Game 96 (No TA)

[Reece]

Sweden recognizes the Scottish Independence movement

[coothunter]

Dagread, the map needs to be adjusted. Morocco has a slice of land through Algeria and has land up to the Saudi border. Algeria also is up to the Saudi border.

 

Unfortunately, they have been stirring up trouble in the desert, and will have to be pushed back to their own homelands.

[Sven Drake]

Yo, coot! I didn't know you're a fellow Californian. I'm in the Inland Empire.

[don]

We Canadians also recognize Scottish independence.

[Ike]

Let the Bravehearts have their independence

[Thors]

^{I think I've had enough of the "common practice" manipulation of the rules that goes on in this game. I came into 96 hoping it would be a more even played game due to the special situation of it, but shortly realized that was unrealistic or wishful thinking on my part. For me, apparently the fun factor doesn't outweigh the monetary cost and the disappointment when the grey area tricks & tactics are employed (which I refrain from). Sure, I can see the fun side when you screw someone over and a plan comes to fruition. But that's not me, I get off on good strategy without the tricks. I saw a great strategy employed by one player against me. I was a tad disheartened being faced with more enemies than I could handle, but that wasn't the clincher... something else happened... The "dog pile on the rabbit" mentality kicked in, with the desire to win at any cost. Swapping critical locations with a non warring (Ally status at that!) nation is a low trick no matter how you slice it. But Kudos to you fellows who figured out how to do it without the TA mechanism!}

^{At games end 93, it happened to a friend, and he took it poorly (because he would never do it to an enemy). By and large I agreed with his notion. But at that stage it wasn't critical. So downplayed it's effect, hoping to make it through to the end on a good note (didn't happen). That Province swap didn't mean the life or death of anyone; it was more about points and a defensive impulse. I see the notion and have participated in the "it's common practice" and "there are ways to counter it" But that is all about self-justification to do something fugazy. The ends doesn't always justify the means. It's just some people are more competitive than others and will do anything it takes to win, and others try to win "mano y mano" so to speak. This is a war simulation and nobody actually gets hurt, so I certainly don't take it personally. I'd have a beer and a laugh with any one of you guys in real life. But we sometimes have different ideals. Better to have a difference in a game, than in real life!}

^{I came out of "retirement" in game 93. Against the odds, fought the "good fight". Finland, North & Central Russia against Me and a near dead Poland . Had a great game to about tech 40 or so. My congratulations and gratitude to the Russians & friends in that game and to all who played a clean fight!}

^Enjoy.

[Earthling]

^{This is a war simulation and nobody actually gets hurt, so I certainly don't take it personally. I'd have a beer and a laugh with any one of you guys in real life. But we sometimes have different ideals. Better to have a difference in a game, than in real life!}

 

 

Agreed. And CHEERS!

[Saint Michael]

^{I think I've had enough of the "common practice" manipulation of the rules that goes on in this game. I came into 96 hoping it would be a more even played game due to the special situation of it, but shortly realized that was unrealistic or wishful thinking on my part. For me, apparently the fun factor doesn't outweigh the monetary cost and the disappointment when the grey area tricks & tactics are employed (which I refrain from). Sure, I can see the fun side when you screw someone over and a plan comes to fruition. But that's not me, I get off on good strategy without the tricks. I saw a great strategy employed by one player against me. I was a tad disheartened being faced with more enemies than I could handle, but that wasn't the clincher... something else happened... The "dog pile on the rabbit" mentality kicked in, with the desire to win at any cost. Swapping critical locations with a non warring (Ally status at that!) nation is a low trick no matter how you slice it. But Kudos to you fellows who figured out how to do it without the TA mechanism!}

^{At games end 93, it happened to a friend, and he took it poorly (because he would never do it to an enemy). By and large I agreed with his notion. But at that stage it wasn't critical. So downplayed it's effect, hoping to make it through to the end on a good note (didn't happen). That Province swap didn't mean the life or death of anyone; it was more about points and a defensive impulse. I see the notion and have participated in the "it's common practice" and "there are ways to counter it" But that is all about self-justification to do something fugazy. The ends doesn't always justify the means. It's just some people are more competitive than others and will do anything it takes to win, and others try to win "mano y mano" so to speak. This is a war simulation and nobody actually gets hurt, so I certainly don't take it personally. I'd have a beer and a laugh with any one of you guys in real life. But we sometimes have different ideals. Better to have a difference in a game, than in real life!}

^{I came out of "retirement" in game 93. Against the odds, fought the "good fight". Finland, North & Central Russia against Me and a near dead Poland . Had a great game to about tech 40 or so. My congratulations and gratitude to the Russians & friends in that game and to all who played a clean fight!}

^Enjoy.

France?

[dageraad]

New map:

 

 

- I certainly did not expect an attack by Baltic States. Once again an indication that there are power blocks at work and it is difficult to get a hold of the whole picture.

- The "no TA'' - rule does not seem to block large alliances, as they simply form a group of cooperating nations that conveniently are at war with another.

- I do not think that was the intention of this game.

[coothunter]

Sven, I live near Sacramento. It is good to have some Californians in the game.

[Reece]

Dag,

 

I agree the fake wars confuse the issue somewhat but I do not see the alliance blocks like you have in a regular game. Yes there appears to be major coordination between NR and Finland in Central Russia, also between Ireland, GB and Lowlands in France (The new map seams to have Ireland out of France now). As well as the US and Canada in the Med. Beyond that I think each nation is playing toward their own interests. Yes they may lend a minor hand to a ally but not too signifcant. For instance you declared War on Portugal and are trying to BPA with me. I consider those shows of support for your ally in GB but they do not mean you are closely coordinating your operations with Britain. The fake wars seam to be an option for bringing air power to bear when you do not have a clear air route of your own territory. If we could modify the program I would suggest any DW will reduce income by a couple of percent. This would reduce the attempts to lower a nations morale by declaring war, or just declaring war because an ally did.

 

King Thor,

 

Sorry you do not feel I am playing fairly. Perhaps our troops should put on bright red uniforms and line up in ranks to exchange fire in a gentlemanly fashion. From the Swedish position we view the use of mines as a cheap shot as well. I assume your subs did the fair thing and picked up all the Swedish Sailors providing aid to Scotland.

 

Seriously your mining of the Sea lanes caused me Naval losses on more than 1 turn (I really hate mines as they can impact a neutral, Friend or Enemy. I definitely a neutral up to the mine warfare employment. You may recall I even warned you when Ireland attacked. I sent in the spies some of which you caught to id your minelayers and check your defenses. I had amphibious forces off Bermuda and in the Med and your war with Portugal caused me to have to change my supply routes as well. These were both irritations but when combined with your over extension down to Italy (The espionage missions early on showed no troops protecting key locations) it made you ripe for an amphibious attack. I would have attacked earlier but LSM's are slow. Later when you added troops it lowered the chances of success so I altered my targets a bit. I wasn't sure how your closer allies would react so I also asked some allies for a show of Support. Well hopefully you have vented a bit and will continue on but my attack was in my positions best interest and not for supporting another player. You can call it piling on but ultimately it was because you left little in Britain and I acted upon the opportunity. (Just imagine how poorly it would have gone for me had you had a few airgroups on AMI orders). Have fun, RIck

[Thors]

Rick, As I said, I admired your strategy. In my opinion, what is messed up was having Norway (whom has an alliance with me) DW on you and taking York from you to thwart my counter attacks; finding a province I cannot attack or fly over. The concept of Ally is greatly perverted in the game by people that use it as a weapon.

 

You claim I was an annoyance with your efforts in the Mediterranean. You did not contact me about this issue. Why? One would think you had no peaceful intentions. You took an Island off the Southern France/Italian coast. Why? One would think you had hostile intentions towards me. Don't blame someone for an "annoyance" when your apparent activities are hostile to them.

 

And about those Mines, I only mined off Edinburgh and Helmsdale, for obvious defensive reasons. If you found Mines elsewhere, it wasn't me. Besides, the logical route for you to the med, would be through ENG3/ENG2/ENG1. I never mined those sea zones. And I've had shipping through there often and never found mines until tech 34ish, when your ships were spotted in the area.

 

I believe what Dag is referring to about large alliances is the indication that you are working with up to 8 other players. In the very least you've limited your logical geographic course of conquest by surrounding yourself with "friends". That's your prerogative, but it goes against what some of us felt was a fundamental intent of this particular game. You've apparently stacked your deck much more than expected.

Your indication to my association with Ireland and LL was revealed by me a long time ago. Some "friends" are a survival tool, wouldn't you admit? On the contrary, many "friends" is an offensive tool, used to dominate and destroy opposition en-force.

Do you think GB, Ireland and LL was taking advantage of Portugal in a similar fashion? If so, your perception is not based on facts. Portugal pushed Ireland out all on his own, and I was next unless LL helped. Portugal has made many more gains on us. Why? He has German tech with two nations of production, fighting on his continent with no sea crossings to deal with. Ireland and I had only 1.25 nations worth (if that much) but the biggest handicap is the resources, orders, etc. (as you know) to sustain an amphibious line of attack. LL was concentrating elsewhere.

So here I am with potentially 8 enemies.

 

I don't blame you for seeing GB as a victim of opportunity. I did screw myself by throwing so much across into mainland Europe, leaving GB susceptible to invasion. France, Spain and then Italy dropping so early in the game created a vacuum that I was sucked into.

 

With your buddy probably loading a full stack in York, and your ability to consolidate a large force which should soon be under FC in Scotland, my days are numbered. Once I'm gone from this game, I'll not be playing Victory again, as I share similar Ideals to Mickey, whom also has withdrawn from the game. *IF* a new version is ever made of Victory that addresses the manipulative methods employed by so many, then I may give it a shot again. But after the petty immature stuff that went on in 93, and then facing the same situation that drove Mickey out (final straw) of swapping provinces to thwart another... Well, I'm done. When someone who obviously has close ties to the GM, and whom I though was an honorable player, plays in a way I think is manipulative... Yeah, I'm done.

[dageraad]

That IF would require rewriting of the code and some meaningfull improvements.

The changes in the last few years have both been amputations:

 

The concentration of morale bombardments on a scale the game never was designed for (> 73 turns)

led to the removal of terror bombardment, so that it is possible no more even in game turn 3.

 

The wish to play a game with less ganging up has led to the elimination of the TA, with all the game mechanisms that

depend on it. And ganging up is still done. Even more, as lots of the advantages of TA's are defensive.

 

I probably follow Mickey and Thors in their self-imposed exile after game 97 is done.

[Thors]

Rick, I am not going to argue much of what you brought up because it's moot or not worth it. However I find myself having to repeat myself:

 

The concept of Ally is greatly perverted in the game by people that use it as a weapon.

 

Had Norway BPA/DW and attacked me directly, There would not be a real problem.

No matter how you need to justify yourself, it was a slime move. Perhaps you're just desensitized by playing so long with the "At any cost" attitude that is prevalent. To you it's all part of the game.

But to me, It's along the same mentality of the FP/DW/FP scenario.

[Reece]

Agree to end the arguing thread. You signed up to play a game that has rules and I am playing within those rules. I am also agreeable to additional restrictions should everyone be willing to do the same. Since you have been at war with Ireland since nearly the beginning of the game I guess you are also taking advantage of the same perversion of what constitutes an ally. Have fun, RIck