Welcome to MacForumz.com!
FAQFAQ   SearchSearch      ProfileProfile    Private MessagesPrivate Messages   Log in/Register/PasswordLog in/Register/Password

Victoria -- All right, explain this

 
   Macintosh computer (Home) -> Strategic RSS
Related Topics:
I have tested the waters of 'Victoria' ... - ... a beltaed Christmas present to myself ... and, my goodness, but I like it. I really like it. It's more than Hearts of Iron, but, *boy* this is a neat toy. -- <font Joseph

Chariots of Crusader Victoria Iron - So, I was poking around Paradox web site, and it appears they have plans to spin off the Europa II engine into variants -- for the era from 1066 to 1453, or for the era from 1835 to 1920.

HOI- gun calibres? - Does it make any if what size gun you put on your tanks? (IE, is a 50mm gun any over a 30mm one?) The cost and time is the same, so I was just

? - is there

Where can I find Risk II? - Used or new. I searched the regular places but couldn't find any copy for sale... -Laurent. -- Laurent Daudelin Logiciels Nemesys
Next:  Strategic: Maps not working  
Author Message
Joseph Nebus

External


Since: Jul 24, 2003
Posts: 120



(Msg. 1) Posted: Tue May 02, 2006 4:57 am
Post subject: Victoria -- All right, explain this
Archived from groups: comp>sys>mac>games>strategic (more info?)

Trying my luck as Brazil again, and playing specifically to
increase my industrial output. This puts me in Great Power status by
the 1850s, and bouncing up and down the top-eight ever after.

I start colonizing Nigeria, with an eye on the coal deposits
it has in one province, since Brazil is chronically coal-poor. But
there's a shortage of lumber in the early game, so I have to set up
and wait a while. In the meantime the Ottomans claim two provinces,
and the Russians one. I don't get it either.

Time passes. I claim all the other provinces, but since I
messed up on having the necessary four building types (ironically, I
should have built a coaling station) I couldn't claim the colony.

Well, I got to looking at it and, you know, the Ottomans, the
Russians ... they left their colonies extremely undefended. If I were
to declare a Colonial War, grab the colonies, and sue for peace .. .
mmm ... might just get away with it. Quietly I started building up my
military and sent a few units to Nigeria, as well as to my other
African colonies, Ifni and Yehuti.

And lo and behold ... Russia was caught in a war, fighting the
United Kingdom, France, Prussia, and not really doing that well. What
better time to grab their province? I move to declare Colonial War,
and get told that will involve me in the Great War, a concept which
the manual and VickiWiki seem to think is so obvious as to need no
explanation.

Whatever that was, though, I wanted nothing to do with it, so
I picked on the Ottomans. After declaring Colonial War, losing 50
points of prestige, I was notified I was now in a Great War, against
the Ottomas, the Russians, the British ... pretty much everyone, come
to think of it. I think technically I was at war with Poland (which
had one free province, adjacent to Krakow, stil a free city).

Happily, as my involvement was a Colonial War, my Home Provinces
were not at risk, so the British and French threat from Guyana wasn't
there. Unhappily, the British had settled Cameroon, and had a free
detachment which would cut through mine like butter.

Still, speed might still win the day, so I sent my Nigerian
forces to claim the Ottoman and Russian outposts, and quickly Claimed
the colony as soon as I could, good for some number of prestige points.

And then I ... waited. The Ottomans and Russians wouldn't talk
peace. Countries that had absolutely no interest in this whatsoever
would, but I wasn't all that worried about the Polish threat anyway.
Worse, the United Kingdom wouldn't talk peace, though France accepted
a White Peace after a few years of neither of us doing a thing to one
another.

Finally, the British moved their troops from Cameroon, and
marched northwest, entering Nigeria ... and ... they didn't take the
province with the coal ... or the one next to it ... they kept going
northwest and ... marched off into the Sahara desert, somewhere.

I really love the British.

Anyway, finally, the Ottomans offered a peace, to the status
quo ante bellum. I didn't want to give up my colony, but if I had to,
that was better than risking the British stripping all my African
possessions, which they could as soon as they really wanted. It'd
cost me 50 prestige points too ... but, ah well. I certainly was in
no position to force them to the peace table.

The Ottoman peace treaty immediately brought me to peace with
the Russians, the British, and everybody else. Only ... I didn't have
to return the provinces I'd conquered; I still had full possession of
the whole of Nigeria. And despite the loss of prestige at the start
and end of the war, I finished the thing about 32 prestige points ahead
of where I started.

It's all so loopy it feels like it should have happened in
real life.

--
Joseph Nebus
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 >> Stay informed about: Victoria -- All right, explain this 
Back to top
Login to vote
Michael Emrys

External


Since: Jun 23, 2003
Posts: 393



(Msg. 2) Posted: Tue May 02, 2006 5:31 am
Post subject: Re: Victoria -- All right, explain this [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

in article nebusj.1146559284.RemoveThis@vcmr-86.server.rpi.edu, Joseph Nebus at
nebusj.RemoveThis@rpi.edu wrote on 5/2/06 1:57 AM:

> It's all so loopy it feels like it should have happened in real life.

Sig line material.

:-)

Michael

 >> Stay informed about: Victoria -- All right, explain this 
Back to top
Login to vote
Joseph Nebus

External


Since: Jul 24, 2003
Posts: 120



(Msg. 3) Posted: Tue May 09, 2006 1:54 am
Post subject: Re: Victoria -- All right, explain this [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

Simon Slavin <slavins.delete.these.four.words.DeleteThis@hearsay.demon.co.uk> writes:

>On 02/05/2006, Joseph Nebus wrote in message <nebusj.1146559284@vcmr-

>> Whatever that was, though, I wanted
>nothing to do with it

>If a country is involved in a large war already,
>and you make any military move which has impact on that country, they're
>too busy to consider you as a separate entity, they just add your lands to
>their list of 'threatening peoples'.

Joining a hogpile on a beleaguered country isn't necessarily
against my principles, at least as a game player; just in this case
the pop-up panel warned me it'd put me at war with other countries that
I didn't want to be at war with, particularly if it was an all-out war
rather than a Colonial War. I could defend my colonial posessions, if
nobody really made an effort to get them, but the mainland would just
be hopeless. (I almost entirely skipped military develoment, in favor
of cultural and economic discoveries.)


>What's
>interesting is that I would have thought that adding yourself to the list
>of Russia's attackers should have automatically made you an ally of their
>enemies but you say

>> After declaring Colonial War, losing 50
>> points of prestige, I was notified I was now in a Great War, against
>> the Ottomas, the Russians, the British

>which makes no sense if you're grabbing a Russian province and Russia are
>fighting against the UK.

That is one of the baffling things, although I'd chosen to skip
the war with Russia and go against the Ottomans first. I'd though there
were no alliances or guarantees entangling the Ottomans, but I suppose
it's *possible* that parties started rushing to its defense, since the
Russian battlefield was moving naturally towards the Black Sea.

(One of the sad things about Victoria and its line of games is
there's no 'history review' like Civilization gave us. I suppose it
would be nearly impossible to write a game AI that could turn the event
logs into an 'alternate history textbook', but *what* a grand thing that
would be. It'd also explain missed things like guarantees between my
research and the declaration of war.)


>I'm currently involved in a long series of
>skirmish matches in Command & Conquer: Zero Hour. The AI is pretty good
>in a local way: small bands of units use good tactics when fighting with
>me. However, on a much larger scale the AI's tactics are abysmal: it
>tends to choose the closest target to attack instead of identifying
>secluded targets which can be surrounded. Also, if it destroys one of my
>installations it continues to fight with whatever small fraction of its
>units it sent in. A better tactic would be to withdraw those units to
>give it time to repair them and supplement them with fresh troops.

I've heard there's a Victoria cheat on the tactical level that
plays to one of its weaknesses. Divide your forces into a small (say,
1/3 of the troops) and a large (2/3ds) side, and attack with the small
... then, midway through the battle withdraw your forces. The AI will
suppose the battle is won, and order replenishing of its troops, topping
off its manpower and killing its organization. That's when you have the
main force scheduled to arrive.

So far I haven't been clever enough to use that, but it does
sound like it should psyche out the AI. I'm not even sure it would be
that much of a cheat, since it's not unlike a good number of generals'
approaches to winning battles, particularly when hopelessly outnumbered.


I really do like the ``Badboy Rating'' twist in the Europa
Universalis line, making the other nations in the continent/world line
up and stick together against a troublemaking nation. Their strategy
for the war may not always be very clever, but just the fact they'll
make pretty solid alliances effectively blocks the Civilization-style
rollover of the whole world.

Maybe that's what hit me. My Brazil was certainly a Great Power
when I started the war. If the Ottomans were too, it could be the other
Great Powers lining up against the plain aggressor. I didn't have even
the vaguest pretext, admittedly.


>Mind
>you, I'm sitting here saying it's bad but it still beats me
>occasionally.

Yeah, I hate it when it does that.

My game focusing on Industrialization First, plus my colonial
escapades, left me as the number 7 power in the world [1]. The previous
game where I focused on culture and industrialized haphazardly left me
at number 3. That means something, but I don't know what.

[1] Also somehow the US never had a Civil War, maybe because it
got occupied with an early 1850s war against the United Kingdom, and
after that to taking over Mexico. While the United States got British
Columbia and Alberta, the United Kingdom -- and subsequently Canada --
kept Vancouver Island, and got Alaska (spoils from its war with Russia),
as well as two-thids of Maine.

--
Joseph Nebus
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 >> Stay informed about: Victoria -- All right, explain this 
Back to top
Login to vote
Boyd Bottorff

External


Since: May 10, 2004
Posts: 28



(Msg. 4) Posted: Fri May 12, 2006 2:20 am
Post subject: Re: Victoria -- All right, explain this [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

> You know, that would be an interesting development in strategy games.
> Occasionally one 'side' might have a civil war and split into two. After
> all, we already have games with alliances, so why not splits ?

That's high on my list of things I'ld like to see in a Civ-type game.
I'ld also like to see puppet/satellite governments, and stuff like that.

> Now, given that you're writing a game, what conditions might it use to
> decide if one side was going to have a civil war ? Very successful
> advances on two different fronts ? An excess of cash ? Sudden
> discoveries of unexpected resources ?

More likely, have an internal guage for happiness/passivity for each
geographic area and/or city.

The trick will be to make the game playable, but still have the high
possibility of revolutions or civil war at some point in most nation's
histories.
 >> Stay informed about: Victoria -- All right, explain this 
Back to top
Login to vote
Joseph Nebus

External


Since: Jul 24, 2003
Posts: 120



(Msg. 5) Posted: Sun May 14, 2006 3:17 am
Post subject: Re: Victoria -- All right, explain this [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

bbottorff DeleteThis @nomail.com (Boyd Bottorff) writes:

>> You know, that would be an interesting development in strategy games.
>> Occasionally one 'side' might have a civil war and split into two. After
>> all, we already have games with alliances, so why not splits ?

>That's high on my list of things I'ld like to see in a Civ-type game.
>I'ld also like to see puppet/satellite governments, and stuff like that.

Hm. Well, Civilization I actually did have that, triggered when
there was a free empire slot and a smaller nation captured the capital
of a larger nation. As far as I could find it didn't happen if somebody
captured your capital, but I was rarely in a circumstance to let my capital
be captured, even when I wanted to see the effect.


>> Now, given that you're writing a game, what conditions might it use to
>> decide if one side was going to have a civil war ? Very successful
>> advances on two different fronts ? An excess of cash ? Sudden
>> discoveries of unexpected resources ?

>More likely, have an internal guage for happiness/passivity for each
>geographic area and/or city.

>The trick will be to make the game playable, but still have the high
>possibility of revolutions or civil war at some point in most nation's
>histories.

I know Europa Universalis has events for the English Civil War,
and for the Religious Wars in France, although I'm not so well-versed in
other empires. I believe the circumstances *there* (I've tended to avoid
those wars) include a country leaning towards decentralization, lowered
stability, and ... I forget the other. Maybe strong aristocracy? That
at least seems like a reasonable set of conditions for a Civil War event
in general, if you've got a game with variables like centralization and
stability that are measurable. That's more widespread rebellion, but
if the rebellion lasts long enough the rebels declare independence.

Come to think of it, I did have a Europa Universalis game where
after nearly a century of Europe being peacefully divided between Spain,
England/France, Poland, Austria, and some debris, the whole Austrian
empire broke up into a dozen small states. I wasn't playing Austria that
time, though, so I don't know what the properties setting it off were
exactly.

--
Joseph Nebus
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 >> Stay informed about: Victoria -- All right, explain this 
Back to top
Login to vote
Display posts from previous:   
   Macintosh computer (Home) -> Strategic All times are: Pacific Time (US & Canada) (change)
Page 1 of 1

 
You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You can edit your posts in this forum
You can delete your posts in this forum
You can vote in polls in this forum



[ Contact us | Terms of Service/Privacy Policy ]