Victory 2 - What would be good updates

[Earthling]

I agree with your method four...it fixes the major crux I had with the system for naval movement. As far as the vulnerability goes, reducing the number of air units that are able to engage looks like it will work, but until I see it play tested, I am not sure about implementing that change. There has to be some testing for any of these changes.

[Inspector Gadget]

Just a quick response about naval movement and air units that attempt attacks against naval units. I definitely agree with the main points made about naval units and air attacks that can be made against them.

 

· Decrease range of air missions attempt MS (Maritime Strike) on naval units at sea unless the MS is based on a previous SR (Strike Recon). This change would not apply to MS on naval units in a port.

· Increase SMR of ships, maybe by 50%.

· Possibly decrease the $ cost of ships by a certain amount. Not sure how much.

· Limit air units effectiveness against ships (at sea. not in port) that use level bombing, no matter the air mission.

 

Wouldn't these changes have the same intended affect as reducing air unit sizes able to engage naval units with less work? Not a programmer so I can't answer my own question.

[Mickey]

 

Wouldn't these changes have the same intended affect as reducing air unit sizes able to engage naval units with less work? Not a programmer so I can't answer my own question.

They would miss the effect of SF's actually being able to defend ships. You can now have an entire division of SF's on 6/7 carriers be on INT and they still wouldn't stop even a small wing of attacking HTB's/ MB's/ HGA's/GA's.

[Inspector Gadget]

Why not? Wouldn't stop, or wouldn't be effective against them?

 

I realize that in the end this game is only partially grounded in 'reality', or what really happened in WW2, but wouldn't it be true to say that it was almost unheard of for MB to be used in large numbers against naval forces at sea? I don't claim to be an expert on WW2, but I do think I have a fair amount of knowledge about it and it was very rare for this to happen, again, most notably in large numbers. Maybe strikes on naval forces at sea (not in port) should be limited to air forces that are NOT MB's, just for the sake of game balance. Force players to invest in and use the kinds of planes that were used overwhelmingly in strikes against ships. All torpedo and dive bombers, fighters (F & HF) and other planes that were specifically designed or armed/fitted for 'anti-shipping' operations like sea planes and long range recon planes. This would, for the most part, limit planes that are sent against ships to smaller groups and thus ship borne fighters could have a better chance of defending against them.

 

Oh, and by the way, CHANGE THE DESIGNATION of the JU-88A-4 from HDB to MB. Not it's real designation, but it will then exclude it from the above group.

[dageraad]

As promised: a Japanese list of aircraft.

 

http://www.lukasschoonhoven.nl/vic/VIC2TECHproposal_v02.htm.pdf

 

The japanes tech is stong in early air power, especially ranged air power.

The early tech 10 Zero does not seem that spectacular, untill you take the 16 range into account.

And a medium bomber with just 440 TAC? Yes, but it has 26 range!

 

The game engine does not allow kamikaze missions. The japanese also had lots of bombers capable of using torpedo's as well as bombs and it is not possible to incorporate this into the current version of victory.

 

Next: the Japanese army.

[Inspector Gadget]

I too am confident of the capabilities of a Japanese air force, their range being their primary selling point. The strength of their navy is a given. It's their army that REALLY worries me. Without making serious warps to reality when it comes to such things as their armor, the Japanese army is simply far too anemic on the open fields of battle in Victory. Each division does indeed have it's time and place in this game, but when it's all said and done, armor rules and the Japanese armor was pathetic throughout almost the entirety of the war. I'll be very interested to see what you put together Dageraad. I'll remain open-minded, but I'm also admittedly very skeptical as well. Good luck!

[Inspector Gadget]

Dageraad, Do you know the formula used to figure out the cost of air units (or any units for that matter), or are you just coming up with a number that seems to be fair compared to other units? Just curious.

[dageraad]

Dageraad, Do you know the formula used to figure out the cost of air units (or any units for that matter), or are you just coming up with a number that seems to be fair compared to other units? Just curious.

Both.

 

Some of the data is based on reality. If you study the data of the other tech there seems to be a relation between empty weight and Air point construction and things like range and speed can be found in multiple sources on line. Data like air defence and ata seem to be a bit arbitrary in the other lists too. There are examples enough of historical planes that are twisted out of proportion by the way Victory is structured, like the Whitley and Manchester, that definately should have been heavy bombers but get twisted to a tactical role just because they only have two engines and qualify as medium bombers.

 

In some cases I exaggarated the capabilities of the planes a bit, in other cases I lowered the range of certain aircraft and over all the air defence of the Japanese tech is probably better than it was historically. I tried to give each and every plane in the list a probable function on its own, to discourage concentrating on only 2 or 3 types. Gaming balance and versatility are more important than historical accuracy, but it is still a "Japanese" list and each major type of plane you would expect is accounted for.

 

I have to cut a few corners while making the army tech. I have a few ideas about how to do that: One of the problems is that the game is based on a standard division composition with little exeptions. Standard Russian divisions were less than half the size of their American counterparts. To take this into account they should be much weaker and the Russians should have a stacking limit of, say, 30. But some variance is possible without bending the rules too much.

Versatility:

Marine regiments, Bicycle infantry, Normal and Imperial Guard armies. The japanese had some acceptable tank designs but did not build that many of them.

Price:

Japanese regular armies are the cheapest in the game. They also are among the weakest in the game. But: see below:

Strenght:

Imperial guard groups. Not entirely based in history but neither is a SS PZ II division or a german Marine division. Like SS divisions, IG divisions are among the most expensive in the game. But they give some chance to survive the later game were stack size becomes a hindrance and you have to fight against those Panthers and T-34's. .

[dageraad]

I have finished composing a Japanese army list:

 

Army:

http://www.lukasschoonhoven.nl/vic/VIC2TECHproposal_v02_Army.pdf

 

(I realise that this list is not entirely historical, even more so than the proposed Japanese air force list at:

http://www.lukasschoonhoven.nl/vic/VIC2TECHproposal_v02.htm.pdf that I presented before).

 

But keep in mind that division for division, the Japanese units are the weakest in the game. But they are also cheap, This can bring a player using the Japanese tech in a problem when he is drawn into a slugging match against German or Russian tech, even more as the Americans and British techs do. Decent Japanese armor arrives late in the game, (but earlier than historical, have to cheat here a bit).
The Japanese can build Imperial Guard (IG) units: They are stronger than normal, but less economical. Like SS and American HA units they gain strength by adding extra battallions to the structure of the division. It puts then on equal footing with the British and Americans, but they lose their economical edge when buitlding a lot of IG units.

Aside from that, there are some special units that give the Japanese extra options. Their army is very versatile.

 

Now for the navy: that is still a lot of work.

[gecko]

Just recently seen a documentary on the I-400. Will they be showing up in the navy? Earlier than their eventual showing in the war?

[dageraad]

I would very much like to, but there are some practical limitations. I can not adjust the code of the program and the minimal air base capacity of any carrier is 1 group, so 20 generic planes. An I-400 only had rookm for 3 very specific floatplanes.To make that 20 you should build an I-400 in a group of seven.

 

In the game a group of three planes equals the recc planes aboard cruisers and battleships. THey were lightly armed and sometimes capable of dropping bombs or depth charges, but their capabilities are incorporated in ASW and search ratings and not as a base for a separate airforce unit. Good old Yamato had seven planes on board, four more than a I-400.

 

Probably the I-400 will have excellent range, search rating and I can even give it some CB rating to simulate the bombs on board.

[Reece]

Dag,

 

A lot of work since I last looked at this thread. The 5 top things to fix are excellent. I really like the fix to fuel consumption (option4). Currently most nations can't afford to operate a fleet due to fuel costs. Just look at the population costs of producing a 1000 fuel a turn. This is much better than the previous fix of giving Canada/US more oil factories and Iceland a larger starting stockpile. In regards to other thoughts I have listed a couple of possibilities below.

 

The one thing I was surprise not to find on your list was the effectiveness of aircraft. Right now entire armies can be eliminated by a series of TAS missions. In my thinking TAS missions should have diminishing returns as the air force becomes larger. (The soft targets get hit and finding the guy under the tree or in the ditch is a lot harder.). So something like having the damage per group multiplied by the effectiveness of the division attacked). This would make multiple strikes more effective than a single mass strike which is also more realistic (of course that takes more orders which are limited). If this isn't easy I guess other options would be to make AAA units mobile, better AAA defense, make TAS missions a primary order even if no unit is in the target location (same as TBSA's or MS), or increase the munitions cost to make operating a large air force more costly (Kind of like how fuel hinders fielding a actual Navy). ( would favor this over your Forgotten aircraft correction as it keeps units from being eliminated completely).

 

The second is allowing Naval units to engage forces in coastal provinces. They already can attack LDB's but they should be able to shell troops. Perhaps the CB rating would be used just like a TAS rating. (Diminishing results as the unit is attritioned just like air above) OK this one is not a Top five but it does bother me.

[Inspector Gadget]

Raising the issue of TAS actions not counting if they don't find a target is very good and important. Apparently, this was never the intent when the game was designed. It was a glitch that was never repaired and once players became accustomed to it, they didn't want to see it changed. Like all of us I have made maximum use of this glitch, but to be honest it is simply wrong that it exists. Getting rid of it would do A LOT to rein in the power and effectiveness of TAS. I know it could be argued that it may not directly address some of the issues people have with TAS, but I personally think it would be by far the simplest/easiest 'fix' that would immediately and forever effect every single player both now and in the future. No need to list all the ways this glitch has been used and abused up until now. We all know how impactful (is that a word?) this glitch has been. The affect of fixing it is obvious and very significant IMO. Thoughts?

[Reece]

Well they actually did try to fix it by cutting aircraft factories out by half. Your right that people have adjusted tactics to account for the over-rated air power. Its the cheapest units you can buy, attacks at long range and consumes very little in terms of supplies/resources and every nation in Victory builds a big air force which tells you its out of balance. Perhaps adjustments at several areas are needed ($ cost increase etc) but in my suggestion was aimed at ensuring airpower is never be able to destroy all the defenders of a ground force thus the thought of diminishing damage as the unit's effectiveness is reduced (all the easy targets have been hit). Have fun, Rick

[Reece]

1: Close the information gap.

 

Your Intelligence file is added to as the turns are processed. Would be cool if this information could be automatically emailed out as they occurred or put in a file that players could access (Kind of like when RTG had the BBS where you submitted your turns and looked periodically to see if you had results. Don't know which would be easier the dummy positions or somehow accessing the intelligence file? Have fun, RIck