Vic! 89

[dageraad]

Errr,

 

This is the second time my team is accused of "weaving a narrative" in which someone else is the the big bad, all because we so desperately want to win. This was in the cards as far back as post 1902

 

Lets look to the facts here. There are four "teams"active:

 

Middle east alliance: Syria, Egypt, UAE, Saudi Arabia. (4)

Conquests: Transjordan, Iraq, Persia, Libya, Turkey, Southern Russia, Parts of Central Russia and Rumania. (7)

Egypt is also aligned with Tunisia, which is doing fine.

I do not know about the losses sustained in conquering the middle east, but it did not take long.

 

Nordic Alliance: Iceland, Lowlands, Norway, Northern Russia, Baltic States (5)

Conquests: Poland, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Czechoslovakia, Germany, parts of Central Russia and Scotland (7)

Northern Russia and Lowlands are also TA'd with the US, which is doing not so great.

After a very fast opening the Nordic Alliance took substantial losses against the Balkan Alliance and Italy.

 

Balkan alliance Greece, Hungary, Austra, Yugoslavia (4)

Conquests: parts of Italy, Rumania and Bulgaria (1)

TA'd to Czechoslovakia.

The Balkan alliance is fighting for its life, first against Germany/Poland/Bulgaria/Rumania/CR, then against the Nordic Alliance and now also against the Middle East.

 

Southwestern Alliance: Canada, Morocco, Tunisia, Spain (4)

Conquests: Portugal, Algeria, Italy, France, USA (almost), half of Switzerland (5)

Canada is TA's to GB, which is doing not so well.

Tunisia took damage from Libya in the opening phase and all of the partners in this alliance probably took damage from the war between them before their TA was formed.

 

As the victory conditions state that the points of each country in a TA are divided between each partner,

a team of 4 holding 11 nations is doing better than a team of 5 holding 12 nations.

Can you please point out were I am wrong? I never finished a game of Victory before, game #87 will be my first..

[Earthling]

Middle east alliance: Syria, Egypt, UAE, Saudi Arabia. (4)

Conquests: Transjordan, Iraq, Persia, Libya, Turkey, Southern Russia, Parts of Central Russia and Rumania. (7)

Egypt is also aligned with Tunisia, which is doing fine.

I do not know about the losses sustained in conquering the middle east, but it did not take long.

 

Nordic Alliance: Iceland, Lowlands, Norway, Northern Russia, Baltic States (5)

Conquests: Poland, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Czechoslovakia, Germany, parts of Central Russia and Scotland (7)

Northern Russia and Lowlands are also TA'd with the US, which is doing not so great.

After a very fast opening the Nordic Alliance took substantial losses against the Balkan Alliance and Italy.

 

As the victory conditions state that the points of each country in a TA are divided between each partner,

a team of 4 holding 11 nations is doing better than a team of 5 holding 12 nations.

Can you please point out were I am wrong? I never finished a game of Victory before, game #87 will be my first..

 

The mandatory victory conditions have a lot to do with the thought that the Nordic Alliance is doing better. Your statement that the conquest of the middle east not taking long leads many to believe that there were not a lot of kills associated with that conquest while you are indicating that you have taken substantial losses against the Balkans and Italy which could lead many to believe that you have inflicted losses to the Balkans and Italy as well, not to mention the losses you inflicted upon other conquests leading some to think that your alliance may be far ahead of others in kill totals. Also, it looks to me as if the Nordic Alliance has taken the lion's share of Central Russia and will likely conquer Britain as well as Ireland before the game is out. Now, those last two predictions may/may not happen, but i think that most who look at the map are thinking the same way. In regard to the optional victory conditions, it all depends on what everyone selected, and that can often be very wildcard like when guessing who is ahead in regard to points. The amount of increased land conquered is about the same in regard to to both alliances, but who did and who didn't choose that option? Who choose IMDL? ADL? etc., etc....

 

Based on the maps, looks to me if the Nordic Alliance chose the optimum picks in the optional conditions, they are ahead in points. An based on my knowledge of what was killed and there to be killed when I was playing, the Nordic Alliance will also be ahead in the mandatory conditions as well. I am sure that I am not the only one who looks at this information and reads it the same way.

 

That is why you see the posts that you do Dageraad. I have no doubt that you are good strategic players and organized, but do not act as if you do not weave a good narrative and tell a good story with your maps (which are fantastic and must take lots of time and effort to produce) and posts. As you have said yourself, it is a propaganda ministry filled with lots of propaganda and you have done a good job in that aspect of the game to accompany your teams strategy and organization.

[dageraad]

If you like, I could send you a summary of Iceland turn 50 in good faith, so you can judge for yourself how my chances are developing.

Lets sweep full turns after turn 73 in game 87.

[Duke of York]

I care very little about the victory conditions. This is a 3 year game, I play to have fun for 3 years, not for some score at the end of the game. That's not to say I won't try to win or won't enjoy it if I did, but I assume that if I play well my score will be good and for the rest I don't worry about it. I actually didn't even send in a list of victory conditions for V89 (that means I get a standard list for my country) and most, if not all, of my allies didn't either. That's how much we care about it.

 

We have been accused of playing just to win, but considering the focus on winning in these posts that sounds like pot meets kettle.

 

For me, for all intents and purposes the ME and SW alliances are one and the same. They aren't reallly, but the position and total alliances of Egypt mean that they will never fight each other. If the Central European alliance would have fallen (and that could have gone very fast with 2 big alliances hitting them) there would be only one thing for them to do, and that's attacking us. That's give or take 9 countries (including a still alive and kicking GB at the moment the deal was made) owning about 2/3 of the map against 5 of us, owning about 1/3. Not a good deal, so we tried to improve the deal and it was well received.

 

For our scoring I don't see how it's gonna help us much. We could have taken over much of the CE's territory and then dug in and scored lots of points from a defensive position. Now our territory is smaller, our logistics are harder and every kill the CE makes is a kill we don't make.

[Spartan]

I agree in part with the Duke. If everyone was left to their own devices and no 'deals' were struck as they apparently have been recently, I could definitely see a game where the Northern group could be at war with enemies in both the east and west. Cracking the nut of the Central group will take time though and the game is in it's last leg so to speak so a deal with the Central group was by no means a forgone conclusion or even necessary as best I can tell, but no matter. I can only guess the deal sure will make the game interesting.

 

I do have to slightly disagree or maybe just take a different tact with his assessment of why players play. In general, I can only hope that everyone plays this game for the overall experience and not just a final score. The reality though is that this is a game and competition both during the game and at its end that is about outdoing your adversaries accomplishments in as many aspects of the game as possible. There are a number of ways to measure and compare those accomplishments. Beyond what happens on the battlefield, everyone engages in their fair share of politics, communication and propaganda to help bend the outcome of the game both in the short and long term to their benefit. I've been impressed and entertained by all involved in this game based on what I've been able to see.

[Kurassier]

.....

 

As the victory conditions state that the points of each country in a TA are divided between each partner,

a team of 4 holding 11 nations is doing better than a team of 5 holding 12 nations.

Can you please point out were I am wrong? I never finished a game of Victory before, game #87 will be my first..

 

yes, and no. My part of this game has been quite boring, not very fun when nobody fights back, well not for long anyway. The biggest edge the northern alliance has over the mideast group, is going to be in ARM/AIR/Navy kills. I, for one, are vastly behind in that area. Can't kill something if you can't reach it.

 

Oh and since the Nordics have DW on the Mideast group, you need to add a red arrow between us.

[Kurassier]

.....

 

As the victory conditions state that the points of each country in a TA are divided between each partner,

a team of 4 holding 11 nations is doing better than a team of 5 holding 12 nations.

Can you please point out were I am wrong? I never finished a game of Victory before, game #87 will be my first..

 

yes, and no. My part of this game has been quite boring, not very fun when nobody fights back, well not for long anyway. The biggest edge the northern alliance has over the mideast group, is going to be in ARM/AIR/Navy kills. I, for one, are vastly behind in that area. Can't kill something if you can't reach it.

 

Oh and since the Nordics have DW on the Mideast group, you need to add a red arrow between us.

 

Next map update, Dageraad updates the maps on information from his turn. Mine was way later.

 

So when will we start fighting in the east? I can almost feel the evil, you must be near. :-)

I am closer than you think young padawan.

[dageraad]

I can't get the image out of my head of a dictator of the UAE being handled a note, cracking a smile and uttering the phrase

"Harr, Harr, Harr, things are going exactly as planned".

 

Nevertheless, I am still planning to get a couple of tankers into the harbor of xAbudhabi to have them filled with crude.

[Earthling]

If you like, I could send you a summary of Iceland turn 50 in good faith, so you can judge for yourself how my chances are developing.

Lets sweep full turns after turn 73 in game 87.

 

When 87 ends, I have no problem sharing my turns with you. Will gladly do so.

[dageraad]

New map:

 

 

- xHagersburg is running out of replacements.

- The English and Welsh air forces slipped through the Icelandic defences and sank a couple of AP's, just hours before they were destroyed on the groud.

(sometimes the sequence of turns on the same day matters)

- A lot of new wars last turn, battles breaking out all over the map, stretching from France to the Ural mountains. Successes and failures on both sides. We'll see more of this no doubt.

- I have changed the diplomatic part in the upper right corner to better reflect what's going on. I believe that it brings my power block at war with the rest of the world. Someone else wants to complain about "That the Nordic Alliance wants to win too much?"

- As the world seems to be evolving in two teams, and there have been complains about the coloring of the Northern African and Middle Eastern alliances, do they have any preference which color I should use for their combined team?

[Inspector Gadget]

Maybe it's time I chimed in on a few of the topics that have been popular on this game forum of late.

 

I definitely do not have hold the opinion that "the Nordic Alliance wants to win too much?" In fact, I don't think that quote that Dageraad included in his post was ever actually said by anyone on the forum, but maybe I missed it. I do know that there have been a lot of posts about the Northern groups attempts and indeed their skill in the areas of propaganda and diplomacy. I have no problem with that at all. Heck, God knows I've been doing my darnedest as well, but clearly, at least when it comes to trying to garner the Central groups support and good graces I have lost out to the Northern group. Such is the way of things. Do I begrudge the Northern group their apparent success in this area? No. Am I jealous? Of course.

 

As for what direction on the map my group has gone, there were obviously a number of factors that drew us in that direction, but in the end, no, it wasn't just because Tunisia has a TA with Egypt. That aside though, this game is just starting to get interesting. Actually, I think the fact that we came north made it possible for the Central group to make the deal they apparently did with the Northern group. Obviously, that was not the way we planned it, but it seems to have had that effect. I guess we'll see how that plays out.

 

Finally, as for who's winning the game, I think it's still a toss-up between the Northern and the Mid-East group with the Northern group currently holding the lead. No need to go into details again as to why since I think that because it seems the topic has already been discussed by others. Now, lets get back to the game and have some fun!

[dageraad]

I must admit the phrase that tickled me off was never uttered on the forum, but in private mail.

I have no idea what will happen next. Iceland is preoccupied with Great Britian, but last turn was a bit unlucky. If the sequence of that day had been reversed I wouldhave struck a big blow, now he got to my queens while dodging the FC. That hurts.

[Inspector Gadget]

While skill may win the game, plain old luck is sometimes enough to win the day.

[dageraad]

The Icelandic airfoce in game 89 gets its planes delivered including an extra supply of Bad Weather. But bad luck and good luck tend to cancel eachother out.

My first RPF Light delivered a +100, that was very fortunate.

GB finding my queens was bad luck. I feel sad for a day. Iceland doing a OMA MS in the blind on his queens was lucky. It still makes me smile after 16 turns.

 

By the way, the worst luck I Ever had was losing a 140-20 attack in Risk. The best luck probably in Axis and Allies, surviving an attack of 30 armor, 30 infantry and 5 fighters against Moscow, which was being held by 30 infantry.

 

The joy of fighting in a good team lasts for 73 turns.

.

[Inspector Gadget]

I would agree that a good group of team members outweighs most all other things, especially when playing a game lasting 3 freakin years!

 

Being stuck with bad team members can make even 5 turns feel like 73.