New Siberian rules finalized

Posted: August 31, 2011 in Rus Mod


From January 19, Siberian player will have the option to request Japan military intervention. The option will cost 3 EPs.

In the next 4 turns, there’s a 15% chance Japan accepts to enter the Civil war by releasing the Japanese divisions guarding the Transsiberian railway.

However this option will enforce:

–       A 6 loss for Allied Intervention Level

–       A NM loss between 15 to 30 if Siberian Whites NM is superior or equal to 80

–       A 15 NM gain for Reds

–       Regional Policies will not be playable between Vladivostock and Irkutsk

Notes: during Autumn 1919, several attempts were made by Whites to Japanese officials to get their military support . Siberian troops were in disarray and the help should have been backed by substantial territorial and economical concessions to Japan in the Far-East.

Japan declined, seeing no profit in a full military intervention. Moreover, France, Great Britain and United States were very concerned by any Japanese extension in the Far East and would have taken very badly such an alliance.

The option has so many huge bad effects for Whites, in order to limit player’s desire to use it, unless desperate situation.

Japanese intervention may seem very limited in size but logistical problems would have limited Japan presence on a Frontline close to urals to an handful of divisions at best…


From March 1920 if the Siberian player has chosen the historical path and January 21 if he plays under unhistorical path rules, Siberian will get VPs each turn for the following cities: Omsk (2), Ekaterinburg (2), Ufa (4),Perm (4), Orenburg (4),Kazan (5), Samara (5), Syzran (5),Saratov(5)

Notes: this new rule solves 2 problems.

The first belongs to Siberian Whites interest to be played.Indeed, if the Siberian player fails to fulfill the conditions for Allied reconnaissance, he will have yet a chance to win, by holding at least in part the Volga bend.


The second is usual when you propose in a game an alternative option: 97% of players will choose it, and it’s very difficult to balance a untested in RL path…The difference in starting dates will be an incentive to discard the unhistorical apth and try to perform better than the faction…

  1. Narwhal says:

    I like how you explain your modification and also WHY you decide to make that or that modification !

    • Clovis says:

      IMHO ( my natural arrogance 🙂 ) when you’re proposing something you must explain things first. At least those reading it will have key to choose or not to try. I hate more and more silent decisions about fundamental keys of the design. many times, players will anyway ask why and you will be forced to reply ( theorically at least 😉 ).

      Now, no I don’t hate you because you will not play FY. Waht I said is right: the mod is first for my own gaming pleasure, but for that I need other player’s feedback. If by the way, I may give to some a good gaming experience, I’m proud and happy. Hwever, it isn’t my aim. I’m not forced to simulate sympathy for players. 🙂

      But try it. 😉

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s