Review TCancer reviews Revolution under Siege

[Burning Bridges]

<p align="justify">As we all know, games are opium to the people. All the same, I could not resist when this attractive new game 'Revolution under Siege' came around, which promises to simulate the whole Russian Civil War. </p><table border="0"><tbody><tr><td align="left" valign="middle"><p align="center"><a href="http://www.christian-wendt.org/TCANCER/RUS_REVIEW/large/6-3.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.christian-wendt.org/TCANCER/RUS_REVIEW/small/6-3.jpg" border="0" alt=" " /></a></p> </td><td align="left"><p>Revolution under Siege (RUS) is the sixth installment in AGEOD's series of strategic wargames, including previous titles Birth of America 1 & 2 , American Civil War, Napoleon's Campaigns and Rise Of Prussia.</p><p>After previous AGEOD games played out in North America, and a foray into Europe (Napoleon, Prussia), this probably represents their largest project to date: the Russian Civil War, depicted on a gigantic map of the vast stretches of Russia, and split into several major campaigns between 1918-1921.</p><p>Revolution under Siege was created by a second team (SEP REDs), and the project has been in preparation since as far back as 2008.</p></td></tr><tr><td> <blockquote><br /></blockquote></td><td><p><a href="http://www.revolutionundersiege.com/revolution/index.html">Revolution Under Siege</a> </p><p><a href="http://www.revolutionundersiege.com/revolution/en/wallrus_en.php">Playable demo </a> </p><p><a href="http://www.ageod.com/en">AGE Online Distribution (AGEOD)</a>  </p></td></tr></tbody></table> <p>You can read the review <a href="http://www.tacticularcancer.com/content.php?id=66"><strong>here</strong></a>.</p><p> </p>

 

[Fuck_The_Banks]

Great review BB. Recently bought this game and I'm trying to find enough hours to play it.

It is indeed pretty stable. I've had one crash on loading and experienced a few of the "glitches" mentioned on the Aegod Forum - the requisition bug springs to mind. However there is nothing wrong that can't be quickly tweaked.

I suspect I'll get more play out of this than I ever did from AACW, and that's one of my favourite game.

I love the sense of crisis and disorder, particularly in the early turns. Perhaps someone who isn't familliar with the period or the engine might struggle a bit at first - feeling overwhelmed by the size of the map and the range of strategies available, but don't let that put you off. There is so much going on "under the hood" that putting the hours in will be very rewarding.

 

[Malakal]

So no playable Poland in Grand Campaign? I must say that my enthusiasm for this game waned after reading about only 3 playable factions. I prefer laying minor powers, its more fun, more challenging...

 

[Elwro]

What? I also thought Poland was a playble faction. No impersonating Pilsudski, no purchase for me.

edit: Hm, a short scenario. I'll consider whether it does him justice :D

 

[Burning Bridges]

When they are going to make Poland under Siege, it will be your turn.

 

[Malakal]

When they are going to make Poland under Siege, it will be your turn.

Poland fielded up to 1.5 million soldiers for this war, at one point in time, when it controlled Kiev and most of Ukraine Polish political decisions (stopping the offensive and waiting for southern whites under Denikin to bleed out fighting Reds) very much changed the course of war.

Thus I dont see why any realistic game about RCW wouldnt include Poland as a playable faction. Baltic states, Finland, Ukraine too should eb playable and represented. It wasnt a threeway it was a clusterfuck.

 

[Orgasm]

Maybe should have mentioned how combat works for those who havent played other Ageod games.

 

[Burning Bridges]

When they are going to make Poland under Siege, it will be your turn.

Poland fielded up to 1.5 million soldiers for this war, at one point in time, when it controlled Kiev and most of Ukraine Polish political decisions (stopping the offensive and waiting for southern whites under Denikin to bleed out fighting Reds) very much changed the course of war.

Thus I dont see why any realistic game about RCW wouldnt include Poland as a playable faction. Baltic states, Finland, Ukraine too should eb playable and represented. It wasnt a threeway it was a clusterfuck.

Poland Poland Poland. Is there anything else that you think of the whole day?

Germany was also fielding a large army and - according to Evan Mawdsley - "of all the foreign governments that intervened .. she had the best chance of destroying the Soviet regime". So am I supposed to turn every thread into a cant over my small ego and criticize everywhere that Germany is not playable?

Germany is not important, I am not even particularly interested in playing ze Germans, or your Poles for that matter, I can make do with russian revolutionaries and counter-revolutionaries, and the game can really not be criticized for the absence of your favorite nation.

Besides, you did not even play the demo, right? The two anti-bolshevik
'factions' pool the hodge podge of different forces into just two major factions, because otherwise the 'Whites' would be completely unplayable, and the game would probably have to be restricted to just playing the Soviets.

For example, in the 'Southern White' faction there are also Don Cossacks, Chechens, British, French, a Polish Brigade, a Serbian Brigade, an Italian Brigade, the US polar Bear Corps, 'West' Russians (including German and Baltic troops) and certainly many more that I forgot.

To sum up, this starts to get on my nerves. And I still remember the thread about Decisive Campaigns: Warsaw to Paris, where you were constantly complaining about the game, basically because it did not contain Allied victories. You don't even pay for the fucking games, so why should we even give a damn?

P.S. But don't take it too personal, I have nothing against a sulky Pole, I just want to discuss about strategy games not about Poland.

 

[Malakal]

Then they should make it White-Red-Nationalist threeway. Because Poles or Finns or Balts were not White, they would fight White Russia as they did fight Red. Can you understand that? Poles werent allied to Whites, if this game claims to be historically accurate it shouldnt depict the situation this way. I am not butthurt in a nationalistic way I am butthurt as a historian.

BTW I complained in Decisive Campaigns thread about the rather uninteresting time period not because of lack of Allied victories. I dont know what made you think that way.

 

[Trash]

Game looks absolutely stunning and also has a setting which is extremely underused in wargaming. The fact that it also portrays the Finnish civil war is pretty cool. I bet that they could make quite a few interesting add-ons if this sold well. The wave of revolutions and bloody civil wars following the Russian revolution in for instance the baltics and other parts of eastern europe could make for plenty of interesting shorter campaigns.

Anyway, glad to see something fresh in wargaming and thanks for the excellent review!

Oh, and sulky poles detected. Again.

 

[Burning Bridges]

I am not butthurt in a nationalistic way I am butthurt as a historian.

Butthurt about this game because you are a historian? This is really over the top. Play it and tell me it's not one of the best games in that department! And I really ask myself which other games you are playing.

Can't we accept that 10-20 possible nations are not playable, a lot of irregulars were coalescenced into hypothetic factions, etc, and instead discuss what the game actually can do?

Besides there is really no reason why this should not come by through mods, I just don't think that it's of very high importance atm.

BTW I complained in Decisive Campaigns thread about the rather uninteresting time period not because of lack of Allied victories. I dont know what made you think that way.

That's what I don't get. Germany starts war against most of Europe. What can be uninteresting about that time period?

 

[Trash]

You underestimate Polish butthurt. This is the first wargame I've seen yet about the subject of the revolution and, incidently, they do acknowledge that they've heavily simplified the many different white factions to make this game playable.

Oh, and he was pissed about decisive victories because he couldn't crush Germany while playing Poland. It's just nationalistic butthurt.

 

[Burning Bridges]

Ok, he starts every thread this way, but usually he turns around and makes very intelligent statements.

 

[Fuck_The_Banks]

When they are going to make Poland under Siege, it will be your turn.

Poland fielded up to 1.5 million soldiers for this war, at one point in time, when it controlled Kiev and most of Ukraine Polish political decisions (stopping the offensive and waiting for southern whites under Denikin to bleed out fighting Reds) very much changed the course of war.

Thus I dont see why any realistic game about RCW wouldnt include Poland as a playable faction. Baltic states, Finland, Ukraine too should eb playable and represented. It wasnt a threeway it was a clusterfuck.

Poland Poland Poland. Is there anything else that you think of the whole day?

Germany was also fielding a large army and - according to Evan Mawdsley - "of all the foreign governments that intervened .. she had the best chance of destroying the Soviet regime". So am I supposed to turn every thread into a cant over my small ego and criticize everywhere that Germany is not playable?

Germany is not important, I am not even particularly interested in playing ze Germans, or your Poles for that matter, I can make do with russian revolutionaries and counter-revolutionaries, and the game can really not be criticized for the absence of your favorite nation.

Besides, you did not even play the demo, right? The two anti-bolshevik
'factions' pool the hodge podge of different forces into just two major factions, because otherwise the 'Whites' would be completely unplayable, and the game would probably have to be restricted to just playing the Soviets.

For example, in the 'Southern White' faction there are also Don Cossacks, Chechens, British, French, a Polish Brigade, a Serbian Brigade, an Italian Brigade, the US polar Bear Corps, 'West' Russians (including German and Baltic troops) and certainly many more that I forgot.

To sum up, this starts to get on my nerves. And I still remember the thread about Decisive Campaigns: Warsaw to Paris, where you were constantly complaining about the game, basically because it did not contain Allied victories. You don't even pay for the fucking games, so why should we even give a damn?

P.S. But don't take it too personal, I have nothing against a sulky Pole, I just want to discuss about strategy games not about Poland.

Epic win for Burning Bridges, and no need to even mention the Russo-Polish war scenario included in the game (nor the scenario involving Finland).

Over 20 non-Russian forces invaded / intervened in the course of the war, broadly speaking in favour of the Whites (in terms of crushing the Bolsheviks, if not in terms of having a common 'national interest'). The game is a simulation of the dynamic of the military struggle between those who assumed the mantle of the October Revolution, and those who opposed it. As such, the game is a compromise. If all the factions were introduced as playable factions, it would end up as (an albeit) entertaining ahistorical mess akin to the better Paradox titles rather than the seemingly serious study of the collapse and civil strife of Eurasia's Great Power that this game will develope to be.

The contribution of Poland in the Civil War was very significant (it halted the military spread of the Bolshevik government at the Vistula), which added to the failure of the German Communists to seize power and the destruction of the Russian working class during the civil war, doomed the Revolution to failure. Hence they rightfully are represented in the game. However, to demand that they should be represented as a full faction in the campaign is akin to complaining that the Free French are not an independent faction in a game of the hypothetical German invasion of Britain. The fate of Russia was decided by a combination of internal Russian politics and the balance of power between the Revolutionary and counter-revolutionary armies, and not how many troops the Poles could field in 1920. Even with 10 million men, they could not (nor been allowed to by their European allies) to subjugate Russia.

You ask for a White / Red / Nationalist 3-way. What did the Finns and the Baltic states have in common with the Poles? No more than you claim the Poles had with the Whites?

Again, no Polish butthurt detected (though working in East London I experience that perhaps more than anyone else outside East / Central Europe). However, lets get things in perspective.

Sorry, rant over.

 

[LusciousPear]

This sounds utterly fascinating. Think it's playable without waiting for fanpatchez like Paradox games?

(Are Paradox games kiddies toys compared to this?)

 

[Fuck_The_Banks]

This sounds utterly fascinating. Think it's playable without waiting for fanpatchez like Paradox games?

(Are Paradox games kiddies toys compared to this?)

I vote "yes" on both counts. First patch already out, fixing the worst of the bugs. The small development team seem to see this game as their labour of love.

I like Paradox games, but this is a serious and complex military simulation. When I first started playing games with this engine (Ageod's American Civil War), I felt a bit overwhelmed, but it soon "clicked". I'd advise anyone to give this game a go.

*Edit* Second patch imminent...

http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?t=19573

 

[Burning Bridges]

This sounds utterly fascinating. Think it's playable without waiting for fanpatchez like Paradox games?

v1.00 is absolutely playable. There are a few balance problems, missing railroad links and such, which will be fixed in a few weeks. The first patch is already slated for the weekend ( a RC1 was uploaded friday night but had some small problems ).

(Are Paradox games kiddies toys compared to this?)

That's really not the important question. But the AGEOD games are turn based and have better graphics, an a visual style which is much easier to grasp ( things like leader portraits and detailed unit graphics ).

 

[Elwro]

Playing the demo, looks very nice. But is it normal that the tutorial arrows do not work? I had to choose all tutorial messages from the message log because only the "back" arrow works, not the "forward" one. So the first feature most people would see is broken, at least on my installation. I hope the game is not so buggy later on...

edit: 40 Euros, goddamnit. I'll wait for a promo or sth, I guess. This would be perfect as a Christmas gift but in a boxed version. Is there even a boxed version?

 

[Malakal]

Just finished Polish-Soviet war scenario with a draw. WTF they expected me to conquer Moscow or what? I already had Odessa and Kiev, anything more was beyond my capacity.

Overall seems nice but needs a lot of polish honestly. Reinforcement system is shit, command chain needlessly complicated, map should be way more easy to read (does this city have a supply depot or not etc), units appear out of thin air and nobody informs the player about that, scenario I played lacks events completely...

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.

 

[Fuck_The_Banks]

Just finished Polish-Soviet war scenario with a draw. WTF they expected me to conquer Moscow or what? I already had Odessa and Kiev, anything more was beyond my capacity.

Overall seems nice but needs a lot of polish honestly. Reinforcement system is shit, command chain needlessly complicated, map should be way more easy to read (does this city have a supply depot or not etc), units appear out of thin air and nobody informs the player about that, scenario I played lacks events completely...

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.

Oh dear.

Your points in turn.

Why are you suprised that Poland can't conquer Russia? You might have had over 1 million troops in 1920, but the Reds lost more than 3 million and still won, beating 20 foreign armies into the bargain. 1 million people is too few to garrison every village from your border to Vladivostock in a country that dwarfs your size and population. The Germans captured more than you did in 1941-2, and they still fought on, and nobody then was even fighting for a new way of life and a new world order (except for the Nazis).

Re-inforcements / replacements fixed in the patch. What is the problem with a newly raised division of field hands taking a few weeks to learn to shoot a musket / rifle straight and be able to march in a straight line and follow basic orders. That is realism. One of the challenges for the Reds in the game is not just mobilising a huge army, but also organising and leading it. The Whites on the other hand, have relatively good generals and troops, but too few people or the money to raise new forces. Strategic differences.

Command chain is complicated? Commanding 2m (whites) 3m (Reds) is complicated. Buti n the game, what is so complicated about forming your units into Divisions,Corps and Armies / Fronts? The trick is finding the best person for the job, and deciding the force mix they should command.

When I want to know what is going on with the map, I useall the filters,so I can tell who is in supply, and how well; who controls where; where I can place re-inforcements etc etc etc.

Units formed out of thin air. Yes you are right. In the civil war, White and Red armies formed out of thin air, impressed out the local population. It also simulates the Fog of War.

If I'd read the manual, or even played the tutorial, I'd really realise that scenario 1 is a training game really meant for people who were not comfortable after the 3 tutorials (the tutorials also cover a lot of your "issues" here).

The only point I agree with you on are that many Paradox games are fun (EUII springs to mind). However, this is a serious historical wargame. This game is not trying to be a vaguely history-based representation of a particular era, but a simulation of the military conflict following the Bolshevik seizure of power.

In summary: Read the manual / play the tutorials, and ask on the official forums if you don't get something - they are usually really helpful. Don't expect a "Beer and Pretzels" experience. The game is a historical simulation, so don't expect "counter-factual" history outcomes. Have fun!

 

[Elwro]

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

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

 

[Fuck_The_Banks]

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.

 

[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.

+1 reading comprehension check.

Indeed what I wrote was: I conquered most of Ukraine including Kiev and Odessa and remained in control of Polish lands and the outcome was STALEMATE? The only high point target left was Moscow.

 

[Malakal]

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

 

[Elwro]

Point, is, F_T_B, that it is customary for strategy games with scenarios featuring two sides with vast differences in power to calculate victory points so that even though the smaller power loses the fight, but does it with minimal losses or after holding its position for a long time, it has achieved its winning conditions for the scenario. Sometimes the goal is just to hold ground for n turns, because it's inevitable you'll be overrun eventually. If Poland is supposed to conquer Moscow in order to win the scenario, this is a strange idea... securing independence should be enough.