Beltira

All 'reputable' search engines look for a robots file and only index what they are told to index, Google is one of them. IPB, as do many other forum packages, additionally support configurations for the major search engine bots. This can be seen here when on occasion you will see google.com listed as a user logged into the forum. This is how search engines can index and make available in their indexes content that would otherwise be restricted to logged in users. This, IMHO, represents both good and bad. As to freedom of speech, remember that with freedom of speech, is the freedom for what is said to be recorded. I personally have no issues with this, however it is something I am and have been fully aware of having been an active user of the 'Internet' long before there was a WWW, and long before Al Gore even invented the Internet.

1. Read the rules adendum, very important changes in there. At least IMHO. 2. When in doubt on something, ask Russ. Russ gives awesome answers to questions. 3. Remember any contact with other players is always diplomacy. If you are in central europe and a neighbor nation tells you he is looking forward to a united central europe....make sure he is including in that. 4. Do not assume. 5. Do not assume your oponent(s) will assume. 6. Many experienced players will offer to take you under their wing and use you for cannon fodder. While this can be a good way to learn, be watchful of it. If you choose to allow this, fine. Just be aware of it. 7. If you come with a new tactic...don't share it. Look at how you will defend against it when your enemy figures out its a good tactic and uses it on you. 8. Alliance is just another way to say 'Not yet, later." Total alliance is just another way of saying "Maybe later, maybe not." Thats a good start for ya.

Letter to our players, Please read...Addenda added Feb 2005 This really saddens me. A lot. In all my dealings with RTG and those of my friends and teammates have been nothing short of totally professional at all times. I have never had any doubt that RTG does its best with what it has to work with and I think for two people they do a bang up job! Russ and Pete: Thanks guys for running a great game and putting up with us players! Here's To Ya Both Joe Saudi Arabia '71

As I have stated from the first on this topic, my opposition on extending the game was as to what conditions could be decided. As I recall, the original ideas thrown out were things like control of all capitals in the game. Which would, by definition, mean having to take and hold Washington. Not likelly with Russian tech. Further, I have stated repeatedly the idea of voting to extend it 25 turns to make up for the turns lost as advanved start, with the understanding that those remaining near this extended end game could vote for further extensions. After all, exending my boarders to Spain does not sound so bad for me.

The problem with the south of France, or any part of France....is the French. I think VIC II needs some special orders added just for France... Some special OMG's.... DW for Drop Weapons All troops in the force being issued this order, drop their weapons and wait for someone to come along and capture them. RA for Run Away( Yes, I do mean that as an offensive mission) All troops in the force being issued this order, will turn and run from any oposing force. A non mission order BWF - Build White Flags And of course a new OMG for use when attacking France.... GAF - Go Around Fortifications Forces attacking with a GOF attack method, will ciricle around fortifications and take them from behind.

Its so nice to be remembered! I just hate having to envade someone to get them to remember me. But such are the trials and tribulations of a Fariq.

Anticipating a great demand, we have ample facilities available for you, and of course for your Marines, and even those of Morroco and Tunisia. And we shall assure the security of them as well. Of course this does mean surrendering, but that is such a small price to require for the safety and well being of your forces and citizens. We are a caring and peaceloving lot, which is why it is our mission to secure peace throughout by eliminating all the foes of peace and stability throughout.

For Release 4 p.m. EDT August 6, 2004 Saudi Arabia Announces All Your Pyramids are now belong to P.I.S.S. RIYADH, SAUDIA ARABIA — August 6, 2004 — Today Fariq Awwal, Beltira announced the re-opening of the only remaining member of The Seven Wonders of the Ancient World, The Great Pyramid at Giza along with other pyramids and The Great Sphinx. For over 4 millennia the Egyptians have selfishly kept these great treasures for themselves, however today this has changed. The Great Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has been entrusted by Team P.I.S.S. to ensure the preservation of these great historic treasures and open them to the public to demonstrate Saudi Arabia's benevolence and good graces. Tourist from all over shall be welcomed to come see these awesome wonders built by the blood sweat and tears of entire generations of slave labor at the mercy of slave masters and Pharaohs of the past. These monuments have stood the test of time, unlike Egypt itself has done. Saudi Arabia and Team P.I.S.S stand guard to ensure the safety of these monuments and those deciding to come gaze into the history of this great land. To ensure our ability to host as many as possible visitors, we have established the Great Giza Pyramid And Sphinx Memorial Relocation Center. Thus we will be able to ensure the safety and security off all Visitors. Team P.I.S.S. is a registered trademark of Team P.I.S.S., Inc. Persia is a registered trademark of Persia, Inc. Iraq is a registered trademark of Iraq. Syria is a registered trademark of Syria, Inc. Saudi Arabia is a registered trademark of Saudi Arabia, Inc. The names of actual countries and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners(for now at least...so many countries, so little time). For more information, press only: (Beltira, Fariq Awwal, Saudi Arabia), (beltira@charter.net) Team P.I.S.S - Coming to a capital near you!

That is along the lines of my thoughts! Although I am thinking with the logistics that become envolved, that it should also follow the adding 30 more orders each 25 turns. I don't see why anyone would appose this, if you don't want or need them, don't use them. But with an MCR of just one type of item being limited to 15 locations before it becomes a double order, and needing to keep multiple occupied countries going, more orders IMHO become a must or they will server to just drag the game out longer.

I would agree that the Victory conditions leave quite a bit to be desired, especially when it comes to balancing out the large vs small country issues, computer vs human run countries, and others. My only real issue is that there should be some kind of set of conditions that end a game. As an example, if one or two players hold all of USA and Canada, and another player or group of TA's hold all of the rest, IMHO it should be declared over at that point Hopefully with V2 this will be an easy to resolve issue.

I think more than anything else terminology. The stage one would be a new game engine, and 90% or more of the stage 2 codeing would be done at that point. Designing in a way that abstracts everything, allows for most changes to be just changing configuration changes with no code changes needed to be done. It does make it more complex in design, but less complex in using it, and in adding new features. Also makes much less likelly that adding a new feature will break something else.

Yes, they did, but there are some issues to consider. 1. Those calculations were as we say, non trivial. 2. Without exact positioning, those were not really worht much. 3. Becase the batteries were fixed, aiming as aesier than it was for aiming shipmounted guns. Consider the only shipboard guns that could reach them had to get into range of them to do so, thus becoming a target themselves. 4. These types of shells tend to fall an pretty close to straight down. Thus, the ships were most vulnerable to them and those cliffside guns were quite well protected and very difficult to hit from a range. Thats why Rangers were used. They knew the odds were that they would be killed, but it was deamed better than putting entire battle ship crews at risk.

First I know for myself, I assume the others as well, were taking it as a given that this staged idea is starting with new language and platform. While staging can make the programming easier, it makes the testing and validation doable. Without the staging, then to really test it enough to validate it, would be a much larger job than writing it. Even with automated testing tools, the permutations become astronomical with something like this. Where as if you duplicate the existing first, its quite easy to validate it, as you simply collect the orders files for say 10 turn of a game from turn 1, then run them all through both, and compare results. As long as you make sure that every option of ever order is used several times by several players, then this is a fairly simple but strong validation. And would be the bulk of the work, as at that point, most rules changes would doable by altering configurations, will little programming changes to get it up to Vic II. As to a Windows order entry program, if I were to write it, it would be almost as complex as the Vic game engine itself, as it would combine all the features of the victory manager, without its bugs, and even more management and planning features. For example, give what I want to MCR, and start and end points, let it figure out the best routeing. If you want to discuss hiring my services for such a job, lets talk

That somewhat depends. Look for example at the big coastal guns Germany built in France. They had greater range and accuracy than all but the biggest ship mount guns on battleships. Thus, they had to be taken out by landing rangers the night before D-Day. And that was after weeks of attempting to take them out by bombers. This presents an interesting concept for Vic II. Big coastal batteries for those willing to spend on them.

I have thought some of the same thing, except my thought is not that the air is two powerful, but that the navy is too weak. A group of some battleships and cruisors of the era could litterally flatten a city. And typically air strikes on naval forces would envolve more loss of planes than what I've seen from the comparable battle reports that I've seen.