16 replies to this topic

[don]

I wonder if other players would like to see some changes to the rules? For example:

1. It would be nice if you could combine cadres of divisions into one stronger one without lossing moral.
2. Massive numbers of AA divisions should be more affective in the end game against air attacks.
3. Bombers never seem to be turned back no matter how many fighters are encountered or how much flak exists.
4. If an air division has a standing order it would be nice if you could cancell that order without issuing another standing order or an air mission (in order to conserve fuel at a base).

[the_dark_monk]

I agree, Don is right.

[Spongebob]

He may be right but is the program not set in stone. I have not seen any changes since my re-introduction and there are many cases for change.

On a similar note maybe RTG could give us an update on prospective Victory V2, if? when? if not why not? whats holding it up?

Russ? Pete? Anyone?

[Kurassier]

Spongebob, on Apr 17 2008, 04:35 PM, said:

He may be right but is the program not set in stone. I have not seen any changes since my re-introduction and there are many cases for change.

On a similar note maybe RTG could give us an update on prospective Victory V2, if? when? if not why not? whats holding it up?

Russ? Pete? Anyone?

Correct. Current version will not change. Any suggestions would only be for a newer version. It is my understanding (and I could be wrong) that all the programming time is going into Supernova at the moment. So no updated Victory in the near future.

[Spongebob]

I'll do it It may be the only way I get to win playing Denmark

[Rednas]

Kurassier, on Apr 18 2008, 01:05 AM, said:

Spongebob, on Apr 17 2008, 04:35 PM, said:

He may be right but is the program not set in stone. I have not seen any changes since my re-introduction and there are many cases for change.

On a similar note maybe RTG could give us an update on prospective Victory V2, if? when? if not why not? whats holding it up?

Russ? Pete? Anyone?

Correct. Current version will not change. Any suggestions would only be for a newer version. It is my understanding (and I could be wrong) that all the programming time is going into Supernova at the moment. So no updated Victory in the near future.

Dear Kurassier,

Where did you get this kind of information from? From Russ directly or just hear say? As we all play already a long time Victory, for me it is still a great game playing it, with all its aspects, some changes could be made. Also I do, as many others sure have, some ideas. But if these are all can be programmed, used or even wished, I cannot imagine that. Maybe some of the proposal will make the game to detailed and make it to complex and hard to play, resulting in no fun and than lot of players will drop quicker. And that would be a shame.

I am looking forward to Victory 2, with (some) new rules, new equipment and new territories etc.

Rednas

[Kurassier]

Rednas, on Jun 24 2008, 02:25 PM, said:

Dear Kurassier,

Where did you get this kind of information from? From Russ directly or just hear say? As we all play already a long time Victory, for me it is still a great game playing it, with all its aspects, some changes could be made. Also I do, as many others sure have, some ideas. But if these are all can be programmed, used or even wished, I cannot imagine that. Maybe some of the proposal will make the game to detailed and make it to complex and hard to play, resulting in no fun and than lot of players will drop quicker. And that would be a shame.

I am looking forward to Victory 2, with (some) new rules, new equipment and new territories etc.

Rednas

Information was from Russ along time ago. Victory 2, if you will, needs to be a completely rewritten program, and that takes time. Time that RTG has not had in the recent past. RTG is willing to listen and incorporate new ideas that make sense, but only in the new version.
I also don't want to see drastic changes to the basic game, but there is area for improvement. For instance, why can't a nation fly FC for a total ally? ie would British spitfires not shoot down germans just because the germans were targetting Americans?
Why can't TA's move through TA territory? etc.

[Rednas]

Kurassier, on Jun 24 2008, 11:01 PM, said:

Rednas, on Jun 24 2008, 02:25 PM, said:

Dear Kurassier,

Where did you get this kind of information from? From Russ directly or just hear say? As we all play already a long time Victory, for me it is still a great game playing it, with all its aspects, some changes could be made. Also I do, as many others sure have, some ideas. But if these are all can be programmed, used or even wished, I cannot imagine that. Maybe some of the proposal will make the game to detailed and make it to complex and hard to play, resulting in no fun and than lot of players will drop quicker. And that would be a shame.

I am looking forward to Victory 2, with (some) new rules, new equipment and new territories etc.

Rednas

Information was from Russ along time ago. Victory 2, if you will, needs to be a completely rewritten program, and that takes time. Time that RTG has not had in the recent past. RTG is willing to listen and incorporate new ideas that make sense, but only in the new version.
I also don't want to see drastic changes to the basic game, but there is area for improvement. For instance, why can't a nation fly FC for a total ally? ie would British spitfires not shoot down germans just because the germans were targetting Americans?
Why can't TA's move through TA territory? etc.

Kurassier,

Agree, but TA's can move trough TA territory, but just maynot end in that. Okay but I think I know what you are getting at. Also for instance: why can nightfighters only be put on interception, so covering only 1 province, why not for instance max. 3 provinces. Whay can NF not be used for night intruder actions in enemy territory...and so on. I have many proposals and ideas, don't know if they can be used.

Greetings Rednas

[Hamish]

This topic seems to pop up every once in a while: http://www.rollingth...p?showtopic=590

There are many ideas for improvement, but as Kurassier mentioned, so far nothing is happening because RTG doesn't have the time. I think it's a shame SuperNova is getting priority, but I'm sure it's the best thing for RTG to do from a business perspective. No hard feelings, just disappointment.....

[Warmaster]

Hamish, on Jun 25 2008, 01:48 AM, said:

I think it's a shame SuperNova is getting priority, but I'm sure it's the best thing for RTG to do from a business perspective. No hard feelings, just disappointment.....

With all due respect for RTG and I admire all of their work and enjoyed all of their good services.............

I for one also have to look at if from a buisness perspective and I find Victory! is no longer providing satisfaction but instead is providing aggravation. I will be tapering off my investment and not signing up for any new games when I finish current ones. I will not change my opinion until changes are made to the existing program or a Victory 2 is released.

There have been many great sugestions about improvements on the forum and I will not attempt to prioritize or rehash them all. Cleary the game and software is not making the transition from a PBM game of 1988 vintage to a PBEM of 2008.

My biggest frustration is the continued refinement by most players in the use of airdrops to remove airbases from the map. The balance of power is being totally destroyed (and it already favored airpower) by the superhuman ability of a country to drop an airborne divison or regiment deep into enemy territory on completely sacrifical attacks.

Yes, Yes,..... I know all is fair in the rules and I am a whiner and I do it to my enemies also just as they do it to me. But airdrops have become the centerpeice of the games tactics and not the supplemental tactic is should be limited to. I want to play a game of airpower and blitzkrieg and NOT a game of defense against several AIR40 regiments dropped WAY back in my rear territories.

I note that in some games currently under play that several countries in large TA groups produce almost exclsively AIR points. They make a nearly ZERO attempt to build land or naval units and rely on TA's to carry the brunt of the ground war. When one of these bulked up AIR force powers outproduces a more balanced force enemy the result is quick and painful. Their ability to build HT planes and transport one or more divisions in airdrops DEEP into the rear of the enemy the balance of power is destroyed.

Short version of my argument is: Did the British ever airdrop onto xBerlin from x London in WW2? Well it happens in this game ALL the time (and even worse outrages can occur). Is that really fun and realistic?


A quick fix is to add Paratroops to the ANTS schedule. I know of no country in WW2 that every built more than say 4 division and only a handful of regiments. Perhaps if you could only build 2 divisions and 4 regiments for the entire game you would be FAR MORE CAREFUL about dropping them all around the map every turn. By the way why don't they start out with line or veteran morale as was the case in most countries since they use hand picked or highly trained soldiers for these forces?

See you guys in Victory 2.......someday!

[LenLorek]

Warmaster, on Jun 25 2008, 06:13 PM, said:

Short version of my argument is: Did the British ever airdrop onto xBerlin from x London in WW2? Well it happens in this game ALL the time (and even worse outrages can occur). Is that really fun and realistic?

The answer to your rhetorical question is: no they didn't, but was that because they just didn't thnk of it? Remember, the real life historical war leaders didn't get the chance to re-run the war and learn how to do it better for the next re-run.

On the other hand, what would have been the real consequences of a British air drop on xBerlin -- after the initial capture of the city, the Germans would have captured it back and then paraded the surviving and captured British paratroops for propaganda purposes (as happened after the failed historical raid on Dieppe), so could this be figured into the game as a boost to German morale?

On the other other hand, after the Dambuster raid, the Germans started building an awful lot of AA guns (and even transferred many from northern France and the Lowlands) to place deep within Germany in case of another such raid. The historical effect was that British air raids suffered from so much flak and air interception that they conducted night-time bombing exclusively (using onboard radar to find their way), and the US Air Force continued to suffer badly during their daylight air raids (although the British offered their radar system it was rejected as "not invented by the US"). In the game of Victory!, the German player might want to respond by building a lot of LAA, HAA and AAA.

Warmaster, on Jun 25 2008, 06:13 PM, said:

A quick fix is to add Paratroops to the ANTS schedule. I know of no country in WW2 that every built more than say 4 division and only a handful of regiments. Perhaps if you could only build 2 divisions and 4 regiments for the entire game you would be FAR MORE CAREFUL about dropping them all around the map every turn. By the way why don't they start out with line or veteran morale as was the case in most countries since they use hand picked or highly trained soldiers for these forces?

Now this is an interesting idea: if your AIR troops were Elite then you might think twice about wasting them on trivial suicide missions. If they are drawn from existing Divisions rather than built as just another ground unit, then perhaps it could be something like this ...

... An existing Division will always contain troops with a mixture of abilities (eg, a Division that averages out as "Veteran" will have some individuals who would be regarded as Elite, some as Veteran, some as Line and some as Green) -- draw a brigade of paratroops from a Veteran (or Elite) infantry (or motorized or mechanized, but not armor) Division that is in your home country, such that the infantry Division suffers a 25% loss in size and a drop from Veteran to Line (or Elite to Veteran), while the resulting brigade of paratroops are Elite. [And discard the rule for a paratroop drop to be 1½ times morale before it surrenders to the defenders as it is no longer necessary?] Note that Veteran or Elite Divisions become so by combat experience not just LFEs, and so will tend to be at or near the front line and possibly outside your home country -- so the need to bring them home in order to draw AIR brigades from them will result in more second thoughts from the player, thereby helping to make AIR brigades less common. And if the drawing of an AIR brigade is a Primary Order for the infantry Division ... .

Waddy think?

[the_dark_monk]

I think there is no need to change the rules for airdrops. These strategies are expensive enough. Some players have a problem with airdrops because they never build not enough LDBs and fortifications. LDBs are expensive but they are the only strategy to save important provinces and cities. Build less armored divisions, more mech divisions and more LDBs and it will work. Installing statics or infantry in these provinces and cities will not work; a superior air force will kill them. Killing LDBs with the air force is hard especially in a city. The only other strategy is the random movement of armies from city to city; this keeps the success of an airdrop unsure. Too expensive and unpleasant you think? Yes of course, counter strategies are never nice, they never fit to our plans, but reacting to the actions of your enemy are part of the game. The enemies are the best part (Ghazily I love you ).

The Monk (most unpopular)

[Warmaster]

the_dark_monk, on Jun 26 2008, 08:34 AM, said:

I think there is no need to change the rules for airdrops. These strategies are expensive enough. Some players have a problem with airdrops because they never build not enough LDBs and fortifications. LDBs are expensive but they are the only strategy to save important provinces and cities.
The Monk (most unpopular)

I think you have proved my point. Or perhaps there are many players like yourself who crave the spellbinding excitement of building LDB's to protect capitals, airbases, and AIC 1 cities. You can have your fun but I choose to have my fun elsewhere.


Lenloreks idea is good and there are many variations of that that should probably make their way into a more sophisticated Vic2 format. LenLoreck's idea did get me thinking and I believe a variation of his idea is the way to proceed within the existing Victory format.

My idea fits into the RTG dictum that no programming chances to Victory! will occur. My proposal is that all future games become a "Special Variant". Variant games have been within the bounds of what RTG is willing to consider.

My "Special Variant" proposal is:

All players get 2 Veteren AIR divisons and 3 elite AIR regiments in the starting force pools. No AIR40 or AIR39 builds would be allowed for the remainder of the game (this may be on the honor system however but VERY easily enforced).

How players choose to use these 5 special units is up to them but it maintains lots of possibilites while giving a real COST to wasting these units on sacrifical missions.

I believe this "special variant" should become the new "standard game" and would keep my investment dollar flowing into the game until the much bigger and better VIC2 makes its apperance in the distant future.

[DezertCamel]

I only have one problem with your variant system. Large countrie and ones like usa and canada. need to build air 40 and air 39's. Not for air drops but for ease of moving new divisions to the front. Since we can only upgrade divisions and not build them from scratch in foreign lands. having captured factories building arm points do no good, if you have to move large divisions across vast distances. I mean I have no problem with limiting airdrops, but it has to balance out for everyone.

DezertCamel

[the_dark_monk]

Warmaster, I do not like to build LDBs, but they are part of the game. If you have problems with air drops use them. Your suggestion will decrease the number of possible strategies and this is not good for the game. This is my personal opinion, of course.

The Monk