Dutch vs USA

[Guest Spongebob]

Well serious point here from the Sponge for a change.

 

If you all remember there was a post on who was the greatest Vic Player. The two captains should be the two from that list who are top of the tree and willing to take up the mantle. I agree there should be two captains but would like this to be an invitational event. Each team captain invites who he has on his side in a 12v12 set up. He then nominates his vice-captain. Only provison would be the location of the players.

 

Would work better if the captain chooses who is on his side rather than being lumbered with a team you cannot get to gell.

 

Now from my own personal point of view and harking back to the days when at school you got picked for the football team it would mean that if i was picked i would probably be the last one to be picked and would be placed in goal. Now you know where all my annoyance springs from. Quick call me a doctor.

 

Seriously, chances are I would not be picked so I would like to nominate myself as keeper of the maps, an impartial commentator on all things game related. Players can send me there turns, I can draw up a map and keep track of progress and publish a reporters point of view while keeping state secrets. With all my flaws I think everyone who knows me, friend or foe knows I keep my word and play with honour so would not divulge anything that could compromise the game.

[Falco]

an impartial commentator on all things game related. Players can send me there turns, I can draw up a map and keep track of progress and publish a reporters point of view while keeping state secrets.

 

Oy, are you trying for me job laddie?

[Falco]

To be honest it was Dageraads Idea....credit where credit is due:

 

Who would be in for a Dutch vs the USA game (no problem if we expand the definitions of the countries a bit, if you are from other parts of the world, just let us know which side you wanne join in....)

 

idea to start maybe early 2011 so we have some time to set it up...

 

Please sign up if you are interested...

 

Let's keep this a a not-in-character discussions,

 

BTW I'm Dutch so we have 1 team member.

 

Dutch-USA: 1-0

 

keep the counter running.

 

Depending on the rules, I'm in. Can't agree with everything I've read so far, but the idea is fun. Let's whip them yanks! O yeah, Dutch player of course.

[Earthling]

I don't like the victory conditions, let's try something different for victory conditions. Increase the total to 75% (30/40) capitals, and I would be willing to accept. It forces the victory to either conquer all the 'neutrals' or legitimately attack its competitor. Otherwise, lets make the victory condition something like: First team to capture 5 ENEMY (enemy being your opponents starting position's) capitals. This will force conflict, significant battles, huge sieges and air battles, and a very fun game mechanic. And, it still forces the players to conquer the vacant positions for the resource bumps needed to siege the opponents' capitals.

 

In this possible set-up you have mapped, I think that the 'blue' team would have a distinct advantage in both starting pop (+100 for the Blue) & resources, as well as early conquerable resources and pop. However, a few easy tweaks would balance the STARTING pop/resource issue. Trade UAE in for Morocco to give the red team more pop and a position that is not isolated by an ally and an enemy. And switch Persia in for Iraq to balance the pop to near even. That will bring the staring pop to less than 25 in difference. As far as conquerable resources goes, I am not sure how to handle that just yet, I will have to think on it some more. Germany and Poland are a boon of resources, and with 4 of the top 10 in total pop/resources being 'vacant', it would certainly be interesting. Maybe Switching Bulgaria for Rumania (which switches the pop advantage to the red by less than 25) and gives the red access to the riches of Poland to fight over with Baltic States if the red so wishes to make such a bold move instead of going after another neighbor. Actually, I am not so sure i like that last idea....may weight the scales too far back toward the red.....have to think some more on it.......

 

Even though the USA/Canada are far away, I think that the first team to reach North America would have a considerable advantage in money. The resources would be difficult to bring back, but the added income of the #6 & #7 largest nations in the game is huge. Also, the first major battles should be fought over Central in this set up. It's the second largest nation in the game: 552 conquerable pop, the HVY/LGT, almost 1000 PET and over 500 coal......big additions to any economy.

 

I wouldn't be concerned with friction between the teams early on, I think that most players prefer the quick action of an active player instead on the slow conquering of a 'dropped' (inactive) position.

 

Also, I'm guessing Iceland should be white?

 

Just my two cents.......ideas to even the odds so to speak.

[The Saint]

A year ago Russ asked if anyone had an idea for a special theme for a game. THis idea is that old. But a few notes on the set-up:

 

- Its 10 vs 10, not 20 vs 20. It might work with 12 vs 12, or 8 vs 8, but the higher the number the more difficult it would be to get an equal division on the map, without players running the rish of being swamped in the first 10 turns or so. In a normal game this happens all the time, but in this game if it happens it is guaranteed to disturb the chances of the team that's get Zerged. All player positions on the map are guaranteed to have the time to develop themselves. Big battles between both teams probably won't happen for at least 20 turns.

BUT: RTG must allow a game with only 20 positions played for this to happen.

 

.

 

sorry - way too many rules for me. if this is what everyone agrees on, no thanks.

 

I think it would be better to have a pre-set map with pre-set TA's color set-ups of the "normal" group of 4 or 5 TA's per group; full play. Let Russ mix and match players - such that the ones that tend to play in games all the time together do not play with each other. FORCE new real alliances and also get those TA groups to work together with other TA alliances.

 

shows true diplomacy and game play.

 

smashing on computer run countries for 20 some-odd turns is Victory masturbation.

[Guest Spongebob]

It is getting a little too complex

 

Team Captains

They pick a Team of 12 each but must be from either USA / Rest of World

Russ decides who gets what nation

Total Bloodshed ensues

 

Simples

[Earthling]

OKAY by me as well........

[brogan]

Just my 2 cents...

 

Declare certain neutrals off limits permanently (US, Canada, Iceland, UAE)

 

Make it an advanced variety, start on turn 25 with 25 time starting stockpiles (we want it bloody and fast right?)

 

I like the idea of basing victory off of success with enemy capitals, I would even add another element: You lose your capital and you are gone from the game.

 

One more item, I would have an interested party run the remaining neutrals, in a defensive mode only. No attacks outside home nation borders, no ALL or TA either, just build build build. It might make them more of a force to try and walk over. Maybe for a flat rate of 12.00 dollars a tech period Russ would let you run the 10 or so countries.

 

I would be interested if the USA captain needed another player. I do think if this is a serious attempt to get a game going, that everyone would want to email old friends from past games to take a look at the board. Also email players that usually don't log into the message boards as well.

 

- Andy

[dageraad]

Like any good discussion a lot of good ideas emerge and some bad ideas are shot down.

 

But there are some issues we should agree upon.

 

First of all: the extra rules. This idea wouldn't work without some extra rules. The framework of the game has limited provisions for gameplay, some of the existing rules realy turn ugly in a team setup, like running an unlimited deficit. Especially if as in this setup average morale and treasury are no longer part of the victory conditions.

 

The original proposal is for a "championship" match between two teams. This eliminates in-game diplomacy entirely: you know the enemy from turn zero onwards. And the enemy is as strong as you are, so may the team with best tactics and strategy win. In all the Victory games I know of people got eliminated early by diplomacy. This most certainly would happen if we make it a team setup with more than two teams. But we could make it as simple as a game only open for full team setups and let Russ decide which team goes where. It would save us a lot of tweaking, duiscussion, tension and work. But For me, such a game wouldn't be special, but just game #91.

 

The "Neutral" nations are not there to give each player an extra easy territory to conquer. There are three reasons why i included them in the setup:

They are here to provide a buffer between the teams, to make sure that each player gets a chance to build up his forces before going mano a mano with the enemy. In most of the games you see that some positions get overrun real soon in the beginning. Great if you are the one doing the overrunning, not so great if it happens to you. There is some luck involved in overruns, this setup eliminates that factor.

 

The second reacson for the neutral countries is in their strategic value. Each team has to choose between going for the neutrals and going for the opposition. Some Neutrals are there for the taking, but some others will require a hefty investment. An invasion of the UAE or the US in would be quite an undertaking. Maybe being worth it, but maybe not. If Morocco sends a fleet to the US it might be worth it, but those ships would be midded in the action in Europe.

 

Third reason for the neutral countries: if some of these got played in a team setup their value is very limited. In the blue team I would always prefer Lowlands to Iceland. Iceland is too far away from the action to be of any importance, while Lowlands probably is "smack" in the middle of it.

 

On the map I made there are two teams and 10 countries in each team. I tried to make a balanced setup, but Earthling came up with some valid points. No doubt we can get to a final map that is balanced for a flexible number of players.

 

I can not judge what a advanced setup or extra stocks will do to the game, as I have never played in one of those games. I can imagine that players will be going for the heavy stuff immediately: Ju-88's, T-34's etc. Lets skip the fighters and the infantry, because we can afford not to build them.

For me, the managing of limited resources is one of the challenges of the game. But opinions may differ.

 

Last but not least: the victory condition. 27 capitols is 2/3's of the map. We could make it a shifting victory condition: like (40-(turn number/5), so in turn 40 it would be 32. In that way, the game will end. And if after 100 turns each team still has 20 capitols, I would be willing to accept an honorable draw.

[The Saint]

Like any good discussion a lot of good ideas emerge and some bad ideas are shot down.

...

Last but not least: the victory condition. 27 capitols is 2/3's of the map. We could make it a shifting victory condition: like (40-(turn number/5), so in turn 40 it would be 32. In that way, the game will end. And if after 100 turns each team still has 20 capitols, I would be willing to accept an honorable draw.

 

All valid points and understand now what you mean.

 

I also prefer an advance start game, prefer to be on the european team.

 

@Brogan! no going over to the American side! fight for the GMT side!

 

MAP

Any more comments on the map? if not, I'd like to see the amendments

[Marklen X]

Interesting. I may have interest. I would of course be on the American team. My only concern is that 2 teams seems unwieldly. We could easily have a 4 team grouping though. There are a couple of options.

Option 1, 4 teams of 9. Eliminate Canada, so the USA can have the benefit of extra production, then eliminate 3 key battleground countries. Switzerland, Bulgaria and Tunisia.

Team 1 would be USA, Ireland, Great Britain, France, Portugal, Spain, Morocco, Algeria, and Lowlands.

Team 2 would be Iceland, Finland, Sweden, Norway, Northern Russia, Baltic States, Denmark, Germany and Czechoslovakia.

Team 3 would be Hungary, Central Russia, Rumania, Greece, Poland, Yugoslavia, Austria, Italy and Southern Russia.

Team 4 would be UAE, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Libya, Turkey, Trans Jordan, Syria, Iraq and Persia.

 

Team 1 would get the benefit of a strong USA, but would suffer from having 4 of their countries across water. Team 2 would have a similar situation, but closer. Team 3 would have two Russias to offset the small countries in Central Europe and the Balkans, and team 4 would be be the largest in land mass. You could alter this slightly by making the 4 neutral countries all easily conquered by one of the groups. Say, Canada, UAE, Denmark and Austria.

 

Option 2 is 4 10 country teams. This becomes unfair to the west a bit, but could be worked out.

West team, USA, Canada, Ireland, Great Britain, France, Spain, Portugal, Morocco, Algeria, and Lowlands,

North team, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Finland, NR, BS, Poland, Denmark, Germany, Czechoslovakia.

Central team, Austria, Switzerland, Hungary, Bulgaria, Italy, Yugoslavia, Greece, Rumania, CR, SR.

East team, Tunisia, Turkey, Persia, Iraq, Syria, TJ, Egypt, SA, UAE, Libya.

 

Option 3, a zipper split, would be very chaotic.

Team 1. USA, GB, Spain, Algeria, Turkey, Czechoslovakia, Switzerland, Sweden, CR, and Trans Jordan.

Team 2. Canada, Greece, Finland, France, SR, Saudi Arabia, Hungary, Morocco, Syria and Denmark.

Team 3. Ireland, NR, Poland, Austria, Iraq, Egypt, Portugal, Germany, Yugoslavia and Tunisia.

Team 4. Iceland, Norway, Lowlands, Italy, Persia, UAE, Rumania, Bulgaria, Libya, and Baltic States.

 

If we had an advanced start, the last one would be a lot of fun, I would think.

[Earthling]

Add Poland to Team #3's list in the first scenario you suggest.

 

Mark, this is also a good suggestion for a special game.

[dageraad]

 

I shure hate to be Czechoslovakia in the first option. And you do make a distinction between countries that are in the thick of the action right away, and countries that have to work hard to get to the frontline. In an all-out war green is doomed.

[Marklen X]

 

I shure hate to be Czechoslovakia in the first option. And you do make a distinction between countries that are in the thick of the action right away, and countries that have to work hard to get to the frontline. In an all-out war green is doomed.

 

You could swap Austria and Czechoslovakia. I do not think green is doomed. They have two of the three Russias on their side, which gives them huge population, and they have all the balkan light ore, which is huge. Strategically, they have some drawbacks, of course. Poland goes there, I added it in on an edit.

 

I would play any of those options, with any country. Not sure about the 4 teams.

I suppose we could have Western US, Eastern US, Dutch and rest of the world.

[Earthling]

I shure hate to be Czechoslovakia in the first option. And you do make a distinction between countries that are in the thick of the action right away, and countries that have to work hard to get to the frontline. In an all-out war green is doomed.

It would seem so, however I was a member of that team in game #77. It worked out pretty much that we were nearly all the green nations, Greece, Bulgaria, Austria, Poland Southern Russia, Czech, plus Egypt & Syria. Egypt, Syria, Southern Russia & Greece all finished the game, but not all as associated TA's. The Syrian/SR combo won the game, but we all worked together against Iceland, Canada, USA (plus they had a couple of European TA's that the shed late in the game in an effort to win - NR & Denmark). So, even though it seems as if the green would be doomed, that combo did win game #77.