On March 31, Timothy Daly wrote:

I recently played a game of Victory using various rules options that have been discussed. I kept a better game log, so here is my report:
This game of Victory was played between myself and Shawn Enstminger (my roomate.) To be fair Shawn has only played the game once, and never with the new rules used here. These are the optional rules we used:
1) The three rules outlined in Jim's Tweak.
2) The Elite counterset was used
3) Optional production rules. A new cadre cost 1 extra PP, and you could only add one step to a unit each production phase. Note: we did not require the extra PP to make a new logistics unit (in this case supplies.) 4) We allowed a response (both air and mech) to paradrops in vacant hexes. 5) We reduced the effect of friendly AA. Each 6 rolled did a half hit to friendly air. 6) Something new: There is a feeling among the players I play with, that elite armor and fighters are not worth their double cost. So....we allowed elite units to fire before units of the same type. For example, if you attack a hex, your elite tanks fire before defending regular tanks. If the defender has elite, they fire first. This was just an attempt to make thier cost more justified.

The scenario was 80 points of CV. We allowed units to be set up in friendly cities or towns. We used maps 1 and 6 set up like this:

We were playing until one person achieved 15 PP at the end of a turn.

Note: Right from the beginning there was a question. The town of Zalta on map 6, is it a port? It has a small bit of coastline in it's hex, but I don't think it counts as a port. Let me know what you think.

No, I don't think it is a port, it looks to be inland as well as obscured by those "shoals" which are impassible to ships anyway.

The first two turns there was no combat. Both players just prepared and moved their units around. I attemped to guard my supply lines leading to Shawns side of the board. Shawn was not prepared for this style of play. He didn't put to many unit to the forward of his cities and town, but of course, he is a novice to the game in general.

On Turn three, the action started. Shawn attempted an invasion of Mersa Brega using a battleship(!) and air. I repulsed it, but both sides took heavy lossed. Shawn blockades the port. In response, I attack Laissac with 4 ground units and air, and take it. Shawns lack of control of hexsides into the town makes the battle short and bloody.

Turns 5 and 6 went by with just preperatins and some limited air operations. (Scouting and bombing runs.)

Turn 7 commences with another invasion of Mersa Berga. Shawn does not take it, but keeps up the blockade. Shawn attemps an airdrop to cut off Mersa Berga, and units around it. This would have cost me around 6 points of CV, but I responded with air and mech, and (barely) stopped the airdrop.

I respond with an Airdrop a space past Verbourg, in an attempt to cut the units off around it. Of course, I negleted to realize that all the units could trace supply through the sea. By this time Shawn had formed a battle line in front of Verbourg (although I had started to whittle away at it.)

Turn 8 I get what we call the "dreaded" double move. I attack Verbourg in force. The previous airdrop proves to be useful, as I am able to get five ground units into Verbourg, and take it easily.

Shawn prepare to counter attack Verbourg. He also lands a marine beachhead on the extreme left side of board 6. He prepares to move in ground forces.

Turn 9 begins with Shawn getting the "dreaded" double move. This proves crucial because I was unable to fortify Verbourg. (Most of the units are weak, after punching through Shawn's battle line in front of Verbourg. He also attacks Laissac, but fails to win it back, in very bloody fighting. (A whole lot of ones on both sides!) Verbourg falls back into Shawns hands, although he doesn't have many units outside the city.

At this time I desperately need fresh units at the front, and spend most of the time moving them around. I begin to attack Shawn's beachhead area.

Turn 10, Shawn attempts to reinforce his frontline, but his ground reserves are almost gone.

I attack Verbourg and retake it. I'm able to put a fairly solid hold on Verbourg at this time. Shawn wished to concede at this time, but agrees to play on because I think I can win in one or two turns. I base this on the fact that I have worked a Mountain troop two spaces away from Auxerre, in the space just next to Laissac. Shawn has put most of his remaining force on th road in front of Auxerre, having learned the value of this tactic.

Turns 11 and 12 are mostly battle free, with both sides moving troops around.

On turn 13 my mountain troops attack Auxerre. I fall just one hit short of taking it. At this point Shawn concedes, as it is clear his position is lost.

The game took 4 hours to complete.

Comments:
We both agreed that we liked all of the optional rules. The main battle for Varbourg would not have played out in the exciting way than it would under the original Victory rules. Unfortunatly, Shawn had to learn the new tactics as he went, and by the time he did, it was probably too late. I also tried to use these new tactics against them, sneaking mountain troops around his forces to attack Auxerre.

I feel the need to say that I am becoming convinced that Jim's Tweak is the way to go for Victory. It's a simple fix that leads to a much more exciting game. I'm interested in peoples thought on the other rules we used. We thought they played well. I'd like to put in my vote for allowing response moves to Paradrops into empty hexes. It's very easy to cut supply to a great many units with Paradrops. Even with responding, the Paradrops that were stopped in our games were usually the result of lucky (or unlucky) die rolls. I invite comment on these rules and/or this game report.!

Timothy Daly

Again, I appreciate your willingness to document the game. I tend to agree with you that air and mech. should be able to respond to airdrops.

On April 8, Timothy followed up with another playtest:

Last night I played a pick-up game of Victory. I didn't really intend for it to be a "playtest" as such, but it had such good results that I decided to give you a small report. The setup for this game was identical to the last playtest I sent you, with the exception that we used maps 1 and 3.

All of the same rules and units were used. In addition, the suggestion that new cadres of infantry only cost 1 pp was added. (we liked this rule very much, we both built a lot of infantry)

Yes, I think that this is a great production tweak. I'm really going to have to go back and figure out who came up with each of these ideas. I must admit that the only one that is mine (I think) is the stacking. Everything else comes from someone else . . .

The exciting thing about the game was that it seemed to develop and play in exactly the way we have been hoping victory to play. First, I was able to use the supply rules both offensivly and defensivly. I used a paradrop to cut supply to an advancing attack force on my right flank. Second, I was able to surround and cut off a portion of my opponents defensive line, reducing 4 units. Thirdly, by the later stages of the game, we had a battle line that stretched literally all the way across the land portion of the board. I was able to win by punching through the center and capturing his 3 point city. My opponent had never used the tweaks before and was instantly converted to their use. We both agreed that the game had the "feel" of real WWII combat, without being too complicated.

If anyone else would like to offer comment or questions, please e-mail me at:
mason_j@gse.utah.edu

I will post your comments here or on the main Victory Playtest page.
Jim

Back to the Victory Playtest