The New Victory

[brogan]

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..

 

You could build in a 10 turn expiration to any position that has lost its last home nation city. They need to have a TA liberate one city within 10 turns or they are removed from the game. That also allows "zombie" positions to aid their allies for 10 turns before dropping. It is kind of a middle road position but it may please players on both sides of the issue.

 

- Andy

[dageraad]

Idea for customisable tech's.

 

Keep the four that are in the game at the moment, but make a fifth one based on generic units.

These generic units are soewhat worse on average as the normal techs.

Now allow players to customize these units by a limited number of "Tech slots" and naming conventions.

Tech slots could be something like:

Advanced Air Tech (-10% TP)

Self-sealing fuel tanks (+10% AD)

Extended range (+1 range)

ATA weaponry (+10% ATA)

ATG weaponry (+15% ATG)

ATS Weaponry (+25% ATS)

SB (+50% SB)

Mass air production (-5% air points)

Jet engines (Req. for jet fighters and bombers later on in the game)

Rocket engines (Req for rocket planes, +5 ATA, +10 ATG from turn 40 onwards.

etc.

 

The example above is just an example, but what about the idea?

 

Generic fighters:

Mk 1 tp 1 Air points: 80 Range: 3 Ata: 20

Mk 2 tp10 Air points 100 Range: 4 Ata: 25

Mk 3 tp 19 Air points 120 Range 5 Ata: 30

 

Now the Bulgarian player chooses generic tech with the Tech picks Aerial Range and ATA Weaponry and bird like names.

Bulgarian fighters will be

Falcon Mk 1 tp 1 Air points: 80 Range: 4 Ata: 22

Falcon Mk 2 tp10 Air points 100 Range: 5 Ata: 28

Falcon Mk 3 tp 19 Air points 120 Range 6 Ata: 33

 

The Rumanian player decides on Advanced air tech, Mass Aircraft production and Rodent names and will get something like

Ferret Mk 1 tp 1 Air points: 76 Range: 3 Ata: 20

Ferret Mk 2 tp 9 Air points 95 Range: 4 Ata: 25

Ferret Mk 3 tp 17 Air points 114 Range 4 Ata: 30

[Spartan]

I think this is the most interesting and viable option that has been presented if there is ever going to any new tech's added to the game. Other existing potential nationalities like French and Italian are definitely too limiting because of their limited or non-existent units later on in the game. A Japanese tech would only be worth exploring and adding if there were changes made to the game that made navy's a more viable/comparable (survivable units versus air!) option like armies and air forces currently are. The Japanese navy and their air force to a lesser extent were the only forces that could stand up to the other techs in large scale land focused combat, especially later in the game, and especially be effective as offensive forces. Japan's army simply wouldn't have stacked up in open field battles against the Russian or the German tech especially, but also the U.S. and British later.

 

The above idea has a lot of promise and is worth investigating further. One thing that I would think would have to be addressed is other players access to the stats of the players current forces at the very least. I know that in the earlier days of Victory, there was some degree of a 'fog of war' when it came to knowing all the units a tech had access to and their stats because not all the tech packs were available to players ahead of time. I was the same with nation set-ups BTW.

 

Now though, as a matter of 'fairness', the units available to/developed by a player using this 'generic' tech would have to be made public to all players. I'm not sure how that would be done though. How for example would spying work on such units? The info could potentially be fairly unhelpful if you only knew the generic initial stats of the units you had 'spied.'

 

Any thoughts on such issues?

[dageraad]

The generic unit list would be public, while the tech slots would be hidden. A succesfull EM TECH mission would give a random tech slot of the nation spied upon.

And a lot of data could be gained by datamining the combat results.

 

We we started none of the techs were public knowledge. We were shocked to find how good the T-34 was and just as shocked at the performance of the Sturmovik.

 

Choosing the Generic list should guarantee a balanced bunch of units. But it would be my intention not to surpass the strongest units of the four classical lists. The Russian tech is very dependent on its T-34, so let the Russians have the tech that has the best tank in TP 17. Same for the Spitfire MkV, Ju-88 and late war American fighters.

[dageraad]

Proposal:

 

This map of southern Greenland bridges the enormous gap between the northern part of Canada and Iceland.

It is occupied Danish territory and starts with 26 population, divided over some 3 and a lot of 1 cities. It has a small surplus production of coal and food (fish)

 

Greenland will create an extra "bridge" between Canada, the USA and Europe, It is inhospitable, mostly mountain and arctic

It will give Denmark some diplomatic leverage

[smedleythebarbarian]

Great map

My only concern is that turn 3, every game, Icelandic Marines will land

Might as well make it Icelandic territory from the start to make Iceland more viable.

Or make it a independant country.

[Guest Spongebob]

What no mention of Spongistan? I will hunt down the dog who thought up this blasphamous concept - Unless? Maybe? This is the picture of The Spongistanian Confederation - yes, finally a true meaning of the Confederacy. Greater Spongistan is no longer enough - we must set our sights higher, aim for greatness not greater.

 

Today Spongistan - Tomorrow - THE WORLD!!!!

 

Murrrraaaghhhhh!!!!!

Murrrraaaghhhhh!!!!!

Murrrraaaghhhhh!!!!!

Murrrraaaghhhhh!!!!!

[Inspector Gadget]

I do REALLY like the idea of there being 'something' in between North America and Europe. I would argue though that making it an independent nation/position is really the only viable way to go.

 

A few possible reasons for this being enacted would be the following:

1) North America is no longer more or less isolated from the heart of the action like they have been up until now for such a significant portion of the game.

2) There is yet another whole theater of action that does not necessarily have to be Europe centered.

3) Victory conditions-wise, Canada, the USA and even Iceland are not doomed to a supporting or Johnny-come-lately role like they have been in past games.

4) It would be yet another opportunity to open up the naval option to further combat possibilities.

 

Of course such a position, or the ones I'm mentioning below, are fictitious, but then so are most of the positions in the current game.

 

I've even thought that maybe it would be worth looking into a similar idea of adding positions in the Mid-East and Africa. Specifically a Yemeni position (maybe two in that area) and also a position (or two) that would run along the African coast from the south eastern tip of Egypt to the tip of the Horn of Africa in Somalia. Call it (or them) Sudan or Ethiopia or whatever. The idea being to liven up the Mid-East region and make it a bit more dynamic than it already is. Right now, it is FAR too common for half the positions to be dropped early on for one reason of another. Maybe this or a similar idea would help to liven up and produce a lasting multifaceted struggle in the Mid-East and not just a mad rush to consolidate the position there so yet another mad rush can be made to get to the center of Europe. Just a thought. What do you all think?

[dageraad]

If you make Greenland independent it would add a vast amount of desirable targets and an undefendable long coastline. As designed it is an option, an alternative to the direct route. If Greenland were a true country it would need an "inland" that is better defendable, and you would need a country to the south of the USA to balance the DIplomacy.

 

I would not add a 41st country so fast. More countries means slower starting games and extra countries do not make a better game as such. The Greenland extension is intended to improve the playability of existing countries. An independent Greenland could easily lead to a situation that a war between the USA and Canada will allways be decided by who has TA'd Greenland.

 

You could however make Greenland occupied Icelandic territory, but you'd have to reduce some of the stockpiles and excess starting population of that nation to compensate. It would give the Icelanders something to do in the first 10 turns while waiting for the LSM's.

 

And there are a few reasons for Iceland not to invade in turn 3:

- Denmark Strait (between Greenland and Iceland) is not a restricted sea zone.

- The ore you're after lies scattered around the place in a lot of -small- stockpiles. You will really have to work to get it. And if Denmark would make life miserable for you, it would probably be gathered in the last city you occupy.

- If you offer Denmark some ore & CP he probably would gladly trade the coal with you.

 

About Yemen: I have thought about it. If there were a 41 st country it would have to be Yemen, Southern USA or something in Western Africa. Aside for making it a 41 country I do not see how it can strengthen the role of the UAE, as being at the perifery of the map with enough petrol and having only one neighbour has its advantages too. I do think the Middle East has some problems. Most important one would be that it is to easily dominated by one TA in the first half of the game. (Like in 87, 89 and 91)

 

If you add countries, you also have to consider eliminating a few. Options are:

- Scrapping the UAE. it is about the only country that you can delete with almost no consequences for the balance of the game. And without the UAE, no need for Yemen.

- Uniting Switzerland and Austria into the Alpine federation.

- Make Iceland a Danish Colony (Which it was)

That would free up space for, lets say, Mauretania, Greenland and Southern USA (with Cuba as a colony).

 

You could balance the Atlantic ocean by adding Brazil (Recife) but that is WAAAY to the south.

[Inspector Gadget]

GREENLAND

Danish Control: The issue that I think would arise from that is Denmark would be very hard pressed to split his attentions to both locations. If he doesn’t make the right friends, his route to Greenland could be easily compromised. Greenland would have to be considered ‘home territory’ in order for him to have even a chance of defending it, but this would only open up a number of other problems.

 

He’d need adequate resources and factories there, or at least the ability to build them there (CP), in order to have a chance to defend it. This would mean that Denmark’s starting stockpiles, factories and armies would have to be split between Denmark and Greenland. This would of course weaken his core home territories position. I’m also concerned that Greenland would become an exaggerated version of Kuwait, except worse. It would be a relatively, or maybe even a very easy target for nations like Iceland and Canada. Denmark would be forced to spend a lot of his treasury defending a position that may be close to un-defendable. He’d also be placed in a long term losing proposition in that losing that ‘home’ territory in Greenland would seriously compromise one or more of his potential victory conditions.

 

Icelandic Control: Iceland would be exposed to the same issues that Denmark would, but to a much lesser degree. It could be argued though that Iceland could actually overcome those negatives and actually benefit from Greenland being a part of his nation. Maybe Greenland could even be designated ‘occupied’ or ‘neutral’ territory if Iceland owned it since his access to it would be much easier than if Denmark owned it.

 

Greenland’s ‘Defendability’: Maybe the answer here is simply to make it smaller. Do not give it such a long coast. I know this would limit it’s orientation to North America and Europe, but it is another option none the less. Then again, Norway already faces a very similar problem, but that same thin line of territory also shares a long border with another nation. A double whammy in many peoples opinion.

 

An Independent 'Playable' Greenland: I still think this can be a viable position. Maybe it could be helped by that shorter coast line.

 

Greenland as ‘unoccupied’ territory: Another option is to place Greenland there more or less as you illustrated it in your map, BUT make it all unoccupied ‘neutral’ territory, not owned by anyone. Maybe that would be another option. It could very well encourage war between Iceland and one or both nations in North America, give them an easier opportunity to acquire land and engage in land combat. Both possibilities would increase the opportunity of those nations to compete in victory condition categories that they usually have a hard time doing. It would also mean that they don’t have to wait until they get to Europe in order to ‘mix it up.’

[Inspector Gadget]

As for the proposed dilemma that adding positions to a game that already has issues filling the existing positions, I firmly believe that if RTG can make the right changes/additions to the game they will actually acquire new AND returning players. If making a new and improved version does not add and bring back players, then maybe it's a waste of time and effort to make a new version in the first place. The process is already going to take a LONG time and require A LOT of work on RTG's (Russ's) part. There really needs to be a greater pay-off/return on such an investment on their part other than only the remaining players heightened enjoyment (hopefully).

[dageraad]

At some time in the future Victory will have to be changed to another platform.

As the code of victory is complex and relatively inaccessable, that would probably means backwards engineering or emulating.

A year and a half ago we all had a wakeup call when the server crashed. I have no idea if that could happen again or that any amount of work has been done on the fixes that were announced, like Night fighter cover. That makes me worried about the long term future of this hobby.

 

There are a lot of good ideas over here and a lot of good comments. It should be possible to backwards engineer the whole of the engine, export it to a LAMP platform, test it and mail the whole project to RTG with a wrapper and a request to take care of it and charge a reasonable fee.

[Spartan]

I also fear that the likelihood of a new game is not something I'd want to bet my life on.

[Earthling]

The addition of Greenland territory is a cool idea, but I am not sure that it would be so well suited to being a full fledged position. Unoccupied territory waiting to be conquered is an interesting concept, but how that would work? Would the resource production keep piling up until someone attacks and possibly finds a jackpot of stockpiles? Would any starting industries produce as well, creating stockpiles of conquerable materials? This type of territory could be added in several locations ~ Central Africa to name one. I know that Dageraad was suggesting this to make Iceland more playable (probable because of your experience in game 89?), but why not look at improving the game all around instead of just one position?

 

I like the idea of adding positions to the game, especially a Pacific Theatre with Japan, Western USA (w/ Hawaii & Alaska), Southern USA, Mexico, Western Canada, several South American positions possibly with British Colonies added to the British set-up, Western Russia, North/South China, Siam, Vietnam, Korea, Philippines, etc......15-25 more positions could easily be added along with 3 other Tech Packages including Japananese, Chinese and Dag's Generic Tech Pack. Obviously the Naval problems need to be addressed despeartley for this to work out for game balance, but this would certainly draw some attention to past players as well as new ones. One of the major drawbacks would certainly be setting up a game w/50+ players needed for all the starting positions.

[Earthling]

I also fear that the likelihood of a new game is not something I'd want to bet my life on.

Agreed, unless someone with some disposable capital is willing to dump into such a project.