Game 82

[Earthling]

 

So when are nuclear weapons available?

 

That would be August '45, turn 76. But only for the American tech.

 

and for those on the sidelines, we are passed tech 83.

 

Is the Airforce not far too dominant at that stage?

 

Oh yes it is....that is why they are talking about the terror bombing issue. When you can repeatedly terror bomb the population and force a nation's morale to neg numbers in short order, it completely changes the game.

[Earthling]

How many of the players left have the American Tech? Those B-29's with dual P-47N escorts can be real nasty, especially on a strategic bombing run......

[Guest Spongebob]

I know its open ended but maybe common sence should prevail and everyone call it quits

[Falco]

How many of the players left have the American Tech? Those B-29's with dual P-47N escorts can be real nasty, especially on a strategic bombing run......

 

Just 333 bombing runs to lower a max morale to zero, if read the rules correctly. Must say i've never thought about using bombing runs for lowering morale, but I guess that airforce only grows during the game.

 

Do the bombing runs need to target a city of some size to maximize the effect? Will any bomber with some SB rating work, or is a B-29 or similar plane needed? Would a manchester be enough?

 

Anybody willing to shed some light on the questions?

[Earthling]

How many of the players left have the American Tech? Those B-29's with dual P-47N escorts can be real nasty, especially on a strategic bombing run......

 

Just 333 bombing runs to lower a max morale to zero, if read the rules correctly. Must say i've never thought about using bombing runs for lowering morale, but I guess that airforce only grows during the game.

 

Do the bombing runs need to target a city of some size to maximize the effect? Will any bomber with some SB rating work, or is a B-29 or similar plane needed? Would a manchester be enough?

 

Anybody willing to shed some light on the questions?

 

You only need to attack a populated/industrialized city and the nation must suffer multiple attacks. It is not only SB runs that cause this loss of morale, coastal bombardments will also cause the loss of morale. Anytime you destroy population and/or industry with these attacks, the nation attacked will lose morale, however, you must continue the attacks. They cannot be sporadic or without effect. You have to either destroy population or industry. And it does not matter what type of plane you use, as long as it does the deed. Obviously, the higher the SB rating, the better the result. This type of attack can be defended against very easily, but it is costly. Interceptors, anti-air (just ask my enemies in game 85 about that one) and coastal guns will all help deter the terror attacks and reduce their effectiveness.

[Earthling]

I know its open ended but maybe common sence should prevail and everyone call it quits

 

Problem is, it only takes one person to say "I want to keep playing" for the game to go on. Even though they are on TP83, they have actually only run 58 turns. I think that most of them want to actually play 73 turns, not sure on those, but it is my guess.

[Falco]

How many of the players left have the American Tech? Those B-29's with dual P-47N escorts can be real nasty, especially on a strategic bombing run......

 

Just 333 bombing runs to lower a max morale to zero, if read the rules correctly. Must say i've never thought about using bombing runs for lowering morale, but I guess that airforce only grows during the game.

 

Do the bombing runs need to target a city of some size to maximize the effect? Will any bomber with some SB rating work, or is a B-29 or similar plane needed? Would a manchester be enough?

 

Anybody willing to shed some light on the questions?

 

You only need to attack a populated/industrialized city and the nation must suffer multiple attacks. It is not only SB runs that cause this loss of morale, coastal bombardments will also cause the loss of morale. Anytime you destroy population and/or industry with these attacks, the nation attacked will lose morale, however, you must continue the attacks. They cannot be sporadic or without effect. You have to either destroy population or industry. And it does not matter what type of plane you use, as long as it does the deed. Obviously, the higher the SB rating, the better the result. This type of attack can be defended against very easily, but it is costly. Interceptors, anti-air (just ask my enemies in game 85 about that one) and coastal guns will all help deter the terror attacks and reduce their effectiveness.

 

OK, let me rephrase: How much damage needs to be done, pop or industry wise, to get the maximum effect (-3 morale)?

[Earthling]

OK, let me rephrase: How much damage needs to be done, pop or industry wise, to get the maximum effect (-3 morale)?

 

Not sure......never had them much damage done to me or done that much damage to another player.

[Kurassier]

OK, let me rephrase: How much damage needs to be done, pop or industry wise, to get the maximum effect (-3 morale)?

Not a question of damage done, that is irrelevant. To get the maximum morale (-3) hit, it depends upon SB rating, moral of air units, air commander, SB training lvl and of course, distance to target. Any plane having a SB rating may bomb.

[Falco]

OK, let me rephrase: How much damage needs to be done, pop or industry wise, to get the maximum effect (-3 morale)?

Not a question of damage done, that is irrelevant. To get the maximum morale (-3) hit, it depends upon SB rating, moral of air units, air commander, SB training lvl and of course, distance to target. Any plane having a SB rating may bomb.

 

So if you have the bombers (max wing) with enough effective SB rating, you could bomb agricultural provinces, or any province you'd like (with 1 pop?) and still you'd get the max amount of morale damage? So almost impossible to protect against?

[Pharaoh]

OK, let me try this again. Obviously being pissed is no way to start any meaningful attempt to negotiate.

 

I apologize for my previous tirade. Somehow I thought that I could taunt you guys into giving up terror bombing and prove my boasts of superior tactical skills wrong on the battle field.

 

Yes, terror bombing is a legitimate means of bringing a country to its knees. We Americans did it to end WWII. We estimated it would coast at least a million American lives to invade Japan conventionally. The historical situation with Japan is similar to what you are facing with Greece. To quote Andy from his e-mail to me; "it would be a waste of our resources and Ken is too good of a player."

 

From a different perspective; In both the case of Japan and in this game 82, the decision to use terror bombing to end the war was and is an act of desperation. There wasn't and isn't any other way to achieve victory. We all play to win and I respect and expect this kind of effort from my opponents.

 

However, there is a big difference between real life with Truman weighing the possibility of losing a million American lives versus killing hundreths of thousands of Japanese and a game where no lives are lost, only ones and zeros.

 

We all play these games as our hobby and to have fun. It is much more enjoyable and challenging to play against real people and decidedly more rewarding to win against them, rather than a computer. In my opinion, forcing players out of the game by the use of forced peace option in a game where we are supposed to paly to the last man (alliance) standing is the end of that player's enjoyment and ruins the game for the rest of his allies.

 

I tried taunting you and that obviously did not work. We asked nicely in e-mails to Tim and Andy and got rejected. We are therefore left with only one alternative. We will also participate in terror bombing. We have picked Portugal to begin with. Not because we have anything personally against Matt. Instead it is his success and accessibility that make him our logical target. He owns territory from one end of the Mediterranean to the other.

 

No we really don't want to knock Portugal out of the game. We would much rather accept the challenge of trying to bust through the blockcade that he, Spain and Morocco have placed in the Pyrenees by the use of conventional means. Our sole purpose for out counter terror campaign is to impress upon your group that this is not how we really want to play and end this game.

 

So the question is this: Are you guys willing to negotiate terms and conditions to stop terror bombing of civilians and the use of the Forced Peace option in this game 82?

 

Respectfully submitted for your consideration.

Charles G. Clark

 

Not trying to add insult to injury Charles, but I am rather surprised at your position. After total rewrites of rules to several SPI games because you found some strange use of the rules I would think you would approve of this strategy. I know I left a lot of board games grumbling after you found some fatal rules flaw, we declared you winner, declared that rule invalid, then you would just find another weak rule to beat us with the next time. No judgement of your expressed positions intended it just seems a bit ironic. I still think you and Sietse are the best at this game and hope you find a way to win this one too.

 

As you said when we played CNA, more detail does not make the game more realistic, the lack of reality just affected a different level such as your units eating concrete. There are unrealistic situations in Victory too, although I can live with most of them. The "move up next to the port one turn, declare war and CB the next to avoid air attack" or the "bomb the rail out in narrow spots of North Africa" strategies come to mind as does my personal favorite, the "LCIs sitting in mine fields ferrying troops across the sea zone but never hitting a mine" strategy. They can further be covered by 50 fighter groups and "defended" by 50 submarines so that attacking bombers get mauled going through the fighters then kill exactly one submarine for their effort. I loved that one. Its a game and everyone has the same rules. You only get a temorary advantage when you think of some weird rule use first. It is what gamers in any game have to endure for the thrill of Victory and to some, pulling a trick out of their hat IS the fun.

 

Dale Ritchie

[RangerOne]

OK, let me try this again. Obviously being pissed is no way to start any meaningful attempt to negotiate.

 

I apologize for my previous tirade. Somehow I thought that I could taunt you guys into giving up terror bombing and prove my boasts of superior tactical skills wrong on the battle field.

 

Yes, terror bombing is a legitimate means of bringing a country to its knees. We Americans did it to end WWII. We estimated it would coast at least a million American lives to invade Japan conventionally. The historical situation with Japan is similar to what you are facing with Greece. To quote Andy from his e-mail to me; "it would be a waste of our resources and Ken is too good of a player."

 

From a different perspective; In both the case of Japan and in this game 82, the decision to use terror bombing to end the war was and is an act of desperation. There wasn't and isn't any other way to achieve victory. We all play to win and I respect and expect this kind of effort from my opponents.

 

However, there is a big difference between real life with Truman weighing the possibility of losing a million American lives versus killing hundreths of thousands of Japanese and a game where no lives are lost, only ones and zeros.

 

We all play these games as our hobby and to have fun. It is much more enjoyable and challenging to play against real people and decidedly more rewarding to win against them, rather than a computer. In my opinion, forcing players out of the game by the use of forced peace option in a game where we are supposed to paly to the last man (alliance) standing is the end of that player's enjoyment and ruins the game for the rest of his allies.

 

I tried taunting you and that obviously did not work. We asked nicely in e-mails to Tim and Andy and got rejected. We are therefore left with only one alternative. We will also participate in terror bombing. We have picked Portugal to begin with. Not because we have anything personally against Matt. Instead it is his success and accessibility that make him our logical target. He owns territory from one end of the Mediterranean to the other.

 

No we really don't want to knock Portugal out of the game. We would much rather accept the challenge of trying to bust through the blockcade that he, Spain and Morocco have placed in the Pyrenees by the use of conventional means. Our sole purpose for out counter terror campaign is to impress upon your group that this is not how we really want to play and end this game.

 

So the question is this: Are you guys willing to negotiate terms and conditions to stop terror bombing of civilians and the use of the Forced Peace option in this game 82?

 

Respectfully submitted for your consideration.

Charles G. Clark

 

Not trying to add insult to injury Charles, but I am rather surprised at your position. After total rewrites of rules to several SPI games because you found some strange use of the rules I would think you would approve of this strategy. I know I left a lot of board games grumbling after you found some fatal rules flaw, we declared you winner, declared that rule invalid, then you would just find another weak rule to beat us with the next time. No judgement of your expressed positions intended it just seems a bit ironic. I still think you and Sietse are the best at this game and hope you find a way to win this one too.

 

As you said when we played CNA, more detail does not make the game more realistic, the lack of reality just affected a different level such as your units eating concrete. There are unrealistic situations in Victory too, although I can live with most of them. The "move up next to the port one turn, declare war and CB the next to avoid air attack" or the "bomb the rail out in narrow spots of North Africa" strategies come to mind as does my personal favorite, the "LCIs sitting in mine fields ferrying troops across the sea zone but never hitting a mine" strategy. They can further be covered by 50 fighter groups and "defended" by 50 submarines so that attacking bombers get mauled going through the fighters then kill exactly one submarine for their effort. I loved that one. Its a game and everyone has the same rules. You only get a temorary advantage when you think of some weird rule use first. It is what gamers in any game have to endure for the thrill of Victory and to some, pulling a trick out of their hat IS the fun.

 

Dale Ritchie

 

Hey buddy and old friend,

 

Good to hear from you. Even though you aren't playing Victory anymore, you apparently still monitor the forums. No insult or injury taken as everything that you said about me is true. To say it another way, I am the one who is out of character here. My open letter was an archaic slap in the face insult, challenging them to a duel with pistols at ten paces. Something I apparently dug up from a previous life, where and when, honorable men settled disputes in such manner.

 

These guys have done nothing wrong. Any reference, implied or directly attacking their sportmanship or fair play was and is - out of line. They have played within the rules and using their long range strategic bombers have taken advantage of the strategic terror bombing of civilians to previously unseen heights.

 

As you mentioned, there are a lot of rules in Victory that just don't make sense and can be taken advantage of. Terror bombing of civilians to force peace on a nation is, in my opinon, one of those. There is a disproportiate amount of counter measures that can be taken as compared to the damage and end result that terror bombing can achieve.

 

So yes, I will openingly admit that it is a personal preference. One shared by my fellow allies that we would like to continue the game without the use of the forced peace option. It would allow players to choose when they have had enough of the contest and want to leave the game, rather than being forced out.

 

My evoking this option, it would allow a player to bankrupt his nation in order to help his allies win the war. A prime example of this was in game 80. Germany ended the game with a minus 999 morale. It was a gamble that almost worked. He and his allies were kicking our butts toward the end of the game. Had it lasted several more turns, they would have pulled off a win. We were saved by the bell - pure and simple.

 

cheers

C of C

[Pharaoh]

OK, let me try this again. Obviously being pissed is no way to start any meaningful attempt to negotiate.

 

I apologize for my previous tirade. Somehow I thought that I could taunt you guys into giving up terror bombing and prove my boasts of superior tactical skills wrong on the battle field.

 

Yes, terror bombing is a legitimate means of bringing a country to its knees. We Americans did it to end WWII. We estimated it would coast at least a million American lives to invade Japan conventionally. The historical situation with Japan is similar to what you are facing with Greece. To quote Andy from his e-mail to me; "it would be a waste of our resources and Ken is too good of a player."

 

From a different perspective; In both the case of Japan and in this game 82, the decision to use terror bombing to end the war was and is an act of desperation. There wasn't and isn't any other way to achieve victory. We all play to win and I respect and expect this kind of effort from my opponents.

 

However, there is a big difference between real life with Truman weighing the possibility of losing a million American lives versus killing hundreths of thousands of Japanese and a game where no lives are lost, only ones and zeros.

 

We all play these games as our hobby and to have fun. It is much more enjoyable and challenging to play against real people and decidedly more rewarding to win against them, rather than a computer. In my opinion, forcing players out of the game by the use of forced peace option in a game where we are supposed to paly to the last man (alliance) standing is the end of that player's enjoyment and ruins the game for the rest of his allies.

 

I tried taunting you and that obviously did not work. We asked nicely in e-mails to Tim and Andy and got rejected. We are therefore left with only one alternative. We will also participate in terror bombing. We have picked Portugal to begin with. Not because we have anything personally against Matt. Instead it is his success and accessibility that make him our logical target. He owns territory from one end of the Mediterranean to the other.

 

No we really don't want to knock Portugal out of the game. We would much rather accept the challenge of trying to bust through the blockcade that he, Spain and Morocco have placed in the Pyrenees by the use of conventional means. Our sole purpose for out counter terror campaign is to impress upon your group that this is not how we really want to play and end this game.

 

So the question is this: Are you guys willing to negotiate terms and conditions to stop terror bombing of civilians and the use of the Forced Peace option in this game 82?

 

Respectfully submitted for your consideration.

Charles G. Clark

 

Not trying to add insult to injury Charles, but I am rather surprised at your position. After total rewrites of rules to several SPI games because you found some strange use of the rules I would think you would approve of this strategy. I know I left a lot of board games grumbling after you found some fatal rules flaw, we declared you winner, declared that rule invalid, then you would just find another weak rule to beat us with the next time. No judgement of your expressed positions intended it just seems a bit ironic. I still think you and Sietse are the best at this game and hope you find a way to win this one too.

 

As you said when we played CNA, more detail does not make the game more realistic, the lack of reality just affected a different level such as your units eating concrete. There are unrealistic situations in Victory too, although I can live with most of them. The "move up next to the port one turn, declare war and CB the next to avoid air attack" or the "bomb the rail out in narrow spots of North Africa" strategies come to mind as does my personal favorite, the "LCIs sitting in mine fields ferrying troops across the sea zone but never hitting a mine" strategy. They can further be covered by 50 fighter groups and "defended" by 50 submarines so that attacking bombers get mauled going through the fighters then kill exactly one submarine for their effort. I loved that one. Its a game and everyone has the same rules. You only get a temorary advantage when you think of some weird rule use first. It is what gamers in any game have to endure for the thrill of Victory and to some, pulling a trick out of their hat IS the fun.

 

Dale Ritchie

 

Hey buddy and old friend,

 

Good to hear from you. Even though you aren't playing Victory anymore, you apparently still monitor the forums. No insult or injury taken as everything that you said about me is true. To say it another way, I am the one who is out of character here. My open letter was an archaic slap in the face insult, challenging them to a duel with pistols at ten paces. Something I apparently dug up from a previous life, where and when, honorable men settled disputes in such manner.

 

These guys have done nothing wrong. Any reference, implied or directly attacking their sportmanship or fair play was and is - out of line. They have played within the rules and using their long range strategic bombers have taken advantage of the strategic terror bombing of civilians to previously unseen heights.

 

As you mentioned, there are a lot of rules in Victory that just don't make sense and can be taken advantage of. Terror bombing of civilians to force peace on a nation is, in my opinon, one of those. There is a disproportiate amount of counter measures that can be taken as compared to the damage and end result that terror bombing can achieve.

 

So yes, I will openingly admit that it is a personal preference. One shared by my fellow allies that we would like to continue the game without the use of the forced peace option. It would allow players to choose when they have had enough of the contest and want to leave the game, rather than being forced out.

 

My evoking this option, it would allow a player to bankrupt his nation in order to help his allies win the war. A prime example of this was in game 80. Germany ended the game with a minus 999 morale. It was a gamble that almost worked. He and his allies were kicking our butts toward the end of the game. Had it lasted several more turns, they would have pulled off a win. We were saved by the bell - pure and simple.

 

cheers

C of C

 

Yep. You can take the boy out of Victory but you can't take Victory out of the boy or something like that. Well answered Charles. I am a bit interested still in the games I left and post when I read something response worthy. Good luck to you, Sietse, and Ken of course.

[Kurassier]

OK, let me try this again. Obviously being pissed is no way to start any meaningful attempt to negotiate.

 

I apologize for my previous tirade. Somehow I thought that I could taunt you guys into giving up terror bombing and prove my boasts of superior tactical skills wrong on the battle field.

 

Yes, terror bombing is a legitimate means of bringing a country to its knees. We Americans did it to end WWII. We estimated it would coast at least a million American lives to invade Japan conventionally. The historical situation with Japan is similar to what you are facing with Greece. To quote Andy from his e-mail to me; "it would be a waste of our resources and Ken is too good of a player."

 

From a different perspective; In both the case of Japan and in this game 82, the decision to use terror bombing to end the war was and is an act of desperation. There wasn't and isn't any other way to achieve victory. We all play to win and I respect and expect this kind of effort from my opponents.

 

However, there is a big difference between real life with Truman weighing the possibility of losing a million American lives versus killing hundreths of thousands of Japanese and a game where no lives are lost, only ones and zeros.

 

We all play these games as our hobby and to have fun. It is much more enjoyable and challenging to play against real people and decidedly more rewarding to win against them, rather than a computer. In my opinion, forcing players out of the game by the use of forced peace option in a game where we are supposed to paly to the last man (alliance) standing is the end of that player's enjoyment and ruins the game for the rest of his allies.

 

I tried taunting you and that obviously did not work. We asked nicely in e-mails to Tim and Andy and got rejected. We are therefore left with only one alternative. We will also participate in terror bombing. We have picked Portugal to begin with. Not because we have anything personally against Matt. Instead it is his success and accessibility that make him our logical target. He owns territory from one end of the Mediterranean to the other.

 

No we really don't want to knock Portugal out of the game. We would much rather accept the challenge of trying to bust through the blockcade that he, Spain and Morocco have placed in the Pyrenees by the use of conventional means. Our sole purpose for out counter terror campaign is to impress upon your group that this is not how we really want to play and end this game.

 

So the question is this: Are you guys willing to negotiate terms and conditions to stop terror bombing of civilians and the use of the Forced Peace option in this game 82?

 

Respectfully submitted for your consideration.

Charles G. Clark

 

Not trying to add insult to injury Charles, but I am rather surprised at your position. After total rewrites of rules to several SPI games because you found some strange use of the rules I would think you would approve of this strategy. I know I left a lot of board games grumbling after you found some fatal rules flaw, we declared you winner, declared that rule invalid, then you would just find another weak rule to beat us with the next time. No judgement of your expressed positions intended it just seems a bit ironic. I still think you and Sietse are the best at this game and hope you find a way to win this one too.

 

As you said when we played CNA, more detail does not make the game more realistic, the lack of reality just affected a different level such as your units eating concrete. There are unrealistic situations in Victory too, although I can live with most of them. The "move up next to the port one turn, declare war and CB the next to avoid air attack" or the "bomb the rail out in narrow spots of North Africa" strategies come to mind as does my personal favorite, the "LCIs sitting in mine fields ferrying troops across the sea zone but never hitting a mine" strategy. They can further be covered by 50 fighter groups and "defended" by 50 submarines so that attacking bombers get mauled going through the fighters then kill exactly one submarine for their effort. I loved that one. Its a game and everyone has the same rules. You only get a temorary advantage when you think of some weird rule use first. It is what gamers in any game have to endure for the thrill of Victory and to some, pulling a trick out of their hat IS the fun.

 

Dale Ritchie

 

Hey buddy and old friend,

 

Good to hear from you. Even though you aren't playing Victory anymore, you apparently still monitor the forums. No insult or injury taken as everything that you said about me is true. To say it another way, I am the one who is out of character here. My open letter was an archaic slap in the face insult, challenging them to a duel with pistols at ten paces. Something I apparently dug up from a previous life, where and when, honorable men settled disputes in such manner.

 

These guys have done nothing wrong. Any reference, implied or directly attacking their sportmanship or fair play was and is - out of line. They have played within the rules and using their long range strategic bombers have taken advantage of the strategic terror bombing of civilians to previously unseen heights.

 

As you mentioned, there are a lot of rules in Victory that just don't make sense and can be taken advantage of. Terror bombing of civilians to force peace on a nation is, in my opinon, one of those. There is a disproportiate amount of counter measures that can be taken as compared to the damage and end result that terror bombing can achieve.

 

So yes, I will openingly admit that it is a personal preference. One shared by my fellow allies that we would like to continue the game without the use of the forced peace option. It would allow players to choose when they have had enough of the contest and want to leave the game, rather than being forced out.

 

My evoking this option, it would allow a player to bankrupt his nation in order to help his allies win the war. A prime example of this was in game 80. Germany ended the game with a minus 999 morale. It was a gamble that almost worked. He and his allies were kicking our butts toward the end of the game. Had it lasted several more turns, they would have pulled off a win. We were saved by the bell - pure and simple.

 

cheers

C of C

 

Yep. You can take the boy out of Victory but you can't take Victory out of the boy or something like that. Well answered Charles. I am a bit interested still in the games I left and post when I read something response worthy. Good luck to you, Sietse, and Ken of course.

I guess if some people complain enough, they can get what they want. Very disappointing.

[Predator]

it doesnt make sense on any level for people on both sides to gang up on someone and take them out of a game in a way that it is impossible to defend against. its not fair to someone who paid to play the game for two years and did everything right to suddenly take him out of the game in a way that cant be defended against. it simply ruins the game. you guys take out greece, we take out portugal and back and forth and so on.