The New Victory

[Spartan]

- 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.

 

- 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.

 

Easy and practical... i like this.

 

I like the idea of ground units without enough GEN automatically drawing enough so that it won't take any damage and drawing that GEN after air units draw their GEN.

 

On the topic of having newly built units automatically being given enough GEN (I assume from your stockpile?) to get it by for one turn. The problem with the above reasoning though is that that newly built unit could be involved in combat before your next turn if it's attacked. Not that this necessarily matters, but it's just a point to remember. Then again, whether you SDG that unit on the turn it's built or on the next when you can actively use it, you'll still need to spend the order one way or the other. You're just postponing the inevitable.

[Spartan]

Russ,

 

Any update on some of the basic themes or major changes you have established for the Vic2????

 

My basic wish list is some sort of Strategic movement option allowing units to triple or quadruple their movement rates when taking road movement exclusively through controlled provinces. For instance the German could radidly shift armoured and infantry divisions from Poland to the French border using the Autobohn and did not have to stop and dismount in fear of the enemy being "just over the next hill" as they would when moving into an enemy controlled province.

 

An the BIG change is airdrops issues. The middle and end of the game has currently degeneratied into nothing but a "snipers shooting range" as players with air superiory have the ability to land 2 divisions of Airborne troops DEEP into your territory and take out your airbases, FC routes, and AIC hubs. The defender has to keep massive levels of his army gaurding his AIC net, FC routes, and Airbases just to be able to keep his front line troops from being totaly obliterated by the enemy with air superiority. I find my end game has become being put under total seige around my AIC net city with fighter bases just because the enemy airborne can take them out at will if I do not have them defended to the hilt.

 

I would hope the rules might address some some issues like "what is the value of an infantry division?, not much point in building them as far as I can see. Why do obsolete planes like the B-18 exist at the end of the game but most players don't waste the effort to upgrade them.

 

And the Il-2 Shurtmovik. the most widely produced plane of the war has negligble value in this game. You have to station it up close to the front lives where it is susciptible being overun and destroyed so most players ue it in mountain regions only. Can't the rules make this plane a valuable asset?

 

On the topic of short range TAS dedicated planes and a few other related topics I have this idea:

 

There are a number of types of planes that are rarely if ever used because they are too expensive for the 'stats' (range!) you get out of them.

A) Decrease the cost of short range tactical strike planes substantially, most likely by

1/2. This should be done to compensate for their very short range in comparison

to MB’s that are currently FAR more appealing because of their expanded usability

(once again, most notably because of their greater range):

Russian: PE-2, IL-2, IL-2 M3, PE-2 VK, IL-10

German: HS-123A1, JU-87B1, JU-87D-1, HS-129B-2, JU-87G-1

American: N/A

British: Battle

B ) Decrease the cost of HB's by at least 1/3 and maybe even 1/2. At this point in the

game they are simply not used when there are MB's that can accomplish the same

task, albeit with a bit less power, and do TAS's as well. Let's make the investment

in planes that specialize in strategic bombing a much more viable option.

C) Decrease the cost oh HTB by 1/2. They are a very specialized plane that I am

guessing rarely gets built because, although they do introduce a new type of attack

on the ships being targeted (Trp), MB are once again being used instead because

they've already been built and can on the very next turn do a TAS or a SB mission if

necessary.

[Spartan]

Another idea is related to the endless debate about the basing requirements of fighters (and while we're at it, the short range TAS planes I mentioned in my last post).

 

The decision to choose many of the planes at a nations disposal and or the decision of

how many to build is currently greatly affected by the plane's range. The shorter the

planes range, whether it be a F or the planes I listed above, the more likely it will have to

be moved in order to keep up with the ground forces it is either protecting or attacking.

Building new bases every few turn for the same air forces simply in order to 'keep up'

becomes VERY costly and that is another reason the TAS focused planes listed above

are so unappealing. There are two possible solutions. Either one or both could possibly

be implemented.

A) Decrease the basing requirements of F, and all the planes listed above in the last post

to 0.5. This will also help to address that endlessly contentious argument that F's, for

example, didn't need prepared/paved airfields and therefore their basing requirements

should be less. If you do this I realize it may make sense to also decrease the basing

requirements of planes such as TR, LR, S (0.25) and then decrease also the SF,

SDB, & STB (0.1) for the sake or 'parity'. Aircraft carriers would then have to have

their 'Aircraft Capacity Rating' adjusted as well I guess.

B ) Decrease the cost of bases to 2 CP per level.

 

Although the first one would require a little bit more altering of current values, it shouldn't require any real programming changes to the game and would speak more directly to the issue of fighters and other similar planes having fewer basing needs compared to larger planes, most notably bombers. The second option would give all planes a pass and I don't think that is necessarily the most 'realistic' option, based on the complaints to date about the differences between large and small planes basing needs.

 

In the end these ideas are all offered in an effort to expand, first the playability of many of the air units in the game, but also increase the likelihood that they will be built and used in the first place, or at least more often. Not to massage anyone's ideas of what's more or less 'realistic or 'historical'.

[Spartan]

A few other possible 'air power' related ideas:

 

1) Much as I (and others) love it and use it endlessly, I'd also get rid of the 'glitch' in the program that allows players to submit multiple TAS orders for the same air force in the same turn. That alone would increase the likelihood that the Strike Recon mission will be used more often. I realize that SR can be less dependable, but maybe that fact would help to address the seemingly popularly held opinion that air power (specifically TAS power) is too powerful. If you can't as easily find a ground force, then you can't as easily wreak havoc on it.

 

It would also hopefully increase the use of TR and LR by players on the previous turn and then better track enemy ground forces turn by turn, and by your allies that run right before you, but after your enemy so they can locate his forces so you will know exactly where to send your TAS's on your next turn, and you can of course do the same for your allies.

 

2) I feel pretty strongly about this one. I'd significantly increase the ATA effectiveness/results of fighters versus non-fighters during FC and INT missions. Unescorted bombers, for example, should suffer much more than they currently do from a lack of FE. This change would increase how often and how many fighters are built throughout the game by each nation, and also decrease the devastation of TAS against ground forces that so many complain about. This would also serve once again to please those that are calling for a more realistic/historical experience while at the same time simply balancing out the playability and balance of the game a bit.

 

3) Allow nations to fly fighter cover over their TA's troops!

 

4) If you really want to decrease the effectiveness of air power overall, here's an alternative idea. Just decrease the number of groups allowed in a force from 25 to something less than that like 10-15. Personally, I’m not sure I like this idea, but some might. If you’re going to go this route, I think it might be advisable to decrease the cost of each air base level as well, to maybe 2 or 3 CP each.

 

5) Some have mentioned decreasing the size of the individual air groups, maybe decreasing them by half, in order to make carrier based air groups a bit more useful. This may make things more interesting, although you’d probably need to address the subject of lowering the cost of those air groups proportionally as well.

 

6) Tactical Air Strikes and Maritime Strikes should be more effective if Strike Recon is used before hand to locate a target instead of giving what many could argue is in affect a 'blind' TAS or MS mission by an air force.

 

Just a few ideas. Some better than others I'm sure. What do you all think?

[Rednas]

Hi Russ, fellow gamers,

 

I did send in January 2010 a list with 26 points / thoughts / proposals to Russ, not just worked out by me alone I have to mention, for Victory 2, after the great game crash.

 

My question is: what is the current status of VIC2? Is there any target date set that it will be launched or a trial version at least?

 

I personally also very fond of at least a Japanese Tech, and I am also willing and able to propose some troops, planes and ships. The only difficulty could be the gigantic map, with all that water and islands. Then 40 players are not enough anymore. More countries are “needed”, beside Japan for instance Australia, China, Philippines, India, Netherlands-East Indies, Malaysia, Indo-China, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.

 

Also the Lend-Lease aspect could be taken in account.

 

Maybe also some units, tech from other major nations that played a certain part in the war. Like France and Italy, but they only played till 1940 resp. 1943 a small role. But both their navies were relatively big, the Italians developed good air planes even after the armistice in 1943.

 

As I said, just some ideas.

 

Greetings Rednas.

[Inspector Gadget]

Any updates on the progress of the next version of Victory? Any info would be great to hear. Thanks!

[Inspector Gadget]

Another idea for the new game that is not in the current one. To the best of my knowledge, there is currently NO way to look at a sea zone with planes and see any naval forces that you are not at war with that are sitting (floating) there. Unless the naval force moves into the sea zone, there is no way to detect/see a naval force that you are not at war with. Of course, even if you're at war with the nation's naval force, unless you're doing an attack action, you still cannot do an action that merely sees what is in the sea zone. AMP only detects and reports naval forces that are moving INTO the sea zone. Hardly helpful if you want to see what's already there.

 

Based on this, non-enemy naval forces are effectively invisible to recon planes in they are sitting in or doing a mission in a sea zone that does not require them to enter it from another sea zone. No that is just silly. If I'm missing something please let me know.

[smedleythebarbarian]

Why not introduce a new nation - Greenland

Theres room on the map

It gives the US/Canada/Iceland a lot more options

And the great leap across the ocean woulodn't have to be as great

[Spartan]

I think this is actually a very good idea that at the very least deserves a lot more investigation. Some may argue that Greenland was never an autonomous nation, but then again neither was UAE. I think having Greenland as a playable nation would really add a lot to that region. It would actually give all the nations you mentioned, including Greenland the opportunity to engage other enemies and conquer territory without having to go all the way to Europe to do so. Very intriguing. I had actually never thought of that, although I had always thought that maybe the Middle East would be a more dynamic place if there was a Sudan and or Yemen included. Some may argue that at least in the case of including Yemen, Saudi Arabia would get really pinched by nations that have little or no other options but to attack him. Maybe inserting Sudan and Yemen would counteract that to some degree and if Sudan's home territory was attached to both Egypt and Libya this would also expand the possibilities in North Africa. Adding these nations and Greenland would help to minimize the incessant pull towards the center of Europe, or at the very least delay it significantly. Just a few thoughts. Again, good idea.

[dageraad]

A lot of good ideas on this forum. A few questions:

 

- is it possible to add new locations to the map file?

 

The idea of adding Greenland is a good one. Even if it is only a neutral country (under Danish occupation) with very few populatiion.

It will be a perfect location to transfer planes to the east and the rail will help diminish shipping cost.

 

 

- is it possible to change the tech packs and add a 5th or 6th nationality?

 

If yes, i'd like to go over the nations systematically with a forum of experts on the matter to make each tech pack more fun.

 

- is it possiple to run each nation order after order?

If it can be done, we could try to change the way the turns are processed. All players would have to turn in their moves before a certain moment and all turns are run simultaniously.

Order of turns should be: (order/country)

1/1

1/2

1/3

....

1/40

2/1

2/2, etc.

To balance the game you would have to add information like:

automatic SIM POL on each territory bordering on an army or fleet you own and low elvel EM 's on the same territories.

this would solve a major problem with the game: time management. I don't mind spening a lot of hours making a turn.

I do mind if this means I have to work halfway through the night because the information I need only arrives with the turn results of an ally and my turn has to go out for a certain moment because an other ally relies on the turn results.

[Guest Spongebob]

I like the idea of Greenland being mine, ie Danish but on a more serious note, i know dont pass out. Order processing.

If your going to have simultanious processing the every order has to be part of an order sequence.

 

EG all MGF orders then all MGFS orders etc.

 

This would mean an even playing field and the only random part would which nation goes first.

 

Now this would be harder to program I think and if code has been done then harder still to convert. I have done it myself and it works. in VB6 i called each order as part of a sub while the main was the order sequence.

 

It also allows for skill sets to be introduced, EG some generals give a better chance of appearing earlier in the randon part of the sequence and previous turns results could also allow for some slight advantages.

 

Anyway its all upto the Russmeister and progress on any new version is in his hands so we must wait but would be nice for an update, Russ you listening brother???

 

Normal Sponge will be back soon.... Murrrraghhhhhh!!!!!

[Mickey]

To actually make ships and shipboard aircraft worth something: remove all Maritime Damage values from MB's, HGA, HDB, HB and other 40+ planes/group attack craft. Make all land-based HTB and other groups meant for sea-combat same size as shipboard groups (max 20 aircraft per group).

 

The MB (and HDB) is atm way too versatile, pressing all other aircraft (except F, recon and HT) out of business as well as making fleets and especially fleet carriers way too vulnerable for their cost (anyone ever tried FC with SF against land-based bombers? Liked the result?) Removing the maritine strike from the big land-based groups clears the field for navy and naval aircraft to play their role again as something else than just (amphib) transport and CB-vehicles.

[Spartan]

Mickey - I think that your idea is yet another interesting and positive attempt to not only reign in the irrational power of some air units, but also to make certain other air units more viable/useful options. I presented ideas of my own above on this same page of the forum on how to alter the air aspect of the game in order to make certain planes more viable choices as well.

 

Dageraad and Spongebob - While I do agree that there are some very important issues with and viable solutions to the way turns are currently submitted and processed, I unfortunately don't think the idea you have proposed is within the realm of possibility for a game like Victory. While I know it works in a game like Supernova, the two games structure and dynamics could not be any different I believe. Enacting such a turn structure would make doing turns a nightmare, trying to account for all the possible contingencies action by action. If you think it's hard to coordinate not only your own nations actions, but those of your allies now, just imagine trying to do it under that system. Both espionage and aerial recon would be almost useless and coordinating attacks and other actions with your allies against a common enemy would be beyond chaotic and undependable.

 

I guess my question is this. What would instituting such a turn processing system improve in Victory? Wouldn't it change the turn by turn mechanics of Victory so drastically that it would very likely be nothing like the current game?

 

I'd argue that ideally, Victory 2 should be the same game as Victory 1 at it's core, but there should be many changes that will improve on the original game. Those changes would include tweaking existing rules and mechanics of the game, discarding and adding others, and possibly throwing in a few brand new things like new units and nations. In the end though, I hope it's still basically the same game, but with much needed improvements. Will they possibly mean we'll be playing a much different game in reaction to those changes? Very likely. Hey, even a change like reducing the amount AIR factories produce had a significant affect on the game, but it's still the same game. Just a few thoughts. What do you all think?

[Mickey]

What i think?

 

I think that V-2 will never come into being as it's too much work to completely write it from scratch and Russ has said on many occasion he doesn't master the old code V-1 is written in. For this reason i would hope for a V-1.1 (actually a V-1.2 as V-1.1 already came into being with the air factory output change which significantly altered the balance of the game - and for the better i will add) meaning that most likely things like adding Greenland will be very the limit of what cane be done next to tweaking units and missions/orders. Things like a totally different turn sequencing protocol will not be in the cards (nor do i think it's needed) but altering values/traits can already give significant improvements.

 

I remember the old games where Denmark didn't have ferries or additional SHIP, where Switzerland only had 5 turns of food supply and Algeria produced 10 Ju-88's per turn in turn 10. A lot of improvements to the playability have already been made by simple tweaking, and i think a lot of the current issues, particularly the out-of-whack cost-to-effectiveness ratio between aircraft and ships, can be remedied with a few simple value changes and some order callibration. However, i must admit i'm kind of reluctant to do a deep-dive into it without any signal from RTG that they are indeed contemplating a V-1.2 in the foreseeable future.

 

My $0,02.

[Mickey]

repost?