Thors

Now that I think about it, the most tragic situation in Game 96 was France and Spain dropping around tech 3. That vacuum shaped things to come (in a bad way for me).

I did not say the "unfair" word. The concept of fairness in a game like this is highly subjective. For instance, things that Mickey thought were unfair, I thought were just how people did things. Things that others thought were just using game mechanics to their advantage, I thought was unfair. Yes, Subjective, and I recognize that, and that's why I've not taken anything personal. However, in old posts I did raise the issue of game manipulation to seek "unfair" advantage. I'm over that, but of course it's left a feeling of displeasure with the game. The concept of "well he did it, so I'll do it too" does not sit well with me any more. The concept of "all's fair in love and war" does not sit with me well either. Because this is a game, not real life. A certain level of "fairness" is something I've grown to appreciate in games. You don't exactly want to cut off your "enemies" head and prance around, bouncing it off the ground while strutting (game 93 comes to mind)... -figuratively, not literally (LOL)! You cant do "dick" things and then expect to have them play another game with you. I've learned that from both sides. My philosophy of gameplay started not in 96, but in 93 and carried over. I started out with some moves I wouldn't do again that fell into the "well it's a common strategy, so I should do it" and gradually developed to its current ideal of trying to take a higher path, the "honorable" approach. The problem with the high road is, that not every player will share that ideal and you may make judgment errors yourself, that will bite you on the ass. And if others don't choose that path, who will be disappointed? The high road can be lonely. And that's why Mickey quit. And why I've come close to quitting Victory. Yes Don, this is a game of co-operation. But what were your expectations of a non TA game? Apparently it was either the removal of limitations to some, or the placement of limitations to others. Reality is both, but game philosophy tends to draw towards one side or the other. I was disappointed that it seemed more about less limitations when you have 10 nations DW one, when it probably wouldn't have happened in a TA game. About my comment of "Sham" Nations: That perception is based on a few Nations that appeared to do almost nothing in the game. No visible warring activity that one would expect. There's an artificial "buffer zone". So it's an easy deduction that all they are there for, is to support their 'friends". Perma-allies that do hardly anything. So perhaps they are robots. helping another nation, built up supplies and send them? Yes, this is speculation. And if they were total robots I'd probably have faced more extensive attacks. Seems a waste of money to me. If that's how this game's social cooperation has developed, a sort of "I'll help you win this game, you help me next" then I'm not prone to play it. Yeah, speculation. But we are dealing with feelings and perceptions, all subjective aspects, when you think to yourself "Do I like this game?". And yes Don, Seafaring nations are a PITA. Much more tedium and more sensitive to errors. This was my first try, and with partially self inflicted black eyes and bloody nose, I'd not play them again. Too much disadvantage that is not properly compensated. -But you take it as a challenge, and that's great (for you). We would have been a somewhat equal match in Italy, had my supply train not been severed by the Portuguese war. Had my production not been reduced to half a nation. And had you not the extensive support of North Africa (You needed them, I get that) -Not particular complaints, but more-so observances. How else would you feel, when you're the rabbit?!? 10ish nations declared war on me! WTF? LOL

Ike, that's an understandable perspective, and one that isn't entirely true to the context of 96. GB got caught with it's pants down. Plain and simple, and was unable to recover from a consertive singular effort by one Nation, with support by 5+ nations (directly or indirectly). I only had sustained support from one (Ireland), who was in a similar situation of initially putting most effort into France. In hindsight I should have developed a more suitable land force to remain in GB proper, rather than ignore ARM production (trade for increased AIR) and send most across the channel. But if I did that, I wouldn't have lasted as long as I did against you in France. If you recall, before Sweden attacked, at best we were at a standstill. It was give and take, and towards the end, you were winning. That's when LL joined, rather than let you push all the way up to his borders. You had the advantage of 2 whole nations of production of your own, and were not facing the intrinsic hardship of naval transportation for your land units and supplies. Once my production was garroted by losing north GB, and Strategically bombed in my two most major pop centers, and lost a third to Norway... Well it was only a matter of time. I certainly couldn't fight you any more in France, and even trying to withdraw troops back to GB; I was thwarted by you and others. Let this put it into better perspective: 9 nations are still at a state of Declared War against Great Britain. How many nations declared war and maintained actual war on Portugal? Do you realize I have not declared war on anyone other than France and Italy? I only delayed accepting a treaty with you, because it was a suspicious situation. You were likely to DW on Ireland. And you did. Ireland wanted to work with you, but couldn't right away. That wasn't soon enough for you perhaps. Or perhaps the initial talks were just a smoke screen. Whatever, I do not blame you for going to war with Ireland and GB. It was Geologically logical. By the way, as far as I know, Iceland has not supported me in anything other than maintaining an Ally status and DW'ing on Portugal. It was a paper pledge, without substance. But I do thank Iceland for not adding to the list of GB enemies. It was probably tempting, but he maintained his convictions, and I respect that. It's easy to place a superior and negative perspective on another nations situation, when you have way more friends than enemies, and he has way more enemies than friends. I had been displeased with this "special game" from early on. But I admit it has a lot to do with perspective. Mine was a notion that it could reduce or eliminate the "dog pile on the rabbit" situation that is prevalent in a 5 TA situation, with the perk of " 5 Allies for life". I did understand that the idea of "I'd rather a friend win this game (than a non friend)" could apply, but not to the level that I've witnessed. People are simply not limited to 5 perma-allies. Yeah, I had two myself... But it was self motivating ethics that kept it minimal. Ethics that others did not apparently share or even consider. And I still think that a couple people are playing multiple Nations. There are sham and puppet nations. If this was a TA game, I doubt I would have had such a disparaging political situation of 10 enemy conditions with only 3 ally situations from early on. Anyway Ike, I'm out, and there are no hard feelings to you. In fact, I'd like to see you win the game.

Funny, Prior to reading your post, it did dawn on me that I was being a bit hypocritical. It took some time, but it did occur to me about the "at war with ally scenario". Since there were no set guidelines to this special game, we all had some varying notions about it. My bit of "gray area" had to do with defensive mechanisms. I think most people will also have the inherent notion that if you're defending yourself, you'll do what is necessary to survive. IE: if an aggressor has you in a headlock, strangling you, biting their forearm to get out of it would not be a dirty trick. Yet aggressively grabbing someone's arm and biting it is altogether different, isn't it? And if you are down and the aggressor kicks you in the face, that is a dirty trick. Get it? The "at war to fly over" seemed a much lesser "evil" when it was intentioned in a defensive manner. Ireland did not attack Portugal; certainly not his home nation to force him out. I did not take Portugal's Ally request, as I thought he *may* have been insincere about working with Ireland. As I told you, Ireland and I would have been like dominoes had I not supported the fight. I came into 93 a sort of "newb". I did not form much in the way of opinions as to how the game should be played and what constituted sportsmanship and un-sportsman conduct. On one side of the people I TA'd with, I heard about "common tools" of manipulation within the game rules. Then I started hearing a more principled version. One player whom knew the mechanics of the game to extreme detail, held exceptionally high ethics about it, and he influenced me greatly as time went on. I heard all about the "Morale Bomb" which I had to agree was a dirty, unacceptable trick of the game; a perversion if you will. But... That too was also playing within the game rules! So where does one draw the line?

Rick, I am not going to argue much of what you brought up because it's moot or not worth it. However I find myself having to repeat myself: The concept of Ally is greatly perverted in the game by people that use it as a weapon. Had Norway BPA/DW and attacked me directly, There would not be a real problem. No matter how you need to justify yourself, it was a slime move. Perhaps you're just desensitized by playing so long with the "At any cost" attitude that is prevalent. To you it's all part of the game. But to me, It's along the same mentality of the FP/DW/FP scenario.

Rick, As I said, I admired your strategy. In my opinion, what is messed up was having Norway (whom has an alliance with me) DW on you and taking York from you to thwart my counter attacks; finding a province I cannot attack or fly over. The concept of Ally is greatly perverted in the game by people that use it as a weapon. You claim I was an annoyance with your efforts in the Mediterranean. You did not contact me about this issue. Why? One would think you had no peaceful intentions. You took an Island off the Southern France/Italian coast. Why? One would think you had hostile intentions towards me. Don't blame someone for an "annoyance" when your apparent activities are hostile to them. And about those Mines, I only mined off Edinburgh and Helmsdale, for obvious defensive reasons. If you found Mines elsewhere, it wasn't me. Besides, the logical route for you to the med, would be through ENG3/ENG2/ENG1. I never mined those sea zones. And I've had shipping through there often and never found mines until tech 34ish, when your ships were spotted in the area. I believe what Dag is referring to about large alliances is the indication that you are working with up to 8 other players. In the very least you've limited your logical geographic course of conquest by surrounding yourself with "friends". That's your prerogative, but it goes against what some of us felt was a fundamental intent of this particular game. You've apparently stacked your deck much more than expected. Your indication to my association with Ireland and LL was revealed by me a long time ago. Some "friends" are a survival tool, wouldn't you admit? On the contrary, many "friends" is an offensive tool, used to dominate and destroy opposition en-force. Do you think GB, Ireland and LL was taking advantage of Portugal in a similar fashion? If so, your perception is not based on facts. Portugal pushed Ireland out all on his own, and I was next unless LL helped. Portugal has made many more gains on us. Why? He has German tech with two nations of production, fighting on his continent with no sea crossings to deal with. Ireland and I had only 1.25 nations worth (if that much) but the biggest handicap is the resources, orders, etc. (as you know) to sustain an amphibious line of attack. LL was concentrating elsewhere. So here I am with potentially 8 enemies. I don't blame you for seeing GB as a victim of opportunity. I did screw myself by throwing so much across into mainland Europe, leaving GB susceptible to invasion. France, Spain and then Italy dropping so early in the game created a vacuum that I was sucked into. With your buddy probably loading a full stack in York, and your ability to consolidate a large force which should soon be under FC in Scotland, my days are numbered. Once I'm gone from this game, I'll not be playing Victory again, as I share similar Ideals to Mickey, whom also has withdrawn from the game. *IF* a new version is ever made of Victory that addresses the manipulative methods employed by so many, then I may give it a shot again. But after the petty immature stuff that went on in 93, and then facing the same situation that drove Mickey out (final straw) of swapping provinces to thwart another... Well, I'm done. When someone who obviously has close ties to the GM, and whom I though was an honorable player, plays in a way I think is manipulative... Yeah, I'm done.

I think I've had enough of the "common practice" manipulation of the rules that goes on in this game. I came into 96 hoping it would be a more even played game due to the special situation of it, but shortly realized that was unrealistic or wishful thinking on my part. For me, apparently the fun factor doesn't outweigh the monetary cost and the disappointment when the grey area tricks & tactics are employed (which I refrain from). Sure, I can see the fun side when you screw someone over and a plan comes to fruition. But that's not me, I get off on good strategy without the tricks. I saw a great strategy employed by one player against me. I was a tad disheartened being faced with more enemies than I could handle, but that wasn't the clincher... something else happened... The "dog pile on the rabbit" mentality kicked in, with the desire to win at any cost. Swapping critical locations with a non warring (Ally status at that!) nation is a low trick no matter how you slice it. But Kudos to you fellows who figured out how to do it without the TA mechanism! At games end 93, it happened to a friend, and he took it poorly (because he would never do it to an enemy). By and large I agreed with his notion. But at that stage it wasn't critical. So downplayed it's effect, hoping to make it through to the end on a good note (didn't happen). That Province swap didn't mean the life or death of anyone; it was more about points and a defensive impulse. I see the notion and have participated in the "it's common practice" and "there are ways to counter it" But that is all about self-justification to do something fugazy. The ends doesn't always justify the means. It's just some people are more competitive than others and will do anything it takes to win, and others try to win "mano y mano" so to speak. This is a war simulation and nobody actually gets hurt, so I certainly don't take it personally. I'd have a beer and a laugh with any one of you guys in real life. But we sometimes have different ideals. Better to have a difference in a game, than in real life! I came out of "retirement" in game 93. Against the odds, fought the "good fight". Finland, North & Central Russia against Me and a near dead Poland . Had a great game to about tech 40 or so. My congratulations and gratitude to the Russians & friends in that game and to all who played a clean fight! Enjoy.

93 Nordics and Russians (Norway, Sweden, Finland, North and Central Russia): Why did you guys all drop? You had our balls to the walls on several occasions. It seemed like once Iceland joined the Central Europe TA, your guys started dropping. But to tell the truth, Iceland expended his all (at the time), and had you stuck it out, you would have pushed him back into the Atlantic. I understand South Russia became an issue for Central. But Central should have had a big advantage, and initiated the conflict.

Yep, it's over! It appears to be a bitter end to some, and a semi-sweet end to others. I'm glad it's over because it became a job, instead of a game. I was disappointed with some behavior that flared up, and that is disheartening. "Sun Tsu", It's funny: No offense, but early in the game I took a dislike to your gaming personality (not you personally). You did not compromise at all, and you where extremely demanding. Not at all politically inclined IMO. What I was told by the original Yugoslavia, had me think that you were manipulative -But the "in your face" way; you were not at all sneaky about it. When you dropped your alliance with Poland, with the intent of turning on us... ... But after I got to know Tony (1st Poland) [hind sight] I would have dropped the alliance myself! LOL Man, that guy was nuts!!! A couple of us were seriously thinking of dropping his TA and helping to take him out! Thankfully your TA in Greece had a neutralizing effect, and helped soften that first impression. You should thank him (in part) that I didn't return the favor (dropping the ALL with Poland). That, and after a while of reading your posts, and a few emails, respect replaced the first impressions. Thank you for your considerations! Kudo's to all that stuck with it to the very end! Ron

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.

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....

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.

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!

Word has it, that the polish wants nothing to do with Italy. It's too greasy!

As if that's a surprise! LOL Don, Just how many nations in this game do you control? We've got a multiple person bet going, and my money is on 3 nations! Sadly, it's unlikely we'll ever be able to verify it one way or another~