Thors Posted April 8, 2015 Report Share Posted April 8, 2015 Since it's "wrong" to play more than one Nation in one game; that's the only open comment anyone would make (guilty or innocent). But if USA, etc. folds towards the end and gets gobbled up by Canada, then we'll know... If not, then either you only play one nation, or don't want to be found out! Besides, the view of a "friend" to one, is a lackey to another! Anyway, my insinuations are not and never have been malevolent or derisive in nature, I'm just amused, and hope you are too! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thors Posted April 8, 2015 Report Share Posted April 8, 2015 This opens for debate: The base philosophy/morality of this style game, and why I personally think it's a failed experiment (no TA; because people brought the TA mentality into it). By being limited by a large degree on who you actually work with in a normal TA game, perhaps this manifestation allows more people to have a wolf-pack mentality? A wolf ultimately looks to feed itself, but is driven to work in a pack as it is a social animal. People will have the idea that "well if I can't win, I want one of my friends to win". So multiple people will gang up on those who are "not friends", without the potential equalizing of other large groupings to offset the perceived dominant group. In other words, normally it would be about 4 or 5 people working together, against other similar sized groupings. Even if they have more friends in the game, those friends gravitate towards friendly competition, joining a different group (which is all well and fun). But in this situation; instead of friendly competition, they are prone to target similar enemies early on, and hope for friendly competition later in the game... But at that point they will be forced to fight each other to some extent, but for now they try to ignore that reality. They'll face it when they get there... While 7 or so "friends" enjoy the early and mid game, they will run out of enemies sooner or later by the inherent desire to work with friends and help eliminate their friends enemies. This style game further compounds the problem of the "gang up on" situation that alienates a more individual player or group limited to a couple friends. After being pounded by multiple enemies, the desire to continue playing Victory diminishes. It's a problematic cycle. People drop, and you're faced with the dull or distasteful prospect of fighting AI, possibly "turning" on a friend, or dropping out yourself. You'll wind up with a clique of people continuing to play new Vic games, with a dwindling supply of people to pick on. And that clique or two, will scratch their heads, wondering why it's taking so long to start a new game. The pack mentality draws a few closer together that want to play with each other again and again, but it weeds out the "others". But heck, that's just Human Nature. I know a few people who have lost the desire to continue Vic to one degree or another. And there are no equal numbers of new people taking up the game. Personally I've had a lot of fun with Vic over the past couple years since Vic93 started. I had been inactive for the previous 12ish years, so it was basically new all over for me. Looking back to the late 90's, early 00's it seemed less "dog pile on the rabbit" than it is today. I remember winning a TA game with only one friend. That seems almost impossible nowadays (despite 93 may be a 3 man TA win, but IMO 93 had extraordinary situations). A few moths ago I was on the fence, tipping one way then the other on joining the latest game that was filling, but now my allies of 93 and I are probably not going to. Admittedly, we started the game as a group of 5, as seems common practice. But being in central Europe, we were surrounded by potential enemies and were forced to pick off a few nations to consolidate and strengthen against surrounding enemies totaling more than our own numbers. It was a struggle, but we wanted to play honorably. -I felt bad for some of our immediate "enemies" such as Switzerland and Austria, but we had little choice. It was kill or be killed... Still, I'm very positive that the game has evolved so that either you have a lot of friends/allies or you get steam rolled (for the most part). I may joke around on the forum for laughs, but I want to play honorably. Yet too often the situations put that play style in jeopardy; that playing the game; ignoring, dodging or manipulating ethics have become the norm. I've been outright lied to; I've seen the truth manipulated, ignored, and I've had to withhold some truths on occasion; and I dislike that... Even though I fully understand that for some "all's fair in love and war" and tend to avoid taking things personal, I still dislike this aspect of Vic. If you don't also play the gray line to some extent, you'll probably lose. It's sad but I think it's true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reece Posted April 8, 2015 Report Share Posted April 8, 2015 Interesting read. I don't think the mentality has changed since the early 90's. In the early 90's I played from overseas and usually as a independent nation although I sometimes took a TA on later in the game. My main complaint back then was the number of dropped positions. I think Russ cured that by slowing down the number of games or perhaps we are just left with more determined players. Just look at the number of games in the Hall of Victory that ended early with just a few survivors and the rest drops during the early years. Players have always tried to be opportunistic with a pile on mentality when it is beneficial. Your probably right about the TA mentality entering into game 95 there do seam to be groups operating together to a common goal or should we call that diplomacy. I know I filled all 8 alliance blocks before turn 3. I think the difference between the victory of old and new is the rise in communications speed and known setup. Both of these play into the wolf pack strategy success. We certainly don't want to end diplomacy by playing all nations with the privacy option. Perhaps another special game would be in order. I think starting at Tech period 25 with advanced stockpiles and perhaps 50 population that could be distributed to up to 3 cities would create more unknowns in the start of the game. Additionally all setups could be done randomly to deter preformed alliances. Its a lot harder to run over a nation that has a nice starting stockpile. Any ideas on how to further deter the cooperation so that independent nations have a better chance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thors Posted April 8, 2015 Report Share Posted April 8, 2015 First my apologies if my previous post rambled on, perhaps lacking continuity. I had a few snorts of Brandy last night, and was in an unusual mood! Reece, I think I played about 4 or 5 games in the 90's, but my memory fails me at times. I'll take your word on the manner of pile-ups. But now that you mention it, I recollect that drops were a problem. Nations that were perfectly viable became surprisingly inactive. Back during the play by mail days, wasn't there a USA based processing (Russ) and a European (Netherlands based) processing? If so, it may account for some variations in perception and play style. I'm working with a couple friends in a TA fashion, so by no means am I degrading others for doing it. A big part of the fun of Vic is working with others, so it cannot be denied. I'm just concerned about the potential for larger than TA groups, the lopsidedness it could create, and the potential disappointment when they have nobody left but themselves. This is a reason I checked myself from forming a large cluster of "friends". While I certainly didn't want to play solo, even though that would sort of play into my perception of a no TA game; I knew the life expectancy would be shorter if I didn't work with others at all. But to form a group as large as a TA game (or larger) would seemingly detract from everyone's experience as a whole. Meh. Good suggestions on a variation game. Deterring cooperation seems only possible via the honor system. Soooo.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reece Posted April 8, 2015 Report Share Posted April 8, 2015 Well talk it over with your friends. If you can come up with a variant that reduces the wolf pack strategy. I'm in. Considering 98 will start before long perhaps we could have the variant ready to go in early 2016. Another thought would be to limit the number of active wars a player could have. Another approach would be to have each war reduce income by 5% so that a player would tend to not declare a war unless he expected to gain more than the costs. Have fun, RIck Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brogan Posted April 10, 2015 Report Share Posted April 10, 2015 What people don't remember is that back in the day (my first game was #4 as Algeria), is that yes there were a lot more people playing but during the course of a game a lot of people would drop for little or no reason. Many people probably gave the game a shot and found it was too hard or not to their liking. When I took a break after game 22, my first game back was game 64. I was blown away that not only did people hang around a lot longer, but the competition was way harder, less forgiving, etc... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Michael Posted April 10, 2015 Report Share Posted April 10, 2015 Damn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dageraad Posted April 10, 2015 Report Share Posted April 10, 2015 It's been a while, so here's a new map: - Austria seems to be gone - Persia seemed gone from Rumanian territory, but that was only temporal - Norway said "damn" and that god me worried. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
don Posted April 11, 2015 Report Share Posted April 11, 2015 Fathers and sons. Blood is thicker than water.But this is not the same as playing two nations. Priorities are different,goals change. Could US attack Canada? Unlikely. Neither Father or son drops games once started. I once finished a game with one territory and no forces. But we will likely work together. By the way nice job with your fighter cover. ELDER COMMANDER LINK Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Michael Posted April 11, 2015 Report Share Posted April 11, 2015 It's been a while, so here's a new map: - Austria seems to be gone - Persia seemed gone from Rumanian territory, but that was only temporal - Norway said "damn" and that god me worried. God? - Thor of Odin? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thors Posted April 11, 2015 Report Share Posted April 11, 2015 Fathers and sons. Blood is thicker than water.But this is not the same as playing two nations. Priorities are different,goals change. Could US attack Canada? Unlikely. Neither Father or son drops games once started. I once finished a game with one territory and no forces. But we will likely work together. By the way nice job with your fighter cover. ELDER COMMANDER LINK That's cool. One of my sons tried Vic a while ago, but he got deployed and didn't have the time or reliable connection. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dageraad Posted April 11, 2015 Report Share Posted April 11, 2015 Heimdal, god of vigilancve? Still want to know about the "damn". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ike Posted April 12, 2015 Report Share Posted April 12, 2015 It's been a while, so here's a new map: - Austria seems to be gone - Persia seemed gone from Rumanian territory, but that was only temporal - Norway said "damn" and that god me worried. God? - Thor of Odin? Hey Mike, good to hear from you. Is the bowling hectic a little lesser? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Michael Posted April 13, 2015 Report Share Posted April 13, 2015 It's been a while, so here's a new map: - Austria seems to be gone - Persia seemed gone from Rumanian territory, but that was only temporal - Norway said "damn" and that god me worried. God? - Thor of Odin? Hey Mike, good to hear from you. Is the bowling hectic a little lesser? Yes, it is drawing near the end of the season Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Michael Posted April 13, 2015 Report Share Posted April 13, 2015 Heimdal, god of vigilancve? Still want to know about the "damn". Wadding throw all the the quote's Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.