Navy, Volhynia start neutral 2
Commanders start at 8 and are starting positions

Bonuses:
Red regions yield 3 for every 3 territories.
Cities auto deploy 1
Ukraine, Baltics and Poland have regional bonuses worth 4, 1 and 2 respectively.
Ukraine and Poland share a territory which is needed for their bonus. Holding both bonuses invalidates both bonuses.

Various special features
Railroads connect cities
Rivers are impassable though are bridged by cities.
Poland has a one way attack border.

V 1812/

Click image to enlarge.

The general idea is to keep within a mainframe of design and gameplay but still be able to express the massive differences in situation and consequence of these wars. Yes, the results were generally the same, rise of communism, but how it was done is pretty different.

As you see, the foreign element is much more active in Russia than it was in China. The commanders are much more directly related to their territories in Russia, also, the independent states are more than a region outside to conquer if necessary. Poland ought to be very involved in this map. I want to make it open deployment, though to do that I might have to add another region OR code one region neutral, perhaps the split region with Ukraine. Also, notice how the commanders aren't strictly red or white, the Anarachists were a major factor against the whites... until the bolsheviks turned on them. Jukums Vacietis was actually from the Latvian Red Riflemen, and fought for the bolsheviks.

Anyway, thoughts and crits are appreciated!

Previous Versions

show

[natty dread]

I like what I see. One thing I don't get... It seems the commanders each have a territory they can attack, but who can attack the commanders?

[MarshalNey]

Yay, the promised Russian Civil War- looks nice. I was happy to see Poland and the Baltics and of course the "Western" (British) influence involved. I was about to say something about the stranded Czech Legion that dominated from their railcars, but then I scrolled over and viola! Very well researched, very well done.

The commanders are a bit unclear, it took me a bit to puzzle the format of loyalty and tert names. Also, it's a little distressing to have to scour the map for the territory named under the commander to find out where you can attack.

Is everything open deployment except for the commanders?

Anyway, very happy to see this map.

[Industrial Helix]

I like what I see. One thing I don't get... It seems the commanders each have a territory they can attack, but who can attack the commanders?

Well... I've been thinking about this. The party loyalty thing doesn't really apply in the case of Russia, but I'm thinking of something like Petrograd attacks all commanders... a symbolic victory thing. Or Petrograd attacks Communists and Anarchists, and some city or territory attacks the whites.

The other possibility is that make it a border and make the auto-deploy higher to provide the extra defense that party loyalty would give in Chinese Civil War. It also might serve as an incentive to hang on to your commander and not do anything foolish.

Not sure just yet, I'm fishing for ideas.

Yay, the promised Russian Civil War- looks nice. I was happy to see Poland and the Baltics and of course the "Western" (British) influence involved. I was about to say something about the stranded Czech Legion that dominated from their railcars, but then I scrolled over and viola! Very well researched, very well done.

The commanders are a bit unclear, it took me a bit to puzzle the format of loyalty and tert names. Also, it's a little distressing to have to scour the map for the territory named under the commander to find out where you can attack.

Is everything open deployment except for the commanders?

Anyway, very happy to see this map.

I think corresponding symbols, like a white flag/Imperial Russian flag, black flag and Red Star or something would work. There's a bit of room for it next to the names.

[MarshalNey]

Well, I had a little time to think about the Russian Civil War commanders now, and I have a couple of things:
1) Does it say on the map what the commanders do for you, other than act as a springboard for an attack? Do they give a bonus? If not, they'll just be abandoned I would think.

2) You've got Stalin and Trotsky, two rivals united under the eye of Lenin. So you might not have party loyalty per se, but a personal relationship with Vlad could act as your route back to the bolshevik commanders, maybe through Moscow (I believe this became their HQ after the treaty of Brest-Litovsk... not 100% though).

3) The Menshaviks were an alliance of many different factions, but basically we're looking at Czarist generals who have the support of the troops united with Socialists who have the support of the local population. Each needed the other, but they didn't really get along, so maybe you could use the socialist figures involved or the people's support in general as an avenue of attack on the Czarist generals... kinda thin, I know.

That still leaves the Anarchists, and it also gives the same mechanic to the Chinese civil war which isn't probably warranted in the case of the White forces (the Reds were fairly tightly organized so a 'party loyalty'-esque mechanic doesn't seem out of place).

Oh, one other thing- was there a general Wrangel involved or was that a different conflict? If memory serves, I thought he was actually the last White general to surrender, somewhere in the Crimea... er, too much history.

[Industrial Helix]

1) Yes, the commanders on both maps autodeploy some number... perhaps 3 and I will pull off the usual plus 3 manual deploy bonus.

2) Well, its an idea. The trouble I'm having is that only Stalin and Trotsky would have some sort of Lenin feature whereas the rest were very fragmented. For the sake of gameplay, I might scratch Lenin.

3) Yeah, thin. I think the best thing for this map is going to be to have open borders to commanders. Or something else that I haven't figured out. I dunno if I want commanders to be so accessible.

Yeah, there was a Wrangel, but he only came in when red victory was at hand. i wouldn't say he really had a chance as he only took over when Kaledin or Denekin resigned and fled.

[MarshalNey]

Well... what about just making the Commander-territory link a two-way attack instead of just 1-way?

This actually makes a lot of sense, since the Commanders were regionally based rather than unified under some grand HQ and were only eliminated as a force when they lost their home base of operations. Gameplay-wise, it would further encourage concentrations of troops around the 8 Commanders' regions, which seems a good thing.

Incidentally, if you don't mind me asking are there any good books or online resources that you'd recommend on the topic? I know almost nothing of the details of this conflict and have picked up/looked up some pretty disappointing literature that seems to focus too much on the Communists' political agenda. I barely get anything on the Anarchist Black Army, Wikipedia seems to be the best so far in that regard.

[Industrial Helix]

Russian Revolution won the poll at 46% and 48/104 votes. This one will be moving on first but before it does, I need to fit an update in here. Expect one later this week.

[Industrial Helix]

Alright, time to get this thing moving. I made all the remaining changes to be made, such as having symbols for the commanders and changing Menshaviks to whites. I adjusted some of the borders to fit everything a bit nicer, save for Wilno, which will need some further tweaking later on. I also am concerned about the small version of this map as it gets pretty tight in the center around Moscow. So I shrank the large map down and threw some numbers in for scale. Things look pretty good at first sight with the only major changes needing to happen would be an adjustment on the Commanders table.

Click image to enlarge.

Click image to enlarge.

[natty dread]

So I shrank the large map down and threw some numbers in for scale.

I always do it the other way around... I take 888:s and enlargen them 33% then see if they fit in the large image... that way I don't have to resize the whole image to see if the numbers will fit.

Anyway this is looking good, I hope this gets swiftly moved to gameplay

[TaCktiX]

Most of my critique would be graphical in nature, and you've already stated you want to overhaul it a good bit. So, since this map is certainly fitting of all draft standards, get thee to a gameplay workshop!

[army of nobunaga]

as far as game play man... it looks kind of complicated but in a very simple fun way... In other words you added a lot of variables that differ, but they are easy to understand, and im a moron. I like this.

Im pretty excited, there are a lot of maps coming down the pike that look like really good players maps.

thanx

[Industrial Helix]

Alright, hopefully this version will be a little more clear.

I outlined the rivers to make them appear more like clear obstacles. I also reduced the river in a few areas to make it less complicated.

I added numbers in the commanders and flags to illustrate what I intend for them to do.

I also changed the high density population areas to a shade of red. Still not perfect but better than that orange I didn't like.

I also want to explain the trains in words just so it doesn't seem so daunting... Moscow is the center where all railways meet and Rostov to Moscow is the longest line, 4 cities.

[MarshalNey]

Looks very nice at a first glance, glad you've got the symbols for the commanders and their relevant territory- one thing, though Kaledin and Trotsky shades of blue are very hard to tell apart.

Also, the trains are a nice feature, very neglected in even hardcore war sims. I'm saying this because I like them, I want you to keep them.

But. They will be tricky to balance I think, Muscovy and Trosky are an easy example. Trosky starts with a lot of options.

Anyway, nice work

[Industrial Helix]

Well, Trotsky has a lot of options, but he's also got a lot of ways he can be attacked. However,I wonder if moving him to Petrograd might be better.

Also, I think it should be mentioned there are 21 High pop. regions... so how's that going to be broken down to ensure some fairness? If I add 3 I can have a starting point for each... Which I'm thinking Baltic Countries or Kuban, Oren and Astrakahn/Saratov. So the starting points would look like everyone gets one commander plus 3 High Pop territories. Maybe I should bump the high pop. bonus up to +4 for 4 territories to lessen the impact of a player's first turn?

[iancanton]

are u thinking of doing it conquest-style, with 8 (or 24) strategic positions to start?

ian.

[Industrial Helix]

I'm thinking 8 strategic starting positions (the commanders) with the remaining territories open to random deployment.

I have a few considerations in mind at the moment:

1) The high population zone... should it start with 4 men on each territory and 3 men on each normal territory (or perhaps 3 High pop, 2 low pop)?
2) The points that a commander attacks: should they start at a low number or perhaps neutral 1 or no difference at all?
3) Should the high population zone also have starting neutrals to make it an even deployment: I bump it up to 24 high population zones and each player gets 3 territories in the high pop zone.

[AndyDufresne]

I'm thinking 8 strategic starting positions (the commanders) with the remaining territories open to random deployment.

I have a few considerations in mind at the moment:

1) The high population zone... should it start with 4 men on each territory and 3 men on each normal territory (or perhaps 3 High pop, 2 low pop)?

What are the main pros for higher values vs lower values?


--Andy

[Industrial Helix]

I think I know what you mean but let me know if this doesnt answer your question.

In the higher population zones, there's more people. Therefore it seems logical to me that they should have more armies to start with. This also serves the purpose of preventing a player from getting a first turn advantage as it makes it difficult to take away a bonus form another person (unless I up the bonus for high pop zones to 4 and give everyone three territories). It also makes the area more dense and more difficult to execute a quick strike early in the game. On the downside, given that a player has so many men in the area, the commanders might lose value, save for Trotsky, and come into play only after the initial battles in the high pop zones have been won.

The advantages of the lower numbers are that it allows for rapid movement in the lower populated areas, true to the military history of the war, and this is especially true if there are only two men on each territory rather than 3. It also gives the commanders outside of the high pop zone a place to build men and counter more central commanders, such as Trotsky or Deniken.

[AndyDufresne]

From what you've described, I think I'd see myself falling on the lower-value side of support.


--Andy

[jasnostj]

I like this, but that shouldn't come as a surprise to you, Comrade!

One small thing: I wouldn't crop Poland and the Baltics in the west. Looks a bit messy.
And I would do the high population territories in a different way than with that orange border, for example a darker shade of brown. Before reading the key I though it had to do with a communist zone of control or something.
But I understand these graphics are only a draft anyway (quite a good-looking draft!).

[Dako]

I can help you with proper namings of the cities if you want. I don't know if it matters in GP, but PM me if you want some advices from a Russian CCer.

Cannot say anything on GP yet.

[jasnostj]

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!

I saw one here too: Vologda (the city) misspelled "Volgada".

[Dako]

Vologda is the correct name. But Nijny was named Gorky at the tiems of war (we still have the old name on railway tickets tbh).

PS - posted at Stalingrad map :).

[jasnostj]

Nizhny (with a y) Novgorod ("Lower Newcity") was called Gorky from 1932, so not during the civil war.