Erich von Manstein Posted March 3, 2012 Author Report Share Posted March 3, 2012 Correction; YOU know who was the hammer (for this round). However, due to your delaying crap I don't. We all can delay. We all do when needed. We all can coordinate with our TA's. Just a good strategy to gain the upper hand (for a brief period). It can be countered. It can backfire! Losing armies on the field of battle is all part of the game. You take some risk (or the game utterly stagnates, I've had too much of that in V87 already) and sometimes you win, sometimes you loose. But the delaying meta-game is utterly and totally fun-destroying and the major cause I'm unlikely to start a new Victory game ever. Sorry but I'm in this game to win. I realise there is a small chance I will win but that's my drive. So excuse me if I do not park that 18 Mot stack in front of your 18SS units. When the situation is right you blitz. When the situation is not right you choose a different strategy. You improvise, you overcome, you adapt. (Clint, Heartbreak ridge). Not sexy but if you wanna win you gotta play smart. I will not ever again loose an army without a GOOD reason. Unless in Victory II battle results are send to the defender as soon as the battle happens (in a mini-turn). Then I might reconsider. In the PBM age this wasn't feasible, but now it should be possible to automate this. And it would solve the problems for solo and duo players nicely too. Well that would make life easier. For you and your opponent.But it would also remove a lot of the fun. Apart from the days of work you can put in a turn the loss of sleep is also a big factor in the Vic addiction. I guess we all play by the same rules. There are some tricks and I have shared them with anyone who was interested in the past. That makes a level playing field. Just add 40 players and we have the game we love (and sometimes hate) Von Manstein Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inspector Gadget Posted March 3, 2012 Report Share Posted March 3, 2012 It might be helpful to be a bit more specific when complaining about or lauding certain tactics so the rest of us can join in the conversation. As for using CL to protect or isolate territory and or units, I can see the 'cheese' factor in this tactic in some cases, but it is and has been an integral part of the game from the beginning so I would assume and hope that anyone that has played the game for any amount of time would be well versed in how to use it and counter it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duke of York Posted March 4, 2012 Report Share Posted March 4, 2012 It might be helpful to be a bit more specific when complaining about or lauding certain tactics so the rest of us can join in the conversation. As for using CL to protect or isolate territory and or units, I can see the 'cheese' factor in this tactic in some cases, but it is and has been an integral part of the game from the beginning so I would assume and hope that anyone that has played the game for any amount of time would be well versed in how to use it and counter it. I am specifically complaining about delaying to just before an enemy, so you can fuck up his turn as much as possible. I am not complaining about the use of the tactics. It is part of the game as it is now and I know that. I delay as much as is needed to make my turns as good as I can (or help my allies doing it for their turns), but I try to avoid deliberately delaying for the sole purpose of making the lifes of my enemies harder. But I am complaing about the the fact that these tactics are possible in the first place. For me this is a huge and by far the biggest shortcoming in Victory and I think it makes the game less fun for everyone. It's nothing new either, but so far I've only complained about it against my allies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inspector Gadget Posted March 4, 2012 Report Share Posted March 4, 2012 I guess I'm still unclear. Are you referring to when players let their turns fall back far enough so they can run right before an enemy player (even if it means losing a turn)? I admit I did that exact thing to Italy so he couldn't see what I did and his TA couldn't warn him either. I of course gave up a turn to do it. I have to admit that I am at a loss to understand how this is in any way underhanded. What does it matter whether I fall back 1 day or 29 days in order to get behind an enemies run date. If I am misunderstanding your complaint/critique than of course ignore my post. I'm just trying to better understand other players complaints about the game. I am VERY interested in the future of the game and the proposed new version. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DezertCamel Posted March 4, 2012 Report Share Posted March 4, 2012 It might be helpful to be a bit more specific when complaining about or lauding certain tactics so the rest of us can join in the conversation. As for using CL to protect or isolate territory and or units, I can see the 'cheese' factor in this tactic in some cases, but it is and has been an integral part of the game from the beginning so I would assume and hope that anyone that has played the game for any amount of time would be well versed in how to use it and counter it. I am specifically complaining about delaying to just before an enemy, so you can fuck up his turn as much as possible. I am not complaining about the use of the tactics. It is part of the game as it is now and I know that. I delay as much as is needed to make my turns as good as I can (or help my allies doing it for their turns), but I try to avoid deliberately delaying for the sole purpose of making the lifes of my enemies harder. But I am complaing about the the fact that these tactics are possible in the first place. For me this is a huge and by far the biggest shortcoming in Victory and I think it makes the game less fun for everyone. It's nothing new either, but so far I've only complained about it against my allies. Little confused...... having the ability of hiding ones attack ( no intel or info for planning ) or warning of said attack is not to be.done. THIS is a Shortcoming? So you purpose that all turns run the same time and date, or you are given reports when you are attacked, so you can plan your turn according to the info provided. So there are to be no surprises, no messed up plans, everything according to plan and schedule. This would defeat one of the best aspects of this game. Just because you plan an attack with and army that might not be exist anymore ( and you do not no that until your results back), you find it a problem with the game? This is a war game, not a chess match, you do not get to see all the moves before you move. There are issues with the game as it stands, we can all agree with that, and the new version will hopefully correct them, or just create new ones. We will have to wait and see..... but as far as I see it, hiding ones intentions, no matter how it is done, delaying turns, giving out false info or any other way, is one aspect of this game and hopefully the future version maintains........ If this happens to cause you not to play any future games, that will be your loss. Playing the game and within it learning both the good and bad about what happens is the reason we play in the first place. I have played many games of victory, some good , some very bad. The best part is learning something new, and making new friends or enemies. Good luck to you in this game and maybe I will see you in a future game, I will be back for game 95, till then I will be taking some time off from victory DezertCamel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Becher Posted March 4, 2012 Report Share Posted March 4, 2012 Well we now know who was the hammer. Correction; YOU know who was the hammer (for this round). However, due to your delaying crap I don't. Losing armies on the field of battle is all part of the game. You take some risk (or the game utterly stagnates, I've had too much of that in V87 already) and sometimes you win, sometimes you loose. But the delaying meta-game is utterly and totally fun-destroying and the major cause I'm unlikely to start a new Victory game ever. Unless in Victory II battle results are send to the defender as soon as the battle happens (in a mini-turn). Then I might reconsider. In the PBM age this wasn't feasible, but now it should be possible to automate this. And it would solve the problems for solo and duo players nicely too. You whiner (excusez le mot)! Did you hear my whine and cry for my mummy when your and Baltics Ju-88's raped my ground forces turn after turn..making the southern former Germans provinces drown in Czech blood! And the one reason you guys could coordinate those attacks (oooh, I forgot the occasional N-Rus airfleets and the loss of my airbases) was sharing intel and coordinating the sequence of your turns. But, hell..if our block does that..it's a foul trick and exploit. It's not, it's Russ quantumagical way to introduce the Fog of War into Vic. Deal with it or start playing a simple game like VGA Planets.... Very dissapointing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sparafucile Posted March 4, 2012 Report Share Posted March 4, 2012 But I am complaing about the the fact that these tactics are possible in the first place. For me this is a huge and by far the biggest shortcoming in Victory and I think it makes the game less fun for everyone. It's nothing new either, but so far I've only complained about it against my allies. I agree with the others, it's an element that only improves the game. Let's not forget there are also substantial penalties for missing a turn. Amongst others your average morale takes a massive hit. And regarding vic2: since the Mac crash and resurrection all went quiet on that front. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dageraad Posted March 4, 2012 Report Share Posted March 4, 2012 Let's not make this a whining contest, I have answered your statements about the rules in the "Project victory" - Forum. I suggest we move the discussion over there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zarathustra Posted March 4, 2012 Report Share Posted March 4, 2012 This is a war game, not a chess match, you do not get to see all the moves before you move. There are issues with the game as it stands, we can all agree with that, and the new version will hopefully correct them, or just create new ones. We will have to wait and see..... I like the chess-comparison. Ones playstyle is linked to ones mindset. I get the impression that Duke and some of his TA’s are what I call ‘planners’, they like the logistics and planning part of Vic! And they’re very good at it. The amount of T-34’s the NRussian is producing and getting to the front in no time is impressive and almost impossible. The amount of stuff Duke has transported to Denmark and N-Germany is staggering. I do not really like that part of Vic! It’s one of the reasons I will not play an island based country. But I DO like the wargame part of it very much, and that needs fog i.m.h.o. Makes the waiting worthwhile. And as a matter of fact: this forum does contribute to that fog too, if used well About vic-2: I think the most priority must be making vic work in the internet-age. Webbased turns / maps etc. After that: focus on new rules. Vga-planets did do just that. Good example. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dageraad Posted March 4, 2012 Report Share Posted March 4, 2012 I can assure you that all T-34's are 100% legit and Norway does not use teleportation as a means of transport. Duke, Falco, Ondali (NR) and I are all "Planners", but some of us more than others. We all have our strenghts and weaknesses, I am a bit cautious myself. One even could call me a coward. And I make lots of little mistakes. Iceland has the advantage that it is possible to plan for a long time ahead without to much chance of interference. It just requires patience and allies. I am proud to anounce that after planning for 41 turns the Icelandic resource problem has been solved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duke of York Posted March 4, 2012 Report Share Posted March 4, 2012 I like the chess-comparison. Ones playstyle is linked to ones mindset. I get the impression that Duke and some of his TA’s are what I call ‘planners’, they like the logistics and planning part of Vic! And they’re very good at it. Indeed. This is the heart of the matter, more than I think I realized. My biggest enjoyment in the game is getting a perfect turn, where everything went as I planned without errors. I've got turns where I made big military gains and was still annoyed about it. Because the gains were already planned and calculated in every detail and thus were as expected, but I made a some mistake somewhere else which I felt I shouldn't have made. And indeed, things like the delaying game and even diplomacy distract from that. And thus I don't like it. But I realize they are part of the game and, indeed, well liked by most players. So Victory isn't really the right game for me. There's nothing wrong with that. I play a lot of games and I like some better than others. Except that Victory is a 3 year game which takes a lot of time and money. I don't want to drop because I like to finish what I start and I certainly don't want to abandon my allies, but it does chafe. And is VGA-Planets still running? I liked it a lot in the 90's. Might be worth a new try. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duke of York Posted March 4, 2012 Report Share Posted March 4, 2012 You whiner (excusez le mot)! I suggest you read my posts better before stooping to name calling. I even bolded the crucial distinction. In short: I am not complaining about your team or anything you did, I am complaining about the game itself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sparafucile Posted March 5, 2012 Report Share Posted March 5, 2012 About vic-2: I think the most priority must be making vic work in the internet-age. Webbased turns / maps etc. After that: focus on new rules. Vga-planets did do just that. Good example. Oh what I would give for an automagical photoshop map generation Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sparafucile Posted March 5, 2012 Report Share Posted March 5, 2012 I am a bit cautious myself. One even could call me a coward. And I make lots of little mistakes. Now now now, most of us do, even after 20+ years of Victory real life keeps interfering Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duke of York Posted March 5, 2012 Report Share Posted March 5, 2012 About vic-2: I think the most priority must be making vic work in the internet-age. Webbased turns / maps etc. After that: focus on new rules. Vga-planets did do just that. Good example. Oh what I would give for an automagical photoshop map generation Legends (http://www.harlequingames.com/) has that. It's really nice. 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.