From: "Andrew Walters" Subject: Victory Review? Both Grognards and this list are missing a really thorough review of Victory, which it probably warrants based on evident level interest, price tag certainly, and the amount of attention Columbia is putting into it. I've got a few questions derived from the pictures on the web site and the errata... Considering that Columbia already has an aclaimed series of WW2 games one has to wonder why they started what appears to be another series. What are the differences between Victory and the "Front" series? Some of the blocks kinda look like HQ units. Are there command or supply rules? The hexes seem kinda big to include seperate pieces for tactical air, subs, and amphibious landing craft. Maybe these units aren't there, but it seems like they are. What's the scale, how do air units and ZOCs interact, and can ships do reaction-type moves of some kind so they can't be bypassed? The stacking rule seems to be five ground units per hex suggests that the units are equal in physical size or resource demands. Since armor, infantry, and everything else has the same step levels (4-3-2-1), what differentiates strengths I take it the game works, since people are playing it, but I'm wondering what it feels like. To me the flavor of WW2 is very closely tied to the terrain it was fought in, and playing with made-up, geomorphic continents makes it feel like a fantasy game. Should we add zeppelins, tunneling units, and anti-gravity paint? I don't mean that to be cut, I just don't know how to take the game. I want to like, but don't have much info. Actually, I really don't need to add any games to my "want" list, which is prit 'near close to zero right now. But if anyone feels like doing some writing, I sure feel like reading. Andrew Walters andreww@farallon.com From: "Patrick R. Collins" Subject: Re: Victory Review? appears to be another series. What are the > differences between Victory and the "Front" series? > > Some of the blocks kinda look like HQ units. >Are there command or supply rules? > > The hexes seem kinda big to include Victory has no HQ units. Supply is (if I remember) by tracing a line to a city that you control. You can trace over a sea, but it can be blocked as well. seperate pieces for tactical air, subs, and > amphibious landing craft. >Maybe these units aren't there, but it seems like > they are. What's the There are INF, Armor, Marine, paratroop ground units, heavy bombers, dive bomber, fighters, BB, CV and subs. There are max stacking limits, but I don't remember them. Fighters can react move, but I'm not sure if ships can. infantry, and > everything else has the same step levels (4-3-2-1), what differentiates > strengths > > I take it the game works, since people are The blocks have additional values (much smaller in printing) for their "attack values". A piece can have a ground, air, or naval attack value, or all three. If a "2" ground value unit attacks another ground, it rolls two dice, hits on a six. The hit unit then takes a step loss. that's what the 4-3-2-1 are for. Same for a unit with an air value attacking an air unit, or a naval value attacking a naval unit. >WW2 is very closely tied to the terrain it > was fought in, and playing >with made-up, geomorphic continents makes it feel > like a fantasy game. Apparently that's part of the fun. The cites have production values, which you use to restore units, or make new ones. So, you want to take his cities, and protect yours. As you do so, his ability to resist becomes less. So you get to make strategy with no guide at all. Regards, Pat pcollins@prairienet.org Last Played: Race for Space (x2), Safe Return Doubtful (x2), Siege of Hong Kong(x3) In Progress: Champion Hill (PBEM), Sky Sea and Jungle http://www.prairienet.org/~pcollins From: "Jim Mason" Subject: Re: Victory Review? Hello: > Some of the blocks kinda look like HQ units. Are there command or supply rules? No, not really. Your units have to be able to trace supply back to a city or they lose a step. > The hexes seem kinda big to include seperate pieces for tactical air, subs, and > amphibious landing craft. Maybe these units aren't there, but it seems like > they are. What's the scale, how do air units and ZOCs interact, and can ships > do reaction-type moves of some kind so they can't be bypassed? There are no ZOC's. I'm not sure what you mean by scale, but it's pretty generic. It can mean about whatever you want it to mean. Air units have to be based in a city and can't float around between turns. They can "respond" to hexes that are attacked if they are close enough. Ships can be bypassed. Another interesting thing is that while it is a you go, I go deal, it varies from turn to turn. At the end of the set of turns, players count resource points and rebuild units. Then they roll the dice to see who goes first in the next turn. Since you don't know if you will be first or second, there is yet another interesting level of uncertainty to deal with. Several times I have taken a chance that I would go first and built accordingly. I think the dice have a sensor built in that knows this and screws me as a result. > The stacking rule seems to be five ground units per hex suggests that the units > are equal in physical size or resource demands. Since armor, infantry, and > everything else has the same step levels (4-3-2-1), what differentiates > strengths The step levels determine the strengths. Also, various units shoot first and at varying attack strengths (some hit on a 6, some on a 5 and 6 , etc.) Also, since there is an order to it all, you may have a unit that gets killed before it can shoot, etc. > I take it the game works, since people are playing it, but I'm wondering what > it feels like. To me the flavor of WW2 is very closely tied to the terrain it > was fought in, and playing with made-up, geomorphic continents makes it feel > like a fantasy game. It is a fantasy game. It's as real as RISK. But it's a lot more complicated and having played twice, (re: "those who have played twice vs. those who have played 20 times . . ." ) it's lots of fun! > Should we add zeppelins, tunneling units, and > anti-gravity paint? I don't mean that to be cut, I just don't know how to > take the game. I want to like, but don't have much info. If you're hardcore into recreating certain battles, etc., you will hate it. If you want to have fun, roll a lot of dice, and agonize whether to build a carrier or a bomber, then it's for you, as well as anyone else of like mind. I think it would be an excellent game for a dad to play with his 12+ year old kids. Does that mean it's easy? Hardly. But it's not overloaded with complicated rules that get in the way of pushing units around and having lots of battles, etc. It's also ideally suited to the person who likes to create interesting scenarios. I'm sure that there will be several more posts along these lines. I'm not a very "serious" gamer, so take what I have said with that in mind. Jim Jim Mason, Director of Development Graduate School of Education, Univ. of Utah mason_j@gse.utah.edu (801)581-8221 http://members.tripod.com/~Charlemagne64/medieval.html From: "Paul O'Connor" Subject: Re: Victory Review? Andrew Walters wrote: > Considering that Columbia already has an aclaimed series of WW2 games one has > to wonder why they started what appears to be another series. What are the > differences between Victory and the "Front" series? 1) Victory is a lot simpler. 2) It has separate air and naval units. 3) It does not use HQs. 4) It is not tied to any specific front. This means that a lot of strategy comes out of the way the maps are arranged, and the initial forces you choose, as opposed to specific problems like how you keep your German HQ's leapfrogging toward Moscow. > Some of the blocks kinda look like HQ units. Are there command or supply rules? No HQs or command rules. There is a simple rule for supply lines ... check to see if the enemy is out of supply at the end of _your_ turn, and if so, they all attrit a step. You can't cut an enemy supply line if by so doing you put yourself out of supply. Two expansion sets for logistics are promised. One introduces rules that "divide production into specific Air, Naval, and Army factories." The other includes "...Airfields, Mulberries, Minefields, and other neat stuff ..." The absence of HQs and the very simple production rules (where a battleship step costs the same as an armor step in terms of production and time to complete) seem to have drawn the most criticism from veteran blockheads. As a fan of EastFront (and all Columbia games, really), I thought I'd really miss the HQs, but having played Victory once (which of course makes me an expert), the feel of the game is OK without them. Unlike the Front games, where the action is packed into a pretty narrow range of hexes (partially necessitated by the HQ rules themselves), in Victory, battle seems to be a more distributed affair, with units engaged in little offensives all over the place. Introducing HQs into the mix would change that atmosphere, which I think might rob Victory of some of its charm. I'll have to play several times before I can be sure, though. Quick reaction: losing the HQs isn't the disaster I thought it would be. > The hexes seem kinda big to include seperate pieces for tactical air, subs, and > amphibious landing craft. Maybe these units aren't there, but it seems like > they are. What's the scale, how do air units and ZOCs interact, and can ships > do reaction-type moves of some kind so they can't be bypassed? Fifty mile hexes. Ground units are corps, steps are divisions. Air units are wings, each step is 100 planes. Naval units are "divisions", each step is one BB/CV or 3 subs (and the rules say something about each step being considered to include smaller support craft). No amphibious landing craft units per se, but the marine units can stage invasions and convert themselves into beach heads, and all land units can travel over sea (but are vulnerable if they end their turn there, and only marines can invade). Air units can react two hexes after the bad guys move. No ZOCs. Combat is between units in the same hex. > The stacking rule seems to be five ground units per hex suggests that the units > are equal in physical size or resource demands. Since armor, infantry, and > everything else has the same step levels (4-3-2-1), what differentiates > strengths Units throw dice equal to their steps in combat, but hit on different numbers depending on their ratings for ground, air, or naval combat. Units also have different movement rates. For example, an infantry corps has an air value of 1, a naval value of 0, a ground value of 2, and moves two hexes per turn. An armor corps has the same combat values, but moves three hexes per turn. Another important distinction is that firing is sequential, and some unit types get to fire before others. Armor fires before airborne (once on the ground), which fires before marine, which fires before infantry. So, even though armor and infantry have the same combat value, the tanks can get off their shot (and hopefully inflict damage) before the infantry get to roll their dice. > I take it the game works, since people are playing it, but I'm wondering what > it feels like. To me the flavor of WW2 is very closely tied to the terrain it > was fought in, and playing with made-up, geomorphic continents makes it feel > like a fantasy game. The game is not dissimilar to AH's "Blitzkrieg" in that it uses WW2 technology in a non-specific environment. Thankfully, unlike Blitzkrieg, Victory seems to be a fluid game that feels something like WW2. > Should we add zeppelins, tunneling units, and anti-gravity paint? I don't > mean that to be cut, I just don't know how to take the game. I want to like, but > don't have much info. Hmm ... zeps could be cool. A promised expansion set should add artillery, mech, cav, mountain, shore batteries, cruisers, flak, torpedo bombers, and mobile supply units to the game. Columbia also asked for feedback about the possibility of doing ancient or napoleonic block sets to accompany the basic maps. > Actually, I really don't need to add any games to my "want" list, which is prit > 'near close to zero right now. But if anyone feels like doing some writing, I > sure feel like reading. Again, I like Victory, but again, I've only played it once. I think it could end up being quite an expensive game if you get _all_ the proposed expansions, but they aren't really necessary. The system is clean and open to easy house rules if you want to change production or unit capibilities. The geomorphic maps create a lot of flexibility and re-play opportunities. The question is whether the basic game engine is interesting and solid enough to hold up to repeat play, which I can't tell until I've played it some more. It beats hell out of Axis & Allies, though, and I gather that's the market this game is intended to target.