Jump to content
Rolling Thunder Forums

Spartan

Members
  • Content Count

    211
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Spartan

  • Rank
    Veteran
  • Birthday 02/07/1967

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Long Beach, CA

Recent Profile Visitors

888 profile views
  1. Are you suggesting that MY law enforcement agency's would DARE to interfere with their fearless leader going on a scenic joy ride in order to let off a little steam? Running a large, complicated nation is very stressful I'll have you know!
  2. Too busy drinking, driving, and singing to think of war.
  3. All this talk of war is so sad. Can't we all just be friends?!? Come on! Let's all sing along! Imagine there's no countries It isn't hard to do Nothing to kill or die for And no religion too Imagine all the people living life in peace, you You may say I'm a dreamer But I'm not the only one I hope some day you'll join us And the world will be as one Now I'm feeling all warm and fuzzy inside. Or maybe it's the copious amounts of alcohol. I know! Where's my tank? A good drive with the wind in my hair always makes me feel better, although I can't speak for my poor citizens who may get in my way.
  4. I have to disagree as well. I've already begun communications with multiple nations. Some near me. Some far away. I knew none of them coming into this game, and some I've never heard of from any prior game. Most of the communications started because of people's earlier public announcements on the forum before the game even started.
  5. Addressing Schmutti's comment about the size of the Victory! gaming group, I don't think he was saying it was the 'right' size. It's just the size that it is and it's very unlikely to grow at this point.
  6. Agree with Schmutti. Better to have all positions filled. Question for now is, why is it so difficult to fill positions for new games? Shrinking player base? Poor customer service? Lack of 'outreach'/promoting/advertising?
  7. Thanks for your input JPD. This just illustrates in astounding clarity what I was talking about. If this game is to reach a new and growing audience, one that is not accustomed to having to undertake such 'projects' just to play a game in this day and age, there needs to be developed for all players a program/interface that enables players to reasonably manage their holdings. I know there are those that would claim that it is these 'skills' of nation management under the current system that separate the skilled players from the rest, but I'd argue that it is what is separating the players from the NON-players and the 'players' group is shrinking slowly but surely. Whether these new programs for managing nations is developed under the current game programming or the next I think does matter. Why? Because while doing any of these things takes skill and time, waiting for the new game system to be developed before trying to make the game more manageable/playable is a wait that make take forever. I know I don't have the skill/ability to make any of these changes, but I do believe that it is more realistic and achievable to work towards making a nation management program for the current game. Thoughts?
  8. What Victory! really needs is more players. Specifically, new players. It needs to expand its customer base, pure and simple, or it will continue its slow and inevitable decline into oblivion. While Victory! may have limited options available to it that will broaden its customer base in any significant way, in my opinion the player base will not be increased in any significant way by adding new tech, changing and or adding new rules and altering mechanics within the game. Don’t get me wrong. I'm as interested in and think about rules and mechanics improvements to the game as much as anyone. These ideas are all worth discussing and working towards, but the fact is that those ‘improvements’ may cause some former players to return to the game, but it will do nothing to entice new players to try the game for the first time. What Victory! needs to do is make the game more accessible and easy to play than it currently is. The laborious tasks of managing things like resource usage and especially rail usage are never ‘fun,’ and are definitely not one of the aspects of the game that serve to entice or retain new, inexperienced players. The game’s accessibility and familiarity, specifically to just about all other currently popular game systems and genres, is considered near arcane to most current 'gamers.’ The game needs to be easier to manage turn by turn, and turn submittal, processing and results need to be more instantaneous. That’s the way the world, technology and gaming in general now, like it or not. When doing your turn, there should be either a separate program that enables you to track your total rail usage city by city as you enter MCR and MGF orders in a separate program, and or something built into the turn entry program itself that tracks and tallies rail usage. This should also be the case with resource usage and raising and lowering stockpiles within each AIC as you move resources action by action from city to city. Many players have developed their own makeshift programs with Excel, for example, to manage these things, but developing and using such programs is incredibly difficult and time consuming to develop and are usually done in isolation. Individual players attempts to improve their own Victory! gaming experience does nothing to improve the game of Victory! and it’s future health overall. Once again, Victory! needs fresh blood and an expanded and hopefully growing customer base for Russ and the game to survive long term. Thoughts? I'm sure there are those that disagree with or have a different take on my assessment and or with my general ideas for what would have the greatest probability of enticing at least some new players and even bringing back some former ones.
  9. Glad to see everything went as planned. Congrats!
  10. Players can of course still work together. It will just be very hard to warn their allies of what happened to them since their last turn. It will indeed be very awkward for certain nations to work together. I can see situations where nation A and nation B who are working together will go to war so nation B for example can gain access to certain locations that nation A holds in order to be in better position to support and or work together later. This could cause issues with morale though. It will also require a decent amount of trust as Reece mentioned. Spongebob - I fail to see what needs to be 'flagged' with Russ. This setup is not meant to keep players from working together. It is meant to seriously change the dynamic by which and the degree to which they do I think. Reece - I saw your point and agree with it on the 'math skills' issue. As for my assertion that this type of setup will very likely favor more aggressive and daring players, I still stand by this and I think your response bolsters my claim. The very fact that the fog of war will make many players more conservative means that they will be more unwilling to seize opportunities that present themselves for fear of what they imagine might go wrong because of what is not fully known about their enemies position. I can only imagine that it is a common perception among players that they perceive that their adversaries are in a stronger position than they really are and they thus hold up on taking chances or acting without complete info. That being said, aggressive/daring play can of course bite you in the ass if you gamble wrong, which is what such behavior requires. Taking a gamble, calculated or otherwise.
  11. I find the idea of this game intriguing and indeed tempting to participate in and agree with most of what Reece said about the potential dynamics of this game. I fail to see though how a players ability to manage their nation's infrastructure and even their ability to weigh the potential outcomes of battles is any less important and those things all require, at least in part, solid 'math skills.' There will indeed be an significant element of the 'fog of war', but even that could be mitigated to some degree under the 'no TA' rule although it will be tricky to say the least. No matter though. This set up will definitely require increased skills across the board and even more than usual will probably favor those that are more 'adventurous' and aggressive in their playing style. If it starts after the game I'm in ends, I'd love to play in it. I don't have the time to play two or more games at the same time unfortunately.
  12. 1) Maybe limit it to two TA's allowed to fly FC over any one location. That may make it more doable. 3) This is likely the crux of where you and I disagree. In general, I'd like to see more clearly defined rolls for each type of plane. This is due in part because of the scale of the game, but also because I disagree that the planes I specifically mentioned, not any fighters, are used only sparingly, out of desperation and usually with regret because of their relative limitations compared to planes that give you much more for your AIR points. I'd like to see strategic bombing become a far more viable and regularly used technique in the game. I'd like to see other planes like the very short range tactical bombers (JU-87 and Sturmovik's for example) become more reasonable choices because of their reduced cost. I'd like to see navy's embraced and used more without players dreading among other things their extreme vulnerability to air attacks (minus submarines). 5) as for taking any one tech, each clearly has it's strengths and weaknesses. Comparing the T-34 to the Skymaster is hardly fair. One is competitively priced relative to similar units and other is not. The fact is that the points system that is used to give planes their AIR cost is out of kilter. Whatever system is used, it is clear that it is formulated in an awkward, inconsistent and imbalanced way for the way the game is structured and for the way air units are used. Enough of what you don't like about my ideas though. What some of the highlights of your ideas. By the way, the ones I listed were by no means my only ideas. They are just some of the ones I've thought about most often.
  13. In the end though, it may not matter. I fear the likelihood of V2 seeing the light of day anytime within the next 3-5 years, especially in it's final non-beta form, is very slim indeed. The time and effort necessary for one person to tackle such a task is daunting to say the least.
  14. The biggest issues players seem to struggle with (me included) when discussing changes to the game or explaining any one facet of the game as it currently stands is the ‘realism’ factor. Russ has made the point time and again that Victory was never meant to be an ‘as close to reality as we can get’ game. Some parts of the game are in place for no other reason than game balance and playability among other reasons. What is realistic and what can be translated to the game without bogging it down too much are often two separate things. 1) Interesting point, but if the programming mechanics can be worked out, whether you fight 50 fighters from one enemy or 50 fighters from 2 or more enemies will not matter much in the combat itself. I will admit that it could make a notable difference in a players ability to counter over the long term since it will be a lot easier for two or more TA’s to recycle their fighter forces, basically keeping fresh 50 fighters for example in any one location. 2) I could go either way on this as long as all are affected equally. 3) Halving the cost of HB, or even just by 1/3 is an attempt to make them a more palatable and regularly used unit and SB a more regularly used aspect of the game. Right now, they are a total side show if used at all in most games. Right now, the amount of effort put into targeting industry and infrastructure in general is minimal in overall game play and strategy. Why not expand the game to make it a more dynamic and varied war than it currently is. 4) Which of these planes that I mentioned, those with under a 10 range, some of which were among the most built planes in the 'real' war, are being used in significant numbers now? Also, if they no longer have a base requirement, mechanics-wise how are they targeted on the ground and how is the damage quantified? 5) I agree that the JU-88A should just be reclassified as a MB. As for the rest of my idea though, this is meant partly as a way of relieving some of the pressure off naval forces that are so painfully vulnerable to air power in this game. It's also an attempt to draw players to planes that in 'real life' were used FAR more for anti shipping than MB's where. Call it working towards greater game balance. 6) If the Skymaster is so much better technologically than the Halifax A for example, which I don’t doubt of course, then significantly decrease the cost of the Halifax A! Based on your reasoning, there is NO reason the Halifax A should cost anywhere near as much as the Skymaster, considering most glaringly the fact that its range is HALF of the Skymaster.
  15. I fully agree with and have been lobbying for quite some time for an automated turn submission and processing program/system that enables turns to be processed minutes after submittal and returned at the very least within the hour if not minutes after submittal. I know it was suggested that a more interactive map be available to the players and while that would be cool, I think that if choices must be made, whatever effort would be put towards such an endeavor should instead be focused on other player tools that make managing your nation and preparing your turn more user friendly. Example – a program that enables players to track their rail usage as they prepare their turns. That alone would alleviate a huge amount of time and effort from the job of planning and preparing a turn. Maybe one linked to an interactive map, one linked to the turn entry program or one within an Excel program that enables you to not only input a draft of your turn before you input it into the turn entry program, but that tracks rail usage as you input locations. As for what is added to or changed in the game itself, I think we need to be both careful and realistic about what can and should be changed or added. I think the fundamental question and reality must be recognized and understood in planning for Victory 2 is for following. First, what is the point of the second version? Second, the chances of V2 becoming a reality are seriously restricted by the time and tools available to Russ in making this happen. The more you want to change the fundamental nature of the game, the more work it will take and the more unlikely it is that V2 will ever happen. Russ has made it clear, at least as I understand his comments both to me and others, that he does not plan on remaking the game so much as he plans on improving on and or fixing existing aspects of the game. So, what’s the point of the second version? Is it to fundamentally change the game into something wholly new and different? If that is your goal, assuming V2 ever happens, I think you will be sorely disappointed. Is it instead to tweak, streamline, improve, and or alter the existing game in relatively manageable ways so it becomes a better/improved version of the original? If so, I think that is a far more realistic and likely vision. Now, I know everyone has their own ideas about what mechanics need to be changed. I think what we should all focus on for the most part though is improving on or fixing the aspects of the game that are 1) most broken, 2) can most easily be changed/altered, 3) will put a positive and new spin on the existing game. So, what do you think are the most overt/clear things that need fixing, can be easily fixed and will improve and breathe new life into the existing game? I’ll start. 1) Enable TA’s to fly FC over other TA’s territory and their forces. 2) Upgrade orders should be able to handle more than 4 units. 3) Lower the cost of HB by at least 1/3 and by as much as ½. 4) Lower the cost of all TAS capable planes with a range of say less than 10 by ½. 5) Take away the maritime strike capability from MB, HGA and HDB with a range of 10 or more. 6) Decrease the range of the Skymaster to 16, but not change its cost or only lower it slightly. #3 is meant to make HB and strategic bombing a more viable choice and tactic. #4 is meant to make what are in effect short range tactical bombers more viable and cost effective choices. #5 is meant to 1) lower the vulnerability of ships and make navy’s less vulnerable than they currently are, and 2) once again make buying shorter range DB, GA, S, other ship based planes, etc. more viable and valuable choices. The Skymaster is a very close relative of the Halifax A in almost all the stats that matter except range and DEF. Cut the range in half and possibly reduce the cost by a little bit to reflect the fact that it has a lower DEF value.
×
×
  • Create New...