but
so wait...[8D]
It's not a joke![:D]
The Blog
RE: The Blog
Rule number one:
The game should not be seen as a simulation but as a boardgame. In short, forget ASL and welcome to the world of Valor & Victory boardgame.
The game should not be seen as a simulation but as a boardgame. In short, forget ASL and welcome to the world of Valor & Victory boardgame.
RE: The Blog
Rico I thought you thought Tigers on the Hunt was the ASL PC game? So are you saying forget TotH and get this?
RE: The Blog
I have the same question. The comparison will soon arise.
Chancellor Gorkon to Captain James T. Kirk:
You don't trust me, do you? I don't blame you. If there is to be a brave new world, our generation is going to have the hardest time living in it.
You don't trust me, do you? I don't blame you. If there is to be a brave new world, our generation is going to have the hardest time living in it.
RE: The Blog
Lock and Lock Tactical Digital and ToTH are both on my computer and played often..............I will also buy Valour and Victory. What's the problem? To me the more choice, the better.
RE: The Blog
Rule number two:
The holy grail of tactical wargame has not yet been discovered, each tactical game developed is a journey towards this goal. Everyone deserves respect but is not exempt from criticism.
The more choice, the better.
The holy grail of tactical wargame has not yet been discovered, each tactical game developed is a journey towards this goal. Everyone deserves respect but is not exempt from criticism.
The more choice, the better.
RE: The Blog
ORIGINAL: z1812
Lock and Lock Tactical Digital and ToTH are both on my computer and played often..............I will also buy Valour and Victory. What's the problem? To me the more choice, the better.
+1
Rick
RE: The Blog
Yes, the more choice, the better. Thus, inevitably a comparison of the offer... [:D] The cool thing here is multiplayer if this is nicely done with all the combat sequences.
Chancellor Gorkon to Captain James T. Kirk:
You don't trust me, do you? I don't blame you. If there is to be a brave new world, our generation is going to have the hardest time living in it.
You don't trust me, do you? I don't blame you. If there is to be a brave new world, our generation is going to have the hardest time living in it.
RE: The Blog
ORIGINAL: rico21
Rule number two:
The holy grail of tactical wargame has not yet been discovered, each tactical game developed is a journey towards this goal. Everyone deserves respect but is not exempt from criticism.
The more choice, the better.
I agree. Totally agree. The reason we haven't had anything near greatness is because many constantly asked for features are missing in new releases. Love to see ALOT more innovation with regards to 2D top down tactical wargames. Just a shame so many follow the boardgame way with all it's boardgame restrictions and no use being made of PC power. I'm certain many will love this game and no doubt it's very good at what it wants to do, it just isn't moving anything along towards my wants and requests regarding tactical wargames on the PC. I want to see games shed all those boardgame restrictions and fully make use of the PC, so things like individual casualties, ammo tracking, FOW, multi level buildings, damage models, obstacles and improved positions, room by room fighting, soldier stats, awards, leave, deserters, wounds, commander stats, comms, pre battle planning, orders from above ( both good and bad and taking into account the man above skill set), supply, campaigns, promotions, WEGO (if possible), maybe even remove hexes and go by per pixel distance, SOP's, automated soldier movement i.e when moving into hostile area squad divides or maybe two squads help each other using bounding fire, so all kinds of things I'd love to see even if just a few at a time woud make me very happy.
RE: The Blog
ORIGINAL: z1812
Lock and Lock Tactical Digital and ToTH are both on my computer and played often..............I will also buy Valour and Victory. What's the problem? To me the more choice, the better.
Hey, no ,problem at all. Just desperate to see something arrive that starts to cover the things I'd love to see but so often sadly lacking:) See post above.
RE: The Blog
Rule number three:
Zakblood is always the Fireman.
Zakblood is always the Fireman.
RE: The Blog
Rule number four:
RIP "Wild Bill" Wilder.
The spirit and the soul of your scenarios is in us!
RIP "Wild Bill" Wilder.
The spirit and the soul of your scenarios is in us!
RE: The Blog
Rule number five:
From Game Designer Barry Doyle
I had one goal in mind when designing this game: simplicity and realism. For me, the fun of playing a wargame is more dependent on historicity than rules. I like a simple, very varied (units, situations, scenarios) wargame much more than complicated simulations.
Often times a simple wargame is not considered realistic, but I always thought that realism was subordinate to the system in question. For example, sub-tactical wargames typically use complicated formulas to determine armor and fire penetration factor. A simpler system tends to use a more abstract approach, more apt to focus on tactics and not on data; Art against Science! Realism, in my humble opinion, is represented by two things: the story contained in the game and the capacity of a unit in relation to others and to reality. For example, if a Stuart has weaker armor than a Sherman and the Sherman has weaker armor than a Pershing, then the system is realistic. With V&V, most of the complicated mechanics of other tactical and sub-tactical wargames have been put aside or simplified in favor of gameplay. For example, morale - a notion I have always viewed as slowing down the flow of a game - is captured in personal fights through the use of loss points. This simplification, although retaining some abstract form of morale, keeps speed as a focal point, at the heart of this combat system.
I knew from the start that I wanted a modified - or inspired by - version of Avalon Hill's elegant zonal infantry combat system, but I didn't know how to go about it. In fact, many friends had told me that it was nearly impossible with tactical or sub-tactical play, although Avalon Hill had done it before in Storm Over Arnhem.
As I designed the game and then tested it, I realized that my system worked, but the tactics would be totally different from other tactical games. I think all of this makes me appreciate V&V even more. And I'm glad I persevered with my original idea. The armored fighting system owes a lot to games such as Rommel’s Panzers and Stalin’s Tanks from Metagaming. In fact, these two games are my favorites and were the origin of V&V. Many nights I would wake up thinking about all the extra pawns and units that could have been added, wishing Metagaming had continued the series. Valor & Victory, through many hours of design and testing eventually evolved into the tactical and sub-tactical game that I had always dreamed of owning - and more importantly - playing. The effort was monumental, but often challenging and rewarding. I sincerely hope you enjoy putting this game together and playing as much as I enjoyed designing it.
From Game Designer Barry Doyle
I had one goal in mind when designing this game: simplicity and realism. For me, the fun of playing a wargame is more dependent on historicity than rules. I like a simple, very varied (units, situations, scenarios) wargame much more than complicated simulations.
Often times a simple wargame is not considered realistic, but I always thought that realism was subordinate to the system in question. For example, sub-tactical wargames typically use complicated formulas to determine armor and fire penetration factor. A simpler system tends to use a more abstract approach, more apt to focus on tactics and not on data; Art against Science! Realism, in my humble opinion, is represented by two things: the story contained in the game and the capacity of a unit in relation to others and to reality. For example, if a Stuart has weaker armor than a Sherman and the Sherman has weaker armor than a Pershing, then the system is realistic. With V&V, most of the complicated mechanics of other tactical and sub-tactical wargames have been put aside or simplified in favor of gameplay. For example, morale - a notion I have always viewed as slowing down the flow of a game - is captured in personal fights through the use of loss points. This simplification, although retaining some abstract form of morale, keeps speed as a focal point, at the heart of this combat system.
I knew from the start that I wanted a modified - or inspired by - version of Avalon Hill's elegant zonal infantry combat system, but I didn't know how to go about it. In fact, many friends had told me that it was nearly impossible with tactical or sub-tactical play, although Avalon Hill had done it before in Storm Over Arnhem.
As I designed the game and then tested it, I realized that my system worked, but the tactics would be totally different from other tactical games. I think all of this makes me appreciate V&V even more. And I'm glad I persevered with my original idea. The armored fighting system owes a lot to games such as Rommel’s Panzers and Stalin’s Tanks from Metagaming. In fact, these two games are my favorites and were the origin of V&V. Many nights I would wake up thinking about all the extra pawns and units that could have been added, wishing Metagaming had continued the series. Valor & Victory, through many hours of design and testing eventually evolved into the tactical and sub-tactical game that I had always dreamed of owning - and more importantly - playing. The effort was monumental, but often challenging and rewarding. I sincerely hope you enjoy putting this game together and playing as much as I enjoyed designing it.
RE: The Blog
Rule number six:
"Build it and they will come".
"Build it and they will come".
RE: The Blog
Rule number seven:
We need Fuselex!
We need Fuselex!
RE: The Blog
So Riko,
in one hand, you post
Then you post :
So what is it ?
That sort of smoke and mirrors communication is kind of confusing to me. Could you please clarify what you are actually communicating ?
in one hand, you post
ORIGINAL: rico21
(...)
but
(...)
Then you post :
ORIGINAL: rico21
So what is it ?
That sort of smoke and mirrors communication is kind of confusing to me. Could you please clarify what you are actually communicating ?
AMD Ryzen 3 1200 @ 3.1, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 4 Go, Windows 10 64bits, 16 GB RAM, Regional settings = French, Belgium
(Previously known as JanMasters0n)
(Previously known as JanMasters0n)
RE: The Blog
You just have to learn the Rico code,
it will come with time!
it will come with time!
RE: The Blog
The more the better is a good rule. I was a V&V beta tester and enjoyed the hell out of playing it solo and helping improve the AI. In fact I'm taking a little break from it for the moment. But I think it is a great little game with lots of potential, more like the original Squad Leader than any other game I've played. If it can sell, and if they can do expansions while at the same time not making it too complex, that will be great. I also have LnL digital and love it. Right now, taking a break from other things, I'm simultaneously playing Panzer Corps II, Order of Battle, and Unity of Command II, which I just purchased. That is, alternating between them, one scenario at a time in each. I am enjoying them all. I see no reason to choose. There are things I like in each and things I don't like in each. But I like them all. It is hard to pick a favorite. And I find myself thinking, it is great that I have so many choices. [I just wich they all had comprehensive NATO counter options, because I am never completely going to get used to little men throwing grenades at each other on a hex grid, but I have resigned myself to having to live with it because otherwise all three games are fascinating.] At the same time I'm looking forward to DC: Ardennes, which I am hoping may end up being a groundbreaking game, and CS: Vietnam. I think we may be living in the best of times for tactical and operational games. Such a variety. I am Casanova when it comes to games. Why stay faithful to just one when there is so much to explore?
-
eddieballgame
- Posts: 911
- Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2011 2:50 am
RE: The Blog
ORIGINAL: jwarrenw13
The more the better is a good rule. I was a V&V beta tester and enjoyed the hell out of playing it solo and helping improve the AI. In fact I'm taking a little break from it for the moment. But I think it is a great little game with lots of potential, more like the original Squad Leader than any other game I've played. If it can sell, and if they can do expansions while at the same time not making it too complex, that will be great. I also have LnL digital and love it. Right now, taking a break from other things, I'm simultaneously playing Panzer Corps II, Order of Battle, and Unity of Command II, which I just purchased. That is, alternating between them, one scenario at a time in each. I am enjoying them all. I see no reason to choose. There are things I like in each and things I don't like in each. But I like them all. It is hard to pick a favorite. And I find myself thinking, it is great that I have so many choices. [I just wich they all had comprehensive NATO counter options, because I am never completely going to get used to little men throwing grenades at each other on a hex grid, but I have resigned myself to having to live with it because otherwise all three games are fascinating.] At the same time I'm looking forward to DC: Ardennes, which I am hoping may end up being a groundbreaking game, and CS: Vietnam. I think we may be living in the best of times for tactical and operational games. Such a variety. I am Casanova when it comes to games. Why stay faithful to just one when there is so much to explore?
This...& a +1 for PzC II.