Full Version: The New Victory
I'd like to see dedicated artillery that can attack 2 maybe 3 Provences over
My suggestions:
Leave the map, the setup and core mechenanisms for what they are. They have been tried and tested in 87 previous games and they work fine.
Do not change the turn sequence and turn output format too much. The main appeal of the game is the stron "armmchair general" feeling from the LACK of information. You can ponder over your orders for weeks, send them in, start biting your nails for days and then eagerly await each envelope or email from RTG.
A limited wishlist:
- An OMG where you attack with only part of an army, leaving the rest of the stack for another action, like a city attack. A sort of "split"attack.
- Reduced basing level costs for grond attack planes and most fighters. Most of these were intended to be based on any grassland that was level or flat, they certainly did not need the same concrete runway a medium or heavy bomber needs.
- Allow shipboard fighters to be build at "LINE"experience level.
- Allow all techs to build some regimental units for added variety. Alt the moment the Para regiment is the only regiment you can use on it's own, but extra regiments are included in HA and SS armored divisions. Remove those, and add Armored regiments for the American and German armies, Katjusha rocket regiments for the Russian armies and Commando regiments for the British armies. V1 regiments for the germans woud fit in right well.
THis will give the army some extra variety.
- Allow some units to be build that could have been build, but never were completed. For example: the Graf Zeppelin and Sovietsky Soyuz were both started in the beginning of the war and could have been complete if the leaders had chosen so. They do not disturb the balance of the game, as they become available late.
- Do something about the speed and Fuel consumption of ordinary cargo ships.
- Allow the building of Troop Ships, like the Queen Mary. At the moment they are used as fast, efficient and expensive freighers. But using them to ferry coal or Iron ore goes against my sense of esthetics.
- And we all would like to see Italian, German or Japanese units.
- Make supply drawing a standing order for each unit that withou General supply at the end of the turn. Only General Supply and not more than 1 turn worth of supply.
- Reduce the effectivity of spying orders when having a negative morale. It is great to have a total ally that when eliminatied wants to do 120 EM orders for you, but it is a bit unfair if used against you, for there is nothing you can do against it.
Leave the map, the setup and core mechenanisms for what they are. They have been tried and tested in 87 previous games and they work fine.
Do not change the turn sequence and turn output format too much. The main appeal of the game is the stron "armmchair general" feeling from the LACK of information. You can ponder over your orders for weeks, send them in, start biting your nails for days and then eagerly await each envelope or email from RTG.
A limited wishlist:
- An OMG where you attack with only part of an army, leaving the rest of the stack for another action, like a city attack. A sort of "split"attack.
- Reduced basing level costs for grond attack planes and most fighters. Most of these were intended to be based on any grassland that was level or flat, they certainly did not need the same concrete runway a medium or heavy bomber needs.
- Allow shipboard fighters to be build at "LINE"experience level.
- Allow all techs to build some regimental units for added variety. Alt the moment the Para regiment is the only regiment you can use on it's own, but extra regiments are included in HA and SS armored divisions. Remove those, and add Armored regiments for the American and German armies, Katjusha rocket regiments for the Russian armies and Commando regiments for the British armies. V1 regiments for the germans woud fit in right well.
THis will give the army some extra variety.
- Allow some units to be build that could have been build, but never were completed. For example: the Graf Zeppelin and Sovietsky Soyuz were both started in the beginning of the war and could have been complete if the leaders had chosen so. They do not disturb the balance of the game, as they become available late.
- Do something about the speed and Fuel consumption of ordinary cargo ships.
- Allow the building of Troop Ships, like the Queen Mary. At the moment they are used as fast, efficient and expensive freighers. But using them to ferry coal or Iron ore goes against my sense of esthetics.
- And we all would like to see Italian, German or Japanese units.
- Make supply drawing a standing order for each unit that withou General supply at the end of the turn. Only General Supply and not more than 1 turn worth of supply.
- Reduce the effectivity of spying orders when having a negative morale. It is great to have a total ally that when eliminatied wants to do 120 EM orders for you, but it is a bit unfair if used against you, for there is nothing you can do against it.
QUOTE (dageraad @ Dec 23 2009, 10:40 AM) 
- An OMG where you attack with only part of an army, leaving the rest of the stack for another action, like a city attack. A sort of "split"attack.
+1.
QUOTE (dageraad @ Dec 23 2009, 10:40 AM)
- Make supply drawing a standing order for each unit that withou General supply at the end of the turn. Only General Supply and not more than 1 turn worth of supply.
Or at least make newly constructed divisions draw supplies automatically, I tend to foget that very often, ending up with damaged new units.
And I can't imagine why anyone would want to create a new division while not supplying them.
Some ideas for Victory II:
--Allow countries to build new ports in their home territories for say 1000 cp's and some cash
--Allow reorganization ground so a bigger force can be broken down for attacks to multiple locations. Maybe limit the number of forces at 1 location to 2 or 3.
--make air attacks more effective against sub groups.
--allow slashing of fixed defenses instead of 3 or 6 at a time.
--eliminate or increase the ants build levels. this was done to make it fair for small countries to compete with larger ones but why should you be penalized for having alot of production. If you capture and produce it you should be able to build it.
--increase the # of guns for each chab battery. Right now no matter how much chab and fortification a port has if you show up with a big enough naval force that city will be flattened.
--increase base chance for success on RPD orders
--cut fuel consumption for ak's from 2/smr to 1/smr
--allow building of radar units to increase probability of FC intercepts. radar literally saved the british airforce and right now there is nothing more frustrating than building 50 fighters and watching them not intercept turn after turn.
--reduce the distance between U.S. and Canada to Europe. This would make them more playable and a bigger threat in the game.
--make partisians easier to get under control in a captured city
--Ships are too vulnerable to TAS attack aircraft and whole fleets are sunk by a group of JU-88A-4's. limit ship attacks by air to only MS aircraft
--increase starting treasury to 35,000
--make it more spongebob friendly so he can get past tech 10
--no one at RTG sleeps until Vic II is up and running
just kidding...no I'm not 
--Allow countries to build new ports in their home territories for say 1000 cp's and some cash
--Allow reorganization ground so a bigger force can be broken down for attacks to multiple locations. Maybe limit the number of forces at 1 location to 2 or 3.
--make air attacks more effective against sub groups.
--allow slashing of fixed defenses instead of 3 or 6 at a time.
--eliminate or increase the ants build levels. this was done to make it fair for small countries to compete with larger ones but why should you be penalized for having alot of production. If you capture and produce it you should be able to build it.
--increase the # of guns for each chab battery. Right now no matter how much chab and fortification a port has if you show up with a big enough naval force that city will be flattened.
--increase base chance for success on RPD orders
--cut fuel consumption for ak's from 2/smr to 1/smr
--allow building of radar units to increase probability of FC intercepts. radar literally saved the british airforce and right now there is nothing more frustrating than building 50 fighters and watching them not intercept turn after turn.
--reduce the distance between U.S. and Canada to Europe. This would make them more playable and a bigger threat in the game.
--make partisians easier to get under control in a captured city
--Ships are too vulnerable to TAS attack aircraft and whole fleets are sunk by a group of JU-88A-4's. limit ship attacks by air to only MS aircraft
--increase starting treasury to 35,000
--make it more spongebob friendly so he can get past tech 10
--no one at RTG sleeps until Vic II is up and running
just kidding...no I'm not
QUOTE (Gobo @ Dec 23 2009, 02:03 PM)
QUOTE (dageraad @ Dec 23 2009, 10:40 AM)
- An OMG where you attack with only part of an army, leaving the rest of the stack for another action, like a city attack. A sort of "split"attack.
+1.
QUOTE (dageraad @ Dec 23 2009, 10:40 AM)
- Make supply drawing a standing order for each unit that withou General supply at the end of the turn. Only General Supply and not more than 1 turn worth of supply.
Or at least make newly constructed divisions draw supplies automatically, I tend to foget that very often, ending up with damaged new units.
And I can't imagine why anyone would want to create a new division while not supplying them.
And I can't imagine how anyone would forget to do that more than once.
Heres some ideas, especially as this is the un-official new ideas thread and Russ will be putting an official one up soon.
Make Denmark the size of Europe
All other nations are subservient to Denmark
Spongebob starts at turn 70
If Spongebob is to lose then all other players must drop
Anyone on the top 10 most hated list must never play again but if they do then they must be my TAs
Make Denmark the size of Europe
All other nations are subservient to Denmark
Spongebob starts at turn 70
If Spongebob is to lose then all other players must drop
Anyone on the top 10 most hated list must never play again but if they do then they must be my TAs
QUOTE (Predator @ Dec 23 2009, 08:25 AM)
Some ideas for Victory II:
--increase the # of guns for each chab battery. Right now no matter how much chab and fortification a port has if you show up with a big enough naval force that city will be flattened.
--reduce the distance between U.S. and Canada to Europe. This would make them more playable and a bigger threat in the game.
--make partisians easier to get under control in a captured city
--increase the # of guns for each chab battery. Right now no matter how much chab and fortification a port has if you show up with a big enough naval force that city will be flattened.
--reduce the distance between U.S. and Canada to Europe. This would make them more playable and a bigger threat in the game.
--make partisians easier to get under control in a captured city
I pretty much like all the ideas you had, but would like to comment on these three in particular:
Cities did get flattened by large naval forces regardless of the batteries present. That is just the way it was.
Instead of reducing the distance between the North America and Europe, just fix the ship SMR numbers. They do not move proportional to the ground units within the game mechanics. Increase the ships SMR's by 150% and reduce the fuel consumption.
Partisans are supposed to be a pain. One of the reasons that the French resistance played is huge part in the war was the partisans.
Russ,
How about instead of ending all the current games at the current stage, but rather putting them on 'hold' until a viable solution is achieved?
How about instead of ending all the current games at the current stage, but rather putting them on 'hold' until a viable solution is achieved?
Here are some of my suggestions:
-Make the new Victory sponge free
now for serious ones
I always thought it was bogus to have to CL to a TA for them to use it. Many US units were stationed in the UK before DDay. For purposes of movement and stacking treat TA units as the same and allow multiple armies in the same location. For example, you could have a 9 division GB army in the same province as a 9 division French army. Or 3 6 division for that matter.
Allow TAs to fly fighter cover over TA troops.
Allow TAs to transport allied troops.
etc.
I also thought it was bogus to have an 18 division army 'disappear' because it's retreat route was 'occupied' by a single division. At least allow the army to 'keep' retreating (could apply some attrition loss) to the next province/city if possible. If truly surrounded, then toast.
Same for air bases, if a base is overrun, allow the planes to 'scramble' to another airbase within range, again, give them some attrition losses. Give the air forces a 'retreat location' like the army has.
Allow a combining of divisions. For example, you have 4 elite divisions at 20%, if you DRG, you get 4 green divisions( or line, not looking at the rules), why not allow those 4 divisions to combine to make one 80% elite division?
Anyway, just some random thoughts from me, I do like the no sleep one that Predator listed!
AND don't ever let this happen again, just finished 120 orders for game 81, and it was just getting interesting again, my invasion into Rumania, Iraq getting to finally see some real armies, etc. 
Oh, almost forgot, standing orders, such as MCRs. It can still, 'cost' an order, but it would be nice for the large countries not to have to retype the same mcr order every turn.
-Make the new Victory sponge free
now for serious ones
I always thought it was bogus to have to CL to a TA for them to use it. Many US units were stationed in the UK before DDay. For purposes of movement and stacking treat TA units as the same and allow multiple armies in the same location. For example, you could have a 9 division GB army in the same province as a 9 division French army. Or 3 6 division for that matter.
Allow TAs to fly fighter cover over TA troops.
Allow TAs to transport allied troops.
etc.
I also thought it was bogus to have an 18 division army 'disappear' because it's retreat route was 'occupied' by a single division. At least allow the army to 'keep' retreating (could apply some attrition loss) to the next province/city if possible. If truly surrounded, then toast.
Same for air bases, if a base is overrun, allow the planes to 'scramble' to another airbase within range, again, give them some attrition losses. Give the air forces a 'retreat location' like the army has.
Allow a combining of divisions. For example, you have 4 elite divisions at 20%, if you DRG, you get 4 green divisions( or line, not looking at the rules), why not allow those 4 divisions to combine to make one 80% elite division?
Anyway, just some random thoughts from me, I do like the no sleep one that Predator listed!
AND don't ever let this happen again, just finished 120 orders for game 81, and it was just getting interesting again, my invasion into Rumania, Iraq getting to finally see some real armies, etc.
Oh, almost forgot, standing orders, such as MCRs. It can still, 'cost' an order, but it would be nice for the large countries not to have to retype the same mcr order every turn.
QUOTE
Allow TAs to fly fighter cover over TA troops.
Allow TAs to transport allied troops
Allow a combining of divisions. For example, you have 4 elite divisions at 20%, if you DRG, you get 4 green divisions( or line, not looking at the rules), why not allow those 4 divisions to combine to make one 80% elite division?
Allow TAs to transport allied troops
Allow a combining of divisions. For example, you have 4 elite divisions at 20%, if you DRG, you get 4 green divisions( or line, not looking at the rules), why not allow those 4 divisions to combine to make one 80% elite division?
I like these ideas as well. Also give the germans a larger transport ship. They routinely used passenger liners during the war to ransport ships, all countries did except maybe russia..(queen mary, quenn elizabeth, normandy,Wilhelm Gustloff, etc..)
--reduce fuel cost of all shipping to 1/smr
--allow pop to exceed 99 people
--allow making of synthetic oil for energy. the germans were quite good at this during the war.
--Change mission profile of flak units. right now they only fire at aircraft if attacked directly . they need to be more durable and effective against aircraft.
--rail strikes are too effective. 3000 rail blown out a turn takes 20 turns to rebuild. maybe disable the rail for a number of turns or be able to repair rail for cash to what it was before the air attack. the rail is still there just temporarily disabled
--increase the # of standing soam orders. 10 is not enough
--add more cities to the AIC net, expand it out 2 more cities to catch more
I would like to say that even though I am sad to see Victory! pass away and I am grateful that Victory II is now a prority. Frankly Vic 88 was going to be my last game. I love the game dearly, but am so annoyed by various longstanding issues that it was time to give it up. Victory II should allow a much more balanced game.
My wish list in no paticular order of importance:
1) Add Command and Control rating for the various divisions.
Granted the T-34A was the dominant tank of its time, it however was used with out proper command and control for quite some time. A inferior tank divisions of PZ III and IV performed much more powerfully than a similar group of T-34's given the Germans superior Command and Control abilites early in the war.
2) END the suicide drops of AIR40 regiments all over the map.
Many ways have been suggested but dropping AIR40's hundreds of miles from any possible force that could rescue it is is just WRONG
3) Improve the balance of Fighters versus bombers. Along these lines perhaps fighters adn small bombers should have a nearly Zero airbase rating. In fact what value is the IL-2 Sturmovik in this game? None.....but it was the most widely buildt fighter of the war so clearly the game mechanics discrimnate against short range aircraft. Perhaps short range aircraft and fighters should be assigned to Armies as a "generic" Close air support modifier of some kind.
4) A strategic movement rate would add tempo to the game. I suggest that a divions SMR be DOUBLED (or movement rate cost cut in half) when moving through friendly provinces. In fact given a good highway network shouldn't the cost of moving through the Mountains of a FRIENDLY province be 1 smr just like an ordinary province?
5) I would love to see a more Supernova style of play where I could "invest" in change the modfiers of my various divisions for say Command and Control, air defence, armoured attack, anti-tank defense, etc... This of course would leave behing the last of the World War II "simulations" effect.
6) Change the Victory! condions so that they are NOT picked before a game starts. Some countries exceed their expecations so greatly that they are at a disadvantage at teh end of the game. In Game 79 Canada TOTALLY exceeded any possible expectations and captured the greatest amount of IMDL in the game. His reward was second place since he "resonably" did not choose that as a Victory! condition at the beginning of the game
7) Unlink a divisions offense and defensive strength. I think a TAS strike should be able to wipe out a divisions OFFENSIVE abiility. But its DEFENSIVE ability should be largely left intact or at least that of an infantry division. A divisions % of damage from airstrikes shoud effect Offense and Defence differently. This will help balance the current games dominance of the JU-88. I would go so far to say that a TAS should not be able to eliminate a division. A unit can only be totally eliminated totaly by another ground unit.
8)
My wish list in no paticular order of importance:
1) Add Command and Control rating for the various divisions.
Granted the T-34A was the dominant tank of its time, it however was used with out proper command and control for quite some time. A inferior tank divisions of PZ III and IV performed much more powerfully than a similar group of T-34's given the Germans superior Command and Control abilites early in the war.
2) END the suicide drops of AIR40 regiments all over the map.
Many ways have been suggested but dropping AIR40's hundreds of miles from any possible force that could rescue it is is just WRONG
3) Improve the balance of Fighters versus bombers. Along these lines perhaps fighters adn small bombers should have a nearly Zero airbase rating. In fact what value is the IL-2 Sturmovik in this game? None.....but it was the most widely buildt fighter of the war so clearly the game mechanics discrimnate against short range aircraft. Perhaps short range aircraft and fighters should be assigned to Armies as a "generic" Close air support modifier of some kind.
4) A strategic movement rate would add tempo to the game. I suggest that a divions SMR be DOUBLED (or movement rate cost cut in half) when moving through friendly provinces. In fact given a good highway network shouldn't the cost of moving through the Mountains of a FRIENDLY province be 1 smr just like an ordinary province?
5) I would love to see a more Supernova style of play where I could "invest" in change the modfiers of my various divisions for say Command and Control, air defence, armoured attack, anti-tank defense, etc... This of course would leave behing the last of the World War II "simulations" effect.
6) Change the Victory! condions so that they are NOT picked before a game starts. Some countries exceed their expecations so greatly that they are at a disadvantage at teh end of the game. In Game 79 Canada TOTALLY exceeded any possible expectations and captured the greatest amount of IMDL in the game. His reward was second place since he "resonably" did not choose that as a Victory! condition at the beginning of the game
7) Unlink a divisions offense and defensive strength. I think a TAS strike should be able to wipe out a divisions OFFENSIVE abiility. But its DEFENSIVE ability should be largely left intact or at least that of an infantry division. A divisions % of damage from airstrikes shoud effect Offense and Defence differently. This will help balance the current games dominance of the JU-88. I would go so far to say that a TAS should not be able to eliminate a division. A unit can only be totally eliminated totaly by another ground unit.
8)
1 - create some real standing orders. An order where you list the real order that runs at the turn's end or start. You can issue anything with this, BFDU, SDG, BGU, etc. I would base the number of standing orders of this type on a performance indicator, something like you get 2 at the start and 1 more for each capital you control.
2 - Expand AIC nets somehow. I would have any aic that contains a capital city can have an AIC out to 4 instead of 3.
3 - Make owning capitals more important see above
4 - Make Ship LAA/HAA more effective, I would say by a factor of 2.
5 - Allow Night fighters to FC up to 50% of their range at night, and allow them to FC 100% during day attacks.
6 - Somehow make the UAU less tedious. Maybe an 'all' switch to upgrade the entire group would be nice.
7 - Make Navy less expensive or balance it out a bit more vs Air
8 - Please make alliances less random when it comes time to BPA. Have a built in number of times you need to BPA before a LESS random number factors in, for example:
NAP, must BPA 2 times then a 90% success
ALL, must BPA 4 times then a 90% success
TA, must BPA 6 times then a 90% success
That is all for now!
-Andy Brogan
2 - Expand AIC nets somehow. I would have any aic that contains a capital city can have an AIC out to 4 instead of 3.
3 - Make owning capitals more important see above
4 - Make Ship LAA/HAA more effective, I would say by a factor of 2.
5 - Allow Night fighters to FC up to 50% of their range at night, and allow them to FC 100% during day attacks.
6 - Somehow make the UAU less tedious. Maybe an 'all' switch to upgrade the entire group would be nice.
7 - Make Navy less expensive or balance it out a bit more vs Air
8 - Please make alliances less random when it comes time to BPA. Have a built in number of times you need to BPA before a LESS random number factors in, for example:
NAP, must BPA 2 times then a 90% success
ALL, must BPA 4 times then a 90% success
TA, must BPA 6 times then a 90% success
That is all for now!
-Andy Brogan
I'm sad to see Vic put on hiatus for a while, but I'll love to see a refresh of the game. With the current Victory, there are so many little rule quirks and tweaks with that it's almost not a WWII strategy game, but a game of who understands the nuances of the rules the best. I'm looking forward to Vic II and after a look at some old turnsheets and the rules came up with few ideas.
General Stuff
- Please come up with a nice order entry program! Maybe some basic error checking built into it? A nice order reader that showed maps and troop locations and such would be nice too
- How about adding a few new tech groups? Japanese, Italian, French would all work. (If you add Japenese, perhaps an OMA Kamikaze?)
- How about expanding the map a bit and adding a few more countries/players to each game?
- Since I don't think anyone is actually using paper order sheets anymore (I could be wrong though?) Maybe just come up with a set turn price and leave it at that through the whole game?
- Sharing Intel with TA's should be turned on by default.
Ground Units/Orders
- DMOG's/Retreat Locations, man I hate the way retreating works. Unless an army unit is completely surrounded (or trapped in a Pincer), they should always try to retreat to friendly territory.
- Upgrading Ground Units could be tweaked. If you are just upgrading to a newer type of the same division type (Mech 39 to Mech 40), the cost should be a lot less that if you were moving between two completely different division types. You're really only upgrading equipment.
- Make LDB's useless unless there's a 'real' division there to form a backbone force the LDB's could rally on. Force people to really start thinking about defending their borders and lands with real troops as opposed to just having a single LDB's in every province to stop ATC's. I mean really, you think that 1 LDB consisting of a few hundred guys with rusty rifles are going to bring an Armored division to a halt for two weeks? I'd bet it's more likely they'd be hiding in their root cellars.
- Have a smaller division cap per army, say 8-10? This could spread out the battles a bit more and lead to more realistic actions. Right now every rushes to build these mega-armies of 18 divisions (216,000 men, which is larger than the entire D-Day landing force btw), but have no troops anywhere else.
- DRG's should work like SDG's and let you pull replacements from anywhere in your AIC whether you're in a city or not.
- How about adding a new Defense tactic? Something between Deliberate Defense and Hasty Defense? Any unit that's been in the same location more than one turn gets a "Mediocre Defense" type tactic. Bump up Deliberate to +5% bonus (it should be more than 3% considering you're really digging in for defense), make Mediocre +2% and leave Hasty at 0%.
Air Units/Orders
- Upgrading Air Units should really be limited the same way Naval upgrade are with specific upgrade paths. You shouldn't be able to upgrade to completely different airframes. For example, upgrading a B-17A to one of the other B-17 variants (C, D, F, etc) should be pretty easy to do, but upgrading a B-17 to a B-29? Even though they're both Heavy Bombers, that's a whole different airframe.
- The OMA INT/NI could just be combined. Daylight only units could intercept during the day and Night units could intercept any time.
- The OMA Strike Recon is useless right now and people just do multiple TAS missions. Be nice if it was useful enough to use where you could actually sent out recon flights and your bombers would attack the best target that recon flight finds.
- Some Air units are extremely expensive to the point they're not even worth using, like Heavy Bombers, Transports and such. Maybe some tweaks to Aircraft factory output and plane costs.
- Be great if air units could be transferred to a different air base on their return from a normal air mission. Instead of having to waste a turn on a BT order, they could fly out from their original base, do their mission and return to a new base.
- I think, like Ground units, the 50 air group cap is a bit much for air divisions, that could be like 4000 planes Maybe drop it down to 10-25?
Naval Units/Orders
- I don't know why, but I've never found Naval units to be useful for anything other than moving troops and cargo around the map. Which is a shame, because full blown naval battles going back and forth like ground battles, would be awesome. What if Sea provinces were actually 'owned' by countries and offered some small resource benefits? Say food, or some minor resources. Then maybe folks would actually fight over the sea like they do the land provinces.
- If sea provinces are 'owned' by countries, NMI/NMP/AMI/AMP, etc orders should be more effective for the country that owns the sea zone since there will likely be other shipping (civilian, etc) out there that could tip off the military to enemy vessels.
- How about adding another target type to Coastal Bombardments to allow for the attacking of enemy ground units stationed in the province or city being bombarded. The Americans contantly shelled Japanese positions (and vice versa) in the Pacific.
General Military
- When a commander dies, he should automatically be replaced with someone promoted up from your replacement pool of officers.
- Create a 'Scavenge parts' order for air/ground units that will basically disband your most damaged units and reinforce your strongest units.
- Any unit that is about to run out of General supply would try to scrounge up supplies instead of 'starving' to death. Have divisions in locations that have access to GEN (locally or maybe through the AIC) draw at least one turns worth of GEN if it's available. I can't imagine thousands of GI's sitting in a city for two weeks starving when there's food sitting in a warehouse nearby. They'd find it
- Detailed battles should be turned on by default.
General Econonomic
- Have some sort of bonus to production based on your countries morale. People that are excited about your country's war prospects will work harder and if your country is taking a hammering, folks are going to be down in the dumps and not working as hard. Right now morale only matters if your negative or at the end game. Maybe shift the morale to a 1-100% rating?
- Allow the selling of divisions, supplies, etc. to Allies or TA's. Lend/Lease anyone?
- I'd like to see AIC's made 1 level larger (4 Deep) and made a bit smarter so they'll automatically try to re-route around broken AIC locations if possible.
- Make it so the RPD's actually cost money any time you try to find resources, but make them a bit cheaper.
- Landfront fortifications are expensive considering you can only face them one direction. Maybe lower their cost or set it so they'll defend from attacks coming in any direction.
Things to leave as is
- Leave the map the way it is, it's already great and fairly well balanced resource-wise. Of course, if you're going to add more countries to the mix...
- Leave the division upgrade/experience mechanic alone, it works well.
- The Training (TPL) system is fine as is.
- The Espionage system works fine now.
- While I hate mission cancellations, the Weather / Attrition system is pretty good now.
---
That's it for now...if there's anything I can do to help out, just let me know!
General Stuff
- Please come up with a nice order entry program! Maybe some basic error checking built into it? A nice order reader that showed maps and troop locations and such would be nice too
- How about adding a few new tech groups? Japanese, Italian, French would all work. (If you add Japenese, perhaps an OMA Kamikaze?)
- How about expanding the map a bit and adding a few more countries/players to each game?
- Since I don't think anyone is actually using paper order sheets anymore (I could be wrong though?) Maybe just come up with a set turn price and leave it at that through the whole game?
- Sharing Intel with TA's should be turned on by default.
Ground Units/Orders
- DMOG's/Retreat Locations, man I hate the way retreating works. Unless an army unit is completely surrounded (or trapped in a Pincer), they should always try to retreat to friendly territory.
- Upgrading Ground Units could be tweaked. If you are just upgrading to a newer type of the same division type (Mech 39 to Mech 40), the cost should be a lot less that if you were moving between two completely different division types. You're really only upgrading equipment.
- Make LDB's useless unless there's a 'real' division there to form a backbone force the LDB's could rally on. Force people to really start thinking about defending their borders and lands with real troops as opposed to just having a single LDB's in every province to stop ATC's. I mean really, you think that 1 LDB consisting of a few hundred guys with rusty rifles are going to bring an Armored division to a halt for two weeks? I'd bet it's more likely they'd be hiding in their root cellars.
- Have a smaller division cap per army, say 8-10? This could spread out the battles a bit more and lead to more realistic actions. Right now every rushes to build these mega-armies of 18 divisions (216,000 men, which is larger than the entire D-Day landing force btw), but have no troops anywhere else.
- DRG's should work like SDG's and let you pull replacements from anywhere in your AIC whether you're in a city or not.
- How about adding a new Defense tactic? Something between Deliberate Defense and Hasty Defense? Any unit that's been in the same location more than one turn gets a "Mediocre Defense" type tactic. Bump up Deliberate to +5% bonus (it should be more than 3% considering you're really digging in for defense), make Mediocre +2% and leave Hasty at 0%.
Air Units/Orders
- Upgrading Air Units should really be limited the same way Naval upgrade are with specific upgrade paths. You shouldn't be able to upgrade to completely different airframes. For example, upgrading a B-17A to one of the other B-17 variants (C, D, F, etc) should be pretty easy to do, but upgrading a B-17 to a B-29? Even though they're both Heavy Bombers, that's a whole different airframe.
- The OMA INT/NI could just be combined. Daylight only units could intercept during the day and Night units could intercept any time.
- The OMA Strike Recon is useless right now and people just do multiple TAS missions. Be nice if it was useful enough to use where you could actually sent out recon flights and your bombers would attack the best target that recon flight finds.
- Some Air units are extremely expensive to the point they're not even worth using, like Heavy Bombers, Transports and such. Maybe some tweaks to Aircraft factory output and plane costs.
- Be great if air units could be transferred to a different air base on their return from a normal air mission. Instead of having to waste a turn on a BT order, they could fly out from their original base, do their mission and return to a new base.
- I think, like Ground units, the 50 air group cap is a bit much for air divisions, that could be like 4000 planes
Maybe drop it down to 10-25? Naval Units/Orders
- I don't know why, but I've never found Naval units to be useful for anything other than moving troops and cargo around the map. Which is a shame, because full blown naval battles going back and forth like ground battles, would be awesome. What if Sea provinces were actually 'owned' by countries and offered some small resource benefits? Say food, or some minor resources. Then maybe folks would actually fight over the sea like they do the land provinces.
- If sea provinces are 'owned' by countries, NMI/NMP/AMI/AMP, etc orders should be more effective for the country that owns the sea zone since there will likely be other shipping (civilian, etc) out there that could tip off the military to enemy vessels.
- How about adding another target type to Coastal Bombardments to allow for the attacking of enemy ground units stationed in the province or city being bombarded. The Americans contantly shelled Japanese positions (and vice versa) in the Pacific.
General Military
- When a commander dies, he should automatically be replaced with someone promoted up from your replacement pool of officers.
- Create a 'Scavenge parts' order for air/ground units that will basically disband your most damaged units and reinforce your strongest units.
- Any unit that is about to run out of General supply would try to scrounge up supplies instead of 'starving' to death. Have divisions in locations that have access to GEN (locally or maybe through the AIC) draw at least one turns worth of GEN if it's available. I can't imagine thousands of GI's sitting in a city for two weeks starving when there's food sitting in a warehouse nearby. They'd find it
- Detailed battles should be turned on by default.
General Econonomic
- Have some sort of bonus to production based on your countries morale. People that are excited about your country's war prospects will work harder and if your country is taking a hammering, folks are going to be down in the dumps and not working as hard. Right now morale only matters if your negative or at the end game. Maybe shift the morale to a 1-100% rating?
- Allow the selling of divisions, supplies, etc. to Allies or TA's. Lend/Lease anyone?
- I'd like to see AIC's made 1 level larger (4 Deep) and made a bit smarter so they'll automatically try to re-route around broken AIC locations if possible.
- Make it so the RPD's actually cost money any time you try to find resources, but make them a bit cheaper.
- Landfront fortifications are expensive considering you can only face them one direction. Maybe lower their cost or set it so they'll defend from attacks coming in any direction.
Things to leave as is
- Leave the map the way it is, it's already great and fairly well balanced resource-wise. Of course, if you're going to add more countries to the mix...
- Leave the division upgrade/experience mechanic alone, it works well.
- The Training (TPL) system is fine as is.
- The Espionage system works fine now.
- While I hate mission cancellations, the Weather / Attrition system is pretty good now.
---
That's it for now...if there's anything I can do to help out, just let me know!
Hmm, had one other idea. How about adding a simple "Research" cost to the game. Folks can put as little or as much money per turn into it that they want.
In addition to the amount of money dumped into research, I'd make 'luck' a random factor in it as well, but the research could eventually lead to the discovery and production of super-weapons. V1's, V2's, Nukes, Jet Bombers.
Items could be extremely expensive to produce once discovered and likely only towards the end of the game. You'd also want to diminish the effects of some of the weapons (nukes for example) just to make it so the first person to get them doesn't actually wipe the floor with everyone else or make it so the 'super weapons' are one shot. You discover the atom bomb, but once you use it, that's it for the rest of the game.
In addition to the amount of money dumped into research, I'd make 'luck' a random factor in it as well, but the research could eventually lead to the discovery and production of super-weapons. V1's, V2's, Nukes, Jet Bombers.
Items could be extremely expensive to produce once discovered and likely only towards the end of the game. You'd also want to diminish the effects of some of the weapons (nukes for example) just to make it so the first person to get them doesn't actually wipe the floor with everyone else or make it so the 'super weapons' are one shot. You discover the atom bomb, but once you use it, that's it for the rest of the game.
I love most of the Ideas that I am reading.
Acouple of units suggestions---Russian Guards and over sized american inf. units.
I do like the Idea of the 12 div size armies.
There are alot of good ideas.
Victory II,here we come
Acouple of units suggestions---Russian Guards and over sized american inf. units.
I do like the Idea of the 12 div size armies.
There are alot of good ideas.
Victory II,here we come
QUOTE (Meatball @ Dec 23 2009, 05:41 PM)
Hmm, had one other idea. How about adding a simple "Research" cost to the game. Folks can put as little or as much money per turn into it that they want.
In addition to the amount of money dumped into research, I'd make 'luck' a random factor in it as well, but the research could eventually lead to the discovery and production of super-weapons. V1's, V2's, Nukes, Jet Bombers.
Items could be extremely expensive to produce once discovered and likely only towards the end of the game. You'd also want to diminish the effects of some of the weapons (nukes for example) just to make it so the first person to get them doesn't actually wipe the floor with everyone else or make it so the 'super weapons' are one shot. You discover the atom bomb, but once you use it, that's it for the rest of the game.
In addition to the amount of money dumped into research, I'd make 'luck' a random factor in it as well, but the research could eventually lead to the discovery and production of super-weapons. V1's, V2's, Nukes, Jet Bombers.
Items could be extremely expensive to produce once discovered and likely only towards the end of the game. You'd also want to diminish the effects of some of the weapons (nukes for example) just to make it so the first person to get them doesn't actually wipe the floor with everyone else or make it so the 'super weapons' are one shot. You discover the atom bomb, but once you use it, that's it for the rest of the game.
That's a concept that I've always liked if you guys would like to think about that and see what you can do to expand on it. V1 and V2s are good, maybe speeding up the delivery date of a given unit by a few turns, opening up units that might not be available otherwise (Graf Zeppelin CVs for the Germans maybe), ASDIC and/or ASW special weapons, Radar (ground, airborne, ship), special gear for night air combat (I'd like to see night bombing and night fighter interceptors brought back into the game), etc. It could definitely spice things up and add in a lot of interesting things that might be hard (or less interesting) to incorporate otherwise.
Concepts like nuclear weapons are definitely on the board as a possibility but as you note - you always have to be careful with things like that so they don't get out of control. Limited numbers (maybe one or two - Hiroshima/Nagasaki), high expense, air delivery only (and maybe only if there is no fighter cover/interception response), usable on cities only?...a number of ways we could attack that. Later on when we are considering variants that go well past 1945 we'll have to come up with more extensive nuclear weapons rules but it shouldn't be too bad at first.
Hearing lots of good ideas on the other posts as well - just wanted to jump in here on this research concept. I'll be getting more active here as the we go along and start adding more structure. Right now I'm just enjoying listening to the ideas and comments
Russ
QUOTE
- How about adding another target type to Coastal Bombardments to allow for the attacking of enemy ground units stationed in the province or city being bombarded. The Americans contantly shelled Japanese positions (and vice versa) in the Pacific.
These coastal bombardments also proved very ineffective.. by the time of the 2nd world war the age of the big ships was over.
But there is a point.. ships are relatively seen very expensive, they have a limited functionality and are easily destroyed by airplanes. This might be realistic, but from a game point of view it severely disadvantages countries that must build navies and as a result usually quite early in the game run out of cash.
Perhaps ships could be made a little cheaper in regards to credits?
Furthermore sea areas are very big and it should be a lot harder to find ships in it without radar.. this would increase the survivability of ships, without reducing realism of a few planes crippling a big ship.
What I would like to see:
-- no limit to the number of orders issued each game turn
-- allow an "Army" to be composed of Divisions with individual battalions -- historically, Armored, Artillery, Self-Propelled Artillery, AA/SPAA, SPAT, Reconnaisance and Motorized Infantry battalions, as well as Engineer and Transport companies, were held at Corps level to be attached to Divisions as the Corps commander saw fit; a Transport company could allow an Infantry Division to move (but not fight) as a Motorized Infantry division, an Armored battalion could allow an Infantry Division to fight (but not move) as a Motorised Infantry division, two Self-Propelled Artillery battalions could allow a Motorised Infantry division to fight (but not move) as a Mechanised Infantry division, etc;
-- more realistic divisions available at the start of the game (supposedly equivalent to September 1939): only Germany and Russia had Armored divisions; the British Army was entirely Motorised Infantry divisions;
-- the gaining of experience (Green, Line, Veteran, Elite) to be more sophisticated: units can gain experience in different areas (eg, general offense & defense, as well as specific urban fighting, mountain fighting, fighter escort, air interception, naval patrol, coastal bombardment, etc, etc, etc) so that a Fighter aircraft unit can be Veteran in air interception but still green in fighter escort; the experience is diminished as replacements are drawn;
-- as well as a limit to rail movement (reflecting the physical limitations of the rail network in a province), also have a limit to non-combat road movement (reflecting the physical limitations of the road network before the roads get jammed): allow non-combat road movement to be twice plains/desert speeds regardless of terrain up to a certain number of divisions/battalions (or give each division/battalion a "road" factor that uses up part of this road limit), after which movement is off-road and therefore subject to terrain as normal -- note that all combat movement (eg, advance-to contact, deliberate assault, etc) should never use this non-combat road movement;
-- allow more than one Army and more than one Air Force to occupy a city or province, that can be given separate orders;
-- a proportion of aircraft shot down over home territory can be retrieved -- in the Battle of Britain, shot-down surviving German pilots were imprisoned, but shot-down surviving British pilots were given a new plane; a damaged plane that has to make an emergency landing in home territory can be repaired and returned to duty, but a damaged plane that has to make an emergency landing in enemy territory is lost;
-- Russian ground units historically suffered from a lack of radios, so once an attack order was given it was carried out regardless of loss or change of circumstances -- this could be reflected by reduction of combat effectiveness of Russian Army technology, but also a random 0%-5% degree of attrition when not in combat but bordering an enemy Army (ie, an attack is ordered then cancelled, but a battalion or two did not get the cancellation order and so launch a suicidal attack on their own);
-- Air attacks on ground units should be much less effective unless aerial reconnaisance has reported the ground unit's positions -- the fewer the ground units (modified by type, eg Armored vehicles are less easily hidden than trucks or horse-drawn carts) the less likely they are to be detected by bombers;
-- make unit losses more sophisticated: an attacking Armored unit would tend to lose it tanks first, all units in ground combat would tend to lose its Artillery last, air attacks would hit vehicles first, etc, ... thereby affecting a surviving unit's effectiveness (eg, an Armored division with no Armor is handicapped when conducting a Pincer Attack but is less handicapped than usual when attacking a City) and also replacements should reflect this;
-- allow surrounded ground units to try to fight their way out (hasty attack) via their declared retreat route rather than just surrender where they are -- only when their fighting retreat fails do they surrender;
-- not allow a single LDB to stop an ATC by many Divisions -- LDBs must outnumber attacking Divisions by at least, say, 6 to 1 in order to stop an ATC otherwise they are "over-run", but some or all (depends upon National Morale?) of any "over-run" LDBs join Partisans in that province.
What I would not like to see:
-- French or Italian units: French units were OK in 1939, but stopped developing after the fall of France in 1940 -- after this time, the Free French used British equipment up to 1943 and US equipment thereafter; theoretically, Italian units stopped developing after 1943 but in practice stopped developing after 1940;
-- Japanese units -- unless the game map is extended to include the Pacific theatre of war (including Western USA & Canada, Australia, New Guinea, China, Korea, Manchuria, Indo-China, India).
/Len
-- no limit to the number of orders issued each game turn
-- allow an "Army" to be composed of Divisions with individual battalions -- historically, Armored, Artillery, Self-Propelled Artillery, AA/SPAA, SPAT, Reconnaisance and Motorized Infantry battalions, as well as Engineer and Transport companies, were held at Corps level to be attached to Divisions as the Corps commander saw fit; a Transport company could allow an Infantry Division to move (but not fight) as a Motorized Infantry division, an Armored battalion could allow an Infantry Division to fight (but not move) as a Motorised Infantry division, two Self-Propelled Artillery battalions could allow a Motorised Infantry division to fight (but not move) as a Mechanised Infantry division, etc;
-- more realistic divisions available at the start of the game (supposedly equivalent to September 1939): only Germany and Russia had Armored divisions; the British Army was entirely Motorised Infantry divisions;
-- the gaining of experience (Green, Line, Veteran, Elite) to be more sophisticated: units can gain experience in different areas (eg, general offense & defense, as well as specific urban fighting, mountain fighting, fighter escort, air interception, naval patrol, coastal bombardment, etc, etc, etc) so that a Fighter aircraft unit can be Veteran in air interception but still green in fighter escort; the experience is diminished as replacements are drawn;
-- as well as a limit to rail movement (reflecting the physical limitations of the rail network in a province), also have a limit to non-combat road movement (reflecting the physical limitations of the road network before the roads get jammed): allow non-combat road movement to be twice plains/desert speeds regardless of terrain up to a certain number of divisions/battalions (or give each division/battalion a "road" factor that uses up part of this road limit), after which movement is off-road and therefore subject to terrain as normal -- note that all combat movement (eg, advance-to contact, deliberate assault, etc) should never use this non-combat road movement;
-- allow more than one Army and more than one Air Force to occupy a city or province, that can be given separate orders;
-- a proportion of aircraft shot down over home territory can be retrieved -- in the Battle of Britain, shot-down surviving German pilots were imprisoned, but shot-down surviving British pilots were given a new plane; a damaged plane that has to make an emergency landing in home territory can be repaired and returned to duty, but a damaged plane that has to make an emergency landing in enemy territory is lost;
-- Russian ground units historically suffered from a lack of radios, so once an attack order was given it was carried out regardless of loss or change of circumstances -- this could be reflected by reduction of combat effectiveness of Russian Army technology, but also a random 0%-5% degree of attrition when not in combat but bordering an enemy Army (ie, an attack is ordered then cancelled, but a battalion or two did not get the cancellation order and so launch a suicidal attack on their own);
-- Air attacks on ground units should be much less effective unless aerial reconnaisance has reported the ground unit's positions -- the fewer the ground units (modified by type, eg Armored vehicles are less easily hidden than trucks or horse-drawn carts) the less likely they are to be detected by bombers;
-- make unit losses more sophisticated: an attacking Armored unit would tend to lose it tanks first, all units in ground combat would tend to lose its Artillery last, air attacks would hit vehicles first, etc, ... thereby affecting a surviving unit's effectiveness (eg, an Armored division with no Armor is handicapped when conducting a Pincer Attack but is less handicapped than usual when attacking a City) and also replacements should reflect this;
-- allow surrounded ground units to try to fight their way out (hasty attack) via their declared retreat route rather than just surrender where they are -- only when their fighting retreat fails do they surrender;
-- not allow a single LDB to stop an ATC by many Divisions -- LDBs must outnumber attacking Divisions by at least, say, 6 to 1 in order to stop an ATC otherwise they are "over-run", but some or all (depends upon National Morale?) of any "over-run" LDBs join Partisans in that province.
What I would not like to see:
-- French or Italian units: French units were OK in 1939, but stopped developing after the fall of France in 1940 -- after this time, the Free French used British equipment up to 1943 and US equipment thereafter; theoretically, Italian units stopped developing after 1943 but in practice stopped developing after 1940;
-- Japanese units -- unless the game map is extended to include the Pacific theatre of war (including Western USA & Canada, Australia, New Guinea, China, Korea, Manchuria, Indo-China, India).
/Len
-- change starting locations of certain countries arm factories such as lowlands, trans jordan, etc. they have so many start the game in a port city an early CB practically cripples these countries. I would suggest starting all countries unemployed but add enough cash to the treasury and cp's to the stockpile for a country to build it's starting factories wherever they want.
--making army units smaller (only ten div strong) won't work because airforces can wipe that out in one turn. If my 3 bomber groups attack and then my allies airforces come in even just P-47's would wipe out 10 mech divisions with no problem.
--I also would like to see some of the air force tech packs adjusted to get more of a diversity of aircraft more involved in the game. There are alot of aircraft never used like the douglas A-20a. Why build that when the B-18a has double the TAS rating, triple the strategic rating and is only 51 more air points to build. Same for the B-26A flies one more smr than the B-18 has 20 fewer tactical rating but is 105 more air points to build. I would never upgrade the P-36C to the P-39D even though it has 3 more smr in range because you lose so much in the air to air rating.
--making army units smaller (only ten div strong) won't work because airforces can wipe that out in one turn. If my 3 bomber groups attack and then my allies airforces come in even just P-47's would wipe out 10 mech divisions with no problem.
--I also would like to see some of the air force tech packs adjusted to get more of a diversity of aircraft more involved in the game. There are alot of aircraft never used like the douglas A-20a. Why build that when the B-18a has double the TAS rating, triple the strategic rating and is only 51 more air points to build. Same for the B-26A flies one more smr than the B-18 has 20 fewer tactical rating but is 105 more air points to build. I would never upgrade the P-36C to the P-39D even though it has 3 more smr in range because you lose so much in the air to air rating.
QUOTE (LenLorek @ Dec 24 2009, 07:33 AM)
-- Japanese units -- unless the game map is extended to include the Pacific theatre of war (including Western USA & Canada, Australia, New Guinea, China, Korea, Manchuria, Indo-China, India).
/Len
/Len
This dovetails with Predators concern in the next post about the ability of an AIRFORCE to destroy stacks of armies. I maintain that airpower alone CANNOT destroy an army. It can remove it offensive ability but a core part of its defensive value will remain intact no matter how many bombers are sent against it. The theory being that only another infantry soldier can enter a bunker or cellar and eliminate an enemy force in hiding.
I have to wonder if Victory II should start as a Pacific theater game and a later variant go back and become the European theater we are all so familar with.
My theory is that the game is to unbalanced in reagrds to a fighters ability to stop or hamper bombers that unless once goes through the "excercise" of trying to recreate the Pacific theater you canot ever get the balance correct. For instance can anyone, under the present rules, see a way that carrier based fighters can even partially have a hope to defend a fleet of aircraft carriers? Can anyone see how a couple of groups of P-40's could stop some Betty bombers from totally eliminating a Marine Divison on Guadacanal Island? I can't even think how an airbase on Gualdacanal could survive a coastal bombardment from a single Japaneese Cruiser.
Given the extremely stong and delicate balance between Air, Ground, and Sea forces in the Pacific I think that you have to START the design with this theater if you wish to have any hope of getting the Eurpoean theater to match. The journey to a good game must often take the most diffucult road. The current game is way to out of balance between land, air, and sea to entirely salvage. I say start over in the Pacific. Put a hold on European development.
At Least deveolp the Pacific combat modules and THEN finish the Eurpean theater for release first but you most have a solid theory of how the Pacific will be balance before you can develop an overall combat algorithm.
A few things that I would like to see.
Most important, make countries build infantry. Infantry was the core of every army the world has ever seen, but in Victory! by turn 30 you see nothing worse than Marine divisions. If no more than 10% of your troops are allowed to be armored, it would be a good thing.
Change ants rule, so infantry costs .5 perhaps.
Certain planes in the game have no relation to the actual value they had historically. The Sturmovik was the most heavily produced plane in the war, yet is virtually useless in Victory!. Bombers should be allowed to rebase as a non mission order, and then run a turn.
Allow Fighters to perform both an offensive and a defensive mission every turn. A fighter group that bombs a railway station should not be prohibited from intercepting a raid on it's base.
Add a FDU radar. The British should get it in '40, the Germans and Americans in '41, and it should get better as the game goes on.
New units available should include a Russian artillery division, American and British airborne divisions after 1939, and the US Marine divisions should be tougher. Also make the Russian infantry smaller, and cheaper with a less nts rating.
I like that ships are vulnerable to land based air power. It is historical, even the US fleet avoided land based air when they had more than 20 carriers.
To solve the ship SMR problem, allow a force that is just moving to move double SMR.
Most important, make countries build infantry. Infantry was the core of every army the world has ever seen, but in Victory! by turn 30 you see nothing worse than Marine divisions. If no more than 10% of your troops are allowed to be armored, it would be a good thing.
Change ants rule, so infantry costs .5 perhaps.
Certain planes in the game have no relation to the actual value they had historically. The Sturmovik was the most heavily produced plane in the war, yet is virtually useless in Victory!. Bombers should be allowed to rebase as a non mission order, and then run a turn.
Allow Fighters to perform both an offensive and a defensive mission every turn. A fighter group that bombs a railway station should not be prohibited from intercepting a raid on it's base.
Add a FDU radar. The British should get it in '40, the Germans and Americans in '41, and it should get better as the game goes on.
New units available should include a Russian artillery division, American and British airborne divisions after 1939, and the US Marine divisions should be tougher. Also make the Russian infantry smaller, and cheaper with a less nts rating.
I like that ships are vulnerable to land based air power. It is historical, even the US fleet avoided land based air when they had more than 20 carriers.
To solve the ship SMR problem, allow a force that is just moving to move double SMR.
Many good ideas, I would add some limitation the ability of TAS to completely destroy ground forces. Bombers should be able to destroy the offensive capability but not the defensive. Also they should be able to reduce the movement capabilities but not destroy the units completely. Look at the Japanese in WWII. All the tactical bombing in the world would not reduce their divisions to nothing, certainly their offensive and movement capablities could be destoyed by TAS.
Being able to divide a ground unit to have different divisions perform different functions is a must. A 18 division army should be able to send one division out on an OMG.
A unit forced to retreat into a occupied square should only result in a reduction of units in excess of 18 with the weakest excess divisions being destroyed.
Don
Being able to divide a ground unit to have different divisions perform different functions is a must. A 18 division army should be able to send one division out on an OMG.
A unit forced to retreat into a occupied square should only result in a reduction of units in excess of 18 with the weakest excess divisions being destroyed.
Don
I have a few items to add to the discussion, some have been mentioned, some have not:
- Allow DSM to work in the opposite way for TAS....that is, Armored units are easier to destroy than Infantry-type units.....while perhaps not historically accurate, it would balance the game an make other unit types have some value.
- Rework the unit table to balance the units and make it so that every unit has some reason to be used. Right now, there are many units (especially aircraft) in the game that are never built because they have no appreciable advantage over another unit in the same tech branch. It may mean moving slightly away from historical accuracy, but it would improve the viable options for players in the game.
- Rework the tactics table to make each tactic (both offensive and defensive) have some advantages and disadvantages. Right now, several of the tactics have little if any use, and others have benefits against every other tactic (e.g. Mobile Defense). This would add alot to the tactical side and build in some unpredictability when you don't know what your opponent has planned.
- Significantly improve the performance of F against non-F aircraft. Historically, if FE was not employed, bomber groups tended to get mowed down by enemy fighters. That simply doesn't happen with the current game mechanics except in rare circumstances. Perhaps double or triple Fighter effectiveness if no FE is present.
- Significantly improve the performance of CHAB and CLAB, or significantly reduce the cost and allow players to build more per turn. Ditto for HAA/LAA....it is too expensive for its effectiveness, especially on naval ships.
- Decrease the number of planes in each ground based division in half. This would improve LAA/HAA effectiveness as well as improving the impact of Carrier based aircraft.
- Allow more than 100 (10%) rail capacity increase each turn. Perhaps allow 100 or 10% per turn above a cities starting amount, but if any has been lost below starting amount it can be rebuilt in a single tech period. Rail strikes (although not used that frequently in my experience) can be devastating at certain spots on the map, and recovering the rail capacity takes an unrealistically long amount of time.
- Allow NF to intercept during both day and night.....as it stands now, I have never encountered a player who has built them.
- Correct the TAS order so that a mission against a location with no valid target triggers the primary mission flag (no more multiple TAS missions)......increase the utility of Strike Recon! It was a valuable technique in history, but is not necessary given the current mechanics of multiple TAS missions. This would increase the need/value of reconnaissance aircraft as well as interceptors to prevent recon.
- Correct the RPD order to cost $ whether successful or not, but increase the effectiveness of being successful. Perhaps the minimum find should be 25 or 50 points. That would allow nations with little or none of a given resource to slowly build some capability (e.g. Iceland and PET) if they are willing the spend the money.
- Deficit spending should not be allowed for certain orders (EM, CF, etc.). Simply have the order fail if the player has a negative treasury. That would significantly balance "dead positions" being played for intelligence only.
- Allow TA's to provide FC for each other.
A few comments on other suggestions people have made:
- I like the notion of capitals being better than regular cities.....an extra ring on their AIC's sounds like a good addition.
- I hate the notion of eliminating the NTS limits. One of the balancing factors when players get big leads is the NTS limits. In reality, a country could not produce unlimited units because training and manpower would become the problems if production was not.
- I like the notion of other unit branches (Japanese or Italian in particular). However, in my opinion, it is more important to balance the one's we have and make all units have value in certain roles.
Looking forward to Victory II....but hoping Victory! gets back online.
Jared
"Harbinger of Death"
- Allow DSM to work in the opposite way for TAS....that is, Armored units are easier to destroy than Infantry-type units.....while perhaps not historically accurate, it would balance the game an make other unit types have some value.
- Rework the unit table to balance the units and make it so that every unit has some reason to be used. Right now, there are many units (especially aircraft) in the game that are never built because they have no appreciable advantage over another unit in the same tech branch. It may mean moving slightly away from historical accuracy, but it would improve the viable options for players in the game.
- Rework the tactics table to make each tactic (both offensive and defensive) have some advantages and disadvantages. Right now, several of the tactics have little if any use, and others have benefits against every other tactic (e.g. Mobile Defense). This would add alot to the tactical side and build in some unpredictability when you don't know what your opponent has planned.
- Significantly improve the performance of F against non-F aircraft. Historically, if FE was not employed, bomber groups tended to get mowed down by enemy fighters. That simply doesn't happen with the current game mechanics except in rare circumstances. Perhaps double or triple Fighter effectiveness if no FE is present.
- Significantly improve the performance of CHAB and CLAB, or significantly reduce the cost and allow players to build more per turn. Ditto for HAA/LAA....it is too expensive for its effectiveness, especially on naval ships.
- Decrease the number of planes in each ground based division in half. This would improve LAA/HAA effectiveness as well as improving the impact of Carrier based aircraft.
- Allow more than 100 (10%) rail capacity increase each turn. Perhaps allow 100 or 10% per turn above a cities starting amount, but if any has been lost below starting amount it can be rebuilt in a single tech period. Rail strikes (although not used that frequently in my experience) can be devastating at certain spots on the map, and recovering the rail capacity takes an unrealistically long amount of time.
- Allow NF to intercept during both day and night.....as it stands now, I have never encountered a player who has built them.
- Correct the TAS order so that a mission against a location with no valid target triggers the primary mission flag (no more multiple TAS missions)......increase the utility of Strike Recon! It was a valuable technique in history, but is not necessary given the current mechanics of multiple TAS missions. This would increase the need/value of reconnaissance aircraft as well as interceptors to prevent recon.
- Correct the RPD order to cost $ whether successful or not, but increase the effectiveness of being successful. Perhaps the minimum find should be 25 or 50 points. That would allow nations with little or none of a given resource to slowly build some capability (e.g. Iceland and PET) if they are willing the spend the money.
- Deficit spending should not be allowed for certain orders (EM, CF, etc.). Simply have the order fail if the player has a negative treasury. That would significantly balance "dead positions" being played for intelligence only.
- Allow TA's to provide FC for each other.
A few comments on other suggestions people have made:
- I like the notion of capitals being better than regular cities.....an extra ring on their AIC's sounds like a good addition.
- I hate the notion of eliminating the NTS limits. One of the balancing factors when players get big leads is the NTS limits. In reality, a country could not produce unlimited units because training and manpower would become the problems if production was not.
- I like the notion of other unit branches (Japanese or Italian in particular). However, in my opinion, it is more important to balance the one's we have and make all units have value in certain roles.
Looking forward to Victory II....but hoping Victory! gets back online.
Jared
"Harbinger of Death"
Most issues with Victory can be fixed by adding a few rules or slightly changing others.
I do not favour drastic changes in the game. This would take far longer to balance and design.
Going for a Victory in the Pacific would require a whole new map and a total new calibration of the game balance to produce something remotely like the real war.
Simple but drastic solutions for big problems:
Eliminate the NTS scheme. Scrap LDB's, Eliminate coastal bombardment on factories,
Naval:
Reduce fuel consumption by half and $ cost by half.
Let warship construction consume CP. This represents armor and heavy machinery that can only be made in specialised heavy factories.
Extra naval order: allow a close blockade on a hostile harbor. This reduces taxation and production of the city by half when the defending party does not have any surface warships on patrol in the sea area bordering on the harbor.
Allow amphibious landings by non-marine units but severely limit theri effectiveness while landing.
Reduce the resource requirements, $ and CP costs and output in SHIP points of shipyards by 75%.
Army:
Let Motorized, Mechanized and Armored divisions require the spending of CP and Fuel.
Allow a greater variety of regimental units, as the Allow for a maximum of 18 regimental units in any location.
(in reality a lot of "special units" were of battallion size)
Allow for
- fortress regiments: cost ARM, CP and remain static, but do not require supply or upkeep. They are stronger than a LDB.
- Marine regiments: can land while keeping their effectiveness at 100%. If a nation still wants to build a large amphibious army it is still possible, but it will take effort.
- Heavy armor regiments.
- Artillery regiments. Movement 0 but strong. Require a substantial amount of MUN, however. And requires CP to build.
- Mobile artillery regiments (Katyusja's etc) Movement 2, requires a large amount of MUN. And requires CP to build.
- Engineering regiments. An Engineering regiment will build up to 100 rail in any city with less than 500 rail, up to a maximum of 500. Automatically. THis solves the tactical rail strike problem.
- Fixed AAA regiments. They reduce the effectiveness. Movement zero, they do cost CP. More effective as AAA divisions,
Each city is defended by a permanent militia unit with a defence of Population times ten. This unit is immune to air attacks, does require no upkeep and only fights if attacked by enemy armies. This solves the problem of para regiments conquering big cities and symbolises the advantage of fighting behind the cover of buildings.
reduce the cost of fortification by half
reduce the cost of ARM factories in CP and $ by 20%.
Airforce:
Reduce the cost of airbase to 2 CP, but reduce the size of each air unit to 20 units. This reduces the lethality of air strikes.
And strengthens the usefulness of carriers.
Fighters, recon, ground attack units require only 1/2 base levels. All other air groups require 1 base level.
(basing levels of carriers should be adjusted for this)
Building lots of planes was far easier as training lots of pilots. Make a link to the training levels used, e.g. medium bomber air groups/turn = Tac Air level x2, etc.
Reduce the effectiveness of air strikes by the % damage the unit has got already. So an aistrike on a unit that is already at 50% does only half the damage.
Damaged ships however are easier to hit.
Economy and logistics:
Double the resource consumption of heavy industry.
Any friendly unit in a city belonging to the original home country does not consume General supply.
Allow for a limited number of standing orders like MCR's.
Intelligence:
Let nations with a negative morale suffer a negative modifier on the effectiveness of their espionnage efforts.
I like many of the suggestions. Looking at these type of games, there are generally three topics that are covered:
* Military Growth
* Economic Growth
* Research Advancement
Victory is currently focused on the first, with some economy thrown in. I can propose a lot of changes to make the game either easier or more complex, but I think Dageraad nailed it:
This means that the game should allow people to follow multiple paths to Victory -- you should ponder about your orders for a long time, and it should encourage you to think "are this my best orders, can I still improve it, or better attack somewhere else?"
Rather than repeating some new cool features, let me concentrate on how to simplify the game. The game is in my view slightly too complex -- For example, I find myself working too long on MCR orders for larger countries, instead of thinking of better strategies.
Remove:
About the AIC system, I hear a lot of suggestion to expand the AIC network to 4. I strongly disagree. The underlying motivation is presumably that the MCR orders are time consuming to make. I agree. It now takes me MCR 10-15 orders, while at the beginning of the game (turn 16).
Instead, I would propose to split the two functions of the AIC network. The first function is to serve as a distribution center for goods, e.g. if not enough ARM is available in the currently location, it is fetched from the upstream location. I would suggest to keep this function intact. The other function of the AIC network is as an automated MCR order, where good produced downstream are transported to the central hub. I would recommend to remove this function alltogether, and replace with "standing order" MCR commands. Thus, every time a factory is build, a new standing order should be given to transport the output to another location. That would consume rail capacity, but would allow transportation over longer distances (e.g. to a different distribution hub instead of the local one). This would still force players to calculate rail movement, but since it can be done as a standing order, it does not need to be repeated. (Unless of course someone likes to take a few hours and recalculate it all). I think this would remove the tediousness of MCR orders, and would instead provide a much more interesting way to use the MCR and AIC network.
* Military Growth
* Economic Growth
* Research Advancement
Victory is currently focused on the first, with some economy thrown in. I can propose a lot of changes to make the game either easier or more complex, but I think Dageraad nailed it:
QUOTE (dageraad @ Dec 23 2009, 11:40 AM)
The main appeal of the game is the strong "armchair general" feeling from the LACK of information. You can ponder over your orders for weeks, send them in, start biting your nails for days and then eagerly await each envelope or email from RTG.
This means that the game should allow people to follow multiple paths to Victory -- you should ponder about your orders for a long time, and it should encourage you to think "are this my best orders, can I still improve it, or better attack somewhere else?"
Rather than repeating some new cool features, let me concentrate on how to simplify the game. The game is in my view slightly too complex -- For example, I find myself working too long on MCR orders for larger countries, instead of thinking of better strategies.
Remove:
- Remove ANTS. I set it once, and never bother. I presume it is there to favour small countries, but I don't think it is very effective at that. A better and more natural mechanism would be to add some overhead to larger countries (e.g. in tax or otherwise).
- Remove weather mission cancellation. It is just an annoyance, which does not add to the game play, since there is no interaction with other players (unlike e.g. minefields). Weather effects are fine.
- Remove quirks (Multiple OMA TAS, Free RPD, ...). They only annoy novice users, and
- Reduce naval complexity. I really like ground force attacks. I have found them to be quite realistic, and they are the highlight of the game. When I plot these, I really feel like a general making an assault plan. I do not have that feeling for naval attacks, and find myself mostly either cargo transport or for diversion (just annoy other player by sending a lot of boats, see what happens).
- Have Victory conditions the same for all. Having to pick a set at the start of the game does not really add to the gameplay. (I only reason for this seems to add some custom goals to the game. I don't need that. I have my ALL and TA for that, which is much more fun).
- Make SDG/DRG for army, air force and navy more equal. It is annoying that supply draw for air force works differently, and repair for fleets works differently. This only adds complexity, while it does not enhance the gameplay. I like the suggestions about automatic SDG/SDN orders, a bit like the supply draw for air force.
About the AIC system, I hear a lot of suggestion to expand the AIC network to 4. I strongly disagree. The underlying motivation is presumably that the MCR orders are time consuming to make. I agree. It now takes me MCR 10-15 orders, while at the beginning of the game (turn 16).
Instead, I would propose to split the two functions of the AIC network. The first function is to serve as a distribution center for goods, e.g. if not enough ARM is available in the currently location, it is fetched from the upstream location. I would suggest to keep this function intact. The other function of the AIC network is as an automated MCR order, where good produced downstream are transported to the central hub. I would recommend to remove this function alltogether, and replace with "standing order" MCR commands. Thus, every time a factory is build, a new standing order should be given to transport the output to another location. That would consume rail capacity, but would allow transportation over longer distances (e.g. to a different distribution hub instead of the local one). This would still force players to calculate rail movement, but since it can be done as a standing order, it does not need to be repeated. (Unless of course someone likes to take a few hours and recalculate it all). I think this would remove the tediousness of MCR orders, and would instead provide a much more interesting way to use the MCR and AIC network.
Another must have in any new version is an automatic turn processor. For those of you who may recall the World Conquest and Modern World Conquest games, that company had an excellent system for turn execution where you uploaded your turn to their site (and could confirm it online) and it processed at a set time. There was no manual intervention (unless there was a problem). No backdating of turns or concern over which day a turn would run.... For Victory! it would mean that turns could run automatically at midnight CST (or whatever set time) every night. Emailed results are generated automatically and sent to the players. Simplify Russ' effort substantially and let him focus on enhancements, problem resolution, etc.
Jared
Jared
QUOTE (Meatball @ Dec 24 2009, 12:41 AM)
Hmm, had one other idea. How about adding a simple "Research" cost to the game. Folks can put as little or as much money per turn into it that they want.
In addition to the amount of money dumped into research, I'd make 'luck' a random factor in it as well, but the research could eventually lead to the discovery and production of super-weapons. V1's, V2's, Nukes, Jet Bombers.
Items could be extremely expensive to produce once discovered and likely only towards the end of the game. You'd also want to diminish the effects of some of the weapons (nukes for example) just to make it so the first person to get them doesn't actually wipe the floor with everyone else or make it so the 'super weapons' are one shot. You discover the atom bomb, but once you use it, that's it for the rest of the game.
In addition to the amount of money dumped into research, I'd make 'luck' a random factor in it as well, but the research could eventually lead to the discovery and production of super-weapons. V1's, V2's, Nukes, Jet Bombers.
Items could be extremely expensive to produce once discovered and likely only towards the end of the game. You'd also want to diminish the effects of some of the weapons (nukes for example) just to make it so the first person to get them doesn't actually wipe the floor with everyone else or make it so the 'super weapons' are one shot. You discover the atom bomb, but once you use it, that's it for the rest of the game.
G'Day Meatball
You have put a lot of thought into this
I would like to see naval forces to be able to do Tactical Strikes
They did duing WWII
It's an added element for the navy
--With all this talk of super weapons one concern I would have is the ability of a nuke to wipe out a countries entire airforce. If someone has 4 groups of ju-88's at an airbase in the city that is nuked that is alot to lose. I also agree with the person that suggested all these random airdrops all over the map stop as well. Maybe change the airborne troops capabilities to what the rangers currently do such as target individual air groups, assasinate commanders, etc..People are currently airdropping all over the place as kamikaze's just to cause chaos in aic nets and along rail lines or more importantly to interrupt fighter cover routes. This is not how these troops were used in the war...
In Russ' post to open this forum he said he wants to keep what works and improve on it. I am all for that and alot of what I have been reading needs to be incorporated. But at the same time there are alot of suggestions that would change the face of the game completely so much so that I don't think it would be recognizable anymore. While it is a game based on WW II it still has to function as a workable and playable game. While I can appreciate what it must have been like during the war I still understand that certain aspects of the game have to be in place for game play and may not reflect exactly how things were in war time...
In Russ' post to open this forum he said he wants to keep what works and improve on it. I am all for that and alot of what I have been reading needs to be incorporated. But at the same time there are alot of suggestions that would change the face of the game completely so much so that I don't think it would be recognizable anymore. While it is a game based on WW II it still has to function as a workable and playable game. While I can appreciate what it must have been like during the war I still understand that certain aspects of the game have to be in place for game play and may not reflect exactly how things were in war time...
Rethink all limit currently in game.
Why have only 50 armies possible?
Why only 18 divs in 1 army and have a 1 army limit, the one with the 18 strongest tanks will have the offensive power to kill the other army?
Why 60 mission limit till turn 25, if you have a good start then the 60 missions will limit immensely, especially when using groung, naval and air power.
Some people have 600 air factories in game at some point what to do with all those air points, the NTS limit prevents them from building a whole fighter group.......
I think some in game limits should be changed or removed.
For example NTS 4 = 10 divs build for every x ARM factories above x you get 1 bonus army NTS more or something or at turn x you get 1 more.
The make capitals more powerfull suggestion needs some good thinking because some capitals are better located then others.
Make the game more balanced by letting all countries start with the same population.
Remove the 99 pop cap.
-----------------------------------------
Some suggestions I have read I like others I do not like, but the Game Master should make the rules and they should be fair.
Some things seem smart now but will be a trouble later on or a game breaker.
I think the game should be based on the current game with all the good and bad things, BUT every thing should be open for debate again.
Why is the rule the way it is, was it because of printing / processing cost or because the programm code had to be easy or .......
Rethink the game on every aspect, but if you make many changes you get another game.........
For example add more nations you need to add more turns in the game because of the time it takes to get a smaller group of nations to end the game......playing a game that takes 73 turns is very long if the game is going for 100 turns the game will last another year.
---------------------------------------------------
Suggestion I would really like:
Make a zero turn and give all players a huge pile of CP's and higher treasury with ALL pop unemployed.
Spend the cp's the way you want.
Give all players 1000 ARM + 240 SHIP points and let them spend them also the way they want and where.
Maybe some rail points or other things to set the nation how you want it to be.
This way every game will be a bit different
Then start the game, let the war start turn 3 as always
Why have only 50 armies possible?
Why only 18 divs in 1 army and have a 1 army limit, the one with the 18 strongest tanks will have the offensive power to kill the other army?
Why 60 mission limit till turn 25, if you have a good start then the 60 missions will limit immensely, especially when using groung, naval and air power.
Some people have 600 air factories in game at some point what to do with all those air points, the NTS limit prevents them from building a whole fighter group.......
I think some in game limits should be changed or removed.
For example NTS 4 = 10 divs build for every x ARM factories above x you get 1 bonus army NTS more or something or at turn x you get 1 more.
The make capitals more powerfull suggestion needs some good thinking because some capitals are better located then others.
Make the game more balanced by letting all countries start with the same population.
Remove the 99 pop cap.
-----------------------------------------
Some suggestions I have read I like others I do not like, but the Game Master should make the rules and they should be fair.
Some things seem smart now but will be a trouble later on or a game breaker.
I think the game should be based on the current game with all the good and bad things, BUT every thing should be open for debate again.
Why is the rule the way it is, was it because of printing / processing cost or because the programm code had to be easy or .......
Rethink the game on every aspect, but if you make many changes you get another game.........
For example add more nations you need to add more turns in the game because of the time it takes to get a smaller group of nations to end the game......playing a game that takes 73 turns is very long if the game is going for 100 turns the game will last another year.
---------------------------------------------------
Suggestion I would really like:
Make a zero turn and give all players a huge pile of CP's and higher treasury with ALL pop unemployed.
Spend the cp's the way you want.
Give all players 1000 ARM + 240 SHIP points and let them spend them also the way they want and where.
Maybe some rail points or other things to set the nation how you want it to be.
This way every game will be a bit different
Then start the game, let the war start turn 3 as always
QUOTE (Earthling @ Dec 23 2009, 04:10 PM)
Russ,
How about instead of ending all the current games at the current stage, but rather putting them on 'hold' until a viable solution is achieved?
How about instead of ending all the current games at the current stage, but rather putting them on 'hold' until a viable solution is achieved?
Hi Russ
I think if it were possible I'd like to finish Game 82
I was ready to take over the lead
QUOTE (miraeng @ Dec 26 2009, 04:34 AM)
QUOTE (Earthling @ Dec 23 2009, 04:10 PM)
Russ,
How about instead of ending all the current games at the current stage, but rather putting them on 'hold' until a viable solution is achieved?
How about instead of ending all the current games at the current stage, but rather putting them on 'hold' until a viable solution is achieved?
Hi Russ
I think if it were possible I'd like to finish Game 82
I was ready to take over the lead
Ok Ok
Not quite
Not even!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Great ideas, esp. the split-stack attack.
As a new player (hey, we're supposed to be in a post-expert culture nowadays where naivity is prized...!), here's my wishlist:
1. Abolish the requirement for MCR within home countries. Your entire home country effectively becomes one big AIC net, with automatic transfer of resources etc for builds & supply (provided the city/province in question isn't isolated.) Does away with all those fiddly home mcr's, BUT mcr would still be necessary for any transfer outside your own country. That way, mcr becomes essentially a logistical supply chain relating to invasion and combat, maintaining the need to protect your supply chain during invasion & the opportunity for your opponent to interdict it, but feels less like playing a spreadsheet when adjusting home requirements!
2. Blue-skies dept: Integrate the map into the results output. Besides the printed tables, a series of maps could display current disposition of forces, currrrent pop, fixed defences, rail capacity, current resources including food and IMDL/ADL, etc. I appreciate this would require lots more programming, but it's entirely do-able in principle (given a machine more advanced than a 1991 Mac...
)
3. Presumably new Victory! = new rules. I'd prefer a single rules file, searchable and ideally hypertext-linked within itself.
4. And World Peace. Oh, OK, given the nature of the game, maybe not...
As a new player (hey, we're supposed to be in a post-expert culture nowadays where naivity is prized...!), here's my wishlist:
1. Abolish the requirement for MCR within home countries. Your entire home country effectively becomes one big AIC net, with automatic transfer of resources etc for builds & supply (provided the city/province in question isn't isolated.) Does away with all those fiddly home mcr's, BUT mcr would still be necessary for any transfer outside your own country. That way, mcr becomes essentially a logistical supply chain relating to invasion and combat, maintaining the need to protect your supply chain during invasion & the opportunity for your opponent to interdict it, but feels less like playing a spreadsheet when adjusting home requirements!
2. Blue-skies dept: Integrate the map into the results output. Besides the printed tables, a series of maps could display current disposition of forces, currrrent pop, fixed defences, rail capacity, current resources including food and IMDL/ADL, etc. I appreciate this would require lots more programming, but it's entirely do-able in principle (given a machine more advanced than a 1991 Mac...
)3. Presumably new Victory! = new rules. I'd prefer a single rules file, searchable and ideally hypertext-linked within itself.
4. And World Peace. Oh, OK, given the nature of the game, maybe not...
I read many good rule changes and want to add a feature that we had at the PBMExpress in the early 90'ties, instead of fixed processing dates flexible dates with a minimum of 10 day's between processing. This ment that you could go forwards and backwards with you're day of proccessing in turns, offering much more flexebility for TA's and less turns missed.
The various posts that have advocated making armies up from various battalians, regiments, and divisions has a lot of attractions to me. Allowing me to beef up the artllery level of an army leading an attack or the anti-tank strength of a infantry army trying to defend a vital province would give me a lot more flexibility to deal with various threats and add some PUNCH to my main offensive drives.
It also appears to have a solution for the balance of long/short range aircraft and tactical/stratetegic air missions. The core of my thiinnking comes from the way the Soviet army/air force assigned its fighter and stormivik IL-2 bombers DIRECTLY to an army (or front more accurately)
What if all tactical missions are eliminated from the OMA order and instead all Ground support and fighter cover gropus are assigned to an army? The army would be given a AA strength based on fighters assigned to it and a Tactical air rating based on Ground support (which would also largely be influenced by the fighters ability to secure local air superiority) and would aid an armies attack and defense. Short range aircraft and fighters assigned to armies would not use airbases but be assigned to the armiy and travel with it.
The OMA orders as we understand them would be for strategic missions only. Strategic bombing, NMI, etc.. the FC mission would be targeteted against ANY enemy air force that crossed through a fighter groups coverage path. this would allow a German fighter to intercept over the Netherlands a british bomber.s on the way to Berlin on one turn and on the way to Franffurt on another turn.
This would also finally allow the useless Night Intercepttor to be given a role.
.
It also appears to have a solution for the balance of long/short range aircraft and tactical/stratetegic air missions. The core of my thiinnking comes from the way the Soviet army/air force assigned its fighter and stormivik IL-2 bombers DIRECTLY to an army (or front more accurately)
What if all tactical missions are eliminated from the OMA order and instead all Ground support and fighter cover gropus are assigned to an army? The army would be given a AA strength based on fighters assigned to it and a Tactical air rating based on Ground support (which would also largely be influenced by the fighters ability to secure local air superiority) and would aid an armies attack and defense. Short range aircraft and fighters assigned to armies would not use airbases but be assigned to the armiy and travel with it.
The OMA orders as we understand them would be for strategic missions only. Strategic bombing, NMI, etc.. the FC mission would be targeteted against ANY enemy air force that crossed through a fighter groups coverage path. this would allow a German fighter to intercept over the Netherlands a british bomber.s on the way to Berlin on one turn and on the way to Franffurt on another turn.
This would also finally allow the useless Night Intercepttor to be given a role.
.
This idea diarrhea calls for some easy to use and navigate MoSCoW 'feature' tool with option for voting, feasibility, and commenting on them. Anybody any insights in such a tool?
NB MoSCoW of course being the abbreviation for Must have, Should have, Could have, Would have...
NB MoSCoW of course being the abbreviation for Must have, Should have, Could have, Would have...
QUOTE (the Wolf @ Dec 29 2009, 10:00 AM)
This idea diarrhea calls for some easy to use and navigate MoSCoW 'feature' tool with option for voting, feasibility, and commenting on them. Anybody any insights in such a tool?
NB MoSCoW of course being the abbreviation for Must have, Should have, Could have, Would have...
NB MoSCoW of course being the abbreviation for Must have, Should have, Could have, Would have...
I tried to organize things a bit by creating separate threads for various topics and numbering the ideas, but people seem to prefer launching their ideas into the void in this thread.
QUOTE (Hamish @ Dec 29 2009, 11:02 AM)
I tried to organize things a bit by creating separate threads for various topics and numbering the ideas, but people seem to prefer launching their ideas into the void in this thread.
That's because the Victory! forum only links to this thread, and not to the other topics in the game development forum. So most readers only find out about your grouping after they posted here, or they never find out at all.
QUOTE (MacFreek @ Dec 29 2009, 12:09 PM)
QUOTE (Hamish @ Dec 29 2009, 11:02 AM)
I tried to organize things a bit by creating separate threads for various topics and numbering the ideas, but people seem to prefer launching their ideas into the void in this thread.
That's because the Victory! forum only links to this thread, and not to the other topics in the game development forum. So most readers only find out about your grouping after they posted here, or they never find out at all.
Hmmm, good point. Not much I can do about it, though.
QUOTE (miraeng @ Dec 23 2009, 12:55 AM)
I'd like to see dedicated artillery that can attack 2 maybe 3 Provences over
you already have that in Vic... its called an air strike:-)
QUOTE (Predator @ Dec 23 2009, 09:37 AM)
--rail strikes are too effective. 3000 rail blown out a turn takes 20 turns to rebuild. maybe disable the rail for a number of turns or be able to repair rail for cash to what it was before the air attack. the rail is still there just temporarily disabled
I knew you did not like that
however seen the size of the bomber fleets this is rather realistic... and over here it cost us 10 years to build 200 kilometers of rail road....
B
QUOTE (That rabbit's dynamite @ Dec 27 2009, 06:13 AM)
1. Abolish the requirement for MCR within home countries. Your entire home country effectively becomes one big AIC net, with automatic transfer of resources etc for builds & supply (provided the city/province in question isn't isolated.) Does away with all those fiddly home mcr's, BUT mcr would still be necessary for any transfer outside your own country. That way, mcr becomes essentially a logistical supply chain relating to invasion and combat, maintaining the need to protect your supply chain during invasion & the opportunity for your opponent to interdict it, but feels less like playing a spreadsheet when adjusting home requirements!
To be honest, I don't agree with this one. Having one AIC makes it to tricky and to easy.
I do agree however that this mcr work can be boring especially in the larger nations, so maybe we can make a standing order mcr that transports a fixed amount from A to B.
B
some ideas of my own...
I would like to introduce the concept of 'brigades' like building blocks that could be used to design your own divisions. So you could for exampling add additional hvy armor to make a real hvy tank division, or add extra anti tank to do the opposit for defense, etc etc...Maybe every player could design a # of 'special'divisions.
Other thing that always strikes me is the cost of naval warfare. basically it's hugly expensive both to build as well as to move fleets. To make this more dinamic we may want to reduce the costs. I also would like to see a bigger role for naval attack planes. who builds them? really no one, becasue it is just as effective to strike them with land planes. so make navel strike planes more effective and at the same time make naval air defens larger. Ah and finally make subs more usefull..in the 10 games or so i played i do not think any sub of mine hit anything at anytime.
split attacks, sdg as standing order, Fighter cover over TA's and retreats to any availlable bordering location seem the best ideas so far to me.
B
I would like to introduce the concept of 'brigades' like building blocks that could be used to design your own divisions. So you could for exampling add additional hvy armor to make a real hvy tank division, or add extra anti tank to do the opposit for defense, etc etc...Maybe every player could design a # of 'special'divisions.
Other thing that always strikes me is the cost of naval warfare. basically it's hugly expensive both to build as well as to move fleets. To make this more dinamic we may want to reduce the costs. I also would like to see a bigger role for naval attack planes. who builds them? really no one, becasue it is just as effective to strike them with land planes. so make navel strike planes more effective and at the same time make naval air defens larger. Ah and finally make subs more usefull..in the 10 games or so i played i do not think any sub of mine hit anything at anytime.
split attacks, sdg as standing order, Fighter cover over TA's and retreats to any availlable bordering location seem the best ideas so far to me.
B
QUOTE (Gobo @ Dec 23 2009, 06:03 AM)
QUOTE (dageraad @ Dec 23 2009, 10:40 AM)
- An OMG where you attack with only part of an army, leaving the rest of the stack for another action, like a city attack. A sort of "split"attack.
+1.
QUOTE (dageraad @ Dec 23 2009, 10:40 AM)
- Make supply drawing a standing order for each unit that withou General supply at the end of the turn. Only General Supply and not more than 1 turn worth of supply.
Or at least make newly constructed divisions draw supplies automatically, I tend to foget that very often, ending up with damaged new units.
And I can't imagine why anyone would want to create a new division while not supplying them.
I like the idea of newly built ground units automatically drawing supplies, but I see a possible problem... if the new ground units grab all of the GEN,
any Air Forces in the city will suffer at the end of the turn. Instead of having to remember to Supply Draw Ground, you will have to remember to build
supply depots. Maybe Russ could have the automatic Supply Draw Ground happen after the Air Forces draw their GEN?
QUOTE (Ken Tewell @ Apr 16 2010, 01:55 AM)
QUOTE (Gobo @ Dec 23 2009, 06:03 AM)
QUOTE (dageraad @ Dec 23 2009, 10:40 AM)
- An OMG where you attack with only part of an army, leaving the rest of the stack for another action, like a city attack. A sort of "split"attack.
+1.
QUOTE (dageraad @ Dec 23 2009, 10:40 AM)
- Make supply drawing a standing order for each unit that withou General supply at the end of the turn. Only General Supply and not more than 1 turn worth of supply.
Or at least make newly constructed divisions draw supplies automatically, I tend to foget that very often, ending up with damaged new units.
And I can't imagine why anyone would want to create a new division while not supplying them.
I like the idea of newly built ground units automatically drawing supplies, but I see a possible problem... if the new ground units grab all of the GEN,
any Air Forces in the city will suffer at the end of the turn. Instead of having to remember to Supply Draw Ground, you will have to remember to build
supply depots. Maybe Russ could have the automatic Supply Draw Ground happen after the Air Forces draw their GEN?
and given the historical nature of the air force you could always move the Air Gen to occur at both the start and the end phases of a turn, again before any auto army gen replenishment (think of all films showing air behind the lines and officers getting their groundstaff to get supplies......)
QUOTE (DaveM @ Apr 18 2010, 02:58 AM)
QUOTE (Ken Tewell @ Apr 16 2010, 01:55 AM)
QUOTE (Gobo @ Dec 23 2009, 06:03 AM)
QUOTE (dageraad @ Dec 23 2009, 10:40 AM)
- An OMG where you attack with only part of an army, leaving the rest of the stack for another action, like a city attack. A sort of "split"attack.
+1.
QUOTE (dageraad @ Dec 23 2009, 10:40 AM)
- Make supply drawing a standing order for each unit that withou General supply at the end of the turn. Only General Supply and not more than 1 turn worth of supply.
Or at least make newly constructed divisions draw supplies automatically, I tend to foget that very often, ending up with damaged new units.
And I can't imagine why anyone would want to create a new division while not supplying them.
I like the idea of newly built ground units automatically drawing supplies, but I see a possible problem... if the new ground units grab all of the GEN,
any Air Forces in the city will suffer at the end of the turn. Instead of having to remember to Supply Draw Ground, you will have to remember to build
supply depots. Maybe Russ could have the automatic Supply Draw Ground happen after the Air Forces draw their GEN?
and given the historical nature of the air force you could always move the Air Gen to occur at both the start and the end phases of a turn, again before any auto army gen replenishment (think of all films showing air behind the lines and officers getting their groundstaff to get supplies......)
Or instead of doing a SDG ALL, just have the unit 'built' with one turns worth of GEN and consider it the cost of building the unit. Then next turn, when you can use the unit, you can SDG whatever you feel is appropiate.
Here's another one. Research centers.
So instead of automatically getting a unit at a certain tech level, each nation will have to assign points or research centers to get units. so one nation may invest heavily in Heavy Tanks, but be behind in Infantry, or Fighters or BB etc. I'm sure there are plenty of ways to do this, but I got the idea from Supernova. Each country gets so many research centers (RC), say 10, each turn you can assign each RC to a technology or unit until you complete it. Each tech has prerequisites you have to research first. So, you couldn't get INF 40 until you research INF 39. The research could also combine other areas besides just units. For example, the different TPL lvls could be part of the research. So maybe to get the B-29 HB, you need to research B-24j and Strategic Bombing 10.
Research could also be applies to factories or resources. You get improved air factories and your factories produce 11 air points instead of 10?
Advanced petroleum research allows you to produce an extra 25% from your oil wells, so a PET production of 100 would now produce 125 PET.
etc., etc. you get the idea.
This would also add a little more variety to the game instead of checking, and saying, 'ok, he has German tech and its tech lvl 8, so he now has Ju-88a-4s" Well, maybe his reseach didn't allow it yet.
Maybe even cross techs, so I may have US tech air, but British BBs? Just depends on what I research.
Thoughts? comments?
So instead of automatically getting a unit at a certain tech level, each nation will have to assign points or research centers to get units. so one nation may invest heavily in Heavy Tanks, but be behind in Infantry, or Fighters or BB etc. I'm sure there are plenty of ways to do this, but I got the idea from Supernova. Each country gets so many research centers (RC), say 10, each turn you can assign each RC to a technology or unit until you complete it. Each tech has prerequisites you have to research first. So, you couldn't get INF 40 until you research INF 39. The research could also combine other areas besides just units. For example, the different TPL lvls could be part of the research. So maybe to get the B-29 HB, you need to research B-24j and Strategic Bombing 10.
Research could also be applies to factories or resources. You get improved air factories and your factories produce 11 air points instead of 10?
Advanced petroleum research allows you to produce an extra 25% from your oil wells, so a PET production of 100 would now produce 125 PET.
etc., etc. you get the idea.
This would also add a little more variety to the game instead of checking, and saying, 'ok, he has German tech and its tech lvl 8, so he now has Ju-88a-4s" Well, maybe his reseach didn't allow it yet.
Maybe even cross techs, so I may have US tech air, but British BBs? Just depends on what I research.
Thoughts? comments?
QUOTE (Kurassier @ Jul 29 2010, 03:17 AM)
Here's another one. Research centers.
So instead of automatically getting a unit at a certain tech level, each nation will have to assign points or research centers to get units. so one nation may invest heavily in Heavy Tanks, but be behind in Infantry, or Fighters or BB etc. I'm sure there are plenty of ways to do this, but I got the idea from Supernova. Each country gets so many research centers (RC), say 10, each turn you can assign each RC to a technology or unit until you complete it. Each tech has prerequisites you have to research first. So, you couldn't get INF 40 until you research INF 39. The research could also combine other areas besides just units. For example, the different TPL lvls could be part of the research. So maybe to get the B-29 HB, you need to research B-24j and Strategic Bombing 10.
Research could also be applies to factories or resources. You get improved air factories and your factories produce 11 air points instead of 10?
Advanced petroleum research allows you to produce an extra 25% from your oil wells, so a PET production of 100 would now produce 125 PET.
etc., etc. you get the idea.
This would also add a little more variety to the game instead of checking, and saying, 'ok, he has German tech and its tech lvl 8, so he now has Ju-88a-4s" Well, maybe his reseach didn't allow it yet.
Maybe even cross techs, so I may have US tech air, but British BBs? Just depends on what I research.
Thoughts? comments?
So instead of automatically getting a unit at a certain tech level, each nation will have to assign points or research centers to get units. so one nation may invest heavily in Heavy Tanks, but be behind in Infantry, or Fighters or BB etc. I'm sure there are plenty of ways to do this, but I got the idea from Supernova. Each country gets so many research centers (RC), say 10, each turn you can assign each RC to a technology or unit until you complete it. Each tech has prerequisites you have to research first. So, you couldn't get INF 40 until you research INF 39. The research could also combine other areas besides just units. For example, the different TPL lvls could be part of the research. So maybe to get the B-29 HB, you need to research B-24j and Strategic Bombing 10.
Research could also be applies to factories or resources. You get improved air factories and your factories produce 11 air points instead of 10?
Advanced petroleum research allows you to produce an extra 25% from your oil wells, so a PET production of 100 would now produce 125 PET.
etc., etc. you get the idea.
This would also add a little more variety to the game instead of checking, and saying, 'ok, he has German tech and its tech lvl 8, so he now has Ju-88a-4s" Well, maybe his reseach didn't allow it yet.
Maybe even cross techs, so I may have US tech air, but British BBs? Just depends on what I research.
Thoughts? comments?
Maybe we can make research part of the NTS system. You can choose to build as much units as you can, but you will get limited research points, or you can choose to build only the bare minimum and invest in better units for the future.
QUOTE (Hamish @ Jul 29 2010, 06:58 AM)
QUOTE (Kurassier @ Jul 29 2010, 03:17 AM)
Here's another one. Research centers.
So instead of automatically getting a unit at a certain tech level, each nation will have to assign points or research centers to get units. so one nation may invest heavily in Heavy Tanks, but be behind in Infantry, or Fighters or BB etc. I'm sure there are plenty of ways to do this, but I got the idea from Supernova. Each country gets so many research centers (RC), say 10, each turn you can assign each RC to a technology or unit until you complete it. Each tech has prerequisites you have to research first. So, you couldn't get INF 40 until you research INF 39. The research could also combine other areas besides just units. For example, the different TPL lvls could be part of the research. So maybe to get the B-29 HB, you need to research B-24j and Strategic Bombing 10.
Research could also be applies to factories or resources. You get improved air factories and your factories produce 11 air points instead of 10?
Advanced petroleum research allows you to produce an extra 25% from your oil wells, so a PET production of 100 would now produce 125 PET.
etc., etc. you get the idea.
This would also add a little more variety to the game instead of checking, and saying, 'ok, he has German tech and its tech lvl 8, so he now has Ju-88a-4s" Well, maybe his reseach didn't allow it yet.
Maybe even cross techs, so I may have US tech air, but British BBs? Just depends on what I research.
Thoughts? comments?
So instead of automatically getting a unit at a certain tech level, each nation will have to assign points or research centers to get units. so one nation may invest heavily in Heavy Tanks, but be behind in Infantry, or Fighters or BB etc. I'm sure there are plenty of ways to do this, but I got the idea from Supernova. Each country gets so many research centers (RC), say 10, each turn you can assign each RC to a technology or unit until you complete it. Each tech has prerequisites you have to research first. So, you couldn't get INF 40 until you research INF 39. The research could also combine other areas besides just units. For example, the different TPL lvls could be part of the research. So maybe to get the B-29 HB, you need to research B-24j and Strategic Bombing 10.
Research could also be applies to factories or resources. You get improved air factories and your factories produce 11 air points instead of 10?
Advanced petroleum research allows you to produce an extra 25% from your oil wells, so a PET production of 100 would now produce 125 PET.
etc., etc. you get the idea.
This would also add a little more variety to the game instead of checking, and saying, 'ok, he has German tech and its tech lvl 8, so he now has Ju-88a-4s" Well, maybe his reseach didn't allow it yet.
Maybe even cross techs, so I may have US tech air, but British BBs? Just depends on what I research.
Thoughts? comments?
Maybe we can make research part of the NTS system. You can choose to build as much units as you can, but you will get limited research points, or you can choose to build only the bare minimum and invest in better units for the future.
I really like that idea. It would be easier to introduce French and Italian tech into the game with the ability to cross tech. How about you can only cross tech with what a TA has or the tech of a defeated enemy? You can purchase tech from a TA? The Germans and Japanese did that on several projects.
A couple of things that need to be address
1) ship building. I think it is ridiculous that you can build 2 BBs in 2 weeks! It took 3 years or more most of the BBs to be built. There needs to be a system where you set your naval nts for a year or 6 months. You are able to purchase a variable of packages that are available to that level. You can purchase the number of packages equal to the number of shipyards you control for 6 months. Say with level 4 you could get 4 BBS and 4 CA or 6 CA and 6 CL or 15 AKs. A limited ix and match with delivery spread out through the 6 months.
Capitols need to be of more importance. If your capitol falls then you lose half or a quarter of your cash. You can't run intel ops until you establish a new capitol. Also you should have the ability to move your capitol, but it would be reported in the rwe.
QUOTE (heavyB @ Dec 29 2009, 05:57 AM)
QUOTE (That rabbit's dynamite @ Dec 27 2009, 06:13 AM)
1. Abolish the requirement for MCR within home countries. Your entire home country effectively becomes one big AIC net, with automatic transfer of resources etc for builds & supply (provided the city/province in question isn't isolated.) Does away with all those fiddly home mcr's, BUT mcr would still be necessary for any transfer outside your own country. That way, mcr becomes essentially a logistical supply chain relating to invasion and combat, maintaining the need to protect your supply chain during invasion & the opportunity for your opponent to interdict it, but feels less like playing a spreadsheet when adjusting home requirements!
To be honest, I don't agree with this one. Having one AIC makes it to tricky and to easy.
I do agree however that this mcr work can be boring especially in the larger nations, so maybe we can make a standing order mcr that transports a fixed amount from A to B.
B
Heh. There is more than one way to skin a cat.
I've solved this particular problem on my own end. By setting up a library of pre-defined transport routes (which I save in the same file format as the normal turn tile), and a transport matrix, which shows all top level AIC cities (including unconnected ones), together with current effective levels (which include order effects) of all transportable resources. Negatives (which need to be adjusted with transport) are highlighted in red.
Works like a charm. I have my transports for the next turn up and running in about 5 minutes or so.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.