The New Victory

[Spartan]

OK, here goes. I'd REALLY like to get some feedback on these ideas if possible. Thanks!

 

 

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.

 

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 that are at a nation’s 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 turns 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 , minus the HB, to 0.5. This will also help to address that endlessly contentious argument that says 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 (DB, GA, etc.) having fewer basing needs compared to larger planes, most notably MB’s and HB’s. 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'.

 

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

 

3) 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 or 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.

 

4) 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.

 

5) 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.

 

6) Develop an order that allows air units to locate/spot naval forces in a sea zone that are just sitting there and or doing a mission in a specific sea zone like NMI. Currently, unless a naval force enters a sea zone, it is IMPOSSIBLE to see the naval force with air units if all you want to do is recon. This is especially irritating if you are not currently at war with a nation. They could have a million ships in a sea zone, but if they're just sitting there, for example on NMI, it is IMPOSSIBLE to see them. They are INVISIBLE! If I'm wrong about this just let me know.

 

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

[Spartan]

As for the idea that there may or may not in fact be a Victory 2 in the future, my understanding, limited as it may be, is that Russ is (at least in theory) building the new version using a newer/current programming code. He is only one man though and I do agree that it is up to debate how long if ever such a project would take. I know that there are numerous professional programmers that play Victory that had offered to help Russ, both when the game 'crashed' and when he talked about making a new version of the game. It's never been confirmed publicly whether any of those offers were ever accepted or if the work had ever seriously begun on the new Victory. An update from Russ would be great to hear.

[Hamish]

I agree with most of your points Spartan and Mickey. MBs are way too powerful because of their versatility, range and the damage they can do to an army or air base. Other aircraft are just not worth building most of the time because they achieve too little in comparison to MBs.

I think the best way to go about changing this would be to make the Intercept and Fighter Cover missions much more effective. I find it unbelievable that if 1440 I-16 intercept 346 B-18A without escort, they shoot down only 87 and the TAS continues (I have a battle report of this). Once MB air forces are 13 groups or more, they are effectively unstoppable. Sure, you do a lot of damage, but if the MBs target the air base where the fighters are located, they may do more damage in the end. I think 2 fighters per bomber should be enough to stop the raid from continuing, 3 if they are bad fighters like the I-16 from the example, but in the example there were 4 times more fighters than bombers, and still only a thrid of the bombers was shot down.

[Mickey]

As for the idea that there may or may not in fact be a Victory 2 in the future, my understanding, limited as it may be, is that Russ is (at least in theory) building the new version using a newer/current programming code. He is only one man though and I do agree that it is up to debate how long if ever such a project would take. I know that there are numerous professional programmers that play Victory that had offered to help Russ, both when the game 'crashed' and when he talked about making a new version of the game. It's never been confirmed publicly whether any of those offers were ever accepted or if the work had ever seriously begun on the new Victory. An update from Russ would be great to hear.

 

I already see turns coming back from Russ after his midnight hour, so he has his hands full with just the regular work. Unless there are some hidden anonimous programmers at work i don't see the development being under steam as i don't see him dropping his paid day- (and night-) work to develop a new game. Ergo: tweaks before overhauls.

[Spartan]

Hamish - I agree with your comments. For some reason I had wimped out and neglected to include one of my original comments that addressed the same issue. Here it is:

 

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.

 

There are two concerns I have with this idea though, 1) the scales may be tipped too far in the favor of fighters and then bombers of any kind will become too vulnerable to them. Fighters are pretty cheap compared to bombers. 2) This solution alone would only further marginalize the usefulness of HB and GE, DB and other smaller short range planes that are already rarely used.

 

Either way, this is definitely a conversation worth having. Sharing ideas that can then be discussed and hopefully fine tuned.

 

Micky - I fear you may be right on all your points. For that reason, I think it is far more realistic to as you noted to focus on tweaking the existing game rather than starting from scratch on a game that may never come to fruition. Again, Some updates from Russ on the progress (or the lack thereof) would be much appreciated.

[Hamish]

About your concerns:

1. I think that will not really be a problem. Fighters are useless for anything else when they are on INT or FC missions. So if you build too many fighters, you're safe from attack, but you can't attack anyone else either. If everyone builds fighters and not bombers, everybody is wasting AIR. The question is always going to be if you can afford to build bombers.
   
2. I agree that the use of other plane types should be stimulated, but I personally think that fighters are the way to go to neutralize the MB superiority. The use of other aircraft should be stimulated in other ways, for example by reducing or removing the ability of MBs to perform maritime strikes, increasing the effectiveness of strategic bombing.
   

As far as I know, Russ didn't do much (if any) of the coding for the current version of Victory! but maybe I am just assuming because he didn't do any on the order entry program.

[Glamdring]

Lots of interesting ideas in this mix.

 

I still remain fixated on eliminating the "sniper attacks" that are occuring with airborne units. I decline to play in VIC2 if my opponet can still launch an airborne strike on my airbase in say xMoscow with an AIR40 from a remote airbase in England.

 

 

Other thoughts:

 

 

Upgrades

1. What does an upgrade of an air unit really mean?
   

Does it mean old planes are scrapped and new ones introduced? This should then cost as much as a new unit. ALL you save economically is some pilot training. I would suggest UAU be deleted. Thhe DRA order must be modified and a new variable entered into the mix. Old planes die and are replaced with new planes of the "best" type currently available or specfied by the user. I think this concept could also be expanded to ground units.

 

 

 

 

2. UNU

 

This works well in t he game BUT.....there is a time issue invoved. Should not a ship sit in the shipyard 3 or 6 or 12 months while the upgrade takes place? For that matter why is a BB or any ship get put into use the next turn after you place the order for it. I would suggest a time delay be used in the VIC2, sort of a modified ANTS situation. BB and CV's take appear at the shipyard 1 year after the orders are place. CA's in 9 months, dd's and subs in 6 months, etc.....

 

Should not ships being upgrade or produced also be susciptible to air attacks. I think ship construction should further be slowed or suppressed in some fasion by aerial attacks.

 

 

 

3. Grounhd Units need attack and defense strengths. A units should never be totally eliminated by air strikes and should always be able to defend a province in some capacity. However, I can certainly see that a ground units s offensive ability can be destroyed or suppressed by airpower.

 

 

 

4. I think the answer to the balance between the cost of naval units and the cheapness and effectiveness of naval units lies in making the Naval Units VERY hard to find. Naval units at sea are so hard to locate that ground based air strikes should be severly degraded in their power. Conversly carrier based airstrikes should be upgraded in power and/or search capability because they occur in fairly close proximity to the opponets naval forces.

 

 

5. As I re-read my comments I note that I have used the word "suppression" in many cases. Perhaps the imbalance I percieve with airpower can be fixed by the concept of "suppresion" instead of elimination. A mix of the two concepts would make airpower a more balanced in the game. Perhaps Strategic and Medium bombers could suppress and the little used ground attack bombers like the PE-2, JU-87. and IL-2 etc...acctually eliminate enemy units/ attack strengths.

 

The current game works well however for air stikes against stationary enemy units in Ports but should not AA stregths be MUCH more potent in a port?

[Spartan]

I like the idea of taking away the MS ability of MB's and HB's. I think this would go a long way to limiting the degree to which navy's are currently threatened by overwhelming (and unrealistic) air attacks. I don't think the change will put anyone at a new found disadvantage and I can only assume making the change would very easy for Russ.

This would mean that all ship borne planes would have MS along with F, HF, TR, LR, S, DB, HDB, HTB, GA, HGA, would have the MS ability. I do think for the sake of game and tech balance, a few specific HGA and HDB's (not all) should have their plane 'type' re-designated to or just have their MS ability 'revoked.' The JU-88A-4 is the most glaring example, but there are a few U.S. (B-25G, B-25H, A-26B) that should also definitely by re-designated as well. They are just as deadly and useful (and popular) as the JU-88A-4 for both TAS and MS.

 

The problem I see with only taking away the MS ability of the planes listed above and possibly increasing the effectiveness of fighters on INT and FC is that this will do little or nothing to increase the likelihood that players will invest more in the shorter range GA, DB, etc. or even HB. Especially if they do not face a significant naval threat. In fact, it will only serve to increase the likelihood that they will avoid them unless some other changes are made to make them more tempting to buy. That could be a reduction in their cost as I noted in my previous post, a decrease in their base usage (along with fighters), again as I noted in my previous post, or both.

 

The good thing about these possible changes is that they would not require a totally revamped Victory rebuilt from the ground up. They are all changes that could be made in much the same way as the air factory change was made. By simply altering a few values in the units profile. Heck, there are many changes that could be made to the game that people have proposed that would require the same level of tweaking.

 

As for Russ' current efforts in the Victory 2 arena, I do agree that even if he could complete it, it would probably take years, assuming he's on his own. He is working on it from what I've heard, but I can only assume progress is very slow overall. I really do think that a new Victory game that acts as a kind of bridge to the potential future Victory 2 is what is needed. One that uses the current game (code and all), but with the types of changes we've been discussing that could pretty easily be made without a lot of work once it was decided what exactly was going to be 'altered' to improve the games play.

[Spartan]

These are all interesting insights, but even if there is a ‘Victory 2’ that is truly new from top to bottom (code and all), it must be remembered that as Russ often says in such conversations, this is game and not real life. While the game obviously attempts to capture the realism of war in Europe on a grand scale during WW2, it can never capture all aspects of that reality and for the sake of game balance and playability, there are many aspects of the game that are not wholly ‘realistic’ as I’m sure we’ve all noticed. Otherwise, the game could be endlessly picked apart and criticized for its lack of realism.

 

As for your specific points, unfortunately, I think that some of them along with others I’ve seen make an attempt to delve too deeply into the minutiae of what might make the game more ‘realistic.’ For example, the idea of extending the time necessary to upgrade or build a ship may be more realistic, but it would cripple any nation for whom having a navy, especially a sizable one, is crucial. Those nations are already at a significant disadvantage in that navy’s are not only extremely expensive to build and costly to maintain (fuel!), they are also very vulnerable to air. All those things are of course realistic, but do nothing for game balance. Whether a player chooses to focus on ground, air or naval forces, there should be some semblance of balance to each option, assuming of course a player makes the right choices of the specific units he decides to build and use. As for the idea of allowing air attacks on ships that are in the process of being built, this would only further exacerbate the already daunting disadvantages of ‘going naval’ in Victory.

 

I do like the idea of making the finding and therefore the striking of naval forces by air much more difficult. This could definitely help to balance the scales between naval and air units. In fairness though, the fact is that while it was very difficult to find single ships and very small groups, finding larger naval forces was not all that difficult at all, at least in the European theater. In the Pacific, you are dealing with much larger expanses of ocean and therefore even large naval forces could be hard to pinpoint and then attack.

 

A ground units offensive as well as its defensive capabilities can be effectively destroyed by airpower, especially if caught not in defensive/fortified position and even if you can argue that there would still be some portion of the ground unit that could avoid total destruction by the air, again there is a line beyond which the game cannot cross in trying to attain realism in all aspects. Remember, the game and the battles more or less take place on a grand scale and there needs to be the potential for finality in each combat it would seem to me.

 

Finally, on the topic of airborne attacks, I do agree that it can be extremely frustrating to see an enemy drop a Russian Air 40r for example deep inside your territory on what could only be called a suicide mission since there is no hope of them being relieved. I guess it could be argued though that the remnants of the airborne force simply melt into the interior with the partisans so it's not quite a 'suicide mission.' The only solution I see off the top of my head is to either cut the range transports can carry airborne forces, but not for other missions (somewhat arbitrary) and or make transports count within the air portion of the ANTS system. Currently they’re free. I realize the last idea would do little or nothing to remedy the scenario you posited, but it should probably be done none the less to reign the purchase of transports if and when a nation has enough air points to build their full quota of 'offensive' air units and still has points left over to build still more air units, namely HT's.

[Falco]

 

The problem I see with only taking away the MS ability of the planes listed above and possibly increasing the effectiveness of fighters on INT and FC is that this will do little or nothing to increase the likelihood that players will invest more in the shorter range GA, DB, etc. or even HB.

 

Change requirements for basing for the smaller, close range craft like GA or DB. Even go as far as to scrapping the requirement of basing them on built air bases, but making it possible to use these planes without air bases. Air bases can be made a requirement for the heavier air craft. Might as well remove the requirement for fighters to use bases and increase the cost of an air bases to 10, for the craft that need bases. Or make it 1 CP for light bases and 10 CP for heavy bases. Still max 99 groups per province, so 99 bases light and heavy max. MB, HB, HT, HTB, HDB etc will all use the heavy bases. Using light planes makes it that you can quickly change bases (just 99 CP for 99 bases, a bargain!), and easily follow.

 

Making the light bases free is easiest I think. All cities/provinces default have 99 light bases and any building of heavy bases reduces the number of available light bases. Keeps the order use the same.

 

This way, i'd use some of the lighter GA and DB craft, as I can conquer a city and move my airforce in the same turn, without having much to do with logistic (CP) and BB $ costs. Could be quite a devastating tactic. TBSA can still work, as you can destroy the "light" base temporarily (1,5x easier to destroy then heavy bases, but the next turn they're all back, but the aircraft have suffered losses due to bombardment).

 

As for MB vs HB: Make HB do damage to air bases at night (much less than TBSA does), and make more night bombardments available.

 

NF's: Make an order NFC and make it as effective as the FC order. Make the NFE order which does the same as FE, but less effective.

 

INT and NI: Should be way more effective than FC or NFC (1,2 - 1,5x?)

[Mickey]

Simple way to make all the DB/GA less worthless and at the same time stop people from dropping AIR40's 32 range away: change the effectiveness formula from (1,2-RNG/MaxRNG) to (1,1-0,5*(RNG/MaxRNG) or even 1-0,25*(RNG/MaxRNG) and halve the range of HT.

[Inspector Gadget]

Interesting ideas. Some of them could be either integrated with prior ideas and or used,at least in part, by themselves. A few questions though.

 

Am I to understand that you're proposing there be (or could be) two separate air bases in each city? A 'light' base and a 'heavy' base? If so, how would it be decided which base was struck when TBSA's were conducted? I assume the order would have to be adjusted to give the attacking air force the ability to choose which air base it's striking?

 

Could it be argued that if you exclude the cost of airbases completely for aircraft such as F, GA, DB, etc. that this would remove the one limitation of having a large air force? Although armies and navies don't have to worry about 'base' requirements in the current game, they do have to deal with having a large dependency on supplies (FUEL, MUN, GEN) that air forces do not.

 

Since some of the air bases potentially cost more than others, Which air bases would be destroyed when a TBSA was conducted? For example, based on your idea xBratislava would inherantly have 99 base levels that are all designated as 'light.' The owner decides to spend X CP to convert 40 of those base levels to 'heavy.' 25 of the light air bases and 25 of the heavy bases are occupied. His enemy does a TBSA and destroys 10 base levels. How would the damage be applied to the bases and by extension the air units?

 

Also, I'd argue that maybe air bases should be handled in roughly the same way the rail capaciy in a city id handled when it is taken/conquered. One the turn that the city was conquered, the air bases cannot be used. The idea being that it takes a turn to prepare the bases for use by the conquerers units.

 

The is a crucial flaw in players argument that since fighters and other such smaller aircraft didn't need airbases (runways most notably) of the same quality or size as larger aircraft like bombers, and therefore there is little or no need to charge players in CP to build such air bases or to charge them the same amount. This premise really only works in situations where the airbase can be placed in a location that has significant wide open and relatively flat places. Locations that are dominated by forests, mountains, hills, swamps, and in many cases even sand often required much more effort to build air bases, even for small aircraft and much less useable space, so much more effort had to be put into developing a space that could be used as an airbase, especially for large numbers of aircraft no matter how big or small the individual planes were.

 

Finally, I think the decision as to whether the 'light' bases would cost anything or not is definitely an important point to be discussed and nailed down since I think it would have a significant impact on the rest of the discussion and game play in general.

 

As for F on INT being more effective than F on FC, are you refering to their ability to engage the enemy, their ability to kill the enemy, or both? Just wanted to clarify.

 

As for NF, it's not my understanding that NF were used in a FC role in real life, although I guess this would make them more useful in game terms.

[Inspector Gadget]

Mickey, Maybe the problem is that there is a HT in the game that has a damn 32 range. Especially when it's cost and carrying capacity (the Skymaster) is almost identical to the Halifax A, but the Halifax A has HALF the range.

[Falco]

Yes, default every location has 99 light bases, and they can be converted to heavy bases for larger aircraft.

 

Bomber bases will cost more. Most people have lots of bombers. In v87 I'm over 400 factories and I have been building m10 air divisions per turn for a long time now. Rebasing bombers will still cost a lot of CP. 10 air divisions per turn is still the limit. But you may have a point, even if I think it has nothing to do with supplies. Air forces are not cheap and keeping over 400 air divisions flying each turn takes a lot of resources. Especially if fighters go out several times each turn, with FC or INT for example.

 

Which bases will be destroyed is a good question. I can imagine 75% of the damage goes to the more visible bases (HVY) and 25% goes to the light bases. If the HVY bases run out (all destroyed) the light bases take the remaining damage.

 

Making bases not available in the turn the city is conquered might be a good thing. It isn't for rail now, is it? Can't remember ever trying.

 

Provinces are large, there is usually a place where bases can be located. Building a hvy base is still more difficult than building a lgt base. the lgt base is a start for the hvy base. It is still a game and changing the cost for building bases per terrain type doesn't seem like a good idea to me. Also, capping bases based on terrain type (only 50 bases in mountains) isn't fair for example for Switzerland.

 

The whole idea of lgt and hvy bases should indeed be discussed, but it will benefit the lesser used planes a lot.

 

INT is already a 100% chance for intercepting, where FC is not a 100% chance. But I'd also make INT fighters more effective in killing enemies. They need less fuel, so are able to bring along more ammunition.

 

NF's are almost never used. Making HB more effective for night runs should have some cost. By making NF more effective, with orders as as NFC and NFE, there could be a wide range of possibilities in the game.

[Hamish]

How about not making different base types, but separating hangars and runways? Each aircraft type requires a certain runway level to be able to take off and land from a certain airfield, hangars are just required to store the aircraft.

The hangar requirements of a fighter group should be less than the hangar requirements of a bomber group (smaller planes) but not too much (more aircraft to a group). The runway requirements could be a lot less, some of the smaller aircraft may not require a runway at all, since they could just take off from a flat field of grass. The bigger aircraft like the MB and HB should require a high runway level.

 

I think this would also create interesting possibilities for tactical strikes. A TBSA (or the new equivalent) could target the hangars (destroying the planes) or the runway (effectively trapping the heavier aircraft in their hangars until the runway has been restored). City fortifications could protect the hangars, making aircraft less vulnerable to the first kind of strikes, but not to the second.