Jump to content
Rolling Thunder Forums

The New Victory


miraeng
 Share

Recommended Posts

I guess I’m a bit conflicted listening to all these ideas (which I have also proposed), in this current case specifically in how it relates to air units and bases. Assuming we have any control over Victory 2 development my biggest question is, what are we hoping to achieve with these changes? Is it a more ‘realistic’ experience, more game balance, more reasonable costs of items, etc.? To me, the most important question we should be asking first is, where is the game most clearly ‘broken,’ flawed or simply lacking? Only after that question is answered should we be delving into the question of what we can add to the game that is wholly new. The last thing we should talk about altering are those things that already work reasonably and are not adversely affecting game play. Basically, try listing, even if just for yourself, what you each think is most broken, flawed or lacking in the game right now and is therefore detracting from the Victory experience.

 

As for addressing the issues of air, the primary goal of most players, including myself, seems to be trying to achieve the following. 1) reassess the cost and or structure of air bases, 2) make less popular planes more appealing and or accessible, and 3) dial back the dominance/power of certain planes, specifically MB, HDB, & HGA. A byproduct of this effort is to aid in reducing the vulnerability of navy's to air attack, again specifically by MB, HDB, & HGA planes.

 

In the end, all these issues and their possible solutions should revolve around trying to better balance game play I think. Further complicating game play and the overall understanding of the mechanics of the game is not in my opinion a recipe for the future success of Victory.

 

Look, the game already has its very loyal following, but if this game and Russ is to ever to see increased success (more new players), the solution is not to add more minutia to the game which I think many of these proposed solutions do. The best solutions are those that are least visible to the casual observer and require the least amount of ‘relearning’ the game.

 

Finally, we need to ask ourselves this. Is the goal of Victory 2 to improve the existing game or to wholly remake it? Thoughts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 160
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

To answer the last question first: I'd say to improve.

 

Skipping to another part: Broken things are, in my opinion:

1) air units and the power of MB, HDB, over all other units

2) No being able to have several forces in one location (easily fixed, just have a limit of 18 units per location, not per force)

3) Not being able to defend TA units with FC (easily fixed)

4) Not being able to station armies on TA ground (can't SDG, need to transfer supplies to TA forces)

5) Vulnerability and cost of naval forces (compared to how easy it is to destroy them)

 

About Hamish's solution, with hangars and runways: Comes back to how much we want to change the game. It's a similar solution to lgt and hvy bases. How much do you want to change the game, should new concepts be introduced or not. I'd say the first try should be to not change the terms in the game to much. So I'd prefer keeping the bases and not introduce the term hangars.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the end, maybe the numerous problems specifically related to air units would best be solved by doing the following few things:

 

1) Reduce the overall CP cost of bases to maybe 2-3 CP. This would lighten the burden of building airbases and make the prospect of building new ones to keep up with your ground forces advance over large areas like in the Russia's easier.

2) take away the MS ability of MB, HDB, HGA & HB planes. This would a long way towards doing the following:

A) Decreasing the threat to ships posed by planes and thus make ships more appealing because of their increased chances of survival.

B ) Increase the need to build other planes that are currently not being built as much that would still be able to do MS. (ship borne planes, HTB, TR, LR, S, GA, DB, LB). F already are built in large numbers.

3) Reduce the AIR cost of GA and DB because of their very limited range overall, and reduce the cost of HB because of their very limited role. HTB could also be reduced to 20 plane groups and with it their cost.

 

These would all only require adjusting current stat(s) and or capabilities in the case of MS.

 

I also fully agree that TA's should be able to fly FC for each others forces.

 

I also fully agree that the new game should allow multiple army groups in the same locations (maximum 18). This would greatly increase the current limitations of the current MGFS option. There would be definite problems that would need solving/addressing in the 'merge' portion of the movement and attack orders that could land your ground force in a location that has 2 or more separate ground forces already in it.

 

I'm not sure though how the placement of armies in TA's territory without them first ceding that territory would work. You are right that it's probably not very 'realistic' to not allow it. It would suddenly be MUCH harder to isolate and destroy enemy ground forces though. Two questions come to mind though. 1) Would this mean that because of this rule and the one that would allow multiple groups in the same location, could two or more forces, each from different TA's occupy the same location? 2) Why can't this same idea be used to legitimize the basing of a TA's air units at another TA's city? I just see a lot of issues with this idea.

 

Finally, I also think that Ships should cost less in $.

 

I think those changes along would go a LONG way to improving the game AND making it a VERY different game.

 

The only idea that has always stuck with me in relation to industrial issues is the idea of making capitals more valuable by increasing their factory production multiple to x1.5 or x2 compared to other cities that are of course x1. They are your capitals after all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the end, maybe the numerous problems specifically related to air units would best be solved by doing the following few things:

 

1) Reduce the overall CP cost of bases to maybe 2-3 CP. This would lighten the burden of building airbases and make the prospect of building new ones to keep up with your ground forces advance over large areas like in the Russia's easier.

2) take away the MS ability of MB, HDB, HGA & HB planes. This would a long way towards doing the following:

A) Decreasing the threat to ships posed by planes and thus make ships more appealing because of their increased chances of survival.

B ) Increase the need to build other planes that are currently not being built as much that would still be able to do MS. (ship borne planes, HTB, TR, LR, S, GA, DB, LB). F already are built in large numbers.

3) Reduce the AIR cost of GA and DB because of their very limited range overall, and reduce the cost of HB because of their very limited role. HTB could also be reduced to 20 plane groups and with it their cost.

 

These would all only require adjusting current stat(s) and or capabilities in the case of MS.

 

I'm not sure this will solve the problems and the CP cost for rebasing is one of the things stopping me from moving my air force more often. Even if that would only apply to the heavy planes, it is still one of the factors that should matter.

 

Cost of planes is based on weight of the planes which is a good thing, it should stay based on something. Tweaking the effectiveness or cost of planes is a totally different issue. Another way this could be done, is if heavy planes would cost a lot more $ to build. More crew, more costs. Crew are often harder to replace then the hardware itself.

 

Reducing MS on MB's and others would be a good plan.

 

 

I also fully agree that the new game should allow multiple army groups in the same locations (maximum 18). This would greatly increase the current limitations of the current MGFS option. There would be definite problems that would need solving/addressing in the 'merge' portion of the movement and attack orders that could land your ground force in a location that has 2 or more separate ground forces already in it.

 

I'm not sure though how the placement of armies in TA's territory without them first ceding that territory would work. You are right that it's probably not very 'realistic' to not allow it. It would suddenly be MUCH harder to isolate and destroy enemy ground forces though. Two questions come to mind though. 1) Would this mean that because of this rule and the one that would allow multiple groups in the same location, could two or more forces, each from different TA's occupy the same location? 2) Why can't this same idea be used to legitimize the basing of a TA's air units at another TA's city? I just see a lot of issues with this idea.

 

I have problems already with the isolating and destroying part, making that harder is not a bad thing to do perse. But I see no difficulties with multiple armies in different locations. The allies have a overall commander (highest ranking officer in the field, if a draw, than the highest ranking of the strongest force). The combined armies will fight together (with a negative mulitplier, not used to fighting together, language barrier). Defensive options used is according to largest force option and military capabilities (any INF present, then HD, for example). Rest of the battle is as it is these days.

 

The only idea that has always stuck with me in relation to industrial issues is the idea of making capitals more valuable by increasing their factory production multiple to x1.5 or x2 compared to other cities that are of course x1. They are your capitals after all.

 

Thats just a tweak. But the impact can be huge, as some capitals have 50 pop, others have 99. This should be carefully checked on impact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To answer the last question first: I'd say to improve.

 

Skipping to another part: Broken things are, in my opinion:

1) air units and the power of MB, HDB, over all other units

2) No being able to have several forces in one location (easily fixed, just have a limit of 18 units per location, not per force)

3) Not being able to defend TA units with FC (easily fixed)

4) Not being able to station armies on TA ground (can't SDG, need to transfer supplies to TA forces)

5) Vulnerability and cost of naval forces (compared to how easy it is to destroy them)

 

About Hamish's solution, with hangars and runways: Comes back to how much we want to change the game. It's a similar solution to lgt and hvy bases. How much do you want to change the game, should new concepts be introduced or not. I'd say the first try should be to not change the terms in the game to much. So I'd prefer keeping the bases and not introduce the term hangars.

 

I agree with you on the improving part. Victory! is basically a good game, we should just try to make it even better.

 

I would like to add a couple of points that need fixing:

6) Real life money can buy you more espionage missions, only limited by the maximum orders you're allowed to give. I think that your real life financial situation should not give you in game advantages.

7) Air bases are (also) too vulnerable to tactical strikes, especially with MBs being practically unstoppable by fighters. (Hence my suggestion to separate the runways from the hangars.)

8) Submarines should be more effective at intercepting naval forces.

 

I think naval bases are useless and can be scrapped from the game. Why not repair ships at a shipyard? Same for sub pens, I have never built one.... ever. In my experience subs are pretty useless, so unless my point #8 gets fixed, I'd say scrap the sub pens as well.

Their place could be taken by the hangar/runway idea, which I really like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6) with negative ingame money, SIOL, SCOL, training and other moneycosting should automatically lower. This would effectively stop spying only positions. Negative morale should also be automatically force a PA action if money is available. Using orders that are available if you have a good running position shouldn't be punished, I think.

 

7) Don't agree with the vulnerability of AIR bases. They can be easily defended. Making fighters a bit more effective is a possibility. But having lots of fighters over an airbase does work.

 

8) Agree, but I've had a really difficult time in destroying subs, damage to subs should also be increased, at the moment they are very hard to remove.

 

Still think that hangars/runway, even if the idea is OK, is more a change than an improvement. New concept. I'd like to keep it to improvements.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some reaction to Hamish and Falco's ideas and comments.

 

REAL MONEY ISSUES: Any game that ties the amount a player can play (or how many turn sheets they can turn in) to how much money they spend is always going to have an air of 'unfairness,' but I don't really see any way around that problem, at least that would have a realistic chance of being implemented by RTG.

 

DEAD POSITIONS THAT JUST WON'T DIE (ZOMBIES): Players that continue to play (doing EM's endlessly) even after they have more or less lost their position is of course a common and frustrating problem. Unfortunately, unless RTG wants to kiss real money goodbye (which I don't think it can afford to do) I don't see them baring players from continuing to turn in turn sheets, no matter what's on them or what their situation is. There are many potential partial fixes though. Downgrade the success of EM's if 1) they have no more home cities left, 2) they have a negative morale, or 3) they have a negative treasury. These penalties could be cumulative if two or more of these things are in affect.

 

NEGATIVE MORALE PIT OF DESPAIR: Many players find themselves in a situation where they have little or no hope of recovering their morale that has dropped FAR into the negative zone. This can happen because of inexperience (overspending), multiple declarations of war, one or more FP orders followed by yet another DW, players (including experienced ones) spending beyond their means in order to defend themselves from overwhelming odds, or any combination of the above.

It is not good for RTG ($) or the remaining participants to see other players drop out of the game before they have really been defeated, simply because they their negative morale has caused them to lose the ability (in many cases for the rest of the game) to wage war and therefore actively participate in the game. Some will argue that, 'only the strong (and some may argue the smart) shall survive' so good riddance to them, but that view is extremely shortsighted and detrimental to all in the long run. Newer players become disillusioned and never come back, and even if the affected players do come back in another game, the current game in question is seriously negatively impacted by their premature exit and RTG is out a lot of potential $.

In order to ensure that players stick around more often, here are a few possible solutions:

1) Once a FP is successfully conducted, that nation cannot DW again on the affected nation for at least 5 turns.

2) FP should cause the the lose of less morale OR the second FP (by any nation) and all successive ones should cause less morale to be lost. For example, 1st = 60, 2nd = 40, 3rd and all others = 30 each. Just an idea.

3) Nation's whose morale goes negative, should gain an extra morale bonus every turn they spend less than they make until their morale becomes positive. Every turn they spend more than they make, the regular morale penalties apply.

 

AIR BASES: I also agree that there are already sufficient ways to adequately protect air bases if you really want to.

 

SHIPYARDS: While very costly if you have a lot of damage to repair, they definitely serve a necessary purpose.

 

SUB PENS: I also agree that they are pretty useless in that hardly anyone bothers to buy them, but on the other hand, they aren't hurting anyone either.

 

SUB THREAT: It could be argued that subs should be more effective (I'm tempted to disagree), I also think that sub groups are currently extremely difficult to totally destroy. The effort (orders) and forces required is substantial and in the end, all you can usually hope to do is try and develop a good way of avoiding the threat instead of actually destroying it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some reaction to Hamish and Falco's ideas and comments.

.

 

DEAD POSITIONS THAT JUST WON'T DIE (ZOMBIES): Players that continue to play (doing EM's endlessly) even after they have more or less lost their position is of course a common and frustrating problem. Unfortunately, unless RTG wants to kiss real money goodbye (which I don't think it can afford to do) I don't see them baring players from continuing to turn in turn sheets, no matter what's on them or what their situation is. There are many potential partial fixes though. Downgrade the success of EM's if 1) they have no more home cities left, 2) they have a negative morale, or 3) they have a negative treasury. These penalties could be cumulative if two or more of these things are in affect.

 

 

 

 

This point is VITAL for the success of VIC2. As proof I would turn your attention to the results of the recently completed V84. I have never seen anything as blatant as these results and RTG publishes them as a "validated" WIN for the victors. I see two countries ran by the brothers/sisters of the winning team members and these countires have negative morale, treasury and minimal territory but they "survived" to turn 72. In the "old" days when people cared about appearances and RTG pretended to care about cheaters the Zombie countries dropped out about turn 69 so they did not turn up in the final statistics to cast shadows on the victors "integrity". Nowadays no one seams to care and its a standard part of the game with no apparent shame to the users of Zombie tactics..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess my question would be, what is to be done, if anything, about this issue? Should those players be dropped from the game in question? If so, what is the line that must be crossed for them to be eligible for being dropped? From RTG's point of view, by dropping players forcibly, especially before the players in question have lost all their territory (to use your example), could cause a lot of problems for RTG in lost revenue and potentially in future business. I do agree though that maybe once a player has lost their last ground force (air and naval forces do not count) they could then be forcibly dropped from the game. Until then, I just can't see them having a way of legitimizing the forcing out of a player. Maybe you have a better solution? What benchmarks would you propose setting for forcibly dropping a player from a game?

 

As for the efficacy of some players staying in the game to the end when some may argue they don't 'deserve' to be there, there are many examples of players doing things that are well out of bounds of what many would consider 'honorable' play. executing multiple FP, followed by DW in order to permanently take a player out of the action and probably force them out of the game is a perfect example IMO. Playing more than one nation in the same game under the guise that your wife, brother or some other person is playing the other position is an obvious one, but how do you truly prove such a thing? Switching nations in a game once your original position was defeated just so you can continue the fight against your 'mortal enemy' with from another position is borderline dishonorable play IMO as well. I;m sure there are many more examples that others may place in this category as well. The question is, what can or even should be done about it on RTG's end?

 

They allow many of these things to take place because 1) it's very hard to 'police' such situations, and 2) to not allow some of those things means a position will go unplayed and therefore unpaid for. Victory (and I assume Supernova as well) are both the beneficiaries and victims of a very dedicated/faithful, but ever shrinking core of people that play the games. New blood is rare and it is even more rare for them to stick with the games because of the games fairly steep learning curves. RTG cannot afford to police such issues, at least with too much zeal, or they will threaten the loss of those players business. Thoughts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Spongebob

I have a solution that would also protect the revenue side of the question. A new order - Government in exile (GIE) If a player loses his last city he is allowed to send in 1 final turn before being forced to drop. This turn would allow him to tie up loose ends and enter the GIE order. This order allows him to transfer his government to a TA. In doing so this allows the reciving player to enter an extra 10 orders per turn at the appropriate cost in real money if so desired no matter what turn the game is on.RTG thus maintains extra revenue, the player gets to do extra orders and all is well in the world. Also should the GIE nation be liberated at some point even by just 1 city then the original player can be offered the chance to return to the game. This would be a very good dynamic in play meaning there is an incentive for still supporting TA positions even when they are completly gone and for the conqurers to keep control of said nations. The reversal order is a simple CL order

 

Of course who would want multiple Denmarks as a GIE.... all those Sponges :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My initial reaction is that I actually really like this idea. To clarify, the only time when a nation can do this is if they have lost all their home cities or when they have lost the last city they control, home or occupied? As long as RTG can manage the logstics of allowing an extra 10 orders (per GIE) and charge them accordingly, I think this could work.

 

The only question (and it's a big one) is whether it's mandetory that they do this which goes back to the descussion above about RTG 'forcing' a player out of a game. Can a player instead decide to continue to do what many players do now and keep turning in turn sheets full on EM's and SIM-TC's? What's to stop them. Players without TA's or those TA's that are interested in the GIE would be stuck it seems.

 

I'd add the extra part to your idea that if a TA accepts the GIE, it only remains in affect as long as they remain TA'd to the nation that is a GIE. If the nation that his 'hosting' the GIE decides that they don't want to suffer the negatives of having a TA that will drag down their overall score, or for whatever reason they decide to break the TA, the GIE is effectively thrown out and the bonus 10 orders disappear. This is probably self evident though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Spongebob

It takes place when they have lost all cites, home and occupied. The player in question then has the next cycle to enter a final turn to tie up loose ends then they are forced out, can no longer play the game. However the receiving player of the GIE gets 10 extra orders per GIE they receive. Its not mandatory that they enter that final turn sheet but if they dont they are still forced to stop play and have no way of getting back into the game should any home cities be liberated. I would stress that to get back in the game its a home city that must be liberated. The receiving player get the option of extra orders but does not have to use them, they can still enter a set number of orders 30 / 60 / 90. I agree the GIE only remains in effect if the TA remains in place. I dont know how the scoring system works but I would also give extra points for accepting a GIE and keeping a GIE and ultimatly any liberated cities gain extra points. The incentive then is to keep your original TAs an free your oppressed TA.

 

I need to go and have a lie down now, all this being nice and good ideas is giving me a headache - Sponge out

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Spongebob

As a veteran of PBM, yes PBM games ie I started 30 years ago I must say that the subject of policing any game is impossible. There will always be shoddy practices and as a moderator of PBeM games RTG can only do so much. We as players should not focus on these practices and enjoy the game as best we can, if we are true to ourselves and play with honour in our own minds then that is all we can do. We can hold our head high and even when I lose every single game I enjoy the time playing no matter what takes place. I have only once been upset by the actions of another player in the past 5 or 6 years of playing at RTG so I think thats good going. We all know things go on that we may not agree with but if they are in within the managable rules of the game then we cannot really complain. RTG can and should limit they way play takes place by changing rules, updating rules and orders and ensure the game is in constant change as long as the change is for the better. Victory V1 is not a system easy to change but when V2 is ready I hope it changes and grows as time goes by and I for one hope to be losing to the rest of you for many years to come.

 

Wow that was profound, I am one step closer to Godhood!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like some of these ideas that spongebob and spartan have been bantering about...but what I am really concerned about and what I feel the biggest problem in victory these days is with people playing multiple positions. I am seeing in in just about every single game now...yes under the current set up it is a hard thing to prove but there is no doubt it is going on and there is no doubt that RTG is not going to police it in vic 1.

 

I know of 5 very good veteran players who have either left victory over the last year and a half or will leave when current games end because of this...

 

I don't know what the solution to this problem could be, maybe each position that is paid for requires a name with a valid mailing address or social security number...or something else since the european players don't have ss numbers. Clearly we can't rely on the integrity of each individual to police themselves or we wouldn't be having this problem...

 

Another issue I have is this: Since RTG was able to repair it's equipment to keep vic 1 operational is vic 2 even still actively being developed? I have not seen any kind of posting from rtg on updates or progress reports for a new game....

 

I love the game despite it's flaws and am ever hopeful for a newer better version...but I will say if things continue in the world of victory as we know it today we will continue to lose players faster than we bring them in until it becomes no longer worth playing....several people already feel that day has arrived as evidenced by their continued absence...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...