Will there be a Victory! upgrade?

[Spartacus]

Ok i read further back But what about the Seven Years War?

[ShadowKitsune]

Things I'd like to see in a Victory! Upgrade:

 

1. Multiple Armies in a single location. You can do it with Fleets. You can do it with Air Groups, but not with Armies.

 

2. Better Country Management Software - VicManager is okay as is the Order Entry program, but they could both be better and potentially in the same package.

 

Things that I think might be interesting, but I'm not sure what the overall impact would be ...

 

A. Generic Units

B. Customizable Components

C. Research Trees

 

A few definitions -

 

Generic Units - Instead of historic named units, each position starts with common units like INF Divisions, MECH Divisions, ARM Divisions, AMPH Divisions, AIR Regiments, Fighter Air Groups, Medium Bomber Air Groups, Dive Bomber Air Groups, Torpedo Boats, Destroyers, Cruisers, Battleships, etc. Each of these would serve as 'frames' that could be customized by the player.

 

Customizable Components - These would be add-ons to the Generic Units like Vehicle Armor II, Naval Guns III, Improved Aircraft Piston Engines, Improved Torpedoes, Artillery II, etc. This would allow each position to 'create' their own units instead of relying solely on what a particular Tech Pack has available. You would also get a certain number of components for 'free' at start, thus giving each position a potentially unique "Tech Package" from the beginning of the game.

 

Research Trees - This would drive the Customizable Components portion of the game and could also be used to add a little variety in the Economics portion of the game. For example, you could add Advanced Factory types that produce more ARM, AIR, CP, GEN, FUEL per capita. Advanced Mine types that produce more raw materials per capita. Synthetic Fuel Technology that converts FOOD into PETROL (i.e. Ethanol). You could also require the research of 'gateway' technologies before certain units become available (i.e. RADAR Tech would open up Night Fighters and improved Naval Search ratings). This would also add an additional building/structure, the Research Facility, which would consume resources, require population and present an additional strategic target for espionage and bombardment.

 

The Upside to all of this would be that players would no longer 'know' what each sides units were capable of, nor be restricted by Tech Package shortcomings, and players could have the 'fun' of building, and naming, the units they'd like to see.

 

The Downside would be that Victory! would become less 'historical' and more like Axis-n-Allies on steroids; not to mention the additional programming involved in making the game more component based.

 

FWIW,

-SK

[Lord Uriel]

Things I'd like to see in a Victory! Upgrade:

 

1. Multiple Armies in a single location.  You can do it with Fleets.  You can do it with Air Groups, but not with Armies.

 

2. Better Country Management Software - VicManager is okay as is the Order Entry program, but they could both be better and potentially in the same package.

 

Things that I think might be interesting, but I'm not sure what the overall impact would be ...

 

A. Generic Units

B. Customizable Components

C. Research Trees

 

A few definitions -

 

Generic Units - Instead of historic named units, each position starts with common units like INF Divisions, MECH Divisions, ARM Divisions, AMPH Divisions, AIR Regiments, Fighter Air Groups, Medium Bomber Air Groups, Dive Bomber Air Groups, Torpedo Boats, Destroyers, Cruisers, Battleships, etc.  Each of these would serve as 'frames' that could be customized by the player.

 

Customizable Components - These would be add-ons to the Generic Units like Vehicle Armor II, Naval Guns III, Improved Aircraft Piston Engines, Improved Torpedoes, Artillery II, etc.  This would allow each position to 'create' their own units instead of relying solely on what a particular Tech Pack has available.  You would also get a certain number of components for 'free' at start, thus giving each position a potentially unique "Tech Package" from the beginning of the game.

 

Research Trees - This would drive the Customizable Components portion of the game and could also be used to add a little variety in the Economics portion of the game.  For example, you could add Advanced Factory types that produce more ARM, AIR, CP, GEN, FUEL per capita.  Advanced Mine types that produce more raw materials per capita.  Synthetic Fuel Technology that converts FOOD into PETROL (i.e. Ethanol).  You could also require the research of 'gateway' technologies before certain units become available (i.e. RADAR Tech would open up Night Fighters and improved Naval Search ratings).  This would also add an additional building/structure, the Research Facility, which would consume resources, require population and present an additional strategic target for espionage and bombardment.

 

The Upside to all of this would be that players would no longer 'know' what each sides units were capable of, nor be restricted by Tech Package shortcomings, and players could have the 'fun' of building, and naming, the units they'd like to see.

 

The Downside would be that Victory! would become less 'historical' and more like Axis-n-Allies on steroids; not to mention the additional programming involved in making the game more component based.

 

FWIW,

-SK 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree with the first two completely.

[Meatball]

One thing I'd like to see is a bit more realism in some of the units/numbers. Basically as it is now people build up these humongous forces that just weren't realistic.

 

For an example with Air groups, most folks head in on TAS with full contingents of 25 air groups, 60-80 planes per group for a nice total of 1500-2000 planes, that's just insane. In Pearl Harbor, the first attack wave was a measly 181 planes, while the second wave was 170.

 

As for ground troops, the same goes, people are rolling around with these 18 stacks of Mech/Armored units which is insane numbers of troops. Truthfully, a lot of battles were fought with much smaller units. So, looking at say one American mech41B unit, it would contain about 3000 mech infantry, 40 tanks, 25 artillery pieces, 36 Anti tank guns,, 24 AA guns plus 3000 more support troops. So in a nice 18 stack we're looking at 54000 infantry, 720 tanks, 450 artillery, 648 anti-tank guns, 432 AA guns, and another 54000 support troops. One 18 stack is close to the d-day invasion troops of all the allies put together. The biggest landing in the pacific was 110,000 troops in Iwo Jima.

 

Naval seems to be about the only group that things are a bit more realistic with fleet sizes that people create seeming more in line with what was actually going on. Then again, that could just be because Naval gets worked by Air, so not a lot of folks build up huge navies.

 

It just seems like there's way too many troops floating around. I'd love to see things where smaller units were the more than norm than these huge juggernauts rolling around the maps

[Hamish]

Spartacus,

 

Look up at what Russ said. He's keeping the same map.

 

Do the diplomacy orders work in SN? I heard they didn't. So not much use in that.

 

And there is quite a lot of different and varied spying type - espionage orders in Victory!  Take a close look at CHAPG - Intelligence, in the Vicrules folder.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I have suggested before, and I will do so again, that espionage missions should be limited in some way. I feel that people with more money to spend IRL have an unfair advantage as it is. You can just give 40 real orders and 50 EM orders, as opposed to someone with a limited budget who will have to make do with 20 EM orders.

 

So I think there should be an in-game cost for espionage orders. Maybe a fixed cost per mission, or a maximum number of EM orders per intelligence operations level.

[Hamish]

In an unrelated topic: I would also like to suggest a system that determines the maximum size of AIC networks. I think it would be beneficial to gameplay if each country has an 'infrastructure level'. This could be set to 3 initially, to allow AIC1, AIC2 and AIC3 cities. But for larger countries this infrastructure level could be raised to 4 or 5 or maybe even 6. This would allow for very large scale AICs. Of course, the cost should be significant, as it sort of replaces building large quantities of rail capacity, and this should be reflected in the cost.

I think this would make the larger countries more playable, and give people the choice to invest in either rail capacity or infrastructure levels, depending on how much time and money (in-game and IRL) they want to spend on their rail operations.

[Hamish]

Have I somehow chased everyone away from this topic?

[ShadowKitsune]

Have I somehow chased everyone away from this topic?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Don't think so. I know that I've pretty much said what I was going to say on the subject until I hear something back from Russ or Pete [RTG].

 

I see your point on the more complex AIC Network, but I think it just gives larger countries an even bigger advantage (than their large size already gets them). Plus from a revenue standpoint, it's that many fewer orders you have to issue to keep your big country running.

 

M2CW,

SK

[Krysia's Krusader]

I would like an incentive for the players to actually build night fighters, and some of the other supporting aircraft.

 

With the current NTS limitations, people prefer to build MB's mostly.

 

If I can build only 8 or 10 air units (or they're equivilant) - no matter what the cost in air points, I'll build TAS capable units. Even though F are 1/3 the cost, and S/LR are 1/6, in air points and production, it makes no sense to do so, when the rest of the world is building MB types.

 

Perhaps, allowing an equivilance modifier, to the specific types of air units, in comparison to each other, would make things more, shall we say, realistic.

[Rommel]

The only way to do make sure people build different kind of aircraft is to make sure that aircraft on a TAS mission can only fly 1 mission per turn, even if the aircraft didn't find a target...

[Krysia's Krusader]

Yea. Good point, Rommel.

 

Upon further thought, it took longer to train bomber crews, than say, fighter crews (night flying, intrument navigation, target recognition, etc.). So assigning a NTS level - per type of air crew desired - would make things better, in my opinion.

Theoretically, it would require about the same level of time and resources, to train 3 (day) fighter crews, as compared to a (medium) bomber crew.

[Warmaster]

Yea. Good point, Rommel.

 

Upon further thought, it took longer to train bomber crews, than say,  fighter crews (night flying, intrument navigation, target recognition,  etc.). So assigning a NTS level - per type of air crew desired - would make things better, in my opinion.

Theoretically, it would require about the same level of time and resources, to train 3 (day) fighter crews, as compared to a (medium) bomber crew.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

 

You are entering pretty subjective territory here so I would not try to venture an opinion.

 

What I would say is that instead of playing with NTS limits for figthers and bombers it would be better to apply a serious negative multiplier to the TAS factor of a bomber if air superiority is not achieved over the province, city, or fleet in question.

 

Example:

 

4 defending squadrons take on 1 medium bomber squadron escorted by a fighter squadron. Combat occurs normally with the escorting fighter squadron soaking up the damage of two of the defenders and the other two defenders inflict damage on the bomber. Morale is checked and everything is fairly realistic at this point.

 

What is not covered in the game mechanics is the fact that those two defending fighter squadrons not tied up by the attackers fighter escorts are doing some serious harrasment of the enemy bombers. This is 120 fighters against 60 enemy bombers. Tell me that each bomber not shot down does not have a SERIOUS degradation to their performance as they have to watch out for two enemy fighters out there somewhere trying to kill them. The bomber crew is preoccupied watching their tail instead of the target to be attacked on the ground. This harrsment is fairly independent of the quality of the defending fighter except of course the speed of the fighter versues the speed of the bomber. Would not a fair percentage of the bombers not killed by fighters would have been forced to jettison their bombs to survive and fight another day?

 

My recomendation is the TAS strenghth of a bomber be reduced drastically by some formula that compares the ratio of surviving bombers to defending fighters not tangling with escort fighters

 

Of course the flaw with my idea is that would it encourage a defender to build the cheapest and lousiest fighter available in huge quantites to degrade the enemy bomber performance. This is probably not an issue since you would ultimately be at a long term disadvantage using up your ANTS limits building such poor machines.

[Fleur-de-Lis]

I want a Pionnier unit, to open up roads through the forest and moiuntains terrains.

[Saint Michael]

Victroy II,

 

Lot's of good ideas being presented.

 

A couple of things that I would like to see is, If you have British tech, then only have British stuff, no American stuff and visa versa. You would have to live with your strenths and weaknesses.

 

Some new units I would like to see are Russian Guards, American oversized Div.

 

Could try French and Italian tech

 

Sounds like the new game will be fun. I will be watching for it.

[LenLorek]

Victroy II,

 

Lot's of good ideas being presented.

 

A couple of things that I would like to see is, If you have British tech, then only have British stuff, no American stuff and visa versa. You would have to live with your strenths and weaknesses.

 

Some new units I would like to see are Russian Guards, American oversized Div.

 

Could try French and Italian tech

 

Sounds like the new game will be fun. I will be watching for it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I'm not sure about these ideas.

 

What about *hybrid* British/American technology?

-- The British took the American M4 Sherman, replaced the woeful 75mm gun with the 17pdr, and renamed it the Firefly. Each British tank platoon from 1944 had 3 Cruiser tanks and 1 Firefly SPAT (although many had a 2/2 split in the latest stages of the war).

-- The British took the American M10 Wolverine SPAT, replaced the 76mm gun with a 17pdr, and renamed it the Achilles.

-- The British took the American T17 armored car, and replaced the 37mm gun with a 75mm gun or a 3 inch howitzer, and renamed it the Staghound. The Americans did not use the Staghound, preferring the M8 Greyhound instead.

-- The American P-51 Mustang was originally developed to order for the British who wanted a longer-range fighter than their Spitfires and Hurricanes that would be able to escort bombers on their long missions. The original P-51A Mustangs (from 1942) had weak Allison engines, until Britain's Royal Air Force replaced the Mustang's engines with the Merlin engines (from Nov 1943) used for Spitfires. In Jan 1944, the US Air Force started using these upgraded P-51D Mustangs.

 

French technology only lasted up to their surrender to the Germans in 1940. From that time until early 1943 the Free French used British technology, and after that time used American technology.

 

As for Italian technology -- the Italian army has the worst reputation of any army in World War II, due to its very bad leadership and atrocious equipment, not helped by the fact that most of the Italian army fought in terrain for which it was neither equipped nor trained. The Italians on the Russian front were the best of the German Allies, but only after they had been re-equipped with German equipment. Would any Victory! player want to use Italian technology?

 

 

I have enjoyed playing Victory! in the past, as it is the best game I have ever played. I also look forward to Victory II, as any improvement to an already superb game is the stuff of dreams.

 

However, all of my spare time is now taken up with SNROTE, so if/when Victory II comes out, I will be in a quandary ... .