Jump to content
Rolling Thunder Forums

Victory 2 - What would be good updates


brogan
 Share

Recommended Posts

I still believe:

 

 

The Japanese tech.

The challenge is to design a tech for the game of Victory that is new, balanced and based on the most important power left out of the original game: Japan. The new tech should work without changing any rules of the original game.

Relative characteristics of Japanese units

Victory uses a certain standard composition of its army units, using the division with a fixed array of batallions and regiments. This ignores the fact that –for instance- a real WW2 Russian Infantry Division was far smaller than its German or American equivalent.

 

Over all, the Japanese should start the game with a decent army, as they had been at war with China for years before september 1 1939 (turn1). The quality of the army won’t advance as rapidly as the other techs and the Japanese should not be a good choice for late- game slugging matches against someone with German or Russian units. But neither are the British.

The Japanese are strengthened by their Marine regiments, giving them good amphibious options from the beginning of the game.

Airplanes should be excellent, but with a twist. A lot of the strength of the Japanese unists is derived from their excellent range and early availability. The standard rules do not allow for explicit Kamikaze missions, but such missions happen in each game of Victory anyway.

As an island nation their choice of ships should be good and the Japanese have some units that do not have any equivalent in other tech’s, including good amphibious options, the biggest and baddest battleship of them al land and some good destroyers and cruisers. Sea transport is limited by the lack of Queen mary’s.

Why should anyone choose the Japanese units?

To try something different. The Japanese could be usefull in situations were an early survival is uncertain, duet o their good starting army and air force. Their naval options are second to only the American tech.

 

Sample units:

 

TA Form Mitsubishi A6M2 “Zero”

Air Group Title A6M2

Aircraft Specifications :

Power Plant: 700 kW (940 hp) Nakajima Sakae 12 engine

Armament: 2 - 0.30in and 2 20mm Cannons, 2x60 kg bombs

Performance: Maximum Speed 331 mph, Combat Radius 1991 miles,

Service Ceiling 33,000 feet.

Weights: 3,704 lbs empty

Air Group Type Fighter (F), 80 aircraft per air group.

Mission Combat Radius 19 SMR

Air to Air Combat Rating 28

Aircraft Defense Rating 162

Combat Speed Class 6

Reconnaissance Rating 0

Maritime Detection Rating 10

Strategic Bombing Rating 0

Maritime Strike Profile Strafing

Maritime Strike Damage 10

Aerial Minelaying Rating 0

Tactical Strike Rating 62

Air Transport Rating 0

Fuel Consumption Rate 1 pt per mission

Munition Consumption Rate 1 pt per mission

General Consumption Rate 1 pt per turn

Base Space Requirements 1 base level per group

Cargo Space Requirements 14 pts

Cost to Build 82 Aircraft Construction Pts (AIR) and $ 15

Tech Period 10 (July 1940)

 

Note: Excellent range and ATA, Not so good air defence and speed.

 

 

Division Title MARINE 40R

Division Type Marine

Offensive Firepower Rating 165

Defensive Firepower Rating 165

Defensive Strength Mult (DSM) 1.2

Air Defense 15

Strategic Movement Rate 2

Fuel Supply Consumption 1 units per SMR

Munition Supply Consumption 4 units per battle (at 1-1 odds)

General Supply Consumption 2 units per turn

Fuel Supply Load 6 units

Munition Supply Load 12 units

General Supply Load 12 units

Armor Replacements 31

Infantry Replacements 31

Cargo Space Requirements 81

Cost to Build 62 Armament Pts (ARM) and $ 152

Tech Period 6 (Februari 1940)

 

Note: opens up lots of amphibious options

 

 

TA Form Shinzu Maru class CVL

Ship Class Title Shinzu Maru

Ship Class Notes First modern dock landing amphibious attack ship

Ship Class Specifications

Displacement: 7.700 tons

Armament: 4 – 75 mm Type 88, 4x 20 MM AA

Armor: No more than 1 inch in any given location.

Speed: 20 knots (max)

Complement: 2000 (approximately)

Ship Class Type Light carrier (CVL)

Strategic Surface Search Rating 20

Air Search Rating 20

Tactical Surface Search Rating 35

Detection Value Rating 30

Speed (Combat/Cruising) 20 knots combat, 12 knots cruising

Mission Combat Radius 18 SMR

Fire Control System Rating 25

Armor Protection 1 inch average, 1.0 inch Deck, 1.00 Torpedo Protection Multiple.D

amage Rating 365 pts

Main Armament Notes 4 – 75 mm Rate of fire 6 20 rds per gun, per round; Base Damage, 5 pts.

Air Defense Rating Light Ship AA, 22;

ASW Rating 15 Minesweeping Rating 0

Coastal Bombardment Rating 10 Minelaying Rating 0

Aircraft Capacity Rating 0.25

Sea Transport Rating 26 Amphibious Check YES

Petroleum Transport Rating 0

Fuel Supply Capacity 180 Fuel Consumption 2 pts per SMR pt

Munition Supply Capacity 10 Munition Consumption 1 pts per combat rd.

General Supply Capacity 20 General Consumption 2 pts per turn

Upgrade Path None

Cost to Build 70 Ship Construction Pts (SHIP) and $ 156

Tech Period 1 (September, 1939)

 

Note: This ship was waaaay ahead of its time and one of the best units in the Japanese TECH.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 59
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Interesting read, Dag. (do check the CVL-armament line... 620 rnds /gun /round seems a bit steep, and if you want it to qualify for naval gunnery you'd best call it a 3"gun and give it the same base damage as the secondary armament of the Tashkent 3"/55cal gun: 3 points).

 

Why should the Japanese tech be second to the US in naval options? At least the first half of the game, it should be the best, as it's upward slope is less.

 

My idea on the relative strengths of the mixes (from most land focussed to least land focussed) on a scale of 1-5:

 

 

Russian: Land 2->4 (5 for efficiency/effectiveness but no MTN-units), air 2->3, naval 1

German: Land 3->4, air 3->4, naval 1->2

American: Land 2->4, air 1->5, naval 3->5

British: Land 2, air 4, naval 4

Japanese: Land 2 (1 for effectiveness but starts with regiments), air 4, naval 4

 

Choice between US and Japanese would be the timeline: start slow and grow huge or start hot but simmer towards the end.

 

Btw, a CSC 6 fighter in turn 10 is nicely fast (German mix turn 19, Russian mix turn 13/21, US mix turn 29) but 331 mph is CSC 5 in Victory!-mechanics and if the drop tank version really has a combat radius of 1991 miles, that would be 33 SMR in the Victory!-mechanics... youtze-mama!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will post the tech forms of the Japanese tech somewhere on my website and hope for a few good additions in the coming months.

 

I agree with most of your comments, but -as you no doubt have noticed- there is also ther risk that the Japanese units resemble the British ones for far too much.so there is no reason to pick them.

 

My appreciation of the relative strenghts of each tech are: (using a relative scale, 5: the best 1: the worst )

Nationality - Early/mid/end

 

American A 1/3/3 Ai 1/3/5 N 3/4/5

British A 2/3/2 Ai 4/2/2 N 4/3/4

German A 5/4/5 Ai 3/5/4 N 2/2/2

Japanese A 3/2/1 Ai 5/4/1 N 5/4/3

Russian A 4/5/4 Ai 2/3/3 N 1/1/1

 

I have not looked into the specific specs of the Shinzu Maru. The idea was to make it a jack of all trades and add some AD-functions as welll. The 3" Tashkent main gun is a good suggestion.

 

A6M2: I have downplayed the extended ranger a bit in favour of the ATA. It is also very cheap. And there is always the A6M3. Biggest problem with the Japanese air is the lack of a heavy hitting ground attack plane.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When discussing potential changes and or additions to Victory, the topic of to what degree historical factors should be relied on is raised and quite frankly argued. The guys who originally developed the game had made clear that first and foremost this is a game, Not a historical reenactment and Russ continues to stress this point as well. The development of any game requires that ‘game balance’ and 'playability' be the fundamental and crucial factors. Historical accuracy in Victory is unfortunately little more than a general and useful guide. If ‘tweaks’ (changes) need to be made to the rules in order to continue to make the game ‘playable’ and balanced that could otherwise be construed as not historically accurate, so be it. This game will never be wholly or even reasonable historically accurate for the stickers amongst us. Historical references and their degree of ‘accuracy’ and or ‘realism’ are merely that, a reference, and in some cases a very loose one at that.

 

Whatever additions or changes are to be made to either the existing game or a new one need to primarily be rooted in what will make the game most reasonably balanced and therefore playable. Not in what will make it more realistic. That should be an added bonus, but by no means the primary guiding decision point in whether to alter, add or get rid of a rule or facet of the game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Inspector,

 

I am aware that Victory is not a simulation, but first and foremost a game and that the strengths and weaknesses of the units are to make them balanced. There have been lots of suggestions on this forum to change the rules, but nothing comes of them and I have no idea if Russ is still working on them. But a different, balanced tech is something alltogether. Russ has hinted more than once that a completely new, balanced tech might be something to consider if available.

It has the added advantage that no rules have to be rewritten to have it implemented.

 

A new tech should bring something new to the game. I concentrated on three units that I think could do that: a good fighter for early in the game with slow speed but excellent range, a heavy ambphibious unit to make large scale ammphibious operations possible before turn 40 and a regiment as the naval equivalent of the airborne regiment, making amphibious assaults just as dangerous for undefended places as paradrops.

Both Mickey and I feel that the stats should have SOME basis in reality, but playability is more important.

 

Each tech has its "starring" units, like the P-51's, Queens, Ju88's, T-34's, etc. The units in my earlier post are the "stars"of the Japanese mix. The rest of the units should provide the balance, and not all of these units should be realistic. Ther Japanese never fielded a realistic modern armored division, but in this game they will, and their tactical bombers will have a good Tac strike value for balance purposes.

 

I consider turn 1-16 beginning, turn 17-46 midgame and 47-73 endgame units. Turn 17 for the coming of the T-34, turn 47 for the Panther. The rating of "5" for Japanese units has to indicate that they start the game with the best air units available. The "1" at the end does not have to indicate all of their air units are lousy, but they don't recieve the same jump in quality like the rest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dageraad,

 

I fully agree with your assessment of the ‘progress’ of Victory 2 and I have also suggested and supported possible changes and or additions to the existing game as either a test of certain potential changes in select games or as official changes for all future games. As for a new tech, there have been numerous comments and conversations about possible new techs. French, Italian or Japanese. It seems pretty clear that Japanese tech is the only viable option. That being said, it would require some notable nerfing of the Japanese military's units, most notably their army, to make them realistically playable in my opinion. That being said, I can only assume that the other techs were also nerfed to some degree as well, but I can’t imagine that they were to the same degree that a Japanese tech would need to be in order to be truly competitive.

 

Your assessment of what would need to be done to certain Japanese units, effectively nerfing their genuine traits and effectiveness in order to make them playable and possibly even manufacturing them out of thin air (viable Japanese armor), is an obvious example of what I was talking about. Historical accuracy should be little more than a guide and not the primary means of formulating the traits of a unit in Victory and this should also be the case overall in formulating rules for the game.

 

Too often, players have complained that certain proposed rules/mechanics adjustments to the game are not ‘realistic’ and are quick to reference supposed historical facts that make such rule and mechanics proposals untenable. That is what I have a problem with. Not your proposal to add Japanese tech. I think this is well worth exploring. I just think we should have the same amount ‘open mindedness’ and ‘flexibility’ in accepting historical nerfs to Japanese units abilities as we should to potential rule changes. Too often, players respond in the forums to other players ideas with the primary, and in many cases the only complaint being that the idea is not historically accurate. While historical references are worth mentioning and using as a general guide to help legitimize potential changes, the primary argument should be whether the change adds or detracts from the playability and balance of the game. That’s just my opinion. I have no doubt others, possibly many others, will disagree strongly.

 

As for continuing to work on a new tech, by all means go for it! I hope it comes to pass and if there is anything I can do to help, just let me know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...

At the moment there is not much progress.

As long as the changes are limited to the NO TA rule any other developments are on a hold.

#94 started over half a year ago and it's quiet, very quiet.

 

Maybe in the coming summer I will work out some extra Japanese tech.

Russ has stated that he would be able to implement such a thing if it were there, so I will pin my hopes on that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what if we would through this out on kickstarter or something like that? The game needs some fresh players, should be more interested than just the usual suspects, developing a new version needs to be tackled in a more professional way, why not raise some money?

 

And if we provide the reqs and specs right we can outsource to Indian for the programming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think a kickstarter would raise enough to take this route... also I think a game like this is better developed by an 1 or 2 enthousiasts (gamedesigner/programmers, with a lot of red bull on an attic during spare evenings) as opposed having separate game designers / requirements engineers / indian programmers / project management.

 

The first will cost loads of sleepless nights and a anywhere from 12-24 months. = cost 100 trays of redbull and 500 pizza's = $15.000

 

The second will cost about 2 FTE + 3-4 FTE from India for I guess about 6-9 months (including community management) = a conservative $200.000,=

 

Thinking that with an improved order-handling / processing system (online) you could run 10 games simultaneously with a team of 2 guys at about $10.000 revenue / game / month... the 10 games don't even make enough to pay for salaries & tax & operational cost, let alone pay off the 200k investment :)

 

however, if you think the market is big enough to run 20-30 simultaneous games (after a kickstarter) it starts to become more viable... but how many people are interested in pay-per-play turn-based operational divisional conflict simulation in the 1939-1946 timeframe.

 

Not even talking yet about paying royalties to the Vic creators or purchasing any IP.

 

 

---

 

So let's say the market is big enough for 30 simultaneous games... and everyone plays 2 games on average and on average there are 30 active players in a game. This means 450 unique players raising the $200k -- this means: about $450 / person on kickstarter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the math and exploring options here. Let's continue that!

 

Nobody said it would have to be fully funded or vic based or whatever. Agree that some enthusiasts will likely be more successful, but can't ask them to do it in their spare hours, so some funding could help.

 

The current approach doesn't seem to get us anywhere soon :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

True... but only point I wanted to make is that to fund it from kickstarter before dev. isn't the way to go.. If some enthousiasts would code it and have it ready, they could use Kickstarter to kickstart the actual product (like sell $100 game credit vouchers) to get the website up and the AWS services.

 

Knowing how many games are running and how many people are playing in a game on average I am impressed Russ can make a living out of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as I know Victory! is the only game of its kind left and it is slowly, very slowly grinding to a halt.

There are a lot of ideas to work on a successor game, but nothing gets done because the game as is is still running and Russ is a nice guy.

Doing nothing is not an option.

 

This all starts and ends with Russ and his appointment of a group of people he trusts to make it work.

All other elements are there:

 

- A group of interested (former) players that still care about this hobby. You won't find this group anywhere else.

- experience with wargaming in multiple formats.

- know-how about server software and programming.

- financial backing for a "Jolt and Pizza" - project. If all of the hard-core players fork in a years worth of budget we're there.

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...