9 replies to this topic

[Meatball]

I know I can't be the only one that goes crazy waiting two weeks for his turn. Hey Russ, how about a 7 Day turnaround game that has a requirement of e-mail turns only? I'd be in!

- MB

[Limburgia]

I am always in favour for faster games.

7 days would be very a fast game and require that turn are processed and sent back on processing day otherwise the information flow in weekends will be very limited and the 5 person TA team couldn't spread their turn sequence with adequate intel.
Because Russ is "only human" and has weekends, days off as "normal people"
But it can be done, because all people have the same 7 days to make their turns.

I think 10 day turn by email could work perfectly.

Maybe we can test it in vic63, because there are only 7 people in it and the game is almost over....

[Ronald]

correct me if i'm wrong, but I doubt there are still that many people left that dont play by email.

Actually i'd be much more interested (ok maybe not -more- but it certainly would be easier to realise) in a 15 day turn, but where you only need 14 days between your turns so you can move (albeit slowly) forward in the turn again.

or ya can just play 2 games of victory.

happy gaming.

[Spartacus]

Russ is there a chance of a 7 day turn around game? Is it logistically possible in your real life to do this.

[RTGRuss]

Hmm...it would be possible but it would be worked into the normal Victory! processing routine so I think shared intelligence would be iffy at best and I'm not sure how it would play as a result.

Shared intelligence tends to be big factor in the game and the same-day processing dynamic for Victory! isn't a very good one at the moment. The desire for shared intelligence tends to minimize this as it gives a good incentive for folks to spread out over the 14/15-day cycle. With a 7-day game the ability to pick up shared intelligence is much reduced and there will be more of an incentive to stick with processing on the same day and you'll see far more situations with one nation processing two turns in a row, etc. Going with a fixed processing schedule (where everybody processes in a given order) is not something I can easily do with the current game software and utilities so I wouldn't want to commit to something like that. We'd need 30+ players committed to such a fast turnaround or the changed dynamics and the pressure to meet turn submission deadlines would likely lead to a much higher than normal attrition.

The next version of Victory will likely go with a pulse-processing method for same-day turns to eliminate the two turns in a row problem so I think it would be a better option to wait until the next version of Victory! is ready before we start looking at very fast cycle games (I'm making slow progress on the next version but it isn't going to ready in the near future ). I'd give it a try if we really had strong support for a 7-day game but I don't have a lot of faith at this point that it would turn out to be a good variant.


Russ

[ShadowKitsune]

RTGRuss, on Feb 23 2006, 10:04 AM, said:

The next version of Victory will likely go with a pulse-processing method for same-day turns to eliminate the two turns in a row problem so I think it would be a better option to wait until the next version of Victory! is ready before we start looking at very fast cycle games (I'm making slow progress on the next version but it isn't going to ready in the near future    ). 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Eventhough Victory! (version next) is a ways off, could you explain what you mean by "pulse-processing method"?

Thanks,
-SK

[RTGRuss]

Quote

Eventhough Victory! (version next) is a ways off, could you explain what you mean by "pulse-processing method"?

Thanks,
-SK 

It would be very similar to what you currently have with SuperNova: Rise of the Empire whereby nations that process on the same day would process simultaneously with everyone's first order being processed before moving on to the 2nd order pulse, etc. The differences would be that 1) Not everyone would have to process on the same day and 2) combat would most likely process on the fly. SuperNova doesn't resolve potential battles until the end of the pulse (so you could spot somebody but not have a battle - they move away on the same pulse). Victory! would probably go with processing battles on the fly as they occur so if two nations try to attack on a given pulse one of them would go first (either due to an initiative system or due to random chance that pulse).

Currently Victory! processes in a sequential position method whereby each nation processes all of its orders, runs its production sequence, etc. then the system goes on to the next position. This works well when folks are processing on different days but when nations process on the same day it can lead to one nation processing two turns in a row (i.e. Nation A processes after Nation B on one turn cycle then, 15 days later, Nation A processes before Nation B ). This can be to your great advantage or disadvantage depending on what the situation is and how your luck is when it comes to such things. Generally though it is better to get off same-day processing with a deliberate delay so that the processing order is definite (assuming your enemy doesn't delay as well) and you can plan accordingly. Victory! players are used to processing day shifts for intelligence purposes and it becomes part of the strategic planning when playing Victory! Still - the same-day processing issue can be devastating and I'd like to handle it in a better way.


Fixing the processing order for same-day processing would be the easiest way to address that but then Nation A would always run first before Nation B and given the game mechanics of Victory! that would be an unacceptable disadvantage and would in effect force Nation B to concede and drop his turn back to a later processing day.

Going to a full due-date simultaneous processing system (like SuperNova) is one possibility but Victory! gets a lot of interaction and cooperation out of the current processing system (folks sequencing their turns to get shared intelligence, to launch coordinated attacks, etc.) and such a system does impose a hard deadline whereby if you don't get your turn in by a certain point you miss the turn cycle. In SuperNova, an empire-building game with a slow pace, missing a given turn and running a default isn't a big problem - only if you are involved in a hot shooting war does it become critical to not miss a turn. In Victory! the fighting starts early and never stops so missing a turn completely is really not a good idea.

Accordingly, my current plan is to keep the sequential processing method so that nations can process throughout the turn cycle but introduce a pulse processing system for same-day processing so that nations that process on the same day will process relatively simultaneously. Every system has its pros and cons of course but I think that combination will work best for Victory!

Russ

[Patriot X]

Other games have done it this way. Everyone processes on the same day and all the orders have a processing order. So for example all MGFS orders for all nations are processed then all OMN orders are processed next etc. The sequence of orders are what make the game playable. I could explain in more detail but would take ages to plan the processing order.

[RTGRuss]

Patriot X, on Feb 24 2006, 12:33 PM, said:

Other games have done it this way. Everyone processes on the same day and all the orders have a processing order. So for example all MGFS orders for all nations are processed then all OMN orders are processed next etc. The sequence of orders are what make the game playable. I could explain in more detail but would take ages to plan the processing order.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sure - you can add a phase system as well to further regiment order processing (movement phases, build phases, combat, etc. as well as variations of each (ground movement, air movement, air combat, ground combat, etc.). There are a lot of ways to do things and they all have an impact, great or small, on how you go about designing a given game. There are pros and cons to all the variations and sometimes you do something different just to give folks a game with a different feel to it

Russ

[Krysia's Krusader]

The only reason that I could ever imagine wanting a fast game, is if I'm playing alone, and I'm up against an alliance block...